1985 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1985
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 5065 ]
CONTENTS
Presenting Petitions
Mrs. Wallace –– 5065
Tabling Documents –– 5066
Oral Questions
Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Mr. D'Arcy –– 5066
Mr. Williams
Mr. Lockstead
Expo 86 site. Mr. Barnes –– 5067
English-as-a-second-language funding. Mr. Rose –– 5067
Special enterprise zones. Mr. Williams –– 5067
Provincial contribution to Ethiopian relief. Ms. Sanford –– 5068
Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Committee stage.
On section 1–– 5068
Mr. Gabelmann
Ms. Brown
Mrs. Wallace
Mr. Cocke
On section 2 –– 5073
Mr. Rose
Mr. Passarell
Ms. Sanford
Mr. Howard
Mr. Cocke
Third reading –– 5079
Division
Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 42) — Committee stage.
On section 1–– 5080
Mr. Macdonald
On section 3 –– 5080
Mr. Macdonald
On section 9 –– 5080
Mr. Macdonald
On section 11 –– 5080
Mr. Macdonald
Third reading –– 5081
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 40). Committee stage.
On section 19 –– 5081
Mrs. Wallace
On section 25 –– 5082
Mrs. Wallace
Mr. Passarell
Third reading –– 5082
Transport of Dangerous Goods Act (Bill 45). Committee stage.
On section 4 –– 5082
Mr. Passarell
On section 11 –– 5082
Mrs. Wallace
Third reading –– 5083
Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 39). Committee stage
On section 3 –– 5083
Mr. Mitchell
Mr. Passarell
Mrs. Wallace
On section 4 –– 5084
Mrs. Dailly
Mr. Cocke
On section 23 –– 5084
Mrs. Dailly
Mr. Cocke
On section 25 –– 5085
Mrs. Dailly
Mr. Cocke
On section 26 –– 5085
Mrs. Dailly
On section 27 –– 5085
Mrs. Dailly
On section 41 –– 5086
Mr. Cocke
Third reading –– 5086
Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 44). Committee stage.
On section 1 –– 5086
Mr. Williams
On section 2 –– 5086
Mr. Williams
On section 3 –– 5087
Mr. MacWilliam
Mr. Williams
On section 4 –– 5087
Mr. Passarell
On section 7 –– 5087
Mr. Barnes
Mr. MacWilliam
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1985
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, gung hay fat choy. This is the year of the ox, and I'm sure all members would like to wish our Chinese-Canadians and our Chinese friends a very happy and successful new year.
Secondly, I'd like to welcome to the assembly and to B.C. a group of nine political science students and three professors led by Prof. Don Alper, good friends from Western Washington University.
MR. MACDONALD: Gum yat hai sun men. Gung jook gock wai sun nien fai lock. Ngow nien. This is the year of the cow, not the ox.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr Speaker, on your behalf, I would like to ask the House to welcome two British Columbians from Delta, Mr. and Mrs. Don Ellenson.
MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today, visiting from the Cowichan-Malahat constituency, is a group of ten parents; Kelly Winter, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Walker, Jim Ayers, Jim Bomford, Stu Fuoco, Mrs. Mary Anne Bieling, Pam Campbell and Eva Towner, who is the president of the parent-teacher association there. I would ask the House to welcome them.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Visiting with us in the members' gallery today is Mr. Libran B. Cabactulan, who is director of the division of international economic cooperation and development in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines. With him is Dr. Gordon Jones, director of the Pacific Rim program at Vancouver Community College. I hope the House will make them welcome.
MR, REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have Mr. Robin Williams, president of the Young Socreds of British Columbia. With him is another member from West Vancouver, Kevin Falcon, who is a director of the Young Socreds. I would like the House to make them welcome.
MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery there are, in fact, not just two members but ten members of a dynamic young group of British Columbians. They represent the board of directors of the B.C. Young Socreds. I would like to bring special notice to the fact that we have one member from Maillardville-Coquitlam, Miss Kristy Ilic; another from Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. Ken Sadowski, and one from Nanaimo, Mr. Les Barclay. Please make them welcome.
MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have the secretary of the Young Socreds, Mr. Ed Parker, who is from the riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, and Mr. Paul Keenleyside from Burnaby-Edmonds. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
MR. PELTON: Mr, Speaker, seated with my wife in the member's gallery today is a lady who has lived in this beautiful city all of her life and has never before been in this chamber. I would ask all members to give Mrs. Dorothy Ludvigson an appropriate welcome.
We also have a dynamic young gentleman from Dewdney here, who is also a director of the Young Socreds. I would like to introduce and ask the House to welcome Scott Leaf.
MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, today members of our caucus met with some parents who are interested in the subject of education and wish to have ongoing input into that subject. Of course we all concur with that. May I introduce their leader, Miss Chris Taulu.
MR. REE: With the group of concerned parents we met with today is the president of the parents' council in North Vancouver. I'd like the House to welcome Lynne Bogardus to Victoria and to this chamber.
HON. MR, GARDOM: May I also welcome to the assembly Miss Mary Anne Badun, who is the director of the Young Socreds and who contributed so greatly to the re-election of my colleague the Hon. Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and myself.
Presenting Petitions
MRS. WALLACE: I ask leave to introduce a petition.
Leave granted.
MRS. WALLACE: The petition is:
"To the hon. Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia in legislature assembled, the petition of the undersigned parents and residents of School District 65 (Cowichan) humbly showeth:
"That rising class sizes, termination of programs, loss of highly qualified staff and closure of smaller schools are all unacceptable to us and our young people in the schools of District 65.
"Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your hon. House may be pleased to act immediately to restore funding to our school district at the 1983 level, taking into account inflationary factors;
"And to return the power of local taxation to our school board.
"And as in duty bound your petitioner will ever pray.
This is dated Monday, January 14, 1985. It is signed by over 1,400 parents and residents in Cowichan.
MR. HOWARD: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming — if not in the gallery, certainly in the precincts — representatives of the B.C. Central Credit Union, whom we had the pleasure of meeting with a while ago — and, particularly, a long-time friend of mine from Prince Rupert, and a long-time active member of the credit union movement, Mr. George Viereck.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask the House to welcome two other members of the young Socred group. Darin Nielsen, the vice-president of the Young Socreds, is, as our House would want to know, the son of our Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). In addition, I don't know whether
[ Page 5066 ]
Mr. Ed Parker, the secretary, has been recognized, but because I have a long-standing friendship with Ed, Id like him to be recognized specially.
In addition, I would like the House to also welcome two members of the Coquitlam area who are in the precincts — and I believe in the House, although I can't find them right now; they are certainly going to be visiting the House this afternoon — Mr. and Mrs. Harry McKelvie.
Mr. Speaker tabled the ombudsman's special report No. 9 to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.
[2:15]
Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the annual report of the Fraser River Joint Advisory Board, the annual report of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area and the annual report for the 1983-84 fiscal year for the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.
Oral Questions
VANCOUVER ISLAND NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
MR. D'ARCY: Just very briefly, I'd like to say that if there's anybody in the precinct, the House or the James Bay district of Victoria who has not been introduced, I welcome them to Victoria and to this chamber.
To my friend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: in view of the Premier's television address announcement that he intends to obtain federal funding for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, can the minister assure this House in good faith that, in order to convince Ms. Carney and Mr. Wilson to allocate some very scarce federal resources to this project, he will issue an energy certificate to B.C. Hydro so they can get along with the design and engineering — not the construction — so that they will be able to proceed forthwith when this promised federal government assistance becomes available and to show good faith to the federal government that the province intends to proceed with its share of the project?
HON. MR. ROGERS: An energy certificate is not required for such an undertaking.
MR. D'ARCY: In that case, in view of the fact that the minister is not only Minister of Energy for the province but also a director of B.C. Hydro, why can he not have B.C. Hydro proceed with the design and engineering if, indeed, the government fully intends to proceed with this project?
HON. MR. ROGERS: It's the government's intention to proceed with this project at such time as the federal government honours its commitment and its obligation to British Columbia by way of a cheque.
MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy could advise us why, if the government is as serious as it says it is about this project that would create employment in British Columbia, they've fired all of the staff at B.C. Hydro — why there are no desks, no secretaries, no engineers on the Island gas pipeline project whatsoever?
HON. MR. ROGERS: At such time as we have a commitment, the people that are required for the design and the construction of this particular pipeline will be retained by B.C. Hydro. But until such time, the taxpayers of this province do not have an obligation or a commitment to maintain employment which is not necessary until such time as that commitment is honoured.
MR. WILLIAMS: On the question of credibility with respect to this project, which is fading fast in view of the minister's responses....
With respect to a gas pipeline to Island communities, as proposed, could the minister explain why there have been no hearings with respect to the extension of the system on Vancouver Island itself, if they are indeed serious about the project?
HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it's a question of expense. If the federal government is prepared to honour its obligation to British Columbia and prepared to go ahead and do that, then there's ample time and ample opportunity to hold what hearings are necessary under the Utilities Commission Act for the various proponents who wish to build pipelines on Vancouver Island.
At such time as we have a commitment from the federal government.... The federal member for Nanaimo — I apologize for not knowing the proper federal name for the constituency — made an announcement in Ottawa today. Again, it's fine for the federal member to make that announcement, but I am waiting to see if I get confirmation of that from the federal minister. At such time as it happens, I can assure this House and assure the member, I will instruct the Utilities Commission to commence hearings forthwith on development of the pipeline on Vancouver Island. But I don't believe it's either prudent or wise to undertake hearings on the Island until such time as we have a commitment to build the gas pipeline to the Island.
MR. D'ARCY: Has the Minister of Energy been in touch with the Premier since Monday night to advise the Premier that indeed the minister has no commitment from the federal government regarding the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline?
HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member has never been in cabinet, but discussions between ministers are not subject to discussion in the House.
MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a supplementary question to the same minister. In view of the further delay in construction of the Vancouver Island pipeline, has the government decided to take another look at the northern crossing route and the possible inclusion of a fertilizer plant at Powell River, which, by the way, would create 400 new permanent jobs in that area?
HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise us if he has assured the new mayor of Nanaimo that the government is serious? The mayor has expressed some very serious doubts to both him and the Premier about their intent with respect to this project.
HON . MR. ROGERS: The mayor of Nanaimo and I have had very extensive conversations about the Vancouver Island
[ Page 5067 ]
pipeline, as has the mayor with the federal member for Nanaimo and also the federal minister.
MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise us how he has responded to the mayor's concern regarding the present stalemate, hesitancy and seemingly political posturing that puzzles the new mayor of Nanaimo, as he indicated in correspondence?
HON. MR. ROGERS: In due course, Mr. Speaker.
EXPO 86 SITE
MR. BARNES: To the Minister of Tourism. I had hoped to serve the minister notice earlier, but we were unable to make contact, This concerns the Expo north gate to Chinatown. Construction of a north gate on the Expo site recently cancelled by the government would have created construction jobs, operating jobs, and jobs in the Chinatown community. If the city of Vancouver and the Chinatown community succeed in raising the necessary funds, will the minister agree to build the gate?
HON. MR, RICHMOND: I made it very clear that I met with many of the leaders of the Chinese community, the Vancouver Townsite Renaissance Corp. and other business leaders from that area as long ago as last October; in fact, I think at the meeting there were some 12 to 15 people present. I said to them at that time: "Come back to us with a proposal. Get your act together quickly and come back to us." They have failed to do that to this day. I also explained to them that the window for doing that is quite probably closed now. They have yet to come back and make contact with me, and the plans have progressed far enough along at Expo that they may possibly be too late.
MR. BARNES: I appreciate the minister's response; that's some information that I'd hoped to get earlier. I do have a concern I'd like to convey on behalf of the merchants in Chinatown who feel that the gate was cancelled to provide a captive market for food services at Expo by eliminating competition from Chinatown. In view of this matter and the jobs involved, has the minister decided to reconsider his decision in response to that local initiative?
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, that allegation is totally incorrect, and I don't know why they would make such an assumption. I'm still waiting for that same group to contact me. They have contacted the media, it seems, and nearly everyone else, and if they would like to come and discuss the matter, my door is always open on the subject. I issued that invitation to them yesterday and they have yet to come back and talk. But I can assure you that we have no desire to take any kind of food business, or any other business, away from the merchants in that area.
ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND-LANGUAGE FUNDING
MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education, and concerns funding for English as a second language in the Vancouver school system. Apparently the minister met last Thursday night, I believe, with a Strathcona group, and he said at that time that he'd reconsider funding for English as a second language in the Vancouver schools. Has he reconsidered it, as he promised those people?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not sure I heard the first part of the member's question, Mr. Speaker, but was it something about meeting on Thursday with a group from Strathcona? I don't recall meeting with a group from Strathcona last Thursday evening.
MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, apparently it was indicated last Thursday night, according to some correspondence that I have, that you were reconsidering ESL funding for Vancouver schools, especially in the Strathcona group. English is probably the fifth language in that area.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: The only comment I can make as a result of meeting with the Vancouver school board is that there was some discussion — as a matter of fact, it took about an hour of the meeting — about English as a second language. There has been, over a number of months, some discussion about the demands for funds for ESL, and I am advised that in the 1985-86 budget.... Now I'm going from recollection, Mr. Speaker, so you can't pin me down exactly on the figures, but it seems to me that under the special needs section of that budget, something over $30 million is provided, of which about $20 million, I believe, has been allocated for ESL, which I think is an increase of some $3 million or S4 million.
All I can really do, if the member is looking for the exact figures, is take the question as notice and bring back to the House those figures, which are available in the '85-86 budget.
MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the budget for ESL was cut in previous years and an emergency allocation of $2.5 million is required to retain the present level of services for the next 18 months. When does the minister intend to provide the House with the kinds of answers that these people are obviously desperately looking for'?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the amount of funding provided to the Vancouver school board for ESL is adequate. The question as to the allocation of those funds which have been provided in their budget is a function of the school districts.
SPECIAL ENTERPRISE ZONES
MR. WILLIAMS: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. With respect to the special enterprise zones referred to by the Premier and a new productive partnership with the municipalities, could the minister explain which municipalities he has discussed the special enterprise zones with, or the other arrangements referred to in the earlier speeches?
HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I am unable to go into any details with regard to any future programs. I will be only too pleased to do so when the appropriate time arrives.
MR. WILLIAMS: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. The cabinet document last July of the Minister of Industry and
[ Page 5068 ]
Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) referred to a prime site in Delta municipality. Could the minister indicate whether there have been any meetings whatsoever with Delta municipality in this regard?
HON, MR. RITCHIE: I really am at a loss to know what document he may be referring to. I would suggest that in order to properly answer the question he may wish to table it.
MR. WILLIAMS: I take it the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
PROVINCIAL CONTRIBUTION
TO ETHIOPIAN RELIEF
MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Health. To date, the people of British Columbia have donated nearly $1.5 million to relieve the famine in Ethiopia. Last November the Minister of Health rejected a request for a provincial contribution to the Ethiopian relief program, stating, in effect, that this case was no more important than thousands of other requests that were coming in to government, Has the government reconsidered the request of the B.C. Federation of International Agencies to make a significant contribution to famine-stricken Ethiopia?
[2:30]
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't suggest it t was less important than other requests. I simply advised the people that they cannot make a request for $2 million and expect an answer in a couple of hours. And no, we have not reconsidered their request, to the point that we have not agreed with their request. We advised them that we were not in a position at that time to agree to their request. We have been working with the federal government in a coordinated effort with respect to aid to Ethiopia.
MS. SANFORD: Based on what the minister is saying, I'm wondering if he's working with the federal government in terms of funnelling moneys from the provincial government a to assist the federal government in matching those funds. What is the minister saying? Is the provincial government making any contribution at all to famine-stricken Ethiopia?
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the government of B.C. has not made a decision as to what form of assistance it may offer to Ethiopia, whether it will be through one of the many hundreds of agencies which seem to have sprung up in recent months or whether we are going to work through the federal government. I think, quite appropriately, that since it is another nation that is making a request, it should be coordinated through the federal government, notwithstanding the fact that other provinces have taken independent action.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 48.
EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
(continued)
The House in Committee on Bill 48; Mr. Strachan in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Committee on Bill 48 will come to order. Let me just say that in reviewing he debate yesterday, all sides of the House discussed and canvassed ministerial estimates, second reading debate, the Vancouver Canucks and the salary of Mr. Gretzky. I think today we could probably relate our remarks more specifically to section 1 of the bill before us.
On section 1.
MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted at 6:00 last night, we object to the idea that the public should be asked to vote on specific expenditures, expenditure by expenditure. I said last night that it would be just as absurd to ask the residents of Campbell River to vote on a referendum about whether or not Vancouver should have a publicly funded rapid transit system. I'd like a vote on that, because like many residents in Campbell River, I see higher priorities. But that's an inappropriate request of me to make there or of the people in any part of this province, because governments are elected to govern.
The same principle applies when it comes to funding education. I made the point that when we did have referenda for operating budgets in the school system, as bad as they were, at least in those days the school districts had some reasonable tax bases from which to collect taxes. In many districts in this province — in several of the ones in my constituency — there is virtually no residential tax base to speak of. It would cost hundreds of dollars per home just to bring educational levels up to last year's levels, much less that of previous years. So in principle the idea of a referendum is wrong, and I would suggest that in this particular application it is also wrong because it does not apply fairly or equally to all people in British Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make one more point: that is, that education has been in turmoil for some years now. No one knows from day to day what to expect next. Some weeks or some months ago now, the minister advised that the public would have a say in what should happen in terms of education in this province through the "Let's Talk About Schools" process. Some suspicions were raised that that was — and I'm talking about the referendum, and you'll see that in a moment, Mr. Chairman — just a smokescreen, that in fact decisions had been made.
The minister said: "Oh, no, no, we're genuinely listening, We want to find out what to do. I'll extend the deadline for the process."
But in the middle of that process, he brings in a fundamental change in the way schools are operated in this province by introducing the referendum principle for operating. Now he can't have it both ways. Either he believes that hero should be a process to determine what the structure should be, how the whole process should operate following he consultation, and then bringing in recommendations for a
[ Page 5069 ]
whole variety of areas, including financing.... If the process leads to a suggestion that there should be a referendum, then we'll deal with that when it happens.
But why in the middle of the process does the minister bring in legislation that fundamentally changes the way education is funded in this province? It's wrong, and I suspect that what we're debating here.... The referendum is in fact the clearest illustration we've had to date that the "Let's Talk About Schools" process is a farce, that the government knows exactly what it intends to do and is going through a sham hearing process in order to pretend to the public that it is in fact consulting with them, when it is not in fact consulting and has already determined what it wants to do.
The proof of that is that in the middle of this process the minister would introduce legislation calling for referenda for operating costs in school districts. I just find the whole thing, as I said before, wrong in principle, wrong in fairness and contradictory to what is alleged to be the public participation in this process.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the member for North Island has made reference, in particular, to the very last point — I acknowledge and appreciate why he may have raised the comments which he did. I can assure the House that this is not a diversionary tactic at all. I think what's important, Mr. Chairman, is that this particular bill is an amendment to the Education (Interim) Finance Act. As I have discussed with my critic opposite, there is one particular provision of this bill which, of course, the government will not be supporting, and I presume that the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has so advised his caucus.
This is an interim measure, and that is understood. However, during this interim period, while we as a government feel that the amount of funding provided for education is adequate, if those within the community wish to top up their operating budgets, I should be the last ever to deny that opportunity.
Now I would like to make reference to the foundation that we are establishing. If ever there is a member who ought to be advocating equity in funding between districts, it is the member for North Island, because when we look at the districts.... I've been to all of your school districts, Mr. Member — Vancouver Island West, Vancouver Island North — and I agree with you that Campbell River is quite capable of looking after itself for a number of reasons which you and I probably both know.
But if you look at the averages, for example — the amount paid under the foundation funding, as provided by the service levels and the fiscal framework — you will find that the total cost per student there is $4,501. The provincial average is $3,267. I think we as a government have proven that what we were out to do was to establish some equity between districts.
I don't think there's really much more. I would like to assure the member that the idea of "Let's Talk About Schools" is just that. I am anxiously awaiting the receipt of that report, as everybody else is. I'm on the mailing list to receive that report. I agreed that it ought to be made public so that everybody could see it. It is that report which is going to provide the foundation for a new School Act. Remember, there's a sunset provision under the existing education interim bill. That sunset clause remains. We must bring in the appropriate legislation before December 31, 1986, at which time I truly hope that we are going to resolve, once and for all, the education debate which has been going on in this province for a long, long time.
I have made it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I have reduced the size of my ministry considerably. We are presently at 61 percent of our original complement. The object is to put right back to the school districts the authority and autonomy which they once enjoyed. What is even more important, when it comes down to raising funds for those districts, it is the rural districts in British Columbia that have problems with funding. It's those districts which have difficulty with respect to a residential tax base. That's why we have already established a huge differential in the cost per student. When I see the cost per student in the lower mainland deviating in some places by as much as $1,000, even after taking into consideration the differential between the average teacher salaries within those districts, then I think I've accomplished what I set out to do. Remember that the clarion call — and I've used that word often — in 1982 was that the funding of education must be brought into some sane balance and there must be a better way. I think we've gone a long way to do it; I'm not saying it's perfect.
As far as the referendum concept is concerned, I do not deny anybody that opportunity, particularly when I look at the amounts which could conceivably be raised. If any of those residential property owners or people in the community wish to raise money, when I see the amount that they can raise and still have no effect on their education tax.... Even with a 2 percent increase, other than in a handful of perhaps 12 to 15 districts, every one of them will still end up paying zero education tax.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that the debate around education is never going to cease, because I don't think education is static. It's dynamic and it's changing, and its inability to change would be a very sad thing for us to have to deal with in this province. I'm in support of the debate continuing, not coming to an end.
I am opposing this section 1 on behalf of School District 41. If the minister wants to pull out all of his statistics on School District 41, this is his opportunity to do so.
I think that Burnaby School District 41 has been one of the most responsible school districts in terms of living within the budget, dealing with the cutbacks and still trying to give the students the best possible education that they could have under the circumstances.
As a direct result of doing that, if the minister had permitted Burnaby to have its needs budget, not only would there not have been an increase in the taxes that the households in Burnaby would have to pay, but actually there would have been a decrease. The Burnaby households would have had a decrease of about $30 each in their taxes. That's what they were looking at.
[2:45]
What the minister is saying is that the referenda will make it possible to meet the needs budget and wipe out the $30 decrease. In other words, not only are they probably going to have to pay more — we don't know by how much at this point — but they're going to lose that $30 benefit that they really worked very hard to build up. So the school board is in opposition to it. I can see why that is the case. As I said, they really have gone to the bone on this. As you know, we've closed schools in Burnaby, reduced our teaching staff. We've done just about everything that it was possible to do in order to stay within the budget as outlined by the minister last
[ Page 5070 ]
year. There was actually a drop of just over $11 million in the budget, I think; between 1982 and 1986 there would have been a decrease of something like $11 million.
This year the 44,400 households were hoping they wouldn't have to deal with the $1.3 million, which would have been a 5 percent decrease and have meant $30 to each of them. However, if their needs budget is the one about which the minister says, "I will give you your budget, but you have referenda to meet your needs budget," then what we're talking about is going back to the households, the taxpayers, to pick up that $1.4 million. That would wipe out the $30 per household, but it could also cost more — maybe not very much more, but more. So there really was no benefit in being responsible and trying to meet the government's budget line, was there? No benefit really accrued to the households in Burnaby. They have made all these sacrifices, and they're still going to end up, in the long run, losing whatever benefit there was and, as I said, finding that they have to pay more.
Basically I'm opposed to referenda, even though I'm schizophrenic about it, the same way the government is, because I support the peace referenda and supported the municipalities going along with that. When I lived in Vancouver I supported the idea of the referendum on the ward system. But basically I'm opposed to referenda. As a matter of fact, when a parent group met with us recently, they pointed out that any referendum introduced that indicated an increase in taxes was automatically defeated in this particular school district — not Burnaby. It was Cowichan, I think, where they said there had never been an instance when a referendum that had increased taxes tied to it had ever been approved, no matter what the reason was for that referendum.
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: It was Cowichan.
I haven't done a study of how Burnaby responds to referenda with tax increases tied to them. But I know that the school board has done everything within its power to ensure that the households don't have to deal with the burden of an increased tax. We're complimenting them, and we're hoping that you compliment them too. Certainly the householders were pleased with that. Then this bill comes in, and we find that all of that is wiped out. So I'm going to oppose this.
I believe that the needs budget submitted by Burnaby, which calls for an additional $1.4 million, is one which the minister should be prepared to meet. As a result of closing the schools and laying off teachers and cutting back services to the children, and unless that $1.4 million is met, we're going to have more oversized classes and more multiple-grade classes in Burnaby. There is going to be a loss of some electives and of some course options for those students seeking specific educational programs. We've been told that already there is reduced curriculum development activity.
Is there something wrong, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It sounds like estimates debate, hon. member. To the referendum principle.
MS. BROWN: Oh, no. Your ears deceive you, Mr. Chairman. Believe me, they do. I'm dealing with section 1 of the bill, the referendum section. I'm just outlining for the minister, on behalf of Burnaby School District, why I'm speaking in opposition to it, and why it's not possible for School District 41 to support this particular section. But I won't go on and on about the fact that, as I said, Burnaby has already virtually eliminated all of the fat — district supervision, coordination, evaluation of instruction, all these things are already gone. I'm reading from a brief which was prepared by one of the Burnaby school trustees, so I'm not talking off the top of my head. In addition, some other devastating results are that preventive counselling and early intervention programs are going to be lost to the students.
I know the minister says that if Burnaby is really serious and wants to put these things in place, they now have the right to have a referendum, and that the taxpayers can say: "This is important enough to us and to our children's future that we're prepared to pay for it." I'm just pointing out to the minister that that's unfair. I think the children of Burnaby have paid enough in terms of making do without in order to meet the budgets imposed on them by the minister in the last couple of years. The parents should not be asked, at this time of high unemployment and high bankruptcies — all of those kinds of things — to reach into their pockets. They really thought that by sticking close to the line and meeting the minister's budgets they would have some kind of reprieve this year, but it's not going to happen. Anyway, they have no guarantee, even after that, that this is the way it's going to be. As you know, the minister has it within his power to change the ratio in terms of the funding. He could decide that 60 to 40 is not all that it's cracked up to be and decide to go for 70 to 30 instead, or something like that. So basically we have no protection, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the reason we're opposed to this section and would like to ask the minister to repeal it, or anyway not to proceed any further with it.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just quickly to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I recognize the job that the Burnaby School Board has done. They have had a very difficult task, and for a reason that has fallen upon a number of boards within the province: a significant decline in enrolment. Between 1981 and the school year 1984-85 they've lost 2,500 students, so it's no wonder they have to face the difficult task of closing some schools. But I would like to point out to the member that even with school closures and the current enrolment, the PTR, which in 1981 was 16.83, in September of 1984, for 1984-85, was 17.16, and the provincial average is 17.73. I think we must take into consideration that Burnaby is a reasonably compact area geographically. The problems in Burnaby are not those which are experienced in the rural and remote parts of British Columbia where there's a huge diversity.
I recognize that we have to be very careful when we use figures, but I think the member would also find that the average class size in Burnaby, elementary and secondary, is probably in the area of 24. I concede that there will be classes of 30, 31, 32, but by the same token, when you look at the timetables within the school districts — and that's something I always look at — you will find a number that have five, six, eight, ten, twelve students — That's why the average class size is 24. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that in the secondary school it's even less than that.
As far as the referendum is concerned, in Burnaby I recognize that you're talking about the difference between a needs budget and what the government is prescribing under the current budget allocation for 1984-85. I think you'll find that a referendum looking at 2 percent will bring in the difference. In Burnaby — in 41 — it's worth something in the order of $24 per average home at the midpoint range.
[ Page 5071 ]
I pass that information on to the member because I think it's important to recognize that in a reasonably compact school district there still is a PTR of 17. 16. I don't recall the hullabaloo in 1981 when it was 16.83, and what are we talking? Thirty-two one-hundredths.
MS. BROWN: That's the problem when you start playing around with figures. They never tell you the whole story.
Mr. Chairman, I intended to be very brief — I'm still going to be very brief — but I think the minister has to be very careful how he uses those figures. He didn't mention the very high proportion of split classes that we have in Burnaby, especially in the elementary schools. There's no comparison between the urban schools and the rural schools — I know that. That's not a problem. He didn't talk about what mainstreaming has done to the schools in Burnaby, where we have a large number of disabled children now in the classroom — where they should be — but not the support services for them, and the impact that that has on a classroom — A PTR of 17.16 may not sound like very much, but when at least two or three of those children need special attention, 17.16 is too great. So I don't think that the minister should throw those figures around. An average doesn't mean anything; it's not going to be $24; it's going to work out to be more than that. The $30 that they were hoping to save is going to be wiped out, and possibly, if they trimmed their jib to meet their whatever.... I'm never quite sure what these things are.
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: Their sails to meet their jib, or their jib to meet their sails — they'll be able to keep it just a little bit over that $30 which they had hoped they were going to retrieve.
But remember that we also have a very large immigrant community there in our schools. For a large number of the children in the Burnaby school system English is a second language to them too, but they're actually trying to learn in English, and that has an impact on how many students the teacher can handle in the classroom. So don't throw those statistics around, Mr. Minister, because they really don't even begin to tell the story.
MRS. WALLACE: Statistics can be interesting things, all right. The other morning, when we were walking into the building together, the minister suggested to me that really I shouldn't be worried about what was happening in Cowichan-Malahat, because the homeowner's grant is going to cover all these extra costs anyway. Well, I took it upon myself to do a little digging, Mr. Chairman. What I found was that in the city of Duncan, for example, the average homeowner's tax is about $880. Of that, $330, on the average, is school tax. So with the $380 homeowner's grant off, the householder pays $500 taxation.
[3:00]
What the minister is trying to suggest is that because the school tax is only $330, that could be upped by $50 and the grant would cover it. But I've been looking at the Home Owner Grant Act, and there is nothing in there about that being strictly applicable for school tax. It's to reduce the total tax bill. So when you increase the school tax portion, whether or not that is compensated by the homeowner grant, that doesn't mean that people's taxes aren't going up, because they are going up by the amount of that referendum.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
When you have a figure where the average tax bill in the city of Duncan, with the homeowner's grant off, is already $500, I suggest to you that the average resident of the city of Duncan is not in a position to pay any higher taxes than that. I would also suggest to you that that is also happening in other areas, where school taxes have a....
I have one here from Eagle Heights, 1984, comparative to the Duncan one, where the school tax was $335.76 — very similar to Duncan city. So $44.24 was applicable to the general taxation, which helped reduce the tax burden to that individual and that family.
I have another instance in the south end of the constituency where the actual residential school tax — and this is in the Shawnigan Lake area, and it's an average home in that area, the kind that you or I would live in — the school tax is $490.21. So the $380 homeowner grant doesn't even cover the school tax. So for the minister to say that I don't need to worry, that it's all going to be covered by the homeowner grant, is simply playing with figures, because it is going to affect the residents of Cowichan, and they are going to consider that when they consider a referendum.
I would like to suggest to the minister, as I did in second reading, that this is the wrong place to start with a referendum. When we had referenda before, bad as they were — back in the 60s and 70s — at least they were based on reasonably adequate funding for education. It was a better sort of standard than we're at now in many of the schools. And it also gave you a broader tax base: the commercial and industrial. When you've pared to the bare bones and when you have confiscated two-thirds of the tax base, that's not the time to then say: "Okay, if you want to do anything extra, have a referendum." That's not the time.
The Cowichan School District, as the minister agrees, was one with very low administrative costs. It was a well-run institution. One would think that if that were the case, it wouldn't be so hard for them. But you know, Mr. Chairman, when you have a well-run institution with low administrative costs, you're able to devote more money to the classrooms. The result is that you have a lower pupil-teacher ratio. Our ratio was about 17 to 1.
If the minister's objective were to pare the administrative costs, Cowichan would be okay. But the minister has now said that's not his objective at all. His objective is to get the pupil-teacher ratio up to 19.14. What has happened is that a school district that ran a good show and had a lower pupil-teacher ratio has no fat to cut. Our classes are up to 23 and 24 now in actual classroom situations, and I gave those figures to the minister in second reading. If we are forced to go to 19.14, there's hardly going to be a class that is below 30 pupils per teacher. That is not a good environment for education. It's not fair to young people, and it is not going to provide the kind of training, interest in learning and background for advanced learning that we need in this province if we are going to produce the kinds of technologists, scientists and foresters with the expertise that we need to deal with our resource economy.
It's all so unfair. The figures are startling as to the difference — and these may have been quoted in the House before, I don't know.... Cowichan comes fairly much in the middle when you look at what it would cost the taxpayer, the average homeowner. In fact, if you were to increase the cost per pupil by $100 — if that was what a referendum was
[ Page 5072 ]
asking for.... Assuming you were going to do something that was going to cost an extra $100 per pupil, Cowichan sits at a place where it would cost us, per taxpayer, an average of $44.94 in Cowichan School District and $45.81 per household in Lake Cowichan.
Right next to that district, as it happens, in the order of school districts is School District 64 in the Gulf Islands: $14.90 per household there will provide an additional $100 per student. Does that seem fair? Of course, if you want to go to the other end of the scale, School District 92 in Nishga would need $778.48 per household to provide an additional $100 per pupil.
There's something wrong with a financial framework that provides for those kinds of inequities. We know it's not feasible to have exactly the same kinds of facilities in School District 92 as it is in the heart of Vancouver. That is too much discrimination. But when we're starting from that kind of base, there is no possible way that, by the use of a referendum, we're going to begin to achieve any form of progress in the way of equality of opportunity. Surely that should be the direction in which we're going. Surely we believe that young people all around this province have an equal opportunity to have an education. We should be fostering that, not making it less and less possible and not making it so discouraging as to make it utterly impossible.
There's one other point I would like to raise with the minister. I'm not entirely clear as to whether these are the implications, but it seems to me, from my understanding of how the system works, that if a referendum is placed on March 15, which is the time that it would have to be put into place, that school district drawing up what it was proposing and setting as the amount of the referendum would have to base it on a projection which had not yet been approved. It seems to me there is a possibility that if that referendum passed, the budget the ministry allows might simply be reduced by that amount, and they would be right back where they started from. There's no assurance that that won't happen, as I understand it. I would like the minister to deal with that matter.
One other point: one of the problems we have in Cowichan, as in many of the rural communities, is that it is a scattered school district. Both of the school districts are very scattered. There are a lot of small schools. Since 1982 we have lost something over 500 students.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Six hundred.
MRS. WALLACE: I have 520; you say 600.
If we had all those schools in close proximity, it would be relatively simple to accommodate. But when you have them scattered through Chemainus, Crofton, Duncan, Shawnigan, Mill Bay, Cobble Hill and all those areas around Glenora — Glenora, of course, has been closed — Cowichan Station.... It is much more difficult to accommodate those pupils without a terrific disruption. Actually, the figure of 520 that I have is the number of students that were disrupted in January as a result of your insistence, Mr. Minister, that that school board cut their budget by an amount that affected nine teachers. By getting rid of nine teachers, the changes that were required throughout that school district affected 520 students from kindergarten right up through senior high.
Those are the kinds of things that happen in a rural district with a lot of schools, because you have to make so many moves — it's like a domino game, and it changes, and one goes here — and to do that in mid-term, particularly with young people, although it also has had some drastic effects on some of the enriched courses, as well, at the high school level.... As I said before in second reading, those students make a role model of their teacher, and they either become excited about the learning experience or they're turned off. When they have to deal with two or three teachers in a short period of time, it turns them off, Mr. Chairman. That is an expensive price to pay for these kinds of curtailments in the cost of education.
Those are the points I would like to raise with the minister.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I know that the critic wishes to speak, but I think I'd like to respond for one moment, if I may, to the questions which have been raised.
I recognize that Cowichan is a little more dispersed than the school district which we find at the south end of the Island and the districts in the southern part of British Columbia and the lower mainland. That's a given.
In 1981, by the time most of the special needs children had been mainstreamed in the classroom.... And that is a question which I've often asked superintendents and school board trustees: "When the policy came into effect in 1976, tell me, is it your view, after the expiration of five years, that most of those kiddies having difficulties, who have been mainstreamed, have been accommodated?" The answer is, inevitably, yes, but there are some exceptions. There are some exceptions in some parts of British Columbia because of people who wish to gravitate to larger centres where they feel that their children who are affected by some form of disability might have a better opportunity.
Between 1981 and 1984-85 — that is, the current school year — the pupil-teacher ratio in Cowichan went up from 17.38 to 17.48 — ten one-hundredths. Now at the same time, there was a decline in student enrolment of 600.
There is a rule of thumb that I understand is given by school districts, and that rule of thumb is this: usually when there is a loss of around 20 students, it means that one fewer teacher is required. In this particular case, one teacher left the district for a little over every 22 students.
I'm getting that information from school districts. That's not me, or the ministry; that's what I've picked up during my travels. And I thought it was a fair assessment.
[3:15]
Now the other item. Lake Cowichan — the very small district — has had a precipitous drop in enrolment. Now when we're talking about a school district with 1,019 students, when they lose.... You know, they have a big party in Cowichan when a family with six children moves into the district. This is how important it is to some school districts, because of the loss of half a dozen children. I couldn't believe, when I was travelling around, how people were counting heads for those coming in — and you've got to in your area, too, Mr. Member, believe me. But Lake Cowichan is a small district, and sometimes small is great, to be honest with you. The more I move around, I sometimes find that the smaller it is, the better. But there's a pupil-teacher ratio over a period from '81 to '85. Do you know what the difference has been? 15.28 to 15.35 — seven one-hundredths.
So I recognize that these people had to, in some of the administrative areas under function four, tighten up a bit. I don't think they're really arguing against that.
[ Page 5073 ]
I think the major point that you have raised, though, Madam Member, is with respect to.... It's another portion of the bill, and I don't know whether I'm permitted to comment on it…
Interjections.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Go ahead.
...but your concern was this. If a school district goes to referendum and is successful in raising, let's say, in your district, $250,000 — because there's great support in your community to maintain the status quo; that's been made very clear to me — if that be the case, what happens is that the budget which is submitted to the ministry is the amount which we have allocated — then attached to it is the resolution, and the resolution incorporates the amount of money which they wish to raise by referendum. If that referendum is successful, that is the amount of their final budget.
The reason that we have to have it that way, and the reason for those dates, is very critical. That's why it's March 21 until April 14. Because, you see, on April 20 we must send back to the school districts the approved budget including a successful referendum, and then establish what the mill rate will be. The school district then has the legal obligation to pass a bylaw validating its budget on May 1. So the amount which they authorize by resolution and succeed in obtaining by way of referendum is incorporated and added to the budget and added on top of the amount which we have allocated.
Is there some…?
MR. GABELMANN: Yes, that doesn't answer it.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Then I misunderstood the question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to repeat the question, hon. member?
MRS. WALLACE: It seems the question is whether that is stacked or whether it is integrated — the referendum. Is this the assurance that that is in addition to anything that has been previously okayed and that that will be the amount that is accepted? And how does that affect next year? What happens next year?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: This is for the 1985-86 budget commencing July 1. The referendum applies to that. If the referendum is successful, it is added to the amount which has been allocated as an adequate budget by the ministry. So that provides additional funding to the school district.
MRS. WALLACE: What about next year?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: That is for '85-86.
MRS. WALLACE: What about the next year?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: For '86-87? Let me put it to you this way. I am hoping, believe me, to have a School Act presented to this assembly which is going to resolve all of these problems once and for all. And whether or not it's going to be '86-87, we'll see. That is my objective. I will do anything, believe me, to see if I can deliver on that.
MR. GABELMANN: Including resigning if you don't?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Member....
MRS. WALLACE: Colin, he may not have to.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Member, I will do what you do for your constituency: the very best you can.
MR. COCKE: Can we have one word of assurance that when that School Act does come in there there won't be any of this stupid referendum stuff?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I suspect that we're talking about future legislation, and I don't think that I am permitted, by the rules of the House, to make a comment or even respond to that type of question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
HON. MR. HEINRICH: I believe that to be the truth. I would love to answer it, but I know I would be ruled out of order by the Chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
MR. ROSE: I didn't realize that the minister has such a profound and detailed knowledge of the rules. The way it goes is that you answer, Mr. Minister, then you get ruled out of order. Then we have both the benefit of your answer and also you have displayed a tremendous knowledge of parliamentary procedure that allows you to break the rules with impunity, as a lot of us enjoy doing. I think that has to do with the law of anticipation or something like that.
I know the minister is anticipating a very important meeting and he's courteous enough to say that even though his meeting started at 3 o'clock he is going to stay here and hear us out. I have no desire to prolong his agony.
However, I do have a few things to say on section 2. Before I do, though, I didn't speak on section 1 and perhaps I'd be, as the minister was, permitted a little bit of latitude on this.
First of all I'd like to explain to the minister that in the question period today I asked him about a meeting, but it was really a telex from the Strathcona group about ESL, to which be replied and indicated he was considering it. So I'll just put that down as a correction so that the fact that I confounded him during the question period was due to the fact that I didn't have the letter before me.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't remember the telex.
MR. ROSE: It's here if you care to see it before you go to your other meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to say, despite the minister's stout-hearted defence of his new referendum legislation, that he has hardly won an Emmy award for his efforts. I don't think that the public generally, as represented by the media, has been terribly impressed with this regression to earlier times.
I'll read to the minister from the editorial pages of the Vancouver Province, which you'd hardly call a socialist rag:
[ Page 5074 ]
"The referendum idea is a clever government ploy." A ploy they call it. "Very clever of Premier Bennett to offer school boards a way out of the financial crisis he foisted upon them." It goes on to say that points have been made here a number of times. Only 30 percent of the adults have children. Referenda are indirectly discriminatory. The bedroom suburbs of Richmond and Delta, with a comparatively high residential base and lots of kids, will probably have an easier time than some of the other districts. Those points have been made over and over again. Anyway, that's one.
Here again, with apologies to Jim Hume, is the Times Colonist — again, hardly a radical, wild-eyed, left-wing journal. I'll quote from an editorial called "One Step to the Side." I'm sure the minister's read this, so I won't bore him with the whole thing. "Most taxpayers, almost three out of four, don't have children in the school system. Human nature being what it is, the chances of a school board getting a referendum approved are nil, particularly in these difficult times." So maybe the Minister of Education isn't really offering the districts all that much. The editorial goes on to say: "Does that make the bill unfair? Not unfair — but not useful either. Ratepayers in general remain in the dark on the fundamental question: are genuine education needs being met?" Some people will say yes and some people will say a profound no. I go on to quote: "Citizens rely on government to weigh priorities, employ expertise and make these kinds of assessments. The government is saying: 'You do it.' This bill represents one step to the side. It will stifle school boards but not help answer the hard question."
I've got one or two more short quotes. This is from the chairman of the school board in School District 59, represented by the hon. minister of industrial development and perhaps trade, travel and all these other juicy things. "Introduction of a referendum to approve supplementary taxation on residential assessment only is a further departure from the concept of equality of educational opportunity, to the benefit of lower mainland and south Island districts far more than northern districts with small residential tax bases…relative wealth of districts already distorted by the removal of local access to commercial-industrial assessment...." It's signed by L. Haddow — and I presume that's how you pronounce his name — chairman of the board....
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Her name — Mrs.
MR. ROSE: I presume that's how we pronounce her name — chairman of the board, School District 59, Peace River South. Well, again I say it hardly qualifies for an Emmy Award.
Here's another letter — and again, I won't read it all — from a teacher. He says: "I know I speak for a large number of teachers when I say we're fed up with this government's vendetta against teachers." It then goes on to close by saying: "It has been a very difficult three years to be part of the teaching profession. I look forward to your talk to the Surrey Teachers' Association next week, and I hope that you may be able to give us something to look forward to." Well, I think I'll perhaps disappoint that teacher, because I really don't know what there is to look forward to in education. I don't think that this teacher is particularly a crybaby.
I think that you can talk all you like, Mr. Minister, and other people can defend it all on PTRs and funding and all those other items that appear to be convincing to some people whose interest is in the bottom line. I don't deny that there is an important point to the bottom line. But I think the bigger point here is that there's not much point in worrying about PTRs if you've got people who are in the mood just to work to rule because their morale, their confidence and their self-respect have been damaged by constant attacks, such as the one we heard from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) yesterday, when he attacked schoolteachers as greedy and rapacious and school board members as spending like drunken sailors. I haven't checked it out. I've asked for the figures. But I do believe that if you looked at the teachers' salary graph over the years he mentioned — the last ten years — and if you looked at federal, provincial and municipal governments' budget graphs, the lines would be parallel, and you would find that all anybody was doing during those years was trying to protect themselves from the ravages of inflation. The question is, you know: do salaries cause inflation, or do they just respond to the needs of inflation? I'm quite sure we're not going to settle that one immediately.
[3:30]
Let me proceed, if I can. I have a committee meeting going on over here to my left, but if I could cut through the committee meeting long enough, I would just like to say that, yes, it is true that certain districts have a far greater chance of being successful in a referendum than other districts. I have a little list here which has been prepared just on the basis of the tax impact of raising $100 per pupil. It varies widely throughout the province. Because it varies so widely, it seems to me that it's going to be easier to pass these referenda in some areas than in others. It's likely that the poorer areas will have a more difficult time.
Let's take the Queen Charlottes. It costs $75.88 to raise $100; Prince Rupert, $78.12 to raise $100; Kitimat, $73. What's the reason for this? I could go on to some more: Vancouver Island West, $73; Vancouver Island North, $66. So here we are, and what's the reason for it? The reason is the balance between the residential and the non-residential tax base. That's an extremely important concern for a lot of people. That's why people say that it's unfair and tends to be discriminatory; that's why the referenda route was abandoned a long time ago and, to my knowledge, exists nowhere else in Canada. I don't know that for certain, but the information I have would indicate that that would be true.
Let's deal now with the bill. First, if you look at section 1 of clause 2 — I'm sorry, section 2 of the bill.... What I was talking about was that in order to spring the minister out of here as early as possible, so he can attend his other meeting, I did not speak on clause 1. But some of that stuff that I was just using might, of course, be attributed, partially at least, to clause 1, if not clause 2.
It says in section 2, concerning 13.2(1), that for the next fiscal year boards may now raise part of their annual budget on a supplementary amount to be raised by an imposition on residential taxation. I've already stated that the percentage of residential to non-residential tax base in various school districts in this province varies tremendously.
1 don't understand why the minister didn't allow this extra levy to be applied on both portions, if he had to apply them just on the residences. Yesterday his answer was that he didn't do that because he felt that the commercial-industrial were already being taxed unfairly, and that really there was
[ Page 5075 ]
only 8 percent of the tax now contributed to the total educational cost by the residential people — the renters or the tenants or the single-family dwellings.
He also said a little while ago here that with the homeowner grant there wasn't really much added to the burden in many districts anyway. But he knows as well as I do that the homeowner grant adds to the taxation in a municipality, whether you bang it onto the top of it directly or add it to the municipal portion. I have a direct quote here, if I can find it. There's no question, I think, that that is true.
In order to be fair; if you're going to add a referendum…and I was on the point of introducing an amendment, but my colleagues talked me out of it. They said: "If you don't like the bill in the first place, what's the point in trying to patch it up with certain kinds of amendments?" I was going to add an amendment here that would include, under clause 2, section 1(1), the non-residential as well. After all, if you've only got 8 percent of your tax base in your residential — that's not quite the same thing as what the minister said; I understand that, and I want to be fair about it — why not add to the portion that the minister confiscated when he took away the commercial-industrial base from the school districts two years ago? It seemed to me then that it would spread the load far more evenly, and there would be more likelihood of having it passed. Furthermore, it would do one other thing: it would prevent one group of taxpayers — the owners of industrial and commercial property — who are eligible to vote, from voting to oppose a tax on the residential group. Whether or not they will do that, judging by the voter turnout in most municipal and school board elections, I can't say. But I think the element of fairness should be introduced in that part.
[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]
Sections 2 and 3 have to do with the time frame. I understand that the minister has given us some information about the time frame — why it needs to be done this time, and has to be ready by a certain period for budgetary reasons, and all the rest of it — but I don't think there is time. I don't think many school boards.... Now he may have Delta or some school board like that ready to go now, but there really isn't very much time. You know, it's the 19th or 20th of February today, and this time has to be submitted to the minister not later than March 15. While it's not impossible, if school boards decide to go ahead with referenda — and I don't think many will — then it really doesn't give them a great deal of time. I question the time frame; I think it's wrong, certainly in sections 3 and 4. What's the point of having this in here if people can't take advantage of it even if they wanted to — and I wouldn't want them to. We're against the referenda; I think we've made that amply clear.
Subsection (4) says: "The form and content of a referendum ballot shall be prescribed by the minister." Well, that's interesting, because the minister then has total power over the wording. That worries us a little bit. I'm not going to amend this, for the reasons I stated earlier. But one of the things that does concern us is that the minister can change and slant the wording to suit himself and his own purposes, for whatever reasons might be advanced. I find this minister pretty straightforward; some ministers are, I think, a bit more devious. I'm not suggesting he will do this sort of thing, but he could.
I'll give you an example. Suppose a board asked: "Are you in favour of raising $75,000 over the amount of the provincially determined budget for 1986-86, for the provision of six aides to assist special needs students function effectively in a classroom setting?" Suppose the minister didn't want that wording and decided he'd like some other. Here the question is possibly rewritten by the minister.
Here is the text of a preamble taken from the actual Ministry of Education leaflet he sent out: "Service levels for every recognized class of special needs students are much more generous than for regular students. Many of the resources generated by these levels are, in fact, used in regular classrooms and regular schools." Now the question: "Are you in favour of providing a massive $75,000 over the amount of provincially determined budget for '85 and '86 for the purpose of providing six aides that the province has already determined are unnecessary?" Now he wouldn't do that.
I've got several examples here but just let me read one more. The question asked by the school district is. "Are you in favour of raising $50,000 for janitorial service to ensure that our schools are cleaned each week and maintained?" The question is rewritten by the minister, again adapted by the ministry leaflet that he sent out and immediately withdrew because it got so much flack and so many people took shots at it. It says here:
"The service level provides historic cost to every school board to enable it to operate and maintain its schools. The school board could only need more money for janitorial service if: (1) it has provided more teachers than the most generous provincial service levels call for; (2) used operations and maintenance funds to pad the administration; (3) met maintenance needs that are less than essential (4) allowed community groups to use the school without paying a fair share of the operations and maintenance costs; (5) there was no active program to reduce vandalism and minimize costs; (6) the board and their employees were more vigilant to reduce energy costs. Given all this, are you still in favour of raising $50,000 for janitorial services when the schools are cleaned once a month anyway?"
So again, these things are possible. There are all kinds of possible distortions to this kind of stuff.
Now if I haven't lost all my notes I am going to skip (5) and (6) of proposed section 13.2 and go to (7). It says: "All persons who, at the time the referendum is held, are entitled to vote at an election of a school trustee, are entitled to vote at the referendum." In other words, if you're able to vote for the election of a school trustee, then you can vote at the referendum. What groups does that include? It includes people who rent, people who are homeowners and live in single-family dwellings, people who own or are buying co-ops or condominiums and/or rent them. But it also includes — and in some districts it amounts to 75 percent or more — all those people who own commercial and industrial buildings, real property, which is assessed and taxed.
Why not have it along the lines I suggested earlier, that all owners and users of property, who at the time the referendum is held are entitled to vote in an election of school trustee, are entitled to vote at the referendum? This makes certain that the residential and industrial people will also bear the burden of any increased referendum cost.
[ Page 5076 ]
Let's leave (7) and deal with (8), because I promised the minister I would do this with rare dispatch and get him out of here as soon as we could. I'm rather anxious to get him out of here as soon as we can. There may be others who want to say a few words on this, but I don't think we will have too many more speakers.
What happens if the referendum is lost? Subsection (8) says: "Where more than 50% of the votes cast" are in favour of the referendum.... We know that if the thing passes, the board gets the funds it needs, but what happens if it's lost? The board pays. Where is it going to get the funds? The minister put the ceiling on the funds; therefore the board is not going to get any extra, so what's it going to do? It has to cut out either teachers or staff or services. So there's no provision. In other words, it's kind of like a lottery. Heads you win, and tails you lose. The thing is, the board is in a position of taking some chances.
What is the cost of one of these referenda? It depends, of course, on the size of the district. In Vancouver we had a referendum — a by-election, it was called — as a result of the last municipal election in that city, and it cost $250,000. What board budget can suffer that kind of a raid, an attack, without cutting services or teachers or staff? I don't know.
(9) What is the cost? Does the minister have any estimate — he can write it down and tell me when I'm finished, and that won't be very long from now — of what this whole thing is going to cost?
Finally, I think that there's an attack on kids here. I said that I think kids are, being chiselled. Again, the government and the minister are not doing anything illegal, but I think that there's a real attack on schools and kids, and I don't think it's justified. Government has its own priorities, but why don't we make kids a megaproject in this province? Why don't we make our young people, to whom we owe a great deal and to whom our future is tied, the megaproject? Why don't we spend the kind of money on them that we're prepared to lose on other megaprojects? What's the point?
HON. MR. SCHROEDER: One and a half billion dollars is a megaproject.
MR. ROSE: I'm afraid the minister is also talking about the amount for post-secondary education. He's adding all this in. Try and think of that, Mr. Minister.
But I want to suggest to you too that I know that the minister came to me — and it's important for me to say this, even though it's not strictly in order, Mr. Chairman — and said: "Section 3 is repealed; we're going to withdraw it." Actually it means we have to vote against it in here. So what is section 3? Section 3 is the sunset provision. He was going to repeal it. Now he's going to withdraw it, so it means the sunset provision is still in, right?
Now, I alluded to the sunset provision, the referendum and the connection between the two when I spoke on second reading. I'm glad it's withdrawn. I hope, as the minister intimated — although I wouldn't want him to anticipate anything he might do in the future — he's going to leave that sunset provision in. Otherwise his case is in a cocked hat, and any time the Minister of Education gets into any trouble we get a new one. The first interim finance cutback minister is now the Attorney-General. Think of what could happen to you, Mr. Minister. I think you've arranged to be even less popular than he is, and what kind of promotion did he get? You might be agent-general in London or something, You could have a lot of fun with Roy McMurtry. He went to his reward — oink, oink! — from Ontario.
[3:45]
Anyway, then we had Mr. Vander Zalm. Well, we know what happened to him. They promoted him to candidate for mayor. Anyway, he was also in interim financing. He had sunset provisions, only he was part of the sunset.
So, Mr. Minister, we agree that you should pull this business where you repeal the sunset provisions, because you made a commitment. You made a commitment to the school trustees when they accepted your blandishments that they could move things around within the budget. But within three years all could be sweetness and light, and with a new education act we wouldn't need the sunset provisions, and we won't need the referendum either. So if nobody uses it this year, and we won't need it two years from now, why do we need it at all, and what the hell difference does it make what we do about the sunset provision? I don't know.
Nevertheless, I take the minister at his word. I'm glad he told me in advance that he was going to do this. I agree that it's a wise thing to do, so I'll sit down and let him get to his meeting after he makes a brief, turgid and intelligent reply to me.
MR. PASSARELL: I have a very quick question to the minister in regard to section 2(6). I think that this is a mousetrap that some lawyer set up for the minister. The way I feel about about lawyers is almost the same as Dan the butcher felt about lawyers in Shakespeare.
I'd like the minister's response on this section, where it says that if there is a referendum it has to be published in a newspaper circulated through the school district for two days. Now we always have this. Every time the government.... I don't care what legislation it is, I always have to stand up, because there are no bloody newspapers that we can publish in. And even if it's published once a month — if there is a newspaper — it says two days. Now what are we going to do? I could send out...I mean, if there was a referendum I could put it in the Democrat for the minister; it would probably get to more people than a newspaper that doesn't exist. If you look at the three different school districts in the constituency of Atlin, it would be pretty hard.... Mind you, Cassiar does have a newspaper that comes out once a month, but it's fairly restricted to Cassiar and to Dease.
I just can't vote for this bill, because of this section. How can you publish? Section 2(6) here — it's pretty difficult for the residents of the constituency of Atlin. So I'd like to know: are we going to tack these notices upon hydro poles? But then, we don't have hydro poles either. Can I bring in an amendment here so that we can tack them up on some jack pines or something, to facilitate the passing of this bill?.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Legislative counsel has provided me with a response for the member for Atlin. The Interpretation Act, section 38, under the heading "Notice, " says:
"Where an enactment provides that notice shall or may be given by publication in a newspaper published in a particular municipality, district, county, jurisdiction, or other place, the provision shall be construed to mean that the notice may be sufficiently given, if no newspaper is published at the time when the notice is to be given in the particular place, by publishing or
[ Page 5077 ]
advertising the notice in a newspaper published in the Province, nearest to the place mentioned; and, in the enactment, 'newspaper' means a newspaper recognized by the Canada Post Office and accorded statutory privileges under section 11 of the Post Office Act (Canada), and that, in addition, is sold to the public and to regular subscribers on a bona fide subscription list."
With respect to the.... I gather it's closing now, Mr. Chairman.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: There's more? Okay, fine.
My critic, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), had to leave, but I would like to compliment him on his eloquent response. I think he did a fine job. I would just like to respond to him on a couple of items.
While he quoted the papers which he did, I find a very interesting editorial which came from Comox. It would seem rather supportive of the concept of the referendum. It's the Comox District Free Press in Courtenay. I think the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is aware of that publication. Secondly, this morning I was shown an editorial from Nanaimo which was supportive of the referendum. I don't have it with me.
Even more interesting, I find the following in the Comox District Free Press, from the chairman, Mr. McQuillan, whom I met in my office vis-à-vis the Burns plan. I'll quote from the paper: "A controversial proposal by Education minister…to allow school districts to raise funds by referendum might not be a bad idea, says School District 71 board chairman Bob McQuillan." He goes on, and I don't need to make any reference. But it's interesting to note that I quote Nanaimo and Comox, and I know there are other editorials within the province which are equally supportive. I recognize that there are many which made the comment "a shrewd political move," and various things like that.
The member for Coquitlam-Moody has left, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to compliment him on his comments. I recognize what he said, in particular on the ballot and the various forms which it could take, and I would hope that he would rely upon the integrity and character of the office of the Minister of Education to ensure that such interpretations or expressions would never appear on a ballot. As a matter of fact, one of the very reasons why the section is in the bill is to preclude people doing the very things that he made reference to.
MS. SANFORD: The other day, during second reading on this bill, the minister made reference to the Burns plan as being a contingent liability.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Or unfunded.
MS. SANFORD: I understood that it was unfunded, but you mentioned contingent. I'd like to know which one it is, and if the minister would explain why it's either unfunded or contingent. As I say, initially he said "unfunded" and now he is saying "contingent," and I'd really like him to clarify that.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have some difficulty going into this. That was during second reading, and now we're taking the bill section by section, and on referenda, and I don't know whether it's in order for me to respond.
All I will mention, again, is the advice which I received from the accounting firm. I think that I have to rely upon that, and whether there's a distinction between contingent or unfunded is immaterial to me. The point that they made, and made in spades, is that any type of liability like this must be backed up by a reserve, and that reserve must be supported by cash. That cash would have been spent during the current year. It would have been a debt due and owing in a future year which was not going to be backed up by dollars. That was made very clear to me, and there were a number of other reasons which gave some concern. I think I made reference to the distinction between the accrual accounting method and the cash accounting method. Now God knows....
MS. SANFORD: He doesn't know that either.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Pardon me. I withdraw.
I am told that school districts would not be very happy if they were placed on the accrual method of accounting. I don't know if it's necessary to go into all the other reasons which were given, but that was what was made clear to me, and I felt that the reasons were adequate. Interestingly enough, there were many school districts that didn't want to touch that proposal with a barge pole, realizing what their obligations would be in the year following.
MS. SANFORD: The minister has listened to this accounting firm. I really wish that he listened to other accounting firms. Obviously he hasn't understood the terminology involved or what they're trying to say. He's got a message somehow in his head that what they've told him is that there would be a problem with this plan. But there are other accounting firms who say the exact opposite. This is why I'm very concerned that this plan has been rejected out of hand. The minister is not able to explain to me, because he doesn't even understand the terminology; he doesn't care whether it's unfunded or contingent or whatever, because the accountants have said so and so.
The minister is not clear in his own mind on the Burns plan, and that is what concerns me. The Burns plan recognizes that teachers are hired on an annual basis. The School Act recognizes that they're hired on an annual basis. Section 132(2) of the School Act says that school boards can pay their teachers on a 12-month basis, if they so negotiate with their teachers. I wish the minister would turn to that section of the act....
HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll do that.
MS. SANFORD: When, then, are they able to negotiate with their teachers a 12-month pay basis? If the school board, at this time, for the year 1985-86 negotiates with its teachers to pay on a 12-month basis — and this is very important, because it hinges on whether referenda will be held around the province.... If they can negotiate to be paid on a 12-month basis, without any kind of deduction in the amount of money that they're entitled to under their budget, will they be able to pay on a 12-month basis for 1985-86? Would the minister answer that specifically?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: What would happen is this: we would then take the actual amount which had been incurred
[ Page 5078 ]
by the school district for the first.... We would take six-twelfths of that salary, not six-tenths, for the period January 1985 to June 1985 and put that in the framework. You see, what the school district wanted to do was to take six-tenths of the annual salary, put that in for six months, and then have that surplus. The amount that they wanted was not six-twelfths; they wanted six-tenths, yet only pay out six-twelfths in the first six months of 1985. And if that's what they want to do, that's fine. All I do is reduce the amount of money which they received so that they get six-twelfths of the annual salary, not six-tenths for the first six months.
Interjection.
MS. SANFORD: That's exactly what the minister is saying. It's fine to have this section in the act which says that a school board may negotiate with its teachers to pay on a basis of 12 months rather than 10 months, but, boy, the government sure will fix them if they do that. They'll simply reduce the amount of money that's available to that school district, and that's absolutely unfair It's not in the interests of education or finances. I think that if W.A.C. Bennett were around, he would have accepted this Burns plan, leaped on it, thanked them, and gone ahead with it.
[4:00]
Interjection.
MS. SANFORD: Yes, it would have been called the Bennett plan, no doubt.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
Mr., Chairman, this minister does not make sense on this issue in terms of finances or education, and I think it's tragic. If he is talking about an unfunded liability under the Burns plan, then how on earth can he justify the unfunded liabilities that already exist with every school district in the province with respect to sick leave or severance pay? Every school district would have a large, unfunded liability if every teacher in that school district were suddenly to become ill and utilized that sick leave. There's no money set aside for that. The minister is being inconsistent. There is no more unfunded liability there than there is in this plan. They are paid on an annual basis; it's an annual salary. The school boards, saving the government money and saving the people money, in the interest of education and in the interest of finances, should be able to pay on that 12-month basis and avoid the kind of disruption and upheaval that this minister has promoted in this province. It makes no sense, Mr. Chairman.
I'm asking whether the minister will go to another chartered accountant and say: "Look, here is the problem that we have. Would you please advise me how I can adopt the Burns plan in the interest of education?" I know there are accountants out there who have given that advice to other school districts. There are accounting firms willing to say that the advice the minister has received is indeed controversial.
In the interest of education the minister should say: "Go to it, school districts. Work out a 12-month package with your teachers. Save us this money. Improve the education in this province. Go to it for the 1985-86 year. We will not penalize you." But the only thing the minister is saying here today is: "My interest in education is not great enough to allow the boards to operate under this Burns plan without some sort of penalty." It's short-sighted, and it's another indication of the priority that this government gives to education.
MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, could I just have a word or two? What disturbs me about this is not so much the words in the bill; it's the absolutely brazen hypocrisy behind it. I can't see myself supporting hypocrisy, but that's what we're being asked to do. Here's a government that comes in and says: "We want school districts and all the municipalities" — because they're the ones that are going to run the referenda — "to have that opportunity to conduct referenda among the electorate to see if they want to approve certain things." That same minister, who brought this bill in, sat in cabinet and took part in a process that denied the district municipality of Terrace the right to conduct a referendum about a sewage treatment plant. There was no equivocation about it, no rationale, no reason. Just a few months ago they said to the municipality of Terrace, which wanted to go ahead and serve the needs of the people of Terrace by conducting a referendum about a much-needed sewage treatment plant: "No, you can't do it." This same government, through the Ministry of Environment, said to the municipality of Terrace: "Your sewage treatment plant is inadequate. You're poisoning the Skeena River with the sewage treatment facility that you've got there now. You've got to go ahead and upgrade that sewage treatment facility in Terrace." The municipality responded to the Environment ministry, and said: "Okay, we'll do that. We'll conduct a referendum." Then along comes this government and says: "No, you can't do it. You're denied the opportunity to do it." They were refused the right to do it, dictated to by this government. This minister sat in on that and took part in it. He knows about it. Then he comes in here and has the hypocritical gall to say: "Oh, but isn't it nice? We want to give school districts the right to do something that we have denied one municipality the right to do." Do you expect me to support that? I can't do it. I can't go back home and say to the municipality of Terrace and the mayor and the aldermen in that community: "No, I can't stand up for your rights in the Legislature, because they've asked me to approve this kind of thing."
Could I have some explanation? I'm sure the minister, from the depths of his knowledge as a member of the Liberal Party, will be able to rationalize anything. It needs some explanation as to why we have hypocrisy here. Why is it also on a much larger scale? This same government absolutely refuses to give the voters in this province the right of referenda about borrowings. Here's a government that drove this province into debt to the extent of more than $900 million last year. There was no referendum there. On some particular day of every week they borrow $60 million by treasury bills, regular as clockwork. The money they borrow by treasury bills is used to pay off money that they borrowed earlier. It's borrowing to retire debt, and so on. There's no referendum on that. Absolute hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman; there's no other way I can describe it,
HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's not important. You know that. There's no regard for the rules.
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) is giving us a little lecture. It's so nice to hear from him from time to time. I'd like him to try to defend the situation that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) just put forward.
[ Page 5079 ]
What he was doing was drawing an analogy in terms of a referendum; referendum is referendum.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're completely out of order, and you know it.
MR. COCKE: I'm completely out of order, and I know it. Referendum, besides what it does, in terms of being used by this government where it sees fit, because they got themselves into a box.... But I'll tell you what referendum does to the people in New Westminster — this referendum, section 2 of this bill. It places them in a position where they have to go to a public not on the original tax base, as I outlined before, but on a tax base of 40 percent, because homes in New Westminster represent 40 percent of the total tax base. Sixty percent has been stolen. Sixty percent, which is commercial and industrial, and which has always been part of the school tax base, was stolen by this government a year or two ago, and they say that cannot be included.
I have a question for the minister. I want him to tell us what the province-wide percentage of tax base is in terms of commercial-industrial vis-à-vis residential. Just before I sit down, I'd also like to suggest that the reason the minister said, in reply to my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), that he is going to have to see and approve the referendum is because the boards.... And he didn't say these words, because he said that he wouldn't bias the referendum, but that the boards might. Who in the blazes does that minister think he is, calling boards across this province irresponsible, and saying that they would bias a referendum? That, in essence, is what he said. We are holier-than-thou over there, Mr. Chairman, in that ministry, and in that government. They would never do any wrong, but school boards could, would or might.
Well, Mr. Chairman, to me the track record doesn't indicate any such thing. The track record says that here is a minister in deep trouble — not of his own making, because I don't suggest for one second that these ideas were his; they were those of the government. They're in deep trouble with all of the boards and with all of the people in the province over their handling of education, so they bring in this section to relieve the tension, a referendum section. Sheer nonsense. Mr. Chairman. They're in deep trouble because they have mishandled the children in our province, the most precious and important resource that we have; and they're giving them the back of their hand. And in order to bail themselves out he's quoting the Comox whatever-it-is, and some Nanaimo paper, trying to justify his situation by those two isolated little bits of support that he got.
There should be no support for this. We got away from the Dark Ages, Mr. Chairman, in 1973, and we shouldn't be back there now. Referendum on school budgeting is not fair. Some districts will approve; some districts will not approve, and probably those districts that will not approve are the ones that need it most. Not only that, it's an unfair distribution in terms of the tax base.
So, Mr. Chairman, there's no question in our minds that despite all the halos I see sitting across the floor, and despite the pontificating that I hear from time to time, both from in front of a mike and from one's chair, that pontificating doesn't influence me one bit. I say this is unfair; it's unjust, archaic and stupid, and it's another way to crack open the education system of our province, which is already bleeding, thanks to that government and their attitude toward the children of our province.
Section 2 approved.
Section 3 negatived.
Title approved.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I report — where is that? Just a second, I want to get the right one here.
Interjection.
HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, excuse me. Now this is what I want to be very clear about. That is not an amendment. It is? Okay, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 48, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete with amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?
HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.
[4:15]
Leave granted.
Bill 48, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1985, read a third time and passed on the following division:
YEAS — 32
Waterland | Brummet | Rogers |
Schroeder | McClelland | Heinrich |
Hewitt | Richmond | Ritchie |
Michael | Pelton | Johnston |
Fraser | Parks | Strachan |
Chabot | McCarthy | Nielsen |
Gardom | Smith | Bennett |
Curtis | Phillips | McGeer |
Fraser | Veitch | Davis |
Kempf | Reid | Segarty |
Ree | |
Reynolds |
NAYS — 19
Macdonald | Skelly | Howard |
Cocke | Dailly | Stupich |
Nicolson | Sanford | Gabelmann |
Williams | D'Arcy | Brown |
Hanson | Lockstead | MacWilliam |
Wallace | Mitchell | Passarell |
|
Blencoe |
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.
[ Page 5080 ]
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 42.
LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Strachan in the chair.
On section 1.
MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I am acting as senior counsel in the absence of the junior counsel in Vancouver today. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has agreed to act as my junior counsel, so the opposition is well represented.
I ask the Attorney-General this question about section 1, which covers a lot of ground. An infant agrees to leave his estate in a certain way, or a house, while he's an infant, and he gets $ 1,000 to do it, and then as he attains the age of majority he's got to positively repudiate that contract within one year — he may have forgotten all about it — or he's bound by it. It's a little bit dangerous, isn't it, that business of requiring the infant to do the positive act of repudiating something that he may have forgotten all about and do that within one year of attaining the age of 19 years? Does the Attorney-General see any danger in that?
HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't think so, because the evidence on the repudiation would not be stringent. I don't think it would require a signed declaration or anything like that. Some act that was consistent with repudiation would be acceptable. The purpose of the amendments — not departing from, the old rule of unenforceability of contract save for necessaries — is to try and acknowledge that there are duties and responsibilities that accrue as a result of contractual obligations with infants. I think that this is a move more to modern practice in reality. I don't believe the repudiation onus would be a harsh one. So I'm advised, in any event.
MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Attorney-General, and it's spelled out in the section here, that not much is required in order to repudiate when the infant becomes an adult at 19 years. But he must do something, and they're set out. I wonder if the Law Reform Commission thought about this. I know these sections have been vetted by that estimable body. But in life people often forget about having to do something positively to repudiate a contract, and then in the twenty-second year it pops up and he finds he's bound by something he did in his years of indiscretion. Most human beings only have years of discretion when they're young — only twice, for that matter. I think it's something that should be watched.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
MR. MACDONALD: On the question of the jury, it gives me an opportunity to ask the Attorney-General a question. What does he think about majority verdicts…not majority verdicts of juries but in England I think it's eight jurors and even in criminal proceedings six can carry the day. Here we are bound by the rule of unanimity. The juries are often perverse, and that's their strength and maybe sometimes their principal reason for existence, as you could say of the Morgentaler jury. But what does the Attorney-General think about changes to the law? Have you made any representation to Ottawa in terms of having, say, six out of eight or ten out of twelve deciding cases?
HON. MR. SMITH: No, I have not done so on the criminal side and haven't really directed my attention to it on the civil side. I think on the criminal side, while there is support for that notion in other jurisdictions — and divided opinion on it — the guiding principle in our law has been that if you're entitled to elect a jury trial and you do elect a jury trial, the jurors have to be unanimous, all twelve, in order for you to be found guilty. I guess my view would be, hon. member, that while I recognize that it works reasonably well in other jurisdictions to have a majority or a two-thirds or three-quarters verdict, it's well embodied in our system in Canada and I would be reluctant to make any recommendations that would erode the unanimous nature of that.
I think it's an issue worth consideration and certainly worth the consideration of the federal Law Reform Commission. I don't have a closed mind on it at all — I can remember some verdicts that I was a party in obtaining when I practised criminal law where there were holdouts and where I thought afterwards, regardless of which side I was on, that the holdouts, who eventually gave in, were probably right. But they eventually did what the majority did and they all stood unanimously. But I can remember a few of them that I didn't think were so hot, and they were in my favour.
MR. MACDONALD: You can get one that's either deaf or dumb.
Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
MR. MACDONALD: Maybe the Attorney-General will tell us about cassettes. Supposing a cassette is circulated? You've now got cable broadcasting and television or radio in here in the Libel and Slander Act. But supposing you circulate some particularly vicious rumour about somebody by way of a cassette on a commercial basis. Would that be under the Libel and Slander Act if you sell the cassette?
[4:30]
HON. MR. SMITH: No. You're quite right, hon. member. This section is dealing with protections and obligations on broadcasters and doesn't cover cassettes. Maybe I'd be quite happy to have the commission look at that in light of the distribution of cassettes, but we were concerned with obligations and protections for the broadcasting industry here, and we didn't consider cassettes.
Sections 9 and 10 approved.
On section 11.
MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, I realize that there's paperwork involved in a bulk sales declaration, but when a small business is sold, should there not be a declaration by the vendor as to what debts he has run up? What's the alternative to just abolishing the bulk sales declaration? How do you protect a purchaser? Do you
[ Page 5081 ]
leave it to the purchaser's lawyer to insist on some kind of a declaration or guarantee or something of that kind?
HON. MR. SMITH: I guess if the Bulk Sales Act had really efficiently provided the kind of protection that you would seek, we might have some more reluctance in proposing this amendment. It was certainly the view of the commission that so many dispositions of property now stand outside the reach of the act. Some examples are accounts receivable, mortgage transactions, floating charges, and so on. These are equally prejudicial to unsecured crediters, but are not caught by the act.
The act therefore really drew a quite illogical distinction among the kinds of sellers that had to comply with the act also — for instance, wholesalers and service enterprises didn't have to comply with the act for a sale of business.
I think the frustration with the act, hon. member, was that it was very inconsistent, did not provide complete protection, and didn't give the confidence to a purchaser that it should have; in addition to which, it was commercially disruptive. It required compliance with very time-consuming and costly formalities, which inflicted delay on every transaction. While it may have provided some employment to our profession, even in our profession I think the overwhelming body of opinion was that it was high time that we removed it and left it to registry systems — which require registration and the notice that goes with that — to the provisions of insolvency legislation, to commercial contracts, and to the obedience to the law of fraud, I suppose, as well. That was at least preferable to having an inadequate, inconsistent and bureaucratic red-tape provision which was largely to the benefit of articled students and no one else.
MR. MACDONALD: I think the people in the commercial field, especially small business, should be warned now, and forewarned. If you went to buy a small store, at least there was some protection before in the fact that if you paid so much for the business and goodwill and so much for inventory, the vendor had to swear an oath — and if it was false could be prosecuted as a criminal offence — saying what his debts were. Now you come along, and if the purchaser doesn't protect himself by insisting upon the same thing, really, you might find that one of the wholesale suppliers has a right to recall half the inventory, to repossess it because it hasn't been paid for. There seems to be a gap if you just repeal the Bulk Sales Act. I didn't think it was a big imposition. There was a form, you filled it out, and the vendor had to list his debts. I think the Attorney-General ought to put the public on warning that it's caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware when there doesn't have to be a declaration as to what's owed against the business that you're buying.
HON. MR. SMITH: I appreciate those sentiments, but again, with respect, the Bulk Sales Act and the Sale of Goods Act did not provide that protection. It may have provided some false confidence that there was protection.
This legislation was really a product of a time when most credit granting in Canada was unsecured, when the credit information industry was relatively undeveloped, and when the main vehicle for business activity was the simple proprietorship or partnership. That's not the case now. In those days credit granting was a hazardous business. Today in commercial financing secured crediting predominates, and the credit-reporting industry is pretty sophisticated; in addition to which, of course, we have a very intricate registry system which deals with the charges and encumbrances that are against land and against corporations. This old legislation is not efficient in protecting creditors, and its scope is irrational.
MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate that probably if you bought an inventory in a small store as part of your purchase, the wholesaler in some circumstances would have registered something at central registry against the goods, on the basis that until they're paid for I can take them back; but I don't think he had to. There was some protection. I'm just entering a caveat. I think there could be a gap in the law that doesn't sufficiently protect innocent purchasers. I hope that will not be forgotten.
Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,
Bill 42, Law Reform Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 40.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Strachan in the chair.
Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.
On section 19.
MRS. WALLACE: It's a minor point, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to raise it with the minister. This particular section deals with changing the provision which already exists to allow the transportation of a gun on any arterial or secondary highway anywhere in the province of British Columbia. What this does is add every other road. I have some concerns about this particular section. It seems that it's a bit loose. I know that anyone who has a gun is supposed to carry a federal government permit, but I am concerned that we have no knowledge of who is carrying a gun on our arterial and secondary highways, and now it is quite permissible even on our side roads.
One of the points that came up was the fact that it would allow the import of guns from an adjoining province. Alberta, for example, has no sales tax. B.C. does. So it would mean that anyone could buy a quantity of guns in Alberta, bring them across the border and dispose of them here to individuals, and there would really be no way of picking up on that sales tax. It would certainly be in areas close to the
[ Page 5082 ]
border and quite a detriment to people who operate sporting goods shops. So that is one concern.
I also feel that it is a bit loose right from the beginning, even from the arterial and secondary highway point of view. But to also allow people to carry guns around anywhere on any of our roads without any knowledge by anyone that they have those guns seems to me to be stretching it just a bit far.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the member is reading far more into this than is really intended. People are now allowed, subject to other gun regulations, to carry a firearm on the particular type of highway that's named here, and without having a hunting licence in their possession. Other licensing requirements for guns are not affected here. We're saying that that should apply on any highway designated as a highway under the Highway Act. As the member perhaps knows, people come in who have a gun in a case. They're legally bringing it into the country to go into a territory; their hunting licence is picked up for them by the guide-outfitter. And yet they are in effect illegally carrying that gun in that case because of this designation. So it's really saying, instead of just Highway 1 or Highway 2, the same rule now applies on any highway designated under the Highway Act. That's all.
Sections 19 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
MRS. WALLACE: This deals with the fund that is established for habitat protection, according to my reading of the act. I just wanted to ask the minister if, in providing these classifications.... Clarifying that, is there any intent that the total amount of contribution will decrease? Or is there an intent to increase the amount that goes into that habitat conservation fund? It's a very small amount as it is. I know that sports persons in this province would certainly like to see more money going in there. I'm wondering if the effect of this will be to leave the amount the same. Or will it decrease or increase it?
[4:45]
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, this does not deal with the actual amount of fees. In effect, we have separate fees for seniors and other people. There are periodic lobbies that we have special rates or increased rates — for changing the rates. It was felt that technically and legally there may be an accusation that because of discrimination on the basis of age, sex or something of that nature, we were putting out different fees when we were not entitled to legally. This legalizes, in effect, what the process is right now.
MRS. WALLACE: So what the minister is saying is that there will be no change in the amount collected per capita in this fund — that it's exactly the same as it was before. It's just clarifying that and is nothing that will tend to increase or decrease the fund.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman, no fee changes are implied here. Those fee changes are set from time to time by regulation. This does not change the fee. At the moment, they are remaining the same. So if next year fees are raised or the habitat conservation fund is.... If we want to change that, it's permitted under this. But this does not say bow much the fees will be. That's under regulations.
MR. PASSARELL: On section 25(b), hon. minister, I would like to congratulate the minister for bringing in this piece of legislation. As we've had problems in rural areas — in Atlin particularly with not having an individual from the Ministry of Environment there for game and check-ins — I appreciate his adding this new section, because it will help hunters in the far north. It's a good piece of legislation.
Sections 25 and 26 approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 40, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr Speaker, I call committee on Bill 45.
TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT
The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, have we ever had a piece of legislation go through without somebody standing up and saying something?
Interjections.
MR. PASSARELL: As I said earlier, this is an excellent piece of legislation. I can't find anything wrong with it.
Sections 4 to 10 inclusive approved.
On section 11.
MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure at all that this is the right section, but my point certainly relates probably to part four as much as anything,
What I am concerned about is that we seem to get into the transportation of hazardous products without any prior overall studies, and I am referring specifically to what's happened as a result of a study that was carried on in Vancouver harbour. Now we're having the possibility of hazardous material coming into Victoria harbour. I'm concerned about it going up and down the Island.
Now, I know that an inspector could have a look at that, and I'm going to try to tie it into this particular thing. He can have a took at a specific thing on-site. But my point is that what I would hope would be undertaken in connection with this act is not just having inspections of given products at given areas, but having some sort of much larger overall
[ Page 5083 ]
project — something similar to what was originally recommended by the federal government relative to transportation of hazardous material on the waters between and around Vancouver Island and the mainland — so that there would be a much broader kind of thing and so that that whole business of inspection could relate to a much wider concept and an overall review of how and where this material should best be handled. I'm afraid that I'm probably out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I didn't know where else to put it in this act.
HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what the member was getting at, but in a broad scope all this legislation does is to support federal legislation regarding highways . The federal government has complete jurisdiction over water and harbours and so on. There's no change contemplated on that in this legislation. I don't know if that answers the question or not.
Sections 11 to 27 inclusive approved.
Schedule approved.
Title approved.
HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You've heard the motion. All those in favour say "aye." Opposed? So ordered.
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN. Did I hear a division called?
MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Did I hear the Chairman so order before a division call was made? A member who asked for a division after that order was not in his chair at the time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. The vote was taken.
In response to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, certainly it's not unusual for the chair to say "so ordered" and then for a division to be called. In this particular instance, I would rule that a division has been called, and it is in order.
Motion approved unanimously on a division.
[5:00]
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,
Bill 45, Transport of Dangerous Goods Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. NEILSEN. Committee on Bill 39.
HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
MR. MITCHELL: I'm not sure if I'm out of order, but I would like some explanation from the minister of a problem that has taken place in my riding. He may be aware of it, and if he could give the community an update of the position....
The situation happened when one of the septic tank sludge operators was caught dumping septic sludge in the bush in a rural area. The Crown, the police and the prosecutor attempted to get charges laid, but because of the wording of the act they didn't have sufficient information to get a charge laid. I know that the Health minister and the staff within his ministry have been attempting to reword the legislation. This is very vague, and I am not sure if this is the time that it should have come in. On behalf of the Western Community, could the minister tell us where that legislation they're working on is coming before the House — this session or next session? Obviously this is not the section, but it is kind of a vague part of it. It's a problem of what's happening with septic sludge in the communities.
HON . MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, that matter would have to be addressed by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet), under the Waste Management Act, I believe. If there is a fault with respect to definitions, it probably is in the Waste Management Act. This section is attempting to provide the Ministry of Health with what is deemed to be a far better definition than was previously found in the section. But I believe the member's question is a matter that would be dealt with by the Ministry of the Environment, probably with an amendment to the Waste Management Act. I think that's where the problem lies.
MR. PASSARELL: To be fair to the Minister of Health, even though the amendment falls under his jurisdiction, this one section falls under the Minister of Environment. I have a legal question here in regard to this section, particularly in light of a problem that happened a few years ago with the Amax situation, in which 12,000 tonnes of mine waste were dumped into the ocean, and the legal case that followed it. My concern is a legal clarification on the wording of section 3. It says: "injurious to the health, safety or comfort of a person shall…prevent and cease the discharge."
As much as I was in opposition to the dumping of 12,000 tonnes of mine waste into the ocean, and the court case that followed afterwards, is it now possible that an individual who believes that the comfort to their individuality, because of the Amax mine dumping or any mine dumping in this province…can be ceased if this act is brought in?
I know it's not really under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, but I'm wondering if the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr, Brummet) or the deputy minister could be found to address this question.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's question, I wouldn't think it would change that situation. The reference to the word "comfort" is common is several statutes. Apparently there are certain conditions which may physically affect a person which could not necessarily be proven to be injurious to health or the person's safety, but for a specific period of time or at that moment it certainly could affect his comfort.
[ Page 5084 ]
MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, do I take the minister to say that if my comfort is affected by smoking in a room, I can report it to the health officer?
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Under this section, "a person who causes or permits the discharge into the land, water or air of a substance that is, or may be, injurious to the health, safety or comfort of a person shall promptly notify…." So if you are responsible for that discharge into the air, you shall contact the medical health officer.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, section 4 refers to the Emergency Health Services Commission, and from the way we read this it appears that the commission is literally being wiped out. I have a couple of questions for the minister, because it refers to the fact that he can limit this right down in numbers. When did the commission last meet, and how many commission members are there at present? My third and final question on this to the minister is: why is this move taking place? We see it as almost wiping out a commission whose main function, I believe, was to coordinate all health emergency services, particularly during disasters — which we hope won't descend upon us, but it gave a sense of security to know we had this. I'm wondering what is going to take its place in coordinating for disastrous times.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the commission will continue. It will not, however, be required to have the five members referred to in the existing legislation. Rather, it will be one or more members. It is my intent, if this receives passage, that I would appoint the assistant deputy minister of institutional services to be chairman of the commission, and at that time it would be a one-man commission. There is no prohibition, however, from adding others to the commission. At the present time, Mr. Chairman, there are five persons on the commission. All of them are public servants. We don't believe it is necessary at this time to have the commission beyond the one person who is directly responsible for the health emergency services with respect to ambulances and so on. Should the time come at any time in the future when it is required that more members be appointed, they can be.
MRS, DAILLY: I just have one final question on this before we move on. Can you assure us then that this commission will continue to perform this coordinating function for disaster periods?
HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sorry?
MRS. DAILLY: Will the commission still fulfil its original purpose?
HON. MR, NIELSEN: Yes, the commission will fulfil its purpose, Mr. Chairman. The number of members and the specific members should have no effect. The commission will continue as it has been and if necessary we could expand it in the future to respond to specifics.
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons the commission was set up as it was was so that there could be some interdepartmental coordination. I recognize that for some time all the people on the commission have been public servants, but some people relate more closely with hospitals and others relate more closely with other aspects of health care delivery, I would hope that the minister might consider that in terms of the centralization, particularly when it's a commission that you don't have to pay an additional sum for because they are already on salary. Sometimes that kind of coordination is needed. Really and truly it was set up to govern the ambulance service, which has all the other relationships with other aspects of health care.
Sections 4 to 22 inclusive approved.
On section 23.
MRS. DAILLY: This section has changes regarding "naturopath" to "doctor of," and we have no quarrel with that. However, we're all aware that this whole area has had some headlines recently, and we in the opposition simply want to ask the minister his opinion and his reaction as Minister of Health to the fact that at present there are two naturopaths in British Columbia who are practising a very controversial balloon treatment. We are all aware of a very unfortunate happening in another province with that. I would simply ask the minister: are you equally concerned, as many other people have expressed their concern, and have you any intention to have discussions on this? How do you feel about the practice, which apparently has had some serious ramifications'?
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, that particular case is very, very difficult because of the number of questions it produces. I am advised that a certain practice followed by some naturopathic practitioners has been fairly common in the past. There was a situation where apparently there was a problem associated with that treatment with a youngster in Alberta and the youngster died. I believe the judge in Alberta found that the practitioner was guilty of practising medicine and prohibited that practitioner from practising medicine. He was fined — I think it was $5,000 and a day in jail. The practice itself, however, is not illegal, as far as we understand, That specific practice is not deemed to be an illegal practice. The argument, I believe, in Alberta was whether it was a practice that only a licensed doctor could undertake.
We have been in contact with the naturopathic committee in British Columbia and I have been advised that that practice is presently not occurring in the province. The naturopathic organization has taken unto itself to resolve that problem, if there is a problem. I think it's well in hand and I think it's unfortunate that certain members of the media made some very strong accusations and reached their own conclusions, unfortunately without the aid of the facts.
[5:15]
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you that we let this bill go to committee retaining the latitude of some debate around the principle.
I would just like to register my belief and my feeling that it's about time we got back to studying the whole question of umbrella legislation for health care practitioners. I believe that we're proliferating the field with all sorts of organizations who have their own act, their own discipline.... Sometimes you wonder if that's a good idea, to the extent that
[ Page 5085 ]
we have gone. I believe that there should be licensing, and I believe that there should be a very careful peer review in each of these groups. But you know, first it was the podiatrists, and then the psychologists, and the dieticians want their act, and everybody wants their act. I believe that the only thing we can possibly do is consider some of the old reports, the Mustard report and other reports that have happened in this country. Let's get rid of a lot of these independent organizations that have the kind of latitude that they have. I really feel that it's time we should study that.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I would generally agree with what the member for New Westminster was saying about an umbrella approach to legislation to take care of various people involved in the delivery of health care. In this specific instance, we are simply permitting naturopathic physicians to use the term "doctor of naturopathic," since they already have their own act. But it is a serious problem with the proliferation of people involved in health care. They each want their own act for some reason, probably for recognition if nothing else. I think the umbrella approach is far preferable.
Sections 23 and 24 approved.
On section 25.
MRS. DAILLY: Section 25 refers to the psychiatric nurses as well as the practical nurses. I was contacted, and perhaps the minister has been too, by the psychiatric nurses, who are simply asking if they can have a change in wording here, which means quite a bit to their group. They want the word "registered" put in before "psychiatric." I don't know if the minister has been made aware of that. Their main reason is that they are not responsible for all psychiatric nurses, and they want that put clearly in this act so that it states "registered" before, because there are some graduate nurses who are not registered psychiatric nurses.
They simply wondered if that change could be made, and I have an amendment here, Mr. Chairman, which would change the line in section 25. Sections 1(b) and (c) would be amended by adding the word "registered" before the word "psychiatric." Then it would read, "registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse," and 1(c) would read: "registered psychiatric nurse."
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is the amendment in order, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
On the amendment.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would not wish to accept the amendment at this time, because the material which has been prepared is the end result of discussions with the associations and staff within the ministry. But I would give an undertaking that should further discussion take place and the suggestion by the member creates no difficulties.... I don't know whether it was a concern about registered nurses with respect to their own name, or registered psychiatric nurses. But should the member's request be reasonable, I can assure her that we can always bring in a minor amendment later on and perhaps fulfil their desire, if it doesn't meet with objections from the officials or the other organizations.
MR. COCKE: Just so that the minister has an idea, at least my taking of this whole question, the fact that psychiatric nurses, whose training is quite intensive.... They take as much training as a registered nurse for the most part, particularly now where the whole training system has changed. I think they feel left out. If the registered nurses are called registered nurses, why shouldn't the psychiatric nurses be called registered psychiatric nurses? Other than that, I can't see where it could do a mite of harm. As a matter of fact, it can't do any harm. I can't really see why the minister doesn't accept it now, but if he refuses, then we're not going to protract this debate.
Amendment negatived.
Section 25 approved.
On section 26.
MRS. DAILLY: Section 26 refers to the Council of Practical Nurses. I know the minister has been approached and has met, I believe, with the practical nurses' association, so I know he's quite aware of some of their concerns. I think one of their main concerns is that they went to considerable work preparing a whole new draft to do with their act, and to do with anything referring to the practical nurses. Here we're presented now with some changes, and I don't really think they had an opportunity to be part of those changes. I want to say to the minister that I hope that before any more changes are made they could be consulted, because I know they did a lot of work in preparing their own draft changes.
Their concern is with the makeup of the council. I'd just like to point out for the minister's consideration that they find that the psychiatric nurses' consumer representation on their advisory council is far more comprehensive than the one that is put out here for the council of practical nurses . They would like a broader representation. I see that you have changed it so that there has to be a practical nursing instructor who is a registered nurse. They do feel that they have not been given the same privilege. we might say, as other associations in having wider representation. I'd like to go on record expressing that on their behalf.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, we're caught in the midst of a time differential, I suppose. The changes which wore put forward in this act were sent to the practical nurses, and there was discussion on these changes. Since that time, they have submitted what in effect would be almost a rerun of the entire act. There was consultation, and at the present time there is consultation with respect to their latest request, which is far broader than these amendments here. These wore consistent with what was required previously, but since that time, they have asked for almost a complete redraft, which we are now considering.
Section 26 approved.
On section 27.
MRS. DAILLY: This one refers to the funding of education projects for the council of practical nurses. It does state
[ Page 5086 ]
"may." Would the minister consider an amendment changing that to "shall"?
HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.
MRS. DAILLY: Before I put it in, I'll ask you why not.
HON. MR. NIELSEN; ML Chairman, it would be at their discretion. It would be at the council's discretion, should they wish to use some of those funds for educational projects. I don't think we should require them to do so.
Sections 27 to 40 inclusive approved.
On section 41.
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 41, which is the commencement, I'd just like to ask the minister.... We note that the Registered Nurses' Association are contemplating some significant changes in the future, and are writing to us by the bushel. I would just ask the minister whether or not their concerns are justified. He can answer as vaguely as he likes, but I sure would like to have some sort of an answer, because we are getting an awful lot of letters questioning that.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Practical nurses?
MR. COCKE: No, registered nurses.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Registered Nurses' Association of B.C. has launched a campaign based on concern or fear. We met with their executive yesterday and I believe we have resolved almost all the issues. There still remain one or two issues where we have not reached a complete consensus, but I think that to a very large degree much of it has been resolved. I don't believe their concern is as serious as perhaps some of them may think it is. But we did have an excellent meeting with them yesterday, and I believe we can resolve the questions. I've already received a response from their executive with respect to what we discussed yesterday, and in most instances we agree. I think we can solve it.
Section 41 approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 39, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 44.
EXPO 86 CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
The House in committee on Bill 44; Mr. Strachan in the chair.
On section 1.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'd just like to make a point, Mr. Chairman, regarding the exposition site itself, which is covered in this section. It's worth reflecting on the demise of British Columbia Place. What we have here is a classic situation in terms of two organizations scrambling for space. The loser has clearly been B.C. Place in terms of.... It's interesting that we've lost the kind of permanent improvements that might have been established had there been a more equitable balance between B.C. Place and Expo in terms of the space.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just to respond briefly, Mr. Chairman, I can't let that remark go unchallenged. B.C. Place is the landlord and still retains the land that the member describes. Expo 86 is merely the tenant for the duration of the fair, and at the conclusion of our world exposition, all the land reverts to B.C. Place, so I take exception to those remarks.
MR. WILLIAMS: The point, Mr. Chairman, is that we all certainly want Expo to be a success, but at the same time, there could be permanent programs in place on some of those lands. I'm not entirely satisfied that there has been a balanced look. Clearly the need to make Mr. Pattison the chief officer with respect to both corporations was the way you dealt with the problem. Clearly, the city didn't get the permanent kind of program and employment with it that might have taken place otherwise.
[5:30]
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Perhaps not to drag it out interminably, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the member that he go down to the Expo display centre and take a look at what is proposed for that site at the conclusion of the fair. I think that he will agree that it will then become the largest urban renewal project in North America.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
MR. WILLIAMS: This then means that there are no limits. Is that the case, in terms of numbers on the board? As I recall, the exposition in New Orleans had 200-some members on their board of directors. It was clearly what one did with the business community in terms of endearing them to the administration.
It seems that the idea of an endless number of members on the board of directors is a little disturbing. Maybe if the ranks of the unemployed could be included, some 228,000 people would have free access to Expo during the fair.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that we have no intention of having a limitless number of members. As for the member's second suggestion, the members serve without pay, and I would hasten to point that out, I'm sure it wouldn't do the unemployed very much good.
MR. WILLIAMS: I presume they certainly would have access privileges that don't require buying tickets at Woodward's. Would that be the case, through you, Mr. Chairman?
Section 2 approved.
[ Page 5087 ]
On section 3.
MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, under section 3, which is discussing the relinquishing of the codes for building safety and whatnot, we would not have any trouble agreeing to the statements made within this section providing that the adequate safety measures have in fact been provided for under the master control standards that are discussed in section 3(5), I believe. I would suggest that if these master control agreement standards could be tabled prior to third reading, we would not have any difficulty — upon the perusal of those standards.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I doubt very much if I could table them in that short order, but I would be more than happy to provide a copy of them to the member or to anyone else who wishes them. They were agreed upon by the city of Vancouver and by Expo, and they shall apply in this act. So at my leisure, if you like, I would be happy to provide you with a copy. I doubt very much if I could accomplish that by third reading.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if these are the standards the minister is referring to, I'd be happy to table them and....
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have them; give them to your colleague.
MR. WILLIAMS: No, I think it's important that we understand that these are the documents, and this is the result of some process between a range of experts and the experts and staff of the city of Vancouver.
So we have the assurance that this is in fact the document?
HON, MR. RICHMOND: Well, I assume that that is the same document that I have. It's the master control standards, and it's spelled out very clearly in section 3(5) that the master control standards shall apply. I think it's very plain, and you have my assurance that that is the case.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, this is good to see in regard to liquor being sold on the Expo site on Sundays. It's a long time coming. As an individual who has a beer once or twice on a Sunday, it's good to see, because I'm getting a little tired of going in on a Sunday in this province and having to buy some crackers or something to get a beer, eh?
AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!
MR. PASSARELL: Oh, come on now!
I certainly hope that with this piece of legislation that's bringing us into the twentieth century here in the province of British Columbia, once the fair is completed it will remain as legislation to look forward to in '86 and '87 and continually.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I must correct the member. Section 4 only deals with the delivery of liquor, beer, wine, etc., to the site. It has nothing to do with the sale of such items. He is confusing it with a regulation which was brought out separately by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Bon. Mr . Hewitt). Section 4 merely deals with the delivery of goods to the site on Sundays.
MR. PASSARELL: Would the minister accept an amendment that I could become a truck driver?
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on this section which will allow, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the expenditure of funds beyond the anticipated revenues. This is an opportunity for he minister to perhaps review the problem associated with the construction of the north gate, which was originally a commitment by the Expo corporation at the time the amusement portion of the fair was going to be constructed.
What I'm hoping the minister will clarify for the House is the decision to cancel the north gate, and that he will explain the circumstances around which it was cancelled. The obvious disappointment of the Chinatown merchants and the Chinatown community as a result of this decision has been such that, if we consider the minuscule amount of dollars that would have been involved in constructing this site, it is indeed an unfortunate occurrence. Certainly it's one that I think members on both sides of the House must regret, considering as well this particular community.
Mr. Chairman, you seem to be shaking your head as though I'm out of order. I don't believe so, because....
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I look at section 7, it deals with winding up the affairs of the corporation and royalties. I find t hard to relate that to construction.
MR. BARNES: No, it deals with shortfalls, as I understand it. In other words, anticipated or estimated expenditures having been less than revenues, then the government would have the right to approve expenditures, and I'm saying hat the amount of money required to construct the north gate is so small in relation to the benefits that I would like the minister to explore that decision with the House.
As the representative for the area, I am getting considerable input from those merchants who feel they could have contributed to the success of Expo. In the spirit of statements made by the Premier recently that we want to encourage individual initiative, individual enterprise and the efforts of small businesses, Expo certainly couldn't find a better example to encourage this type of activity than the Chinatown community. It has traditionally demonstrated a strong sense of community cooperation and a willingness to sacrifice in order to enhance the common good of the community. In fact, the Chinatown community probably stands as one of the best examples anywhere in North America, and outside China itself, of what can happen when a small group of people are determined to try to help themselves, so to speak. I think this is an economic zone without special permission from anyone; it just evolved that way over a period of time.
If there is no change back to the original plans of Expo 86 Corporation to construct that gate, we will, in effect, have to use a rather dramatic expression — an iron gate right between Chinatown and the Expo site, which will be a disappointing situation when you consider the people who will be
[ Page 5088 ]
coming to the fair and looking to enjoy the amenities associated with the Chinatown community. By the way, it's a community that all British Columbians are proud of, it's a community that is truly an experience in itself. It's something we would want to showcase; we would want to display it. To have that access at the north end of the site would be one way in which we could do that and also generate economic activity which, although I'm not sure it's been calculated, would be quite impressive.
I did have the opportunity to speak with the Minister of Tourism, who was very cooperative in sharing some of the concerns that had existed prior to the decision to cancel the construction of the north gate.
To make a representation on behalf of those people who are directly involved, I would have to ask the minister to reflect upon what efforts were taken in consultation with the local people to try to arrive at an alternative solution, in light of the concerns that the Expo Corporation had in trying to work within the $800 million budget.
I realize that there was a cost factor involved and that some adjustments had to be made. In fact, that's probably why the amusement portion was cancelled, because it was quite cost-prohibitive. But it also wiped out this gate, which affected the opportunities of those people in the Chinatown community to benefit by expanding the parameters, so to speak, of the site into that immensely impressive community.
Mr. Chairman, I have recently spoken to a number of the merchants who feel that an elaborate, ornate kind of access gate is not really required, although desirable. Obviously they would like to see as elaborate and impressive a design as possible. But speaking strictly from a functional point of view, from a practical dollar-saving, restraint-conscious point of view, they're only interested in allowing the patrons to get in and out of that site into the Chinatown area. We're looking at a proposition that will be affordable. In fact, it will be so economic in terms of cost that there will be no way that we could deny the construction of that site.
Now some of the proposals that I have had an opportunity to review are estimated to cost less than half a million dollars. I don't know of any hard figures that have been developed as a result of any hard studies, but half a million dollars to construct the access to the site is far different than the $2.5 million to $3 million that had been recommended or suggested in the past.
So this really is a questionable decision, because access is all we're talking about — not something elaborate, not a showpiece in itself. The experience of going through the gate is not the issue; it's getting the people in and out of the gate; allowing the activity in the Chinatown community, and in turn allowing the people in Chinatown to get into the gate, which will help Expo. I think we're looking at a positive solution to a problem that will certainly inspire everyone involved — Expo and the Chinese community. Most of all, it will certainly be a bonus for the people who are going to be paying those prices to go into Expo. They will be able to get a full experience when they come to British Columbia, I think this is something else that we want to see happen.
[5:45]
I want to be able to report this Friday to a meeting being held by the merchants from Chinatown, the people from Gastown and some of the societies — the benevolent association and a number of other people. We're expecting something like 200 or more people to attend that meeting to discuss this problem. I know that the minister has been invited, but perhaps he will not be able to attend. In light of the spirit of cooperation, consultation and constructivism, of trying to resolve problems and give the taxpayers a good return, I hope we will be able to find a solution. That gate can be constructed, and we can have a solution to this problem. We do not have to take hard positions. All we have to do is sit down and find a solution. Everyone seems to want it constructed, even Expo, but I think the dollars have gotten in the way. Now that we're prepared to remove the dollars as a major issue, what is there to stop us? I hope the minister will respond to those concerns.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, Mr. Chairman, although the member's comments are well taken, I don't think they relate to this section, which is a section to allow us to administer the finances of the corporation, both now and at the windup of the exposition. Since he went on at length, maybe if he would allow me the same latitude I could make a few remarks. I did invite the member down to my office, and went into the situation in a fair amount of detail this afternoon; and I answered him in question period. I'll just elaborate a little bit further.
Yes, I did receive an invitation to a meeting Friday night, but it came within the last two days and I have another commitment in my constituency. So unfortunately I can't make this meeting Friday night. To reiterate what I said in question period, Mr. Member, in October 1984 I met with the leaders of the Chinese community, the Vancouver Renaissance Society — I believe I called it by the wrong name this afternoon — some business leaders from that area, and others. This was after the decision was taken to incorporate the amusement area of the fair into the main fair site. It was done strictly for monetary reasons, as I explained to you. The budget was capped at that time at $806 million, I believe. Determined not to let that budget rise, as these things can get out of hand very quickly, the board instructed the management that if they wished to add anything else to the fair they would have to find the money within that budget; hence the decision to incorporate the amusement area into the main body of the fair. The saving was in the area of $56 million, not a small amount of money. I may be out a little bit, but it was in that neighbourhood.
That is the only reason that move was made. The gate in question — a full service gate — was in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million. When I met with these leaders in October, I urged them to come back to me with a counter proposal. I even outlined the nature of what that proposal should be, as I outlined to you. They should come to me with a request for a pass-through gate, not a full-service gate, where we would have to handle money and the added security, etc. Come with a request for a pass-through gate where people who had already been ticketed at Canada Harbour Place or on the main fair site could pass in or out, or people with yearly passes or three-day passes could pass in or out and we wouldn't have to handle money. I'm still waiting for them to come back to me, Mr. Member It's nearly six months. As I explained, the window may not be there anymore because of other developments that have taken place. We just may not be able to reconsider putting a pass-through gate there, even if they do come back with a proposition. But I'm still waiting to hear from them. They have spoken to the media, as I've said, and they've spoken to you and who knows who else, but they have yet to phone me and come back with a proposition of any kind. So I urge you, then, if you are speaking with them, to
[ Page 5089 ]
ask them to pick up the phone and call me. I can't make them any promises, because the time may be past. It may be too late because of other developments on the fair grounds. So I hope that answers your query.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As the minister indicated, the topic under discussion does not really qualify as proper debate for section 7, but I guess a response is appropriate.
MR, BARNES: Under the new rules, I hope you don't make a ruling that I'll have to object to because you'll rule it out of order. I don't intend to prolong.... In light of the circumstances, is the minister prepared to keep the door open long enough for the group of people who are meeting this weekend to have a realistic chance of making a proposal? In other words, I'm not sure what he means when he suggests that the time may be too late. He's not sure. That sounds like he may be sure by the time he leaves the chambers and we won't know. So I would like to know, even if it's only another day or two or three or a week or two weeks or a month. Can we have a commitment as to how much time we have in order to come back with a proposal? If he could say that, I would be satisfied, Mr. Chairman.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, my door is always open to listen to a proposal. However I'm not so sure that the opportunity still exists, because of other negotiations that are going on. But I will give you and the merchants and everyone in the city of Vancouver a commitment that I'll do my utmost to...I guess I was going to say to "conform" but that's the wrong word. I'll give you my undertaking that I'll do what I can to accomplish what they want. I wish they would come back a lot sooner, and I can't go into the details now of what these other commitments are, because negotiations are still going on. But I will give them my firm commitment to meet with them and do everything I can to accomplish what it is they want. Okay?
MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a few more concerns with regard to section 7. The wording for section 7 essentially gives the Expo corporation up to one year after the closing of the fair to wind up the financial affairs of that corporation. My concern in this regard is that, basically, it's almost an admission of a projected deficit. I realize there already have been indications that the deficit will be around $311 million; there are indications that it may be over $500 million. By inserting these amendments into the legislation, it is in fact an admission that the fair is going to incur a very large deficit.
My concern with regard to that deficit — and I would like some direction from the minister in this regard — is that it would allow the B.C. Lottery Fund to dump in money for up to one year after that fair has closed. In essence, this is an attempt to bide that deficit. My concern here is that our lottery funds have for too long been tied up in the financing of this fair. In fact, if those funds are tied up for a year past the fair, they are unavailable for other worthwhile community projects.
I have another concern with regard to section 7 and section 6 just before it. Section 7 allows for the financial aspects of the fair to be given a year's time to wrap up afterward. If we refer back to section 6: "A member of the board of directors or the executive committee shall not" — and this is where the amendment took place — "in that capacity be remunerated by the corporation…" The question that comes to my mind is that if those individuals are no longer in the capacity of the executive committee after the fair closes, then it does allow retroactive remuneration to take place for those individuals. I would like some assurances by the minister that the wording will not allow there to be retroactive remuneration for those individuals.
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, it appears that a number of members wish to make additional comments upon this bill, so I think it's appropriate at this time that I move the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.