[ Page 7229 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gloucester property. Mr. Macdonald –– 7229

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

Skagit Valley flooding. Mr. Skelly –– 7230

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

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

Ms. Brown –– 7232

Mr. Nicolson –– 7236

Mr. Passarell –– 7238

Mr. Mussallem –– 7239

Mr. Lockstead –– 7240

Mr. Hall –– 7242

Mr. Leggatt –– 7244

Mr. Lea –– 7245

Mr. Levi –– 7248

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In the galleries today we have visiting the Legislature, with the British Columbia Chamber Of Commerce, a few constituents of mine: Mrs. Margaret Ferguson from Powell River, representing that part of the coast, and Mr. Jon McRae from Gibsons on theSunshine Coast, representing that region. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. STRACHAN: All members of the Legislative Assembly are truly indebted to those who work for our various parties and really help us through the years in giving us policy and good advice. With that said, I would like the House to welcome Dr. Barbara Foxwell and the British Columbia Social Credit Women's Auxiliary, with us in your gallery, sir.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today are two groups of students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary School. I hope the House will join me in welcoming the two groups and their teacher, Mr. Cooper.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have a birthday to celebrate in our Legislature today. I would ask all the members of the House to join in wishing happy birthday to Bonni Kettner, part of the unseen press gallery of our House.

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

I would like to have the House join me in welcoming three people who are in our galleries today — unexpectedly, I believe, because they had planned to be back on the other side of the water but have further meetings this afternoon. I would like to introduce to the House and have us welcome the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, Robert Hallam, who is in our gallery; the first vice-president, Norm McLaren from Campbell River, who next year will not be in that capacity but will be the president; and the general manager, Dan McCaughey of Burnaby.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the House to join me today in welcoming an ex-member of the Legislature and a former colleague of mine, Elwood Veitch, who used to represent the great riding of Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. HOWARD: With us now, and at meetings earlier today, is Mr. Graham Wright, who is counsel for the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is very well served by Mr. Wright's advice as counsel, particularly because he learned a great deal of it when he practised law in Kitimat.

MR. MUSSALLEM: In the gallery today is a good friend who also worked in our firm for many years. Unfortunately he decided to take early retirement at the age of 83 and has since been enjoying life profusely. Today he is visiting the Legislature. I would like to introduce Mr. Gordon Cairns to the House, and I would ask you to make him welcome.

MR. BRUMMET: Also attending the chamber conference as a director is Mr. Bill Dyer of Fort St. John, the publisher of the Alaska Highway, News. I would like the House to make him welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that all members of the House would like to welcome and, indeed, congratulate a young man who was named businessman of the year by the junior chamber of commerce, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey. (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

Oral Questions

GLOUCESTER PROPERTY

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food for an estimate of the amount of private capital gain that the cabinet's decision to release the Gloucester property put into the hands of the consortium. Now he's had a chance to think about it, I'm asking him for his estimate of the market value of those lands as farmland and their value as industrial land.

MR. BARRETT: Call an election.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member knows full well that the question is not in order. It doesn't fall within the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or the Land Commission.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, is the government saying they have no idea what wealth they put in the hands of that consortium by that decision?

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

EXCLUSION OF PRINCE GEORGE LAND FROM ALR

MR. LEA: Perhaps the minister would be a little bit more cooperative regarding a similar situation in Prince George. Can the minister confirm that the government has again overruled the Agricultural Land Commission in the case of 132 acres being excluded from the land reserve in Prince George?

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

MR. LEA: I'm talking about land described as in district lot 2014, Cariboo district, within the city of Prince George — application No –– 122-N-80-110112.

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

MR. LEA: Can the minister now confirm that this 132 acres in the Cariboo district has been excluded from the ALR against the unanimous decision and recommendation of the Land Commission?

[ Page 7230 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Because of the number reference he's given, I'd like to take that question on notice and check the files in my office so I can know the actual property he's talking about and respond.

MR. LEA: Is the Minister of Agriculture telling this Legislature that 132 acres of prime agricultural land has been taken out of the agricultural land reserve and the Minister of Agriculture has no idea that 132 acres have been excluded by cabinet? Is that what the minister is trying to tell us? I just want to confirm this. Does it happen so often that you have no idea you've mislaid 132 acres?

Can the Minister of Environment inform this House whether he's aware that the ELUC Committee of cabinet, and therefore cabinet, has excluded from the agricultural land reserve 132 acres in the Cariboo district, which I described to the other minister, and that it has been excluded against the unanimous recommendation of the Land Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: That question has been taken on notice. The authorities provide that repeating questions strictly by varying their structure slightly is not permitted — section 147.

MR. LEA: Can the Minister of Environment confirm that he wrote a letter dated April 22, 1982 to Messrs. McAlpine, Roberts and Hordo, Barristers and Solicitors, P.O. Box 186, Vancouver, British Columbia, laying out the fact that the cabinet has excluded 132 acres of land in the Cariboo district against the unanimous expressed recommendation of the Land Commission? Can the minister confirm that he wrote that letter?

HON. MR. ROGERS: First of all, I believe that as a result of the Metric Commission, the measurements have gone from acres to another measure which you may find more in order. I cannot confirm or deny, but I will take the question as notice and report back to the House whether or not I have in fact sent that letter. My mail sometimes runs into 300 and 400 letters a day and I don't remember every letter.

MR. LEA: Can the Minister of Environment confirm that he's telling this House he signed a letter stating that 132 acres of land have been excluded, and it slipped his memory? Have the 132 acres disappeared?

Interjections.

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

MR. LEA: Can the Minister of Agriculture confirm that this same piece of land — and this has nothing to do with whether it's been excluded by cabinet — was reported by the Prince George district horticulturist and a field crop specialist to be suitable for a variety of crops including strawberries, potatoes, cabbage, carrots and other vegetables, as well as intensive pasture production? The question is not whether the land has been excluded but whether he's aware that the land described has had that recommendation from the people that I've just described.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert has raised a question about land. He has given, I believe, lot number 2014, application 122-something-or other. I told him that I took that question as notice to identify the land in question so that I could respond factually to the questions that he's raised. I'll take that last question as notice, and I'll bring back an answer to the House.

MR. LEA: Would the Minister of Agriculture consider it fair — if what I say is true — that we could now refer to the 132 acres in Prince George as "Gloucester north?"

SKAGIT VALLEY FLOODING

MR. SKELLY: I have another question to the Minister of Environment. The government has publicly endorsed an undisclosed proposal to compensate Seattle for not flooding the Skagit Valley. Can the minister advise why he has abandoned British Columbia's long-standing legal position that Seattle City Power and Light has no legal right to flood the valley in favour of the compensation proposal?

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a clarification would be in order. We have responded to a proposal put forward by a subcommittee struck by an International Joint Commission which was attempting to resolve the dispute existing between Seattle City Power and Light and the province of British Columbia. In view of the fact that the International Joint Commission is meeting at this hour, I think further comments would be unwarranted.

MR. SKELLY: In spite of the fact that the IJC is meeting right now, it appears that when British Columbia made its presentation to the IJC they said that the original decision was a "nullity, " to use the words of the B.C. submission. If the decision was a nullity because of the fact that at the time there was no quorum on the IJC, and if the decision was a nullity because power was no longer needed to provide for the war effort, which was an urgency at that time, why has British Columbia abandoned its legal position that the original decision was a nullity? Any agreement to compensate the city of Seattle will be done on an illegal basis. I'm asking the minister if he has abandoned the legal position as originally presented by this government to the International Joint Commission.

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

EXCLUSION OF PRINCE GEORGE LAND FROM ALR

MR. LEA: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell me whether he has made any representation either to the ELUC committee of cabinet or cabinet as a whole in regard to 132 acres in Prince George being excluded from the agricultural land reserve against the unanimous recommendation of the Land Commission?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not a member of ELUC. It goes without saying that any discussions in cabinet at any time are a matter of confidence. You, Mr. Member, are well aware of that, having served there once yourself.

[ Page 7231 ]

MR. LEA: At any time in the past, has the Minister of Labour informed the ELUC members that one of the owners of the land in question — the 132 acres in the Cariboo district that I described earlier — was a very high profile worker in the minister's election campaign in Prince George?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have no apologies to the family to which the gentleman is referring. He can rest assured that any people who have been involved in my campaign.... I have not brought that message here; I brought myself, with their help.

Interjections.

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

MR. LEA: I have another question to the Minister of Labour: in retrospect, did the minister think it wise not to report, then, to the cabinet that the people who were applying for this exclusion were very closely aligned for a number of years with the Social Credit Party in Prince George, that in fact people in that family have been campaign managers of Social Credit in the past? In retrospect, does the minister figure that he was unwise not to let other members of the cabinet know that that's the case?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Further questions?

MR. LEA: To the Minister of Labour: can the minister assure this House that he made no representation whatsoever to any government group looking into the exclusion... ?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding, following the rules of this House and other authorities who have governed practices of question period, that questions to a minister must be in the area for which the minister has responsibility. I'd just like your advice on that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the screen through which all questions are necessarily placed is outlined for us by Beauchesne, and there are some 25 to 30 prohibitions. Technically there would not be a question in order at all if we applied that screen absolutely. Therefore it is with the assistance of the House that the Speaker tries to determine whether or not a question is in order.

If in the mind of any individual a question is clearly out of order, then it is the duty of that member to stand and cite the prohibition which is being offended, and to draw it to the Chair's attention. I would appreciate that kind of help.

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

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder, when the minister is bringing back information on the question he took as notice, whether he would also take a look into the land in question and see how close it is to the Alaska panhandle, to see whether or not that would be an economic reason for taking it out of the land reserve. I wonder if he could also see whether there is a railway that runs within at least 20 miles of the land, to see whether that might not be an economic reason for taking out this land. I suppose we should call it Gloucester North, because the minister has no idea where the 132 acres has gone. In other words, when the minister comes back with his answer to this question, would he give the same economic reasons...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that one of the criteria for questions in question period is that it be urgent. What the member for Prince Rupert wonders from time to time, in my estimation, is not urgent. I know he very seldom wonders, but....

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, considering the rate at which we are losing agricultural land in this province to political friends, it is a matter of urgency to deal with this every single day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in order to clarify the kind of question which is in order and the kind which is out of order, would it be in order for the Speaker to circulate to all members the screen through which these questions must pass? So ordered.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave for the adjournment of the House to debate a definite issue of urgent public importance.

The question is as follows: there is a crisis of confidence in the health-care system of this province today. Our healthcare system and the hospital system in particular have enjoyed a reputation as one of the finest in the world, but that reputation and the trust of the people in this province have been betrayed by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), by his announcement to the hospital administrators yesterday of sharp cutbacks in hospital funds. All the hospitals had duly pared their budgets to conform to the political guidelines announced by the Premier on February 18. They did so knowing the 12 percent would not meet the rising supply costs of 30 percent, 19 percent barge freight rate increases for the Queen Charlotte Islands, and so on. There are increases in supply, food, fuel, utility and water costs and on certain labour costs because of the Premier's interference in collective bargaining. Yesterday the minister told the hospitals they will not even get the 12 percent. This is the awful truth that spells disaster and a crisis of confidence in our health-care system. I have a few examples of how those cutbacks will affect our hospital system.

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

MR. COCKE: The examples are part of the urgency of this question, but I will abbreviate by saying that 12,000 British Columbians are on waiting lists for elective surgery and they'll be joined by thousands more. We're going to be forced to follow the example of hospitals such as the Penticton Regional Hospital by setting up a crisis file. This file was implemented in February this year after a man died while waiting for a hospital bed. His death was described by a spokesman of the medical society as: "one of long-term consequence of bed shortage."

To summarize and finalize, the measures made necessary by the minister's cutbacks will mean a decline in the quality of health care. The minister has attempted to cover up this fact in public, but we in the House must uncover the truth. The estimate is that 1,200 beds will have to be closed to accommodate the cutbacks.

[ Page 7232 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I think we do have the nub of the member's complaint. We will consider it and bring a decision to the House. The motion will be read only if a prima facie case is discovered.

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

MR. BRUMMET: You've been debating it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in stating a matter of urgency under standing order 35, it is only required that the nature of the complaint be stated, and in as brief a fashion as possible. Certainly it's not an opportunity for the debate of the issue. It is a motion to adjourn otherwise important business in order to do exactly what the member is trying to do in presenting the case. I would suggest that statements under standing order 35 should be brief and should not be entering into the merits of the argument itself.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the reason for the preamble to reading a motion is in order to establish urgency. This is the only opportunity that a member has to present the case for urgency of the topic matter. With respect, you might look at the examples that were given in the member's preamble. I would submit that they were arguing not the merits of the case, but that these presented a prima facie case of urgency. The duty of the Speaker is to decide whether the matter is urgent, but not to decide whether the vote should go one way or another, obviously, on the question. I would ask Your Honour to consider carefully the advice that you've given to us today, but we should not impair a member's ability to stress the urgency of the matter which we are seeking to bring before this House under standing order 35.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, normally when a person rises under standing order 35, the Speaker indicates whether there's a prima facie case, and, failing that, whether or not in the future he's going to give some kind of judgment or verdict on this question. May I ask that that be done now.

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

Orders of the Day

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

Interjection.

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

Leave granted.

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

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in his very able debate on this legislation. What I would particularly like to talk about today is what this bill is going to do to the municipality of Burnaby, to the schools in Burnaby, to the school children of Burnaby and, indeed, to the taxpayers of Burnaby.

On March 9 of this year the school board passed a resolution at one of its meetings. It protested the government's undue interference in the process of local needs, expressed its disappointment in the provincial government's lack of respect for the local democratic process and supported the B.C. School Trustees Association's resolution to the Minister of Education that budgets not be submitted until legally required.

The second thing the Burnaby School Board did was to establish a series of public hearings so that, unlike this legislation, the taxpayers of Burnaby would have an opportunity to have some input in the debate and have their views on the new interim finance formula that the minister is introducing in this Bill 27 on record. I think I should point out what this particular thing means to Burnaby. School District 41, which is the Burnaby School District, has a non-residential tax base of $596,255,332. That is 55.2 percent of its tax base. That is the amount of money and the percentage of tax base now being confiscated by this government. It is now being taken away from the municipality of Burnaby, and the taxpayers of Burnaby are going to be placing it directly into government coffers. They are going to lose that. I want to repeat that that is 55.2 percent of the tax base — somewhere in the neighbourhood of $596,255,332.

The school district is going to have to operate with that much less money as a result of this piece of legislation. That means that the homeowners of Burnaby, first of all, are going to have to face an increase in their taxes from something in the neighbourhood of $570, which they had anticipated, to $633. Once again we find that the government is shifting the cost of education away from general revenue, away from the government and onto the backs of the homeowners. Burnaby is just one example of where this happens. I know my colleagues will speak about their respective areas. The homeowners of Burnaby are finding that this piece of legislation is going to be absconding with 55 percent of Burnaby's tax base, and they now find that they have to come up with an increase in their taxes as a result of this piece of legislation.

I am totally opposed to this piece of legislation and on behalf of the homeowners, students and workers of Burnaby, I have to speak very strongly in opposition to this. Despite the increases in taxes to the homeowners, the school board still finds itself in a situation where it is going to have to pare its budget and make some drastic decisions pertaining to school closures.

I want to talk a little bit about what the new education finance formula means. First of all, the arbitrary feature of the legislation is that the amount of money available for provincial government sharing is going to be set by the cabinet. Nobody else has any control over that. There isn't going to be any input from the taxpayers in general. The cabinet itself is going to decide exactly how much money and what percentage of sharing they are going to be responsible for each year. That is an arbitrary decision being made on their part. The maximum level of 130 percent, which is now

[ Page 7233 ]

established to determine equalization index value, is subject to change. That is not a set thing. The result of this is that local autonomy is very seriously eroded. It will centralize funding and lead to tight control over programs as well as s staffing. This is certainly not what anyone would refer to as a democratic way of dealing with things. What we are dealing s with here is straight autocracy and totalitarianism on the part s of the government.

In addition, glaring inequities are going to be entrenched as a result of this legislation. We have, as the first member for Vancouver (Mr. Lauk) pointed out in his debate, a discrepancy between West Vancouver and Burnaby. In Burnaby we have a pupil-teacher ratio of 16.61. We have an assessment per pupil of $12,386, as opposed to West Vancouver's assess- s ment per pupil of $23,195. The end result of that is that West Vancouver gets away with a mill rate of 26.72 mills and Burnaby is faced with a mill rate of 51.07 mills. The end result of this is a drastic increase in the taxes which will have to be paid by the homeowners of Burnaby.

The other point is the calculation of the provincial grant to the shared level of the district's operating budgets. We've r been told the government will pick up a base of 60 percent, and that some school districts will get a further amount by the government sharing up to a further 35 percent. This is not going to happen in Burnaby. Burnaby is not going to participate at all in this additional sharing which is going to be open I to some other municipalities. Burnaby is not alone in this, of course. Vancouver, New Westminster and other areas will not be able to share in this. Specifically, since I'm speaking on behalf of Burnaby, I want to point out that Burnaby is not going to be the beneficiary of the additional sharing up to the 35 percent.

What is the impact of this additional cost going to mean to Burnaby? I'm going to quote from a brief presented at one of the public hearings which was established by the school board. There were two public hearings. At one of these a brief was presented. This was the example given.

"Let us assume that Burnaby wanted to add in the future $722,000 beyond the basic program approved by the government. If we use the present assessed value of a Burnaby home — say, the average of $12,386 — under the old finance formula it would have required a levy of .654 mills, at an average cost of $8. 10 per average homeowner, in order to do this. Under this new finance formula, however, it will require an additional levy of 1.42 mills, and an aver age cost of $17.58 per average homeowner. It will cost, in other words, the Burnaby taxpayer twice as much money in the future to expend additional funds beyond what will undoubtedly be a very sparse basic program approved by Victoria."

There isn't any question, when we look at these figures, that we recognize what a real and genuine hardship this bill is going to visit, first of all on the taxpayers of Burnaby.

The other thing is that this new formula actually penalizes those school districts like Burnaby which have been thrifty in terms of using their budget, because the budget submitted by the Burnaby school trustees was based on actual expenditure, and, of course, because last year there was a labour dispute and a number of days were missed, the actual reflection of the budget was not a correct one because it is not every year that Burnaby has to deal with labour disputes and is able to, quite frankly, save money as a result of workers being on strike. Yet the formula does not take that into account, so we find that Burnaby is being penalized for being thrifty, and is being additionally penalized because its budget last year was low as a result of labour disputes and hours lost as a result of the strikes.

What is this going to mean, not to the taxpayers but to the students in Burnaby — the people who use the education system? The school board met on March 23. As a result of the restraint put forward by the Minister of Education and the Premier, they passed a resolution which called for the closing of two junior-secondary schools: Burnaby Heights Junior Secondary and Royal Oak Junior Secondary. They were to be effective as of June 30, 1982. In addition, the school board passed resolution to close a number of other elementary schools: Sussex, Riverway West, Riverside — three schools on the south slope. In other words, there are going to be five schools closed in Burnaby as a direct result of the new finance formula which is outlined in this piece of legislation. That has a far-reaching effect on the children and on the community. We're talking about children who are going to have to travel further distances in order to go to school, and when you recognize that three of the schools are elementary schools, you realize that we are speaking about very young children — children from kindergarten, age 6 and 7, and up to the junior secondary age.

One of these schools in particular is a very unique school in that it is not only a small community school, but it's also very much a part of the ethnic community in which it is located. The parents of children in that school and the community in general are particularly upset by the fact that their community centre, which is what that school is — the centre of their community life — is going to be destroyed as a result of that school being closed. In other words, the school board finds itself in a situation where it cannot take into account the needs of the community when making its decision.

What we have, in fact, is a school board which ran on a platform of pledges to keep the community schools open. All of the school board members who were elected in the last election last fall made a commitment to Burnaby that they would do everything in their power to keep the schools open; they were opposed to school closings. Now we find, as a result of this government's new finance formula — its new restraint program — that the school board trustees are not going to be able to keep their commitment. They are not going to be able to honour the promises which they made when they were seeking re-election in some instances, and election for the first time in others.

In other words, what we're really saying to school trustees is that in the future, when seeking election, before they make any promises at all, they have to vet them with the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education is going to have to be the one to say: "You can run on this platform. You can promise to do these things and nothing else." So we have the local people in the community having to vote for their school trustees based on decisions being made centrally here in Victoria at the provincial level. That is not what democracy is all about. It's as undemocratic as provincial MLAs having to have their platforms vetted by the federal government before they can participate in an election or make any promises in an election. So this particular bill does a number of things.

Mr. Speaker, what is going to be the end result, first of all, for the students? What we hear from the Burnaby Teachers Association is that there is going to be a loss of individual support in terms of special programs and in-class contact

[ Page 7234 ]

time. That is what the teachers said to us. Some of the Burnaby Teachers Association's representatives took the time to meet with the Burnaby MLAs and share their concerns with us. They wanted to be sure that when we spoke in the House about the restraint, in whatever form it took — whether it was a bill coming out of Education or a bill coming from the Minister of Finance — we had an idea of the impact of this restraint program on the school system. So they met with us. The first thing they talked about was the loss of individual support in terms of special programs and in-class contact time. They also told us that a number of the special programs, such as music, would have to go by the board, especially in elementary schools. I know there is a school of thought of the opinion that music, library, physical education and those kinds of things are not an intrinsic part of the educational system.

Well, I don't happen to agree with that philosophy, and the people of Burnaby don't happen to agree with that philosophy either. In Burnaby we recognize that education is an all-encompassing thing, that you never stop learning, that the learning process touches all areas of your life and goes on. It's not just a matter of kindergarten to grade 12, Mr. Speaker, and it's not just a matter of reading, writing and arithmetic. These special programs, whether they be music or physical education.... Even the libraries, which are such an important part of this school system, are going to be eroded. Some of them are probably even going to disappear as a result of the autocratic decisions which are being made in Bill 27.

They talked about the fact that there would be fewer course options at the secondary school level at a time when we are moving into a world that's more complicated than ever before and it is more necessary than ever before to have course options. We find that we have an education system that's restricting the options open to our young people. That definitely has a negative impact on their educational opportunities and is not ensuring that the students of British Columbia are going to have the quality of education that certainly they should be entitled to.

I want to remind everyone that this is not a developing nation. We're not a have-not province, we are not a nation that can afford not to ensure that our children have quality education. In terms of the priorities of the government, that's where we are running into problems. Education is not a priority of this government; young people coming up through the system are going to be penalized and are going to be punished as a result of the fact that education is not now, nor has ever been, a priority of this government. It doesn't have an important place in this government.

I've received a number of letters and phone calls from people who are concerned about the decrease in library services. I know the pundits tell us that reading is a thing of the past, that fewer and fewer people will have to know how to read in the future. However, we have not arrived at that time yet. Books are still important, certainly in terms of learning. You cannot have a good quality education system without good quality library services. We find that as a result of Bill 27, as a result of the government's restraint program as articulated by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), there's going to be a decrease in the library services available to the children of Burnaby.

Other possible effects that the teachers, school administrators and parents talk about are the loss of the summer school program, as well as reduced clerical assistance, less time for maintenance of classrooms and grounds, and decreased community contact. All of these things impact not on the homeowners, but on the students. We're talking about Burnaby's future when we start shortchanging the kids in terms of the educational system. That is the reason I have to speak in opposition to this particular piece of legislation.

The Burnaby Teachers Association issued the following press release:

"Education standards in Burnaby School District, District 41, will decline as a result of budget cuts, said the president of the Burnaby Teachers Association. The provincially imposed cuts will see up to 55 teaching positions disappear on top of the 42 positions that were slated for reduction due to declining enrolment in the board's final budget in January. Budget cuts mean program cuts, said BTA president Al Dahlo. The impact will be felt by children throughout all the grades; in fact, the loss in quality will affect the children through their entire school life. They will never make it up."

I think that is a very serious indictment of the education system. As I started out by saying, the Burnaby School Board has always had a very lean budget; there has never been any fat to cut. As a matter of fact, when you take into account that it's a school district with a large number of students for whom English is a second language and it has to finance an expensive ESL education component in its system; when you take into account that integration of disabled children into the classroom is something that it did willingly and with alacrity; to then turn around and demand that this school district face additional cuts certainly in terms of teaching positions — up to 97 teaching positions will be lost — is not just shortsighted on the part of this administration, it is very detrimental to the students in Burnaby.

The press release goes on to say that parents and students will quickly be aware of the reduced programs in such areas as physical education, French immersion, library services, counselling services, skill development and learning assistance programs, as well as those in a number of other areas.

One particular special-needs area includes two special programs for children requiring specialized services. These have had to be delayed and may not even be implemented as a result of the 1982 budget restraint programs. The first of these is the elementary rehabilitation program for the behaviourally disordered child, which was to have been located at Armstrong School. This program, Mr. Speaker, was developed in response to concerns expressed by the Interministerial Children's Committee. In case you're not aware, Mr. Speaker, in Burnaby and in New Westminster there is a branch of the Interministerial Children's Committee which is made up of representatives from the school districts as well as representatives from the Ministry of Human Resources and the Attorney-General's ministry in that area. This committee comes together and deals with the needs of the students as a whole rather than compartmentalizing it and Human Resources looking at one thing, Health looking at another, Education and Attorney-General looking at others. It's a marvellous committee and it does good work. As a result of that committee's recommendation, the school board came to understand that they had to place in the Armstrong School a special program to deal with these kids who are behavioural problems in the school. That program, we are now told, has to be delayed and indeed may be scrapped as a result of the restraint program.

[ Page 7235 ]

It is so shortsighted, Mr. Speaker, because scrapping the program now means that we pay for it later through Human Resources when these kids became a serious behaviour problem. It means that ultimately we pay for it through the Attorney-General's ministry when these kids run afoul of the law, and through the Ministry of Health when it's decided that these children need special psychiatric or mental health counselling. So instead of having a preventive program now in place through the education system to prevent this problem from going any further, we're going to scrap that program as a result of this particular piece of legislation. Two, three, five or ten years from now, we'll end up paying for it and the Attorney-General's ministry through the delivery of the justice system, through the Health ministry or through Human Resources. From the point of view of economics it doesn't make sense, and certainly from the point of view of serving the needs of the children it doesn't make sense. Certainly the first priority should be prevention rather than dealing with curing after the damage has been done.

The second example, Mr. Speaker, to be scrapped has to do with the personal-care attendants to provide for those disabled children who are integrated into the school system. For example, there are Burnaby children who attend Jericho School and need a personal-care attendant to be with them. There are kids in elementary school or in kindergarten who need a personal-care attendant to be in the classroom with them while they are there so that they can live as normal citizens, the way the minister indicated he wanted them to live when he and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) hailed their grand new idea of integrating disabled children into the school system. That is not going to be possible. As a result of this restraint program, the Burnaby School Board is saying it's going to either postpone or scrap any plans to provide these personal-care attendants so that children can function in the public school system.

The alternative to this is that they won't be able to attend the public school system. These children are going to be deprived of that experience. So they're going to be the losers and we're going to be the losers in the long run. This bottomline budgeting, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't take into account the needs of people is so expensive in the long run. So many more people pay so many more dollars in the long run, and so many more people pay emotionally and psychologically in the long run as a result of the shortsighted bottom line budgeting that we're continually having to deal with from this particular government.

The business of transporting those disabled children into the schools and into the classrooms is going to have to be postponed or, indeed, may have to be scrapped. The school board isn't going to have the money, even after the homeowners have had their taxes increased from $570 to $633 as a direct result of a government deciding to confiscate 55 percent of Burnaby's tax base — something in the neighbourhood of $596 million. This is where the hurt is going to come: transportation for disabled children to get them to school, special education classes which are remote from students' homes.... The primary and intermediate students are finding that as a result of school closures they're having to travel further to school. The English-as-a-second-language courses: all these are going to have to be postponed and in some instances totally eliminated as a result of this piece of legislation.

I don't know whether there's any point in asking that it be amended. I'm not even sure if it would be possible to amend it. But certainly we have to take a second look at what it's doing, first of all to the taxpayers, and secondly to the children. Or do it the other way around: I would prefer to look at what it's going to do to the students in Burnaby, and then look at what it's doing to the taxpayers.

As I mentioned earlier, the legislation threatens the autonomy of the school system. It certainly deprives the community of the right to make any decision about the quality of education in their midst. The minister can interfere without any public debate at all. He can decide to cut off funds without any input from the school district involved, from the community or from any member of the Legislature. That kind of autocratic power which this legislation gives the minister is certainly something that we have to protest in the strongest terms possible.

Burnaby also had a program of an early-retirement incentive bonus for its teachers to encourage those who wanted to retire early, rather than having to lay teachers off and hire other teachers. It put aside something in the neighbourhood of $900,000 to run the program. In fact, 35 persons have availed themselves of that program to date. That's no longer possible. It's now going to be eliminated, and teachers are going to be forced to work until they reach their full retirement age — even those who would rather retire earlier and allow new teachers to enter the school system.

The thing that's so unfair about all of this is that our universities are still churning out teachers every year. We're graduating large classes of teachers at the same time that the school population is declining naturally, and as a result of the restraint program and this legislation, they're actually going to be firing teachers, laying them off and cutting the number of teachers in the school system. Nobody's saying anything to the young people who are going into the education program. No one is telling them that when they graduate there aren't going to be any jobs for them.

The other thing about this program is that it's futile. It really doesn't get at the excesses. That is not the way to deal with it. It only succeeds in being a burden on the students — again because of the school closures, having to travel greater distances to school. The whole question of traffic safety is continually being debated at school board meetings, because parents are concerned. As a result of this restraint program they cannot afford to hire the number of crossing guards that they need, and now that problem is going to be exacerbated because the students have to go to farther schools as a result of the school closings.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Communities are being disrupted. I spoke earlier about the schools on the South Slope in the primarily ethnic communities, catering to their needs. They are going to find that school closed. Things like teacher aides for slow learners are also going to be a result of it.

A parent at one of the schools came to see me and complained about the deterioration of the school buildings and the way in which the schoolyard and other areas were being kept. When I contacted the principal of the school involved, I was told the same thing: it just was not going to be possible in this year's school budget to do anything about the school. That's what the principal had been told by the school trustees: There was nothing that could be done this year about the deteriorating buildings, and certainly there was no money for hiring additional custodians to deal with the schoolyard.

[ Page 7236 ]

The end result of that is that on Monday morning the first responsibility of the older children is to go and clean up all the broken glass around the schoolyard. That's what the educational system has come to.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking in opposition to this piece of legislation I want to say again that I attended a number of public meetings at which briefs were submitted. At one there were 13 briefs from Burnaby residents, from the Burnaby Teachers Association, from the administrators' association, and indeed from some students themselves. There were a number of outstanding briefs from some of the students as well as from concerned citizens, the president of one student association, and various individuals, teachers and others. The one thing they all said was that this Bill 27, this restraint program, is going to destroy the quality of education to be delivered to the students in that area.

There was anger and frustration, because the parents of Burnaby, as the people of Burnaby, honestly believe that their children are entitled to quality education and that it was possible for them to have quality education prior to this new finance formula being imposed upon them. I cannot bring their message to you strongly enough to get across the feeling of those public meetings, at which hundreds of people turned up to protest the fact that their school board was being forced to close five schools; to cut back on important services like their library service, their counselling service, their special needs services such as the special-learners and special-teachers services — health and physical education services; and to wipe out the summer schools and other important things, at a time when those very same parents were being asked to pay more taxes for the education system. We have the parents paying more and the children receiving less. That is not good enough. On behalf of the people of Burnaby, I am opposed this piece of legislation and will certainly be voting against it.

MR. NICOLSON: It is pretty obvious that those hot bags of wind that sometimes emanate from the northern part of this chamber and supposedly pretend to represent rural areas are not willing to take their place in this debate today. I wonder if the Social Credit member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — the person with the hit list — is going to get up and speak in this House today about the kind of tax grab that this government has come up with, and the devastating effect it is having on the hewers and drawers and builders and suppliers of the resource wealth of this province, as opposed to the giveaway to the people in West Vancouver and the British Properties — those people who have a very nice, clean, ecological environment, and who get absolutely upset if somebody so much as burns a bit of garbage in the back yard, while we live in areas that have to put up with contamination in the air and from pulpmills, contamination of pulpmills in our waters and streams which we like to fish in, which we use for our drinking and so on; the people who can get so upset about some kind of a disturbance, maybe, to the University Endowment Lands but who let whole mountains of bighorn sheep range be levelled so they can continue to live off of the avails, work, resources and exploitation of the interior of this province. I wonder where those back-benchers are, particularly the one with the hit list — the paper maverick. Where is he today?

Ironically enough, it was an education finance bill that got me into politics in the first place. That was the little thing that tipped me over. You have to be tipped over to get into politics, Mr. Speaker. I see that you agree with that. I little thought that I would get up in this House to defend the education finance formula which has become modified through the years, which served the people of this province through the years, until 1976, when the provincial government started to initiate a two-part plan. Part one of the plan was to increase the basic mill-rate levy. It was about 24 mills when it was introduced by W.A.C. Bennett in 1968; by 1975 it had not risen above 26.5 mills. But right away it went up over 30 mills the first year, and then 35, 40 and 41.8 mills. That basic education mill-rate levy now stands at almost 42 mills at the same time as the government has brought in a 100 percent basis for valuation assessment.

What's the effect of this? Assessments have gone up more than the rate of inflation. The statutory mill rate has gone up almost to the rate of inflation. This very complicated education finance formula which got me into politics in the first place says that when a school board creates its budget for the basic items, the basic education program — the bare bones budget of providing a teacher, janitorial service, the basic supplies, but not the things that aren't the same from district to district, like busing and other amenities — it shall be set by a formula.

The provincial government prescribes the value of an instructional unit. It says what an instructional unit will be worth. It started around $12,000. Of course it's way up over $20,000. They say that to earn an instructional unit you must have so many children in a school: 20 children gives you 1; 40 children gives you 2; 45 children is a part thereof, so they give you 3. So you create for each school a number of instructional units, and in the entire district you create a certain number of instructional units. You multiply that by the instructional unit value, and it gives you the basic education program, which is the amount of money that should provide the ordinary, normal, bare bones part of an education program in a school district. Then you took the total assessment of that area and multiplied it by the basic mill-rate levy, which had now gone from 26 up to 41.8 mills. Multiply those two numbers together, take that away or raise that amount locally, and the provincial government would assist you with the difference over and above the shortfall of that multiplication by subtracting that from the cost of the basic education budget.

It doesn't take a very advanced mathematician to realize that when you increase assessments well beyond double the rate of inflation — well beyond double in the last six or seven years — and when you take that basic mill-rate levy and increase it almost at the rate of inflation, then multiply the two numbers together, you get inflation squared; or, if one thing doubles and the other thing doubles, you multiply them together and it quadruples.

That is the burden that has been placed on local school districts, local property owners and local taxpayers. That was doing something very strange, because many years ago when this first came in, in 1968, there were only two districts, to my knowledge, that raised their entire budgets locally and actually contributed to the coffers of the provincial government by donating the excess of what was brought in when that basic mill rate was applied against their assessment. Those two were Kitimat and Lillooet. Kitimat happened to have Alcan in it, a very heavy tax base. They also contributed. Over and above raising 100 percent of their education costs locally to provincial coffers. Lillooet happened to have the Bridge River dams which happened to be taken over by B.C. Hydro when they took over B.C. Electric. They were always

[ Page 7237 ]

assessable and they remained assessable for school tax purposes.

Since the government has brought in 100 percent assessments and an increase in the basic mill-rate levy, it means that other districts like Vancouver are now raising 100 percent locally. What they and other districts — like one of the four school districts in my riding, the Nelson School District, where 25 percent of the basic education program is paid for locally — have started to say is: "If we're paying for all of this locally, then why don't we have the autonomy? Why must we pay the shot, but have Big Brother here in Victoria tell us how to run things?"

The government was starting to get the message, but they got the wrong message. They said: "No, Big Brother isn't going to respond by letting you have local autonomy and more local decision-making in your education process; Big Brother is now going to grab the major source of your revenue: the non-residential tax base. We are going to grab the assessment for those dams that have impaired the environment locally, cut down the fishing industry and cut down on tourism opportunities, and we're going to grab that assessment and tell you what to do." Big Brother government is going to set the mill rates totally, and there is going to be no local decision on whether a school board can opt for a little better level of education with the forbearance of its taxpayers. There will be no decisions to be made in that way because it shall be commended by Big Brother government how this will be put down.

Mr. Speaker, there will be no local autonomy, and the government has seized the tax base and said that it's going to be better for high residential areas but not so good for some of the industrial areas. Well, there are four school districts in my riding, and not one of them is going to benefit from this. I could see where it might affect the Castlegar School District, which contains the Can-Cel pulpmill and a couple of sawmills. I can see it affecting the Nelson School District, where we have some dams, lots of railway line and many assessable industrial assets. But, you know, this allegation that the residential areas are going to benefit is totally misleading. Look at areas like the Creston-Kaslo School District. There is very little in the way of an industrial tax base. There are farms. A lot of people live along there who try to scratch a living, out of the tourist industry, out of the amenities of the lake and various other things. The Arrow Lake School District has an industrial assessment that is particularly low, and you don't see too many mills. There are a few mills in that area, but compared with most areas it's very low.

The only place where I suppose it's lower, of course, is in nice old West Vancouver. You know, I look at what this is going to do for West Vancouver. It's going to drop the average gross tax paid in 1981 from $1,109 down to $620 for 1982. Then I look.... I suppose one can say: "Yes, look in Creston. They're only going to have to pay $371." Mr. Speaker, do they allow you to build one-bedroom homes in West Vancouver any more? Do they allow people to have wood and coal stoves? What is the demography of this kind of a so-called reform? This is the most regressive kind of a tax change that one could ever imagine, and we're talking about the people who produce the wealth, who suffer the layoffs when a resource-based economy is turned upside down by benign neglect in this government. And we think of the people who have the nice office jobs and commute from their homes into downtown Vancouver, the "two-hour lunch bunch, " and we bring about this kind of a so-called reform.

Mr. Speaker, I want no part of this legislation. This makes the 1968 legislation that drove me into politics look so good by comparison. If I could go back, I might even apologize to Donald Brothers for some of the things I might have said about him at that time. This Minister of Education is making Donald Brothers look so good because this legislation is so bad.

The minister has said that this provides a basis by which school tax will be more fairly spread between urban and rural and between residential and non-residential taxpayers. That is absolutely not true. What is even more misleading is the statement that under this measure the government will assume responsibility for the non-residential tax base across this province. The responsibility for the non-residential tax base, Mr. Minister of Education, includes collecting the taxes, forwarding those tax moneys and taking responsibility for delinquents such as those mentioned the other day in this House — a certain spouse of a certain cabinet minister who doesn't believe in paying taxes, who believes in getting away with the 12 percent penalty and investing his money in Lord knows what, but getting a higher rate of return. In section 20 of your act you are spelling out for the municipalities that they are going to have to collect the taxes. You aren't going to be responsible, Mr. Minister. The municipalities are going to have to collect the taxes. By a certain date they are going to have to forward a certain proportion and by another date they will have to forward another balance. On December 31, 1982, the balance of all taxes imposed under this part, whether or not they have been collected.... The municipalities are going to have to fork up the money that the spouses of certain cabinet ministers in this House withhold from municipalities. It is a little bit much.

It really is a serious matter in a small village municipality like Kaslo when two industrial assessments withhold payment of their taxes and over 25 percent of the tax revenue that has to be collected is withheld and the municipality is held responsible for it. It is a little tiny village — 800 people — and they've got to pay the taxes for a sawmill that hasn't paid taxes for years and which, under your laws, takes advantage of this 12 percent loophole, and nothing can be done about it. You say you are taking the responsibility? Mr. Minister of Education, I listened to what you said in your opening remarks, and when I listened to it I thought: "Maybe at least there is something good here. Maybe it will solve the problems of Kaslo. Maybe they won't have to pay their money up front to the regional district, to the school district and all the other areas in which they've had to pay up." But that minister, with his record in the UBCM, with his experience as a mayor, should certainly know the problem inherent in this. I won't go further, except to identify the problem and burden that this type of representation in the minister's opening remarks has brought upon the people.

I taught school for several years. I have also had children go through the school system. I've seen the problems of early reading difficulties. This bill is creating confusion, a very negative atmosphere and a very negative climate in the education system. It doesn't matter where you upset people, you are going to create great harm.

There was an announcement made the other day — one that I thought might have been avoided — and notice given to people that an intermediate-care home was going to have to be shut down in my riding because of some dispute between the Ministry of Health and this private-care home. I bring this out to illustrate that there was tremendous stress put on the

[ Page 7238 ]

residents there. It is a matter which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and 1, I think, have under control. But the tremendous stress, and how we should try to avoid putting stress on old people by giving them notice that they're going to have to leave an intermediate-care home in three months — giving three months' notice to staff and the problem that creates.... Think of the problem that it creates when you create stress in a school, when teachers have to become embroiled with their own survival and have to search their own souls and say: "What are my concerns here? Am I thinking of myself or am I thinking about the educational environment of the children? Am I putting the children first?" They may even second-guess themselves because of the kinds of irresponsible statements that are made by some politicians on the benches opposite.

But I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. Lay the blame where you may, I'll bet you there's a lot more stress which emanates and is perceived and picked up by the young children in the schools. Under this particular type of interim bill.... This bill is, thank goodness, at least interim. It might even be more interim than they think. This is going to create a group of people who will not have had as good a chance as the children who came immediately before them. Hopefully, if we are able to get rid of this bill as soon as possible, it will be unnecessary for those coming after them.

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

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I will bore into the heart of this matter, if necessary. That minister thinks that there's a simple answer for everything, and if there is, then he's the answer.

This bill does not do what the minister pretends it sets out to do, and it is going to create great hardship. It's also going to create a disincentive to attract industry into perhaps economically distressed areas. What is the use of having a sawmill with a teepee burner spouting fly ash and dark smoke all over the place if you can't at least rationalize it as part of your assessment base and a special benefit to the local area? I've never seen a government that has been so willing to sell out the entire province for the benefit of a very few. It seems that this government is convinced that from so few, so much shall go to so many.

This government could well take a warning from some of the activities which are going on in this province. We have seen the seeds of discontent sown, and we have seen that the ground is fertile for a western separatist movement. I would have to say that this particular bill is going to be adding fertilizer to those seeds, which have already germinated throughout this province. This bill exceeds itself in terms of anything which is sought to divide rural from urban, and I have resided about equal parts of my life in both environments. I don't like to see things that set us against each other, but I can do nothing less than speak out today on behalf of those people whom I represent. I only hope that some of the members of the opposite party, particularly that paper maverick, particularly that person with the hit list, will speak out as strongly as we have tried to against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill will have a detrimental effect upon the rural and isolated communities in the great white north. I guess in popular Canadiana there's a term that Bob and Doug McKenzie have come up with, with which you can describe this budget. But I find it strange that the minister, a professional lawyer who represents the constituency of Oak Bay, has been given this budget and told to stand up and take all the flak for it. I wonder what his real feelings on this are. I know the minister has travelled to the north. He came in a helicopter to the community of New Aiyansh, and he must understand some of the special problems that rural northern school districts are being faced with. I guess, if you could be a teacher on this, you would grade the minister's bill as the four-F policy: it is a failure for the parents, a failure for the students, a failure for the teachers and a failure for the trustees, because this particular bill penalizes the north.

We see on the hi list that the biggest cutback per pupil was in the Gulf Islands, followed by a school district in my constituency, School District 92 (Nishga), with $195 per pupil. That is followed on the list by School District 84 and then another school district in my constituency, School District 87 (Stikine), with a cutback of $144 per pupil. That is followed by Fernie and then another school district in the north of my constituency, the sub-local of Terrace, with a cutback of $136 per pupil. What we find is that the three school districts which make up the Atlin constituency — Nishga, Stikine and the sub-local of Terrace-Stewart — have three of the six biggest cutbacks.

We have also seen that there has been a new tax placed upon the residents in the rural, isolated areas of the north. That is a 20 percent increase in the mill rate. What we are finding is that small school districts, particularly small schools in the rural, isolated areas of the north, are being penalized much more than the metropolitan, lower mainland schools. The north is constantly being penalized by this government with bills like the one we're debating presently.

One of the things we've found out is that the Minister of Finance will make monthly payments to the local school districts. Knowing the performance of this government, what happens if those payments are late? Does the school district have to go to the bank and get a quick loan to cover the cost for that month? I wonder why that Minister of Education is penalizing children by reducing grants to the local school districts. It seems that the minister and this government, through their new formula and through this bill, are attempting to centralize too much power in Victoria, taking away from the hands of the school boards and the trustees the involvement and input by teachers and parents in the north.

Another interesting aspect of this bill is the statements the minister has made in the last few days concerning $75 million in special funds. We see no restrictions on the way this fund can be used. It is a dangerous precedent when you allow $75 million of special funds, because it always runs a risk of becoming a slush fund. I certainly hope the minister will use this, after listening to the members of the opposition bring forth constituency problems, so that there will be no adverse handicap of any school district in this province.

Another strange aspect of this bill presented by the Social Credit government is the dates. The formula program on this bill is supposed to run from 1982 to 1983 and 1984 but then we see that the restraint program that the Premier has spoken about is supposed to run for just the first two years. I wonder why there is this difference. Why penalize the children in the north for an additional year?

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

[ Page 7239 ]

Speaker's attention supplies such as art supplies, PE equipment, IE and special education equipment. I hope the minister is aware that in many rural schools in this province, particularly in the north, children have to rely on the supplies they get from their school. It is not an easy job just to go to the local supermarket or the local drug store to pick up paper and pens. By cutting back on supplies to local school districts, you are running the risk of affecting the child's education.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Maintenance. I think the minister is quite aware of the problems northern school districts face with schools isolated from each other by hundreds of miles and with maintenance costs extremely high. By cutting back this particular program in the north, you're running into another problem affecting children — particularly in the area of safety for children. If you're cutting back transportation and accommodation — which makes up a vast majority of the maintenance program for local school districts — you're jeopardizing the safety of children.

Health services. Speaking from first-hand knowledge of when I was a principal up north for a number of years, I can say that we used to provide a medical service as a program for many children who were unable to go 30, 40, 50 and 100 miles to a first-aid station in a larger community. By cutting back the health services in many school districts, you're running the risk of once again jeopardizing the safety of children. There were many times in the north that we as teachers had to provide services that would normally be taken care of by a public health nurse. As that service is being cut back across this province and there isn't enough funding going in for the public health nurses, we know the teachers are being relied on to provide this service. So once again, the minister jeopardizes the safety of children and penalizes the north.

We see cutbacks in special programs such as native language courses which provide an essential learning experience for many children, particularly in the north. I find another strange aspect in this restraint program and in this particular bill that will be cutting back hundreds of dollars to children in the north: that is the transfer payments, the millions of dollars that this government receives for the native students from the federal government in Ottawa. I just wonder where these transfer payments are going. Are they going to build football stadiums, or are they being put into general revenue?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: They're going for ministers' travel.

MR. PASSARELL: We have the transfer of payments from Ottawa for native students going for ministers' travel. I would hope that the $2,400-plus would go to those local school districts so we don't have to see the Nishga being cut back by $195 per student, Stikine being cut by $144, Terrace School District 88 being cut back by $136 per student.

Mr. Speaker, if there is any geographic area in this province that this government has hit hardest in cutbacks, it is the north. This new formula for the north is penalizing the residents of the north through a centralized government that grabs, grabs, grabs.

To put new increases upon residents in isolated villages and communities, particularly in the north, is to penalize those residents for living in the north. We know the statements made by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) when he told the residents in Cassiar that if they didn't like living in the north they could move south. Now we see a Minister of Education with his new tax formula in this bill penalizing the northern residents once again — by forcing them in many instances out of the area because of the high taxes they'll be paying for local education. This new tax increase and the education formula only prove this government's lack of concern for the north and where its priorities really lie: in the affluent subdivisions of Oak Bay and West Vancouver.

Those are a few notes that I made. I would certainly hope that the minister, through guidance by the Premier or through his own initiative, would take this bill and bring some amendments into it, because you are affecting education in the north by these cutbacks per pupil.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I had very little intention of getting into this debate, but after the remarks of the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I can hardly refrain. He would give us the impression that the students of the north, especially in his constituency of Atlin, the Nishga and Stikine, are suffering greatly. What he did not mention to this House was the magnanimous nature of the educational system in British Columbia, of the money it allocates for his constituency of Atlin and other northern constituencies. I would like to tell him now that in the Nishga and the Stikine areas.... He refers to a reduction of $136 per pupil — I'm not sure of the exact dollar.

MR. PASSARELL: It is $195.

MR. MUSSALLEM: He says $136 to $195. I mention this now to merely tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the north country, in this constituency of Atlin, the average cost of education per pupil is over $6,000, whereas in the lower mainland it's about half that amount. A reduction of $100 or so is not a tremendous deterioration in the system.

I want to say to you that the educational system of this province is indeed a magnanimous and a gracious one. This government prides itself on having two major priorities. The first is health and the next is education. I think that's a very commendable attitude that we have in this respect, and when we ask in a time of restraint that some restraints must be made, I don't think that's asking too much. We are not living as high as we were, and every part of our society must take some of the strain. We must maintain the educational system, but we cannot maintain a system over what we can afford to pay, because if we ever arrive at that point, then the system itself will collapse under the weight of its own funding. But this government is proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, we've lost the purpose of the bill in this debate. The minister made it clear that the purpose of this act is to introduce, on an interim basis, a new financial formula to finance school costs in the province. The new formula fits the tax base between the residential and the non-residential component so as to ensure greater equity and distribution of taxes from the non-residential tax base throughout the province. The new formula will be effective for the 1982 school tax year. Now that's the purpose of the bill. No mention, or hardly any, has been made of this in the debate by this party. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) spoke for two and a half days and not once mentioned the purpose of this bill. Yet the debate goes on. He just talked about the sorrowful nature of the poor children that are being

[ Page 7240 ]

robbed of an education. They are not being robbed of an education in British Columbia. We have the best educational system in all of Canada. We have colleges and universities, as small in our system....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Colleges, universities, public schools — I'm talking about the whole educational system. It's the finest in Canada, and yet they would cry. If they only knew that in the province of Ontario hospitals have been closed down, schools are being closed down, willy-nilly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here too.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, some are being closed here. The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said very clearly that five schools in Burnaby are being closed. But do you know that just a few days ago the newspaper said that those schools should have been closed last year because there weren't enough children for them. And the paper followed up by saying that it's high time they were closed. Burnaby is notorious for this sort of machination with the system. But I let them go on. We do not fight them that hard. I don't mind a few extra dollars; we let them have it. The government of British Columbia has a magnanimous attitude, but it's time they realize that money does not grow on trees. And the poor taxpayer, off his back, has got to pay with the sweat of his brow. It's high time to realize that every facet of our society must take part in the cost situation we are facing, whether it be MLAs, industry — that they share in playing down the costs we're facing today.

How much are we talking about? We're talking about a less than 2 percent reduction in the school system, and the first member for Vancouver Centre spoke for two and a half days. For what purpose? He never once mentioned the purpose of the act. The Speaker on three or four occasions tried to say: "Will you speak to the bill?" Yes, he said, he would speak to the bill — when he got around to it. But none of us objected, because we didn't want to have a heavy hand on them. We stood here and patiently listened for two and a half days while he abused this House without any facts, without any judgment, for a simple filibuster until, I regret to say, his voice gave out — or he would be speaking yet. That is not the purpose of government; that is not the purpose of legislation and not the purpose of this Legislature. It is regrettable that we see a party defunct of purpose, with a negative attitude, forgetting their responsibility to speak to the issues at hand.

One of my school districts — I mention just one, School District 42 in Maple Ridge — is one of the lower mainland districts. It's not a wealthy district, yet they find no difficulty in meeting the requirements of the Minister of Education and this bill. They have set out the program here. I have it in my hand. They didn't come crying to this Legislature or to their MLA. They never said one word to me. I got this document in the mail that really said what they're doing quietly.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: "What are they doing?" he asked. There are 27 points. I will not labour the House by reading you all 27. Why go through them? They're not listening. I'll tell them one or two. Number I is very commendable. "Decrease district administration by 10 percent no later than September 1982." What's wrong with that? Number 2 was to decrease district non-school based teaching staff by 10 percent by the same time. Did they come crying to me? The honourable opposition would give you the idea that all the teachers and school districts are crying about what we're doing to them and how we're reducing education. Let me make it clear now that education is not being reduced in British Columbia; it's being upheld at the same high standard, but we ask for economy. I think School District 42 has seen that.

The next one is number 3. "Decrease district business maintenance staff by 10 percent effective September 1982." The member for Burnaby-Edmonds said: "The schools are deteriorating." The schools are not deteriorating. They simply said "reduce the maintenance staff by 10 percent effective September 1982." I think that's very commendable. They're not crying. I only give you School District 42 because they see the facts as they are. All school districts in British Columbia are doing it accordingly. I can go on and read this, but I think nothing would be gained by it. One more, for example, is number 17. "Continue to eliminate borrowed inventory of leased portables." That's a saving of money. "Reduce nonteaching clerical overtime by 10 percent." That's not reducing education, but making savings where savings can be made.

I want to tell this opposition that every business in British Columbia faces much more stringent responsibilities than this, and they continue on facing difficult times. Why don't they talk to those people of British Columbia who are out of jobs? They are the people we should be considering today — the people on fixed pensions and fixed income. We are asking society to hold back a bit for an interim period. I think we're making a logical request. It is with the deepest regret that I hear this talk of hurting the children of British Columbia. This is a very sad day in the Legislature. We are not hurting the people of British Columbia. We are not hurting the teachers of British Columbia. We are demanding, as you are demanding, a high standard of education.

I speak again about our School District 42. There's also School District 75. I don't have the figures for them, but I'm willing to say that it's the same there. This board, without being requested and simply by following the guidelines, said: "We will make these savings. We will meet the requirements of saving where necessary. We will reduce our expenditures." They've done it so simply.

It's regrettable that we find an opposition taking the floor of this House and talking against reasonable reductions that are necessary at this time when our economy is in a recession. We expect a turnaround. When a turnaround comes this government will be the first to meet the challenge and let it go again, but within reason. The poor beleaguered taxpayer has had just enough and it's time that government put a halt to expenditures that are unnecessary. It's time that government put a halt to every single penny that does not need to be spent. That's the target and purpose of this administration. I'm proud to be a member of it. I support the minister and his bill wholeheartedly. Restraints must be had. Restraints are firm with us.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That member didn't have the figures, he said. I'm really truly shocked at his presentation. The member for Dewdney gets up and makes a presentation, and he doesn't know the figures. He goes on and on about the poor taxpayer. Why is it that very nearly every school teacher

[ Page 7241 ]

and school district in this province has made representation to every elected member of this House except that member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), who has not received a single presentation from his own school district. I'm shocked about that. I think it's because they've lost confidence in that member. I want to tell the members of this House right now that, in fact, his two school districts — 42 and 75 — have made representation to this side of the House to bring their case to the Legislature, which we are doing. So when that member gets up and says that the reduction of funding per pupil in the north for the school district is no problem and that it won't hurt those kids up north.... "Who cares about those kids up north anyway?" That's what he's saying. He doesn't care.

Let me tell you what the reduction per pupil does in his riding, and then he'll have the figures. He's hiding under the chair — I can't see him. He must be under his desk. The cut per pupil in that member's riding — under this bill, under this so-called interim finance restraint bill that's going to reduce the quality of education in this province significantly — in Maple Ridge, will be $69. In Mission the cut will be $66 per pupil. I'm shocked that that member, who should be getting up in this House and fighting for the quality of education and for the children in his riding, would get up and make a speech like that. No wonder they call that member George Museum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you're aware, as all of us are, of the rules of parliamentary debate. Personal references and allusions are not allowed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed, I want to take this opportunity to mention one of my constituents, Mr. Gary Lupul, and the Vancouver Canucks, who are going to do well tonight. Gary happens to be a constituent of mine....

AN HON. MEMBER: And a party member!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, and a party member! He hasn't paid his dues this year, yet, but I hope he will out of his bonus. No, I don't know that Mr. Lupul is a party member. Quite honestly, I don't know that, but he is a constituent of mine, and I do want to wish him and his team-mates the very best of luck while I have this opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Move adjournment. I think it's game time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I move adjournment of this....

Is it game time? This is going to be a short speech, Mr. Speaker.

Now I will start into my presentation, and I do want to remind the House that my riding has three whole school districts within its boundaries, plus parts of two others. Once again, the topic is — quite seriously — the quality of education. That's the topic that we're discussing and the principle of this bill.

The long term effects of this bill will mean that there will be obvious cutbacks, particularly in special services and particularly — I did meet with a number of teachers last week while I was home — to the physically and mentally handicapped, some of whom, because of the lack of facilities in the province, have been sent back to the community and put back into the classroom. Fair enough for those who can handle it.

But can you imagine how some poor teacher is to handle a classroom of 25 to 30 students — although the teacher-pupil ratio is not that great...? Officially the fact is that in many instances the teacher-pupil ratio is that great in some classrooms within my riding. That's because, of course, they include the administrative staff in some areas; some school districts have assistant administrators and the assistants have assistants to the assistants. They include all of those people as part of the pupil-teacher ratio when they're computing those figures of 17 to I in School District 47. But the reality is that I've been in classrooms, particularly in the elementary grades, where I have seen up to 29 students in a single classroom. How would you expect a teacher — without a teacher's aide or other assistants — who, in some cases, has to spend half of her or his time with one or two pupils suffering from a handicap and ignore the other 26 or 27 pupils...? You know very well it can't be done. As a result of this bill and these cutbacks, all of the students will suffer.

Not to mention the lack of jobs. There will be teacher layoffs in the riding — no question about it — when this bill is passed, under the new budgets proposed by the minister and the ministry. When those budgets are submitted, I'll make you a wager right now, Mr. Speaker, that you will see a minimum of 40 jobs lost in my riding; I think it will be more, because I'm listening to two sections. I'm listening over here to the representatives of the trustees and over here to the teachers. The teachers give me one figure and the trustees give me another. Anyway, I'll round it out by saying that a minimum of 40 teaching jobs will be lost, a number of school aides, and some maintenance people.

This point was raised very well in the House yesterday by my colleague, but because I represent a large rural riding I think this is worth repeating. When you reduce the maintenance of school buses, you are placing the lives of children who ride those buses in jeopardy. Some of my students travel as much as 32 or 33 miles by school bus each way, approximately 60 miles return, each day. If you don't have the properly serviced vehicle.... Brakes have to be checked particularly on school buses, lights working properly, all the safety devices that we are used to on school buses, the tires, the whole thing. When you know that that may not be done properly, we are taking a chance with the lives of our children. That is properly brought up under this bill, because this bill reduces those budgets. There is no question about that.

The duties and the powers of school boards are vastly curtailed under this act. The centralization, once again, of more and more power in Victoria, to the minister and the cabinet, under this bill is horrendous. I suppose the next step is to do away with school boards. Or is the minister planning to leave just enough power with the school districts to take all the political flak about the initiation of programs and for the lack of quality of education, but take all the power and their teeth, in terms of how they are going to fund these programs, away from the school trustees and school districts? I think that is wrong.

Why isn't the government honest? Why aren't they upfront in saying: "This is the way it is. We're going to take over all the duties of school districts. We'll have one school district here in Victoria in some office, maybe over in the Douglas Building. We'll run everything from Victoria." A little room off to the side of the minister's office might be a little handier. The minister is travelling so much all over the world that he could have his deputy in his office and they could hold their meetings in the minister's office.

[ Page 7242 ]

I think that the principle of this bill will be fought vigorously. In the next election the government is going to pay for the introduction of this bill, but that is another story.

The confiscation of revenues. I have a clipping here which I'll read from in a moment. The government has not been honest with the people of this province, because they put out press releases that say: "We are going to pick up 75 percent of the cost of operating each individual school district." That is simply not true and simply not correct.

What they have done in my riding — this is worth mentioning because it really affects my riding, because it is a large rural area.... School District 47, for example, has a tax base of some $270 million. Of those industrial base revenues, $223 million will now go to Victoria, leaving the local school district a pittance. They have to go begging, hat in hand, to the minister, and if they are good little trustees they just might get some money. But they might not. School District 46 has a tax base of $199 million; $83.2 million of that is to be confiscated by this government, by the Minister of Education. I've been pleading with the minister and Treasury Board now for two months for $870,000 for an addition in this growing area — the population is increasing in School District 46 — so that we can take these kids out of trailers and out of shifts at the secondary school at Sechelt. So what do I receive from the minister? A notice. He has decided to put a 120-day freeze on any further funding to that school district for that purpose. That is what I get from this government: a freeze. They have $1.1 billion for northeast coal, they can build stadiums which no one will ever use.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: From rural areas? How many people are going to come down from Ocean Falls, which you closed down? How many people are going to come down from Bella Coola or Atlin or Omineca? That member sitting over there should be up on his feet fighting for his school districts. What does he do? He laughs. He'd better join the WCC, or he won't be here in the next election.

So that's what they're going to be doing with our tax dollars that should be going to increase the quality of education.

There's one further effect of this bill. I want to quote from this article which appeared on March 24 in the Powell River News. "Under the new formula the municipalities must send half of the non-residential tax money collected to the provincial government by August 31." They didn't have the full story at that time. We didn't know until the bill came down that they would have to send all of the money. Under the old formula the municipality of Powell River collected school taxes from industries, businesses and residential property owners and then would pay the money to School District 47 in monthly instalments. Because part of the money did not have to be paid right away, the municipality would invest it to earn interest and in this way could keep local taxes down because of the injection of interest revenue. Not only does this bill affect every school district in the province; it also directly affects the revenues to the municipality — revenues that they are going to have to make up by increasing taxation. They have been taxed to death already with assessments — water assessment increases and on and on. Victoria. has continued to take moneys out of these communities without putting those moneys back, particularly in those large rural communities that most of us here represent. I notice the government members sitting there; they are not getting up to speak. They're not fighting for their school districts or their municipalities; they're fighting for their lives — or they will be in the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I have just about completed my remarks, but just for the record I did want the House to know that in my riding the cutback per pupil on the Sunshine Coast area in School District 46 will be $88, and in Powell River $73, which means that with that number of children in those two school districts there'll be a reduction in the quality of education. That's where it counts — the quality of education. So what are we going to do — have these kids dropping out of school prematurely, not taught properly perhaps? When we do need the type of technicians that this government says we require for their northeast coal project, where do we go? We go out of the country to hire these people. When they're hiring administrators to operate their various Crown corporations and what-have-you, they go out of the country. They go out of the country to get these people when we should have qualified people here. We should have qualified tradespeople here. Where do we get the tradespeople from now? They come from out of the province. We have people right now from the State of Washington doing certain technical work in the Powell River area that should have been done by people from British Columbia. I'm not opposed to people from other countries coming in, but let's employ our own people first.

Anyway, back to the bill. I have just about completed my remarks, and I just wanted to go on record as fighting for my school districts, fighting for my students and my teachers in my riding, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you so much.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this chamber has heard a lot of educational debates over the years, and since I was first elected in 1966 this chamber has seen a lot of debate on one of the most important, if not the most important, subjects that we deal with. That is the whole question of education of our young people. I was reminded, when we started this debate last Friday, of the various debates that have taken place in this chamber with the various Ministers of Education. I can think of Donald Brothers from Trail and Leslie Peterson, who defended government policy of the day in some very spirited debates. I can remember the debates on construction freezes, on the various formula changes and all of those things that we've done for — or perhaps to — education over the 16 years that I can personally think of, as far as educational policy is concerned and this House is concerned. Over all of those years the school district I represent, School District 36 in Surrey, has steadily improved over fairly huge odds — odds not always of its own making, but odds that were sometimes unforeseeable, sometimes caused by unplanned growth in areas of the lower mainland like Surrey and White Rock, burgeoning rural areas becoming urban perhaps as Burnaby did 35 years ago. In the fifties, for instance, in Surrey we had the school district blacklisted, and teachers would not go and work there. It wasn't until the late sixties or the seventies that that blacklist, that awful declaratory knock on the school district, was lifted. The ever-increasing school population and the very complicated demographics have caused additional problems in School District 36. Because there has been a lot of abuse.... This is always the way in politics, because you have to stand up and defend the authorship and legislation you're introducing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 7243 ]

Since my re-election in 1979, I have worked with the Minister of Education on a couple of pieces of emergency funding: first, on capital expenditure program 6 — I was successful with the minister, and I want to thank him for that; and just last week on more emergency funding for the South Guildford Elementary School. I know that the Minister of Education was also working for the Surrey School Board and for the pupils in Surrey to make sure that that funding was passed in order to meet the tender deadline so that dollars would not be wasted. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think the course set by the Premier and the Minister of Education on February 18, before we saw the bill, is perhaps the worst decision made in education since 1966. You may think that's exaggerating the point. I say it's the worst because it is really the most severe in terms of the centralist nature of the decision. It's the worst since 1966. The school board in Surrey, which takes in White Rock as well as the whole municipality of Surrey and Crescent Park, is seventh in the province in terms of average gross school tax. It's anticipated that we're going to be paying $575 per home this year; that's based on 1982 operating costs in excess of $3,000 per pupil, on an anticipated residential assessment of $20,019 per pupil, and on a pupil-teacher ratio of 16 to 1. That's a figure I happen to be very proud of, and one that I hope the minister is very proud of. It's a low, from one of the highest in the province since 1973. Between 1972 and 1975, as a member of the administration, I worked very diligently to get down to this good figure of 16 to 1.

The average gross tax paid in 1981 was $552; the average we expect to pay is $575. Therefore we expect an increase. People are going to say: "That's not much of an increase, compared to what some of the rural areas are going to pay." But that's only this year. I'm not sanguine about the chances of increases being kept down like that next year because of the cuts in services. Also, I don't think that the time for cuts in some of the programs is now, and I don't like the minister going about it in a senseless way. It's about to become the financial plaything of the minister. The action was well described by our lead-off speaker from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). Those effects are quite evident in Surrey.

Over the last six years we have seen a deliberate reduction in the government's share of school costs from 48 percent to 32.5 percent. You caused the problem. You caused hostility on the part of the school teachers, the school trustees and everybody in the educational industry, in the plants, and in the delivery of the service, and now with this bill you're trying to patch up the effects of your own program.

In 1974, just one year and four months after the New Democratic Party administration took office, we began a five-year program to raise the provincial share of school education costs to 75 percent. If this administration opposite hadn't killed that policy in 1976 we'd have reached the 75 percent level two years ago. We'd have reached the level they're hoping to arrive at two years ago. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, as you know because of your mail, which I'm sure is just as heavy as mine, there's been no general increase in the homeowner's grant since before the '79 general election. We wonder what happened to the money that should have been going to this program over all these years.

This bill also shows that the government's assessment law has caused chaos, created deep divisions between rural and urban districts, and produced incompetent, inaccurate individual assessments. We've seen that when I saw my own partner — I use that word loosely — the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) appealing his many properties from Langley to Victoria. It's caused those kinds of divisions between rural and urban property owners. I think there's some kind of court hearing being handed down this week on the part of one lady in Surrey who appealed the whole assessment roll in Surrey. We're also concerned that the cabinet has now got complete control over industrial and commercial land values and taxes. The sweeping powers they've given themselves in this bill would make any school district worried.

I can't think of another issue in recent times that's occasioned as many letters as this particular bill and this particular program. The school board advised me that, first of all, any program which used to cost $1 in Surrey will now cost $1.60. I don't think that's restraint. I don't think that's saving money; I think that's wasting money. All the community school system will be more expensive. The class-size decision will be lost to the centralists in Victoria. Decisions about the works yard in Surrey are going to be now made here in Victoria. Decisions on trucks and maintenance are going to be made here in Victoria. Special education is now jeopardized, as detailed by speakers on this side over and over again. School Board 36 advised me that they are going to be cancelling summer school programs. Children with learning problems will be left out. There'll be no second chance, Mr. Speaker. I think the newly arrived member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) made that the central part of his speech the other day — the second chance. What is more attractive than the idea of giving a youngster a second chance? In Surrey there'll be no second chance unless you're prepared to pay $1.60 for it as against $1 last year. Why are we doing that at this time?

Mr. Speaker, the programs for the academically gifted will be hurt as well. That's the first time that's ever happened. Fair is fair. It's not good enough to do away with the programs to assist the disabled, the slow learner, the learner that needs the second chance, but it's also fair now that we're going to have to slow down and reduce the programs for the academically gifted. I wonder if this minister really wants to be known as the minister that was responsible for doing away with the programs for the academically gifted. That's not to say, of course, that there shouldn't be some local input. We all know that. But taking away the decision-making process in this way, taking away and centralizing all these decisions in Victoria, is, of course, the natural precursor to the kind of program I'm showing. There are cutbacks in field trips, cutbacks in maintenance, as the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) outlined, and cutbacks in supplies. I'm advised by the school board that they're going to have to go now and simply reduce their inventory right down to zero, and obviously that's going to hurt in the long run. That's going to cause inefficiencies and replacing at higher and higher rates. Mr. Speaker, the mill rate's going to go down this year, I would anticipate, and the assessment's going to go up, and that means taxes are going to go up in Surrey, as I gave you in that first set of figures.

Section 12 of the bill is the thrust of the bill which gives the minister the sweeping powers. The great centralist that we've mentioned over there.... Not only do they want the sweeping powers, not only do they want the centralization of the decision-making process, but they also want to do it in secret.

Section 58 of the bill says that the Regulation Act doesn't apply. Section 58 says they won't have to tell us the amount of

[ Page 7244 ]

the base grant; they won't have to tell us when they're limiting budgets; they won't have to post these details. All of this will be done in secrecy or in the scaled envelopes that pass between the minister and his ministry and the instructions that go out to the various school districts. All of this will be done without the posting in the Gazette or the posting by orders-in-council. The Regulation Act won't apply to Bill 27. I think it's shocking that we won't know instantly what's going on in the ministry. I frankly feel that this is probably the most disconcerting aspect of the bill: that not only do they want the power in Victoria but they want to cover it up.

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is chipping in every now and again. He should know something about what's going on; after all, he was a school employee of some kind or another up in North Peace. If they are that comfortable with the bill, if they are that interested, why don't they stand up and speak in the debate? Only one of them has stood up and spoken; that's the minister of defence from Dewdney making his swan song in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, if they have anything to say, they should please stand up at their microphones and say it after I have finished.

Mr. Speaker, that explains clearly why the minister sent these threatening letters out immediately following the tabling of the bill. The bill was tabled on April 13, and on April 19 out went the letters: submit or else. What kind of style is that for this happy cooperation that the minister expects to get from the school boards? Submit or else; it sounds like a wrestling game.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the further erosion of local decision-making, the scapegoating of trustees and teachers, the jeopardizing of special and local programs are the features of this bill. Adult education, the ESL and G-section programs are all now starved. The works yard project in Surrey is threatened. Surrey-White Rock growth isn't provided for. The minister has got to start right away to separate secondary from elementary enrolment statistics; that's obviously one of the errors that's happening in his own ministry. I don't blame his ministry any more than I blame the school board in Surrey, who is probably the principal offender in that mistake.

The majority of our future wealth, success, happiness and prosperity depends on a good education program. What is the point of mortgaging the future with this unwarranted adventure into the educational needs of our children? It is an unwarranted adventure. I have notes from the conversations I've had with the trustees. We've all cut clippings and letters from people in the system. None bother me more than those I received about advanced courses that are now in jeopardy. We can't support this bill, and I trust that when this vote is called there will be people with educational philosophies and a love for education who will join with us in opposing the bill.

MR. LEGGATT: I just want to make a few brief remarks about the bill. The first question deals with the McMath formula, which the minister purported to support. As the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) so eloquently pointed out, it was a massive con on the McMath formula — and the minister, of course, knows it — to abscond with the industrial base and then claim it was built into the McMath formula. It is clearly a piece of flimflam that hasn't flown and won't fly. On that ground alone I think you can oppose this particular piece of legislation.

In the riding of Coquitlam, which I represent, the amount of confiscation is about $421 million of taxable non-residential assets which have now been absconded to the province to spend with their tender mercies in terms of the way they want the school system to run. I want to tell the business community that this is one of the most dangerous changes in education finance that we have ever seen in this province. It is dangerous not just because this happens to be a Social Credit government who may wish their own philosophy of cutbacks, for example, to prevail. They may then decide that this is a great way to fly. "We're going to cut everything to the bone and go to the three-hour program." It is dangerous for any centralization of this formula. It could be dangerous if the communists came to power in British Columbia and they held all the non-residential tax base and imposed their particular educational philosophy on the province. The key to this bill that makes it so disgusting and so bad is the centralization and the vote of non-confidence by this government, not only in every school trustee in the province of British Columbia but in the people who elected them in every community in the province of British Columbia. This bill says to those who went out and elected those school board members: "You didn't know what you were doing, you people out there. We know better than those voters who put those school trustees into office. We're going to tell them how to spend that money. We're not going to let them do anything beyond the basic program." That is an incredible position for a government that came into office claiming it was a free-enterprise government. This is centralization of the worst kind.

That restraint program — admittedly, it is for two years says that school trustees shall not, even if they want to, do anything beyond what we tell them they can do. In the district of Coquitlam we have cuts of $768,430.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of how much?

MR. LEGGATT: I don't see the total budget, but I can easily get the figure. It is probably a significant amount in terms of the total budget. The budget, I think, is probably around $40 million or $50 million but I'll have to look it up. In terms of the actual impact of the cuts and where they lie, this idea that you can find $768,000 in a budget, freely voted by the elected representatives of the people for the purposes of education, and not hurt the education program at all is sheer garbage and nonsense.

Let's look at the cuts in Coquitlam. To their great credit, the school board in our district have done their damnedest to try not to hurt the educational program; they were stuck with no alternatives. Here are some of the things that they had to cut: $225,000 off maintenance — well, that doesn't sound bad. What the heck is maintenance? A few broken windows? No, it's a school bus that loses its wheel and goes off the road and rolls over into a ditch. That's maintenance.

Here's one that's interesting: the school district in Coquitlam had to cut $196,000 which was a special program that they had for an early retirement plan for teachers. They had ten teachers ready to leave and retire under this plan. One of the most important things you can do for education is to bring young people into the educational stream and not leave them out. Young teachers have to work. Everybody's got to have a chance to do something in this world. Our people have given us an opportunity to be politicians. You over there give the teachers an opportunity to teach. You haven't done that.

Oh, we'll deal with the minister. I'm delighted that he's here. Because every one of these cuts is a direct result of the plan of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Develop-

[ Page 7245 ]

ment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to subsidize northeast coal. That minister who is smiling and laughing is the most powerful minister in that cabinet. Make no mistake. He has conned the entire cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: I trust that the hon. member is not imputing to another hon. member any improper motive.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose influence-peddling is more appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed, perhaps selecting more temperate language.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has taken.... Let's give you an example from my constituency of what northeast coal subsidy really means. They have cut $30,000 out of the travel and field trip program for our district.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many contracts in your constituency? How many people working?

MR. LEGGATT: We'll deal with that. But on this particular bill, how do you value the loss to a child of a visit to the planetarium? How do you put a value on that? How do you value the wonder in a child's eyes and the curiosity when they have an opportunity to see the rest of the world instead of just the inside of a classroom? How do you value that? Do you value that in tons of coal and subsidy? No, you don't.

You have to have a humanistic approach to the government of this province. Mr. Speaker, this government lacks any sense of humanity about operating the school system. You're looking at a cut in field trips. You're looking at voluntary early retirement programs down the tube, so young teachers have no chance to work. After all those years of training, they'll have no chance to participate in their chosen profession.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was given a chance to participate in his chosen profession. He earned his chance. He sold a lot of cars — a very successful businessman. I think he was. Wasn't he? The story hasn't been told.

AN HON. MEMBER: The cost-benefit analysis is not in yet.

MR. LEGGATT: That's right, we're looking for the cost benefit analysis. We'll see what happens if we ever get it.

My school district in Coquitlam sent a leaflet home to the parents entitled: "The Future of Your Child's Education." It said: "The provincial government has forced your school board to cut this year $768,430." Next year it will be around $3 million, I guess. That may not be the case, because it looks like next year they're going to get some relief in terms of that particular figure. If that's inaccurate, I know the school trustees in my district will be very happy to correct any misinformation. Because I see the minister looking over, and I think perhaps he could explain.

I am reading from the school board's notes. Those are the elected trustees that you have no confidence in, the people you've told can't spend their own money that they have democratically raised in their own community. You know better how to spend that money than the voters and taxpayers of my community. This is what they go on to say:

"The future. To meet the demands we are forced to cut now and for at least the next two years. These cuts will mean larger class sizes, less personal attention, more split classes, reduced program offerings, reduced library services, less help for those children with special needs, reduced maintenance of facilities and grounds and school closures."

How do you put a value on special-needs children? How many Olsons do we create by cutting back on education, cutting back on the kinds of services that encourage people to compete within the school system and contribute to society rather than try to take out of society? It is an important question. It is not something you can just shake your head at. It is this government's priorities which are under debate right now. The question is: are these cutbacks going to have an adverse effect on the future of your children and their contribution to society? We think they will. We think that, in terms of the priorities of any government, this is a program that was unnecessary, uncalled for and will harm the most defenceless members of our community — our children. They don't have a vote. They don't have a chance to....

AN HON. MEMBER: And the disabled.

MR. LEGGATT: The disabled, the halt, the lame and, yes, bright kids too — not just the disabled. Those children who have extremely high ability are now being given fewer opportunities, pulled back. Those people are very important in terms of the kind of contribution we have to have to survive as a viable society.

This is an anti-education government. It is a government which has made its choice. Children or subsidy for coal? We'll take children.

MR. LEA: I am surprised that the government doesn't have a more spirited defence of this piece of legislation, especially from the government backbenchers, some of whom have been involved with the educational system before coming into politics. It is hard to believe that in a few short months people can forget their roots, forget the communities they represent and forget the principles that at one time they said they adhered to.

Over the years there has been one sort of common thing that Social Credit hurled at this side of the floor whenever we were talking about education and what it means to society. First of all, they bluster at us and they say: "You dirty communists. You union-lovers. You bureaucrats. You centralists." But when they really run out of everything that they consider to be bad in the world they always get down to one thing, and they sort of sputter across: "You intellectuals." If there is one thing that that group of people over there think is airy-fairy, it is learning anything about history, philosophy or sociology. If something doesn't smack of putting a bumper on a car or something they would consider to be some sort of practical production item in society, then they have nothing but a sneer and the back of their hand and laughter and giggles.

I believe this piece of legislation will pass because I believe that every Social Credit member will vote for it and every New Democratic member will vote against it, and they have more members in the House than we do. That's how the system works. There won't be one Social Crediter who has the gumption to get up and vote against his or her own government. It happens with other political parties, but it

[ Page 7246 ]

doesn't happen with Social Credit. They vote as they are told and they vote like sheep. Never once in this House, in ten years, have I seen a member of Social Credit vote against his or her own party.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to touch on education generally because this bill applies to education generally. The centralization of the decision-making process, the taking away of decisions from local people.... Decisions that are going to affect local people should be made by local people, not by some bureaucrat and a minister sitting in the capital city. But it isn't only happening in the high schools, the junior high schools and the elementary schools. The Socred brand of education is also happening in the universities, where the new financial formulas being pressed on the universities by the government lead more and more to the universities becoming trade schools, as opposed to places of learning. Universities were never designed to be trade schools by the great thinkers that have gone before us. They were designed as places where citizens could go and learn about the human condition, and what our history is, so that we can better decide how we arrived at this certain stage in our civilization and what we might expect in the future.

In other words, our universities and our school systems, as much as they should teach us some of the things that we have to know practically in this society, must overridingly be there to educate us — not train us for the workplace. We need a broad education. One of the class distinctions that we have in our society, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we have adopted the attitude that people who are going to doctors, lawyers, architects or engineers must have some teachings in philosophy.and the humanities. We believe it's necessary for a rounded person in our society to have that kind of instruction and that kind of opportunity to learn. Yet, on the other hand, we don't believe that plumbers, carpenters, labourers and truck drivers need to have that same broadening educational experience.

It is one of the class structures in our society that we take certain vocations and make them elitist. We exclude others and say: "You are only going to be a plumber. There's no need for you to know about history. There's no need for you to go to university and learn about the humanities and our past and the great thinkers of yesterday and what some of the great thinkers of today are thinking, talking and writing about." There's no need for those people, just those who have chosen to become the professionals in our society, so-called

I'm sure they named themselves that.

This government is caught in between a sort of love-hate relationship with the educational system. On the one hand they are in awe of the educated person, as the Premier is of the Minister of Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer). The Premier, being a high-school dropout, is in awe of that educated person in his cabinet. At the same time, he resents him, and it's the old classic reverse snobbery situation we find in the Social Credit Party. On the one hand they are in awe of the educated and on the other hand they resent thoroughly anything to do with education.

This bill more than any other piece of legislation coming into this House shows the absolute contempt that the Social Credit Party has for the educational system. They see education as nothing more nor less than something that will train people to go out into the workforce and take their place there. They don't see the educational system as supplying the needs of individuals to become well-rounded, well-versed citizens taking their place not only in the workplace, but in debate, in thinking of the problems we have in our society, and in trying to come to some resolve about those things. They only see the workplace — forever practical and never dreamers.

If it weren't for the dreamers throughout history, where would we be today? Would we have the many fine cultural achievements that we have in our past? Would we have the art? Would we have the kind of writing from our past and from the present? Would we have what the Socreds call frills, those sorts of things that make life worthwhile in every sense — esthetically and intellectually — or will we have a bunch of trained robots carrying out those functions that are necessary? We have to have our economic life, but surely an economic life barren of all of the things that those cultural pursuits can bring us is folly. All we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look around at the beauty of this building. It's something our forefathers left us, not just economics but the building and the thought that our Legislative Assembly shall be supreme. Those are important items. A dictator and a totalitarian state have an economy, but they lack the things that make life worthwhile. This bill takes us ever and ever closer to forgetting about those things that make life worthwhile and leading us more and more into what they would call "practical education." Back to the three Rs, the core curriculum — reading, writing and arithmetic. We all understand that those things are important, but not at the expense, Mr. Speaker, of those things that make life so much more worthwhile, those things, I suppose, that we could loosely call cultural pursuits of civilization. Without those cultural pursuits, we may have an economy, but we will be barbaric in our treatment of one another in civilization. We wouldn't have a civilization.

Mr. Speaker, those are some general comments that I feel specify the difference between this side of the House and that. I hesitate, though, to think that everyone on that side of the House would fall into the framework of what I would call the Social Credit philosophy. I would hope not. I believe that there must be people on that side of the House who are absolutely opposed to what this bill is going to do. The sad thing that I see is that they haven't had the opportunity in their lifetimes to realize that by voting for their political party and for this legislation, they will damage society as a whole. I don't know how on the one hand you could hold the belief that the cultural pursuits of life are worthwhile and then vote for this bill. I only suspect that there may be enigmas on the other side of the House that are so far unexplained.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal specifically with some of the things that the minister has said either verbally or in his report of his 1980 tour. In the final report of that 1980 tour on page 8, the minister said: "I believe it's the responsibility of our society to provide adequate educational opportunities for all individuals. I believe, too, that parents are entitled to have some say in shaping the educational services provided for their children." He went on to say on page 8: "I believe that all students, no matter what their talents or special needs, are entitled to the kind of service that would enhance the development of their potential and preserve their sense of personal worth."

Mr. Speaker, is there anyone who wouldn't agree with that statement? I don't suppose you could disagree publicly and survive politically. It's a statement we could all agree with. We then have to ask ourselves why the minister would make that statement on page 8 of his report and then bring in this piece of legislation, because what this bill does is contradict the statement of the minister in his report. The bill contradicts the minister's statement in the following particulars:

[ Page 7247 ]

1. The minister concedes that the existing school system already suffers from an institutional overload, but this bill cuts services to children.
2. It effectively denies parents a say in shaping the educational services provided for their children, because it takes away the authority from the locally accountable school trustees and gives it to the minister, who is not accountable to those local voters at the school-district level.
3. It squeezes special services with special needs for children and reduces the quality of service available to them and jeopardizes the development of their potential and sense of personal growth.

So in three criticisms of this bill, which are accurate, it wipes out the very high-sounding statement of the minister. I notice that they like to do that, Mr. Speaker. They like to come out with a statement that's sort of apple pie, real Canadian, real North American, real western democratic. They come out with a statement that nobody can deny; they say that's what they are going to do, and then they do something that in fact completely contradicts the high-flown statement. I suppose you could call it a political trick. Let the buyer beware and let the voter beware. Don't just listen to what this government says; pay very careful attention to what this government does. Words are cheap. Actions and accountability for those actions are what is important.

If the citizens of this province had the time and the wherewithal to take a look at the actions of this government, not only in education but in a host of subjects, they would be a very disillusioned British Columbia citizenry. By its action this government has left this province in a deficit position in terms of the ability of children to be properly educated. When they are talking about their economic budget they say they will not a run a deficit, but they don't mind running a deficit with our children's minds and our children's futures, because they put no value on that whatsoever. They don't mind that.

Returning to the minister's report on his 1980 tour, it says on page 10:

"The first important relationship to be established for the provision of schooling is that between the province and the local school system. In general, the role of the Ministry is to set broad directions for schools, maintain quality, to establish support services of various kinds, to provide broad educational leadership throughout the province, to develop provincial curriculum, and to facilitate equality of opportunity. The role of the school board is to set local policies in accordance with both local circumstances and provincial directions, to operate schools, and to provide broad educational leadership in the district."

Since when did broad political leadership turn into a centralized dictatorship? That's what we have from this bill: absolute power over the smallest items in the school districts going to the minister through this legislation. Do you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of Orwell's Animal Farm. Every morning when the pigs got up, they changed the slogan on the side of the barn. Every morning when the other barnyard animals woke up, they'd go out into the yard and look up to see that the slogan had changed ever so slightly, as the pigs ran wild in the main house. That's what we have here. It's like an excerpt from Animal Farm. Every day the Social Credit government says something just a little bit different; they change the slogan just a little bit. "That's the B.C. spirit." Pretty soon we're probably going to see "That's the B.C. spirits" because I hear they're making funny little deals with the broadcast industry. I guess we'll see that too before election time, oh, Mr. Minister? We'll see that kind of advertising before we're finished. I'll bet it comes in before the election.

In Orwell's Animal Farm, when the pigs got into the house and took over....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I think some got into this House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Minister, this is no time for a true confession. By the minister's own admission, the pigs are in the House, if we may use the analogy.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they took over.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: There's a minister who can't remember where he mislaid 132 acres. Now he comes in here and has something to say? It just disappeared. Is the minister an indication of what's going to happen in this province out of this bill...? This bill is going to produce a whole generation of Socred illiterates, and only a Socred illiterate could mislay 132 acres. Another minister comes into the House and says he can't remember writing a letter only a few days ago about 132 acres of land. Boy, we need an educational system that will teach the three Rs okay so that those ministers over there can find out how many days out of a year it is that they mislay 132 acres of prime agricultural land.

Interjections.

(Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. To the principle of Bill 27.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: Other than the broad philosophical differences in terms of education that separate these two parties, I suppose there isn't very much you can say about this bill, because this piece of legislation does take the Social Credit government towards the goal they have set out for themselves philosophically.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS; What about Saskatchewan?

MR. LEA: What does the minister mean? Is that the minister's response to the charge that this bill is bad from an educational point of view? "What about Saskatchewan?" They lost 132 acres yesterday. Now have they lost the province of Saskatchewan?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You lost it.

MR. LEA: We didn't lose it. Only time will tell whether the people of Saskatchewan have lost their province.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, we are. We are going to take them into your riding, Mr. Speaker. We'd never go into your riding, Mr. Speaker. It is too Socred. We're not completely stupid.

[ Page 7248 ]

Other than the broad differences between educational philosophies, where we believe that you must turn a well-rounded individual out of the school system, who is trained not only to take his place in the economic world we live in but also to play the cultural role that we must have in order to be civilized, there isn't very much you can say. This bill takes the Social Credit exactly where they want to go: away from anything that may smack of anything to do with anything they would call frills, like learning about history. They say: "Oh, willy-frilly stuff. Do you have to know that?" Do you know what it reminds me of?

One time I was at a ministers' meeting. We were talking about whether or not we were going to build a road. What should we do? Should we have some sort of multi-discipline team surrounding the studies so we could take a look and see exactly what would happen to the people at the other end once the road was built? Should we take a look at it and see how they are going to be affected economically and socially so we could decide better whether we should build the road? The conservative minister who was sitting in at the meeting said: "Oh, you airy-fairy socialists. I will tell you what will happen. Build the road. People will go in, people will come out. Goods will come in, goods will go out."

That pretty well sums up the Socreds and their whole feeling about anything that means anything in terms of social values. They are bereft of social values. They judge everything by a buck. They think a dollar is everything. They don't understand that behind every dollar is not only the produce of wealth but also what that dollar represents in this country and this province from a social point of view. Without the kind of educational process that will give us well-rounded citizens, we are going to be a very barren society that may be producing jobs but very little else — without anything to go around it, without anything to aid us in our thinking process, without anything to aid us in the humanities of this life. This is what Social Credit is all about. They've said over and over again in this Legislature that anything to do with education, thinking, history, philosophy or sociology is nothing but an airy-fairy bunch of nonsense. And they really believe it. If you want proof, just listen to what they say when they speak and listen to what they don't say.

I think it is important that we've noticed they're saying very little about this piece of legislation. First of all, they don't know how to defend it other than to come out and say what they really feel. They realize that, as much as they believe that everything cultural is a bunch of airy-fairy nonsense, there are a lot of people out there who disagree with them. They don't know how to defend this bill without showing themselves up for the kind of.... Well, what are they? Do you know what they are? They're not bad people; they're just completely out of date.

When I look across there at a bill like this and at them, I say: "My God, we're looking at a mentality that in most places in the world has gone out of date a long time ago." No Conservative government, no Liberal government and no Social Credit government worth anything would ever bring in this piece of legislation. They aren't Social Credit, they aren't Liberal, and they aren't Conservative; they're a hodgepodge of yesteryear. The worst thing about them is that they honestly believe that we should cling to the values of yesteryear without examining them to see whether they're worth while clinging to, holding on to those that are worthwhile and discarding ones that are out of date. They just hang on to any value from yesteryear. And it doesn't seem to matter, Mr. Speaker, how chronologically old they are.

MR. LAUK: Would you withdraw the world "honestly"?

MR. LEA: Yes, I withdraw the word "honestly, " because I don't think that, out of that hodgepodge of yesteryear, you can get anything close to fitting around the word "honest." They just are not........

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Any reference to dishonesty attributed to any member of this House is unacceptable.

MR. LEA: I didn't say "dishonest." I don't think they steal things. The only thing they do, Mr. Speaker, is purloin the chance of our children, through bills like this, to receive a well-rounded education.

We could stand here and talk all day, but we're not going to get it through their heads — I know that — because they honestly believe that anything to do with all of the things that I've mentioned is nothing but airy-fairy nonsense. They are living in the past. They tie their ties like they did 40 years ago. Look at that. Nobody's seen a knot like that in 40 years. Their heads are just as knotted, Mr. Speaker, 40 years later, and they are just not living in 1982. They are behind the times. Their ties are knotted 40 years ago; their heads are knotted 40 years ago; their legislation is knotted 40 years ago. They are a government of yesterday, and in no way, as long as we talk, will we ever bring them up to the present. I couldn't more wholeheartedly oppose a bill than this one, because this bill is a bill that cuts off the future for our children and, therefore, society generally. Mr. Speaker, I oppose it.

MR. LEVI: Where is the minister? I wonder if we could get the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) to look under the desk. Is he under the desk there? I can't find him.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off with a quote from the minister's very elegant-looking book here, entitled "Education — A Report from the Minister" In the introduction, he says:

"At both the professional and public forums that I conducted, I was impressed with the dedication and sincerity of the members of the educational community who presented superb and thoughtful briefs. I will always be indebted to teachers for their openness and for the creativity they displayed in their presentations. Also, I'd like to commend the administrators and trustees who made strong and positive contributions. Finally, I am grateful to parents and members of the public who cared enough about the education system to make their views known."

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I want to draw to Your Honour's attention that during the course of the previous speaker's comments and now during the course of this speaker who now has the floor, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) is abdicating his responsibility by denying the House his presence. I fail to see how the House can continue to make points about this particular legislation when the Minister of Education hasn't got the decency to come and listen.

[ Page 7249 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair has listened to the point of order, and the Chair is powerless to compel a member to attend the House. It is the responsibility of each member to attend.

MR. HOWARD: On a further point of order, to get the point clear in my own mind, Mr. Speaker, I take it that your ruling is that the minister can completely abandon his responsibilities and that there's no requirement for him to be here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I'm ruling that there is no point of order from the hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Then I'll interpret it that the minister can absent himself and pay no attention whatever to the debate. That's arrogance of the worst nature, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair can only uphold the rules that this House has before it.

MR. LAUK: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? The ayes have it.

MS. BROWN: Division!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, now that the result has been accomplished of getting the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) in the House, I wonder if, with the unanimous consent of the House, we could waive the actual division itself.

Leave not granted.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 21

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 8. I would ask that Mr. Speaker caution the minister who is responsible for guiding a bill through the Legislature that he should attend in the House. I recognize that the minister has been absent, that some people can have demands....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we have just had a ruling on that very issue.

MR. LAUK: No, we did not, Mr. Speaker, with respect. You ruled that you cannot compel the attendance of any member in the House. This is a different point that I am raising under standing orders. When a minister is in charge of a bill, he can be occasionally absent from the House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, as all hon. members must realize, attendance in the precincts is also attendance in the House. Therefore, hon. member, the question that the member is now raising is one which has just been referred to this House for a decision. That decision stands, and the member now is clearly not on a valid point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I don't think you quite understand what I'm trying to get at.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, quite seriously, I'm trying to make the point here — and I don't think that I should be cut off every two seconds — that the minister has not attended in this House for 10 percent of the time that this bill has been debated. It's an absolute scandal that he cannot sit in this chamber. He does nothing in his own office; I don't know why he can't be here.

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are returning now to debate on Bill 27. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has the floor.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, before the division I was referring to the minister's report — this beautiful, elegant, green book in which he took some pains in the introduction to thank both the professionals and the public for contributing to the hearings that he attended. He went on to say: "While travelling the province on this tour, which was both an exhilarating and exhausting experience, I concluded that it should not be a one-time venture." That was his conclusion in the introduction, but on the basis of the bill that we're dealing with, I hope to God that it is only a one-time venture. I don't want that man to go out there again, do what he did, come back and produce the bill that he's produced now: a bill he refers to as the Education (Interim) Finance Act. One of my constituents — a teacher — refers to it as the education restraint act. I want to say that when the minister closes the debate I would defy him to get on his feet and tell us which individuals in this province are supporting what he does. Can he identify one school board that is supporting what he is proposing in this bill? In a press release that his department put out on March 11, in which he is talking about a new school finance

[ Page 7250 ]

system — this was presumably before the bill was drafted — he says on page 2, in what one can only characterize as a completely totalitarian statement: "The government will assume the entire responsibility for and control over the nonresidential — that is, industrial and commercial — tax base throughout the province, and we will begin a phase-in of a "common provincewide mill rate on non-residential property."

If this had been brought out eight or nine years ago by another administration, the freedom fighters would have been jumping up and down in this province for months. The very essence of the financing of the school system and parts of the local taxation process have been completely confiscated by the government. Yet the minister, in all his travels — the seven or eight months he went around — is only able to come up with this answer to all the suggestions that were made to him. I know the minister had a great number of concerns expressed to him. They are not reflected in this particular bill that he has put before the House.

I want to read into the record a letter I received from a constituent of mine, a teacher, in which he lays out the two negative aspects of this bill, one from the point of view of students and the other from the point of view of teachers. Those two are inseparable. Here is a man who has been teaching in this province for over 35 years and has gone through a series of shake-ups that have characterized the....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'll let the minister see the letter, but I don't want to read the man's name. I'll certainly make it available to him.

The important thing is that if we were to see the education system of this province in a pictorial way, it's like a great highway — a highway to knowledge. But if we were to look closely at the wreckage by the side of that highway, we would be looking at the destruction of endless numbers of finance formulas — the endless numbers of children who have suffered because of a system that is constantly being amended and messed about with. How can the minister, in all sanity, bring in a bill like this? He knows that this province has the lowest rate of entry into universities from high schools of any province in this country: a major concern to the universities, and certainly a major concern to the parents who are helping their children plan for their future education. Yet in the midst of this very serious problem, where young people are simply not going into post-secondary education at the same rate as in other provinces.... How can the minister come in — because he has no concern in his department with the university system — and proceed to tinker with an already delicate system of public education? Every school board in this province and the School Trustees Association have expressed their concern, their anger, yet we've not had one member over there get up and represent the views of the school boards in the districts which they come from. They couldn't do that and speak for the bill, so they sit silently by.

Let me tell the minister what this teacher has to say. He's talking about the impact on the Coquitlam, school system. My colleague the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who shares the same school board as I do, covered a number of points in terms of the cutback.

Before dealing with the teacher's letter I want to deal with what the school board said on March 24. If ever there was a condemnation of a decision made by a minister.... He is very much a foil of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and in no way has the kind of autonomy that we require of a Minister of Education. In their press release on March 24 the school district in Coquitlam said:

"The school board has agreed to join the Coquitlam teachers' association in opposing the provincial government's restraint program as it applies to education in the school district. The board and the teachers will sign a joint letter which will state that the proposed cuts ...."

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the Minister of Education is just blatantly walking out the door and leaving this debate again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Doesn't he have any respect for this House at all?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HOWARD: I submit that the Minister of Education....

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair has already ruled on that matter. That is not a point of order, and a member interrupting another member in debate is most unparliamentary.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: This place is becoming a zoo.

That's better. Isn't it quiet? You could hear a pin drop. Just the brains squeaking, that's all.

Let's go back to this letter I was quoting from:

"The board and the teachers will sign a joint letter which will state that the proposed cuts are an insult to local boards that deliberated over programs, learning and staffing needs, adopting responsible budgets. The government's concern about the economy is understandable, but the attempt to deal with the concern in this manner is questionable.

"While it is difficult to measure the immediate educational impact of the reduction in funding, it is obvious that the removal of financial support for services that have been allocated to improve the quality of education for students will have a negative effect on that quality."

That is what is being said in this debate by every person who has spoken on this side. The effect of it has been to drive the minister out of the House, because he's not prepared to face the consequences of what he has done in terms of this legislation.

This letter is representative of all the school boards. It goes on to say:

"Aside from the effect of this program in financial terms, there is a consideration of staff morale and staff productivity in future planning and effective ongoing

[ Page 7251 ]

operations of the school district, which has already been negatively affected. Education is an investment in a better quality of life for people. Reductions in this area will only contribute to economic and social problems in the future, sooner for the adult learner and later for the children."

In all that observation, which is characteristic....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Of course the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is one of the negative effects of post-secondary education, but we can't use him as an example; we have to use the young people who are going through our schools.

The important thing stressed by the schools, the teachers, the school boards and the parents is the future cost of failing to do today what is going to be so costly in the future. Nobody over there, other than the minister, got up to defend the bill. He's all alone over there. All of them are politicians, and they realize that to get up and make statements against their school boards.... He's got to get one of them up, even if it's the little member from the Kootenays, to tell us exactly how he feels about this bill.

Let's deal with what a school teacher says are the effects of these kinds of restraints. He says: "In 1981 we negotiated an early retirement plan with the board. It was off to a good start, and it may be finished just as quickly. In time, over a five-year period, this plan will do several things." This was an agreed program between the school board and the teachers. It gives long-time teachers the opportunity to retire early with a bonus and with dignity. In case any of the people over there somehow think that because it's popular in many ways to denigrate teachers — and it is; we get a great deal of teacher-bashing in this province — the answer has to be to go into the classroom and watch a teacher handle 30 to 40 students every day for five days a week. Go into the schools now and after this bill has been passed, when the number of children they deal with is more difficult. With the elimination of special teachers and special classes, it will be even more difficult. Because the teachers, along with other people, will have the arduous task of dealing with large numbers of human beings — in this case, children — it's important that they are able to negotiate this kind of arrangement with their school board.

He goes on to say: "It makes the teachers' salaries less for the taxpayers to pay on their municipal taxes." He's talking about an earlier retirement. There are many people who need to retire at a younger age because of the arduous task that teaching is.

He says it creates employment. He goes on to say: "It improves the quality of education. Surely if we can afford megaprojects, we can afford to start up funding to keep the tax-saving measure in operation." That's from the teachers' point of view in terms of what the effect can be on some of the teachers.

Let's look at what the school board has to consider in order to meet the demands of the government. They're going to have less curriculum development — and that's been a great topic of discussion by this minister and the previous minister in terms of what to do with curriculum. Less outdoor education — that's the whole problem of field trips. Less safety for children has been talked about here already. Fewer library books than planned for, and that is an ongoing problem not just in the school system but also what comes under the Provincial Secretary in terms of the general library system. There will be more children per class, not fewer, so it means less attention per child. There will be older teachers, and there will be the problem of the generation gap, as he says here. There will be fewer field trips, further reduction of outdoor education, and less cleanliness and sanitation in schools.

When we look at the financial implications of what the minister is trying to do, multiplied over all the school districts, the accumulated effect is a reduction in the value and effectiveness of the system. Here we are, down to health, sanitation and the general functioning of the system. He goes on to say there is less consideration for handicapped children. There is still less cleanliness and sanitation in the schools, and this last point means that if a custodian isn't there, no one will be there on the first day. He goes on to say: "I know you'll find the last point hard to believe, but I am passing all of them on to you for whatever they're worth."

Here is a man who has taught, like many other people in the school system, over 35 years. He's seen many changes in the system, and here he is, going toward the end of his career and looking at what has to be considered the most retrograde type of legislation. We've had it not only this year but the year before and two years ago. In fact, it's been a keystone in the policy of the government. We had it when the previous Minister of Education was there, when we used to say that he was an elitist; that somehow his eyes were always on the universities and the post-secondary area.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the upshot of the policies that that government has introduced is that we have the lowest number of students going from high school to university in the whole of this country. That is the end result of the kind of elitism that the previous minister was responsible for and that this minister is now making even worse. That is the end result of that kind of program. It is only going to make things worse.

What has happened already? We have massive cutbacks in the college system, the system that was intended to provide education for those people of younger age who weren't able in the initial stages, academically, to make it into university. So they had the stepping-stone, the colleges. Look at the colleges now. Look at the cutbacks. This is not the minister responsible for that, but he is part of that decision-making body. So he is doing exactly the same thing that has been done to the college system and to the universities. Now they are moving against the public school system in a very heavy-handed way. We have a minister who is going to make all the decisions. As my colleague, our critic, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who tried for some two days that he was in this House debating this bill — sometimes when only two or three of the government were sitting there....

He was here and he was making an attempt to force his opinions across there and in the press. It was difficult. I found it incredible that a man could make the kind of speech he made last Friday and not get any recognition whatsoever from the media on the most important question we are debating now, next to the employment question. That is the key thing. What is going on out there? Is this not the most important issue? Yet the people are not told what is going on here, what is happening in terms of this debate. We want to make sure that all the arguments from every member, representing the opinions of the school boards in their constituen-

[ Page 7252 ]

cies are heard. After all, that is the job we are required to do. We are required to reflect the opinions of the people who elect us — not only the people who elect us here but also the people in the riding who have major concerns in terms of the education system. It is no credit, frankly, to the media that this is not being transmitted to the people out there.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We are embarking on a debate which is the most serious, question we are going to be dealing with right now, and we have yet to hear from the people across the way. They are not prepared to participate in the debate. They sanction it and eventually they will get up and vote for it, and then they'll go back to their ridings and find all sorts of rationales for explaining why they weren't able to defend the bill. That is the key question. If they think this is such a great bill, they're going to have to get up and tell us where we're wrong when we say they are destroying the education system and ruining the future of literally thousands of children in our province, and no concern is expressed over there.

There's a great difference between the philosophical beliefs of the people on this side and the people on that side. We do not see the education system as a profit-or-loss system in terms of dollars and cents, but rather in terms of the outcome at the end. We have to have a system that produces opportunities for children, regardless of what category of children we're dealing with. Whether we're dealing with the children that are not handicapped or the special children, everyone has to have an opportunity. That means a major expenditure of money. We have made the comparison. Priorities on this side are always with people. The priorities on that side are either blacktop or coal.

Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to vote against this legislation. This legislation comes down in the crass general tradition of that party which has been in this province since 1952 and has been in power all but three years of that time. We have seen it before. The highway of education I referred to is full of the wreckage and the damage that they have done, and all they are going to be doing is adding to that wreckage. My colleagues and I can see no possible way in which anyone could support a bill like this, particularly in these times.

Mr. Howard moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: On Friday last, during the debate on second reading of Bill 27, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) sought and obtained the floor on a matter of privilege. The hon. member for Nelson-Creston, who has made a study of the rules of procedure over the years, will undoubtedly be aware that a difference of opinion between two hon. members relating to the interpretation of a statutory enactment does not constitute a proper foundation for a matter of privilege.

All hon. members are given full opportunity during debate for putting forward to this House their views of the effect of any bill or motion which views may vary considerably. In order to constitute a breach of privilege, the hon. member must demonstrate that a member's words or actions are, prima facie, a deliberate attempt to mislead the House.

In this regard, I refer the hon. members to May's Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edition, page 138. Precedents involving in accusation of members misleading the House are numerous. I refer the hon. members to a decision of this House recorded in the Journals of June 11, 1975, and a further decision in the Saskatchewan Journals of March 25, 1976. The Speaker in both cases declined to find a prima facie case of privilege. It is a serious matter for one hon. member of this House to charge another hon. member with deliberately misleading the House.

The bill in question is presently before the House for debate, and it seems to the Chair that members may place distinctly different interpretations on the effect of this and other enactments. But to suggest that one member's interpretation is a deliberate attempt to mislead the House when such interpretation differs from another hon. member's is to extend the law of privilege far beyond its parliamentary meaning. On these facts, I am unable to find a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

A further problem arises in relation to the proper time to bring a matter of privilege to the Chair's attention. In this instance, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston interrupted the debate on the second reading of Bill 27, which interruption would have been in order had the matter of privilege been an urgent one requiring the immediate intervention of the House — see May's eighteenth edition, page 341. As the motion tendered by the hon. members simply called for a referral of the matter to a Special Committee of Privileges, it seems the nature of the alleged breach of privilege was not of sufficient urgency to justify interruption of the debate, and the matter could have been raised within the first-opportunity rule, after the member speaking had concluded his remarks and before the next order of business had been entered upon.

In short, our standing order 26 is to be read bearing in mind the guidelines contained in May's Parliamentary Practice. It is only in extraordinary circumstances that the debate should be interrupted on a point of privilege, and it is the Chair's opinion that such extraordinary circumstances did not exist in the present case.

MR. NICOLSON: On a new point of order, May's Parliamentary Practice also cites the case where the Speech from the Throne....

MR. SPEAKER: This sounds like a debate.

MR. NICOLSON: On urgency. Mr. Speaker, in terms of a question, I accept your ruling, but I do point out that I led myself to believe that urgency was of the utmost importance. Keeping in mind the well-known citation in Erskine May, which pointed out that the King was kept waiting on the throne speech while a matter was brought up at the first opportunity.... When one stresses the matter of urgency in such a manner.... I did this out of no disrespect to the Chair, but guided by that precedent.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.