[ Page 5041 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 5041

Oral Questions

U.S. restrictions on import of Canadian lumber. Mr. Howard –– 5041

Westar Timber Ltd. timber rights. Mr. Williams 5042

Transfer of timber allocation. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5042

Free trade. Mrs. Wallace –– 5043

B.C. Rail debt repayment. Mr. Stupich –– 5043

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Second reading

On the amendment.

Mr. Williams –– 5043

Ms. Brown –– 5044

Division –– 5045

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5045

Constitution Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 47) — Committee stage.

On section 2 –– 5047

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Williams

Third reading –– 5054

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Committee stage

On section I –– 5054

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Michael

Mr. Gabelmann

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Would the House please join me in welcoming two executives from that struggling young forestry company, BC Timber: Sandy Fulton and David Mitchell,

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to welcome two executive members from that struggling company Westar Timber Ltd. I hope the minister gets the name correct.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd like to use the opportunity of introductions to bring recognition to a British Columbian who has made quite a name for himself. Eddie Streeper, a local dog-sled racer who makes his home in Fort Nelson, won the Canadian Open Sled Dog Championship. That got him an invitation to Anchorage, Alaska, and this past weekend he won the World Open Sled-Dog Championship, taking 14 minutes off the world record. I think that deserves recognition.

MRS. WALLACE: We have some very critical observers in the gallery today, and I hope we will all govern ourselves accordingly. They are members of the Quamichan Junior High School parliamentary debating club. They are grade 7 to grade 9 students, and they are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. King and Mr Heyd. I hope you will join me in welcoming them.

MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I would like to we]come back the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers). Also, in the galleries today, from Prince George South, my constituency president and his wife. Would you please welcome Don and Ruth Flynn.

MR. PASSARELL: Visiting the capital today is an old fishing friend of mine from the great city of Vanderhoof, Frank Georgeson. I hope the House makes him welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to join with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)...

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Maybe I won't join with the Minister of Forests.

...In welcoming Mr. David Mitchell to the House today. I would also like to recognize Mr. Mitchell's recently published — and what I consider to be a definitive — contemporary political history of our province over several decades, a book called W.A.C. Bennett and the Rise of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: What about paradise, Pat?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, not those introductions, though I was waiting for the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) to introduce the grizzly bears here.

Something much gentler, Mr. Speaker, from the constituency of Point Grey, and Id like the members to bid Mr. Forget welcome.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the annual reports of the Utilities Commission, the Petroleum Corporation, BC Hydro and BC Place.

Oral Questions

US RESTRICTIONS ON
IMPORT OF CANADIAN LUMBER

MR. HOWARD: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forests. Has he had any discussions — and if so, are those discussions ongoing — with the federal government regarding the bill recently introduced into the United States Congress which seeks to impose import restrictions on lumber produced in Canada, and have those discussions entailed the development of a coordinated strategy with respect to that bill?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Last week members of my ministry met with federal government staff. A position is being created and data accumulated so as to respond, when the time is correct, to these moves being made in the United States. I would advise the member that there is a well-coordinated effort, which is in part the residue of the team that was in place during the countervailing duties struggles a couple of years ago.

The Canadian Forest Industries Council, the federal government and various provincial governments are working very closely together to make sure that we do have a coordinated effort in doing whatever is possible to see that such trade barriers don't become a fact. As the member is probably fully aware, Rep. Weaver introduced a bill about ten days ago. Other actions have been taken since then, including a petition to the President under the Countervailing Duty Act claiming damage to the shake and shingle business.

So there is lots of activity taking place at a political level at this time in the United States, and a coordinated group in Canada has counsel in the United States, has advice in Washington, and is doing what we think is necessary at this time to make sure that when actions are taken they are well coordinated and that we don't have different people rushing off in different directions, in effect creating problems for each other. Every possible effort is being made to make sure that we do not ultimately wind up with barriers in forest products between our two countries.

MR. HOWARD: Has the minister made a firm declaration of policy, from the provincial government to the federal government, that there isn't any way that we in British Columbia will accept the proposition advanced by Congressman Weaver and others in the United States that the major purpose of the legislation is to put pressure on the Reagan administration to begin negotiations with Canada to achieve voluntary restrictions on exports of our lumber to the United States? Has the minister advised the House that we will not participate in that sort of discussion?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The federal government is fully aware of the position of British Columbia. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to be announcing publicly, in light of those things that may or may not happen down the road, the details of our position on any possible eventuality. As I have said, we have to have a closely coordinated approach to this whole problem. I am keeping in very close

[ Page 5042 ]

touch with the federal government, and we have a federal government which is very aware of the problems that could be created by any such barriers. However, I don't think it is appropriate for us — at this point in time, at least — to be making definitive statements as to what we would do in the event that various things should happen. We don't want to expose our hand until it's time to play that hand.

MR. HOWARD: That's not the question I asked the minister; however, he seeks to duck it.

I wonder if the minister would advise the federal government — if he hasn't done so already — that lumber produced in British Columbia and exported to the United States market since 1976 has comprised a percentage of United States consumption of lumber that has been relatively constant over those years, and that basically, in terms of production of lumber in Canada and exported to the United States, the problem isn't in British Columbia, if there is a problem. Has the minister advised the feds of that position?

[2:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the statistics as to the volume and percentage of lumber going to the United States are available. The federal government is quite capable of working out the percentages. British Columbia's level of production has been relatively constant, but that is not what the Americans are concerned about. They are concerned about the total Canadian production of lumber and how it is affecting their market. The statistics are there; I don't have to interpret those figures for the federal government.

MR. HOWARD: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister take to heart and do something concrete about the suggestion that I put to him by telegram some weeks ago: namely, use the authority and the presence of his office to try to establish within British Columbia a high-level meeting with the elements and groups interested in this subject matter so that we can all be involved in the strategy being developed?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, all those who are in a position to have an effect and do something about the problem are already coordinated into a very effective team.

WESTAR TIMBER LTD. TIMBER RIGHTS

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests with respect to Westar Timber Ltd. and the timber rights they've held in the Kootenay basin and the Arrow Lakes basin, much of which they don't use — none at all anymore in the Kootenay Lake basin, and only 50 percent in the last year in the Arrow Lakes basin stretching from Castlegar to the big bend of the Columbia River. Firstly, will the minister accept the surrender of the timber right that Westar Timber Ltd. is prepared to surrender forthwith — and has been willing to do since last October — and get on with the job of reallocation and new employment in the region? Secondly, in view of the fact that they only cut 50 percent of the timber available to them in the Columbia River and Arrow Lakes basin, will he again step in and make that timber available to the many small operators and people who are seeking employment in that region now?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, we are going over ground that was covered in question period in this House last week. My position then and now is that whenever cut-control requirements under a forest licence are not adhered to, the wood will return to the provincial government, providing there are no circumstances during the cut-control period that were beyond the control of the company.

In this case, yes, substantial volumes of wood will be returned to the provincial government, and this will be expedited in every possible way and will be made available — and is being made available to small operators on an accumulated undercut basis. We will be making opportunities available to someone in the industry who may wish to establish a manufacturing plant in the Nelson area relative to the wood that used to be used in the Westar mill in that community. We went over this ground last week. The member seems to wish to repeat it again and again and again.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed I do, Mr. Speaker, in view of the unemployment in that region and elsewhere when timber is not being used. With respect to the Columbia River and TFL 23, we're talking about an area as large as one and one half times Prince Edward Island. Is the minister then saying that that 30 percent undercut, which has been consistent for five years –– 50 percent last year — will now in fact be reallocated?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that area, which is probably ten times the size of Texada Island, is within TFL 23 –– I told the member last week that the cut control period has just been completed on that licence and we are in discussions right now with the company; cut relative to that licence will be returned to the government and the size of the TFL reduced accordingly.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's good news, Mr. Speaker — and overdue.

TRANSFER OF TIMBER ALLOCATION

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests. With reference to the receivership of Drew Sawmills and Tappen Valley Timber Ltd. in Salmon Arm, your ministry is considering a proposal of the transfer of licence and assets of these companies to Beaumont Timber, a company already with substantial timber reserves. Such a transfer would allocate to the company timber supplies that are estimated to be far in excess of the present plant capacity. With a view to encouraging a more competitive position for small local operators, would the minister consider the offering of a portion of Drew Sawmills timber allocation to several of the local operating plants?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on the Drew Sawmills situation, the member is quite right; the company is in receivership. Normally, when a forest company in British Columbia does its financing, the creditors, bankers and financiers consider the value of their timber allocation as a part of the security of that company. I think I have a responsibility, until such time as the receivership question is resolved one way or another, to keep that as a whole entity. If I were to say that as soon as a company has financial trouble and in fact goes into receivership, either voluntary or otherwise, I would begin to dismantle the assets which they have, I think we would have a very unsettling situation for forestry companies and the banking institutions in B.C.

[ Page 5043 ]

I will consider any proposal brought forward by the receivers of that company in terms of a possible sale of the assets so that we can ensure an ongoing operation, whether it comes from Beaumont or others. No decision will be made until we've fully assessed the implications for the communities, the corporation and the financiers involved.

FREE TRADE

MRS. WALLACE: During his attendance at the first ministers' conference, the Premier endorsed the concept of free trade. My question is to the Premier. Firstly, what studies has the government undertaken on the effect of free trade on the agricultural industry? Secondly, what consideration did the Premier give to the preferential treatment presently given to B.C. wineries before endorsing free trade at the conference in Regina?

HON. MR. BENNETT. Obviously the member didn't get an opportunity, being in the House, to watch the conference or take note of my remarks. I committed to the provinces and the federal government being involved in discussions leading up to Canada's position in the GATT negotiations — seeing areas in which we could provide greater access for Canadian products, and remove barriers to products or prevent the type of thing that's taking place now in the United States, where industry by industry they may put up barriers to our forest products. I believe you can only do that with that type of study, and I'm glad that, implied in the member's question, is support for that type of look.

Up until now, Mr. Speaker, in debates in this House, the New Democratic Party has supported trade barriers for automobiles manufactured in central Canada, therefore putting up prices in British Columbia and making it hard for us to market our products. I'm glad for a full review.

BC RAIL DEBT RETIREMENT

MR. STUPICH: To the Minister of Finance. According to the third quarterly report, the provincial government borrowed $803 million in the first nine months of the current fiscal period. In view of the fact that it was necessary to borrow such huge sums, did the Minister of Finance give any consideration at all to postponing the $430 million grant to BC Rail, especially since some of that money was not needed to meet debt obligations until the year 2025?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is no. In planning the 1984-85 fiscal year budget, it was seen, for reasons which I dealt with when this House was sitting in 1984, as a very appropriate measure to take, Mr. Member, in order that the interest payments which would otherwise accrue to that outstanding debt in the name of B.C. Rail would be retired at an early time — at once, therefore removing a significant burden from the railway and, more importantly, a very significant burden from the people of British Columbia. I take the question to mean: did I, through the course of the year, decide to change that which was decided upon by this House in a vote taken with respect to the budget? The answer is no.

MR. STUPICH: To the Minister of Finance again, Mr. Speaker: the House decided to give $470 million to B.C. Rail, and the minister gave it only $430 million. However, after granting $430 million to BCR, the government then borrowed $542 million from BCR. Would the minister explain how this pea under the shell game compares with the $181 million grant to ICBC, followed by an immediate borrowing of some $400 million from ICBC in 1976?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was not the Minister of Finance in 1976. I cannot assist the member on a matter which was dealt with at that time.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 35.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a proposal to hold this legislation for six months. I think most of my colleagues have made it clear that they have real concern in terms of the changes represented here. The minister clearly has greater powers under this legislation in terms of recruitment. selection and appointment within the public service. It's disturbing, in view of the other actions that minister has taken in the past and the legislation he has before him. The difference is between an independent commission and a clearly political minister.

Looking at the kind of ideas that are moving through the public service in terms of policy and so on, the quality of advice has probably deteriorated with this administration. I think we're all the losers for that. I think it's because there's been more political input all the time on the part of this administration, and the public service is more and more inclined, with the signals they are getting, to give the advice they think the ministers want to hear. This legislation is going to move us more and more in that direction.

On the question of deputy ministers, Mr. Speaker, we have accepted, of course, that these are Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointments, and to a degree they are political. But if we look at the history of deputy ministerial appointments in recent decades, I think we will find that a significant number of them are still public service career people. So it's interesting to reflect on the fact that in this past year we've probably lost half of our deputy ministers in this administration, many of them with significant, solid backgrounds. That's a loss to the government, and it's a loss to the people of British Columbia as well.

One of the deputies we lost was the Deputy Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and in that particular case an excellent civil servant with excellent qualifications was simply dismissed. He was dismissed by the Premier, not the minister, not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, although that was subsequent. Waiting in the wings, very readily, was a new deputy minister, one who carried the right political baggage, one who had worked for the Socred machine for a couple of elections. It seems to me that that sends signals through the entire public service, and they're the wrong kind of signals, That, I think, was an embarrassment to the minister. He sat on the sidelines and took orders.

It is unfortunate. It's unfortunate because it has opened up the whole system. The problem that exists now is that future

[ Page 5044 ]

civil servants are going to look at that decision and similar decisions, and they're going to think twice about the kind of advice they put down in writing, the advice they'll send through to the ministerial and senior levels. I think we're seeing evidence of that right now, in the form of a government that's not ready to meet with the Legislature, a government that will have to take a recess to pull its act together, a government that hasn't been getting sound, solid advice from the public service, because the signals are there. If you question the ideology that's being laid down at the top, regardless of how solid your advice is and how solid your facts are, you're going to be in trouble.

What's happening is that we've got an administration that is getting slower, winding down, grinding down, and an able public service is not delivering the goods it could deliver, simply because the wrong signals are there at the top. It's a loss for British Columbia.

[2:30]

There are some arguments about the changes suggested with respect to this legislation, and I think we understand those in terms of some of the complications of the present legislation. But it's abundantly clear that what's happening now is that we have a weakened public service, afraid for its jobs, not giving the kind of advice you people desperately need to rebuild this provincial economy. Not only you and the public service are the losers, but all the people of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: In supporting the hoist I want to follow up on an issue I raised with the ministry yesterday, having to do with the status of women in the public service: the continued concentration of women in the lower-paying jobs, and the fact that any attempt at putting into place an affirmative action plan is going to be jeopardized if this piece of legislation goes through.

I thought what we could do today is look at the minister's own department, and maybe he could bring us up to date on what's happening to women in his department. Again, as far as the printout is concerned, I'm going to have to rely pretty heavily on the 1981 printout. Maybe he can tell me whether he has done any better since then.

We find that in the administrative services, a euphemism for the clerical branch, 75.1 percent of the people employed are female. That means that less than 25 percent are male — something like 24.9 percent. Clearly the minister would agree that some kind of affirmative action on the part of the males, anyway, seems to be needed at that level. But what is really interesting is what happens when you get to the top echelon of that ministry and start looking at the wage scales. We found that in 1981, 39 percent of the people earning $21,000 a year were female as opposed to 60 percent male. But when you drop to $13,000 to $15,000 a year, we found that 89.3 percent of the persons earning less than $15,000 were female and only 10.6 percent of them were male.

When you get to the assistant deputy level — I know the salary has increased since then — there is not one single female listed on that minister's staff of assistant deputy minister, two assistant deputy ministers and three assistant deputy ministers. Of course, the clerical staff are all female. All of them have female secretaries. As in 1981, we discovered that if you looked at the salary scale for anyone making over $35,000 a year, there were ten males and no females; $38,000 a year, eight males and no females; $41,000 a year, eleven males and no females.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the member made a 40-minute speech on the issue of affirmative action, and I haven't had a chance to respond because of what has transpired in the House. Maybe she would like me to respond now. I think it's wrong that she would repeat essentially the same speech in an amendment that's been put before this House. I don't think we should have to suffer through that one more time.

MS. BROWN: That's not a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The point raised by the minister has some merit, hon. members. I would remind the member currently addressing the House that we are on a hoist motion, and the reasons for the hoist are what should be discussed at this time. The member must not recanvass a speech that was given primarily in second reading, as that, hon. member, is clearly an abuse of the rules of the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in support of the hoist. I am not repeating myself, because I did not zero in on the minister's department yesterday. I did not mention it by name, I am doing that in detail now because I'm assuming that the minister has some responsibility for the hiring practices of his ministry. Although he has not had an opportunity to respond to the statements made yesterday, he did shout across the floor that he would issue a directive in terms of support for affirmative action. I'm raising this now, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speak for yourself

MS. BROWN: He said: "I will issue a directive." The reason I'm supporting the hoist is because when one takes a detailed look at the minister's department, one begins to question what kind of directive the minister would be issuing. I think this bill has to be pulled, and the minister has to take a second look at it. In doing so, he has to take a second look at his own ministry, one that is woeful in terms of its employment practices as far as the women in it are concerned. That is why I am giving him these statistics. I am hoping that his statistics arc more up to date than the ones I am using, but I did not give him these statistics yesterday. I certainly did not zero in on his ministry and call to it any special attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the points that the hon. member wishes to make, the member is nonetheless bound by the rules of debate that govern our activities in this chamber. On a hoist those subjects which may be covered are somewhat more limited than the overall scope in second reading. I must ask the hon. member to more specifically relate her remarks to the hoist.

MS. BROWN: I am supporting the hoist because I think it is very important that the minister take this bill off the floor of this House and take a second look at it. When the minister takes a second look, I hope he will get some input from the women in his ministry, if from nowhere else. A serious look shows that the hiring practices in his own ministry are discriminatory; that in fact there is a need for some kind of plan to ensure that when he brings this bill back to the floor of the House, it has statutory protections or a statutory plan for affirming incorporated in it, giving an extra step or an extra boost so that we can have the statistics changed and we won't

[ Page 5045 ]

find, as we now do, that 75 percent of the people employed in the lowest paying jobs in his ministry are women and none — zero percent — of the people employed in the top paying jobs in his ministry are women.

For that reason, if for no other, Mr. Speaker, I have to support this hoist and ask the minister himself to support the hoist. Charity begins at home. If he thinks that there is nothing wrong with the Public Service Commission losing its right to make some kind of overall supervision of such a plan, all he has to do is start looking in his own ministry — in his own backyard. The facts are right there, clear as day.

I'm hoping that when the minister supports the hoist he will be governed by his own sense of fairness and will recognize that there has to be an imbalance in any kind of system where absolutely no women are present in one area. When one takes into account that we make up something like 50 percent of the population and something in excess of 40 percent of the workforce in the public sector, something is wrong. When you go over an income of $35,000 a year and there are no women present, that says either that there has not been an effort to give women the opportunity to go into those jobs or that there has been deliberate discrimination, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. CHABOT: ...merit.

MS. BROWN: Merit.

... or that there are no women with merit. You heard the minister shout the word "merit" across the floor. What he is saying is that there is not one single woman in the Public Service Commission with the merit to hold one of the top jobs in his department. I think there is something wrong with that statement.

When the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) was on his feet this morning he said that affirmative action was an insult to women. I think the comment that the minister just made, which indicated that there were no woman with merit, is an insult to women. That's where the insult is, not with affirmative action.

Just in passing, the nerve of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour to be telling women that they don't know what they're fighting for, Mr. Speaker, is out of order, I'm not going to pursue that any further. but that's the kind of nerve that ends in this kind of situation where we find most of the women in the minister's own department concentrated in the low paying jobs and none of them showing up in the jobs that make decent wages. For that reason, if for no other, I support the hoist.

[2:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 32

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: You know, Mr, Speaker, I've never witnessed so much indulging in cheap politics as I've heard across the floor in the five hours we've been debating this bill. It's been utterly ridiculous rubbish from the members opposite. It's been all rhetoric and no substance. You know what they've essentially been doing, Mr. Speaker? They've been attacking the line managers of government, because they have been primarily responsible for the hiring of staff in government. Lands, Parks and Housing, Transportation and Highways and the A-G's ministry have been responsible for all hiring of staff in their ministries since 1965. There is a procedure whereby that particular hiring episode has to be rubber-stamped by the Public Service Commission, because of the antiquated Public Service Act we've had in the past, but 80 percent of all public service hiring in British Columbia is done by line managers in government ministries. That's essentially — not knowingly, I'm sure — what the NDP has been attacking here in the last five hours. I think it's just sheer cheap politics.

I listened to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) deliver his speech. He followed me as the designated speaker and he rambled on for an hour and ten minutes. He didn't listen to one word that I uttered in my speech. because I answered most of the questions which he raised. He had a set speech, a set approach, and he didn't pay any attention whatsoever. He went on to ask a series of questions that bad been responded to in my opening remarks. It's very strange when you hear that. I've never witnessed that in this House before, Mr. Speaker: a member asking questions for which the answers had already been given.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Maybe I should have kept those answers, just got up and said, "I move second reading," and given him the answers afterward, so that there would have been a little bit more to his speech than posing a series of questions for which the answers had already been given.

Members raised the issue of seniority. I indicated in my opening remarks that seniority is again identified in the legislation, and that the Public Service Commission will continue to give the same kind of weighting to seniority that has always been given in the past. It'll be given 10 percent weighting. I know that there are groups in our society that would like to see seniority given more recognition than the 10 percent which has been the case under the Public Service Act and the policies of the Public Service Commission, which

[ Page 5046 ]

will continue. In fact, I know the BC Government Employees' Union would like to give more consideration to that.

But you know, when you argue against this legislation you're essentially arguing against an independent tribunal, an independent appeal system, for which the BC Government Employees' Union has been asking for some considerable time. This recognizes what they've asked for for some considerable time.

MR. HANSON: They didn't ask you to take over hiring.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you phone them?

In April 1983, at their thirty-sixth annual convention in Victoria they wanted a fair, just and impartial appointment appeal procedure. Essentially that is what this act does.

That's what the BCGEU has been asking for for some considerable time — an independent, impartial appeal mechanism and it's in place with this legislation.

Merit is defined in the act as it has been in the past. I know there are some members across the way who would like merit to be a bargainable issue, but I think it should be clearly spelled out. It shouldn't be at the whim of the union to determine what merit will be. I think merit is as it's defined, and it's responsible as well in its definition. It takes into consideration past work performance, a new recognition in the act.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) mentions an independent appeal mechanism. That's essentially what this is. The appeal system, if there's a panel appointed.... It can be reviewed by the commission, and there can be a new hearing on the situation. This appeal mechanism is no different than in the Labour Relations Board. It's working there.

There's an appeal beyond the realm of the appeal board as well, similar to the Labour Relations Board. The mechanism in place will meet the needs.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said that there have been massive changes with this new Public Service Act. While he might not have used those precise words, they were words to that effect; he might have said there have been some dramatic changes. Anyway, there have been no dramatic changes in the act. There has been some streamlining, certainly.

What brought about the streamlining, the updating of the act, is the amalgamation of GERB, the Government Employee Relations Bureau, and the Public Service Commission. The government, or my ministry, came to the conclusion that these two particular government bodies were performing similar functions and duplicating many of those functions as well. We thought that it was in the interests of good government to amalgamate the two bodies, and that is essentially what brought on this amended Public Service Act.

The commission today is as independent as it always has been. The commissioners are appointed in the same manner that they've been appointed heretofore. There has been no dramatic change in the appointments.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I listened for five hours to a lot of of rubbish. I think I have to answer a few of those questions — which could probably best be answered in committee stage.

But I want you to know that those questions were put in second reading, Mr. Speaker. I watched those members go through the bill section by section. Those about which they had some little concern or some perceived concern, or they saw some politics in the section.... They thought it was appropriate to raise the issues section by section.

[3:00]

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) essentially argued in favour of section 6 but suggested there was something wrong with section 6: that is, the probationary period. The probationary period can be waived today. The old act gave the flexibility of extending the probationary period. That flexibility is not present in this particular amended bill.

I want to say that the Public Service Commission is so independent that I have never even met them. It goes to show you how independently they operate. They've never contacted me and I've never contacted them, and I hope that that's the way it will continue. I'm sure it will.

The members raised the issue of retirement benefits and death benefits. I think they fail to take into consideration that when the first collective agreement was signed between BCGEU and the provincial government back in the early seventies, the retirement benefits and death benefits were included, Those that were spelled out in the former Public Service Act were included in the collective agreement. But of course that does not apply to the excluded employees of the provincial government. Retirement benefits and death benefits were in the old act; they're not in this act. But they will be provided for by a directive by the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Government Services. I sometimes wonder whether the death benefits should be available or not. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that some of the employees of the provincial government do have death benefits in the collective agreement, I think that that same privilege should be available to excluded staff of government. At the moment, and why I question the inclusion of death benefits for excluded staff is.... Of course the members of the BCGEU also have group life insurance, which makes available to them twice their annual income as a group life policy, with a minimum of $40,000 dollars. In the year ending March 31, 1984, there were death benefits paid to 87 employees at a cost of $914,236.

On the issue of retirement benefits, Mr. Speaker, there were 390 public servants who received retirement benefits in the amount of $2,387,899, and along with that, of course, is their pension. In other words, there is built in to this retirement option what is essentially a severance package so that public servants leaving the public service not only leave with their pension but they leave with a chunk of money anywhere from $8,000 to $15,000 or $16,000 in their back pocket as well.

MR. LAUK: What about patronage?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Patronage? I'll respond to that in just a moment.

But we will, by directive, make sure that the retirement benefit package is put in place. We've had consultation with he affected parties.

The member talks about patronage. As I said in my opening remarks, there has been a lot of garbage, a lot of rubbish and lots of false statements and political rhetoric and substance. The only thing I can say about patronage, Mr. Member, is that you remind me of Pauline Weinstein from Vancouver. If you tell a lie frequently enough, people will begin to believe it. That's what I say to you about your

[ Page 5047 ]

statement about patronage: you remind me of Pauline Weinstein.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved,

Bill 35, Public Service Act, 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. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mr Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. D'ARCY: By passing section 1, this House has decided that there shall be 12 new members added to the Legislature. Section 2 defines the boundaries and which members there shall be. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding from the intent of the bill — both this bill and the one setting up the commission that was passed last year — that the rationale for adding new members to the Legislature would be based on those constituencies that had the largest number of people per elected member. Whether the House decided there should be no extra member or one extra member or 15, there would be a rationale based on population figures.

Mr. Chairman, the last census that was done was in 1981. There has not been another one and, indeed, the federal government has since decreed there will not be an interim census done in 1986.

Those census figures — republished, I would point out, by the provincial government in the 1983 statement of votes, and reissued as part of the explanatory notes attached to the bill that was passed last year setting up this electoral distribution commission — would indicate that while the first eleven members to be added would be as indicated in section 2, which is the section we are dealing with, the twelfth constituency deserving of another member should be Coquitlam-Moody. But according to this section of this bill, the twelfth constituency is not Coquitlam-Moody but Central Fraser Valley. I feel that the government made an error here.

Mr. Chairman, this is a Constitution Act amendment act, and it's a bill brought in by the government — indeed, by the Provincial Secretary. So in view of this, I am proposing an amendment to this bill in which section 2(b) be amended by deleting the words "Central Fraser Valley" and substituting the words "Coquitlam-Moody."

In support of this amendment, I would quote the specific population figures from the 1981 census — republished at least twice by the provincial government — that Coquitlam-Moody constituency has a population of 58,219. Central Fraser Valley has a population of 56,917; that's a difference in favour of Coquitlam-Moody of an amount of 1,302 human souls.

I would also like to point out, Mr Speaker, that Coquitlam-Moody is more than double the size geographically of Central Fraser Valley, 432 square miles as opposed to 160 square miles. That is not of significance to me personally, but in the past the government has seemed to indicate that the number of square miles or the area of a constituency is important in terms of representation.

So on either count, the geographic size or the population size, Coquitlam-Moody is more deserving of an extra member than Central Fraser Valley. I want to point out that I have nothing against Central Fraser Valley being properly represented in this Legislature. I am merely proposing this amendment in keeping with the consistency that we hope would exist in the government's own rules, which they laid down for purposes of adding extra members to the Legislature. I want to reiterate that the House has already decided to add 12 new members. Therefore, if we use the government's own rules as to how to define which constituencies those new members would represent, we have to accept an amendment and have an extra member from Coquitlam-Moody, rather than Central Fraser Valley, at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister or the next member, I will advise the committee that the amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I never thought I'd see the NDP want to do gerrymandering right here on the floor of the House. That's essentially what they're attempting to do.

They love to say that they're against gerrymandering, and now we see the member for Rossland-Trail stand up and advocate it in this legislation.

First of all, I am surprised, shocked and dismayed at the attack that member has rendered against the three-man commission who submitted its report. I'm sure they weighed very carefully the population base of the various constituencies across the province. I think if you will read the report, you'll see that Central Fraser Valley is an urban rural riding and has 67.68 percent above its base — and the base changes once it's 60 percent above. I don't see that identified for Coquitlam-Moody in this legislation.

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that that was not examined by the members of the three-man commission. I'm sure they examined very carefully the population for each and every constituency, even those that might not have been subject to change. They've come to the conclusion that Coquitlam-Moody does not have the population base to justify an additional seat.

I respect the report submitted by this three-man commission headed up by Judge McAdam a lot more than I respect the figures that have just been provided to me by the member for Rossland-Trail. That member has never raised the issue with me that he has some different figures from what was available, and I'm sure he's never gone to the three-man commission to identify his concerns. Yet he wants to come on the floor of the House and attempt to gerrymander some ridings here in British Columbia, and deny to a riding the proper representation that has been identified by the three-member commission. You're attempting to play cheap politics, You have no respect for the three-man commission that sat and made these examinations,

[ Page 5048 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please, to the minister. First of all, we should be temperate in language in committee and in the House. And please direct your remarks to the Chair.

[3:15]

HON, MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I think it's absolutely disgraceful that somebody from that party, which always talks about gerrymandering being so terrible.... For them to stand on the floor of the House and suggest that a particular riding be denied its fair representation as identified by the three-man commission, and that another constituency that wasn't identified as having the population for an additional seat should be given an additional seat, is something I cannot accept. We will not accept this amendment.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the minister is totally incorrect when he suggests that I am asking for an additional seat by this amendment. I'm not. I accept the fact that there are 12 members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Gerrymandering. That's all you want.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister is very free and loose with his accusation of gerrymandering. I am not aware of any census having been done by the provincial government, the federal government or any agency in this province since the 1981 census. The minister talks as though I've pulled these population figures out of the air. I haven't, Mr. Chairman. They're directly from the 1981 census. I know of no other census since that time. The minister is attempting to cover up his justification and lack of factual information with a lot of bombast.

If the minister has later, credible census figures done by the federal government or any other agency of government, let him produce them now and table them in the House. I'm using the government's own census figures reproduced by themselves in the 1983 statement of votes, as well as reproduced by themselves in support of the legislation that set up the commission which the minister so fondly refers to. If the minister has another set of defensible numbers, let him produce them. The fact is, the 1981 census is the last definitive statement of population produced in British Columbia or anywhere in Canada. According to that statement, as I have graphically laid out, the twelfth constituency worthy of having another member is Coquitlam-Moody, not Central Fraser Valley. I ask that this committee seriously look at this total inconsistency in the government's actions, and accept the amendment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, it's not my figures that I'm producing. He's producing his figures. I'm saying that the three-man commission examined the populations of the various constituencies in British Columbia and made a recommendation that certain constituencies in British Columbia, which they have identified, merit additional representation. The legislation we're debating at this time clearly reflects the recommendations of the commission.

I have faith in the commission. I wonder whether the member for Rossland-Trail has or not.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, since it's my riding that's under discussion, I thought it might be advisable to say a few words on the subject. First, I'd like to advise the minister that the figures quoted by my colleague from Rossland-Trail came out of the report of the commission, so I don't think he's quarrelling with or questioning the report of the commission.

It seems to me there are two or three things here that determine whether Central Fraser Valley or Coquitlam-Moody or some other riding is decided upon as the extra seat, and it depends on how you judge these things. So it turns out to be a value judgement or a decision by somebody on the basis of certain definitions; whether you're urban or rural, or what your geographic area is, is really open to question. I'm not questioning the motives of the commission, but if we're going to debate matters such as this in the House — and if we are not, then why bring it to the House? — then I think we ought to be able to say a few words without being accused of lacking confidence in the commission or of suggesting that they're crooks or anything else.

Similarly, I don't think epithets such as "gerrymander" should be hurled over here, or whatever other unparliamentary expletives are used by the Provincial Secretary to describe the noble efforts of my colleague from Rossland-Trail, who merely wants to get at the truth . I would think it isn't a bit unusual to wonder why of the 12 ridings that are up for increases — we don't support the increases anyway, but they're probably going to come — 11 happen to be in Social Credit territory, or what is at the moment Social Credit territory.

Let's deal with the figures. According to the 1981 StatsCan census — that's the last one we've had — Central Fraser Valley had 56,917 people; Coquitlam-Moody had 58,219. I refer to table A in the report of the electoral commission. What we have and on what we base the future numbers of representatives within a riding, whether it's a one- or two-member riding, is based entirely on two things: one, whether the riding is described as urban, rural — or one other, I've forgotten. In this case, all we're really talking about is urban or rural; that's the first thing we're talking about. The second thing is the estimated district population increase. We started out in 1981 with some 57,000 people in Central Fraser Valley and over 58,000 in Coquitlam-Moody. The question is: which area has grown more? Who did the estimate? And based on what figures? That's really the nub of the argument.

I happen to know, from being the representative and canvassing and wearing out my knuckles knocking on doors during elections, both federal and provincial, that there has been substantial growth in the riding of Coquitlam-Moody since the last census. I can take him to area after area, Eagle Ridge and.... There are lots of single-family dwellings going right up that mountain almost as far as the Westwood race-track. In addition to that, there have been all kinds of other multiple dwellings — condos, co-ops and rental apartments — down at the base of that hill. My guess is that thousands of people have moved in. Now in something as serious as deciding which riding is to get a change, it might be an idea for the electoral commission not to base their projections on some hunch, regardless of where they got their stats, but to look at the stats for 1981, based on a census. It's not a guesstimate; it's not a hunch; it's a fact: those people were counted. To go into those questionable ridings, if you don't want to be accused of favouring one over the other, and

[ Page 5049 ]

do a count.... I suggest you do that kind of thing immediately before you have an election, too.

The second thing is, how do you decide whether a riding is urban or rural? We just heard my hon. colleague say that the geographical area of Coquitlam-Moody was larger than Central Fraser Valley. It would be very difficult for me to justify that there's lots of farming there. I'm sure the minister would agree. He comes from an area that's sure rural, if not remote, but there isn't much farming there — rocks and Christmas trees, mainly. If you want to come out to Coquitlam-Moody, go right up Indian Arm, up the Pitt River to the top, we've got lots of Christmas trees too. But we're not counting Christmas trees or rocks; we're talking people. Really, it's pretty arbitrary whether you call a riding urban or rural, especially when the one you call rural is smaller than the one you call urban. You know, that's kind of interesting. I don't think anyone should be put into the position of being accused of being a poor loser merely because he happens to question the report of a commission, in terms not of its motives but of its conclusions. I don't think that's proper.

Let me end up by reminding the hon. Provincial Secretary, who is very good at hurling unfounded, pejorative charges at us poor innocents over here, that there was no intention to deny the people of Central Fraser Valley good representation in this House. We would urge that they get better representation in this House — maybe not more, but at least better. We think our philosophy might be.... There's no effort to deny them that. We want to make certain that this is based on the facts. We don't want to deny anyone anything. But remember this: when we go to vote on this piece of legislation, which the minister described as gerrymandering, a riding that is actually bigger and more populous will have one member.... I admit he is a very powerful, convincing spokesperson. But a riding that is smaller geographically and has fewer people will have two members.

Amendment negatived.

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we've just had an interesting debate. We've heard the Provincial Secretary get up and indicate that a colleague of mine was interested in gerrymandering. I gather that, because he's given us that lead, talking about a considered opinion of a member in the context of this terribly unacceptable section of the bill, in any event.... What the member was trying to point out was that there was value judgement after value judgement. I charge — directly charge, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Provincial Secretary — that he is party to a gerrymander, not because of what that committee did but because of the guidelines that they had to establish this piece of work.

In the first place, what reasonable person would call for double-member ridings when given an opportunity to break the province up properly into electoral districts with single representation? Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what this section doesn't do. This section does take the province's inequitable boundaries and, within those inequitable boundaries created by the Eckardt commission, makes this kind of illogical outcome possible. That's really what we're talking about here when we're talking about this section. We're talking about a section that is totally and completely unacceptable.

The Surrey riding is the only one in here that shows us three members, each representing a separate electoral district but all within those boundaries. If it's right for there, then why isn't it right for the entire province? What an opportunity this Provincial Secretary had when he laid down the guidelines for the commission which would eventually produce the report that would be the essence of section 2. What an opportunity he had to divide the province up properly. He wouldn't have even had to come up with members, who are going to be overflowing all over this chamber. He wouldn't necessarily have had to add 12; as a matter of fact, he wouldn't need to add any. He might even have seen that a commission would have suggested a small reduction.

[3:30]

But that notwithstanding.... And I'm not arguing the numbers at this point; I am arguing that this section should be dealing with single electoral districts, each with one representative. That is not what has been the outcome of the report, because of the strict guidelines, and that is what has created this. We saw an argument just before the committee. That argument was around who knows whether or not a riding is rural, urban, suburban or whatever. There shouldn't be these kinds of arguments if, in fact, we were to go to the basics. What an opportunity it would have been. We could have even got rid of that Gracie's Finger aberration. We could have got rid of the gerrymandering that went on on this Island.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You know all about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, at this point I must express the opinion that we have allowed some latitude on section 2. I have cautioned the Provincial Secretary about intemperate language, and I will caution all members of the committee now. Perhaps we could relate our remarks specifically to section 2, try to maintain some parliamentary decorum, and avoid unparliamentary language.

MR. COCKE: I'm not quite sure where I produced the unparliamentary language, Mr. Chairman, but in any event I do have grave concerns that anything that we do that produces a section like this will be repeated and repeated, as long as we don't go back to basics. The second section of this bill should contain a total redistribution of the province. Instead of that, what does the second section contain? It contains.... Fair enough, some of those ridings are too big; I'm not going to argue. Some of them are Social Credit, and so on and so forth. Who cares? That's not the point. The point is that those ridings shouldn't even be looked upon in that way. The whole province should have been redistributed. It wasn't done properly before and could have been done now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Single members?

MR. COCKE: Absolutely right. The member down in the corner there said something about NDP ridings too. Well, you know, if we want to get into that argument....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: How many?

Anyway, the principle is that it's the wrong principle; that's what I'm talking about. We'll win those regardless of who holds them now. One of the reasons we'll win them is

[ Page 5050 ]

this kind of silly attitude towards redistribution in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I could not vote for this section because it's clearly utterly wrong. It's a section that produces an entirely wrong approach to the electoral process. If there's need for redistribution, why don't we look at the way the Americans do it? Why don't we look at the way the federal government does it? You don't take one section and divide it up; you take the whole country and divide it within whatever context you decide is fair. I'm not one to suggest that some of those great northern ridings should have as many voters as my riding in New Westminster. It takes a tremendous amount of moving around to represent people when they are in ridings like that. Mind you, I think there should be some reasonableness in the whole formula. But the formula that produced this isn't a formula at all; it's the Provincial Secretary taking an adhesive plaster to a bad wound. That wound will never be cured until such time as we have a proper redistribution and get away from those awful boundaries that we saw produced in 1978, as I recall.

I think the minister is getting edgy and would like to say a few words. Help yourself, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister or any other member, I will remind the committee that we are essentially discussing what we discussed before in second reading. Quite a bit of this debate was canvassed during second reading of the bill. Some latitude has been allowed. If we could be relevant to the section before us now, the committee would be well served.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Speaking of boundaries, the member for New Westminster — and I've heard it on numerous occasions from across the way.... They're very supportive of single-member ridings. Well, that member for New Westminster was part of a government that on July 21, 1975, passed an order-in-council which set up the Norris commission to investigate constituencies in the province under the Constitution Act. This is what was contained in the regulations to the commission: "...that in formulating the recommendations to be contained in their report the commissioners take into account, where feasible and necessary, historical and regional claims for representation...." That's one thing that that particular report, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money.... It was never implemented by that government; it was just shelved. Another thing: "...make their recommendations on the basis that the Legislative Assembly comprise not fewer than 55 nor more than 62 members; and (3) give consideration to the provision of multiple-member ridings of two members each in areas of dense population...." It was signed by E. Hall and E. Dailly, two ministers of the day, and Dailly was the presiding member of the executive council. Now they're talking single-member ridings. Not too long ago they were talking dual ridings. The Norris report suggested there should be dual ridings because the government of the day in 1975 directed the Norris commission to make multiple tidings in British Columbia. Those were the instructions you gave the Norris commission in 1975. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth; you can't have it both ways.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that that report has seen the light of day. The minister brings it into the House. He said that that report was never implemented.

I'm glad it wasn't implemented, because of the fact that it had double-member ridings. I'm not going to reflect on what happened in those days.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You were part of that cabinet.

MR. COCKE: Of course I was. That's right. I abhorred double-member ridings then, do now and will in the future. If I made mistakes then, certainly I wasn't going to go out in the street and holler around about those mistakes. The fact of the matter is that they're dead wrong. They always were wrong. The only other province in Canada where they have double-member ridings is Prince Edward Island, that poor little province that has 125,000 people, and they have all double-member ridings. Frankly, I think even there it's crazy. But in any event, here we should not have double-member ridings now, then.... At least that report was never implemented, never put into action, never put into force. So there you have it.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, you were showing a great deal of tolerance here, in that you allowed the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to discuss a matter which was never even tabled in the House, let alone appearing as legislation, let alone being part of section 2 of Bill 47.

I am going to address section 2(b), and after a short preamble I want to ask the minister, for the third time, a question regarding section 2.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, it's not for us to debate the principle of this bill at this time. That's already been decided. I disagreed with that principle then, and I disagree with it now. It is not for us to debate section 1 of this bill, even though I disagree with increasing the size of government or, as the Premier suggested last night, increasing the number of cabinet ministers with the expensive baggage that goes along with a new ministry. All we are debating here is the question of how we designate the locales of 12 additional members of the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, the government produced census statistics, census material reprinted from the work done by the federal government. It's part of their own electoral commission report. It's part of their own electoral legislation. Now the Provincial Secretary, with a great deal of bombast, has suggested that he has some new and different and substantial and valid material to prove to this committee that Central Fraser Valley indeed has more people than Coquitlam-Moody. I have asked twice already, and I ask a third time: where is this census information that says that the 1981 federal census regarding these two constituencies is wrong? Where does he have this information that says that the material used by his own electoral commission is wrong'? Because if you follow that census information, then the twelfth constituency to be added will not be Central Fraser Valley but Coquitlam-Moody.

Will the minister please table in this chamber his defensible statistical information showing that what he says is so and that the 1981 census and the electoral commission was wrong?

[ Page 5051 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that material that he wants me to table in the House was tabled a week ago Monday, and all the information is contained in that report. I wish he would look at it.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister tell the House what agency of government did this census?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've tabled the report, the first report of the British Columbia Electoral Commission, headed by His Honour Judge D. Kennedy McAdam, with I.M. Horne, Q.C., and Harry M. Goldberg as commissioners. The legislation we're debating at this time doesn't deviate from the recommendations that have been put in this House by this three-man commission — the report that I tabled in this House. There have been no changes in it. The legislation reflects the kind of figures of population that they have determined to be appropriate. I am not challenging the commission. If you wish to do so, go ahead, but I'm not. This legislation introduced here reflects the report.

MR. D'ARCY: The government brought in legislation setting up the commission. The government activated the commission. The government is responsible for what the commission had to say. There must be some census of population, some factual validation for the specific designation of certain ridings to be twinned. That is not to say, Mr. Chairman, that I agree with the twinning of ridings or having double-member seats or quadruple-member seats or whatever number, nor that I agree with there being 69 members of the House. This committee has already decided that. It doesn't matter what I think about that. All we're discussing now is what 12 seats will have extra members. Mr. Chairman, since the minister has been unable or is steadfastly refusing to produce census information which will negate the 1981 Canada census figures, I can only assume that the minister does not have that information, and that the government simply decided arbitrarily that the twelfth riding that was going to have an extra member would be Central Fraser Valley and not Coquitlam-Moody or some other seat, and is trying to hide behind the commission to cover up the fact that they simply made an arbitrary political decision that has no verification whatsoever in fact.

[3:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the member keeps accusing the government of doing this and doing that. The government has nothing to do with this report. This is a three-man commission. Certainly we appointed the individuals to the commission, absolutely. Yes we did. But we didn't produce the figures. They determined the population base in each and every constituency. It wasn't the government that determined that; it was a three-man commission.

The report of the commission was tabled in the House a week ago Monday. I want to say that the legislation we're debating now — I'll repeat it — clearly reflects what the three-man commission feels is appropriate. They've examined the populations and have concluded where the seats should be. We're not tampering with the report; we're just implementing the legislation that reflects the information provided to us by the three-man commission.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, did the commission do a census?

HON. MR. CHABOT. Ask them.

MR. ROSE. The bill is standing in the Provincial Secretary's name. Therefore I assume he's prepared to comment on it, justify it and justify the work of the commission. After all, he is the debate leader for the government side.

I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary if he knows upon what basis a riding of 432 square miles is called suburban. when a riding of 160 square miles is called rural. A riding which is three times as large is called suburban not because it has lots of people in it. The people may be scattered unevenly over it, and there are places where it looks densely urban, but I can take you to places in Central Fraser Valley that look densely urban too, like Abbotsford and Clearbrook, and places like that. It's very difficult to argue that way. I'm reiterating this. and I make no apologies for it, that there are areas in that riding of Coquitlam-Moody that go right up Indian Arm, right up north to the boonies where there's nobody up there but grizzly bears, and they don't vote. They don't vote for me, anyway.

Then if you go across that whole ridge of Burke Mountain, and down to the Pitt River right up to the head of Pitt Lake, that's in the riding too. I can't see what would be more rural than that. Anyway, the designation is suburban; the size is 432 square miles; the population figures were larger in 1981 than they were in 1982. I don't know how you could possibly explain that unless it's based on the estimates or an arbitrary definition of a riding that may go back historically. I don't know what the reasons are.

I'd like the minister to tell me, at least, how it could happen that a riding of 432 square miles could be suburban with a population of 58,000, where a riding of 160 square miles with a population of 56,000 could be urban-rural. I don't understand it. It changes the whole face of everything for decisions to be made on the basis of whether we get one member or two members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member's been asleep, I guess, for the last year.

MR. COCKE: We know Bill 16, and we were set up.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member has been asleep for the last year, because the debate he's putting forward today is a debate that should have been put forward probably on the amendments to the Constitution Act in 1984, not under this bill. That was the time in which the determination was made as to what was suburban, what was urban-rural, et cetera. You're a little late.

MR. ROSE: I've been told before that I'm a little late. That's nothing new to me at all. But I'm quite sure we didn't know the recommendations of the boundaries commission when the debate took place on setting up the electoral redistribution commission. What we knew only was that there were certain kinds of guidelines within its mandate. It wasn't free to redraw any boundaries. It was told and given by the government, in that particular piece of legislation, certain guidelines.

The numbers and the estimates of projections of growth were absolutely unknown to us at that time. As a matter of

[ Page 5052 ]

fact, I disagree with them. But we certainly know it now. The people of Coquitlam-Moody are not going to have two members, even though they are more numerous than the population across the river in Central Fraser Valley.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind all hon. members that we really should not be discussing Bill 16 at this time. It was a bill that was brought forward in this session and was thoroughly debated, and we all realize that under standing orders we should not go back to debating that bill again. There is some relevance to it, and the Chair allowed it to be discussed, but I think we should try to restrain ourselves and speak to Bill 47.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In responding to the member, I'll get off Bill 16 of 1984. It was clearly set out which ridings were suburban: Surrey, Burnaby-Edmonds, Burnaby North, Burnaby-Willingdon, Coquitlam-Moody, Delta, Maillardville-Coquitlam, New Westminster, North Vancouver–Capilano, North Vancouver–Seymour and Richmond. The arguments you're putting up today would have been more effective had you put them up a year ago.

MR. WILLIAMS: What we're dealing with here, Mr. Chairman, is a sleazy, rigged game on the part of this administration. There's no question about it. We haven't had the backup; we haven't had the census data that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has asked for. It's the most reasonable thing in the world to ask for the data. Did it come from the federal government? Did it come from Census Canada? The answer is: go ask the commission. That's not good enough, We should have firm data.

What we're dealing with is what's most precious in a democracy — an individual's right to vote, and the whole business of watering down that vote. What we're dealing with here is deluding democracy. That's what the minister's responsible for. It's little more than theft of the ballot box that's being dealt with in this legislation right here and now. It's theft in the ballot box — the worst kind of grand theft one could entertain in a democracy.

Even if we look at the estimates, even if we assume the census was solid — and we haven't been given that background — what are we talking about in terms of difference? We're talking about 1,846 people in terms of the population difference estimate between Coquitlam-Moody and Central Fraser Valley, and this administration has the nerve to say that 1,800 souls in Central Fraser Valley should get one more member in the Legislature. It's classic sleazy gerrymandering. There's no question about that whatsoever. All of the talk about suburban and rural and previous legislation won't hide that fact. It's classic vote-stealing — that's what's going on here.

The minister represents a riding of 23,000 people, and we now have in Coquitlam-Moody some 60,000 people who will have only one member in the Legislature if this legislation goes through, versus this man representing one-third of that. That's stealing two out of three ballots in Coquitlam-Moody; that's stealing ballots in Coquitlam-Moody in order to rig this administration.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I don't mind listening to the guy making all these sleazy statements. But does he want to start opening up the debate we just closed in second reading of this bill? He's attempting to talk about rep by pop right now, and I don't want to have to start repeating what I had to tell him during second reading, Mr. Chairman. I think the section is more confined than that and does not allow him to wander all over the ballpark with his wild irrational statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN. I would suggest, hon. member, that the minister does have a point. I don't know all the words we have recorded as objectionable, but it would seem to me that perhaps "sleazy" is one, and I would ask that you avoid using it from here on in.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question of what is appropriate is not the issue, I guess, Mr. Chairman. If you're asking.... I don't know what the request is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not asking for a withdrawal; I'm just suggesting that the word not be used.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, but at the same time, Mr. Chairman, we have Esquimalt and Saanich with similar situations — not quite so extreme. So long as you entertain the idea that one person in one area should have different voting rights than one in another, then we get into this terrible problem. I quoted in the previous debate in second reading, Mr. Chairman, the American supreme court in the early sixties.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Alabama.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. This is Alabama north, right here in British Columbia. The problem is, they dealt with it two decades or more ago. They turned it into an honest process. Still, a generation later, in this part of Canada, we are making the same errors and doing the same things. We're going to have to rely in the end on our courts, as they relied on their courts, to get honesty into this process.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, some time ago, in specifically discussing section 2 and subsection 2(b) of this bill, the minister told me, in an answer to my request that he produce up-to-date census figures — preferably from Statistics Canada, but any up-to-date census figures — to ask the commission. I want to quote, specifically, a very brief section — not argumentatively — of Bill 16, passed by this House last year, because it relates to the use of census figures by the commission. On page two it says: "For the purposes of the review" — this is a population review — "the commission shall study the most recent population figures published by Statistics Canada, pursuant to the Statistics Act (Canada), and shall, on the basis of those statistics, determine (a) the mainland electoral base, (b) the Island electoral base, and (c) the number of persons resident in each electoral district of the province." That's what it says in Bill 16.

Does the minister have more recent Statistics Canada information, as defined by this bill? I'm not picking this out of the air, Mr. Chairman; I'm reading the act — Bill 16, passed in this session of this Legislature. It says that the commission shall use Statistics Canada figures — not anybody else's figures, only Statistics Canada's, and the most recent published statement by Statistics Canada. To my knowledge, the 1981 census is the most recent material.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

[ Page 5053 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Has Statistics Canada produced a subsequent statement? If they have, will the minister table it in this House? I know of no more up-to-date information than the '81 census, and the minister and the commission are directed by a bill brought in by himself in this session of the Legislature to deal with Statistics Canada's most up-to-date figures and nothing else.

[4:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I should read to him the explanatory note on Bill 47. It says: "This bill implements recommendations of the British Columbia electoral commission."

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I missed the minister's reply. I don't know whether I missed anything or not, but I missed the minister's reply.

In reading the citation which was pointed out by my colleague — I think it's section 2 of Bill 16 — I can't find any reference to any estimates here, but if you look at the report, it is a projection from the 1981 StatsCan thing, It says Statistics Canada only — "on the basis of those statistics, determine" — and it goes on to talk about electoral bases. So there might have been some misunderstanding on the part of the commission that they could make certain kinds of estimates based upon StatsCan figures. But the act is certainly silent on that, and where they received their instructions from to make certain kinds of estimates or projections is unknown to me or to anyone else, except perhaps a member of the commission.

It's interesting to note that of all those areas that get two members, the figures and the numbers are largely based on estimates from the StatsCan figures, though not entirely: Boundary-Similkameen, up 3,500; Cariboo, up 4,500; Central Fraser Valley, up 7,500. Those are estimates, right? Richmond is up 4,000; Okanagan South is up 3,000; Nanaimo is up 3,500; Langley is up 5,000; Kamloops is up 1,000, right? But when you get to Saanich and the Island — up 5,000. Those are the discrepancies in the figures. So I would like the minister to address himself to my precise question, and the question is: in his view, did the electoral boundaries commission or whatever it was called, chaired by Chief Justice Kennedy McAdam, have the freedom to depart from the act to the extent they did and include guesstimates, which very obviously favoured certain ridings over others?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't know why I continue to repeat this, Mr. Chairman, but on page 2 of Bill 16, the Constitution Amendment Act, 1984, it says: "For the purposes of the review, the commission shall study the most recent population figures published by Statistics Canada, pursuant to the Statistics Act (Canada), and shall, on the basis of those statistics determine...." In their Table A that they've produced with their report they go on to say that population estimates are prepared by Central Statistics Bureau from information supplied by Statistics Canada, and that all figures are as of June 1. So that information was provided to them by Statistics Canada; I'm sure they have that material. I'm just submitting legislation that is essentially..... The Constitution Amendment Act, 1985 — Bill 47 — really reflects the report. They have carried out their mandate, whether you like it or not. They've fulfilled their mandate by providing this information.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister is incorrect in one very important word in his reading of the section from Bill 16. He talks about information "provided," according to him, by Statistics Canada. Mr. Chairman, that's not what Bill 16 says. It talks about information published — published, Mr. Chairman — by Statistics Canada. I ask again, for the umpteenth time: will the minister table that published information? Because the most recent information anybody has from Stats Canada is the 1981 census. He says that there is other material published. Let's see it, Mr. Chairman, because I find nothing in Bill 16 that is permissive, that allows the commission to use other information. It says, specifically: "....using population figures published by Statistics Canada ... [to] determine ... the number of persons resident in each electoral district of the province." There's nothing permissive in the section, and it does not talk about information that may have been vaguely provided by somebody somewhere to some other soarce. It says specifically: "published by Statistics Canada."

MR. ROSE: The minister made a great thing about the Central Stats Bureau — I think he called it that. I wonder if the minister could reveal the location of that estimable group, and whether or not they are a government department or a private agency. Are they Stats Canada? If they are a government agency, under whose ministry do they come?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think you should direct your questions to the commission.

MR. ROSE: Well, would the minister then confirm the fact that the Central Statistics Bureau of which be spoke is in fact a provincial government agency, and is not Stats Canada?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I think, really, you're questioning the figures and the sources of the commission. I think you should direct your questions to the commission. It's an ongoing commission.

MR. ROSE: I wonder, since there's a good deal of concern about this, Mr. Chairman, if the minister has ever considered bringing the commission to the appropriate committee so that we can ask some of these questions. Obviously the minister is not very well briefed on some of these answers, and he cannot give me or the House the kind of information I think is vital to a reasonably intelligent discussion. He's scorned some of our attempts to bring forward some serious questions we have about it. He doesn't have the answers; he doesn't know where the stats bureau is; he doesn't know why one place is rural and one place is urban, even though one is twice as big and has three times more land than the other. I wonder if the minister would consider referring the contents of this report to the appropriate standing committee so we can have a chance to examine witnesses in this very important area.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that since the section that we are debating here, section 2(b) of Bill 47, contradicts and goes completely beyond the scope and the letter of Bill 16, do you not think, Mr, Chairman, that you should ask that the minister, to avoid possible court challenges later on to this particular section, consider bringing in amendments to Bill 16 to cover the use of estimates not provided by Statistics Canada in determining the population

[ Page 5054 ]

of provincial constituencies? There is nothing in Bill 16 that allows the use of estimates; certainly nothing that allows the use of material other than that published by Stats Canada for purposes of establishing these bases.

I really think that the minister, in one session of the Legislature, has brought in bills relating to amendments to the Constitution Act that contradict each other and could result in some problems down the road.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 19

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

[4:15]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 47, Constitution Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 48.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MRS. DAILLY: I believe I can speak generally on the whole area of the referendum principle, Mr. Chairman, according to the way the clause reads.

One of the first moves of the NDP government over 12 years ago, when the minister was still just a little boy in grade 1 at school, was to remove an infamous policy that had been brought in by the former Social Credit government: that is, the policy of operating referenda. Now, if we approve this section of the clause, we are being asked to reinstate what I consider an even more infamous referendum. For one thing, the referendum is not based on industrial and commercial taxation; it's based entirely on residential, as so stated. The NDP removed this operating referendum — and later, of course, the capital referenda, which I know you well remember, Mr. Chairman, because you were a school board member. The school trustees — many of them, I could say — and a number of school boards were very anxious to have the operating referenda removed. I think it would be advisable for the committee to be reminded once again of why the NDP removed the referenda. Because times have not become better — they have worsened, which makes this even a more difficult time to have such a referendum — we are unalterably opposed to the return of the operating referendum.

First of all, the minister has announced.... I saw some headlines: "Restoration of Local Autonomy — The Return to the People." It says that by by bringing in this operating referendum, autonomy is returned to school boards, which now allows the public to vote. Well, let's examine that one. The return of local autonomy. It's actually the opposite, because the school trustees are elected, I think most of us know, on a platform. Most of them run on some sort of platform which primarily does deal with their attitude not only to their philosophy of education but also to the financing of education.

When a school board sits down and prepares their budget, as the school boards in British Columbia have done, they do so very responsibly considering the times we live in. They spend literally hundreds of hours — and I know the minister in his visits around the province would back me up — in budget discussions. I know myself from my own experience not only as a school trustee but as a former Minister of Education that that budget is not sent in without any consideration. Hours and hours of hard work have gone into it by the officials of the board and the trustees.

Firstly, I consider it an absolute insult to the duly elected trustees of this province, who have spent hours preparing their budget, to now be told by this minister, in essence, that they really didn't know what they were doing, so let it go out to the people. The interesting thing about it now is that not only is it going to the people who might have children in school.... We say everyone who pays their taxes has a right to vote, but let us be realistic in a time of recession. People are being asked to vote to increase their taxes.

In Burnaby over 60 percent of the people do not have children in school, and they feel, quite rightly, that they've already paid their share of local taxation. Yet we have this minister coming along, taking us back 12 years to the infamous operating referenda, which, by the way, has been rejected, I believe, by almost every other province of Canada. Maybe this was discussed earlier. I recall, certainly at the time we removed it, that there were no other places in Canada that had operating referenda. As a matter of fact, where they had been used primarily, and still are to some degree, is the United States. I think the interesting thing to

[ Page 5055 ]

note is that everywhere where there were operating referenda, you will find that there is increased inequity in education.

That brings me to the next reason that the NDP government removed the operating referenda. We believe in equity in education. To allow one district to end up providing a different, richer kind of education is not the way that education should be funded, and particularly in those years. Compared to now, I believe the basic education provided was adequate. It certainly always needed improvement.

Now we find that we have a government that has purposely sucked moneys out of the local tax base and put it into general revenue, has consistently squeezed the school boards, brought in financial formulas which now limit the budget expenditures of those boards, and at the same time is now giving them another slap and saying: "All right, we may not have provided you with the money" — which, of course, they won't concede, but most people know there is simply not enough money being funnelled through to education in this province — "but we abrogate that responsibility. We're going to turn it back to the local school boards so they can take the flak." We do not consider that equitable.

What good is it really doing for the children of this province? That's what is really important. This is the question we must always ask. What good will this referendum do to help the student in the classroom? Unfortunately, I think it's going to create a lot more confrontation. There could be divisions in municipalities over the pros and cons of operating referenda. Let us remember.... People — and you cannot particularly blame them today — when they are asked, "Will you go out an vote for an increase in your taxes," will say, "What for?" They're told it's for increased educational expenditures. Many of those people who go out to vote will unfortunately not have taken the time, perhaps for legitimate reasons, to really analyze the importance of the educational quality in their district. They may not be as well prepared to make the judgement.

Now you may say: "Ah, but it's up to the boards to go out there and spend hours and hours to educate the public as to the reasons why they should vote for it." Let me tell you, Mr Chairman, I recall those thousands of hours spent by boards desperately having to go out and go all over again, hundreds of times, their reasons why they felt a budget increase was needed. The point is, the school boards of this province — as I repeat and will repeat again — have worked hours on their budgets. May I also say that they have done this mostly in situations which make their deliberations open to the public.

Therefore the public has really had a good opportunity, if they wished, to attend school board meetings to find out what the situation is. I know that since the minister brought in his very controversial cutbacks in education there have been, in certain areas, great meetings. When I say great I'm talking about even in size. The minister may not think they're great, but as far as the number of people who attended, there's been quite a bit of interest. But remember that when this referendum goes out there to the public, 60 percent of those people will not have children in school, and many of them have probably never taken the opportunity to attend a school board meeting or at any time to find out just what the situation is.

[4:30]

What I'm trying to say primarily is that it is an insult to locally elected trustees that they have to repeat these steps all over again just to take the minister and his government off the hook. Your financing of education is completely inadequate, and in this way you think you can turn the heat back onto the local schools boards. But the local school boards have rejected this. I find it most interesting that even this morning, or today sometime, or perhaps their meeting was last night, the Vancouver School Board — not made up just of the COPE members but of the NPA members also — stood up and said: "We reject this going back. We reject the operating referendum being brought in."

Surely the minister will reconsider such a referendum when he finds that people who normally support his government and his policies in education are ultimately and finally rejecting the idea of the restoration of an operating referendum.

It would do the minister good, perhaps, to listen to these people. In case his mind may be somewhat closed by listening to the opposition, because he may think that we have our one-tunnel vision on this. I want to assure the minister that we're speaking for many people of different political stripes when we say that the operating referendum will be a disaster. It will be a waste of time and energy — and those trustees are exhausted now from all the meetings they've had to attend.

Mr. Chairman, there's a lack of fairness in this whole principle of the operating referenda. I mentioned earlier that this government has seen fit to take away the industrial and commercial base. So now that referendum is going to be based entirely on the residential taxation. In Burnaby alone, 58 percent of our taxation was industrial and commercial. That is no longer there as a base for this referendum or for taxation. Forty-two percent only is the residential base.

Do you really think, in your right mind, Mr. Chairman, that people are going to go out — that 42 percent who are already squeezed with unemployment and with so many other problems today — and actually commit themselves to more money for education, particularly, as I pointed out earlier, where, through no fault of their own, many of them may not have the serious facts in front of them? I admit it's the responsibility of the voter to get that, but I think we have to be realistic, The history of operating referenda in this province, and wherever else they've been held in the United States, show that by and large they go down to defeat.

The government has absolutely no right to select education, distinct from other services — health, for example, or highways or Expo — and single it out for a referendum, Why? I think the minister has to explain why education alone has been singled out once again by his government, for what I consider are very punitive measures, and measures which will not help the situation we're in today in this province.

The only thing that will help restore the quality of education in this province, and eliminate the confrontation we face, is for this government to realign their priorities and realize the time has come to ensure that all children in British Columbia will be provided with good basic education. Their present handling of education is not allowing that. Even further, we are finding that this referendum will bring about all the opposite effects, which, I'll try to say in all fairness to the minister, he may misguidedly think this is going to help. But I hope the minister will understand that whoever has been instructing you or perhaps giving you advice.... Surely you can see that it is wrong advice. This referendum principle will not help education in British Columbia. It will not help you out of your present difficulties, and it will not help the students of British Columbia.

[ Page 5056 ]

We ask the minister to reconsider and withdraw from going back to over 12 years ago to a situation which was injurious, not helpful, to education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, before recognizing the next speaker, I will remind the committee that some latitude and, I would submit, courtesy has been allowed the official critic in terms of discussion in committee on this bill. But really, we have extensively canvassed debate that should have been, and I am sure was, canvassed during second reading. If we could remind ourselves that we are in committee and debate under a section must be specific to the clause before us, the Chair will be well served.

MR. COCKE: I will read the section so that we have it very clear whether or not I'm speaking on the section. Mr. Chairman, it is amending section (f): "where the board has passed a resolution under section 13.2 (1), the supplementary amount that it proposes to include in its annual budget and to raise by residential taxation."

Let's deal first with residential taxation. The minister and the government chose some time ago to thieve, to take away from each district, the commercial and the industrial tax base. Then he has the audacity to walk in here with the worst kind of referendum bill that W.A.C. Bennett would have ever thought of, because in those days, Mr. Chairman, the whole taxation base was part of that referendum.

Now let me tell you how this works in New Westminster. In New Westminster, we're 60-40: 60 percent of our tax base is commercial-industrial and 40 percent is residential. So the residents have to come forward and, in our case, cough up $1 million just to meet their needs budget — an absolute bare bones, skeleton, basic budget. I can go over some of the details later,

In order to do that, what do they have to do? The conniving of this government is beyond words. They then have to go — that is, the school board of New Westminster — to the taxpayers, and they have to say: "We need $100 on every house in New Westminster in order to raise the difference." That, Mr. Chairman, is the absolutely unmitigated gall of this government, irresponsible beyond words.

I will read some of the lines for the minister because he's looking for our school district. Fiscal framework: the 12 month fiscal framework — that's from July '85 to '86 — according to his figures is $11,707,828. Maintenance budget: a maintenance budget in our situation is absolutely bare bones, and that comes to $12,505,320, a shortfall of $797,000. But that maintenance budget doesn't even take into account an arbitrated settlement. You take into account an arbitrated settlement, and you're over $1,027, 492. You know what the arbitrated settlement was? It was 2.3 percent.

Even with the lowest guidelines we could find, at 1.7 we come up with a $967,000 shortfall. Now, Mr. Chairman, who is kidding whom? The minister brings in this bill. He brings in a section that states that if we need a supplementary amount, don't argue with him. Go argue with the taxpayers, and he gets off the book, and his government gets off the hook. Who carries the can? The Chairman knows better than anyone, because he's been involved in this particular area in the past. It would then be the school board that was kicked around by people who say, "Not on your life, " or who say yes, but are very angry. And who wouldn't be angry! Who wouldn't be angry with the prospect of going back to the Dark Ages!

The minister should have carried the can all the way, every inch of the way. If he's going to set impossible budgets, then he should not bring into this House a section of a bill that states that the only way they can provide for the additional money that they need is to go back to the people who have already been twice cursed. They're paying the whole shot anyway. The minister looked out there a few months ago and said: "Oh, my goodness, it's too good for a local school district to have a commercial and industrial tax base." Even W.A.C. Bennett never came to that conclusion. His logical conclusion was that if you believe in referenda, which I don't, but if you believe in referenda, then you have the entire tax base as party to them. You take out the richest part in our area, and the richest part in many areas........ I'm just thinking, in my mind's eye, about others. I'm sure that my colleague behind me will come up with some conclusions when he gets to his feet, and that's the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). I'll bet you that minister knows only too well that that member's going to get to his feet, because it's absolutely without any kind of precedent that we would come up with this kind of weighted referendum.

Mr. Chairman, I go through the report of our school district, and I look at each and every school. For the last two years each of them has been cutting comers, reducing staff, praying for some attrition. Even with that, they get to a point where it is so bare bones that you, as a former school trustee, would grow white-haired just looking at it. Then the minister comes along. I don't know who provided the strategy, but I know that that strategy is the most Machiavellian strategy I've seen for a long time, and I've seen plenty. It's a strategy that says: "Okay, we can't agree, so we'll disagree, and now, having taken away your richest base, we're going to make you totally responsible for going to the taxpayers and asking for your maintenance budget."

The minister came up with a budget.... You know, Mr. Chairman, this is not something peculiar to my riding. I haven't heard one single school district in this province stand up in jubilation over (1) the original budgets and (2) this whole idea of having to go back to the taxpayers for the additional. I would recommend to every school district in this province that has a Social Credit member that it make that Social Credit member responsible in the eyes of the public — every one of those taxpayers who are going to be done — if in fact it goes to a referendum.

MR. KEMPF: We'll do that.

MR. COCKE: Two-story Jack is at it again: one story for down here and another for Omineca. I'd just love to see you do that, Jack.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The members will come to order. No personal references.

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I shouldn't let that member excite me, but from time to time he does. It's only because of the fact that I was born with a short fuse when it comes to members from the north, because I was also born up there. I've seen the northern lights myself many times, and I realize what that does to one's mind.

[4:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 5057 ]

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding what that member says about his ability to go to his constituency and defend these impositions on the local taxpayers, I don't think there will be very many people on that side of the House who savour that job — what they're turning over to their school boards. They are saying to the school boards: "It's up to you. Go out there and gather the bucks."

MR. REID: That's what they're elected for.

MR. COCKE: Isn't that interesting? That member from Surrey says: "That's what they're elected for." If they're elected for that, then they are elected to take responsibility and come up with a proper budget under our present circumstances, which is what they have done. And now they are being deked.

MR. REID: They haven't done that.

MR. COCKE: Let the record show that the second member for Surrey says that his school board has not done a proper job and that therefore his constituency should be made to come up with the extra dollars with a referendum just on the residential tax base.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: That member who makes his remarks from his chair is very interesting. Sometimes in the middle of the afternoon he provides that kind of comic relief that we all need from time to time. But we're actually dealing with a serious matter, Mr. Member. It's a matter that that member is not taking seriously. It would be a shame if he wouldn't at least try sometime to take matters seriously. I recommend for his bedtime reading tonight this amendment, particularly sections I and 2.

It's dead wrong. I'm speaking not only for our constituency, but for most constituencies in the province. As a matter of fact, I don't know any that are coming out unscathed. Even that former, vicious, savage Minister of Education — who had something in his ear at one time — I don't think would have brought in such a treacherous piece of legislation as we see before us. Something that we would all like to see at this moment is the minister stand up and withdraw not only section 1 but also the following sections. Should he not do that, then he is responsible for creating a greater upheaval in the school districts and in the school programs in this province than I can imagine anybody else doing in our period in history.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 1, the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Reference was made by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, your colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made reference to Mackenzie and the school district at Powell River.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, maybe I can help you out a bit here.

In 1981 the per-student cost in Powell River was $2,847; in 1985 it's S3,627, an increase of 27.4 percent. The enrolment during that time has declined by 17 percent. What has happened throughout most of the school districts in British Columbia is that we have found a significant decline. The opening comments continue to be made about under-funding education.

If we could only have this photocopied, I'd be quite prepared to give copies to the members opposite.

The actual amount of money which has gone into education.... Let's look at from 1981 on. The total amount of money that went in was $1.597 billion; in 1982, $1.867 billion; in 1983, $1.898 billion; in 1984, $1.904 billion. The allegations that have been constantly made that there are fewer dollars going in are just not true. Here is the total amount. Where do I get these figures from? The allocation, as between the contributions made by four major categories: consolidated revenue of the provincial government, excluding industrial and commercial taxation.... How was that moved along from 1981 to 1984? In 1981 it was 50.75 percent;in 1984 it was 51-72 percent. So that's gone up. Non-residential, commercial and industrial taxation: in 1981, 33.2 percent; in 1984, 34.80 percent. In residential taxation, comparing 1981 to 1984: in 1981 it was 11.66 percent net of homeowner grant; in 1984 it was $157 million, or 8.27 percent net of homeowner grant.

I think it would be only fair if you would point out — and we did this, I think, when the bill was up for second reading; I'll refresh the members' memory with the facts.... If you take the midpoint average of all homes in the province, by school district, you will find that after deduction of the homeowner grant there are a handful.... I would suggest there are maybe 15 to 18 school districts where the people living within those school districts, on the midpoint average, actually pay education tax. I thought I would do a simulation and a run to find out what would happen if the budgets were to be increased by 2 percent. All those people would still end up paying no education tax as a result of the homeowner grant.

It is the belief of government, and I am firmly committed to this, that the amount of money taken out with respect to operating grants is not taken out; it is just being compressed, it's been squeezed. I don't deny it; it has been. But enough money is being provided for public education. If you wish to go to the service levels — I don't know how many times I have to repeat it — those service levels, which were non-existent in British Columbia prior to introduction of this entire framework and the service levels and the budget system and the information system, were all done with one purpose in mind. The discrepancies between school districts on the per-student cost were getting farther and farther apart.

I'll tell you what was really happening. Those districts that had the precipitate drops in enrolment weren't really experiencing any hardship whatsoever, and yet the same number of dollars were coming out through the provincial government and through the industrial and commercial taxpayers. We just had to develop some form of system to bring equity provincewide.

I refer you again to what happened in 1982. The clarion call by politicians, school board trustees, school officials such as secretary-treasurers and superintendents, was: "Something's got to be done with the system." So we did just that: we made a change to the system. I'm not questioning for

[ Page 5058 ]

one moment that it was infallible. Yes, there have been errors as we've gone through, but I'll tell you, when you want to make any changes to anything when you're involved in handling the administration of $1.9 billion, some of these problems are going to be uncovered.

I might say that almost without exception I found support for the system among all school districts, The only problem I found is this: yes, it would be very easy if there were a little bit more money.

There seems to be a considerable concern with respect to the referendum. If we believe as a government that adequate funding is being injected into the system, and people within the communities say, "We would like a bit more, " and on the basis that everybody is being treated equally, if they wish to pay more then they have that opportunity, who am I to prevent them from having that right? They have that opportunity.

You know, I could not have ever wished for two school board chairmen to make the following comments — the Vancouver School Board chairman, Mrs. Weinstein, and the Victoria Board chairman, Mrs. Pickup. In the former they said, "Just a minute, the taxpayers can't afford this," and in the latter, in Victoria: "What do you mean? If we do this we're going to get flak from the taxpayers." Well, when you stand for elected office, sometimes it goes with the territory. You get flak.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ought to know.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I ought to know. But I tell you, I believe that what I'm doing is right, and I've brought some equity between districts and controlled public expenditures — not saved money but controlled them and responded to the demands by the public.... My correspondents will tell you that, in droves, and no doubt there is correspondence that will tell you the other as well; lot's be fair. But to control public expenditure is something we had to do.

Now if people want the opportunity to express their views during a referendum, if a school board elects to hold one, fine. I see in the newspaper today that they are going to proceed in Delta. Everybody opposite is of the view that there are going to be massive turnouts to referendums. Do you know what the average turnout is for the election of school trustees in British Columbia?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, interestingly enough, I listened to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), and I don't recall throwing a number of their comments, which I didn't find particularly kind. I stood there and just took that punishment. Unfortunately, it seems to bother you when some of it is dished back.

In my view, if people wish to have an opportunity to express their views at the polls or on a ballot, then they'll turn out. I see nothing wrong with giving that opportunity to people. What everyone alleges is that the poor districts will not get the response and the rich districts will. Indications are that those districts, if I'm to look at the tax rolls, and if they are to be the poorer districts — that's the interior and the northern part of British Columbia.... When you look at the rolls you find higher property taxes, more valuable properties down on the lower mainland. That would indicate to me that those in the poorer districts, if they wish to proceed, in any event, still get the benefit of the homeowner grant. How is that discrimination? I don't think so.

[5:00]

Earlier, some comment was made about the arbitrated awards. We both know that the arbitrated awards are now before the compensation stabilization office, No decision has been made. The last two awards were turned back — one to Howe Sound and the other, as I recall, to Surrey. One of the most interesting comments was found in one of the awards when it went back to the parties: "Under the new system, the timing of budgeting and bargaining schedules is synchronized in a common-sense fashion so that teachers' salaries and bonus settlements will be influenced by budget realities." It seems to me that makes a great deal of sense.

Our view is that adequate funding is found within each of those budgets. It is found in the service levels which are prescribed. If school districts wish to pay out more for education, they should be given that opportunity, and that's exactly what this bill does; in fact, it is what section 1 makes reference to. Pass the resolution, incorporate the resolution within their budget for 1995-86, and let's see what the outcome is.

MR. COCKE: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman — I'll talk a bit later — the minister comes up with absolute nonsense . If he's going to take us back to the Dark Ages, why doesn't he give us the entire tax base? The minister and that government stole the industrial and commercial tax base, and then they come to us and say: "Do your job, homeowners." That's sheer nonsense! I noted that he talked about Powell River but not about New Westminster, because he knows perfectly well that the facts and figures I gave him were true. The fact of the matter is, he's not doing his job properly. He's doing his job at the behest of someone who's giving him a scenario that in my opinion is just a scheme to defraud the public.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The reason I have recommended that government not touch the industrial and commercial tax base is because in British Columbia they pay an extraordinarily higher proportion in real property taxation and machinery and equipment tax than they do in other parts of the country. That's a fact. All we're doing is saying: 'All right, you as residential property taxpayers are paying the smallest portion, 8.25 percent, and you have full advantage of the homeowner grant." You cannot turn around and take advantage of the commercial and industrial tax base and continue to tax those people. They have paid a significant sum toward the cost of education in British Columbia.

Frankly, I think it's far more advantageous to us in the province to ensure that we've got a viable, strong economic base so that we don't get stories like this being told, and letters like this being circulated. "It's not advisable to do business in British Columbia. This is what it costs us, per unit, when it comes to property tax. Our mill for machinery and equipment and the basic property tax is so many dollars." The cost, Mr. Chairman, is just too high, and these people are the very people who have been clamouring: "Keep our taxes down; otherwise, you are going to drive us out of the province." It's not an unreasonable request when you listen to the mining industry, the forest industry or the manufacturing industry. They're already paying 34.5 percent.

MR. ROSE: I wish that our Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), were here to do with the tax base

[ Page 5059 ]

and the industrial and commercial that's so onerous. The last I heard — and it seems to me it occurred within the last two years, if not the last budget — was that the exemption for those taxpayers was doubled from, I think, $30,000 to $60,000. But he will elaborate on that.

What I want to do is get at the minister's figures having to do with the idea of the money we're spending on education. He seemed to indicate that somehow he really wasn't cutting back at all. I mean, his scenario for the last two years, anyway, has been to cut back an average of 2 percent per year because we couldn't afford it. Then he comes out and indicates today, before I had to run out and find my own figures, that somehow the cutbacks were not severe, and, as a matter of fact, they didn't exist at all. They were increasing money.

The information that I have is that the average school district operating budget in 1982 was $21,254,000; the average school district operating budget in 1983 was $20,981,000; and the average school district operating budget in 1985-86 is projected to be $20 million and a bit. So the cut has been 4 percent over 1983, or 5.25 percent over 1982. The interesting thing is that no allowances whatsoever have been made for inflation in these figures. The old story here is that liars can figure. That's a cliche. It's been said many times. But when you look at the average operating budget, which has dropped approximately $1 million a year per district over three years, then there have been substantial cuts in the budgets. When you add compounded inflation on top of that, how again...?

We were told here earlier this afternoon by that diplomatic and eloquent Provincial Secretary that we couldn't have it both ways and couldn't talk out of both sides of our mouths. It seems to me that on the one hand you can't be lowering education budgets and on the other hand raising them at the same time. If the minister is interested in the raw data and the source of this, it came from the Ministry of Education.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the Minister of Education and to support this section of the bill. I'd like to explain why I am supporting this bill. There was a time, many years ago, when the proposal for a referendum was rejected by the public and when I opposed the idea of a referendum for school expenditures. The member for North Burnaby remembers that, but I want to explain what has happened in the interim. What has happened is that school boards have had access to the taxation base and have been in this province on a spree of drunken spending of taxpayers' money. The result is there for everyone to see. I think that the members of the opposition should look rather carefully at the results.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I note, for example, in this interval, some of the most highly paid public servants in British Columbia are school superintendents. It is these very school districts that are objecting to the minister's budget allocations under section 1. We have several superintendents in British Columbia that are paid higher salaries than the Premier of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: So what? Hockey players get more than the Prime Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: So what? We have one assistant superintendent of the Burnaby school district who is paid more than the Premier of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: Wayne Gretzky is too.

HON. MR. McGEER: The difference is that the Vancouver Canucks are not paid from property taxes or general taxes in British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: No, but the building they play in is, and we built it for them.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, why the assistant superintendent of Burnaby is paid more than the Premier of British Columbia. Perhaps the opposition can help me. Is it because the assistant superintendent takes greater responsibility? Is that the reason?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, it is a more important job than the Premier of British Columbia? Then these members should be running for school superintendent, not for the salary but for the responsibility, Maybe, as well, it's the stress of the job of being the assistant superintendent of the Burnaby School District that merits more taxpayers' money than the Premier of British Columbia, let alone the Minister of Education. Would it be the tremendous stress that a deputy superintendent faces? Would that be the reason for the salary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, we've allowed an awful lot of latitude here, and I really think we're straying from section 1.

HON. MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Chairman, these members opposite were the ones who objected to the minister saying what the budget should be. He's saying, under section 1, that that's wrong. All I'm asking is why, in the education system, we need to pay a deputy superintendent more than the Premier. Perhaps it may be the longer hours. Perhaps the Premier doesn't work the hours that an assistant superintendent works. Maybe it's because the Premier gets a better pension — could that possibly be?

1 note that a columnist in British Columbia said that I was going to get a pension. after 22 years in this House, of $60,000. She was confusing me, I suggest, with an assistant school superintendent. or if not that, an executive in Pacific Press. Maybe that's who she was confusing me with.

[5:15]

When it comes to payment out of the taxpayer's pocket, I want to tell you what we've been doing in this House over ten years and what's happened out there in the school system. The MLAs will know that they have had a salary raise, including the expenses to which there is so much objection, of 79 percent — cabinet ministers, unfortunately, not that much, But I want to tell you what the teachers have got....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. McGEER: You should be interested in this because you're responsible for the taxes. Year after year after year: 1976 — 14.2 percent; the next year, 10.5 percent the next year, 9.4 percent; the next year, 7.6 percent; the next

[ Page 5060 ]

year, 8.9 percent; the next year, 10.1 percent; the next year, 13 percent. All of these were trivial, because the year after it was 20 percent, then 4.8 percent and 1.6 percent while restraint was on. No wonder, Mr. Chairman, school budgets have run out of control in this province, when it's nothing to pay a superintendent more than the Premier of this province — seven of them — and to pay 10 or 12 more than the Minister of Education, more than their bosses, more than the deputy. Here in the province of British Columbia, we're paying deputy assistant superintendents more than the Premier of the province.

I tell you we need some controls on education. You said you thought it was because they worked longer hours or had a more stressful job or didn't get as good a pension or any of those things, but I'll suggest to you one reason why I think it may have taken place: because influential members of the school board who were setting the budgets were themselves teachers. Mr. Chairman, it's about time that some of these big spenders who have had silent access to the tax base had some accountability, the same as we do, to the taxpayers who pay the bill, and then maybe we wouldn't be paying assistant superintendents in British Columbia more than the Premier of the province. Maybe then we wouldn't be giving teachers a 158 percent increase in their average salary over a ten-year period, while the MLAs, who keep helping themselves to money, have given themselves pay increases of 57 percent, including the extra that's coming in a later bill in this session.

No, Mr. Chairman, I tell you, it's time that the Minister of Education began to blow the whistle on some of these things.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, you're all against it. Yes, yes, you don't want that to happen. You would sooner cater to your friends in the B.C. Teachers' Federation, hiring more and more teachers.

I want to tell you how productivity has gone down. In 1975, the year we came to power, there were 26,000 teachers in the school system, and those 26,000 teachers were able to teach 524,000 students. They can't do that anymore. They can't do it anymore, because now we find, for heaven's sake, Mr. Chairman, that the cutbacks are going to destroy education. We even had a front-page story, if you can believe it, from Pacific Press yesterday that students were committing suicide in the schools. That's how the rhetoric has escalated, not in this chamber but outside of this chamber. I tell you that kind of thing is disgraceful yellow journalism. That's what it is, because while those 26,000 teachers were able to teach 524,000 pupils, the same number of teachers today can't seem to teach 472,000 students. You see, we've gone down 50,000 students with the same number of teachers, and for some reason the job can't be done even though the salaries have gone up 158 percent on average and even though there are assistant superintendents who are paid more than the Premier of the province. Superintendent after superintendent after superintendent is paid more than the Deputy Minister of Education and the minister. No, this bill is long overdue, Mr. Chairman, and I intend to support it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: After that speech — I think that's speech No. 5 by that minister; he has six standard speeches.... We're subjected to those speeches about a dozen times during the course of a legislative session, when one of the other ministers is in trouble — we recognize the hollering and the rhetoric and the thumping of the desks — and then the minister disappears back to his office at the University of British Columbia and we don't see him for another two weeks. In any event, how do you respond to a speech like that?

I'm not up here to respond to those speeches; I'm here to discuss with the minister some of the concerns in my riding — and I'm not going to be too long. I want to suggest to the minister, who is busily engaged over there at the moment.... He put forward some figures relating to one of my school districts. I have three whole school districts in my riding and some small part of two others, and I've discussed the whole matter of the referendum....

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm sorry. Am I keeping you? Am I disturbing you?

Anyway, as I was saying, I did discuss with the school trustees and a number of teachers in my riding the implications of the cutbacks in education. I want to point out to the minister that the figures relating to School District 47 that he threw across the floor in response to a remark from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) did not take into account the approximately 28 percent inflation rate in that particular school district. In all school districts throughout the province those figures — and I'm sure the minister has been through this many times — did not take into account the inflation rate. I agree with you. I'm talking about one school district for a moment, School District 47.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Powell River?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Powell River, yes. I appreciate the fact that you did come up and meet with the board, I was unable to attend that meeting because I was out of....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We missed you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I bet.

HON. MR, HEINRICH: No, we did.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Actually, at that meeting, which I was invited to — we had other meetings here in Victoria.... I would have attended, but I was told that I would have no voice or no vote. Anyway, I have the minutes of that meeting. But what I'm on about is, first — and partially due to the present lack of autonomy of local school boards throughout the province.... School District 47. I'll talk about School Districts 46 and 49 in a minute. There is a declining school population in that district. It's not that large, Mr. Minister, but there is a declining population. Many programs in that district, as in all districts, have been cut back because the government and the minister have taken unto themselves....

I'll be getting up to referenda here in a second. I'm trying to explain, Mr. Chairman, what's going to happen, perhaps, if we have referenda in some of these districts. We've had layoffs in terms of teachers and support staff, and cutbacks in a whole lot of programs. Everybody knows what they are; they've been well documented, I think, during the course of second reading.

[ Page 5061 ]

But one of the things that concerns me more — I'm still in School District 47, Mr. Minister — is that at the end of June we face the distinct possibility of three schools closing down. There's a quite large school in Powell River, a smaller junior secondary on Texada Island and an elementary school in Lund. I might point out to you, Mr. Minister, that the school board will probably have no choice. That decision hasn't been finalized yet, but they will probably have no choice; and this is where we get into referenda — in a few minutes.

On the Texada Island side, those children have to go to Powell River now for grades 11 and 12, and they have to leave home somewhere around 6:45 in the morning, when they're picked up by the bus. It means they have to get up at six — I presume they have breakfast and things like that. They don't get home until 6:30 or 7:00 in the evening, because they have to travel on a ferry from Texada Island to Powell River.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's okay, though.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, but it makes a very long day, and they are generally not able to participate.... What I'm suggesting is that those 42 children — well, I guess they're children at that age — should have the right — and I think there are only five teachers involved in that particular school — to be able to attend school in their own community. A school of that nature, by the way, has a much larger impact on a small community than, say, a school in Powell River, a much larger community. It has a bigger impact not only because of the people employed in that school but through the amenities offered through the uses that the building is put to other than as a school. Anyway, what I'm saying is that as a result of your policies the board in School District 47 has no option but to close that school, and I'm deeply concerned about it. I must give some credit to the board of School District 47. There was a serious threat of that school's being closed last year, and by careful reworking of the budget and discussion with personnel involved the school has been kept open this past year. But I'm deeply concerned about that particular matter.

I want to discuss very briefly School District 46 as well . I know once again that you met with school trustees from that district, as did your colleague the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr Reynolds) and I. We met with the board of trustees at great length. The reason the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was involved in that meeting is that one island is within his school district in West Vancouver–Howe Sound, so he was invited. We listened, and the member, who is not present at the moment, contributed to the meeting in a significant way, I thought. But the major concerns expressed to us at that meeting were the loss of board autonomy and local taxing authority for operating costs.

I made a whole lot of notes, but I'm not going to go through all of those, Mr. Minister. I wrote you a letter. The overall inadequacy of the fiscal framework and the particularly significant inadequacy in certain areas was another topic we discussed at that meeting in some depth, along with the need for funding at essentially the 1984 level in order to maintain the educational programs and avoid significant layoffs of the non-teaching staff.

So, Mr. Chairman, those were some of the topics discussed. I might bring to the minister's attention that that school district is anticipating a shortfall of some $450,000 this year and has requested of the minister to borrow S200,000 or make up the at least $200,000 of that $450,000 in some way — getting back to the referendum again — so at least a number of teachers will not have to be laid off and there will not be the possibility of further school closures.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Which number are you talking about?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: School District 46, Sunshine Coast.

I don't know if you've come to an accommodation with their requests or not, Mr. Minister, but I do know this: that the out now lies in the referendum. You will simply get up in this House in a few minutes, I'm sure, and say: "Look, the decision is now in the hands of the local school board." The school board can authorize the referendum, at some considerable cost to the school board's funds — the taxpayers, if you will, down the line. You can say the same thing about Powell River: if they want to keep the schools open, go to a referendum. But, Mr. Minister — and I know you've heard this many times in this House over the last couple of days on this bill — you know and I know that probably only one-third on an average — the figure that I keep hearing is about one-third — of any given portion of the population have children in school. With the already heavy tax burden placed on local ratepayers — and I heard your speech about homeowner grants and all that stuff — the fact is that our mill rates are extremely high in some of these areas.

I was going to go into a lot of figures and things here, Mr. Chairman, but I somehow feel that I'm just reiterating what has already been stated at least two dozen times in this House. I don't want to feel like a broken phonograph record. But there are genuine concerns.

One last school district. I just want to get this on the record, Mr. Chairman. I didn't expect to be quite this long, but I think I would be remiss in not discussing School District 49, which has very special problems in terms of the taxing ability in that area. Ocean Falls is in that school district. It's a very small district. Ocean Falls was shut down by the government opposite some time ago, so that portion has been lost with the loss of the commercial tax base. We have quite a large native Indian population at Bella Bella and Bella Coola and some federal government participation in funding in that district. I appreciate and am aware of the fact,RT @cbryanjones: The Fukushima situation has exposed a grave danger. But it isn't radiation, it's the poor state of science education Mr. Minister.... I can see you looking up the figures, which is great. I don't think I have the up-to-date figures. Your ministry has provided extra funding in some cases in that particular school district because of the special problems there. That's appreciated, but it's still not enough. I've written to you — and you have responded — on behalf of the special-needs school in Bella Bella, which is a large native Indian community of about 1,200 people. They feel, and I agree with them, that the provincial government has not paid its fair share.

[5:30]

I know a lot of this material I'm going through, Mr. Chairman, can be raised in more detail in estimates. I'm just pointing out the problems the minister has created through his ministry by taking away the autonomy of local school boards, placing that autonomy in his office, and now telling people, like residents, particularly the school trustees in School District 49 — that's Central Coast — that there's no problem: "If you want more money, you just go out and have a referendum." Well, it won't wash.

[ Page 5062 ]

The other thing about this section that we're discussing — and the whole bill — is that it will create an unequal education system in the poor school districts of our province. There's no question about it. West Vancouver–Howe Sound has, in my view, an excellent school system — everybody tells me that — but it has a large and very significant tax base. How are people in School District 49, which has a relatively low tax base, going to compete with West Vancouver School District? What I'm saying is that your formula and this bill and this section of this bill will create unequal educational opportunities for all of our children in the province. God knows they're unequal enough now, particularly in many remote areas in this province. I am genuinely concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I did take the trouble to check through facts and figures by the bushel here. My gosh, when we get on to this topic.... I would like to quote some of the.... Do we still have bushels, or kilos? It's something like that. In any event, I'm going to quote portions of the brief that was presented to the minister from the board of trustees for School District 47, which I think are very significant. I'm not sure I really want to do that at this time. I was really saving this material for debate under the estimates; I think I've made a decision to do that.

In closing, I would like to quote one last item, a paragraph that appeared in today's Vancouver Sun. Perhaps, Mr. Minister, you have not had the opportunity to see today's issue of that particular paper. "The legislation was strongly condemned last week by the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the B. C. Teachers' Federation, who called it unfair, unworkable, inequitable and amounting to double taxation on residential taxpayers." I think that pretty well puts in a nutshell how people out there will view this legislation — certainly how the people who have to administer this legislation will react to this referendum.

One last item while I'm on my feet. I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), currently the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, and I deeply resented that minister's attack not only on school trustees, but on teachers, some of whom are now facing layoffs, increased tensions in the classroom, larger class sizes and more responsibility. They are being demoralized. Within this last year there have been more examples of nervous breakdowns among people in the teaching profession, teachers actually working in the classroom, than ever before in our history, and there's got to be a reason for that. Also, more teachers than ever before are retiring early if they can possibly manage it. There are more absences for health reasons, and I think a lot of that is just sheer tension. I could give you class size numbers in some of our local schools, but I won't get into that now. I'll save that for estimates too.

I was only going to be 10 minutes, so I think I'll take my seat. If you will, do me one great favour: if I have said anything new, then respond. But don't give us the same answers that you gave us 20 minutes ago.

HON. MR. HEINRICH I would like to draw the member for Mackenzie's attention to this point. There is a provision now made under the service levels for present funding to accommodate the differential with respect to costs in various school districts. For example, in School District 49, Central Coast, the amount of money put in the levels is approximately $5,100 per student. The average cost throughout the province is probably about $3,200 or $3,300. So right off the bat that's acknowledged.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I mentioned that, and I appreciate it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Okay. Now in School District 46, which is Sunshine Coast, I notice here that you're talking about a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Well, I'm not in a position at this time to even consider the matter of deficits, and you can well imagine and understand why. But I do know that the cost per student in that area is $3,392 in the present funding for 1985-86. Even if the $200,000 were required, that amount could be raised by referendum and it wouldn't make any impact at all on these education taxes. It would still be zero. In fact, there would still be a spill-over to the benefit of the municipality.

Now for the school district in Powell River, you made reference to no consideration for inflation. My point to you is this: the increase in the cost per student in 1985 over 1981 is 27.4 percent. That, I think, must take into consideration inflationary costs. That's got 27.4 percent, and the figures are $3,627 for 1985, as compared to $2,847 for 1981.

Also, we must take into consideration a significant decline in enrolment in Powell River. Do you know that there's been a 20 percent — well, it's exactly 17 percent — decline in enrolment in Powell River? When I was in Powell River, I had.... And it was a very good meeting, I might say; it lasted about three hours, and it was open to the public. The same at Squamish. I must have met 150 people at the meeting at Squamish, and I think that turned out to be a very good meeting as well.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interesting, though: the pupil-teacher ratio in Powell River continues to drop. In 1981 it was 16.88; today it's 16.55. The reason is the decline in enrolment. I'm also aware that there are two schools, one to, I think, the north of the district, and the other to the south of the district. Both are very small. We recognize the distances between the two, and for some of those children who are in primary school it's too far to travel.

With respect to Texada Island, I can't be too much help to you on Texada Island because, after all, you know, it's sparsely populated, and when you get to students in grades 11 and 12, it's very typical of the north. I mean, there are many students in the northern part of British Columbia who travel not a few miles like this, but 50, 100 or 200 miles, and, of course, they return, if not on the weekends, at least at spring break, Easter and Christmastime.

I should mention one concluding remark to you on this to accommodate the small schools. As a result of the travelling, it became quite apparent to me that the small secondary schools were having some difficulty. I felt the service levels we had put in were inadequate, and I have amended those service levels to accommodate the small secondary school. Pemberton is not in your area, but West Vancouver–Howe Sound.... I recognize that you and the member for West Vancouver have a great deal in common, and I have addressed those areas.

Now we've strayed terribly on this particular bill. We're supposed to be talking about the section on referendum. I think the opportunity is there for the referendum, and I see no

[ Page 5063 ]

reason why people who wish that additional service to supplement what is there, which is what I believe to be an adequate amount of money to provide a quality education....

I am sure the people in your area, particularly the residential portion of Powell River, if they believe that their school board is entitled to more money, will be the first people who will come to support them. After the amount of money is added, there is still no increase in their education tax.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have one remark to the minister's response. On the pupil-teacher ratio, to use figures like 16.7 percent or 17.2 percent is all very well. But the reality is — and I'm sure this must be happening in other parts of the province — it can't just be in my own school district, you know — that some classroom sizes are double and more. Some classrooms throughout our school....

HON. MR. HEINRICH. I'm not talking classroom size.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm talking about the actual number of children in a classroom that a teacher has to deal with on a daily basis. That's what I'm talking about. I know the principal has to administrate. He's included in the pupil-teacher ratio, but he has to administrate. He's not in the classroom. The list could go on.

What I was attempting to refer to, quite honestly, was the actual number of children in some of these classrooms today because of cutbacks, and that's what I was referring to.

MR, MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this bill and the idea of a referendum. I think, that the minister could revisit all of the school boards he's visited to date and continue to find demands on his financial framework formula, even though he has made over 20 amendments to date.

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is ever going to be able to resolve all the needs and desires of all the groups in society having to do with education. I had the privilege of being a school trustee for five years, and I listened to debates year after year when debating the budget. I listened to presentations from teachers, parents, principals, librarians, grounds departments and various other groups making presentations as to what they would like to see in the budget. Believe you me, Mr. Chairman, you're never going to satisfy all those groups. The logical answer, to me, is for the minister to continue with his financial framework, make sure that all of the core programs in education are covered, make sure the special circumstances in the province are covered, and then if the individual school boards wish for additional funds, they should be required to go to a referendum, answer questions from the taxpayers, provide them with the facts and sell them on the need for additional funds. I don't think that's all that difficult if you have a good case. I have found in my experience with referenda that if you put a good question to the ratepayers, do a good job of telling the facts, the ratepayers more often than not will support you.

Mr. Chairman, I have gone to the trouble to do a bit of research in my home school district, the one in which I used to be on the board of trustees, and I find some very interesting figures. First of all, in 1980 the total budget was $12,991,137. If you go forward just four short years into 1984 you find that the actual figure was increased to $18,587,895. That is an increase of 43.08 percent. During the same four-year period the cost of living went up 37.6 percent. Further to that, Mr. Chairman, I find in doing my research that the enrolment had declined during that four-year period. These are the kinds of answers the boards are going to have to give to the ratepayers across this province if they decide to go for a referendum. I found that the enrolment was 5,670 in December 1980, and in December 1984 it had fallen to 5,458. That, Mr. Chairman, means that the average pupil cost in 1980 was $2,291.21, and $3,405.62 in 1984. Looking at the average pupil cost in that four-year period, and relating it to the cost of living at 37.6 percent, education on a per-pupil basis in my school district increased by 48.64 percent, which is a net gain over the cost of living of 11 percentage points. Those are the kinds of facts that the electorate, the ratepayers, are going to want to know if that particular board should choose to go to referendum.

Some further interesting facts. We hear a lot about the number of classrooms in the province with 30 or more students, but very little about the number of classrooms with 15 or less students. I went to the trouble of doing some research in my area and I find that there are 67 classes with 15 or less students in my school district, with an enrolment of 5,458 students. Of those, 26 classes have 10 or less students. It's true that several classes in my school district have 30 or more students. In doing research on that, I find that out of 134 classes at the elementary level, 16 have 30 or more students. At the secondary level, out of 807 courses being taught, there are only 23 with 30 or more students, and the majority of those are classes dealing with recreation or music.

I think the minister's on the right track here. When the school boards sit down and digest what he's attempted to do — and he has done an excellent job fitting together this fiscal framework — and then look at their alternatives, I think the boards have a clear choice as to whether to go or not. If they wish to go to the electorate and convince them to have certain special programs.... Perhaps they want to put on some pre-apprenticeship training courses within the school district, or perhaps they wish to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio. If that's their desire and they wish to go to the electorate, Mr. Chairman, they're perfectly free to do so. I think we're taking a large step here to return the final decision to the local ratepayers. I am in favour of local autonomy on this question.

MR. GABELMANN: It's tempting to respond to earlier comments made by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). On one of those rare occasions, he's decided to talk about distribution of income rather than the generation of income in our society. I know, of course, the bill doesn't talk at all about what levels of compensation should be awarded to which people in our society, but the minister very clearly has some ideas that people who serve the public should not be rewarded in measures similar to people who work in the private sector. I really do wonder about that double standard.

If the minister wants to bring in programs so that people can't earn $100,000 in this province, he should simply talk to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and bring in tax policies to try to achieve that kind of redistribution of income, if he's so concerned about it. If he's so concerned about the awards granted to teachers through 1976 to 1984, as he quoted in the House.... It was his government that had the ability to change the public schools act and to eliminate the arbitration process. If teachers had had free collective bargaining in those years, they would not have had the same levels of increase that they got under the arbitration process.

[ Page 5064 ]

For the Minister of Universities to complain about things that are entirely under his control is a bit weird, but then that shouldn't be surprising from that minister.

The issue in this section, Mr. Chairman, is the question of the referendum. The Minister of Education talked earlier this afternoon about attempting to develop equity province-wide. I will be the first to recognize that every child in every community in this province will never have access to equal education. It is simply not possible to have home economics facilities and industrial facilities and a whole variety of programming in Zeballos or in dozens and perhaps hundreds of other small communities. When you have a high school of 200 kids, you are not going to be able to have the same kind of quality and equality of education that you will in a high school of, say, a thousand or more kids.

So the attempt to achieve equity will never be successful in its final form; it's not possible. But we should at least be trying to move in that direction, as opposed to moving in the opposite direction, which is what section 1 will do if it passes this Legislature. The inequities that are already there.... And they are immense, because many programs are not available now to kids in wide areas of this province that are available in other parts of the province.

Those discrepancies will be wider when, in some cases in those rural districts.... In one case in my riding the tax base residential portion is 20 percent of the total tax base; 80 percent of the tax base is commercial and industrial, and I round the numbers off. It's 19.76 percent residential. Even if every referendum that was ever put in this province were to pass, you could not raise sufficient moneys in some of those districts. That's one of the problems.

There are many problems with the principle involved, but if the minister is serious in his determination that there be equity or some movement toward equity, he cannot then allow rich districts to pass referenda assessing small numbers of dollars per household, which are more likely to pass because 10, 20 or 30 bucks is not a big deal, and then say to rural districts, which already have a lower quality of education, that families are going to have pay $70, $80 — and by my calculations to get proper funding in a couple of my districts — $100 extra per home. The homeowner grant application doesn't work, because they're at that level. Those referenda are less likely to pass.

You then exacerbate what is already not a very good situation. We had inequalities in the availability of education in this province. It will become worse as a result of saying to taxpayers: "You have to raise moneys to try to end these inequalities."

I appreciate I'm making an argument here for rural districts and, in effect, making an argument for two of my three districts and not for the other one. I think the other one can look after itself. I say this to urban members on both sides of this House: you need to spend some time in rural schools in isolated communities in this province — I use the word "rural" in a more general sense, in small communities, isolated communities, logging camps and Indian reserves — to understand that there are immense differences already in the ability of school districts to provide proper and equal education. You need only to look at the numbers generated by the ministry, in terms of what the tax base is like in a lot of those areas, to realize that you cannot raise sufficient funds from those taxpayers, because the base is too small.

That deals with the specific problem. It doesn't deal with the principle, which is equally wrong. This government, when faced with referendum results in Vancouver about a particular issue, says referenda don't matter. Even when the referendum is passed by well over 50 percent on more than one occasion, the referendum result is of no importance to the government.

This government goes around, on the most important issue in our society, trying to persuade municipalities that they should not hold referenda on the subject of whether or not we should try to get world peace. No issue is more important, and it doesn't cost anybody anything — it's just a line on a ballot paper — and the government tries to prevent referenda or plebiscites on those kinds of issues. Where they do allow them, like in the City of Vancouver for the ward system, they ignore them.

Maybe we should have referenda on all the issues in our society. I would like a vote in Campbell River about whether to spend my tax dollars on the rapid transit system in Vancouver. Why not? Why shouldn't I have a vote on the subsidy to B.C. Rail and on the subsidy to northeast coal? It's absurd for me in Campbell River, or for somebody in Prince George or anywhere else in this province, to vote on these kinds of questions. Governments are elected to make decisions. When they make the wrong decisions, they'll be thrown out, which will be demonstrated next election.

I've got a lot more to say, but I would move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved,

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.