[ Page 7291 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Municipal tax arrears. Mr. Nicolson –– 7291

Therapeutic abortions. Mr. Cocke –– 7291

Hospital bed closures. Mr. Barber –– 7291

Exclusion of Prince George land from ALR. Mrs. Wallace –– 7292

WCB coverage for farmworkers. Ms. Sanford –– 7293

WCB coverage for domestic workers. Ms. Brown –– 7293

Public release of studies commissioned by government. Mrs. Dailly –– 7293

Education (Interim) Finance Act (Bill 27). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On section 1 –– 7293

Mr. Lauk

On section 2 –– 7293

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Sanford

Division

On section 4 –– 7295

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Howard

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

On section 5 –– 7297

Mrs. Wallace

On section 6 –– 7297

Mrs. Wallace

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

On section 9 –– 7300

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Lauk

On section 12 –– 7300

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Division

On section 20 –– 7303

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

Division

On section 58 — 7307

Mr. Lauk

Division

On the amendment to third reading motion –– 7308

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

Division

Third reading –– 7309

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Mr. Lockstead –– 7309

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: This morning I was pleased to greet some students from Prince of Wales School in Vancouver. With them were some exchange students from the province of Quebec. Some of these students are in the gallery and others are in the precincts. I would like the Legislature to offer them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Seated somewhere in the galleries are my niece, Brenda Field from Edmonton, Alberta, and her friend Kate Grundy, and I think my wife Jeanne. You'd better welcome them.

MR. GABELMANN: For the second day in a row students from North Island are in the galleries in Victoria; today it is a group from North Island Senior Secondary in Port McNeill. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery or in the precincts are members of the Federation of Agriculture executive. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: In the visitors' gallery today are two keenly interested young visitors from the province of Ontario — my son Rick and his new wife Karen. I hope the members will be at their scintillating best and in model mood and behaviour this afternoon.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, once again we have Hope in the gallery. I would ask the House to please welcome a group of students from the Hope Secondary School.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on numerous occasions has made reference in this House to standing order 8. Only a few days ago he raised the question again and was concerned because there weren't enough members listening to him in the House. Standing order 8 says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House." On each occasion that that has been raised you have responded that if the member is within the precincts of the chamber he's deemed to be attending the House. I wonder if when Bill King, Lorne Nicolson, Jim Lorimer and Gordon Hanson were on Cedar Hill Golf Course that was considered to be within the precincts of the House.

There are just two other very brief questions about standing order 8. I am wondering if you could answer whether being on the Cedar Hill Golf Course is legislation by recreation, and whether the NDP's slogan, "Let's get to work," means golfing out at Cedar Hill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I observe for the review of all hon. members that standing order 8 is deemed to be in effect and deemed to be satisfied if members are present in the precinct. My second observation is that if we refer to members of this House it would be best to refer to them by their constituency designation. Thirdly, may I remind the minister that any complaint laid against any member of this House must be made by substantive motion. The order paper is, of course, available to every member. I think that ends the matter.

Interjections.

MR. KING: On a point of order, an allegation has been made, and I have a right under the rules of the House to correct an allegation and misinformation that has been put before the House. Mr. Speaker, it is not true that the members named were on the golf course before 6 p.m. I would suggest that perhaps the minister and his informant might be prime candidates to act as campaign manager for the member for North Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: The appropriate time for debate on any complaint would be when the motion, which is on the order paper, is called.

Oral Questions

MUNICIPAL TAX ARREARS

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week the minister spent considerable time in question period explaining that deadbeats who take advantage of the McCarthy loophole and refuse to pay the municipal taxes are not criminals. Is the minister aware that three companies owned by Raymond B. McCarthy have been in arrears for two years for the sum of $18,163 to the town of Creston?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker.

THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. The medical executive of the Victoria General Hospital are asking you to intervene in the current dispute between the doctors and the hospital board. The medical executive wish to comply with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, yet the hospital board voted last night to eliminate the therapeutic abortion committee. Can the minister advise whether he has decided to put the Victoria General Hospital under trusteeship as his predecessor did during a similar dispute at the Vancouver General Hospital in August 1978?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I haven't received any communication as yet from the Victoria General Hospital, either from the medical staff or the board. At least, if I have, it hasn't been brought to my attention, although I anticipated it after hearing news reports last evening. To answer the member's question, I have not made such a decision at this time, and what action may be necessary would depend largely on what the request may be from either the medical board or the board itself, and I await that communication.

HOSPITAL BED CLOSURES

MR. BARBER: Also to the Minister of Health, in this case regarding cutbacks in hospital care, the board of directors of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, the second-largest hospital in British Columbia, is meeting tonight to discuss proposed hospital bed closures. I ask the minister whether or not he is aware of a senior staff proposal to be presented to the board tonight that would see this 966-bed hospital shut down all together, effective as soon as possible, 181 of those 996 beds. Is he aware of this staff proposal going to the board tonight?

[ Page 7292 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I'm not aware of any such proposal at this time. Such a proposal, if one exists, has not been brought to my attention and I don't know whether it's been communicated to anyone in the ministry.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to look into this matter and advise us whether or not it is the case that senior staff propose to shut down 39 beds in the Bay Pavilion; seven beds in Centre Block 2; 85 beds at the Eric Martin Pavilion; seven beds in the Hospice program, which, by the way, would shut down that program totally; 81 beds in the Richmond Pavilion; and ten beds in the Homer wing of the Memorial Pavilion. I wonder if he could inquire to find out whether or not this is the proposal, in detail, to shut down a total of 181 beds at the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind all hon. members that in framing questions it would be wise to remember that the purpose of question period is to seek information and not to bring information to the House.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a question there nonetheless. The Ministry of Health, in advising all hospitals of their budget figures this year, asked each hospital board or each administrator to respond as to their intent. I don't know whether that information has been communicated to the ministry yet. If the Royal Jubilee Hospital board is meeting tonight, then perhaps the information has yet to be sent to the ministry. I would be pleased to respond to the member's question as the information becomes available.

MR. BARBER: The minister has indicated several times that Socred budget cuts will not result in the closure of hospital beds. I wonder if he's prepared to give that commitment prior to this evening's meeting of the board of directors of Royal Jubilee Hospital, in order that they will not be required to shut down even one of the 181 beds otherwise to be closed?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is whether the commitment has been made, it's in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if the member is using information or providing his own material. The closure of beds is a common occurrence at most hospitals in the province, and I would be pleased to give that member the information as to how many beds have been closed last year, the year before and the year previous to that for various reasons. I'm not familiar with the statement that not one hospital bed would be closed in British Columbia. I would be pleased to see a copy of such a statement, Mr. Member.

MR. BARBER: Do you deny making that promise?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If you'd like to offer me a copy of that statement, I'd appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No debate.

EXCLUSION OF PRINCE
GEORGE LAND FROM ALR

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the minister confirm that the Prince George district horticulturist and the field-crop specialists who found that the Moffat property is equal to the best arable land in the central interior have been sent a ministerial directive ordering them to refrain from making public statements?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have not made any such directive.

MRS. WALLACE: To be very clear, Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling the House that his ministry has not sent a directive to employees within his ministry, including the two mentioned, that would forbid them from making public statements?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is a different question.

MS. BROWN: No, it's the same one.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if it's the same one, it's not in order.

MRS. WALLACE: In spite of my colleague, it was a different question. I'm asking the minister whether or not his ministry has sent a directive to his employees, including the two I mentioned, instructing them to refrain from making public statements.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker,

MRS. WALLACE: The mayor of Prince George has stated that the Moffat property was not needed for urban development. Has the minister now decided to recommend to cabinet not to accept the recommendation of ELUC and not to issue an order-in-council approving the release of this property from the agricultural land reserve?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: has the minister decided? It is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to recall the question. It was rather confusing. In regard to any comments about the mayor of Prince George, that is a comment that he has made, and I can't answer as to whether or not it is factual or accurate. Maybe the member would like to rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. I was confused by the previous question she asked, and I want to make sure I get this one right.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that the member can rephrase the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MRS. WALLACE: If the minister is confused by the first question, I'm certainly confused by his answer, and we'll be looking at that later.

Has he now decided, as a result of the statements of the mayor of Prince George and for other reasons, to recommend to cabinet not to accept ELUC's recommendation and not to pass the order-in-council taking the Moffat property out of the reserve?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter was dealt with as an appeal of a decision of the Agricultural Land Commission. It was put forward to the Environment and Land Use Committee and was a decision of that committee. It does not require

[ Page 7293 ]

an order-in-council to deal with that issue. I might mention, though, for the member's benefit and for the benefit of the House, that I am in possession of a resolution by the municipal council of Prince George that supported the exclusion of the land in question.

WCB COVERAGE FOR FARMWORKERS

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last June when I asked the minister about the matter of WCB coverage for farmworkers, the minister said that the matter had been under review in his ministry for eight weeks and he implied that a decision was at hand. I'm wondering if the minister can advise the House why he has decided to delay implementation of WCB coverage for farmworkers for yet another year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't recall the expressions of the member for Comox, but I would like to advise the House that the matter of implementing coverage in the area referred to is subject to the decision of the chairman and commissioners of the Workers' Compensation Board. I think the member is well aware of a recent announcement concerning potential coverage for farmworkers. This is a subject of a task force and also an invitation to a number of people who are interested in this particular area of coverage to make a contribution to what the ultimate decision will be — whether it be in the form of regulations, assessments, etc. It's well in hand.

WCB COVERAGE FOR DOMESTIC WORKERS

MS. BROWN: On the same question, I'm hoping to get a clearer answer from the minister than the last one, because he's now had a few minutes to get his thoughts together. Since the struggle to be covered by the Workers' Compensation Board is one that not only the farmworkers but the domestic workers have been involved in for some time, can the minister tell me why, in making the promise, which he cannot now recall, he did not include that he would work for the coverage of domestic workers by the Worker's Compensation Board as well?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: The Premier has indicated that that question was argumentative, so I'm going to try to put it in a less argumentative way. Can the Minister of Labour explain why, out of the goodness of his heart, he did not include the overworked, underpaid, exploited members of the domestic workers community when he was promising coverage by the Workers' Compensation Board for farmworkers?

MR. SPEAKER: The nature of the question could lead to quite a lengthy answer and perhaps even some debate.

MS. BROWN: All he has to say is that he doesn't care about the domestic workers. That's the reason they're not covered.

PUBLIC RELEASE OF STUDIES
COMMISSIONED BY GOVERNMENT

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General believe that materials containing proposals or recommendations for cabinet or investigations and studies commissioned by the government — for example, the horse-racing study — should never be released to the public?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that the question is probably out of order in the sense that it asks for a legal opinion, but I would say that it would depend upon the circumstances of the particular report.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Section 1 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It greatly helps in the passage of these particular sections if, when the number is called, the member wishing to speak would rise in his place at the appropriate time before the particular section is passed. In view of the fact that there was considerable noise, etc., I recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre on section 1.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't quite hear the sections as they were being called because there was general movement in the chamber. I thank the committee's indulgence in allowing me to return to the clause.

With respect to the whole of Bill 27, the opposition is of the view that in committee, because most parts of this bill covered in second reading are so offensive and designed to attack the education system as a whole.... Although we had prepared amendments to each and every section, we will not propose them. The reason we won't propose them either on section 1 or on any other section is that no matter which way we look to try to repair this bill and make it at least partly reasonable, we find ourselves in an impossible situation. That does not in any way mean that we will not make one or two comments on each section as it arises — with respect to Section I and all other sections of the bill.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LAUK: Section 2 provides for payment of various grants, but contains nothing by way of commitment that the grants will be in line with stated government policy. Stated government policy is, at the very least, a 60 percent total provincial contribution to an as yet unannounced basic program. The original press release and statement of the minister indicated a commitment that the provincial government

[ Page 7294 ]

would make a 75 percent contribution to district costs. That is nowhere in section 2. This, in point of fact, is a clear confession of guilt on the part of the government that their original statements may not be the policy from day to day or from time to time, as the government may see fit. The absence of such a provision in section 2, or anywhere in the bill, is a clear indication that the government's credibility is at stake. It provides for various grants but does not enshrine in the legislation the commitments made by the government when first announcing the bill. We therefore are going to specifically oppose section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one of the complaints we hear continually with respect to the way the Education ministry handles school districts concerns the time they get the grants: always late; always borrowing money. The ministry has indicated by this bill that they're going to work in an inappropriate fashion in the future. Has the minister anything to say about the way he and his ministry have handled the school districts in the past?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm advised that the grants have not been late. If the hon. member will look at section 4, which we'll be dealing with shortly, I think he'll see provision to make not only regular payments, but additional payment twice a month instead of once a month. I think that's an improvement and not a retrograde step.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I raised the matter of special grants as they apply to DND students. The minister has brought in this legislation without altering the federal-provincial agreement that relates to the funding of students who are the sons and daughters of people living on Department of National Defence property. This change in the formula could well mean that School District 71 will, in fact, face quite a reduction in the amount of money that the province makes available to those students. That money, of course, comes from the federal government through that federal-provincial agreement.

I want to know if I can assure School District 71 that the province, whether or not that agreement is renegotiated, will provide the nearly $1,400 per pupil that the school district has been receiving under that federal-provincial agreement. Or will the province in fact be subsidizing Prime Minister Trudeau's government, because if the agreement is not renegotiated, that's what it's going to mean? It's going to mean that either the school district is going to face less income, or the province is going to face less income, thus subsidizing the federal government.

 HON. MR. SMITH: I don't really think that arises under section 2, but I can tell the member that the agreement does not need to be renegotiated. The moneys will still be paid and will be shared between the province and the board in relation to what the shareable percentages are between the province and the board. It may mean that fewer actual dollars will flow to the board as a result of the existing agreement, but that the province will be paying, if that is the case, additional provincial revenue to that board. The money was always received in the past on a shareable basis, and will be in the future; that's a matter I'd be quite happy to take up with her outside this chamber when we have some actual figures. But there is no intention to renegotiate the agreement or to further subsidize any federal operation.

MS. SANFORD: The only way that the same amount of money can be coming to the province, and through the province to the school district, is to renegotiate that agreement. The agreement is based on the amount of money that's raised locally, through the local tax, and that's all been changed in this bill. The commercial and the industrial tax will no longer be raised locally; it will be collected by the province directly. The local amount of tax is divided by the number of students in the province to come up with that formula. That formula then is relayed to Ottawa, or at least the number of students who are affected by this is relayed to Ottawa and Ottawa pays nearly $1,400 per pupil directly to the province. That money is then transferred directly to the districts involved.

School District 71 is affected because it has a large number of DND students. Other constituencies are affected, such as Esquimalt and North Island. As I understand from the people within the ministry itself, the formula is going to have to be changed and renegotiated. Either the province must come up with more money on its own to pay the local school districts, or Ottawa, through a renegotiation, is going to have to pay the province more.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, until now I really didn't get the member's point, because she didn't fully articulate it yesterday. I now get her point and I will be glad to give her an answer either later during the debate of this bill, outside the House or in question period. I think that she has articulated something that I didn't get yesterday.

MR. LAUK: This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of the minister's inability to grasp the effect of this bill. He derided our speeches in second reading. Now we're on section-by-section accountability with respect to this bill and the first detailed question that the minister is asked.... He has no idea what the effect of that section will be with respect to the question asked by the member for Comox. It's a clear demonstration that this bill in its entirety has been ill-advised, not well thought out and is a knee-jerk reaction to the Premier's restraint announcement.

Section 2(l) states "...the Minister of Finance shall pay to the board of each school district a base grant for that year consisting of a percentage, prescribed by the Minister of Education, of the school district's current year operating expenses." In the minister's original statements and in second reading of this bill he indicated that there would be a basic minimum of a 60 percent provincial contribution to the school district. Why is that not stated in that section? Why has the minister proposed that the percentage be prescribed by the minister?

I might say that later in the bill we'll find out, Mr. Chairman, as we indicated before in debate, that that directive of a percentage of base grant need not be published or promulgated as a regulation. I would ask the minister why it is the government's policy not to fulfil its promise of at least a 60 percent provincial contribution to the school district?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I think this member knows that mathematical formulas and percentages are often inappropriate to be embodied in bills...

MR. LAUK: Why?

[ Page 7295 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: ...particularly when there may well be a need to improve and adjust such a formula in a more beneficial way, depending on conditions. I see nothing sinister about not placing percentages in this bill. It has been clearly and publicly announced in writing and verbally to the school boards of this province that those percentages will apply during the restraint period save and except if they're improved.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, there's an old expression: you have to put your money where your mouth is. The minister's mouth says 60 percent. The money is nowhere in the bill. If you're promising 60 percent, put it in the bill. The minister's response clearly indicates that the government intends to downgrade the percentage that will be prescribed to the school districts. If it were not his intention to downgrade the percentage from 60 percent, he could have put in the bill "at least 60 percent," as it is usually stated in legislation of a similar character. It is a clear confession by this minister that he intends to give less than 60 percent to the school districts of the province of British Columbia.

Section 2 approved on following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is the actual payment of provincial grants. Section 4(2), as worded, would allow the Minister of Finance to make monthly payments at a time to suit the minister. There is nothing in this legislation.... I wonder if I could draw all hon. members' attention to this very important section, because school districts are now having a very difficult time funding their programs and have had to go to the local financial institutions at very high interest rates. I wish the Premier would take this more seriously too. There are school districts in the Okanagan district that are borrowing money at high interest rates because of the ineptitude of your government.

If the government were serious, under section 4 they would specifically indicate that these payments must be made on this particular day of each and every month, because as the section presently reads, even though monthly amounts can be paid, those monthly amounts could be several months in arrears, coming from the provincial government. There's nothing in that section that will guarantee that those monthly amounts will be paid even within the month that they're calculated. There's nothing requiring the ministry to make those payments even within that month. More precisely, the government should put in the legislation that those monthly amounts shall be paid, let's say, on the first business day of each and every month. They have not. This clearly indicates to me a deliberate design on the part of the government to hold this money back, collect their own interest on interim investments and force local school districts to borrow money, even for the provincial part of the program, at high interest rates at the local school district level.

We do not believe that the Government is sincere. The payments, when made, may not be consistently made at appropriate times. Secretary-treasurers in all school districts have lodged complaints about this scheme. How are they going to make the payroll payments, maintenance payments and the other necessary payments for the.... If the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has nothing better to do, Mr. Chairman, than sit there and cackle, I wish he would leave for his office and let the committee get on with its work.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this province would be infinitely better off if all the members of cabinet played golf every day.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to point out to the hon. members that are interested that section 4 of this bill is hardly a way in which to encourage the support and confidence of the public in this government. If the government were sincere in making timely and prompt payments to school districts, it would say so in the section. The government cannot get up constantly and say "trust me." We've done that before, and we've been burned. Sincerity can only be encouraged in the public if you said it out specifically in the legislation. There's nothing that's going to harm the situation if the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) show some discipline and have to meet a deadline every month for those payments as the school districts' secretary-treasurers do every month. In the rural ridings you have a situation.... What are you smiling about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You are too short for your tie.

MR. LAUK: School districts in this province are borrowing money at high interest rates that accumulate a deficit that has to be paid by residential homeowners in his riding, and everything else, and what does the Premier have to say in response? I'm too short for my tie. Very clever. The personal remarks from that Premier, over the past several years, indicate that he is unfit for high public office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are on section 4 of the bill before us. Let us stick to section 4.

[ Page 7296 ]

MR. LAUK: I did not make the comment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: He says I am too small for my tie. I didn't say that. On this side of the House we measure the worth of a member from the neck up, not from the neck down. I happen to be taller than the Premier when he's not wearing his elevator socks.

Back to section 4. The monthly payments that are required to be made, as I say, are not set out in section 4. What the government can and will do, because they do it with payments to municipalities, with homeowner grants, with other accumulated moneys that by statute they must pay to the municipalities and school districts.... They withhold them, keep them in arrears, invest them on short-term interest and force the municipalities and school districts, which are on a fixed budget, without surpluses, to borrow money from banks at high interest rates. It is an indirect and dishonest way because it is not open on the part of the government, through its policy, to force increased taxes on the homeowners of the various school districts in the province. Those increased taxes will be caused by the interest rates that they will have to pay.

If the minister were sincere he would say, in section 4: "They will be paid promptly, on the first business day of each and every month." Why not impose the same discipline on the government that he is trying to impose on the school districts? This is a government of inconsistencies, and section 4 is a clear example of it. We oppose section 4.

MR. HOWARD: I want to put forward some thoughts connected with those just expressed by my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has consistently extolled as a virtue, in financial matters, the idea that one should not borrow for operating purposes. Consistently he says that this is the policy of this government. Yet here we have the same government seeking to carry forward an abuse against the school districts in the very clause that is before us now, forcing school districts to borrow money for operating purposes, contrary to their own stated declarations.

In my own constituency of Skeena, in excess of $100,000 a year is paid by school districts to banks for money they are forced to borrow because this government is tardy and delinquent in the making of its payments to those school districts. That is $100,000 a year in one constituency alone that could be made available for educational purposes: for special education that is going to be curtailed under this government, to provide a better quality of education. But the government says they are more intent and more interested in seeing cash flow through the school districts into the hands of the chartered banks. That is precisely all that is happening, and it is a shameful and a disgusting way to have to look at things, on the part of the government.

They just don't care very much, I submit, about the quality of education; otherwise, they would alter this particular provision. The minister would stand up, like the honourable gentleman I know he is, and say that he made an error, that he didn't realize that all this was going on and that he will now correct the situation by bringing forth an amendment to pay the money on time instead of forcing school districts to go into debt for operating purposes. The extent to which they go into debt, and the extent to which they have to pay interest on that debt, can be equated directly to the extent to which they have to have a poorer quality of education for the kids in this province.

They use great and glowing terms in the budget about levying tax on banks now. It's going to net the province some $15 million in extra income. Well, part of the income from that bank tax provision is going to come by way of school districts having to borrow money and pay the interest to the banks. The result is simply a poorer quality of education.

The minister can wander around the province and say, and say in this House: "Oh, this is a lovely piece of legislation. People enjoy it all over the province. It's going to give them a better deal on taxes and so on." Will the minister — honest person that he is — tell them also that he is responsible for driving those school districts into debt? That he is responsible for money just flowing through their hands into the hands of the bank? That he is responsible for denying the kids in this province the level of education to which they're entitled? Will the minister be that honourable as well? Will he exhibit his honesty — and I know that he is an honest gentleman — by standing up and admitting that he's made an error here, and correct it by bringing in the appropriate amendment? If he will do that he will find unanimity in the House to support that type of amendment. If he won't he'll find at least partial condemnation of it.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the section is exactly the same in relation to the monthly payment provision as the old section — 186 — except that there is an improvement in subsection (2), an improvement which allows for variation of the payments within the month. Therefore the payment can be done in several instalments instead of once a month. It allows the Minister of Finance to make some additional payments, so you should be very pleased with it.

MR. HOWARD: After listening to that explanation, I now understand why the minister, in circulating memos within the ministry, signs them with the initials of his name.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the minister's answer is quite good enough. There are students in the gallery this afternoon from the school district of Vancouver Island North, students of the North Island Senior Secondary School, who are quite directly affected by the implications that flow from the fact that money is not paid on time and has not been over the years. That will get worse when a much larger proportion of money now needs to come from Victoria to the school district. They cannot now rely on that transfer of money from local government from the industrial and the commercial sector. That money doesn't come automatically and on time as it did. At the moment the school district of Vancouver Island North, through two borrowings, is $3.2 million in debt on a demand loan to the bank in Port Hardy at 18 percent. That is costing them more than the special-education programs that have been cut off and shut down, and the ones that will be closed, and the track they need in Port Hardy, and the variety of other services required in that school district.

Instead of making sure that that money goes into education, the minister is making sure that there is a repayment to the banks for that little bit of extra tax that they were levied through the budget. Is that the quid pro quo for the political gains that might have been made by the government in assessing that minimal tax on the banks — that in exchange

[ Page 7297 ]

they will make sure they can make more profits from bank loans to school districts?

Why can't we have in this section a guarantee that the money will be paid on time and regularly so that district secretary-treasurers can be assured that they won't have to go running to the bank every time they need to make a payment or meet a payroll?

MR. LAUK: Clearly the minister does not know the answer to that question. I can see him busily conferring. It's something that happens not only in North Island but in other areas as well. It astounds me that this comes as a surprise to the minister. I wonder if the minister is now prepared to withdraw this bill for further consideration by himself? The minister has not indicated.

I'm going to ask a question of the minister: why did the minister decide not to put in a commitment under section 4 that these monthly payments would be made as calculated on the first business day of each and every month?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I've already said to the member, the section is an improvement over the old section 186. His complaints are really not legislative complaints; they're administrative complaints. The Minister of Finance can now pay more than once a month under the proposed new section. It should be hailed as an improvement.

MR. GABELMANN: On the same basis that the Minister of Finance could pay more, he can also pay less, because there is no mandatory requirement in the section. Why is the section not written in a way that will assure local administrators that they will get the proper share of money at a fixed time, guaranteed? It would be easy to amend the bill to say that.

MR. LAUK: The minister has indicated now on two sections that he does not believe in putting figures into the bill. I want to point out that on April 23, 1982, during second reading, the minister said, and I quote from page 7173 of Hansard:

"Another feature of this new formula under this legislation will be that school districts will not be shipping moneys back to Victoria. This was one of the complaints before. The residential taxes that are collected by the school district will be spent entirely within the boundaries of that school district. The figures of 60 percent, 35 percent and 5 percent were chosen for these two years because they approximate the portion of school district costs resulting from provincially required programs, optional programs and purely local ones.

Although the figures themselves are not included in the bill, they will be the firm minimum basis for allocations during the restraint period, and then they will be embodied in that form, or in an improved form, in the final revised School Act which replaces the period of restraint."

That was the minister's statement. I took from that statement that the minister was not opposed to putting figures in the bill. It's just that he's choosing now not to put figures in the bill. As I stated before, as far as the actual percentage is concerned, at least 60 percent will be prescribed by the Minister of Education. In section 4, "on the first business day of each and every month...." The minister refuses to do so. There's only one conclusion that can be reached by such a refusal. He intends not to do so, in practice.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 21

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 5.

MRS. WALLACE: I have concerns on the very vagueness of this particular section, because night-school instruction is certainly very important in the rural areas and in rural schools. I note that it says that the minister may provide, not that he shall provide, a grant to partially cover provision of these services. Does that mean that some schools that are offering night classes are going to get assistance and others aren't, seeing that the word is "may" rather than "shall"? Also, "to partially cover" — I wonder if the minister has any comments on that. Is he expecting to cover the same portion of the cost as he will with regular classes? Most particularly, I am concerned with the "may." It seems to me that if any school is offering a night class, then that class should be covered, and not just at the option or the whim of the minister.

HON. MR. SMITH: A portion of night-school costs has been paid in the past and will be paid and shared in the future. There's no change in that policy. Those percentages, if I remember, are already provided for in regulation, and there's no change.

MRS. WALLACE: Why "may" instead of "shall"?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it's "may" now, and it's "may" as proposed in the bill.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MRS. WALLACE: The special aid. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to tell the House just what he is proposing to cover under this section. Of course, in this instance I'm thinking particularly of Lake Cowichan School District, which has been hit very heavily by the changes the minister is bringing about in this act. It would certainly seem that this is the area, as I would read it, where there might be

[ Page 7298 ]

some provision for a district like Lake Cowichan. Is that what the minister is proposing to cover under section 6?

HON. MR. SMITH: The proposed use of the special-aid section, which was announced with the restraint program and the financial formula in March, is to produce a result in school districts that had, as a result of the formula, increased residential taxation, but the increases on the operating side for the average home would not exceed more than $95. That is being uniformly applied to give special aid to those districts. I must tell the member that I am presently considering some other criteria for special aid, which I can give under the old School Act, or would be able to give under section 6 in the event that it passes. I feel there have to be uniform criteria for special aid and that one cannot simply select one district that one might think was deserving, except on the basis of some rationale that would apply to others who might meet the same criteria.

I can certainly tell the hon. member that I heard her comments on Lake Cowichan and I also did receive and did reply to the letter the chairman sent me. I am actively considering additional special aid to districts that could meet common criteria, but I think it has to be applied on a criteria basis, so that it's not just on an ad hoc basis.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I am really concerned about this clause because of one basic thing. On one hand we have this Minister of Education tightening up because the Premier, the cabinet and the minister believe in tightening up on what the school boards can spend. Nobody denies we're in a time of need for some tightening. But the point is, why don't they let the school boards set their own priorities? The school boards are fiscally responsible.

What the minister is really doing, to my mind, is rather a crass political move. On one hand your're tightening up your budgets to the school boards, and then on the other hand you're saying: "Look how good we are to the public. We're going to give extra money for special aid for children who have special needs." I consider it a very crass move. Why don't you let the school boards determine within their own districts what they feel is needed? Instead the minister is going to sit up there on high and say: "Look how good I am; I'm going to hand out this to this district and that to that district." What I'm saying is, let's get back to letting the school boards make some decisions and give them the money so they can work within it.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would repeat the remarks I made to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), in relation to other hon. members on both sides of the House who have brought to me some particular cases. Certainly the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) have raised those matters in the House. Further special aid, as I said before, will be considered on some uniform criteria.

Listening to the remarks of the gracious member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), if she was so concerned about the power proposed under section 6 — which is really the same power as under the old School Act, section 187, and has been in that act since 1960 or earlier — I wonder why she didn't have that section repeated, and why she gave out a number of grants under that section when she was minister, if she thought that that was somehow destructive of the autonomy of school boards.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, one of the major moves made by the NDP in government was indeed to increase those special grants to the districts, because when we inherited an education system run by Social Credit for 20 years, we had to provide special grants.

MR. LAUK: One of the problems of this new Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, is that he wasn't here in those days or wasn't listening. Those special grant provisions were made as an emergency measure. After six years of his administration the minister can't claim that section 6 is now an emergency measure. It's a begging-bowl section; you're issuing begging bowls not only to the local district and disabled kids but to the various members of the Legislature to come to you to beg for funds for their school district.

That kind of arrogance is just beyond belief, Mr. Chairman. Who does he think he is? Some sort of monarch? We're trying to get some rational funding for school districts for disabled kids who are mainstreamed in the school system, and he makes out to be Marie Antoinette. He can sit on his throne and have people come to him and beg with a begging bowl, and he may — he just may, if he likes the colour of your eyes — give you some money. And then again, he may not; he may just give you a bottle of Pouilly-Fuisse.

Do you know what, Mr. Chairman? This government and this minister particularly — has given a new definition to arrogance. "Brought to me," he said; he wants to say with all of his gracious noblesse oblige that "the MLAs have brought to me their requests for the disabled kids in their districts." He's got a begging-bowl mentality; he wishes people to be subservient in this province, and that kind of personal arrogance is not fit for a person in the cabinet. I will oppose section 6 on that basis.

MR. GABELMANN: I have mixed feelings about even standing up to make comment on this section, because I disagree so much with the principle that decision-making should be brought to Victoria and not left in the local school district. I resent very much that I'm put in the position of having to make decisions and be an advocate for educational systems and decisions in various parts of my constituency, because I wasn't elected to make those decisions. The voters in my constituency elected three separate school boards to make those decisions, I think that's where it should be.

Yes, I was one of those members who made a plea in this House for special consideration for two of the three districts in my constituency, but I don't like having to do that. I don't think that's the way it should be done. School districts should have the right to make those kinds of decisions locally, and we should not have to resort to going to the minister to put pressure on him to give special consideration.

Does it mean that those school districts that are able to find some money to travel down to Victoria for a day or two to meet with the minister will have some special advantage? Does it mean that those school districts that are represented by a pushier MLA will have some advantage? How will the decisions be made? Is that list which was initially prepared several weeks ago, of the school districts that would get some special consideration the final list, or are we now to go on bended knee to add each of the districts in our constituencies that need it? What's the process? I'm sure this is going to pass, as much as I don't like it. We have to live with it. When will those school districts know? When will they be able to plan? When will the minister notify them of the procedures

[ Page 7299 ]

they can go about to make sure the basic minimal standards are maintained, particularly in those rural districts?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby North. I'm sorry, Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: I wouldn't mind sharing North with her, actually. Together we could do them both.

Maybe if I gave a couple of examples, the minister would have a better understanding of what my colleagues are talking about. The Burnaby School Board talked about some of the special programs that are going to have to be cut as a result of having to meet the restraint guidelines set down by the government in this particular legislation. What this section says is that it's not good enough for the Burnaby School Board to identify these special-needs programs and put them into place; what the school board has to do is pass this onto the minister, and then the minister will decide whether they are worthy of being financed and how many dollars will go towards financing it.

This is no different, for example, to the way in which the Lottery Fund is handled at this time. Whether it's the sailing club, the bowling league or whatever in Burnaby that needs funding in order to carry on their work, they have to go directly to the Lottery Fund in Victoria, and the minister, in his wisdom, decides whether they get that money. What the minister is doing through this section is placing education in the same category as these other decisions that are dealt with under the Lottery Fund. That's what we're concerned about.

As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) pointed out, when the Burnaby School District decided that some of the disabled children who were integrated into the school system needed special transportation, for example, in order to attend the public school system, Burnaby School District was able to put aside the money needed to implement that and see to it that those kids had the special transportation to attend a public school system. When the Burnaby School District decided that some of these children who attended the public school system needed the services of a special aide with them while they were attending school, the Burnaby trustees could make the decision to put aside a number of dollars to deal with that out of the budget. When, for example, the Burnaby School District trustees decided that some of the children who were attending kindergarten needed the attention of a personal-care attendant to provide support for those children during the period of time they were attending kindergarten, the Burnaby School District was able to put aside the funding necessary to implement that service. What this particular section is saying is that that is not good enough. First of all, in order to meet the guidelines, these services are going to be cut. In order to have these services reimplemented, the Burnaby school trustees have to go — as my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), said — to the minister with their begging bowl and say: "Mr. Minister, please, sir, may we have a number of dollars to ensure that we can afford the services of a personal care attendant for one particular child in kindergarten or a number of personal-care attendants for some of our disabled children in special programs in the school or to cover the cost of transportation for those disabled children who are integrated into the public school system?"

In another area, Burnaby has the unique experience of having a large number of students in the school system for whom English is their second language. Until this bill becomes law, the school trustees have the autonomy and the right to decide how many dollars are put aside to cover the special needs of this community of students. What this section is now saying is that, after making that decision, before the school trustees can do anything, they have to go to the minister — as my colleague from Vancouver Centre said — with their begging bowl and say: "Mr. Minister, please, sir, may we have a number of dollars to cover the cost of attending to the special needs of this special community of students in our school district?"

In other words. the minister has taken unto himself in this section all the powers which the voters of Burnaby had, until this time, given to their school trustees. The voters of Burnaby voted those people in to make these kinds of decisions, and the minister is arbitrarily — as a result of this section — saying: "I want to make those decisions for Burnaby. I don't want you, as a parent, to vote for the school trustees to make those decisions about your child's education. I, the Minister of Education, want to have the right to make those decisions even though you, as a parent, had nothing to do with electing me." That is why we are opposed to this section.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think the member for Burnaby-Edmonds' concern is with section 6, which has nothing to do with what she is complaining about. There is absolutely no intention under that section, and never has been under its companion section in the old act, to replay local decisions on matters involving special education or anything else. Those don't come to my desk under that section. Under the power to grant special aid, section 187, ministers before me, and I for the past two or three years, have always had some school districts who have requested special aid under that section. I must say that it doesn't particularly make one feel like Marie Antoinette, theSun King, a monarch or anything else — to summarize and collect all the mixed metaphors of the first member for Vancouver Centre, who is very funny and humorous and mixes his metaphors. What you try to do under a power such as section 6, or the old section 187, is to put some special, emergent aid into some school districts that have a particular problem with their tax base or mill rate. You certainly don't look over or try to set priorities that are within school board prerogative to determine solely. That isn't the purpose at all. I don't think it's been used that way.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister tell me whether Burnaby is eligible for that? I have been told that School District 41 isn't.

HON. MR. SMITH: Every school district is technically eligible. I'm not going to hold out to any school district that they're more eligible than others.

MRS. DAILLY: Just a final question to the minister Could you perhaps explain to us some of the guidelines you might use to give this special aid?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm not going to announce any further guidelines until a decision to grant any additional special aid is made, but I will set them out and set out the rationale. I won't just give them on a piecemeal basis. The guidelines I did announce for the special aid that's been agreed to so far, as I've indicated, was to keep the school tax increases down to $95 on the operating side for the average home.

[ Page 7300 ]

The other criteria that have been proposed to me by various school boards who have come to see me or have written — factors that I should consider in special aid, really — have been the inability of that district to maintain a reasonable mill rate because of a limited residential tax base; the fact that some school boards had already brought in a restrained budget prior to restraint; and a lower per-pupil operating cost in other districts that are in roughly the same situation. These have been all criteria that have been put forward. If any further special aid is granted, I will certainly indicate the basis upon which it was done, so that it will apply uniformly to a number of school districts and not just to one.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the minister's answer, but I want to make this point again. Having gone through this experience myself, may I say to the minister that I think this is a very dangerous thing to embark upon, because no matter how you attempt to do it, you're never going to please any district. They're all going to say: "How come this district got the money and I didn't?"

My basic premise to you, Mr. Minister, is that this new educational finance formula should be constructed in such a manner that this kind of thing is not needed. This is why we are expressing our disappointment that despite all the study and the time spent, you still seem to have a need for this kind of section, which I think is going to cause you considerable trouble.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the minister. Section 9 says: "...the Minister of Finance shall pay out of the consolidated revenue fund, in the manner directed by the Minister of Education for the calendar year of 1982, $75 million." Is this $75 million being given out following the acquisition by the government of the commercial and industrial assessment tax base, which you are taking unto yourselves?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I think there was perhaps some perception at one time that that might be the case, but that is not the case. It is from a separate fund, and I think a perusal of the estimates makes that clear. That $75 million is quite separate from the non-residential tax base money.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister again, by the use of the terminology, does not understand what estimates, budgeting and consolidated revenue are, and I wish he'd take proper advice someplace. The point is that section 9 says: "consolidated revenue fund." There's no other fund. If the minister is referring to an account, that's simply an accounting situation that develops at the ministerial level. There's no separate designated fund. This is money to be paid out at the minister's direction out of the consolidated revenue fund. That's the only fund there is.

The minister, through this legislation, is confiscating industrial and commercial land taxes throughout the province — $850 million worth. That goes into consolidated revenue. I'm saying to the minister that if he gives us the answer that this $75 million is new money, how on earth are the public going to find out for sure that it's new money? They can't. They don't know how much of that $850 million is being paid out. It goes into the consolidated revenue fund. There's no separate accounting for it. There's no indication that if the ministry doesn't spend all of that money on its obligations through the course of the year.... We don't get a final accounting through financial papers at any time from the government on how much specifically was made on interest and investments on $850 million. We don't know specifically how the provincial government has benefited from that confiscation of tax money, through investments. We don't know whether even one penny of that $75 million is going to be new money. So the minister's just talking through both sides of his ears.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. LAUK: This section is greatly offensive. It's difficult, when you're looking at all sections of this bill, to try to find the most offensive one. They're all so awful and so offensive to the democratic system and to this Legislature that it's difficult to pick out one and say this is the worst. This is the one that offends, or should offend, the real democratic sensibilities of all hon. members and of right-thinking members of the public.

Section 12 states:

"(1) The minister may, at any time before May 1 in any year, issue directives (a) limiting the amount of the budget of the school district in the calendar year, and (b) establishing the portion of a school district's budget for special education programs.

"(2) Where the minister considers that the board of a school district has failed to follow a directive issued under subsection (1), the minister may recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that a grant otherwise payable under this act be reduced, and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may reduce the grant by any amount that he considers appropriate."

"He" means the minister. That is taking on the most incredible amount of personal power to a cabinet minister. No school district in this province can plan for education anymore; no school district can set any priorities on a community basis. The parents whose children are in school have lost any residual control over what their children are getting from the school system. The idea of the family being sovereign over education in our democracy is now gone. Under state centralism, under this very right-wing government, we now see the sovereignty of the family over education completely and utterly destroyed.

MR. KEMPF: Nonsense!

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Omineca does not believe it; he says it's nonsense. Thank you, hon. member. I'll repeat the section for the hon. member: the minister may, at any time, issue directives limiting the amount of the budget and establishing what portion of the budget will be for special education programs. Does the hon. member for Omineca understand that section? Can he nod his head? He's reading a newspaper, but maybe he can nod his head. He obviously doesn't understand. Without knowing what the debate was in this committee, he looked over and said "nonsense." He's the hon. marshmallow from Omineca.

[ Page 7301 ]

It's an absolute disgrace, Mr. Chairman, that members of the Legislature do not pay attention to debate in this committee. It's an absolute disgrace. That hon. member for Omineca....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are currently on section 12 of Bill 27. The member is engaged in a debate on the pertinent section, which is section 12. I would ask him to carry on with that debate.

MR. LAUK: You realize, Mr. Chairman, how frustrating it is to get through to some hon. members in this committee who have not paid attention to the section, who are in this House like burnps on a log. That's a scandal, Mr. Chairman. They're spending the taxpayers' money — some of them like drunken sailors — and they come and sit in this chamber and don't even pay attention to the business of the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you this morning?

MR. LAUK: I was out looking at the school closures in your district, Mr. Member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's not true.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't in his district. I was in my office on the phone, and that hon. member's district....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, that's not what you said.

MR. LAUK: The Premier is out of his seat, Mr. Chairman. It's the old expression: out of seat, out of mind.

Mr. Chairman, this section is a power grab for the Minister of Education. As I said before, the traditions of school boards of this country, which is one of the freest, democratic countries in the world — and probably the freest, most democratic country in the world — developed in spite of governments like the hon. member's. I say "in spite of governments," because at least we have a small opposition on this side trying to hold up the banner of democracy against this very state-centralist government.

Education developed in small villages and towns around this country. There weren't school boards; there were just parents, mothers and fathers, who would meet and decide when to hire a school teacher or when to build a school. The sovereignty over education in this country rested with the family. As the villages and towns grew in size and educational matters became more complex, some villages and towns decided they would elect or appoint two or three of the parents to become a board of education. But the concept of the school board was always that it had direct responsibility to the family whose children would be taught in those schools. As it developed, it didn't matter whether you personally had children in school, because either you had children in school or your children had children in school and so on. It became a community responsibility. But the concept in a free, democratic Canada was always that the family had sovereignty over education.

Section 12 destroys that in all areas of the province. Section 12 gives to the Minister of Education the power to control education in every level of every area of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, it's a very sad day indeed when the minister looks blankly over at me while I make these statements. He has ignored the opposition criticism that this bill is awesome in its effect and is a power grab in its practical application. It is not required, it is not needed, and it destroys the sovereignty over education exercised by local school boards, which means by parents, by the family. We oppose it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am going to be quite brief in my remarks with regard to this section. I attempted to make my point during second reading of this bill in the matter I am about to discuss.

I have received a copy of a a letter that went to the Premier, a copy of which also went to the Minister of Education. I would be pleased to table it. The person who wrote this letter is a school teacher in one of the school districts in my riding. I won't use her name in Hansard although I'd be pleased to; I'm sure she wouldn't object. I do not know her personally. I don't know what her political affiliation. But this I do know: she has some concern for the children in the school in which she works. I am going to read the full text of this short letter because it applies directly to this section on funding for special needs, This teacher is like many hundreds of other teachers in my riding.

I have received a great deal of mail, as has the minister, from teachers and school trustees in my riding, and I am expressing, on behalf of these people who have taken the time to write, their very special concern about these young children who have special needs and the proposed and possible cuts in funding for this purpose. There will be cuts under this bill. We know that government will cut, because next year, in order to balance their budget, what are they going to do? They haven't got much choice. We know resource revenues are down — I don't want to get off on a tangent here. We know very well they are going to cut back on health services and the special and educational services of this province in order to come up with a so-called balanced budget, because the budget's not really balanced. I want to read into the record this letter to the Premier. I suspect that Kathleen wrote to the Premier because, while she probably doesn't know the Minister of Education personally, she has quite frankly lost faith in the ability of that minister to perform his duties:

"As a kindergarten teacher of several special needs students, I strongly oppose the government's cutbacks in budget for educational needs. The education of the students could be crippled by this harsh imposition, and these special-needs students require much individual attention and support. Children are our greatest resource. They are the hope of the future. Signed, Kathleen —"

This is from a younger teacher on the job, dealing on a day-to-day basis with students who require special needs. I attempted to make this point during debate on second reading of this bill but I didn't cite the number of letters and correspondence we've all received. I wanted the Premier and the Minister of Education to know — and I've used this letter as an example — the concerns under this section of the people who actually have to deal with the students.

MR. GABELMANN: As the minister knows, I too have received quite a number of letters, some of which I read excerpts from in the debate on second reading. I haven't done a count but I would assume I have somewhere in the order of 150 letters, some from teachers, most from parents, most, obviously, from taxpayers. There were two recurring themes in the mail I've received on this issue, and one is that they did

[ Page 7302 ]

not object to paying additional taxes for better education. I was surprised by that. The other theme was that special needs was the essential part of the school system that they saw slipping away from them in remote and rural parts of northern Vancouver Island. Those special-needs programs — not very well developed yet, nowhere close to meeting the needs that we do have in those isolated communities — have literally saved the lives of many children, in my judgment, over the years.

There have been some remarkable things done with kids by some of these special-education teachers and the special-education programs. I think of one particular classroom where I spent some time in one community. I won't identify it simply because it would be very clear who I'm talking about. There are two teachers with six kids, and I suspect — and this is true as each year goes by — that were it not for the efforts and the hard work of those teachers with those six kids, most of those kids would not be able to leave the school system literate. As it is, they won't leave the school system well educated, but they will probably leave the school system able to read. They might leave the school system with some ability at socialization, some ability to make human contact with their fellow human beings. That's the level of the problem that's being dealt with in that particular classroom. Those kinds of programs — not this one particularly yet, but similar programs — have already been cut back as a result of the legislation and the restraint program, and there is the fear that further cutbacks will occur. I think it's the inevitability of it, because there certainly isn't enough money being promised by the minister to sustain an already minimal level of special needs programs.

If ever there is a time in society when special-needs education is most important, it is at a time when there is an economic downturn. That's the time when family tensions increase, when drinking and alcoholism increase and when those children are most vulnerable, most battered and most in need of some special service and some special provision by government. This is best provided through the Ministry of Education. Now we're being told that the people who know about those needs and who are able to deal with it on a day-to-day basis in their own community will no longer be able to make the decisions about whether those programs can continue or not.

School boards in my riding have made decisions that some hard programs, like tracks for physical education and other programs of that nature, would have to go by the board in order to provide that special education for special-needs children. They've made those decisions, hard as they might have been. They've made them and they made the right decisions, in my mind. Particularly at this time when the need is so much greater, they're being told they will have to cut back. To add insult to that injury, the decisions from now on are going to be made by somebody in Victoria. I resent that and I object to it and I think it's wrong in every conceivable way. I think it's a disgraceful bill and a disgraceful section, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to be very brief because I think we're fighting a losing battle here. I just want to repeat what some of the school trustees pointed out to me, in discussing this section. There really is nowhere in this section where they. have the right of appeal. Maybe the minister can tell me whether we've been reading this section wrong.

It's been pointed out to me that there really is no right of appeal. Once the minister in his wisdom has made the decision that he doesn't like what the school board is doing with the funding and wants to terminate the funding for a special program, neither the school board, any member of this Legislature, a parent or anyone has the right of appeal of going to the minister and pleading the case on behalf of that particular program and asking the minister not to cut it. Maybe the minister can tell me if that's the correct interpretation.

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there is no statutory right of appeal from a directive under that section. You're quite correct, but I get people from all segments of the educational community who wish to challenge a decision that a school board has made or has been made in the system, and their concerns are considered. You're quite right, there is no statutory or formal appeal procedure. That's clear.

MS. BROWN: Well, I don't know how this is possible in a democracy. I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, how the minister can really expect to implement this section. I'm not going to read this section in its legal jargon; I'm going to put it in as simple and straightforward English as one can at this point. What the section says is that when the Burnaby School Board, which was duly elected by the parents of the children who attend the Burnaby school system, make a decision to spend X number of dollars on a special program, the minister, first of all, can limit the amount of the budget of the school district that is spent on special programs; then after the program is in existence — once it's gone over the first hurdle and it's met the minister's guidelines — the minister can decide that he's not satisfied with the way in which that program is being run and without consulting anyone he can decide either to terminate the funding for that program or reduce the funding for that program.

Neither the school board, which was duly elected by the parents of the children involved in the program, the parents of the children involved in the program nor any member of the Legislature who would have been elected by the parents of the children in that program have the right to in any way change the minister's decision. We have no right of appeal. The minister makes a decision and that's it. The children, parents, and trustees can write letters to the minister. The three MLAs from Burnaby can speak, phone or write letters to the minister, but under this section there is no formal way of getting the minister to change his mind. There is no way of bringing in a third party to arbitrate. There is no way of even having a public debate over the minister's decision. It's not enshrined in this section. That's the kind of totalitarian act on the part of the minister that we are opposed to.

MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if the minister could give us an example of section 2, which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has just asked you about. You must have put it in with a reason in mind. It is going to give you the right to reduce a grant to a school board. I think'we should consider the implications of such a clause. It has never, before been in the hands of a Minister of Education in this province and, who knows, maybe in any other province in Canada — in a democratic society, as both members have pointed out before me. Could you give us an example of where you would find it necessary to reduce a school board's grant?

[ Page 7303 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll try and reply generally, but I'll reply specifically to the last member while I have her point ready at hand.

Hon. member, you may remember that section 192 of the present School Act, which allows the reduction of grants by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for a variety of purposes, has been in the legislation since prior to 1960 and during the time in which you occupied the same office that I have. There is no question that the power to issue directives is an extraordinary power and one that under this bill is limited, as far as the budget is concerned, to the power to limit the total amount of the budget and not parts of the budget, save and except that portion that is devoted to special education. I have heard concerns about special education from a number of members today and during debate on principle in second reading. While they do not like the use of directives and philosophically disagree with this approach to the legislation, I have no doubt that they would want to see special education protected in a period of restraint, and protected it can be under section 12(l)(b).

To give the member an example of when 12 (2) could be used, or might be used.... I'll wait until she is listening. The prime use of the directives in any event would be to restrain budgets and the limit of the restraint budgets. I don't mean to set the various priorities within it — I have no intention of doing that — but to calculate the restraint budget on the basis of the restraint program which calls for only a 12 percent increase in the last quarter. A school district might well say: "We're not going to do that, because we do not believe that anyone should restrain our right to set the budget at any level we wish." They might well believe that honestly and philosophically. But the government's policy and the legislation that is before this House, both in this bill and the Compensation Stabilization Act, provide a different policy. If a school board were to refuse to pass a budget that was restrained in compliance with that policy but was to pass a larger budget, then a directive would be issued, and if that directive were disobeyed, then section 12(2) could be used. That is the kind of circumstance in which that directive could be used.

It should also be pointed out that by having the extraordinary power of being able to limit the ceiling of the budget in one district in a time of restraint, it does enable the minister to ensure that money available for grants can be shared fairly among all the other districts who are abiding by the restraint program. You may not like that philosophy, but I really think that the hon. members opposite are not telling us what it really is they don't like. What they really don't like is the imposition of restraint. They are debating and arguing this bill philosophically, but it is the restraint program that they don't like.

MR. LAUK: The audacity of the hon. minister in suggesting that Her Majesty's loyal opposition is opposed to restraint, in the face of personal ministerial profligacy that we've seen in this government, is beyond belief.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. This is not a time for general debate. This is a time for section 12 on Bill 27.

MR. LAUK: What this minister is doing, quite simply, under section 12 is taking to himself the power that rested with the people prior to section 12. There was a time in this province when there were local referenda with respect to school budgets. We eliminated them for special reasons. We felt that the referendum really verged on mob rule in certain situations where elected representatives at the school board level, over a longer period of time of consideration, could best come up with the complications of a budget at the school district level and would eliminate the very unfair different quality of education you would receive from district to district because some communities, being more progressive, would vote in stronger budgets for quality education. Other districts, being regressive and, I think — in many cases that I saw — politically- manipulated by provincial politicians, some of whom in those days were associated with the hon. minister's party.... Those referenda failed and, as a result, the young people in that school district received less than an adequate education and certainly less than a quality education. So we felt that in fairness we would return to the original concept of school boards and not referenda.

Now we have the most absurd extension of the referendum system. We have one vote in the entire province on the referendum. The school board, in its deliberation, comes up with a budget and now this section, if you like, declares that there shall be a referendum and the Minister of Education shall have the only vote. That is what he is saying. He is saying: "Are you going to return to referenda?" Mr. Minister, we already have, only you've narrowed the franchise down to one person — Louis XIV. Vasco da Gama, the man who has now an $80,000 travel budget for himself this year, says: "You're against restraint." He asked the Treasury Board for $80 million, and they only gave him $80,000. The minister who has asked for and received $80,000 so he can personally travel around more of the world than Vasco da Gama is saying that we're against restraint. What we are against, Mr. Chairman, is a usurpation, on the whim of the minister and on the whim of this government, of legitimate, democratic authority that has come down to us through generations.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 20

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive approved. 

On section 20.

[ Page 7304 ]

MR. LAUK: I'm glad that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is in his seat because I want to bring to his attention section 20 of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, subsection (2) reads: "For the 1982 taxation year, each municipality collecting taxes under this Part shall pay to the Minister of Finance..." and then there are paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (d) says: "...on December 31, 1982, the balance of all taxes imposed under this Part, whether or not they have been collected."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: I bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman.... I wonder if the committee could settle down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point, hon. member. Will the committee please come to order. The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has taken his place in the debate and we should be polite and parliamentary.

MR. LAUK: We've had examples during question period of the McCarthy problem — the McCarthy loophole in taxation. They will not pay their taxes, and their taxes are in arrears. When taxes are in arrears, school districts and municipalities have to borrow money to pay the government. The family of one member of the government does not pay its taxes. I can't think of a greater irony.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Did you not hear the point? Well, it's been before the chamber. We've heard no reply. That's what I said. Ray McCarthy, I understand, is a relative of the Minister of Human Resources — her spouse. Those taxes are in arrears. There are many other people who take advantage of the McCarthy loophole.

As a result, they have to borrow money. But borrow money for what, Mr. Chairman? This minister, who doesn't even talk to the Minister of Human Resources, I take it, is imposing upon the municipalities that on December 31, 1982, the balance of all taxes imposed under this part, whether or not they've been collected, shall be paid to the Minister of Education. But the minister has been kind about it. The minister is being generous. As the municipalities are borrowing money at interest rates of 18 and 19 percent, under the next subsection he says: "Commencing in the 1983 taxation year, a municipality may deduct from taxes payable to the Minister of Finance, under this section, an administration fee" of one-quarter of 1 percent. Isn't he generous? Isn't the government being generous? On the one hand they seem to be encouraging people to go into tax arrears at the municipal level, and on the other hand they are penalizing those municipalities. It's an absolute scandal.

I wonder if the minister has any suggestions to make about people like Ray McCarthy, the husband of the Minister of Human Resources, who go into arrears in municipal taxes. In cases where Mr. McCarthy has tax arrears, is the minister going to grant relief to those municipalities? Perhaps the minister can answer that question.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to respond to the rather despicable and improper use of a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would advise the hon. minister that we must be parliamentary. I'm sure no imputation of dishonour was implied to another hon. member.

HON. MR. SMITH: No. I was referring to remarks made about the member of the family of another hon. member, which really don't befit the hon. member who made them.

I will say that the provision he's concerned about, contained in section 20(2)(d) of the bill — that is, the imposition of payment of these taxes whether or not they've been collected — is exactly the same provision that was always in the old Schools Act and Public School Act and is presently section 196(9). So there is no departure whatsoever. It is a typical taxation provision, one which the member opposite apparently didn't quarrel with when he was on the benches on this side of the House —

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Chairman, that was before this government stole $850 million of local tax at the district level. It's the same problem, but it's now $850 million, with people going into tax arrears at all times. We're opposing this section, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has some explanation for people who are in tax arrears, like Ray McCarthy, why doesn't he give it? Does the government have any solution for these people who are delinquent in their taxes and who are not fulfilling their responsibility as good citizens in paying their taxes on time? Do you have a suggestion, Mr. Attorney-General?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the hon. member for Dewdney, I will ask the hon. Attorney-General and other members not to interrupt.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I never thought I would have to rise in this House to make a statement.... Any party that can throw pure mud like these people are throwing, and laugh with hilarity while they are doing it, is beyond my conception of fair play and judgment. The man they referred to as Mr. McCarthy is properly connected and is the husband of one our members. I would prefer not to mention the name, but I can't avoid it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if we could return to the strict relevancy rule and to section 20, we could avoid the whole argument.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The relevancy is the impropriety of attacking someone who can't defend himself. That is relevancy. Further in relevancy, there are large corporations in Vancouver — good citizens too — who aren't able to pay their taxes. I know individuals who cannot pay their taxes and would always do so when they can. This is not an issue. This is a red herring brought here to embarrass a man who cannot reply. I take my place in this House to reply for him and say it is dastardly and mud-slinging and the worst kind of unparliamentary procedure. I regret that it is possible and would happen in this House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I would like the hon. member for Dewdney to withdraw the word "mud-sling-

[ Page 7305 ]

ing," as it imputes an improper motive to hon. members who have merely brought the facts to this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. I will ask the hon. member for Dewdney to withdraw if he imputed any improper motive to another member of this House.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I did not mention any hon. member of this House. I referred to a party principle, and that I am entitled to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has stated he did not impute any improper motive to any member of the House.

MR. NICOLSON: This section, as it has been pointed out, says that where there is a village, municipality, township or city, it is its obligation and responsibility to take on the onerous task of administering and collecting this non-residential tax base. Yet the minister, in his opening remarks during second reading, said that he was going to assume the responsibility. That is one of the things we are debating here today. I would like to say that this is one heck of a responsibility and an onerous load imposed by section 20 particularly on towns and villages. When a village has about 800 people, like the village of Kaslo, and over 20 percent of all taxes collectable overdue.... There happens to be a case of a company which is trying to sell out to Crestbrook Forest Industries — T & H Sawmills. They have been unpaid for a long time. Yet this minister is saying that we are going to have to continue this practice, which was not a problem during the days of the NDP, because there was not such a huge gap between the rates prescribed in the act and the actual rates of interest that could be earned through short-term bonds.

We have got people in other parts of my riding, such as in Creston. We have Calray Properties which owns the Neil Building. This isn't because of some recent financial problems. Their 1980 taxes are unpaid to the tune of $2,665.91 and for 1981 to the tune of $2,336, 41. That isn't this year. That isn't 1986 taxes. This has been going on for a couple of years simply because they have been making money, while almost all the resident property-owners of that area pay their taxes, their phone bills and their income taxes. They don't go around evading, but they end up having to pay the shortfall and the interest when the municipality has to pay out in full to the school board, in full to the regional district, and now under this act it's going to be in full to the centralized provincial government — this centralized type of government, Social Credit state centralism.

Mr. Chairman, West Power corporation, which owns the McKay-Ward building, also paid no taxes in 1980: $2,473.02; no taxes paid in 1981: $1,735.40. Also in the community of Creston, Blake Valley Developments, which owns the old medical clinic, taxes unpaid for 1980: $4,461.2 1; 1981: $4,491.48. The 1982 taxes for those three separate companies are not yet determined, but the total of those amounts for 1980 and 1981 are $18,163.46.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are they in a profit-making position?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Agriculture and Food come to order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He's misleading the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the Minister of Agriculture has on several occasions made unparliamentary cross-comment, but he has just charged that the hon. member on his feet has been deliberately misleading the House. I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food to withdraw that charge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear that, but would the Minister of Agriculture and Food like to withdraw, or at least correct, any improper motive that might have been imputed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver Centre misquoted me. He said my remark was that the member was deliberately misleading the House, and that was not my remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You withdraw then, do you?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I did not make that remark. I said he was misleading the House: I didn't say he was deliberately misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you withdraw any implication against the member?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister said: "I said he was misleading the House. I didn't say he was deliberately misleading the House." I will accept what the minister has just said, and ask him to withdraw the charge that the hon. member for Nelson-Creston was misleading the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, the statements by the member for Nelson-Creston dealing with taxes not paid concern three separate companies. If he now is going to go into the ownership of those companies, that is irrelevant, in my opinion, to the section of the bill under discussion. I'll withdraw any imputation but I will be responding in a moment on a point of order as to just how far that member is going to go.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, who owns Blake Valley Developments, which owes almost $10,000 to the town of Creston? The registrar of companies lists the director of Blake Valley Developments as Raymond Blake McCarthy; president: Raymond Blake McCarthy. The same thing for West Power development. As to Calray Properties, its annual report is not presently available in the registrar of companies, but it does have the very same address for the company. So I guess it is safe to assume that that is the company which owes almost $5,000 in taxes to the town of Creston.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I would like somebody — yourself preferably, or that member — to draw the relevance of his remarks with regard to ownership of companies to this particular section of the bill. If he is not in order, would you please rule him out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister rose and reminded us all of relevancy. I must concur. In committee we are relevant; we speak strictly to the section that is under debate, and I would ask all hon. members to remember that.

MR. NICOLSON: The Minister of Agriculture has brought up a good point, Mr. Chairman. The relevance is that Raymond Blake McCarthy has a residential address of 4610 Beverly Crescent, Vancouver, B.C., Larry Dang has an address of 2710 Dundas Street, Vancouver, B.C., Gilbert Dang has a residential address of 1138 East Pender Street, Vancouver, B.C., and the same principals are also listed for Blake Valley Developments. I cannot conclude that they have the same addresses for Calray Properties at this moment, but the companies do have the same address.

[ Page 7306 ]

What I am saying is that those people live in Vancouver, but the people who have to pay the difference in taxes are the people who live in Nelson-Creston, and the minister has said that he is "relieving" the rural properties of this burden of non-residential assessments. Relieving us indeed! He is leaving all the onerous obligations on the people resident in the area to make up the difference that the sharp operators, who have made the decision that the place where the action is now is to swoop into small towns and pick up commercial property in some of the small, growing towns like the town of Terrace in my colleague's riding, and towns like Creston.... Don't pay your taxes. Play it just as close to the line as you possibly can. I am saying that that type of a policy in a community the size of Kaslo, which is much smaller than Creston, is absolutely crippling to the community. They can't even collect enough taxes to run the town. They are left with a net of zero after they've paid off the school board, the regional district and the others that they have to pay up front. Now, under section 20, they are going to be left with zero after they've paid up everything, whether it's collected or not, to the provincial government, which has made this tax grab.

It has been said that I have been misleading this House. I can't say that anybody has misled me, but I was certainly given the wrong impression by the minister's opening remarks in second reading when he said that he was going to "assume responsibility." This is not assuming responsibility; this section 20 does the exact opposite of that. This does nothing to change the status quo. He is quite right. He says this is the same provision that is in the present School Act, but I'll tell that minister that because of national policies and other policies — things which have happened in the last three or four years with interest rates — this has been a problem that the government has done nothing to rectify.

This very same problem was brought up in the House last year. This particular section continues this inequity. It continues to reward investors from Vancouver who come in and inflate the costs of commercial properties in small communities and defer their taxes. Who has to pay the interest rates then? Who has to make up the difference? It is those good, honest, decent resident citizens who never consider deferring the payment of their property taxes; that is who has to make up the difference. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says: "That is not criminal." No, it is not criminal, but I guess if those were the words that first came to his lips, he must have been considering that perhaps it was, and it must have been bordering that very fine line.

I would hope that the minister, having considered these remarks and the effect that this is going to have on municipalities, and remembering that that minister is not only the Minister of Education but was formerly the mayor of one of the large municipalities in this province, might consider adjourning this debate in order to bring in some amendments to this section that would help to address that problem. I ask the minister: is he willing to bring in such amendments?

HON. MR. SMITH: This is not a section to fix the interest on unpaid taxes. That is a matter for other statutes. The mill rate levy on non-residential land and improvements will be fixed by the province under the section that was already passed — section 18. Those funds are specifically to be used for the public schools under that same section. In that sense, responsibility for that levy is assumed, and the municipality continues to collect those levies, as they did before, under the provisions of the old School Act.

MS. BROWN: What the minister didn't understand was that an individual has the right or the opportunity not to meet their tax deadline, either because, as the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said, they can't afford to meet it financially because they just haven't got the money to pay the taxes or, as the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said, they deliberately decide not to meet their tax deadline because this is a loophole through which they can increase their income — the McCarthy loophole. Although individuals, commercial and industrial businesses, and other groups have this opportunity to avoid meeting that deadline, municipalities haven't got that. They have to pay their taxes based on a schedule outlined by the minister in this particular section, which is section 20(2)(d). The final balance of their taxes has to be in the minister's hand by December 31, 1982. In order to do that many municipalities have to borrow at whatever the going rate is.

What we find is that some people, who may deliberately avoid paying their taxes because it is in their own best financial interest to do so, as the interest on unpaid taxes is not as high as the interest you can make through investment, are an additional burden on the municipality — in many instances, even on municipalities in which they do not live. The minister has two options: either he can extend to municipalities the opportunity, if they find they cannot meet their deadline, to be charged interest the way individuals, corporations and other businesses are allowed to do, or he can petition the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to do something about that particular loophole to see that it is closed.

I would like to suggest specifically to the Minister of Education that municipalities be permitted, in the event that they cannot meet this tax deadline, to have the option of paying interest on unpaid taxes. One of the things I mentioned earlier was the statement of Vic Stusiak, the alderman from Burnaby, who said that he anticipated that there would be a large percentage of unpaid taxes in Burnaby this year as a result of the increased taxes that people have to meet. What that means is that the municipality of Burnaby may find itself having to go to the bank or some other financial institution to float a loan in order to meet its taxes. Rather than do that and force the municipalities to fall victim to the money-lenders of the land, would it not be better for the minister to permit them to pay interest on the unpaid balance of the tax until they're able to pay it? Would that not be possible?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I said before, the problem with the interest rate is a problem for a different statute, but I hear what you're saying and what the other members have been saying about that.

Section 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 23

[ Page 7307 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 21 through 56 inclusive approved.

On section 57.

MR. LAUK: Under this section, Mr. Chairman.... I'll read it: "The Regulation Act.... Pardon me, my eyes are failing me. Let's pass section 57 and get on to section 58.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I agree with you.

MR. LAUK: It's the way the bill was jig-jog there; I didn't know whether 57 was part of it.

Section 57 approved.

On section 58.

MR. LAUK: Under section 58 it states as follows: "The Regulation Act does not apply to the following: (a) the prescribing of a percentage under section 2(l) or of an amount under section 2(2)." What does that mean? It means that there is no prescription in the act giving the actual percentage of shareable funds to the school district. But whatever percentage that is, that order and that decision could be made in total secrecy. There's no provision that will require the minister to make public an order for the percentage of shareable funds or of the provincial contribution to the cost of education, or to promulgate it in the ordinary course under the Regulation Act.

Again, the Regulation Act does not apply to a determination under section 4(2). Remember section 4(2): "The minister may determine the manner and frequency and payment of each monthly instalment."

Mr. Chairman, you can see why we are so concerned about this cabinet that's taking the power unto themselves in secret. Section 58 is called the "secret order" section. If you read section 58, the Regulation Act does not apply. I appreciate the honourable and learned member who is the minister of....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Learned! Point of order! I take it you went too far.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Garde, I tried my best. It's a conspiracy to try and change Garde's reputation.

MR. COCKE: What a nice little club you guys have.

MR. LAUK: It's cosy.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 58, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: It's pretty hard for me to get a roll on this debate, isn't it?

Section 58 excludes — and I don't know of any other legislation that excludes orders made by any cabinet minister or an order-in-council that isn't published under the Regulation Act. This is a very far-reaching section. Could you name a few? Will you enter the debate and tell me a few?

HON. MR. SMITH: How many few do you want?

MR. LAUK: One.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: In secret, this minister can make his pronouncement about what percentage of contribution goes to school districts. He and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) do not have to disclose their decision on monthly payments to school districts. He doesn't have to disclose the form required under section 10. He's going to keep that a secret. What are they afraid of, Mr. Chairman? Under 12(l) the minister may send directives to school boards, and he doesn't have to deal with them under the Regulation Act. So we would have to depend on somebody intercepting the mails or some school board member or civil servant providing us with information that a directive to a particular school district was cutting back their budget. The people of that school district may not even know what's happened if the school board members decide to keep quiet.

This minister wonders why I had the temerity to announce one day ahead of time this scandalous finance formula — because this government is a government of secrecy. It's a Star Chamber government. If we don't expose what they're going to do, when are we going to find out what they've done? The section under section 58 puts a blanket of secrecy on the actions of this minister. You know, if I was proposing to pass this act and take the powers that it's giving to the minister, I'd want to keep it from the public too. I'd want to keep every move I made away from the public, because I would be ashamed to let the public of British Columbia know what I have done to them. We oppose section 58.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Division is called.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order of the first member for Vancouver Centre must be related to the mechanics of a division.

MR. LAUK: I don't know if this relates to the mechanics of the division, but I want to know if the people of British Columbia shouldn't be concerned that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is reading the want ads.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

Section 58 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 7308 ]

NAYS — 22

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 59 to 61 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. SMITH: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor on a point of order, I presume.

MR. LAUK: The motion is debatable, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] What are you laughing about? It is difficult for me to carry on a debate when there is so much interruption.

I want to discuss the reasonableness of reading this bill a third time now. The debate on other readings of this bill has indicated a clear dissatisfaction, not only from the members of the New Democratic Party and in this chamber. School boards, parents and teachers throughout the province — taxpayers too — have indicated their desire to have a closer look at the provisions of this bill.

Mr. Speaker would not be aware that in committee several times the Minister of Education was unable to answer questions put to him by members on this side of the House, a clear indication that the Minister of Education did not understand the specific sections of the bill. It is clear that this bill has not been thoroughly thought out by the government itself. There is a clear and present danger that the ramifications of this bill as suggested by the NDP members of this House are true and that the practical impact of the implementation of this bill will carry through as a systematic attack on education in this province. I got the impression that it was the desire of the Minister of Education that this bill pass, and he fully knew that in a short period of time its tremendous negative effect would destroy the education system that's been built up and known over many generations.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that the word "now" in the minister's motion be deleted and the following words added: "six months hence."

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment appears to be in order. It only needs one signature. It is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the amendment. I am shocked and surprised that the member would move an amendment of this kind at this time, because this member knows that school-tax deadlines are very close and are pending; that the entire system of collecting taxes in this province to defray the costs of schools would be shattered irreparably; that school boards would be borrowing money across this province at a rate far beyond that mentioned and predicted by this hon. member; that there would be absolute fiscal irresponsibility and chaos in the system; and that the tax relief that this bill brings to residential taxpayers in 50 school districts would not occur. Mr. Speaker, it's an absolute shocking, inexplicable motion and indicates that he has not purported to understand the bill during the debate in this House.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that the tax relief that this affords would be denied to the people. I think that's a rather questionable judgment. It depends where you live whether this is going to be a tax relief or a tax burden. As the minister well knows that is no problem, because the bill itself has remedies; it has retroactive sections in it which give it force and effect. Indeed when fiscal legislation, or even when statements are made in the budget speech, they have force and effect immediately and are ratified in due course.

But the details of this particular piece of legislation have simply been sprung on the people very suddenly. There has not been ample opportunity for the people to respond. Tax collection agencies, such as the municipalities, have had inadequate opportunity to look at this bill to suggest amendments and have input. It has met with strong opposition. If this were to be delayed for six months to prevent the minister from implementing the provisions, it might provide for at least another six months or one more financial year where there would be some equity and some opportunity for people to continue to enjoy the benefits of a non-residential assessment base in their particular constituencies before they're snatched before their very eyes.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this particular amendment is well considered inasmuch as that people have not had ample opportunity to, interact with this government. The govern ment has brought in much less dangerous pieces of legislation and has brought them in as White Papers, such as....

Well, I won't even dignify this by drawing comparisons, but many other pieces of legislation have been brought in that way. There has been an opportunity for municipal people in particular, and other elected officials, to react.

This particular measure, I think, needs more time. I think it needs six months, because it is tantamount to the federal government invading the taxation base of provincial governments. It would be the very same as if the federal government came in and took away all of the prerogatives of provincial governments and said: "Now we will pay for those services, but we'll distribute it among the provinces the way we see fit. It is no, different than that. For that particular reason, a six month delay, a little bit of time for reflection, perhaps a little time for a bit of contrition, a little bit of time for that famous second look, would well serve this particular bill.

[ Page 7309 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member for Vancouver Centre stand on a point of order?

MR. LAUK: To close the debate. [Laughter.] Under standing orders, I moved the motion. Aren't I entitled to close the debate? What kind of a House is this?

MR. SPEAKER: This is an amendment, hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that one of our members is not in his place. I am confident that he is in the precincts, and I'm prepared to let the vote go. I just want to draw to the Speaker's attention that the bells are getting very erratic again.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We'll take that under advisement. Nonetheless, the time provided for in the standing orders has expired. The motion is that the word "now" be deleted and the following words be added: "six months hence."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 29

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

Bill 27, Education (Interim) Finance Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 15.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982
(continued)

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to briefly make my remarks in second reading on the principle of Bill 15.

Mr. Speaker, there's a very important event starting at 5:30, and I'll understand if those members who must leave leave right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is this a golf game?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, this is the hockey game in which Gary Lupul is once again going to come out scoring.

MR. SPEAKER: Would those who are moving please move silently. A member has the floor.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Be brief.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm usually pretty brief, Mr. Minister.

As a matter of fact, members who have already spoken on this bill, particularly the urban members, have pointed out to the government and the minister the concerns they have on the cutbacks — what the result will be of the proposed cutbacks if this bill passes. And I'm sure the bill will pass. The government has the majority in this House, and every time we have had a vote so far the government has won. We still do have the right to present the concerns of the ridings, municipalities and regional districts that we represent.

Since my riding is a large rural area, I want to point out to the minister.... The minister is very much aware of my riding and the nature of my riding. In fact, he paid us a visit as recently as last December on another matter. Although the dollar figures are smaller, it is the rural areas, particularly the smaller villages and municipalities, that are going to take the brunt when the effects of this bill are felt at the municipal level. Overall, just for the record — the minister is very much aware of this — the program is being cut from $162 million to $99 million. This is going to have some drastic and dramatic effects on the financing of sewer programs and perhaps other programs within municipalities and regional districts.

I would very much like to give the minister some figures. I did take the trouble, Mr. Speaker, to contact all the municipalities and regional districts in my riding, and I have some figures for the minister. When the minister closes debate on this bill, I hope he will respond and tell me that I am wrong. The municipalities' councils, administrators and financial planners agree with these figures, and they have been forced — not asked — to comply with the directive sent out from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The municipality of Powell River will lose $228,000 this year when the effects of this bill are felt, which means that jobs will be lost. Certainly a lot of part-time jobs will be lost, and some full-time jobs, or taxes will have to be increased within the municipality to make up the money differences to comply, or programs will have to be cut. That's probably what the municipal counsellors are looking at at the present time. The minister has not looked at those effects in that municipalities the size of Powell River. The worst part is, of course, if it's a sewer program or a sewage treatment plant or that kind of thing, that means that that sewage will be outfalling in the ocean untreated. The minister is very much aware of this.

Last year, the village of Sechelt received $108,000 under the revenue-sharing program. This year they will be receiving about $85,000, a cut of about 20 percent — once again, jobs down the tube, programs cut or increased taxation.

The village of Gibsons last year received $201,734 under the revenue-sharing program. This year it will receive $186,429, down $50,305. This means, once again, programs slightly cut, an increase in taxes through one form or another, or a cut in programs.

[ Page 7310 ]

I'll be fair: some of the regional districts are not quite so badly affected, depending on the programs that they have in progress. If a particular regional district has a large sewer or waterline program going on, then they will feel the effects quite badly.

As it develops, the Powell River Regional District doesn't have too many of those programs in progress at the present time, but theSun shine Coast Regional District has a large number of those programs, relatively speaking, in progress, so they will be dramatically affected by this particular bill at this time.

I should mention the Central Coast Regional District, which is also in my riding. I don't have precise figures because they have quite a small staff and office in that part of the coast, and a very low tax base, so they were not able to provide me with the precise loss of revenues under this bill that they will have this year. They will provide me with those figures, but they asked me specifically to express their concern here in the House to the minister, Mr. Speaker, on this bill if it passes in its present form. Hopefully, I have done that.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'm telling the minister and the government that if this bill passes in its present form there will be a loss of jobs within the community, a cut in programs within the various communities, and-or increased taxation to the local taxpayers once again by this government. Therefore, I'm telling the minister that I'm going to vote against this bill.

MR. LEVI: It's been a long day. The bill is an important one, so I'd like the adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on April 21 last the Chair took under advisement the practice of the House to be followed when leave of the House is sought to move a motion or to read the content of an intended notice of motion of which the House has no previous knowledge. On April 15 the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) rose in his place and stated that as House Leader, and as notice to the House, he would be tabling a notice of motion and gave the text of the motion. No objection was taken by any hon. member. It appeared to the Chair that the House Leader did so on a supposed prerogative of the House Leader, accompanied with the general assent of the House. In any event, no intervention was made either by the Chair or by any member on this occasion.

Some days later, on April 21, near the hour for adjournment, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose in his place and stated: "Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the same action taken by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) last week, I move now that this House is of the opinion that the two conflicting statements of the Minister of Finance to this House regarding funding of the British Columbia Railway's Tumbler Ridge branch line...." Upon hearing objections, the Chair called for order and stated that there was no standing order enabling the hon. Leader of the Opposition to move without notice a motion of a substantive nature, and indicated that the matter might be treated as a notice of motion, to be placed on the order paper for consideration at an appropriate time.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition then stated that he was giving verbal notice of a motion to be placed on the order paper. The Chair again intervened, upon hearing objection taken. The hon. Leader of the Opposition then stated he was asking for "the same privilege" that had previously been offered to the House Leader on the earlier occasion to which I have referred. The Chair then observed that on the prior occasion in the absence of objection, leave could be presumed, as has often been the practice of the House. On this occasion, however, objection was taken to proceeding in the manner attempted by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, the Chair permitted the reading of the intended notice of motion by the hon. Leader of the Opposition so that he was given, in his words, the same privilege as the House Leader, pending further consideration of the matter.

I should first like to observe that on many occasions, in a cooperative effort to advance the business of the House, procedures are allowed from time to time by general consent of the House, although they may not be in strict accordance with the parliamentary practice or the letter of the staring orders. This is as it should be, lest the House be unnecessarily impeded in conducting business with which the House clearly wishes to proceed. Legislative bodies generally resist becoming unduly impeded by their own technical rules of procedure and often set rules aside accordingly, but only, of course, when there is no dissenting voice.

However, the difficulty which can later ensue occurs when precisely the same procedure is sought to be invoked, but there is disagreement in the House and objection is taken. The Chair may then be confronted with complaints that the same privilege granted to one member is being denied to another. The difference, of course, is that on one occasion the Chair senses general approval of the House, and on the other occasion hears objection.

Akin to this dilemma is the problem which arises when hon. members at random times rise in their place and seek "leave to move a motion," apparently based on the assumption that at any time they are so entitled to ask leave. This cannot be the case if the House is to proceed with its business in an orderly manner; therefore, there are limitations in place on when such leave may properly be sought. Further, when leave is sought to move a motion without prior notice and without disclosing its content or subject matter, members are in the undesirable position of having to make a decision without knowing the nature of the motion sought to be moved.

Having outlined these problems confronting the Chair, and indeed the House, I make the following observations for future guidance, unless of course the House is pleased to put other rules in place:

No. 1: Standing order 48, requiring two days' notice of motion, precluded the hon. Leader of the Opposition from moving his motion without notice, as he sought to do on April 21 last.

No. 2: Although the House Leader, by virtue of occupying that position, controls the arrangement of business in the House and moves without notice procedural and other motions relating to the business of the House — May, sixteenth edition at page 260 — I find that neither he nor any other member has retained the right, as existed under more ancient practice, of giving an oral notice of motion.

No. 3: Standing order 49, which reads, "A motion may be made by unanimous consent of the House without previous notice having been given under standing Order 48,"

[ Page 7311 ]

contemplates motions of a substantive nature and should only be invoked when the House is then engaged in the business of motions and adjourned debates on motions, as designated on the order paper under standing order 25. Subject to the prerogatives of the House Leader — the reference is May, sixteenth edition, page 260 — arising from his responsibilities, when the House is engaged in any other order of business it is clearly not in order to seek to be recognized by the Chair to ask leave to move a substantive motion without notice. When, however, the Chair is advised that agreement to do so has been reached between House Leaders, standing order 49 obviously may be invoked at any time for the reason that the general consent of the House may be implied from such agreement.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.