[ Page 3189 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

PCB shipment through B.C. waters. Mrs. Wallace –– 3189

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Mr. Passarell –– 3189

Motor vehicle safety. Mr. Passarell –– 3189

Mr. Cocke

Habitat conservation fund. Hon. Mr. Brummet replies –– 3190

Foreclosures in Vancouver. Mr. Blencoe –– 3190

Psychological experiments. Mr. Howard –– 3190

Mr. Cocke

Taxes on banks. Mr. Lea –– 3190

Tabling Documents –– 3191

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3191

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Premier's office estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: premier's office –– 3205

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Ombudsman estimates.

On vote 3: office of the Ombudsman –– 3208

Mr. Reid

Mrs. Dailly

Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates.

On vote 1: legislation –– 3208

Mr. Cocke

Supply Act (No 4), 1983 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Curtis 3209

Royal assent

Prorogation –– 3210

Appendix –– 3211

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1984

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the members of the Legislature to join me in welcoming some visitors to the gallery today and to the precincts. They are all directors of the Islands Protection Society from the Queen Charlotte Islands. They are here to educate us all on good reasons to look at the southern part of Moresby Island and to look at saving that for future generations. I'd like to introduce those directors to you. Sitting in the gallery today are Jack Miller, Josette Weir and Tom Snider. I don't see John Broadhead up there, but he is in the precinct somewhere. I'd ask you to join with me in welcoming them.

Oral Questions

PCB SHIPMENT THROUGH B.C. WATERS

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't expect to be first on the list, but the absence from the cabinet benches gives me that opportunity.

My question is for the Minister of Environment, who I will say is a faithful attender of question period. My question is this: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that a shipment of 261 long tonnes of toxic PCBs are being shipped through Johnstone Strait, Discovery Pass and the Strait of Georgia. That's a lot of PCBs, Mr. Speaker.

The government has long claimed that it has jurisdiction over these inland waters. I wonder whether or not the minister was consulted prior to this proposed shipment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Briefly, no, we were not consulted prior to the shipment. However, as soon as it came to our attention, we checked with the federal authorities. My people have been gathering what information they can on it. Apparently at this time there is no requirement for prenotification of the federal authorities when it comes through Canadian waters. We have contacted the federal authorities, and they are now going to meet with the appropriate United States authorities to see if this can't be rectified in an agreement that pre-notification be given. I agree with the member that that would be a great deal of PCBs. Unfortunately the member has not got the whole story. There are two hundred and whatever it is tonnes of varied material ranging from some very slightly tainted with PCBs to some minor quantities of concentrated materials that are being shipped to Seattle. The ship was inspected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency when it left Alaska. When it enters Canadian waters, it comes under special traffic management regulations; therefore other ships give it a wide berth and it's covered by radar. The barge has been certified as seaworthy in heavy waters and, as nearly as we can determine, it's being monitored by the federal authorities. Our people are keeping tabs on it and it's as safe as it can possibly be.

MRS. WALLACE: Can you tell me, Mr. Minister, if these are single-bottom or double-bottom barges?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: My information is that it's a double-bottom barge, and that the material is also double packaged or triple packaged. It's in 30-gallon drums, which are put in 45-gallon drums, which are again put in containers. So every precaution has been taken.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES LTD.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources responsible for transit in the province: will the minister advise the time frame of the government for awarding the sale of Pacific Coach Lines? Secondly, will it be decided during the month of February?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the date of the finalization of the company's sale. When I hear from the board of directors, I'll be able to give the House that information.

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

MR. PASSARELL: I have another question to the same minister. On February 7 the minister declined my request for a moratorium on the sale of Pacific Coach Lines pending a full public inquiry into bus safety and safety precautions. Would the minister now advise whether she supports such an inquiry, independent of her desire to liquidate Pacific Coach Lines?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe my response to the inquiry this past week on the same subject was done in light of the fact that I am not aware of those who are making proposals to the board of directors to purchase that company. Therefore I have simply passed on to the board of directors the implication that I assumed was in the member's question last week, inasmuch as we would take safety measures and the safety capability of any purchaser into consideration. I have done so.

MR. PASSARELL: Is the minister aware of the concerns of the police and the transit operators over the government's decision to close the Burnaby testing station on March 9, 1984? What provisions has the minister made for regular safety inspection of transit buses?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to take that question as notice at this time.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The minister is aware that two vacancies have been created on the Motor Carrier Commission by the departure of Mr. Sutherland on January 15, 1984, and Mr. Basile on February 4, 1984. What assurances can the minister give that he will keep the salivating Socreds away from these jobs and appoint people with experience and commitment to safety?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

HON. A. FRASER: To the member, we're aware of that and we're acting on it.

MR. PASSARELL: In view of the fact that the one remaining commissioner does not constitute a quorum, will the minister assure this House that the new appointments will be made with dispatch to help clean up the traffic safety mess created by this government?

[ Page 3190 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would make the same response as to the first question.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask that strangely silent minister a question as well. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has reported to this House that the abolition of motor vehicle testing stations is expected to result in four more deaths and 237 more injuries per year. The minister has said he has no way of knowing whether this information is correct. Does the minister plan to find out?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have lots of opinions we look at all the time.

MR. COCKE: In view of the fact that the minister takes the ICBC report so lightly, will he advise this House what information the original policy of closing testing stations was based on, or will he consider tabling the information in the House?

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Please repeat your question.

MR. COCKE: You closed down the testing stations, assuring this House that everything would be okay. A very large Crown corporation has said everything will not be okay. Will the minister tell us on what basis he closed those testing stations? Did he have any idea what it would to do to human lives and human suffering?

I would like to ask one additional question. The ICBC report goes on to state that the additional accident injuries will cost ICBC and the insured motorists — who are also taxpayers — some $2.4 million per year. Will the minister advise what his estimate of the additional damage caused by closing the testing stations will be? Is it meaningful to the minister?

HON. A. FRASER: All these people are entitled to their opinions. You don't necessarily have to agree with them.

MR. PASSARELL: It took three inspectors working full-time for one week to check the seven buses of Conmac. How is one inspector going to check all 700 or more buses on Vancouver Island?

HON. A. FRASER: Again, there is a lot of assumption. I'm sure three inspectors didn't take all week to check the buses.

HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I took part of a question from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) on notice the other day. She asked how much we receive from the surcharge on licences for the habitat conservation fund, and how much is expended. I told her at that time that about $1.3 million is expected or estimated in revenue and $1.2 million is budgeted for expenditures. The projects approved to date are worth $960,000, and $622,000 has actually been expended to date.

FORECLOSURES IN VANCOUVER

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The B.C. supreme court registry reports a record number of foreclosures in the city of Vancouver for 1983. Although it is too late for those 4,300 who were subject to foreclosure proceedings in Vancouver last year, will the minister advise whether he is finally prepared to move on the problem of banks which have locked mortgage-holders into high-rate mortgages and which refuse to renegotiate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's a similar question to one asked before.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask a question of the Attorney-General. Based upon the apparent collaboration between the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States and the government of Canada a few years back to engage in psychotherapy and other mentally tortuous activities upon people who are now residents of British Columbia, Canadian citizens in any event, and inasmuch as some of those people whom that indignity was visited upon are contemplating court action against the federal government, will the minister commit himself and his ministry to assisting those residents of British Columbia in their case against the federal government?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General whether or not he feels there is a possibility that that same kind of procedure was being used in the province of British Columbia at about the same time. Has he had any report on that?

HON. MR. SMITH: I've had no such report, but I will make an inquiry.

MR. COCKE: I would suggest very strongly that the minister do make an inquiry. If he makes an inquiry will he report to the House?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I will.

TAXES ON BANKS

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The banking industry in this province and across Canada has doubled the spread between the interest rate paid on savings and the rate charged on borrowings. That change has resulted in an explosion of bank profits to the point where hundreds of millions of dollars are made by the banks in B.C. from that spread difference. Has the minister decided to increase the special bank tax introduced in May 1982, in order to capture some of that windfall profit for the taxpayers of this province?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert refers to a tax measure which was introduced by this government and which has added to the revenues of the provincial treasury, but I think the member would know

[ Page 3191 ]

that even if I were contemplating a change in the budget for 1984-85 I would not be in a position to comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the report of a joint federal British Columbia committee which studied and is reporting on the chlorophenate wood protection recommendations for design and operation.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled answers to questions taken as notice and on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

On vote 21: minister's office, $207,010.

MR. ROSE: I'll wait just a moment for the minister's officials to resume their seats and welcome them back. I hope they've had a sumptuous lunch. I hope the minister did too and is prepared to give me better answers than he did this morning. I'll try to ask shorter questions.

I have to begin with a little quote for the minister. I'll read it to him. It's from the Phi Delta Kappan, a magazine of professional educators, which makes it, of course, suspect right at the beginning. It is "Education's Move to Centre Stage: An Overview of Recent Studies," by one Harold Howe. I will read a couple of short quotes from this article, and I recommend the article to the minister for bedtime reading. He may have it there, or one of his page-turners may be able to help him with it. I am quoting from page 172:

"One of the dangers inherent in all the recommendations for more demanding courses and higher standards is that these more rigorous requirements will be insensitively applied and will force more young people out of school altogether. There is no adequate safety net today for a boy or girl who does not finish high school, and those who are recommending tougher standards for a high school diploma have not suggested one. 'Do you have a high school diploma?' is the first question that is asked, often." I am paraphrasing that. "It is possible to raise academic standards in high schools without rejecting large numbers of young people, but the difficulties in doing so are insufficiently recognized in many of the news reports."

What the man is saying is that we don't really recognize that the demand for higher and more rigorous standards is not that simple — applying tougher exams and making more rigorous courses. You do screen out a lot of people there, and that is a dangerous thing, because in our society we can't afford to have more dropouts. All those unskilled people are going to do is clutter up the labour market and be a cost, not to education but to human resources later on, or to the jails. Those are frustrated people who do not have a sense of direction, self-worth or anything else that is worth having possession of as a healthy human being.

The article goes on to say:

"You give a child nothing, I think, when you give him this joyless, driven concept of the meaning of learning. But alas, there are plenty among us who think this is just fine. Following the great cackles of the political anti-permissiveness crowd when this report was released" — that's 'Action for Excellence' — "I was struck again by how much such people, who claim to be champions of education, implicitly view education as a disagreeable thing. It is invariably discussed by them, and with relish, as something between medicine and a punishment that must be administered to its unwilling little subjects for their own good no matter how they howl. It is not supposed to be fun, they admonish, and children cannot be expected to like it — whatever happened to our moral fibre, and so forth. Schooling needs to be saved from these 'friends.'"

He has a number of other things to say there, but I won't quote them.

"There is a difference — night and day — between...fun and the joy of learning, and everyone who has ever had one great teacher of a serious subject knows what it is. So do those kids in a handful of slum schools notoriously programmed to fail who instead thrive because they are in the care of people who know what teaching is about. If we could acquire, come to honour, this great value, if we could truly aspire to become a learning society, the rest — the competitive and material benefits — would follow. But we keep trying to do it the other way around."

I guess what the man is saying is that teaching is an art as well as a discipline, and that some people, no matter what exams you put them through, as teachers, might fail the exams but turn out to be great teachers. As a matter of fact, there are some studies that show this, quoted most recently by our friend in the Province, Crawford Kilian. He says:

"The normal means of evaluating teacher performance are ratings by supervisors and students' scores on standardized achievement tests. Studies have shown that performance on the NTE and other teacher exams, has no correlation with normal — yardsticks. What is worse, it doesn't look as if supervisors' ratings and students' scores are reliable either. This means a teacher can do poorly on the NTE yet produce students who score high on standardized tests."

The same thing is true of students. They can score high on the standard tests or the external exam and yet do poorly at university. The converse is also true.

So if it isn't a reliable predictor, then why are we doing it? I mentioned before lunch that a number of studies have said it wasn't an external examination at all; rather it was the teachers' grades that were the greatest predictor of university success. The dean of education has quoted these in an article in the recent B.C. Teacher. Dan Birch quotes more than 800 studies which have shown that. Then why are we persisting with this inanity? Dr. Birch closes his argument by saying simply this. It is, I think, a word of advice for the minister. "Too great a reliance on any single predictor of success has severe disadvantages. Too great a reliance on success or failure based on 50 percent of an external exam, I think, is too great a reliance on a single factor." I hope that the minister and the ministry considers this.

Why do we have these tests anyway? I think we could summarize by saying the people who oppose them are not opposed to testing or even to evaluation. We support constant evaluation. I was, as you might know, a teacher at one time,

[ Page 3192 ]

and I felt that the more I tested the better my students became. It wasn't just the carrot and the whip; it was the fact that no one particular score was decisive in whether they succeeded or failed.

[2:30]

Those people who are objecting to these things say it's societal. It's the lack of consensus on goals; in other words, what are you trying to do? If you'll tell us what you're trying to do, what your goals are and then you test on the basis of those goals, then given all the other ifs and conditions it may well be acceptable. It's not the fact that we have a provincewide test that is the big issue; it's what we use it for and whether or not it does test the subject. I would almost be forced to use terrible words like validity and reliability, but I wouldn't do that. No, I wouldn't offend the Chair with that.

The second thing: lack of agreement on objectives. This is an objection. Distortion of the teaching curriculum to fit the narrow focus of examination; ignoring of future-oriented studies — you know, reliance on the past or the old curriculum, freezing it in, the iceberg approach; the uncertainty of the nature of knowledge. Socio-economic and ethnic and family and geographically induced variations of B.C. students — in other words, it's not fair to all students to give them the same tests; they come from different backgrounds linguistically, culturally and all the rest of it. The broad base of teacher information and reporting to the public on the competence of secondary-school graduates: we think the teacher is in a better position to tell the public how well the student is doing than one single test. The right of the provincial government to evaluate students: do you really have the right to do that? You may have, but legally it may be contentious. You may not really have that right any more. The external examinations promoted appendant and personal distress among students and teachers: teachers feel that they are being rated and students sometimes feel that they are being raped by the exam.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. ROSE: Yes, they do. Here is one student who wrote the supplemental in Chemistry 100 four times. I did. The fourth time I got 51 percent, and I promptly forgot all the chemistry I ever did know. It didn't make any difference. Another little autobiographical bit of trivia of interest to no one but me was my own particular experience in going into post-graduate work. From a degree in agriculture I went on to a masters in music. Did I have the prerequisites? Of course I did not, certainly not down on paper. I had it from a broad base of knowledge and a broad base of practice and experience. Certainly it wasn't the screens that the universities put up that helped me there.

Anyway, there seems to be always an implication on the part of the minister — and correct me if I'm misquoting — that the teaching federation does not want to cooperate in evaluation. Quite frankly, to use a very coarse term, I think that's a bum rap. I have a letter here of September 13, 1983, written to the minister, suggesting that they get together and discuss means of evaluation. I am quite certain the BCTF wasn't involved in these consultations or these exams. They asked the minister, and I'd like to ask him some questions too, and maybe he can make a note of them. Writing to the minister they had two major questions. "What modifications, if any, should be made to the provincial assessment program?" I understand there is one now. "Given that the government is committed to a system of provincial exams, what alternative should be considered by the ministry in implementing a long-range plan which will be in effect June 1984." And under this he says: "The committee will consider the following issues: the purpose of province-wide assessments and provincial exams." What is your purpose? Was that discussed with the BCTF? They wanted to discuss it with you and work with you on that. Did you or did you not?

"The relationship between what is tested and the goals of education." I touched on that earlier. What are the present goals of education? Are they the ones that were outlined in "Smith's apple report" two years ago, or have they changed? There are lots of inconsistencies between what the apple report has said and the recent actions of the minister and the ministry.

Graduation requirements of program offerings in the schools. Why don't we look at those things? Are we going to have exams in everything? Are we going to have exams of certain things? Are we going to have exams in everything every year? In what grade are we going to have these exams? And if we are, what are we going to do over the long haul? The context and evaluation in the total school program. A lot of people don't understand, Mr. Chairman, that when you give a test, you only take a small sample of all the things that were taught. I might learn 100 things out of 120 in the course, but if you tested me on only 20 things they might be the 20 I didn't learn. So I would flunk, and yet I know and have learned 100 out of the 120 things in the course material.

So there's that kind of bias in exams as well, aside from the cultural ones which I mentioned earlier. It's getting technical, and I want to be political about this. I don't want to be technical. I went through the technical side of it for a number of years and I didn't enjoy it very much sometimes.

Public and professional expectations in dealing with province-wide testing: what do people expect to get out of this? What does the department expect to get out of this? What do teachers expect to get out of this? Is it worthwhile? These are important questions. This is what the BCTF wanted to talk to you about, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you for exams or against them? Come on, one way or another — you're equivocating.

MR. ROSE: No, no, it's not yes or no. It's not at all a "When did you stop beating your wife" question.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you believe in a testing capacity? How's that?

MR. ROSE: I believe in the testing capacity of teachers. Certainly.

Here's a test item for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. It comes from the grade 12 English paper. I'd like to see how the minister would answer this multiple choice question: While looking at my map, the train pulled out; While looking at my map suddenly the train pulled out; The train pulled out while looking at my map; While reading my map the train pulled out; While I was looking at my map the train pulled out. Which is right?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did he have a map?

[ Page 3193 ]

MR. ROSE: The train didn't have a map. Answer the question. The minister has a map. I don't like his map, but he's got a map.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The minister not only flunked Latin, he couldn't even pass the English test.

Anyway, this rigour is supposed to produce scholars with rapier-like minds. Here's a sentence from the grade 7 reading examination: "Doors open and several race across the road." What raced across the road? Doors? That was in your exam. Terrific! That's shocking. In answer to the minister's question — I think it's important to answer ministers' questions — certainly you need evaluation, but to base the kid's whole career or 50 percent of it, on one exam? You need lots of exams, lots of evaluations, and there are different kinds.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Do you want some more of the exam?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're starting to demonstrate logic. They'll throw you out.

MR. ROSE: I wish the minister wouldn't interrupt, because I've only got about three hours left of this speech. As I go on it'll get worse, especially if I'm heckled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go back to the train and start from there.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, by and large, teachers are not very militant people. It takes a lot to provoke them. Their whole history has not been one of militancy. I think they are really concerned, not only about themselves but about education, to be forced into taking job action. They don't do that easily or willingly. I was a teacher long enough to know that. I didn't think they would ever be politicized at all. But if they feel that education is being threatened, their future is being threatened, then just like anybody else they're going to take certain kinds of steps to protect themselves and to protect what they believe in, what they were trained in, what they were taught to do. I would think the doctors would be similarly prepared to demonstrate if our health standards or our water systems or something else were allowed to erode and be neglected.

They don't want to be treated with contempt; they want to be treated with respect, and I think they're due a certain amount of respect. But when the Premier of this province went on radio on December 1 and said it would be very irresponsible for anyone at that time to put their own personal self-interest against the interests of our children, he was talking about teachers. And: "I think it would make clear once and for all to many people who have not understood the issue that the issue with Mr. Kuehn and the BCTF has never been our children or education." That's his opinion. But he's the Premier of the province; he sets the tone. He sets the tone of contempt for teachers — and by extension, for education.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, he does.

Listen to this: "It" — speaking about the job action — "has been self-serving for wage increases for teachers at a time when others don't have them, and to maintain employment at any costs, when others have faced layoffs." These teachers wanted a zero percent increase. That's all they wanted, and they didn't get it. That's what they got: zero.

Those were very, very difficult times. I'm glad they were resolved. At least, they were resolved on the surface. I think the anger and the resentment will linger for a long time. I don't think it will go away.

Also, the trustees were kind of mad at you people about that time, especially at the minister. They really weren't very pleased with the minister. The minister said, first of all, that they were going to have to make up the time. They weren't going to get that money; but if they were, maybe he'd consider it if they gave him suggestions on how to do it. Then he jumped on the plane and went to Germany. Three weeks later he came back and said they weren't getting the money anyway — a complete flip-flop. I'll leave it to you to decide who was the flop. But some trustees were pretty angry about this.

Here is a letter from Grand Forks: "We made our submission to you, only to find out through the news media that any proposal whatsoever would be unacceptable." This was after they were asked for ideas on what to do with that $15 million to $20 million. They probably studied the issue; they probably had meetings. The money was not to be returned to the individual school districts; it was earmarked for other purposes, and once again without consultation. The minister made a great deal out of his consulting. He also said — and this is in the Vancouver Sun of December 29, after he came back.... Did the minister make the announcement? Of course not. When you've got bad news to give, you get an official to do it on a Friday afternoon. The minister will make all the good announcements, but bad announcements are to be done by an official on a Friday afternoon after all the news boys have gone to the press club — that's when it should be done. Anyway, here's what the Sun had to say in an article on the 29th by Doug Ward, a labour reporter: "Heinrich also said that he knew in advance that proposals from school boards on how to make up instructional time...lost would be unacceptable, 'because no matter what happened there would be some inequities....'"If they would be unacceptable and you knew it in advance, why ask them? Why put them through the hoops?

[2:45]

Finally, I'd like to make another observation on those three days. Here is a newscast transcript from CKWX for November 10. The minister said: "Children lost three days in the classroom, and I think it's important that it be made up. That's the condition for some of those funds moving forward to the school districts." Of course, that's before he asked them, of course, how to do it. But when we stopped off in Geneva for five days the year before and the International Labour Organization in Geneva asked them why they did it, here's the minister's reply: "Regarding the reduction of the length of the school year, the government of British Columbia notes that this only affects the amount of pay for teachers in 1983, not the rate of pay, which was determined by collective bargaining." That's out the window too, now that the lid is on. It also points out that the reduction results in increased productivity. So when the minister makes them stay home for four or five days, that increases productivity. When the teachers take three days off on a job action protest, that's some crime against children. You can't have it both ways.

I can read you all kinds of letters — Burns Lake, Vancouver. Vancouver is not very pleased with what you're doing

[ Page 3194 ]

either. This is from the bulletin of the Vancouver School Board meeting. It was moved "...that a letter be sent to the Minister of Education expressing strong opposition to his decision to withhold the $1.2 million saved during the employees' withdrawal of service." Trustee Phil Rankin said the board had been put through a 'sham' because of the expectations that had been raised. "He criticized the minister for changing his mind without consultation. 'It's another example of taking autonomy away from the boards,' he said. Trustee Kim Campbell" — a former Socred candidate —"said she favoured the motion because she regarded the minister's action as a 'betrayal.'" Those are pretty strong words. "Trustee Graeme Waymark said expectations were raised, and he was concerned that the minister's decision had put the board in an uncomfortable position." So on and on it goes. People are unhappy. I don't know whether you could have asked them to put up the three days or not. The School Act is pretty clear on how many minutes are allowed in a school day. A certain amount of recess is required. Schools cannot exceed six hours. So it may be contrary to the act — even if they had been asked to make up the time. So anyway, from Vancouver we got two budgets: one which they're given and one which they need. There's quite a difference between the two budgets. I don't think you're going to win any popularity contest in Vancouver over this.

The part that bothers me is that we always hear: "We can't afford it. We've got to cut the cloth to fit the suit" — and other proverbs and clichés. But as a percentage of the gross provincial product — even the provincial budget — B.C. is presenting only 15.5 percent of its budget for education. That's all we're giving. Newfoundland gives 25 percent, Prince Edward Island 24 percent, Nova Scotia 24 percent, New Brunswick 23 percent, Quebec 25 percent, Ontario 20 percent, Manitoba 18 percent, Saskatchewan 15 percent and Alberta 17 percent. We're dead last. We're the only ones in Canada that have a recession? I really don't understand it.

I'd like to talk a little bit about finance. I don't know how my time is coming along; I haven't seen the light go on. It's probably too long for some people. I don't blame them. But, you know, it's a long time before I'll get another kick at this cat. I might not have another chance at the estimates until they're eleven-twelfths spent again.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Who knows? We might have a new minister by then. He's been pretty good so far, running around putting fires out — Labour, Municipal Affairs and all that. Maybe somebody'll come and put his fire out, I don't know.

I'm really pleased to see the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) here, because he lives in that great city of Vancouver and hears the screams of anguish. I wonder if the member really approves of the withdrawal of all the English-as-a-second-language funding, after millions had been put into that program and after Vancouver and the provincial government have invested many dollars in equipment and personnel training.

Forty percent of the kids in Vancouver and 25 percent in suburbia do not use English as a first language. What have we done? We've cut the ESL program. Does that make any sense? Now the feds are putting in for it, and the city is going to, but the province isn't. Does that make any kind of sense among your voters in Little Mountain? Do you support that kind of thing? If not, then don't be sotto voce; when it comes to heckling you've got a loud, effective voice. And he sits there and says nothing. I don't think that's fair.

At the same time as we're withdrawing funding from the public schools, we're increasing it to the independent schools.

MR. SEGARTY: That's not true.

MR. ROSE: We are so. Are you here again? I scarcely recognize you.

MR. SEGARTY: I was here longer than you were.

MR. ROSE: Well, you may be. All I know is that the provincial subsidy from 1978 to 1982 has gone from $520 per pupil to $785.

MR. SEGARTY: You don't understand the formula.

MR. ROSE: I understand the formula: it's based on enrolment. It's based on the previous year in that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. member would like to take his own seat.

MR. ROSE: Yes, in his office. I think he should go into his office and study his memoirs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we get on with vote 21, please.

MR. ROSE: I've tried to say that at the time the public school budgets are falling, those of the independent schools are rising. I'll go into that. There may be some very good reasons for it.

I wonder if the minister would care to answer the questions, because I have to have somebody else interrupt me now or I won't be able to speak any more, and that would be a sad thing to happen to this Legislature at this moment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll try to answer these very quickly for you, Mr. Member. The first thing you made reference to was some particular publication produced by, I presume, a sorority or fraternity — I'm not sure which — called Phi Delta Kappa.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Whatever it may be, I was never involved with some of those elitist organizations, Madam Member.

You quote this particular article from this publication as being a be-all and end-all, but, Mr. Member, we just need to go to the publication of January 1984 — I don't know if that's the copy you have — from the same publisher and the same material, and there's one article entitled "Financing Educational Excellence." I'll just very quickly read what's here:

"The various national commissions generally agree that educational reform is necessary. Although the groups differ on the specifics of what needs to be done and by what level of government, they have proposed reforms in six areas: (1) more intensive academic work, usually including such specifics as

[ Page 3195 ]

stiffer high school graduation requirements; (2) better teachers; (3) better management of the educational system; (4) greater accountability; (5) more time on tasks; (6) more and better use of technology."

It's fine to report, and no doubt people will find holes in this particular article, but I don't think I can lend a great deal of credence to a quote from that particular publication if you're going to use it as a critic representing, presumably, in its entirety the views of the educational community.

With respect to the BCTF, the item mentioned with respect to examinations: I recognize and accept the original criticism. Their timing was a serious problem and there certainly was resistance. On more than one occasion we invited the BCTF to place their representative on the board of examiners, which again and again they have emphatically refused to do. We wanted people from the teaching profession, the BCTF, on the board of examiners, but they won't have any part of it; so we had to go to the field to have teachers put on. The purpose of the board of examiners is to examine examinations.

With respect to the problem which occurred November 8, 9 and 10, I sent a letter to every school district in British Columbia. I'm sure you're familiar with the contents of that letter; you must have a copy. In it I said we would consider, review, the utilization of those funds if you cared to make a submission, but under no circumstances was there a commitment given that those funds would remain with those districts which saved — allegedly — a great deal of money because of a withdrawal of services, I specifically mentioned that a program cannot penalize those who did not act in contravention of the law. I made that clear. All of the submissions that were made came from every type of proposal. The commitment made by the Premier was that those funds would remain within the education system. That will be subject to a Treasury Board submission, but there is the commitment which has been made.

One of the problems is what would have happened if we had wanted to put a price on the heads of those who sanctioned illegal — in my view — activity, and filled up the treasuries of those school districts whose teaching staff are not working and whose other staff have padlocked the school? I compare that district to the district that sought injunctive relief and the district that didn't close their schools, and in fact used those funds to pay their staff. The others who did withdraw their services would use those funds to prevent any form of restraint measures in the following fiscal year. Now tell me, how can I, as a minister of the Crown, sanction someone profiting from what I believe to be illegal activity, in violation of their own fundamental contract and the contractual relationship each has with their respective boards? I can't put the stamp of approval on that.

There were a couple of other items on here. Again, Mr. Member, you are asking about the purpose of examinations. This morning I thought it was clear that what I'm concerned about is standardization and adherence to curriculum. There is no question about the view of the public. Interestingly enough, we don't hear from the public, or have a great deal of comment from the teaching profession, but there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of teachers who support the concept of examinations, including administrators and superintendents. We are interested as well in equality of opportunity to post-secondary institutions. We were concerned about grade inflation. What about the effect of examinations? I'm not saying for one moment that some of those exams didn't have the odd wart on them, but I'll tell you, after 12 years — reintroducing the concept — something was required. How about discipline in the classroom? How about attendance in the classroom? What about attention?

My only point is this: I can relay to the House, Mr. Chairman, those comments which are passed on to me by professional educators, and not my observations. I have to rely upon the educators in the province for a great deal of information. That's all. I'm a mechanic. I'm a layman. I'm a politician. That's what we all are. Surely we rely on expertise all the way around. The expertise is funnelled in and we have to make decisions based on good judgment, and presumably exercising a reasonable amount of discretion.

[3:00]

The Vancouver ESL budget under special education. I've just had that checked out and I'm advised it's going to be in excess of $16.7 million. That's a significant sum of money, Mr. Member.

With respect to the independent schools, I've repeated, I don't know how many times, that the policy of our government is to support independent schools. There is a very simple formula. A group 2 independent school receives 30 percent of the previous year's per-student costs within the district where that independent school is located. They receive those funds one year hence and have to rely upon the previous year's amount. That's the first thing.

Secondly, the increase from roughly $17 million to $22 million was based on increased enrolment in the independent school system. Also, what that $5 million spread really told us, because of the formula, is what the costs were in the public education system the year before. So there isn't any magic. There was no change to that formula.

I might just add one thing: one of the concerns I've had for some time is the criticism which the public seems to be making of our public education system. Surely, as a minister of the Crown with this portfolio, I must recognize that. I'm not going to put my head in the sand and not recognize what the public is saying about it. My job is to do what I can to help. I'm certainly far from being perfect, but I'm trying to help. I think we have made tremendous moves in the last several months. But let me tell you, in West Vancouver right now there's a real initiative to move into an independent school. I look at West Vancouver and the North Shore, and what do I find? A significant decline in enrolment — as big a decline as anywhere in the province. So we know that the inequities under restraint 1 and 2 were locked into the system, which meant that they had surplus funds. So dollars were not a problem. I'll tell you what the problem is: it's attitude and the concerns people have about the system. It seems to me that we've got to recognize that. Probably one of the best things that we can really have for the public education system is some competition from the independent schools, because that might make us pull up our socks and maybe we then can do a better job.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, this is a budget of some $1.4 billion, plus some more from higher education. I don't think it is abusing the time of the House if we take some time to examine that. That's what we're here for.

I guess I'm up to rebut the rebuttal, to begin with. I'd like to do it this way. First of all, Phi Delta Kappa is not one of those "fun and games" fraternities, you know.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I recognize that.

[ Page 3196 ]

MR. ROSE: You might even have thought of it as a sorority, I really don't know. Phi Beta Kappa isn't that either. It's a key for outstanding scholarship. So just because it happens to be from the Greek alphabet doesn't mean it's all fun and games, beer-drinking, chasing girls and panty-raids. I know you probably wouldn't be quite as interested in it, perhaps, Mr. Minister, when I tell you it's very prosaic. It's a very well-respected educational magazine.

Yes, Mr. Minister, I realize that you can find views on both sides of the exam question. Nobody's denying that there are other views about it. We just don't see the research that backs up the need for the trouble it causes. There'll be a time when we abandon them again. As far as the BCTF not wanting to come in, they're not going to be co-opted. If they're not going to be part of the whole planning and evaluation process, and are going to be sucked into just the exam side of it, then why should they? Why should they give legitimacy to something that they have not had a part in and have certain profound reservations about? I don't think it's just closing ranks. It isn't just protecting the boys, or the girls, or whatever you might think. I think they have some profound professional reservations about that, and I don't think that those should be ignored.

As far as the business of giving the money back, and whether or not you should sanction what is called, in your words, some illegal job action, here's a letter I have that came to you from Burns Lake. "We, the board of school trustees in district 55, believe that we acted in a responsible manner. All schools in the school district remained open during the withdrawal of teachers' services. We believe the public who elected us will be penalized unjustly if moneys are deducted from our December payments." Then they go on and show how these have been deducted. I could read those, but I'm conscious of the time. "The ministry calculated formula figures indicating a grant reduction of" — $48,000-odd — "whereas our actual teaching salary savings were $39,000." They want to know where the difference is? "Has there been a revision?" Well, I don't think this is the time to discuss it.

We do know that there's been a cut. We do know that there's been a cut in the ESL grants. We know that. It's been published. People have protested against it. There's no point in the minister getting up and shouting about how many millions they're giving. The fact is that we have a large number and the grants have been cut, even though they do come from the federal government. They're not necessarily a charge on the taxpayer of British Columbia to that extent anyway.

But I'd like to get onto this business of the independent schools. I think that there are many good reasons for independent schools. Independent schools per se are not being attacked over here. What I'm saying is the fact that the independent school growth has meant, because of the formula.... And I don't disagree with the minister's interpretation of the formula; he knows the formula. It's gone up 51 percent since 1978. The more you cut back on the public schools, probably there's going to be a greater demand for independent schools.

Why do people want to send their kids to independent schools? I'm sorry the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) is not here. I think he thinks my views are quite negative. I want to protect the public schools. I'm not up here to damn the independent schools; not at all. I want to protect the public schools and enhance them, because I believe in them. To the south of us we've got the strongest nation in the world. It has based its strength, vigour and competence on a public school system, which they've had from the beginning. I don't think you can argue with that.

I understand why people want their kids to go to independent schools — some of them do, sometimes. They want to perpetuate some cultural values. It could be anything. It could be Mennonite or Dutch Christian Reformed. It could be a Jewish school; it might be ethnic. They feel it's their responsibility, not the state's, to pass on to their kids the values that they hold dear, and they like to see their school do it. There are counter-arguments to that one. It may be isolationist and it may be even undemocratic, but that's the view they hold, and they should have a right as a citizen to follow that view. Nobody argues with that.

The second one is that the schools generally stress politeness, dress codes and that sort of thing, and that appeals to a lot of people. They find some young people unruly, sloppily dressed and uncouth in a number of ways. They think that sending the child to school in an environment that stresses these positive values is a good thing, so they look to that. Finally there's the snob appeal. What are the arguments that independent schools use? They say that it's very important to go to a "good" school — later on, socially, in business and all the rest of it. Half the corporate directors in Canada went to one prep school: Upper Canada College. So if you want to be a corporate director or a big name in the Liberal Party, you'd better go to that school. It's very important. It may not be true today, but it was true when the Vertical Mosaic came out — that's John Porter's great sociological study of Canada. I can show you the chapter and verse where that exists. It was true. If it's not true, I would think it would be one-third, but you know the corporate directors of Canada. I'm not so well acquainted. I know very few of them. There is a snob appeal and an exclusivity about it. I can understand that.

Some people argue: "Well, you know, actually I'm taking the drain off the public system by sending my kid to a private school at no charge to the taxpayer, so I should be rewarded for that." That used to be the argument. That's not true any more. There is a charge to the taxpayer, because it is based on the average pupil cost in the district plus the enrolment. If the enrolment goes up, the grants are going to go up. If the enrolment in the public schools goes down, what will happen? The average per-pupil cost may not go down. But still, the independent schools can get a growing amount of money, for whatever reason. Maybe because they're doing a better job; that's a possible reason. That's what a lot of people on the other side think.

This party has not come out against independent schools. We understand the need for them. As a matter of fact, if you want to take the argument to its illogical conclusion, there would be no cost at all to local taxpayers if you sent all those kids over to Switzerland to study in some sort of private school. Sometimes it's because of broken homes. Some people are after the academic rigour. I can understand that. I'm not arguing with that. But I am saying that their budget is up by 51 percent over 1978; that is a fact. It will get even higher unless we can do a better job, and fund and look after our public schools. If everyone is dumping all over the public schools all the time, it's certainly not going to give people a lot of confidence in them. There are all kinds of people who just love to use the public schools as whipping boys. It's very simple to do that.

There are some other things I would like to deal with. I will try to deal with them expeditiously, because we want to

[ Page 3197 ]

be through this by 4:30. So you can look forward to at least that relief, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, you made a great deal of your new finance formula based on enrolment: when the echo of the baby boom came along, enrolment would go up and everything would be fine. We've been looking over your finance formula as it applies to certain districts, and we find — to put it politely — some anomalies in all this. The new education finance formula is not equitable between districts. For instance, the North Thompson School District expects enrolment to go down by 2.1 percent next year; their budget will be cut by nearly 11 percent. How is that equitable with Grand Forks, where the enrolment goes down by 1.6 percent but the budget goes down by only 2 percent? Has there been any consultation over these apparent anomalies, any projections versus budgets? I think that is worth a little bit of explanation.

Another point: why does School District 21 in Armstrong qualify for a budget increase of 7.65 percent on an 8.5 percent increase in enrolment by 1986, when Abbotsford will have a 14.6 percent increase in enrolment by 1986 but only qualifies for a 5.59 percent increase? I understand Abbotsford has been somewhat revised, but there are some anomalies here, and I think it is worthwhile asking about it. If you're talking about administration, I can give you the figures. The administration for various districts doesn't square with it either, because they have spent more money on administration. So there are some questions here.

I also mentioned that some of the districts were concerned about the fact that they really didn't know where they were going financially. They were urged to prepare three-year budgets so that they would know where they were going when interim financing runs out in three years and we start throwing money around, porkbarreling it up for the next election and giving all the money back. We found through our surveys, by talking to the various boards regarding the three year plan, that reaction can be summed up in the following way: some boards have developed three-year plans, but they are in the minority; many districts are planning year by year, because the government is changing the rules — "changing with the wind" were the words used. Uncertainty means no ability to plan. A three-year or a three-month plan is a waste of time. This sums up the districts' frustration with the government's finance formula.

In the earlier debates during the all-night sessions, the minister did admit that the finance formula was about to have certain revisions done to it. I presume that's an ongoing process. But I'm quite sure also that other anomalies will be pointed out besides the ones that I have pointed out. I don't really want to go into the argument again about whether we lost 25 percent or $22 million, or what we're going to lose by 1986, but our projections say we are going to be down 22.9 percent. If Dr. Morton Shulman, a well-known financier and millionaire, says that inflation is going to go up and it does, the cuts in real dollars are going to be even more severe than what I have said. I think it's quite a serious matter.

The question about certain kinds of budgets is: what is the budget for the district? For instance, I have a letter of November 28, 1983, which the minister wrote to Mr. Taylor of Sir Guy Carleton School — and I'm not going into their particular problem. He says:

"Public education is included in the provincial restraint program, as are other sectors of government, but it is wrong to conclude that it is being singled out for particular attention. The fact that education is being held to a 7 percent increase this year, while other ministries receive larger increases, can be attributed to then increases received by education in the previous two years."

We looked over this budget and we don't know where that 7 percent increase is. We can't even find the special warrants. Here the minister says that it's going up 7 percent. I think he's wrong. I think he meant last year. Nevertheless, I'd like to know if there are any special warrants, because we need at least — if you look in the estimates book — $96,238,598.56 to make the minister's statement accurate. This is something else that could be clarified.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[3:15]

I'm not going to go into the details of the number of people who are likely to be laid off by these budget-slashing techniques, but I do know that they are going to be in excess of 1,000 a year. If nobody cares, then I would recommend that they look at the effects in a study done in the village of Qualicum, where the board was quite zealous in effecting their cuts in January, instead of waiting for June to let heads roll. In it, they tried to determine what was the effect of the layoff of 23 teachers. They found that it had a multiplier effect. The saving effect was a little over $500,000. I'm not going into all the details about this, because my colleague the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) will go into them. But I should think those people who are the merchants will be interested in this as well. Twenty-three teachers have been let go, but when you have employment in a community, you have a multiplier effect beyond the numbers employed. Everybody agrees with that. You open a new pulp mill and you have a new stereo store, tobacco stand, hardware store or a hotel, but when you fire 23 people, that isn't the end of it. It ends up about one and a half times that. It ends up to be about 36. All across the province, it is going to mean the same thing. If you lose 1,000 teachers per year across the province, you’ve really lost not just 1,000, but you've lost 1,500 other jobs — or a total of 2,500 each year. With our unemployment at record highs, down slightly from last January but still extremely severe, I'm not sure that the local merchant and chamber of commerce member is going to be all that happy with this prospect. It isn't just the 23 jobs lost and that affecting the savings; it's the multiplier effect in reverse in the community. People say: "Well, it's all public money anyway." Yes, it is all public money and it's got to come out of certain people. I don't mind if it comes out of me.

MR. REID: But you are rare.

MR. ROSE: Yes, and you're well done.

I think we've got to look at not only the people who are put out of work but also at the various kinds of mercantile snowballing effects in the community.

I notice that the Premier is getting his pencil sharpened for a penetration into this debate. But I would like my colleague from Comox to tell us a little bit more about the Qualicum situation at this moment, since I touched on it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make specific reference to the situation that exists in School District 69, Qualicum, with which most members of this House will be somewhat familiar at this stage, because the whole issue received a good deal of publicity just before the end of

[ Page 3198 ]

December last year, when the minister was away in Germany. What we saw happening in Qualicum at the end of December I think we can expect to see duplicated in school districts throughout the province in September or perhaps December of this year. The minister during his response to the critic for Education for the NDP, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Good try.

MS. SANFORD: It's so much easier, Mr. Chairman, if you can refer to people by their first names, but of course, that's not allowed in this Legislature, so you have to remember the names of these constituencies.

The minister made reference to the availability of funds on a number of occasions when he was responding to the concerns raised by my colleague. One of the things that the minister did not refer to is the fact that this government has been criticized by economists from various sectors of the province....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Name names.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, there are lots of economists who have said that the government is on the wrong track. As a matter of fact, Ministry of Labour officials, in a report that was not to be made available to the public but which became public, pointed out that the tack that this government has taken has indeed hampered the recovery, has made the economic situation in this province worse. It is their slavish adherence to that group of people in the Fraser Institute that is the cause of a lot of the problems in this province, and in trying to say that education has to be cut, the Minister of Education made no reference to the direction that the government is taking in the whole economic field. Why doesn't he refer to the fact that his government is probably on the wrong track, and if we had...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Madam Member.

MS. SANFORD: I am talking about education funding, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Member, order, please. Let me finish before you interrupt. Would you get back onto vote 21. The overall government plan is not part of what the Minister of Education is responsible for; the Minister of Education is only responsible for that ministry. If you would keep on that vote, we'll get through it quicker.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the minister's statement about the availability of funds, which he made earlier in this Legislature, and he was talking about the overall availability of funds for this government. That's what I'm referring to.

That's only a part of it, Mr. Chairman. The other part of it relates to the priority that this government is prepared to allocate to education. Again, my colleague pointed out that we in British Columbia are at the very bottom of the heap of all of the provinces in terms of providing funds as a percentage of budget. Even the poverty-stricken Atlantic provinces allocate as much as 25 percent of their overall budget to education. Here in British Columbia we are at the bottom of the heap, allocating 15 percent to education. You can't deny that. For the minister to stand up there and talk about the availability of funds, and cry in his beard that we're in a tough economic situation, does not alter the fact that the percentage of the present budget allocated to education is at the bottom of the heap in terms of education financing in the various provinces across Canada. The other provinces can provide the services, but when you don't have a commitment to education, you are going to allocate a much smaller portion of the budget to education.

Mr. Chairman, that is the philosophy which the government tries to use at this stage to justify the adverse impact they are having on the educational system in this province, the adverse impact they are having on the ability of the students of British Columbia to fulfil their potential, as well as the adverse impact their actions are having on the economy by laying off all those teachers all over the place. The main reason this attack on education is taking place is that Social Credit has never had a commitment to education and is now using the current economic downturn.... That marvellous word they have latched on to, "restraint," results in the kind of cutbacks and the kind of disruption that we're seeing in the educational system.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That member cannot deny the figures. We are at the bottom of the heap in British Columbia. Do you deny that, sir? You can't deny it. Where is the commitment?

In School District 69, over 11 percent of the teaching staff were laid off at Christmastime, resulting in quite a massive disruption in the educational system within that school district. Fully half of the students in one of the elementary schools had to face a new teacher when they returned following the Christmas recess. We've seen a doubling-up of classes, increased class size, reduction in services of all kinds. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I had parents phoning me at Christmastime because of their young children. I'm afraid that in grades 1, 2 and 3 the children are very impressionable. They are very easily upset emotionally and the mothers were phoning me because those children were having nightmares about what was going to happen to them when they returned in January. Parents phoning me!

I had one parent bring in his child, who was obviously disabled. That parent brought that child to my office during office hours to make the point to me that that child was not going to function well in a regular classroom situation. He needed special attention. He needed special help. The parent wanted to make the point to me about what was happening to education within School District 69.

[3:30]

Parents' committees were established in nearly every school in the district. These committees bombarded school board members with questions and concerns about what was happening to education. And we had parents stating time and time again in briefs to the school board that while they understood and accepted and approved of restraint, they did not approve of the kind of destruction that was taking place in the school system within School District 69. Restraint to them did not mean the kind of actions that had to take place in School District 69 in order to meet the budgetary requirements of this particular government.

The minister will stand up and say: "Oh, I met with the school board just after I got back, just before I went to Hawaii, and we got them some more money." The only thing

[ Page 3199 ]

I can say to the minister at this point is that the finance formula which the government established in the first place failed to take into account that School District 69 was a growing school district, and therefore he had to come up with that extra money to meet the particular shortcoming in his own finance formula. We're going to see the same kind of thing duplicated in various parts of the province at the end of June and next December. That school board didn't have any alternative at this stage. They made absolutely every cut. They had been very frugal and very concerned about the education of students in School District 69. That's one of the reasons that they didn't lay off any schoolteachers last year. They cut every other place that they possibly could, and this year were left with no alternative but to lay off 11 percent of the entire teaching staff within that school district.

But the problem is that this government sees education as part of the problem, when it should be seeing education as part of the solution. Don't go around ripping it apart, disrupting classes, jamming kids together, making the labs overcrowded, cutting back on special services to those students who have special needs.

MR. HOWARD: They need the money for northeast coal.

MS. SANFORD: They need the money for northeast coal and all of their other megaprojects that they would prefer to spend money on rather than on the children of British Columbia. I'm afraid that's what the situation is.

The people who did the research in the Ministry of Labour, and who prepared a report for government which became public recently, were quite correct. The kinds of moves made by this government are detrimental not only to services to people but to the economy as well, And the recovery is going to be delayed because of it. We talk about consumer spending; we're going to have a consumer-led recovery. How on earth can you expect the teachers, and all of those other people who are facing layoffs because of the policies of this government, to go out and spend money in order to help in a consumer-led recovery?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I can't hear what the minister's saying, and it's probably a good thing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I said there's more money in savings accounts in Canada than at any time in history.

MS. SANFORD: No wonder! They don't want to spend it. They're afraid that they're going to get laid off next week, because of you people sitting over there. Why do you think they're saving that money? If I were a teacher in this province, I wouldn't be going out and buying a whole lot of things that I would otherwise buy. I'd save that money, because who knows? After all of these cuts....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will have an opportunity to stand during these estimates.

MS. SANFORD: That's right, bring him to order, Mr. Chairman. He can have his own turn.

The total impact using a multiplier effect, which has been accepted by most economists.... This was a survey done by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. They discussed the multiplier effect, what happens when you have these kinds of layoffs and cutbacks, with Professor Davis at the University of British Columbia, in the School of Community and Regional Planning; with Dr. Horace Singh, director of statistical services and integration with the central statistics bureau of the B.C. Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. They determined — as well as looking at the figures provided by the Employers' Council — that a conservative multiplier effect with these kinds of layoffs would be about two. So if you have the lost income in School District 69, which is a very small area of the province, at $700,000 as a result of this government's lack of commitment to education, then the total amount of money that that school district loses in its economy is $1,400,000. Already School District 69 is suffering in terms of high levels of unemployment and low levels of income. There's no major industrial base in that area. As a result of all this, there's going to be a further impact economically. I'm not even talking about what happens to the students in the schools, or to those people who get laid off. But it's going to have a major impact on that economy, which is already a very fragile one, in these difficult economic times.

I don't know how you change the commitment of government to education, Mr. Chairman. Surely when the government realizes that it is dead last in terms of all the provinces, or in relation to all the provinces in Canada, they would alter that commitment, and they would make sure that we're not hampering the ability of our young people to gain the best possible education that we can provide.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll answer a number of the questions from the members, Mr. Chairman. First of all, references were made to North Thompson, where there was a 2 percent decline in enrolment and a roughly 11 percent decline in budget. Then a comparison was done with Armstrong. I don't recall exactly what the figures were. But your point, I think, is that there may have been a decline in enrolment or there may have been a static enrolment, but the funding went up. The concept of the funding formula, as mentioned this morning, was to deliver to each school district an adequate educational base. I think what we have to remember is that expression which I don't think the members will dispute: an equality of opportunity. We must also remember that each school district has a specific charge on the consolidated revenue of the provincial government. Then you find that some school districts may very well be running at a level of service which is well in excess of that determined under the basic program. Consequently you will find, in the area of Armstrong — I think it's Armstrong — where there was an extremely lean operation.... You want to compare it to North Thompson, where in fact there was not.

With respect to budgets over three years, one of the requests that I understand has been made repeatedly by school districts and the B.C., School Trustees' Association is for some degree of predictability in the budgets which they must live with. One of the objects of this entire system was to give some degree of predictability over a three-year period. Many school districts in fact have sought comfort, found refuge and are accepting what is there. I admit that there are

[ Page 3200 ]

those which do not. But it is like every time you make a change: there are always those who offer more resistance than others, until they find out that this is for real. I expect that to come, but I must also advise you that the amount of criticism or concern which is being relayed to the ministry now is not anywhere near what it was when the system was first introduced. That's to be expected. After everyone begins to understand how it works and the basic fairness within it, they then accept it. As a matter of fact, even the B.C. School Trustees' executive will tell you that we have made a valiant effort during very difficult times to try to get some degree of order and predictability in school board financing. That's a statement which they will not deny. I'm not saying that they don't couple that expression with another statement saying: "It's got to improve." As a matter of fact, we just had two days of meetings with them, during which a number of suggestions were made on both sides. We sat there for two solid days — Monday and Tuesday of this week — and tried to work out some of the concerns which they have raised.

The matter of the 7 percent increase in the budget. I will have to get a detailed response on that for you, Mr. Member. I did work it out last fall. I do not have the material with me, or I can't locate it in this volume, to assist you in an explanation, but I am advised that the 7 percent is the actual amount by which the grants were increased to school districts. The reason for that is that the tax level was held at zero. So those additional funds representing the 7 percent were incorporated within the grant portion which is given to each district, and were therefore charged to consolidated revenue.

It must be remembered, too, that when you look at the per-student cost in each school district you will find a discrepancy. There is an average — I concede that point. But there are some significant variations. When we look at those variations, they must be examined. Is there an explanation? Some of it is explainable, but much of it is not. You must remember that if school district A is receiving a certain percentage from the provincial government and school district B, which has a much higher cost per student, is receiving a specific amount from consolidated revenue in the form of a grant, and there is a discrepancy between the two amounts paid by consolidated revenue to each of the districts, we then have to answer to those school districts which say: "Look, we operate a lean show." There are many of them who put this argument before us: why is this particular district receiving so much more per student from consolidated revenue? With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what the funding formula was attempting to address and has addressed.

One of the points raised by the members was the effect on the communities. I disagree with the multiplier effect to which the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) referred: I'm advised that it's something in the order of about 1.3, and I noticed the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) referred to 1.5; I don't think it's as high as 2, with all due respect. I could be in error, but the information which has been passed to me from a number of sources would indicate that. But I will tell you the effect is not anywhere as severe as what some of the communities are experiencing right now. In my own riding in particular, with six pulp mills, ten major sawmills and a logging industry, everything is shut down. I will tell you the effect of that is what we call damaging and is of horrendous proportions.

[3:45]

I would like to make some reference to Qualicum. Yes, Madam Member, I did meet with the board. It was the first thing I did when I came back from Germany — and by the way, I wasn't in Hawaii.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Three weeks. I had eight days in California. Is that okay?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Thank you very much for that concession.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Minister. Would you stay within your estimates.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I agree.

Now with respect to Qualicum, I met with the board for about two and a half hours, and it was a very lengthy, good meeting, Mr. Chairman. The interesting thing about it is that the school board recognized the issue of restraint, and they said that even with restraint, they still have some problems. There were two issues. One was involving two schools, the operating cost of one of which I don't think has yet been resolved....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It has been now? We think it has been resolved. The other matter had been resolved. But I do want to raise a couple of matters. The question you have to ask is: how much are we prepared to borrow? How much would you agree that we ought to borrow? If you look at the accumulative deficit of the provincial government and anticipate it for this year, I don't know what it's going to be, but we were told by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) some months ago that it could be $2.4 billion. The education budget is something in the order of 17 percent of the provincial budget. That means, rounded, $400 million. That means that the provincial government obviously will have to borrow $400 million as the education portion to service the debt; the debt is obviously rolled over to the next fiscal year. So how much more do we borrow? The fact is, Mr. Chairman, I just can't recommend more for now. That is a considerable sum of money.

An interesting point is raised repeatedly, and that involves the gross domestic budget. First of all, I have to raise this: when you wish to compare incomes of those in British Columbia with those in the Maritimes, we then are comparing apples and oranges. That's number one.

Number two: equalization plays a major factor in the education budgets in the Maritimes. On Monday I met with somebody who, I'm told, is one of the leading economists in the public sector involving school financing, and that was the very issue which was put on the table. As a result of our conversation and dialogue back and forth on this, we raised this particular point: the comparatives are meaningless because of the amount of money which is then funnelled to Ottawa and through to the Maritimes. That's the point he made, and I think we've all been making that from time to time. But I would like to leave with the House, Mr. Chairman, some comparatives, because the member for Comox was very adamant in her position with respect to the amount of money put into education and referred to the Maritime

[ Page 3201 ]

provinces. Well, I'd just like to refer these figures which came from the Council of Ministers of Education based on — when you go across the board like this — Statistics Canada plus the input from the various ministries of education across the country. The numbers in the brackets are estimates. The capital expenditures and debt services are excluded in calculating the operating cost per pupil: New Brunswick, $2,329; Nova Scotia, $2,576; Prince Edward Island, $2,569; Newfoundland, $2,587; British Columbia, $3,399.

MS. SANFORD: Everything costs more here.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not disputing that. I'm trying to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot bandy comparatives between provinces unless you put in all of the other factors.

MS. SANFORD: Percentage of budget. You can do that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, and as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, you look at percentage of budget and then you compare incomes. The concluding fact on all of this is where we look at the average teachers' salaries. If you believe that we are depriving the education system of revenue to which it is entitled, then please explain how we are sitting with average teachers' salaries in excess of $34,200 per annum, which is, I believe, the second highest in Canada, next to Ontario. To top that off, I believe I can say that we have the highest paid administrators in all of Canada.

I would like to close with one note in respect to Qualicum, because the member has spent some time on that, and I think it is important that we raise some of these points.

First of all, after meeting with the board, Mr. Chairman, one of the points made by the Qualicum board is this. There is some difficulty in managing the transition. The extra money that was put into the Qualicum School District came because a number of districts in the province with increasing enrolment — and there were about six — were able to show that the transition from the old system to the new system was posing some difficulty. So the phase-in was marginally adjusted. I still have the same amount of money, but what was interesting was that under the formula I could take into consideration the use of that formula to take money from other school districts and put it into those districts where they were having difficulty in the transition — and that is those where the enrolment is growing.

The material that was submitted by their own teachers' association states that from 1979 to 1983 there was an increase of 691 students. Do you know how many teachers were added to the system to handle the students? Seventy — that's a ratio of one teacher per ten students. Some of that is explainable as a result of special education and mainstreaming. Surely, with a figure like that, I am demonstrating the need — why some of these problems have to be addressed.

We went to the class sizes in Qualicum, and this reference was again made. Class sizes of from 1 to 20 students, including special education — 93, or 37 percent; where the number of students was between 21 and 25 — 61, or 24.3 percent; from 26 to 30 — 74, or roughly 29.5 percent; over 30 — 23, or 9.16 percent. My point here is that there were some problems which had to be addressed, and the fact of the matter is the Qualicum School Board really deserves a bouquet, because what they did was address the immediate problem, so they don't have any more problems for the rest of the three years. And they had the courage to do it. The member may disagree, but the fact is that is what happened.

Then I looked at this particular brief which the people from Qualicum brought to me. The number of people involved in full-time equivalents in Qualicum was 23.5. There were 4.4 temporary layoffs — people who were on temporary permit; layoffs of permanent people: 11.6; reduced assignments: 2.7, which I think we have resolved; early retirements, three; and vacancies not replaced: 1.8. Upon analysis of the concerns which were brought to us, we recognized the difficulty in transition, we addressed it as we did for the other five districts with increased enrolment.

Number two: with respect to the reduced assignment, we are in the process of addressing that.

Number three: with respect to the problem of the two schools — one has been resolved; the other has not, but is in the process. The budget was adjusted to look after those points. I think that we did a commendable job under some difficult circumstances. I would really like to congratulate the ministry, because they did work with them and recognize their problems.

MR. ROSE: I've seldom seem the House Leader spring to his feet with such bounce, such alacrity, such vigour. I wish him well in his future endeavours, as he becomes our tweedy representative in Britain — he'll fit right in there.

I have one major topic that I wish to address now, and although one is tempted to go on and on, I think that I will resist the temptation. I think I can help the minister in discovering where his 7 percent came from. It actually came by comparing the amounts spent in 1982 with the budgeted amount for 1983-84.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I answered that — unaudited actuals.

MR. ROSE: You can't attack me on it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I know. I gave you that answer before. I'll give you the details later.

MR. ROSE: That's all right. I was attempting to answer the minister, because I think I have anticipated his answer. I think it has to do with the difference between the amount budgeted and the amount spent out of the budget. I know that. You didn't mention the $12 million cutback and the unspent funds. However, I don't think it's a matter of great import. I just brought it up because I think you might as well have it clarified, because it's really not accurate.

The last topic I want to address myself to is this matter of access to education. I know that this was discussed by my colleague this morning when he was discussing the estimates of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I'm aware that he dealt with it in some degree of detail. However, a large part of our educational system, as the minister pointed out earlier today, is in what we did call junior colleges and now call community colleges. A number of things affect student access, and I'd just like to go over one or two of them. Certainly the kind of standards we have, the kind of screens we have in terms of entrance exams, affect access. I don't think there's any university that has open registration. Some schools do in other jurisdictions, but I don't think we do. So that's certainly going to be one. Certainly the ability to pay affects access. The cost borne by

[ Page 3202 ]

the student who lives outside the lower mainland or away from a community college or university is going to be much higher — maybe $2,500 a year for room and board — than a person such as the present Minister of Communications, who lived in Point Grey and went to UBC when I did. His costs were far less than mine, because presumably he lived at home.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who?

MR. ROSE: Your colleague, if they would have him. I don't know whether dad kicked him out or not, but presumably he lived at home.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know if you lived at home. No, I'm sure you were not living at home, were you? You weren't living in Dewdney anyway.

The other thing is fees, Mr. Chairman. I heard a news spot on the radio this morning that Camosun College fees have gone up $300 per semester. That's a limiting factor, especially in community colleges, when you have many of those students who are single parents and people who are working part time — people who are generally attempting to qualify and upgrade themselves. I'll have more to say about that.

[4:00]

A limitation on enrolment is certainly going to affect student access. If a school says, "No, we've only got so many places," or if the school says, "You can't run that class for five students; you've got to have at least 30 or you can't ran it," that is certainly going to affect access. But I think probably one of the worse things as far as this government is concerned is the way it has fiddled with the formula for student loans. I don't know if everybody in this room realizes that the feds kicked in more money for student loans this year and the province, in turn, limited its amount. It changed the formula and said: "If you live at home, that's considered a subsidy. Therefore you don't qualify for a loan. You have to take an 80 percent course load." The mixture of provincial grants and loans was altered.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The Premier disagrees. They're the Happiness Boys over there. They never complain about anything. They didn't complain about anything when they were in opposition. They cried and cried all over the province. God, they had tears as large as....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were lost in Ottawa.

MR. ROSE: I wasn't lost. I was down there serving the public. I was down there doing my duty as a statesman.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: That's the way you described this bear pit; I didn't.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know. I've been through rough times before.

There's no question about it, though, the province has diverted.... We have the meanest and toughest student loan assistance program of anywhere in Canada. We've got the toughest rules.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense.

MR. ROSE: There's no point in spitting the word "nonsense" contemptuously if you don't know what I'm basing this on. The change in the mixture between grants and loans has, I think, made our province the one province that makes it more difficult for a student to get a student loan, financed by the feds, than any other jurisdiction in Canada. There is not question about that. Laughter and ridicule and nonsense isn't going to change those facts — not one iota.

I'd like to just give you a few little examples of what I've learned about the major concerns of college students — I'm not talking about university students, but college students about the student assistance program.

The first thing they're concerned about is the delay in processing. I know that it was changed pretty late this year. There was a delay of two or three months in releasing the new guidelines, which caused a lot of trouble here. The typical student waited three months from the date of application until he got his loan. What does that mean in terms of his enrolment and registration? Here's an example. A 22-year-old male, unemployed and receiving Ministry of Human Resources funding, applied for a loan on July 7. His application was processed by the college on September 9 and sent to the ministry. Without delay in releasing the guidelines, his funds would have been available in October. He had no savings to carry him through the fall, and he therefore could not attend school in September. He spent the fall on welfare and re-entered college in January.

That is one example of what we're talking about — the delay that affects access. Here's another: changes in the general requirements of both the loan and the grant. "Nonsense, " says the Premier; a little more ridicule. Many students who would have been eligible for aid in previous years are now excluded completely, or had to go through an appeal process which took several additional months of processing time before they received the funds. Example: a married student was assessed on the need for $5,600. He therefore was awarded a $3,200 loan and a $2,400 grant. In December, when his award documents were received by the college and checked for prerequisites, he was found to be ineligible for the grant. He's fortunate that he's been able to continue his studies, because he was able to borrow the funds. Why was he ineligible for the grant? Because of the change in the guidelines. When he finally finishes his education, however, he will be at least $2,400 further in debt than he would have been. The grants last year were $21 million; this year they are $14.4 million. That's what's happened to the grants and loan mix.

I won't read any more of these, but I'd like to give you the third point. Students registered in adult basic education programs are effectively blocked from becoming self-supporting members of society. Here is an example: a single student who is supporting herself as a waitress wanted to come back to school in an adult basic education program, but required assistance with her fees. By the time she applied for the loan the fund was exhausted. She's now forced to wait. I can give the minister lots of examples of these. I didn't read them all. But what I'm saying is that there are some real impediments

[ Page 3203 ]

and some real difficulties. Students need that kind of help. You've cut the funding, you've made the guidelines tougher, and you've caused certain delays because of change of eligibility.

Finally, there is concern across the province about the federal money that has been diverted: federal money that was originally intended to go to education before block funding was renegotiated in 1977, allowing the provinces to establish their own priorities. I don't see how we can object in principle to that kind of decentralization. But the fact is, there was a 20 percent increase — and I'm glad the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is here, because he can correct me if I'm wrong. Some $84 million in federal grants for post-secondary education in this last budget, made available under the established programs financing act, didn't arrive in the university or college budgets. It was used for priorities established by the government, which were non-educational priorities.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Obviously. I don't know what you did. I don't know where you squirrel away your dough. I don't know whether you have a sock you keep it in, or a buried tobacco can, or whether you used it to finance some more borrowings. I don't know what you did. All I know is that you got that money that normally would have gone to education, and you didn't spend it on education. You want to know where the $84 million is? You tell me.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, the total has gone down. The total hasn't gone down in real terms, but in percentage terms it's gone down.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Lousy research.

MR. ROSE: It may be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we're on vote 21, the estimates of the Minister of Education, and not Finance.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, just broke his microphone in a fit of pique.

If the minister doesn't like the new federal-provincial program, or the taxing program, I don't know why he doesn't negotiate this province out of it. If he's always angry about how much the feds get, or if so much money goes to Quebec....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Let's get back to vote 21.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have attempted, and my colleagues are going to add some remarks.... I know that my friend from Atlin has some things to say about native education. I have attempted not to say everything, or at least not to say it too many times, to cover the waterfront. There are a great many other things that could be said, but I'd like to thank the minister for his attention, at least to my section of this, and the sincere attempt by both him and his officials to answer the questions. We do appreciate that over here. So thank you for your attention, Mr. Minister. We look forward to your response.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a couple of questions for the minister. The first question is in regard to the Dease Lake school. It's really a pit. The toilets aren't working; the water hasn't worked in that place for months. It's really a dump. I would hope that the minister could find some capital spending for it. Two weeks ago the residents were told that it was fourth priority for a new school in the province. I would hope that something could be worked out with the ministry this year, because that place is really a dump. I taught there six years ago, and not much has changed. It's really a bad environment for children to attend school in.

The next issue which I'd like to discuss is native education. As the minister is aware, in School District 92 approximately 95 percent of the children are Nishga. A concern that has been brought to my office is in regard to native language programs. Parents are concerned because they have heard that with the cutbacks the possibility exists that the native language programs will be cut back. I would hope that the minister will clarify that for the public record, that the native language programs in the Nass won't be cut back.

The next issue I'd like to discuss is something that we've talked about over the last eight or nine months: the reference that was made in the Speech from the Throne to incorporating smaller school districts in larger ones. The minister has talked to me privately on this subject. I certainly hope he will make a positive statement in regard to School District 92.

The last question I have for the minister is in regard to school buses on the Nass road, particularly between Greenville and New Aiyansh, where the children have to attend school. That road is getting worse and worse. There is concern every spring about the danger to the school bus because of the runoff. It's not a gazetted highway; it's a forestry road. The school bus has to use that road to take the children into New Aiyansh to attend school. It's of concern to the parents and the residents of the Nass that there was no work done on the road in the fall, that with the spring runoff and the condition of that road the children on the school bus could be jeopardized. It's quite a long drive from Greenville to New Aiyansh to attend school. What kind of assurance is there that those children won't have to face those conditions? I know it's not really in the minister's realm — talking about roads — but it's a particular problem up there where the children have to get on the bus. They walk across the ice or they take the boat over to the school bus, and then it's a half-hour drive into New Aiyansh on a really dangerous road. Mr. Minister, as a personal plea to you, if something could be done to fix up 25 kilometres of road in that area....

Those are the three areas. In particular, is there a government commitment to keep the native language program in existence in School District 92? Those were the four or five questions I directed to the minister.

[Hon. Mr. Bennett in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are a number of points from the two members who have spoken. The first item was with respect to post-secondary institutions. There are a number of statistics which are helpful. To the member who is my critic, one way is to use student-contact hours. In 1978-79 it was 516,678; in 1982-83 it was 635,580. There was quite a jump, particularly between 1981-82 and 1982-83. Even

[ Page 3204 ]

though we've been experiencing some difficult times with respect to revenue for colleges, the enrolment has been absorbed and those students have had access. I think the figures would indicate that the institutions are doing well. These are what I have to rely upon. This is the evidence coming to us from all of the colleges. That seemed to be one of the concerns which you had.

The other concern you raised was student loans. We made a decision that before any student could qualify for the provincial portion, they must take at least 80 percent of a full load. That's a policy decision, and it's one with which I agree and which I obviously support.

[4:15]

With respect to the delays, I'm advised there were two reasons for those delays. One, the guidelines and the amounts for the federal portion were not available until last August. Obviously there are going to be delays. Two, we are partly responsible because our guidelines were not available until later on as well. I am hoping that come this spring and early summer we will be able to do something about it.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) — I will take your reference to the Dease Lake school. I cannot give you any specifics on that right now, but I will make the appropriate inquiries. I will also make the appropriate inquiries on native language programs. The matter of the Nishga School District has never been considered with respect to joining another. I might also mention to you that as of yesterday we have appointed a new director of Indian education, and no doubt he will have something to say. His name is Tom Elwood; he is a superintendent and well-experienced educator.

MR. BLENCOE: Nice to see you, Mr. Premier, in a working position — an unbiased position.

I have a few questions pertaining to the Victoria educational system, particularly School District 61. Mr. Minister, I am sure that you are aware that School District 61 is facing having to reduce its budget by approximately $15 million over the next three years. This is a substantial amount of money that is going to have to be taken out of the budget. In 1984 it will mean approximately $2 million, in 1985, $5 million, and in 1986, $9 million. I'm wondering if you know, Mr. Minister, what options School District 61 is facing. I'd like you to comment on them in terms of what you think should happen and whether you're concerned about these kinds of options.

The first option will be the closing down of the entire system for a considerable period of time — maybe two or three weeks, maybe a month — to take $15 million out of the budget. Another option is the laying off of staff. In 1984 that could mean 50 or 60 full-time teachers, plus one-third of all the school aides. In 1985 it could mean between 60 and 70 teachers and a major janitorial reduction. In addition to this option of removing staff, school aides and janitorial staff, it will also include a minimum of a four- to five-day closing of the entire system — not just in 1984 but also in 1985 and 1986 — plus a minimum reduction of 25 teachers because of the dropping enrolment in 1984 and 15 in 1985, added to the full-time people who are going to have to go because of the policies that you are enunciating. That will have a dramatic impact on School District 61, which over the past few years has managed to build a good system in terms of a diverse kind of programming and meeting parents' expectations in terms of the education that we can expect in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

Mr. Minister, how do you think School District 61 is going to be able to maintain the quality of education, given these kinds of options? Perhaps you'd like to comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass? The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: I was hoping that the minister would feel some sort of obligation to respond to those questions. I believe he was about to do so.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I appreciate the urgency with which the business is to be conducted, and I recognize as well that I don't believe that the second member for Victoria was going to surrender the floor unless the questions were answered. So we might as well get it over with.

First, I think if you look at School District 61, the decline in enrolment has been significant. In 1975 there were 27,227 students; in 1982 there were 21,443. I don't have the 1983 figures before me, but I might advise you that the overall enrolment in British Columbia is still declining. I am advised that the Victoria enrolment is declining as well.

Quality of education. I sometimes wonder if that particular expression is used without really knowing what it means. I suppose it means something different to all of us. I would submit that pushing out more and more money into the system is not going to resolve our problem with respect to a basic and adequate education — a quality education. It seems to me that the real answer is in the classroom and the ability of teachers. I will not dispute that.

The pupil-teacher ratio for Victoria is 18.19. That includes all certificated staff; it includes an administration which isn't necessarily that lean. Perhaps there are certificated people there who might eventually be back in the classroom or in administrative positions within the school system itself. I will have to submit, Mr. Chairman, that when we look at the figures for Victoria, the actual number of dollars, there is a decline: the 1984 budget will be 97.5 percent of 1983. The differential is something less than $1.8 million. I'm not saying that they will not suffer some pain, just like every other school district in British Columbia. The same argument is advanced. As a matter of fact I have reason to believe, from the information I have, that they are handling some of the problems which they had with a fair degree of expertise, and some of the disruptions which will occur are being handled reasonably well. I know what they're looking for. They're looking for a carry-over of surplus for 1985-86 to see if they can alleviate some of the problems, and that's an incentive to save even more money this year. Perhaps we're going to handle some problems. It's very interesting to note the surpluses which school districts accumulate even in tough times. I'll be most interested to note what those surpluses are going to be come next fall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.... Oh, the minister's not speaking on this vote. The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: You're a tough Chairman; it's hard to get recognition over here. I recognize the urgency, and we want to get on, but it's the first opportunity that Victoria MLAs have had to address the minister on this critical issue. There are thousands of concerned parents, obviously.

[ Page 3205 ]

Mr. Minister, you really didn't answer my question. I did allow for the drop in enrolment, and I said 40 teachers would go because of that, but I also indicated to you that as many as 120 to 130 other teachers would have to go because of the particular policies that you are enunciating and the major financial cutbacks. I think you're going to have to answer that and you're going to have to indicate whether you believe that's going to be a good move in terms of the quality of education and what kind of option you support. Do you want to see a shutdown of the whole system, or do you want to see the quality of education drop because we start to see from about 120 to a maximum of 150 teachers go in the educational system in Victoria? That question hasn't been answered, Mr. Minister; maybe in time you'll be able to answer it.

I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the minister can answer it very fast. Victoria district has a wide variety of educational services and is quite well known in the province for it, particularly programs like the gifted program, alternative schools, special education for handicapped children, French immersion, community schools and many others. Mr. Minister, there is great concern in this community that the budget cuts are going to dramatically impact on those special kinds of programs for special children. Could you indicate what your feeling is about those special programs? Is it your intention to try and maintain those special programs, particularly things like the gifted program, the alternative schools and the community schools? Perhaps you could make a few comments about those areas, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the member is going to stop until he gets an answer. With respect to the last two items, alternative schools and gifted programs, we have every intention of doing our very best to preserve them, but remember that the basic concept of the funding program is to establish an adequate or basic education system within every school district. If that involves reducing the size of the staff, that in fact is what will probably happen. That is for the school district to manage.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I want to say how pleased I am to see you in the chair, and on another occasion would certainly support you to have that position permanently.

I wonder if I could direct through you a very brief question to the Minister of Education. In the estimates there is an amount of a little bit in excess of $8.7 million for something called "professional and special services." I'd like to ask the minister what he wants all that money for. What does he do with that $8.7 million, and what's this "professional special services"? There has never been any accounting of that classification, and I would like to know what it's for. Because we're near the end of this fiscal year, how much of it has been spent so far?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I think I'd better stay on my feet while the minister is preparing...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: ...just in order to hold the opportunity for the minister to receive the information and develop the answer.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In consulting with my deputy, Mr. Chairman, I understand that those particular funds are used to look after curriculum development, special education, testing and assessment. Many of people involved in this area are seconded from the field. I will read to you the overview, right out of the estimates book — and I quote, so there is no misunderstanding.

MR. HOWARD: I've read that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I'll sit down then.

Vote 21 approved.

Vote 22: management operations and educational finance, $24,383,227 — approved.

[4:30]

Vote 23: public schools education, $1,040,531,959 — approved.

Vote 24: post-secondary colleges and institutes, $319,463,135 — approved.

Vote 25: independent schools, $22,117,339 — approved.

Vote 26: financing transactions, $10 — approved.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

On vote 4: premier's office, $660,799.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that members opposite have a number of questions to ask, and I'll be very brief and just say that the estimates in the Premier's office show a decline over the previous fiscal year. Every indication allows me to tell the House that we will be able to come in under the estimates, which are already at a decreased rate from those of the previous year, in line with the wishes and guidelines of the Ministry of Finance.

MR. HOWARD: I don't doubt that the Premier's office will be able to end the fiscal year having spent less money than was in the estimates. I wouldn't doubt that most ministries will be able to do that, because we've seen in the examination of estimates for the fiscal year that's just about to conclude that they were overbudgeted in the first place. It's standard practice to overestimate and then come back in and be able to say: "See what a good manager I've been. I've spent less than I originally intended to spend."

Mr. Chairman, government has an obligation. In singling out obligations, more than any other it has an obligation to serve people. In order to do that properly, I'm going to submit to you, government has to have, to exhibit, to declare and to practise an identifiable morality. That has to be the underpinning. That morality must be constant and continuous. It must be such that it permeates the whole structure of government, from the Premier to the cabinet to the individual public servant who deals in the community with citizens who come into offices to have their dealings and relationships with government. It's got to be reflected in legislation. It has to

[ Page 3206 ]

show up all the way across the board and be the foundation for all programs. I submit that if government doesn't have, declare, exhibit or practise day to day that political morality necessary to serve humanity, then government does not have a vision for the future and a vision for the people of this province, or any other jurisdiction, wherever that government might be. It doesn't offer much vision for the future if there isn't that exhibition of an ethic — a political ethic and a morality. It doesn't offer much hope for a valuable type of social relationship. It doesn't offer much hope that there will be a full and meaningful opportunity for economic activity, for jobs; because without the long-range view, without the long-range declaration on the part of government, it's a day to day existence. It's politics for partisan purposes, not the purity of politics to serve humanity.

I think it's the major task of a Premier to set that moral tone for the government, for the public service and for society. It's a major task of the Premier, the leader of the government, to make that politically correct and ethical statement by example continuously, to prove the content of the statement. I want to submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the House, that in this instance the Premier has failed miserably to meet those requirements. Instead of being able to offer humanity and society a vision for the future, he offers a nightmare — and his government. Instead of being able to offer hope, they offer despair. They offer more of the same.

Governments are a mirror image of their leaders, and of their Prime Minister or Premier, as the case might be. Leaders have to make decisions. Some of those decisions are usually not very complicated. In fact, most of them are not complex. They're not very involved. Some of them, though, are based upon and predicated upon a person's conscience. What do they think is the correct thing to do, in a way of conscience? I've found and felt that the more one has to grapple with a problem on a basis of conscience, the more difficult it is to make that choice. Invariably you will find that the most difficult choice to make is the correct one, and that the easier choice is not the correct one; that the easy route, when it comes to difficult choices, is not the correct route to follow.

I want to give you some examples of what I mean in terms of a practice and an activity. About a year ago, people in B.C. were inundated in their homes with a series of television broadcasts that showed the Premier and other cabinet ministers involved in a number of activities. They employed the services of a well-known television broadcaster to participate in those particular programs. Those programs were preelection material. Their purpose was to create a tone about a coming election, to create an atmosphere, to influence. They used public money to do that. That's where conscience should have come to the fore. In that instance government should have said: "No, it is morally wrong to use public funds to advance the interests of a private political party." That would have been the conscionable thing to do. I think the Premier failed the demands of a political ethic by not clamping down on Doug Heal and those people in the propaganda segment and saying: "No, we are not going to use public funds to advance the interests of a political party."

The other election campaigns that have taken place, the revelations subsequent to 1979 about all of the dirty-tricks activities.... That should not have been permitted. Permitting it was the easy route. That was the advantageous route — not the ethically correct route, but the easy route and the wrong route, in terms of setting a tone for politicians' activities in this province.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, even people like Dan Campbell, failing to meet the demands of the law with respect to declaring election expenses, running activities out of the Premier's office with party funds — that's his business — using thousand-dollar bills, and then saying: "It's none of the public's damn business what happens...." Dan Campbell was gone, but he's back again now, doing something else.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I'm talking about the need to establish something for the future, that's all.

I notice the member down the line here from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), who, Mr. Chairman, sits in the chair in your place once in a while, and who admonishes every member of the House if they even whisper, continuing to chatter away and interrupt. That's a question of ethics. He is not prepared to follow what he demands of others. That's his business. I have no quarrel with him. We're not dealing with him. We're dealing with the estimates of the leader of this province.

When this House resumed its sittings a few days ago, we attempted to present a motion seeking to rescind an earlier decision to ban the Leader of the Opposition from this chamber. The Premier was the person who led the chorus of noes, objecting to what would have been, I thought at the time, an ordinarily respectful thing to do. That was a choice that the Premier made. The correct choice for him to make, in terms of an ethic and in terms of setting the tone for government, would have been a different one. But he didn't. He said: "No, I don't want the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber until this session is over. I don't want him here to deal with my estimates. I don't want to debate with him." It's easy to be mean, narrow and restrictive, and say no, as was said. The more difficult choice — and, I submit, the correct choice — would have been for the Premier to have increased his stature as an individual and said yes. The heat of last fall had gone. When the House adjourned on October 21, it was for a cooling-off period. I think that decision sums up the fact that we do have a tone to government, an attitude on the part of government that does not take into full account the need to have ethical considerations and does not show that there is and should be a common pond of respectful and politically decent behaviour.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, all I want to say in conclusion is that some may consider that these are some comments of mine that have some bite to them, on an individual basis. They're not for that purpose. They are an attempt to show that where leaders fail to set the tone, chart the course, set out their vision and their hope, and make declarations about their intent for the future on a politically ethical and moral basis, then all of humanity suffers by that lack. I am simply saying to the Premier, for heaven's sake, so long as you are Premier, pull up your socks and show this province that there is more stuff than simply meanness in the character of this government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't let those few remarks go by without some response. Although they didn't deal with the estimates of the Premier's office, they certainly were in keeping with the type of comment I have come to expect from the

[ Page 3207 ]

member for Skeena. Although carried out in a quieter manner, the content and intent of the statements remain consistent with his earlier approach to debate in this chamber. However, he did use as part of his premise the statement that the more difficult choices and decisions are usually the correct ones. To that I can say amen.

Without dignifying the fairy-tale atmosphere of the rest of his comments, which were personally directed in trying to make some statements which I know to be incorrect, I would comment that the very character of this government, particularly in difficult times, has been one of making difficult choices, rather than following the easy path that has been espoused in this House by the New Democratic Party, as shattered and fractured as it is, a party that is today seeking new directions and admitting publicly that it is irrelevant — admitted at least by the leading members of the party and caucus. They have admitted their failure to be relevant in this province and admitted their failure to come up with those types of decisions, and then to hear that type of criticism from the member for Skeena who has perhaps in that case been the worst offender of all the members....

Although many would like to conclude this session in a positive manner and get on to the new session, during which there are many positive things to do, I know they would not want me to allow this opportunity to pass without recalling what this government has done.

Earlier today in estimates I think the very attitude of that group and that party, which is, by their own admission irrelevant not only on the provincial scene but nationally as well.... We had the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) with some very convoluted argument trying to prove that those who are in the teaching profession should not face the same consequences of the recession as those in the forest industry, who have faced — and faced very bravely — difficult times, layoffs and loss of work. His argument was that somehow the public, those unemployed forest workers or unemployed miners, would be committing some sort of economic disaster because of the multiplier effect if, when they have no more money for taxes, they used their credit to keep teachers employed; that they would somehow keep local economics alive and buoyant. Taking his argument — and I know he was a former teacher because I know him very well — that teachers somehow by maintaining employment in an area where all others have suffered, would maintain the economic levels in communities, he really is arguing the traditional philosophy of the New Democratic Party: that somehow the answers during tough times or good times.... Economic problems that come from beyond our borders, either within the country or outside the country, could be resolved by massive expenditure of the public's taxes, and when those have run out, extending and using their credit; and the answer then, taking it to its simplest form, would probably be to make everyone a public servant of some nature — a policeman, a teacher. By doing this we could somehow solve our economic problems. This has reinforced in my mind what became apparent last year in the opposition to the government and its programs, which I guess by necessity and lack of a coherent opposition in the House was led by Solidarity: the growing rift — and I would say in the unionized sector — between those who work in the public sector and those who work in the private sector.

For the first time there was a great realization to the people who work in the bush and the mines and the productive side of the community that somehow they were being left behind and ignored as the opposition tended to support those who worked on the public payroll, utilizing their taxes and credit at a time when they were bearing the brunt of an international recession, in which they not only suffered but were being asked to pay the additional price of keeping employed those who had not yet felt the ravages of the recession, those who worked on the public payroll.

I don't think the member for Coquitlam-Moody could have stated the case for his party any clearer than when he advocated today, in regard to teachers, that somehow they were different from ordinary working people, organized or not, and that there was a multiplier effect. He said that somehow, by keeping them employed or, by implication, increasing employment, regardless of student population, there was an economic multiplier that would feed the economy and make our communities economically vibrant. He's ignoring the fact that the greatest enemy to ordinary people, both for jobs and for essential government services, are government deficits and accumulated debt that today in North America is the number one enemy of the people of this country and this continent.

Today it is evident that the only thing keeping interest rates beyond the affordability of our people, giving real interest rates the highest level ever, over and above the inflation factor, is the uncertainty of government deficits and their ability to pay them back. If we don't control the public cost, then all essential government services will be lost in the future. Our economics and our people will be faced, in order to maintain that high public employment and cost, with higher interest rates and unaffordable homes. No amount of increased government spending by those who always want to show that they have a heart instead of a head, who think that to compensate for this we need even more government spending and programs to assist those people in housing and elsewhere, is any solution to resolving the basic problem of leaving more money in the hands of the people, having interest rates that are affordable and particularly not reinforcing government as the villain. However well intentioned, that continues to be the biggest enemy of the total type of recovery that we need on this continent. Increased deficits and overly high interest rates have even overpriced the North American currency that is now inhibiting our exports from entry into a tough competitive market around the world. Overly high interest rates, unrealistic to our economy, while attracting capital, are unrealistically propping up unrealistically our currency in North America — both the U.S. and Canada. Again, they are making it more difficult in all other areas of the economy.

I say the government did make the right choices — the tough choices, by the member for Skeena's definition — the one thing I could take out of the member for Skeena's speech with which I could agree. We did not follow the conventional political wisdom that you buy the public's votes. You cannot use the conventional political wisdom that when you've spent their money, you spend their credit. You cannot continually stand in this House and cry for more spending in estimate after estimate at a time in which we've had to make those tough choices. So I accept the member for Skeena when he says the measure and quality of the decision is the difficulty of the choice. When it comes to important public policy, our government and this caucus and the Social Credit Party in this Legislature have felt the weight of that choice. We made it last fall and felt the weight of those who would oppose purely for political gain, and we took that opposition. In facing the

[ Page 3208 ]

opposition and in carrying out our programs, which are working — and as the new session gets under way the proof of that and the proof of our programs of not only containing costs for our future benefit but in expanding our opportunities for export and creating jobs will become self-evident and more evident. The rightness of those decisions, over and above the sort of left-handed, back-handed endorsement by the member for Skeena, will become evident to even more British Columbians, who today, each and every day, each and every week, each and every month, since we introduced our program last July, agree with this government and endorse our policies in ever-increasing numbers.

Mr. Chairman, as we come to the close of this session, we look forward to the new session with an optimism that is not unrealistic, recognizing the difficulties that still face us, but knowing that we have put in place a program and policies and a framework for the future that will make British Columbia, over the years, the one part of Canada best able to face the recession and come through the recession and have a stronger growth in the future — nothing short term that would rebound on us later but solid and dependable planning that is being understood in the international economic markets.

There is no one to whom we have talked in either government or business who can make a contribution to this province in jobs or in investment who does not understand what we have done here in British Columbia and applaud it wholeheartedly. We in this government accept that judgment, because that judgment will be the judgment that pays dividends of real jobs in the future for our people — not mythical short-term jobs that will rebound to the detriment of our people with increased government spending and increased government employment; not some sort of socialist palliative to employment, but real economic development and planning that will increase our employment where it counts — in the productive sector, the private sector. As they are successful, then the public sector, which has a role to pay in providing services, can have the funds — funds that are there and can be there from a healthy economy. They can have the funds to provide those essential services.

The fight we have asked people to wage together is not to have teachers or those in the public service be picked upon, but to have them put their shoulders to the other wheel, as those who work in the forests, mines and other areas have done. We've sought not to make them lesser but to have them join in the battle on an equal basis to those for whom the fight has been just a little deeper, tougher and longer. That is not too much to ask from thinking British Columbians who want to work in a cooperative manner.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward, as all members do, to the speech of His Honour in the upcoming session and to the presentation of the budget of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

[5:00]

Vote 4 approved.

ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN

On vote 3: office of the ombudsman, $1,618,744.

MR. REID: I take exception to passing the estimate of the ombudsman. I spoke out against the budget of the ombudsman as it was prepared earlier in the year, inasmuch as in five short years it has gone from $300,000 to $1,618,000, and to an excess of 37 employees. From their most recent report, there were 1,888 justifiable complaints handled by the ombudsman; broken down by the day, that's eight complaints per day over 260 days, handled at a cost of $1,618,000. Knowing the need in the Human Resources ministry for the CIP program, as has constantly been indicated by the opposition during the course of this year, I would hope that I could solicit their support for reducing the projected 1984-85 budget to the original amount of $300,000 provided by the ombudsman's department.

MRS. DAILLY: The opposition was not planning to take part in this debate on the ombudsman, because we have been very pleased with the work done. But when we heard the few remarks just made by the last member, we find it absolutely necessary to make a few comments. Never before has an ombudsman been needed so badly in any province than in the province of British Columbia. At this time, with all the problems which beset the people of B.C. because of the Socreds' recessionary policies — with more unemployed, more people having trouble meeting their rents, etc., all because of legislation brought in by Social Credit — the ombudsman has a tremendous job to do. To my mind, the remarks by that member, when he doesn't even seem to understand that, just symbolize how heartless the government is if he represents the feelings of his government.

I want to say that the opposition feels that the ombudsman is doing a fine job. He is acting in an independent manner. At no time has he shown any partisanship; that's why he was chosen by an all-party committee. The specious remarks made by that member, who obviously has not even visited the ombudsman to discuss the number of cases he really does have to process, really did deserve a reply from the opposition, I think, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity.

Vote 3 approved.

Vote 2: auditor-general, $3,151,560 — approved.

On vote 1: legislation, $7,610,112.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think all of us must agree that sooner or later we should come up into the 1980s and eventually get into the 1990s, and get out of the Dark Ages with respect to the way this place operates. One of the ways I would suggest to the minister would be to set up a non-partisan type of members' services committee. You will find members' services committees in virtually every jurisdiction in this country wherever you have a legislature or a parliament which convenes from time to time. I'm not going into all the details of the reasons for the need for a better understanding not only of rules and so forth but of the way constituents are handled in constituency offices, the way we are able to deal with the work of the day within these precincts. All these things should be a part of the responsibility of that committee. Many jurisdictions ask the Speaker to chair such a committee. I would ask that this government now take into consideration this whole question of a members' services committee for us here, not particularly for our needs but for the needs of those whom we serve. If we're in any way hindered in the way in which we dispatch our services or handle the needs of the community or of the people around us, then we all suffer — the province suffers. It would do an awful lot to make this Legislature a better place in which to work and to give this Legislature a better image in the public's

[ Page 3209 ]

mind. Its image, Mr. Chairman, is suffering, and I suggest to you that we need something along that line to put things together around here.

Vote 1 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises and reports the resolutions.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on October 19 and 20, 1983, and January 31, February 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1984, be now received and taken as read.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the resolution from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund a sum not exceeding $8,055,771,830 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province not otherwise provided for for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under Section 1 (a) of Supply Act (No. 1), 1983, and Section 1 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1983, and Section 1 of Supply Act (No. 3), 1983.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee reports a resolution that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund a sum not exceeding $8,055,771,830 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province not otherwise provided for for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section l(a) of

Supply Act (No. 1), 1983, section 1 of Supply Act (No. 2), 1983, and Section 1 of Supply Act (No. 3), 1983.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 4), 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 39, intituled Supply Act (No. 4), 1983.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith,

Motion approved.

The House in committee; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report to the House recommending the introduction of Bill 39.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[5:15]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 4), 1983

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[ Page 3210 ]

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 39, Supply Act (No. 4), 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm led to believe that His Honour is approaching the precincts. We might recess for a moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am led to believe that His Honour is in the immediate precincts. We will just have a short adjournment, and he will be with us very shortly.

The House took recess at 5:18 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:22 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Supply Act (No. 4), 1983.

In Her Majesty's name His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

HON. MR. R.G. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, in closing this first session of the thirty-third parliament, I must say I was most impressed with the commitment you showed in your deliberations and with your determination that all segments of our society should share in resolving our current difficulties.

When you assembled here last June 23 to shoulder the burden of our people's concerns, you were well aware that yours would not be a simple task. We are not living through simple times. There were difficult decisions to be reached. My government was faced with the most severe recession since the 1930s. It had seen revenues plummet and remain depressed during a time when my government most wanted to help its people weather the economic storm.

In difficult economic times of the past, our people looked to government for guidance, for a course to follow that would permit them, through their own fortitude, to continue enjoying the benefits they had worked so hard to realize. That guidance has been provided through the many essential services supplied by my government. But those services cease to be of value when their cost threatens to impair our people's expectations and their ability to pay for the secure way of life they have earned.

Faced with this double-edged problem of continuing to supply services at an affordable cost during a period of depressed revenues, yours was indeed a formidable task.

When my government put before you certain proposals designed to ease the economic pressure on our people, it was fully aware that in some segments of our provincial community those measures would be troubling. Those proposals were not arrived at easily or without agony by my government. It is the role of government to lead, and having set its course and defined its goals, to move forward in its determination to better the lot of our people. While faced with outspoken opponents to its legislative program, my government has been encouraged by the majority of British Columbians, who wished to see those proposals implemented.

Through that period our people were still able to take comfort in the knowledge that, unlike some countries of the world, our free democratic system encourages independent thought and open debate. We treasure that as a jewel. We would have it no other way. It is one of our greatest strengths, and while that strength did at times upset the harmony of your deliberations, it did also, through that free exercise of independent thought and the ability to understand the aspirations of others, bring about solutions.

While you were in this chamber exercising those precious rights without fear of reprisal for your individual beliefs, we all watched with horror as the details of a frightful and barbaric incident in the skies, which took 269 innocent lives, unfolded before us, a terrifying example of disdain for human rights and human life. It brought into sharp focus the events of some months earlier, as we witnessed the freedom with which our sovereign Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh were able to visit with us without fear as they walked among and talked with our people. And when Her Majesty invited the world to participate in Expo 86, we were reminded of our fortunate place as Canadians in the roster of nations.

You will soon be returning to this chamber once again to take up the mantle of leadership of our people. My government will again be bringing before you measures designed to accelerate a recovery from the economic problems we face and to ease the constraints which have been put upon our people through conditions over which it has no control. There will no doubt be periods of misunderstanding, of disagreement and of stress for you all; but I am confident, from my understanding of our people's history of outstanding achievement and fierce pride, that you will collectively resolve these problems and arrive at the best possible solution for the overall benefit of our province.

Hon. members, I now relieve you of your legislative duties, and I trust the blessing of Divine Providence will be with you as you shortly resume those responsibilities.

[5:30]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, it is His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's will and pleasure that this Legislative Assembly be prorogued until 2 o'clock in the afternoon Monday next, and this provincial Legislative Assembly is hereby prorogued accordingly.

The House prorogued at 5:31 p.m.

[ Page 3211 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

43 Mr. Passarell asked the Hon. the Attorney General the following question:

In 1975/76, the Social Credit Government gave a commitment to the Nishga regarding land claims. Has the Attorney General set a date to commence land claim negotiations with the Nishga? If so, what is that date?

The Hon. B. R. D. Smith replied as follows:

"In accordance with s. 91 (24) of the British North America Act, Canada has responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. The negotiation of Indian claims is therefore, principally a federal responsibility. Canada announced its intention to seek negotiated resolution of Indian claims in 1973. At that time it sought the participation of the Government of British Columbia. However, the Government of the day refused to participate. On January 12, 1976 the Government of British Columbia was represented at the Ministerial level at a meeting in New Aiyansh. At that time the Province agreed to discuss the elements of the Nishga claim. At least 27 tripartite meetings have been held since March of 1976. A representative of the Government of British Columbia chaired four of those meetings at the invitation of the other parties.

45 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Attorney General the following questions:

1. What were the total expenditures on the "CounterAttack" program from its inception to March 31, 1983?

2. For the amount listed in reply to No. 1, what is the breakdown of these expenditures for the following categories: (a) administration and planning, (b) production, (c) purchase of advertising, and (d) others, please specify?

3. What is the proposed expenditure on the "CounterAttack" program for the 1983/84 fiscal year?

The Hon. B. R. D. Smith replied as follows:

"1.

"2.

"3. Proposed Expenditure for CounterAttack–

[ Page 3212 ]

52 Mr. Reynolds asked the Hon. the Attorney General the following questions:

1. On July 27, did any members of the Public Service in the Ministry of Attorney General leave their positions to attend a rally at the Parliament Buildings, and if so, how many?

2. In reference to No. 1, how many of these public servants will be paid for: (a) the whole day and (b) for part of the day?

3. Will any money be saved by Government as a result of No. 2, and if so, how much?

The Hon. B.R.D. Smith replied as follows:

"There were 44 staff members from the Ministry of Attorney General who were absent from work on July 27 for the whole or part of the day. The staff members were absent from work for a total 64 hours, resulting in a saving of approximately $700.

70 Mr. Reynolds asked the Hon. the Attorney General the following questions:

1. On August 10, did any members of the Public Service in the Ministry of Attorney General leave their positions to attend a rally at Empire Stadium, and if so, how many?

2. In reference to No. 1, how many of these public servants will be paid for: (a) the whole day and (b) for part of the day?

3. Will any money be saved by Government as a result of No. 2, and if so, how much?

The Hon. B.R.D. Smith replied as follows:

"There were 836 Lower Mainland staff members of the Ministry of Attorney General who were absent from work on August 10 for the whole or part of the day. The total salary saving represented by this figure is $74, 438.