[ Page 4955 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M203). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4955

British Columbia Human Rights Code, 1984 (Bill M207). Second reading.

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4955

Constitution Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 47). Second reading.

Mr. Stupich –– 4955

Mr. Williams –– 4956

Mr. Davis –– 4957

Hon. Mr. Chabot — 4958

Division –– 4960

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4960

Mr. Rose –– 4963

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know that every member in the House would like to extend their commiseration to Mrs. Louise Pelton. This is her forty-third wedding anniversary. The good lady has great staying power.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Public bills in the hands of private members, the first one being Bill M201. Debate was adjourned by my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I would adjourn the debate on his behalf until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill M203, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING

IN PUBLIC PLACES

(continued)

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned Bill M203, An Act To Regulate Smoking in Public Places. We're still giving it consideration. I move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MRS. WALLACE: Point of order. Standing order 44 relates to abuse of the rules of the House. It seems to me that this bill has been up for discussion on many occasions and has been adjourned and adjourned with no apparent reason, except delay of its passage through this Legislature. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that standing order 44 certainly gives you the prerogative to refuse to accept that motion, if you indeed agree that this is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has heard the argument put forward by the member, but unfortunately the Chair is not in a position to rule in that particular instance on 44. I regret that the Chair is powerless to direct the business of the House in this case, but we must proceed accordingly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill M207.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, 1984

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to be very brief this morning. I introduced this bill last year, earlier in this session, and declared at that time that it was my hope that I would receive response from people in the community about what was contained in Bill M207 with respect to errors I might have made in preparing the bill. I welcomed suggestions about improvements that could be made. Mr. Speaker, that process is one that I would recommend to all members of this House, particularly to ministers who have occasion to introduce legislation. Leave it sit, as I have done with this bill, on the order paper for a considerable period of time, encouraging response with a view then to making changes to improve the bill.

I hope this bill dies on this order paper, because I intend to introduce it in the next session of the Legislature in amended form as a result of representations that have been made to me about a variety of its provisions. It is a process that we should all seriously consider in lawmaking in British Columbia, and one that I'm definitely committed to.

Despite the fact that I could make a speech this morning about a number of provisions of this bill that I would like to recommend to all members of this House, I would rather make that speech when the bill is in perfect form, as I hope it to be in the next session of the Legislature.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps I don't need to raise the point of order that I was going to now, Mr. Speaker, but I would draw to the attention of the Speaker that it would be my impression that the bill is out of order and offends the standing orders in that it imposes an impost on the Crown.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, sections 22 and 23 clearly impose an impost on the Crown, and the point of order raised by the minister is, in fact, sufficient to invalidate the proposal before us.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 47

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was first introduced I expressed some opposition to it, and the question was put to me whether or not I was questioning the integrity of the members of the commission. My immediate response was no, of course I wasn't. But then I thought about it a little bit and wondered whether I should, not so much because of the work they've done, but rather that in accepting appointment to this particular commission they were indeed giving some measure of respectability or legitimacy to something that really should never have been done. The boundaries within which they are restricted leaves them little initiative, except in those instances where we are dealing with ridings that already have two members representing them. That's the only initiative open to them. I would think there's so little for them to do that they really might have been better advised to have turned down this honour.

The whole bill is, as I say, an attempt to give some legitimacy, some measure of respectability to a bill that was passed earlier in this session, which in turn tried to do the same thing for an electoral redistribution that I think no one liked. The Eckardt commission report was, I think, not defensible, although some of them did try to defend some parts of it. References were made earlier to my own constituency, and this is one of the things that bothers me about this, I suppose. The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond), in talking about it yesterday, said that he was going to present the case on behalf of his constituents. That's what's wrong about the whole system of redistribution here in the province and I think what makes British Columbia so different from

[ Page 4956 ]

most other Canadian jurisdictions, where the job of redistribution and of redefining electoral boundaries is done by an independent commission based on the factors that should be taken into account, rather than on the ones that were apparently taken into account by the Eckardt commission.

There is another problem with this, and it's a problem of logistics, I suppose. The bill before us proposes to add 12 members to the 57-seat Legislature. One wonders where that will stop. If you look at the list of figures, it's quite conceivable that within the six-year period during which they're required to bring in another report, there might very well be 12 more added. Perhaps not 12, but eight anyway. And who knows? If the Social Credit-inspired depression under which we are living right now was to end and B.C.'s population start growing again at the regular rate, two reports down the road we might have 100 members to accommodate in the House. This is going to have to be changed sometime.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the bill before us is going to go through today. All I'm asking the government is that they take a look and at least follow the patterns set in other Canadian jurisdictions: appoint a truly independent commission that will have the authority to redraw riding boundaries, taking into account populations, economics and everything else that should be taken into account. I'm going to repeat a recommendation that I've made for the past 30 years, I suppose: that is, that we accept the job currently being done by the federal redistribution workers, take the boundaries that are finally approved under that program, and divide each one of those federal ridings into two constituencies. I'm opposed to two-member and three-member constituencies, and I'm opposed to gerrymandered boundaries. So let's take something that we can all agree is being done properly, and have our own commission that would look at dividing each one of those federal ridings into two so that there would be two members for each federal riding. Currently we have 28 MPs, 28 ridings. That would give us 56 members, not an unreasonable number for B.C. today. It's just one short of what we have now.

I would even look favourably upon an amendment to that, so that we make it three members for each of the very large remote areas, where it is so difficult to cover the territory and to represent properly. So we're looking at 56, 58 or perhaps 60 members, under the federal riding boundaries as we have them today.

I've tried this out on quite a few electoral boundary commissions. I have spoken on it in the House before, and always to deaf ears. The job is going to have to be done again, or we are going to have so many people here.... It's one way of creating employment, I recognize that, but it's not very productive in the long run. We're going to have to do something to impose some limits and bring some sense to it. The next time the job is done, I would urge that whoever happens to form the government in the province of British Columbia do a truly fair and reasonable job — one that cannot be attacked like the most recent commission report, which left itself so obviously open to the suggestion that politics had more to do with it than an attempt to have proper representation in the BC Legislature. I'm opposed to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it does continue a process that has been going on for too long in British Columbia. It's one that I would like to see stopped.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yesterday I was impressed by the speech from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who talked about this being an insurance policy for the present administration. He talked about the rigged boundaries. Others — especially the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — talked about the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. I think that both of them had significant things to say to us.

We look at the few numbers we are given in this report, and it looks like an average, per riding, of approximately 41,000, in terms of population. If we look at the distribution in terms of your proposals, we find that there are 23 ridings over-represented on your side of the House, if this goes through, and six on our side of the House. That's the beginning of the rigged game.

We've lived with rigged games from this administration and previous Socred administrations through the last generation. We got it from the earlier Premier with respect to the Vancouver ridings, when two-member ridings were established. I guess we can understand why that happened, because we had a by-election in the city of Vancouver just in the last month, and it's pretty clear that there are different opinions in our city, east side versus west side. What happened in that earlier administration was to push east-west ridings together, by and large, with the one exception of my own riding of Vancouver East, with the intent that the west side would over-weight the east side vote pattern. We've lived with two-member ridings in Vancouver now for probably 20 years. It's wrong, and it should be challenged; I agree with the member for Prince Rupert that this issue should be challenged in the court. It's very clear that this Legislature is not competent to deal with these problems, that the self-interest on the other side will always prevail.

Let's look at some of the numbers. You look at Langley, in this modest little number-crunching exercise. Now, 65,169 people. What's going to happen in Langley? They're going to get one new member. Well, they certainly need a new member in Langley, nobody would argue that, but they don't need.... But what it really means is that if we take that 42,000 average, we find that 23,000 people get the next MLA.

Then you look at the neighbouring riding of Central Fraser Valley, 64,000 people plus. In that case, the second member will get in on the basis of 22,000 voters from the average. That's what will happen in Central Fraser Valley and Langley. But then if you put the two ridings together, which might not be an unreasonable idea, you find that on the basis of averages they should have only three MLAs. So they've picked up one right there in Langley-Central Fraser Valley right away.

Hop over onto the Island and look what's happening. Right here in adjacent Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, what are the numbers? The number is 60,061 persons. Just across the way in Saanich and the Islands, the number is 72,673 persons.

Under your rigged game they'll get another member in Saanich, and what that means is that 12,000 people in Saanich will get a new MLA, relative to the average. That's scandalous. Atlin, with 6,503 voters, is, with all apologies to the member, whom I respect, totally unacceptable in this day and age. Yesterday the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) got up and pointed out that he represented 8,000 square miles. Well, indeed he does. And he compared that, say, to the ten square miles here in the city of Victoria. He was offended by that, that there were two members in Victoria and just one member from Kamloops. But he seemed to think that

[ Page 4957 ]

empty space or mountaintops or forests or fencing or grazing permits should determine representation.

The Minister of Tourism found it offensive that he should represent 77,000 people, and that there should be two people in Victoria representing 81,000 people. Indeed, it is offensive: one man, one vote is what the issue's all about, and any departure from the basic ideal of one man, one vote is offensive. But was he offended by the situation represented by the member for Columbia, the Provincial Secretary? No, he didn't say so. But what about the comparison there? The member for Columbia River represents 23,000 people, while the member for Kamloops represents 78,000. So it takes three times the number of people in Kamloops to vote for one MLA that it takes in Columbia River.

Sure, the relationship between Kamloops and Victoria is offensive. The Columbia River example relative to Kamloops is offensive. It's inexcusable. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that it's all inexcusable. You've departed from the basic principle of one man, one vote — that's what you've done — and once you depart from that principle, you're lost. Of course it's wrong that there should be two MLAs from Victoria and one from Kamloops, but any variation is wrong. As soon as we water down anybody's right to vote, we're destroying the democratic principle that we're supposed to believe in. Our whole free system is endangered once you begin that process that you've begun.

It's fundamental to the democratic idea that these things should not be trifled with, but that's what you people are doing. You did it before, and public opinion was offended. As a result, Gracie's Finger is part of the political vocabulary of British Columbia, something to be proud of indeed. You've done it again. You backed off the last time, because everyone was simply too offended at how gross your proposals were. But anything that departs from these principles is offensive, Mr. Speaker.

[10:30]

I think we should look back some 20-plus years to what the Americans have done in this area. There the great Earl Warren court dealt with this question at the supreme court level in the United States. They considered several cases of improper distribution and gerrymandering in the U.S. All of these flowed through to the supreme court in the early sixties. There was a New York case which involved a radio station in metro New York: WMCA v. Lorenzo in 1961. The differences there were not nearly what they are here. The problem there was that their rural counties had about 195,000 citizens in them, and their urban ones about 300,000. The courts turned that aside and said that there must be redistribution. That was with that kind of difference, sort of a 3 to 2 relationship or ratio.

In so many ways the way we do things in this Legislature and the electoral process in British Columbia might well be compared to Alabama, which doesn't have a famous record in this regard either. There the court case was called the 67-senator amendment. There the urban counties around Mobile had 52,000 people in them, while the rural counties had 20,000. The courts turned that aside and said it was unacceptable. In Maryland there was a similar situation, and the courts turned those aside: 76 percent of the population in Baltimore, but 49 percent of the representation. The American Supreme Court said that was unacceptable.

Chief Justice Warren said at the time: "Considerations of history and tradition do not and could not provide a sufficient justification for the substantial deviations from population-based representation in both Houses of the Maryland Legislature." In his watershed decision, the chief justice in the United States said, with respect to the Baker case:

"To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen. The fact that an individual lives here or there is not a legitimate reason for overweighting or diluting the efficacy of his vote. Population is of necessity the starting point for consideration and the controlling criterion for judgement in legislative apportionment controversies. A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more or no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm. This is the clear and strong command of our constitution's equal protection clause."

So what we have in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is malapportionment. Malapportionment is a fact. It works to the disadvantage of the underrepresented groups in our society, Correction is not available from this Legislature. It has not been available from this administration or previous administrations on that side. Too many of the members of this House, including the minister, are the beneficiaries of an ever-worsening situation. So this should properly become a matter for judicial inquiry. There the minister sits, representing 23,000-plus people — half the people that we have in terms of one member in Vancouver East. We've always had this rotten-borough problem here, transferred from other places.

There's nothing more serious in a democracy than the right to vote. The whole concept of equality within our system is tied to it. To leave it in the hands of this minister is to put it all in jeopardy. What we're dealing with here is nothing more than theft. We're stealing the full voting rights of countless thousands of individuals in our society. Any person of conscience in this House must vote against the legislation.

MR. DAVIS: Everyone in this House believes in the individual's right to vote. Everyone believes or certainly gives lip-service to the idea of one man or one person, one vote.

I am going to vote for this legislation, because it moves in the direction of one person, one vote. We have a very imperfect system of representation in this province, but this legislation moves towards equality in voting influence of individual voters.

The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said that this bill may be in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He implies that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says one man, one vote. Well, if this bill is in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, certainly the existing legislation is in greater conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so his argument is nonsensical. We're moving in the right direction, No system of voting is perfect. Obviously the present system, which the opposition would preserve for a few more years, is imperfect.

The voting population in Atlin is of the order of 6,000, and that population has the opportunity to elect a member in this Legislature. The population in Richmond is not 6,000; it's 96,000, and it elects a single member, This legislation would at least double the representation of Richmond and bring the average population voting for a member in Richmond down to half of 96,000, or of the order of 48,000. That's a move towards one man, one vote.

The logic of the argument opposite is that the constituency of Atlin should disappear. We are not tampering with

[ Page 4958 ]

boundaries in this bill. This bill has nothing to do with boundaries other than that subdivision of the type in Surrey recommended by a commission, which I think the opposition would endorse.

We are talking about rep by pop, or movement towards one man, one vote. This bill makes a measured step towards one man, one vote. The federal legislation, which has been in place since Canada began in 1867, requires that every ten years a census of Canada is taken, the voting population determined and that divided by the number of seats in the House of Commons. That yields a number which is the number of voting people in each constituency. That is the ideal, but nevertheless, legislators at the federal level, like legislators everywhere, have had to allow some discrepancy on the high side and on the low side.

In the federal legislation, there's an allowance of 25 percent up or down. So constituencies across Canada are one man, one vote, or rep by pop, except for the latitude of 25 percent up or 25 percent down. I think there will always have to be some discretionary element that allows for distance, difficulty of travel, and so on, and substantial geographical areas with a particular interest should be represented well in each Legislature and in the House of Commons.

So we will never arrive at a perfect system, but we should be moving towards one man, one vote. That's essentially what this bill does. I think the key number, which has to be a real concern to everyone here, is the latitude above or below a norm. The norm is of the order of 42,000 per constituency The latitude in the formula used by this commission is 60 percent. Once a constituency is 60 percent over that 42,000 figure, it becomes a dual riding.

If another number were used — say 50 percent — according to my calculations there would have been 13 additional members in this House and not 12. So it's not sensitive on the low side. On the high side, if the number had been 75 percent — in other words, a constituency had to be 75 percent above the norm — we would have ended up with some nine additional members. If we went to double or 100 percent, we'd still have four more members.

So the question really is not so much how many additional members but how close to a norm to we want to hew this time around. As I have said repeatedly, I think this is a step in the right direction. It's towards one man, one vote. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned a formula that I think makes some sense and have advocated it before in this House: using the federal commissions which determine boundaries, hold hearings, look at geographical factors, and so on, and then simply divide each federal constituency in half and remove from this Legislature — indeed, from provincial politics — the determination of boundaries.

That has an appeal, except that the feds continue to build up the size of their House. If they keep on expanding the size of the House of Commons of the order of 5 percent a year, we won't need just one chamber like this, but several if we were to have two members for every federal MP. So that is the problem with that particular formula. It does away with the question of boundary-rigging, gerrymandering, whatever you wish to call it, Mr. Speaker, but it has some considerable appeal.

I think the faults in the arrangements that are still embodied in this legislation are these. It doesn't reach perfection; it goes towards one man, one vote, but only a step towards it. It gives us two representatives for an increasing number of constituencies; I think that's wrong. I believe the individual voter should be able to hold an individual representative responsible and not wonder which one of the two they should go to, or not get an answer from one that conflicts with the answer from the other, and so on. I think that's inadequate representation. In the long run I think the age limit should be set by Canadian citizenship. If a person is old enough to serve in the armed forces of this country, that person should have a vote provincially as well as federally. I hope that will be possible in this province before this decade is out. I believe we should have an independent commission — certainly an independent commission, as this bill envisages, to subdivide constituencies which have multiple representation. The present legislation triggers that commission only when you would otherwise move from two representatives per riding to three. I think the subdivision should occur immediately two representatives are decreed by the formula. In other words, the commission should go to work on the double representation consistencies, but that's for another time.

The charge of gerrymandering. First, it doesn't apply to this bill, because no boundary changes are envisaged. When the NDP was government in the early 1970s, they had an opportunity to do something about boundaries. They asked Judge Norris to look at the whole question — admittedly, a very large question. Judge Norris submitted a report to the government of that day, which they conveniently filed away, and it saw the light of day only after the government changed. They had their opportunity to improve the boundaries. The boundaries can be improved, but that's a challenge for another time, Mr. Speaker. It's not an issue today before the members of this House It's not a matter dealt with in any way in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in essence, because this is moving towards one man, one vote, because it doesn't raise the question of boundaries other than within Surrey, where I gather everyone has agreed with the change in boundary, I'm voting for the bill.

[10:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: In closing the debate I will attempt to answer some of the questions in the statements made by some of the members. First, I want to say that the $80,000 man who just closed the debate for the NDP reached pretty far in his arguments against this legislation when he had to go all the way to Mobile, Alabama. It's reaching pretty far when you make comparisons between Mobile, Alabama and this legislation. Essentially what he did, Mr. Speaker, was to viciously attack rural British Columbia. He doesn't believe rural British Columbia should have representation in this House, or if they do have representation in this House, that it should be very limited. He put forward the argument of one man, one vote representation by population. He doesn't believe that people from rural British Columbia have the historical right of representation. He's against that. It's quite obvious by his arguments that he doesn't support rural British Columbia having a fair degree of representation in this chamber. He fails to take into consideration that British Columbia is a far larger territory than the state of Alabama. It's very difficult to make comparisons between British Columbia and the state of Alabama.

I want to remind that member that British Columbia does not start or end at Hope. That's the view that he's attempting to express: that the whole province of British Columbia should be dominated by where the population is. It's a vicious

[ Page 4959 ]

attack against the people of Atlin's right to be represented in this House, and I say they have an historical right. This bill brings fair representation for the people of British Columbia. As long as I'm in this assembly I will never support the views expressed by that member, who is against rural British Columbia. Never! Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the NDP using that man to wind up the debate on this bill? That NDP that wants to get representation in rural British Columbia'? They've just blown it out the window with that speech from the member for Vancouver East.

I don't know where the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank) has gone now, but yesterday he talked about the age of citizenship. Well, he got his little blurb on the radio talking about the age of citizenship. I want to remind that member from Vancouver Centre that he was on the wrong bill. Maybe he was in Vancouver practising law the day before yesterday when the bill under which the issue should be addressed was debated in this House.

It's the same with the new member for North Okanagan (Mr. MacWilliam) but I'll excuse him. He came in here, brand new, talking about the issue of enumeration. He said that enumeration should take place before every election. Amen to that, I say. He, also, was debating the wrong bill, a bill that was debated the day before. If he's listening, or if he reads the Blues, wherever he is, I want to tell him that enumeration in British Columbia takes place before every election as a matter of law. It's spelled out in the Election Act.

The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Mitchell) said that we should appoint a commission we have faith in. I don't know if he is suggesting that the commission that he has faith in should be a commission that the NDP have faith in. I think that's a vicious attack against the three-man commission that we had in place. I'm appalled that that kind of a statement would come from a former policeman in the community of Esquimalt.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) would say that I shouldn't call him a former policeman, but that he should be called a policeperson.

Mr. Speaker, in the years that I've been in this chamber we've had about five redistribution commissions: we had the Angus commission back in about 1965; we've had the Norris commission, the Eckardt commission, the Warren commission, and now this three-man commission headed up by Judge McAdam. There's been criticism of each and every report that has been submitted in the last 20-odd years. Every redistribution commission has been criticized because of the recommendations they have made. It's hard, because politicians, in many instances, I guess, have a certain degree of self-interest. I think that might be the reason for much of the criticism.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked about representation. I don't know if I should say.... Yes, he is the first member. He was elected first; the other guy came in the back door. This bill produces additional seats in this chamber. Essentially it attempts to get a fair representation. It attempts to address the issue of imbalances that exist in the province. He said that he represents approximately 40,000 people in about an 80,000-population constituency represented by two members. Well, we'll have Richmond, which under this legislation will have two members, Each member will represent 50, 000 people, so I don't think there's any unfairness in the formula which has been used to address this issue. Atlin, of course, has a population of about 12,000 to 15,000 people. We believe that rural British Columbia should be represented. I talked about that a few moments ago.

I'm rather surprised that the opposition would be opposed to this bill, because essentially they never opposed the amendment to the Constitution Act which was introduced in this House last year. It set up the three-man commission and the formula. They never voted against the legislation. Now they're talking about being opposed to the formula that has produced these seats, yet they never voted against the legislation. I don't know whether they had a change of heart or whether they're schizophrenic,

They talk about redistribution and so forth. While they were government in that short period of time — the three and one-third years that British Columbia had to suffer through the NDP — they appointed Judge Norris to head up a three-man commission. Judge Norris did travel throughout British Columbia and consulted with people. I remember presenting a submission to him in Golden many years ago. He produced a report for the government, but that report has never seen the light of day. That report has never come to this Legislature, and I wonder why. I'll tell you why. The now second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talked the Premier of the day into going to an election because the finances of this province were in a state of chaos in 1975 and they couldn't wait for the Norris report. That member suggested that this was the best time to get re-elected. I want to tell you that we had to campaign in the dead of winter in December 1975 — 1 remember that. That former government would not table the Norris report because they were too anxious to seek re-election. I'll tell you, the people taught them a lesson in December 1975. They'll never call another election in the dead of winter, because they'll never have the chance again.

The Norris report, which cost the taxpayers of this province hundreds of thousands of dollars, has never seen the light of day, has never been tabled in this House. The NDP did not want to table that report in this House. I want to tell you that this three-man commission report was tabled in this House — this one that addresses the amendments to the Constitution Act — upon the opening day of the continuation of this session.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Norris report has never been filed, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know why. It's because of the anxiety to go to the people.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) talks about this bill being an insurance policy on the next election, Those were his very words, Mr. Speaker. He nods his head in agreement. Are you suggesting, Mr. Member, that this party owns the voters? Don't you think the voters have the right of expression? Don't you think the voters have the freedom to express their preferences during an election campaign? That's not what you're suggesting when you're saying that this is an insurance policy on the next election.

You look at the 13 seats. There will be 13 seats from Delta, Richmond, Dewdney, Kamloops, Nanaimo and Surrey, and he's suggesting that those 13 seats that will be in place for the next election are owned by the Social Credit Party. I want to say that those 13 seats were all NDP in the

[ Page 4960 ]

election of 1972. They weren't 13 at that time, but I'm saying that those particular ridings each returned an NDP member to this chamber in that particular election. So the people will determine who the government of this province will be. There is no ownership. There is freedom of expression.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings about fair representation. The members who talk against this bill are not supporting fair representation for the constituencies of Delta, Richmond, Central Fraser Valley, Dewdney, Langley, Okanagan South, Boundary-Similkameen, Cariboo, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Saanich and the Islands and Surrey. I want to say that a vote against this bill is a vote against fair and equitable representation in British Columbia.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

[11:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 20

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

MR. LAUK: In asking that the matter be recorded, I also wish it to be recorded as "Black" St. Valentine's Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Bill 47, Constitution Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill 48, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985. Before making reference to some of the notes that I have, I would like to trace some of the history of what has occurred with respect to the funding of public education over the last few years. If you recall, in 1982 there were a number of comments made by trustees, school superintendents, secretary-treasurers and provincial politicians, as well as by parents and many other members of the community, The concern which was being expressed was probably most aptly put in one of the daily newspapers, in which it was said that many trustees, school board staff and politicians agreed that the funding of public schools was a system out of control and badly in need of revision.

After what had occurred in 1982, and with an analysis of the budgets which had been presented and passed, it was recognized that it was time for the government to take the initiative and address a number of the problems. Interestingly enough, many of those people to whom the general statement was attributed are sitting on school boards throughout British Columbia. Of particular note are some of those who are on the Vancouver School Board, representing what they refer to as the COPE faction as well the NPA faction. I must also say that of all the school boards I visited I found that that was probably the most unusual school board of all. They certainly have strong views on both sides, although I do concede that we did have a reasonably good meeting with them.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

After an analysis of the budgets over that period of time, as well as of the comments that were made by a number of people, it was really incumbent upon government to introduce a number of proposals. I advise the House that it has not been easy, either for the provincial government or for school districts, trustees and their administrations. It has involved considerable sacrifice and a great deal of pain, but I do think they have done a commendable job.

There was an interesting comment in the press not too long ago. It was a remark made by a gentleman by the name of Paul Gallagher, who is the former principal of Capilano College and now the new principal of Vancouver Community College. He made this statement: "I think a reasonable amount of difficulty tends to bring out the best in people. We are more resourceful because we have to be more resourceful." I think that comment could be passed on to school boards throughout British Columbia.

A number of the complications which were arising primarily involved the decline in student enrolment. Enrolment in British Columbia, in round figures, over the last ten years has declined from something in the order of 525,000 to 472,000. That is a significant drop: something in the order of 53,000 students. Interestingly enough, if you wish to do a comparison of the number of students in the system, and if we were to look at 1979-80, the number of students and the number of teachers, and compare that with 1983-84, where there was a drop of 22,000 students, in fact there are now 1,238 fewer teachers in the system.

The issue of salaries was of some moment. I make no comment as to whether the salaries being paid to those people responsible for delivery of instruction in British Columbia are just right, too low or too high, That has not been the issue. I was charged with responsibility of controlling the expenditure of public funds. In fairness, I think we should point out that teachers have done reasonably well over that period of time, 1980-84 inclusive. Over the five-year period of time the average increase, which has been compounded, of course, is a touch more than 9 percent on each of the five,

[ Page 4961 ]

even when you take into consideration the award in 1984, which was 0 percent, plus increment.

A number of tools were required with which to do the job. One was Bill 6. Bill 6 gave to the government the power to cap budgets and set mill rates. I concede at the very beginning that that power taken by the provincial government eroded the autonomy of school districts. There is not any question about that occurring; it did. It was done for a particular reason. Interestingly enough, though, after Bill 6, the statement which I made reference to in the House a couple of days ago.... It was done with the blessing, and I concede reluctance to a degree.... It was done with an accompanying statement by the BC School Trustees' Association that it was not inappropriate to do so at this time.

[11:15]

The stabilization program came into place as well. Service levels were established and we looked over a period of three years to do it. Now the three-year period is 1984, 1985 and 1986. We're talking a great deal of money. In round figures, to give you some indication of the amount of dollars that we are dealing with, it is roughly $1.9 billion. It varies up and down, but I think for general discussion purposes everyone should be very much aware that the amount of money is significant.

There was one variation to the three fiscal years under which we were to try to establish some degree of equity between school districts throughout the province, when we decided to change the school fiscal year so that it could be dovetailed with the actual school year. This was a request, Mr. Speaker, that had been made, I believe, for years and years and years. It had never come to pass. I fail to understand why it never did come to pass, but it has. As a result of the change in the fiscal year to the school year — from now on it's July I to June 30 of the following year — we ended up with a short fiscal or transitional period. We are now in the transitional period. It's January to June 1985. As a result of that we have compressed the three-year program which we had in place to two years and six months. So we're now going into the long fiscal commencing July I.

During my tours throughout the province, one of the things that I was particularly interested in was to determine how school districts were going to cope with their budgets for the transitional period, January to June 30. I must tell you that with some exceptions which are very small in number, all school districts advised me that they will be able to come through to June 30. I assisted the school boards in that regard by permitting surpluses to be rolled — surpluses from 1983 to '84, '84 to the short fiscal '85, and the short fiscal '85 to the full year '85-'86, That has been very helpful to them. Although it made them vulnerable for other reasons, I believe that on balance it was the right thing to do. Of course, it was the request made.

Before I go into my second reading notes, and this is by way of background, I thought that I should make reference to rather an interesting statement made by the Compensation Stabilization commissioner, Mr. Peck. Reference was made to the way we have set up the fiscal year, and that all budgets are to be resolved prior to going into the new school year fiscal year. The statement was made in two recent reports, one on Surrey and the other on Howe Sound. He says as follows: "Under the new system the timing of budgeting and bargaining schedules is synchronized in a common-sense fashion so that teachers' salary and bonus settlements will be influenced by budget realities." Really, that's all I was trying to do. As you know, a school board would determine a budget, then arbitration would follow. They would find out what the total package was, and that amount would be referred to other agencies for the purposes of translating the number of dollars into a mill rate. The mill rate would be on the tax notice and the tax notice would go to the public; of course, it was continuing to pay. There were no checks. In other words, it had to be turned around so that the managing side at least knew, when they went to arbitration, how much money they had. That's all we've done.

In the previous year, 1981, school taxes had risen rapidly in all areas of the province, with particularly dramatic increases in metropolitan areas. The provincial government had received requests from many quarters to put more provincial funds into the system to keep property taxes down, For two reasons we, as a government, were not ready to respond simply by adding more money. The cost of public school education had been rising rapidly. In 1981 school budgets increased on average by 19 percent; in 1982 the same percentage occurred again. Another factor occurred while we were moving through. We found that while budgets were moving up — interestingly, they were going up at this time in excess of a 45-degree angle — enrolments were declining. I didn't like what was happening in 1982. As all members will recall, two measures, called restraint 1 and restraint 2, were introduced in February and July of 1982. All that those two measures did was to arbitrarily take a pro rata reduction of the school district's budget. That was unfair. What we had to do was turn it around the other way and establish, for the first time in British Columbia's history, a service level.

We also recognized that in that period of time the financial position of the province had weakened dramatically as the full effects of the recession were felt. Additional provincial support would have meant higher provincial taxes. So our task was to gain control over the underlying cause of tax increases, which was expenditure increases; therefore control of expenditures in education came to pass. The legislation which was introduced gave the Minister of Education the new power to establish budgetary limits for each school district. The compensation stabilization program was introduced and that put reasonable limitations on increases and checked arbitrated awards. The major underlying effect in education is of course the cost of instruction, whether it's professional staff, teaching staff, instructional staff, administration, instructional support or support staff.

Because of the arbitrariness of restraint 1 and restraint 2, we developed a system commonly referred to as a fiscal framework, which used a combination of provincially established service levels and acceptable cost factors to arrive at the financial limits applicable to each school district. I admit that the framework used a number of involved calculations to arrive at acceptable budgets. I sympathize with those who have tried to master those difficulties. That formula, those service levels and the framework were reviewed in great detail and have been amended. In all fairness, I think we should point out that you cannot introduce a new method of funding for a public education system involving this number of dollars without incurring difficulties from time to time. That was inevitable. But almost without exception, if I put the question to the school board in the presence of the secretary-treasurer and the superintendent — "Tell me, has the system made things worse for you? Is it an improvement or is it about the same?" — without a doubt they came back: "It is

[ Page 4962 ]

a considerable improvement." More often than not, the secretary-treasurers would say — and remember, these are the people who look after the finances of the school district; they operate and hold very key positions: "It has now, for the first time, established accountability. And it has done something else: we really have an idea of what items cost within the school system. It helps them too, because for those people in the community who want more and more, it doesn't take too long to determine what the real cost is going to be." Those are not my words, Mr. Speaker.

Now those are not my words, Mr. Speaker; those are the responses which I have received from people in meetings, and I can tell you, not all comments which were raised were supportive. But those that were supportive, boards were most fair in delivering them,

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us the ones that they didn't like.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm wondering if maybe I might finish here, and I'll do that on rebuttal.

AN HON, MEMBER: Is that a promise.?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, that's a promise.

When we introduced the system in the first year, there were a number of amendments which were required. I don't think you can expect anything else but that. Last November 16 amendments to the framework were made. Each of those amendments were made as a result of discussion with school districts, superintendents, secretary-treasurers and MLAs on both sides of the House who came to me and said: "Now look, we've got a problem here. Would you consider this?" And you bet we did. I also can tell you that as one of the MLAs, as a result of dialogue with my school district in my riding, I brought some suggestions back.

I want to stress that the framework remains a means of setting an approved budget. Boards remain responsible for the way the budget is spent. The provincial government's decision on behalf of taxpayers to take greater control of spending never removed from boards the right to manage those funds in the best possible manner in response to local conditions and local priorities. The only exception that I put onto that remark — and we're getting into a technical area — involves function 5, with respect to maintenance and operations. There were some rules which were set in advance and which all school districts acknowledged, with the exception of.... I know of one, and perhaps two. I think the important thing is that it set a foundation in place. The budgets are now lower than they were in '82, but on average the cost is about $40 less per student in 1985-86.

In our view — that of the government — we believe that the method of funding public education by controlling expenditures, establishing a foundation and determining equity between school districts provincewide has been pretty well achieved. I also am of the view that there are sufficient funds within the school system to provide quality education.

I am aware that adjusting to expenditure controls has not been easy for boards. Over the last few months, you know that I have travelled and listened to their concerns, and I have brought most of those back with me. There have been further adjustments made, both for the short fiscal year of January to June 1985 and the full fiscal year commencing on July 1, and the first preliminary budgets have now gone out in that regard.

Most people understand why government began the process of restraint and expenditure control, and agreed that it was necessary. After the passage of three years, others believed that more spending should be allowed. On a number of occasions, I have been told that local communities would willingly put additional resources into education if the provincial government would only let them. Mr. Speaker, I'm not so certain that the taxpayers throughout the province are ready or able to put more funds into public school education at this time. However, I am persuaded that an opportunity should be given for local school boards to exceed provincial spending guidelines, with their taxpayers' consent. Bill 48 will do just that for the 1985-86 fiscal year.

In 1984 the consolidated revenue fund provided 51 percent of the cost of operating the public school system. The commercial and industrial base provided 35 percent. The residential taxpayers before, somewhere between 8 and 9 percent after the homeowner grant. The remainder came from miscellaneous revenue, and miscellaneous revenue means grants that are given in lieu of taxes, or from the Department of Indian Affairs where native children are in particular school districts, or from the Department of National Defence where we have students who are children of service personnel.

[11:30]

It is the government's view that the consolidated revenue fund and the commercial and industrial taxpayers cannot be asked at this time to pay a larger share. Any increase in expenditure will inevitably cause an increase in taxes for British Columbia citizens. This bill will allow a school board to add a supplementary amount to its budget provided the cost of that increase is borne totally by residential property taxation and provided school boards gain the support of their constituents by a tax increase through a local referendum.

In this way, if increased expenditures cause increased taxes, it will be with the consent of the people who pay the bill. There will be no limits on the amount a board may seek and no conditions on the use of those operating funds. It will be the responsibility of school boards to decide whether to hold a referendum and how much to ask for. The cost of the referendum is to be borne by the board. I have included in the bill a number of provisions to ensure that the referendum process is fairly designed and executed. The timetable for the referendum is, by necessity, quite tight. Final taxation information must be distributed by the Ministry of Education on April 20 to allow for the time for preparation of tax notices. Therefore the referendum must be held between March 21 and April 14. School boards, if they wish to go, must decide by March 7 if they are to have a referendum and how much they will seek from their taxpayers,

We know that the budgets for '85-86 are in the hands of school boards right now. School boards also know what they feel they need. Many keep incorporating inflationary amounts within what they need. We know as a fact, and so do all boards, the exact amount of money which is required to maintain the programs which they are now offering and have in '84 and for the short fiscal '85.

I think that if I am to respond to what I have been told by boards, by the public....

AN HON. MEMBER: You will resign.

[ Page 4963 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I tell you, if I were in your position, perhaps that's what I would have done.

I welcome this opportunity for them to tell me what they have been telling me through the press and what their teachers have been saying, what their parents have been saying. Here it is; they have that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I'll leave it at that now and respond, in closing debate, to a number of questions. I've already mentioned it but I repeat: I move second reading.

MR. ROSE: It's my pleasure to participate in this debate today. I hope that our opposition to this bill will not be considered merely a knee-jerk reaction. An opposition's job is to oppose and to tell the people what is behind the bill.

I'm not going to go through an extensive history of restraint in educational matters at this time. I'm not going to go into all the details that the minister did on many things. I think that during estimates and at other times there will be ample opportunity for me to do just that, and I will do it at those times. However, I can't help but feel that the minister has given us a cunningly designed, calculating and cynical kind of safety valve to get himself off the hook from all the battering and the pressure he's undergone in the last 19 months. I would never say that the minister isn't sincere; I say he's wrong. He's not lazy; he's hard-working. But I think his work and his tension and the pressure he's been under have been largely of his own doing. If he'd been a little more flexible in the beginning, as he was urged to be, then he wouldn't have had the kind of attacks he's had and will continue to have, not only in Vancouver or Coquitlam or Surrey but all over the province.

People are interested and alarmed and concerned about education as they never have been before, so we can thank him for that. He has certainly raised the consciousness of people regarding their education: what a precious thing it is, how fragile it is and how easily it can be taken away. He claims there is a lot of fat in education. Well, I'll tell him where the fat is: it's not very far from here. I think it's probably.... Well, I won't say. I'll leave that up to the imagination of the people.

He talks about the school boards' budgets going up by a 45-degree angle. Does he recall that during 1981 and 1982 there was an inflation rate of something like 17 percent'? Does he also know that if we agree that it's 9 percent if you choose those nice five years to conclude the 17 percent and ignore no raises for the last three...? Do you also realize that really during those periods, again only keeping up with legislation...?

I notice the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), a former high school teacher, over there. He likes high school teaching so much that he quit that and came here and got himself a good job. So he hasn't any right at all to heckle or make any remarks. He had his snout in the public trough when he was a high school teacher. He's got it in there now as a legislator. So was I, and I don't object to that. But don't suddenly change sides once you get here, Mr. Minister.

Look, reform is one thing. Let's agree that the minister had a right, a duty and an obligation to look into various matters within education, to look into what was spent on administration, busing, maintenance and all the rest. But reform is one thing; destruction is another. And I think he is on the verge of putting the school system — and not just the school system; these policies also hit the colleges and the universities — back at least ten years. His referendum legislation is another example of the same kind of retrograde thinking. So are his high school graduation requirements. Now I'm not going to go into all that. Although the minister was allowed all kinds of latitude in justifying his position. I think the savage attacks that he has made against education .... I don't think he's done it alone. I think he's done it with the approval and the applause of even the Social Credit back-benchers, But I imagine he's heard from a few of them too, and that's why this business of a referendum came up. It allows him to say: "Well, yeah, sure, if you've got the money, you can spend it." Right?

What's really happening here? Under the guise of restraint the districts that were cheap, that were operating cheap systems for a variety of reasons, got a comparative increase, and the districts which were interested in quality education, whose taxpayers were willingly paying for better education for their children, got cut. The Burnabys and the Coquitlams got cut because they were going to provide a better quality of education. And the ministry came along and said: "No, you can't do that, because other districts will want to do that." When the Cariboos and the Abbotsfords, who think they got a raise, look at a 25 percent inflation rate.... It's not the inflation rate, but the minister's cuts of 6 percent over three years plus an inflation rate of anywhere up to 19 percent compounded.... It depends on what the inflation rate is, but most people agree that, with the cuts, the inflation rate is going to be roughly 25 to 27 percent over the period of the so-called interim educational financing formula.

I wonder if the minister has looked into school boards' budgets over that period and compared them to municipal budgets over that period. Has he compared them to the provincial budget over that period? And has he compared the federal budget and budgets of other provinces during a period of high inflation rate? Or does he really just want to attack and punish, and scapegoat teachers, and punish B.C.'s students — B.C. kids? Have a look at the others and see if maybe you shouldn't move in on the municipalities with equal vigour and force, because you have destroyed school board autonomy. You admit it. You say: "Ah, I admit it, but I had to do it. There was no other choice." An autonomous elected body shouldn't have their powers usurped, or else they should quit. With the referendum you are doing even more damage to them, more violence to their autonomy, and I'll get into those reasons in a moment.

The minister's excuse to cut back is the fact that there's a population drop in the schools of approximately 10 percent, but during that whole period he's going to cut about 25 percent on average out of school board budgets. You can't do violence like that without damaging the quality of education. Why should we damage the quality of education? I can show you a statement by the new governor of Washington, who feels that in order to compete in the modern world of high tech, the changing world, we've got to add dollars to education, not strangle education for funds. But he says: "It's a wonderful challenge. We'll cut off all their funds and we'll see if they can survive. That will be a great challenge." It reminds me of the old story about the farmer who is trying to teach his horse to go without oats. As soon as he got him just about trained, he died. It's the same thing in lots of ways. You can't restrain yourself to better quality education any more than you can solve all problems by throwing money at it, That's another old cliche. I agree with that cliche, unless you

[ Page 4964 ]

are talking about poverty. If you throw money at poverty you solve a lot of problems.

Bill 6 came in, not with the blessings of the boards; the minister stuck a gun to their heads. That's what he did 18 months ago. There was even the threat of getting rid of the BC School Trustees' Association if the board members didn't toe the line, because it was eating up something like $2 million worth of funds a year. At the eleventh hour he came in one night and said they had agreed to it, provided two things. One, there would be a sunset provision in the bill. The other proviso was that they could shuffle around the various items within the global budget. They said: "Yes, Mr. Minister, we accept. We've got the gun to our heads. Stick 'em up! We accept the fact that you're going to take all our authority for raising and spending, and that you're going to tell us about the global limits, but at least let us move the old shells around within the shell game." They bought that; they agreed to it.

Coquitlam tried that. They cut down on their maintenance to keep teachers employed, and then the goalposts were changed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You were at that meeting. Tell the truth.

MR. ROSE: I was at the meeting, yes. There's also in Hansard a reference in which the minister says they could move around the various kinds of items within their global budgets, not because if they cut back $600,000 in maintenance they were going to be deprived of other funds from other functions. You didn't say: "You can move your funds around within the functions."

Your formulas were just about as dumb as they were in Surrey for growth. Surrey was expecting 1,000 people in the following year, and your formula provided them with $1,000 less than they needed per student, so they were $1 million in the glue. And then you had to go and fix that one up under pressure, and I know where the pressure came from as well.

Mr. Speaker, the boards had to take this. They had to take it, and they're not happy, The minister travels the province, and he comes across as if it's some kind of a love-in — they embraced him everywhere he went, kisses on both cheeks and gave him the Croix de Guerre or something. I don't know what they did to him, but of course they're not going to.... They're polite people, board members. They're not going to go out and get violent. They're not even going to be as rough and as sort of militant-sounding as I might sound today, even though I don't feel it in all my heart. I'm very fond of the minister. We grew up in the same town, you know, along with another celebrated former member of this House, Rev. Phil Gaglardi. I mean, we're both products of that gem of the Fraser Valley, Mission City. So there's nothing personal in my attack here. I don't think he's a bad man. I don't even think he's a dumb man, but I think he's dead wrong on this.

Interjection.

[11:45]

MR. ROSE: I am, right. As a matter of fact, the school boards would like to send you a valentine, and I heard there was one on its way. You know, a wired one, and it goes something like this: "Dear Mr. Heinrich: Now is the time to tell us we love each other so, but we can't feel that way towards you until we get more dough." That's the valentine from the school board.

He said: "You know, teachers' salaries were consuming so much that we had to send them to Ed Peck." So Ed Peck got a ruling that ability to pay, even if it comes from the government, was a valid argument against it.

The fact is that the arbitration course is meaningless. He not only destroyed the autonomy of the school boards by Bill 6; he destroyed the principle of collective bargaining. That's what happened, because if Ed Peck can roll back all the arbitration boards, what on earth is the point of arbitrating? What's the point of teachers and school boards going to that kind of an arrangement?

Anyway, I don't think it makes any difference. I think we've said enough here now to agree with the minister that his formula hasn't worked out. For instance, in Coquitlam his formula for elementary school funding is based on schools of 400. We don't have any elementary schools in Coquitlam with a population of 400.

In the Arrow Lakes, for administration — there's a former administrator over there, he will know this and appreciate it — required 1,000 school population for an administrator. They didn't have 1,000 so they lost their administrator. I know they changed it. They got 91 percent prorated, but that's the story of how inept and bungling and dumb some of these things have been. The public knows this. I don't think for one minute that if he's scrambling in here with a death-bed referendum, he hasn't been consulting the polls. Those guys don't do anything without consulting the polls. They're worse than a group of canines. They're always at the polls. What do the polls say? The polls say they don't like teachers, but quality of education for kids....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I haven't seen one in months and months.

MR. ROSE: You haven't seen a poll? There are a lot of number crunchers over there in the Premier's office. They'll fill you in.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, you're mixed up all right, but I didn't get you mixed up. I agree that you're mixed up; there's no question about that.

I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that this bill is cunning. I think that on the surface of it people are going to say: "Yes, maybe it's not a bad idea to have this local safety valve." A lot of people told him that. They said: "We could raise that money locally." Sure, if they had the tax base they could raise it. Of course they could raise it locally. I don't doubt that at all. I said it's cynical. I think it is cynical. I don't think we're as badly off as the government likes to pretend. We're not spending a lot of money on education in British Columbia compared to other parts of the country. You're going to say that you were second in terms of dollars, but you're not in terms of percentage of the GNP. We're at 3.5 percent. The Canadian average is 5 percent. "We're broke." You're going to chisel on the kids. That's what you're doing — you're chiseling our kids.

The percentage of disposable income spent on education in BC is 7.5; the Canadian average is 9.4; Ontario is 8.4. The percentage of disposable income spent on education in BC is a measly 7.5 percent, and we're spending too much on our schools. Our teachers are getting too fat. There are too many options. There are too many services in our schools.

[ Page 4965 ]

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) will recall when we had huge classes. I recall when he went to school in Rutland and played the tuba or something. Well, it was kind of a big horn.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I knew the instructor. I never took music.

MR. ROSE: That's not a nice thing to say about Mr. Bianco. Mr. Bianco is now retired.

Mr. Speaker, as a percentage of our provincial budget, BC is 15.5 percent; the Canadian average is 21.2; Ontario is 20.6. You could hardly say that we're being extravagant, that we're lavishing all these funds on these fat and sassy school teachers or whatever. I don't think anybody is particularly interested in defending school teachers. I think they're entitled to jobs like anybody else. I don't think they're entitled to get rich at public expense more than anybody else, except perhaps doctors and lawyers. But I do feel that we shouldn't be scapegoating a lot of people who have given a lot of very personal energy and love and loyalty and concern to their students. So we can afford it. It's a personal decision on the part of the government to decide on priorities. Obviously education is not one of the major priorities. If you spend money on Expo, northeast coal, rail lines, interurban tracks or anything like that, that is a decision of government.

MR. LAUK: Staircases.

MR. ROSE: Spiral staircases?

I'm not saying the government is doing anything that it does not have the right to do. The government is not acting illegally. I think it's acting irresponsibly, but it's not acting illegally. Governing is priorities, and you guys are the government over there — and women — and that's your job. We quarrel with the priorities. We don't like your priorities, and that's basically what we're talking about here. You've decided to squeeze the funds out of education, confiscate the commercial/industrial base, starve the kids and the system; that's your decision and you're going to have to live with it. Of course, you may need a few extra seats in various parts of the province. That's why you need redistribution, so it'll make living with it a little bit easier. Nevertheless, we don't doubt that you have that right, if not obligation.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on for a long time on this. I'm not going to use my two hours — because I happen to be the designated hitter — but I am certainly going to need a little bit more time. I think it's only fair to say that the minister has a right to know why we object to this referendum principle, and why we call it calculating and cynical. I think the public has a right to know that, as well,

I suppose, to begin with, it's retrograde. We had it, we got rid of it, and now we have it again. I could make some sort of medical analyses to that, but I'm not going to; I'll resist.

I suppose that one of the reasons we object to it the most is that it seems to be some sort of last-minute response to the public outrage and public outcry. That's why we also think that maybe it really hasn't been thought out too well, except in its political context. The timing is obviously very difficult for any board. If we have to.... "A referendum...shall be held on a day after March 21 and before April 14...." Is that going to be able to work this year? Do you think this is going to happen this year, with your six months adjustment period? Well, if you can't do it this year, then maybe we can do it next year. Is that the plan of the minister? Could he nod his head or do something, because I don't understand him. Or are you going to wait until the rebuttal to nod your head?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: This is not the committee stage of it, but I'd like to know whether or not the minister feels that the boards can manage this referendum this year if they decide to do it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Okay. The minister says: "Yes, it's possible, if you can get it going." Well, I don't think the timing will permit them to get it going for this year. If they can't do it for this year, to supply extra for the budget in '85-'86, then it would have to apply next year. Is this interim legislation like the so-called interim Bill 6? If it isn't, there's a sunset clause in Bill 6 which abolishes it at the end of '86. If it's going to be abolished at the end of '86, then this isn't needed. Why do you need this? A board really has no chance this year of setting up all that machinery. You know how long it takes to set up a Vancouver by-election. If you're going to abolish the sunset clause, then it's needed. Otherwise you're not going to abolish the sunset clause, as you promised; if you are, you don't need this referendum legislation. It's scarcely any good this year, and it should be interim. There must be some sort of political motive here that the minister has failed to acknowledge.

We used to have referenda in the bad old days of W.A. C. Bennett, but only after the budgets had exceeded 8 percent over the previous year. We don't have them now. The minister comes along and freezes the budget of the school boards, and then says to the trustees: "I'm sorry, I've taken away your autonomy." He makes a virtue out of what he regards as a necessity. I happen to think it's a sin, but he seems to say openly: "Yes, I did it. I know I did it. I had to do it the only way I could handle it." Well, I've dealt with that.

So here we've got budget limitations by the minister, but no limit on the amount raised by referendum. But do the trustees, who are duly elected, autonomous legislators — or once were — have any say about this? None. It goes right over the heads of trustees to the voter. All the voters? No, just the residential voters. Commercial-industrial voters? How many are there? I'll tell you, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: There's an old saying — I suppose it can apply to all of us at times — that it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of as a fool than to open it and prove it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Now there's the member for Kootenay yacking away over there. When he gets up and speaks, he doesn't yack; he reads his. But he speaks well from his seat.

There are residential voters; there are non-residential voters. Yes, in School District 1, the residential voters are 32 percent and the non-residential voters are 67 percent. Now anybody who can vote for the school board — which will include the non-residential — can also vote on the referendum, right? So can you see a situation in School District 1 in which 67 percent of the non-residential voters vote and pass a

[ Page 4966 ]

referendum imposing a new mill rate on the 37 percent of the residential voters? How would you like that if you lived in School District 1? You don't think that's possible?

The tax is not on the commercial-industrial. The tax is only on the residential. Only.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thought people vote. Aren't they residents?

MR. ROSE: They are not going to be taxed on their assessment. Look, I know what you want. The way you want to change a riding such as Kamloops, you don't want people to vote at all. You want cows to vote up there.

MS. SANFORD: Trees.

MR. ROSE: Trees or something. Prince George trees...

MS. SANFORD: If there were any left.

MR. ROSE: ...but there aren't any left. I'm sure if there were, though, they would vote for the....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I want to answer the question and also ask some. I'm trying to ask, I think, some very legitimate questions.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have to appeal to you. The Hon. Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is harassing me, and he's destroying my train of thought. As a new member of this Legislature, I think I'm entitled to some protection from you.

I wonder, since it's very close to 12 o'clock, if we couldn't at this point declare.... I will make a motion to adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 am.