[ Page 4967 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Education funding cuts. Mr. Nicolson –– 4967

Princess Marguerite sailings. Mr. Williams –– 4968

Ganges sewer subsidy. Mr. Blencoe –– 4968

Sewerage assistant. Mr. MacWilliam –– 4968

Tabling Documents –– 4969

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

Mr. Rose –– 4969

Mr Lea –– 4971

Mr. MacWilliam –– 4974

Mrs. Wallace –– 4975

Mr. Mitchell –– 4977

Ms. Sanford –– 4980

Mr. Davis –– 4981

Mr. Passarell –– 4981

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 4982

Mr. Barnes –– 4983

Mr. Stupich –– 4985

Mr. Hanson –– 4986

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4987

Division –– 4989

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985 (Bill 37). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4989

Mr. Cocke –– 4989

Tabling Documents –– 4989

Public Service Act (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4989

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to introduce a guest seated on the floor of the House today from a province representing one of the two bookends of our nation, the former Speaker of the Legislature of Newfoundland and currently the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. Would the House please welcome the Hon. Len Simms.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is the chairperson of the Greater Victoria School Board, Mrs. Carol Pickup. I wish the House would welcome her today.

MR. PARKS: In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, we have six visitors from Winnipeg — not quite Winnipeg, but a little spot 65 miles northwest of Winnipeg. I don't think any of us heard about it until a certain Air Canada plane found out what metric was all about. We have six visitors from Gimli: Phyllis and Harry Boelig, Gwen and Ed Wilcock, and Win and Jim Henderson. For the benefit of the House, I would like to note that Mrs. Boelig is the sister of one of this party's former presidents, Leg Keen. I ask all of us to make them welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Today being Valentine's Day, Mr. Speaker, it's the kickoff day for the B.C. Heart Foundation annual canvassing door to door. This year the heart fund will be seeking $3.6 million as the 1985 campaign total. This afternoon it's my pleasure, on behalf of the government, to meet with and speak with the honorary chairman of the BC Heart Foundation for 1985, broadcaster Joe Easingwood, and also my pleasure, on behalf of the government, to present the BC Heart Foundation with a kickoff to their campaign, a cheque for $75,000. I'd simply like to recognize the efforts of the BC Heart Foundation, particularly today, the beginning of their drive.

Oral Questions

EDUCATION FUNDING CUTS

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. According to information from the Universities Council of British Columbia, the minister's own institution, the provincial government has been diverting substantial amounts of federal post-secondary education funds to other non-educational purposes. Indeed, based on the funding formula that was in place, and very constant back in 1977, provincial government contributions now are only 3.2 percent of those post-secondary education programs. Will the minister advise what steps he has taken to reverse this trend, because if it continues.... There's only 3.5 percent left.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one impression the member may have left: that the Universities Council is our organization. The Universities Council is a very fine body that was introduced by the NDP. They sponsored the legislation when they were government, and I give the NDP every credit for having put this intermediary body into place. They're doing a fine job.

Interjection.

HON. MR . McGEER: I won't evaluate junior counsel's performance here in the Legislature, but he's pretty close. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the members of the House and the public of British Columbia that every cent provided by the federal government in established programs financing for health and post-secondary education is spent on those activities — and a great deal more, which is provided by provincial taxation alone. We all wish there was more money for education, health and many other essential activities in the province. The tragedy we face today in British Columbia is that the taxpayers simply do not have the money to send to governments to satisfy all the ambitions of those who wish to spend that tax money.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister says that they spend all of the moneys that come through the tax point transfer program — and a great deal more. Yes, you spend the $286 million that they contribute, and add $11.5 million more. Is that a great deal more, in the minister's estimate? Is that enough to do the job?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the money which has come on behalf of post-secondary education includes all universities, all colleges, all institutes and half of grade 12. The first thing that I did as the Minister of Education in British Columbia was to negotiate up British Columbia's base by $100 million. Quite frankly, in those days in the field of education, as in many other fields, the game was rigged against British Columbia and we weren't getting our share. We still pay more than our share in taxes. British Columbia's taxpayers' money is still funnelled through many federal programs into other parts of Canada. But we're doing the best we can to pull our own weight and do more than our own share in the Canadian nation as a whole.

All of those transfer funds that the minister of industrial development says we climbed 3,000 miles over broken glass to get back are being used in the activities for which the transfers were intended, including much more than universities. I'm proud of what we've been able to do in negotiating some of our money back. I just wish we could get more of it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that you're trying to pull your weight. The students are contributing $60 million in fees when the provincial government revenues directly are only $11.5 million — one-quarter. When are you going to start pulling your weight? When will you at least match those student fees in the upcoming year?

[2:15]

HON . MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, again I think there's a misstatement here. We don't pull our weight; it's the taxpayers who have to pull the weight in this province. The government is trying to lessen that burden which is on the back of the taxpayers so that the economy can be stimulated and people put back to work.

The best deal that students ever had is right today. They pay a far lower cost of their education than they did in former times. Looking across the way at passing grades, I'm not sure about the quality of education in those days. Certainly I can say that it's excellent today, and those students are getting a wonderful bargain for the part they have to pay toward their

[ Page 4968 ]

own costs. In the case of universities it's about 15 percent; in the case of colleges, less than 10 or 12 percent. It's a pretty good deal for the students and a generous contribution from the taxpayers.

PRINCESS MARGUERITE SAILINGS

MR. WILLIAMS: My question is to the Minister of Highways with respect to the BC Steamship Company. The government has made a decision to delay the sailing of the Marguerite, as I understand it, from May 3 to May 16 this year. This is despite a staff study that recommended the earlier sailing and the benefits that would flow from that. It'll cut into the Victoria tourist season and probably cut 10 percent of the wages for the crew, despite the fact that many thousands of leaflets have already gone out. In view of the importance of this service, which was established several years ago by very thoughtful people, can the minister explain this decision that will impinge on employment, in terms of the tourist season for the city of Victoria?

HON. A. FRASER: All I can say is that the board of directors made that decision some time ago. I'm sorry to hear that it doesn't agree with some people, but you're right. I believe the date it starts is May 16 this year.

MR. WILLIAMS: Despite that, some 80,000 pamphlets are out and tourism people would expect service on May 3. Maybe the minister can give us further explanations for the resignations that have since occurred, and the staff departures that have occurred as well.

HON. A. FRASER: I'll certainly look into the pamphlets you say are around. Regarding resignations, we've only had one that I'm aware of from the board of directors. I'm not aware of any staff resignations.

GANGES SEWER SUBSIDY

MR. BLENCOE: I have just a few questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the Ganges sewer. Will the minister confirm this afternoon that the additional $794,000 grant that he recently announced will bring the level of public subsidy for the Ganges sewer to 100 percent, and completely eliminate the statutory responsibility of property owners in the service area to contribute to construction costs?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would the member please repeat the question? There was one portion of it that I didn't quite grasp.

MR. BLENCOE: I certainly will repeat the question for the minister, and I'm sure he will listen this time.

My question, Mr. Minister, in a simple form so you can understand: you have just announced $794,000 for the Ganges sewer. I want to know whether this will indeed bring the level of public subsidy to 100 percent, and eliminate the responsibility — which is a statutory responsibility — of the property owners in that area to contribute to construction costs.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, we haven't got the final costs on that project as yet, so I am unable to advise the member as to how far that will go, but as soon as we get those figures in we will know exactly. The announcement was made just recently, after over 20 years of debate on that particular project. We felt that since the school and the hospital required those facilities, now was the time to go ahead with it. Therefore the grant was announced to do just exactly that,

MR. BLENCOE: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: you have announced $794,000 — close to a million dollars — and you are saying today that you don't know the total project costs of all involved. Is that good business for the Minister of Municipal Affairs? Is that fiscal responsibility?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, $2 million dollars is already invested in an outfall pipe there. There is considerable money invested in other equipment for the facility, and I would assume that the additional funding now will cover the total cost. However, we cannot be assured until the total figures come in as to what the final cost will be. I don't expect that that will be available for another two or three months.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister knows that the minimum cost to the public is $4.5 million for this project — total public subsidy. It's amazing that the minister doesn't even know that. Can the minister tell us where the money is coming from during these difficult days, particularly when he can't even tell us why he is giving this money or the costs? Where is the money coming from?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There was a portion from the federal government, a portion from revenue-sharing and a portion from consolidated revenue.

MR. BLENCOE: Here is the critical issue in this matter. The chairman of the CRD stated today that if they hold a referendum in Ganges on this particular issue, the minister will remove this $800,000 dollars. Why does he not want a democratic vote on this particular issue in Ganges? Is he scared that the people of that area might actually tell him what they want?

SEWERAGE ASSISTANCE

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In 1974 the New Democrats passed the Sewerage Assistance Act assuring city councils that 75 percent of the sewerage funding would be borne by the province. On July 8th, 1983, the Socred government reduced the province's share of sewerage funding from 75 percent to 25 percent. In light of the evidence of the Ganges Island sewerage assistance, will the hon. minister assure the citizens of the North Okanagan that additional funds, above and beyond that levied through the present Sewerage Assistance Act, will be made available for assistance in resolving the sewage problems currently experienced by the city of Vernon?

HON, MR, RITCHIE: The revenue sharing program as it applies to sewer and water was changed about a year ago simply because there weren't sufficient funds in the program to continue with that major sharing portion.

The program as it was, demand-driven, was eating up a very large percentage of the total revenue-sharing at the

[ Page 4969 ]

expense of all municipalities throughout this province, because it was taking away from the unconditional portion, which they all benefit from.

As far as the Ganges program is concerned, we have a situation there where both the school and the hospital require upgrading of their facilities for health reasons, and the funds hadn't been made available. It was decided that since that amount of money together with what was already in place for the total system would indeed serve that entire designated area, those tax dollars would be much better spent by providing both for the institutions and for the private users of the system.

That, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is the best use of tax dollars. It's giving us the most value for the dollars to be invested. Those dollars that have been assigned from consolidated revenue would be spent anyway in providing for those two facilities. So it seems to me that whenever we have an opportunity now to combine that with funds that are already in place and with facilities that are already installed, and we could facilitate and assist the business community and those other private users, that's indeed what we should be doing. That is responsible use of taxpayers' dollars.

So we have a different situation. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to know that I am most interested in what is happening in the whole Okanagan basin, and certainly I've been in communication with the council there — not for some time — and indications have been made that when funds are available through the revenue-sharing source, indeed some action will take place. But at this time we are not interested in changing the formula back to what it was — 75-25 percent.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the forty-ninth annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act, for the year ending March 31, 1984; the forty-third annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Teachers) Act, for the year ending December 31, 1983; the forty-fifth annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Municipal) Act, for the year ending December 31, 1993; the twenty-ninth annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, part 2, for the year ending March 31, 1984, and the eighth annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, for the year ending March 31, 1984.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 48.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, as some might recall, before the noon adjournment I was attempting to outline, on behalf of my party, the objections we have to this latest wrinkle from the flimflam man in terms of educational finance. I think it's only fair that we outline why we oppose this new method of raising funds for education,

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I've already said — but I don't think it hurts to repeat it — that the minister is in charge of the total budget to be applied to education in each district. As a response to a lot of pressure from boards, when he went around the province, for more money for the return of the funds to something that was adequate — not lavish, particularly, but merely adequate — the minister, instead of recanting and admitting that his cutbacks had been most severe, when you add inflation up to 25 percent over three years, has chosen this alternative route. He has gone back, the same way he has gone back in his curriculum outlines, into the dim, distant past, to resurrect a system of raising funds that probably won't work and was found wanting in about 1972 or '73. As a matter of fact, I don't know of another jurisdiction in Canada — correct me if I'm wrong — that depends on referenda for the raising of funds beyond a basic level of education. It may exist, but if that's the case I don't know it. But that's not the main reason that we oppose it.

Let me just outline for you our objections to the proposal, in a very quiet way. Sotto voce — as a musician you might appreciate that phrase — not loud or wild or anything like that but just in a very reasoned way, I hope. The fact that it's reactionary is only a general criticism of it.

[2:30]

The first one I'd have to say is that because of the timing, because of the dates within the bill — a decision having to be reached by March 15 so the minister can approve it and the referendum to be placed before April 14.... It's just not enough time to do it. So it won't work for this year. Only in rare cases would a board be in a position right now to put together that kind of referendum and set up all the machinery necessary, get ministerial approval for the wording and all that technical stuff that you have to go through in time. If it's not available for this year. then perhaps it could be available for next year. But if it's available for next year, why should we need it? There's a sunset clause that comes in on Bill 6 next year, and according to the minister's promise and pledge, the boards will be free to set their own budgets at that time anyway. So we begin to question either the sunset provision or the need and the viability or the efficacy of the referendum proposal in its entirety, That's just one of the objections.

The second objection has to do with this: as was pointed out this morning, certain districts have a far different balance between residential and non-residential tax bases. Some districts are highly residential; they have a large tax base, such as West Van. There are other districts, such as South Cariboo, that do not have a large residential tax base. But remember that the tax for school purposes is to be placed only on the residential portion of the tax. You will recall, as a former board member, Mr. Speaker, that the non-residential — industrial and commercial — was confiscated about two years ago, so that doesn't exist any more. However, owners of non-residential property will still be able to vote in and on any referenda. because it says so right in the bill: "All persons who, at the time the referendum is held, are entitled to vote at an election of a school trustee are entitled to vote at the referendum." So if you are able to vote for a school trustee you can vote in the referendum.

So here we have a lot of people who are not going to be taxed, or bear the increased tax or the burden of what the referendum will collect, who will be voting to impose a tax on people and their residences. That, to me, is blatantly unfair. I think it's unparalleled that those people who are not

[ Page 4970 ]

going to be accepting any burden of the tax are going to be voting in the referendum.

We think this is dead wrong. We think this should be changed. Corporations and non-residents owning property within a school district are also eligible for inclusion on the voters' list, although no person may cast more than one vote within the school district. So you have a corporation that owns a lot of property in various school districts.... That same person, not one man, one vote — that's what we heard about this morning — can run around to all these districts and vote for an increase, or against it. So it can be weighted. It can be what we used to call in statistics "negatively skewed." That's what's going to happen to most of the people who own residences as well. This, we think, is unfair.

I'd like to quote the Minister of Highways, the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser). In 1973 he complained about this, because at that time he was in favour of getting rid of referenda. He said: "In my district, rural areas are most inadequate as far as the elementary schools are concerned. Those elementary schools in my riding...."

[Interruption.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been posed: do we have a quorum? We do have a quorum. Debate continues on Bill 48 with the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who is the designated speaker.

MR. ROSE: In point form, to recap why we oppose it. First of all, it's the timing. It's catch-22. The boards don't have time to do it this year.

The next one is that we think it favours rich districts with a high residential tax base. It discriminates against poor districts such as South Cariboo. I quoted the Minister of Highways about how it was so difficult in the early days. He spoke in the House, and it's reported in Hansard in 1973. When districts were dependent for capital expenditures on referenda, they found they were chopping out libraries, gyms and that sort of thing. Once that was removed, districts such as South Cariboo and others with a low residential tax base began to find that their school system, their buildings, and the very quality.... The materials they needed improved vastly. I quoted the minister, and I enshrined his name in the record once again. So that's another reason.

[2:45]

The other reason that we oppose it is that we think it's a wasteful expenditure of money. We know that the civic by-election in Vancouver cost approximately $250,000 of taxpayers' money. We would rather have that money spent on education than on setting up all the machinery we need for referenda. We think it's a useless expenditure. Furthermore, it's downright dangerous. Supposing a board decides to go ahead on that, makes the expenditure — they all won't equal the expenditures of Vancouver; no one's pretending that — and loses. Then the board, according to this bill, has to pick up the cost. Again, we'd rather have that spent on textbooks or heat and light or cleaning or maintenance or ESL or any number of other things, rather than on that kind of an expenditure. It's as foolish as expenditures on arbitration, when you cap the budgets and then, if anything gets away on you, you send it to Ed Peck and he puts the hammer on it. So I think it's kind of a dance of the dialectic. It's a gesture that reaches, perhaps, a certain level of consciousness that something's happening, but is really quite meaningless. So we say that this is a useless and costly expenditure.

Furthermore, I don't think that the school boards will be able to plan. How can they plan their programs two and three years in advance — and they have to, to make sensible decisions about planning — if they don't even know from one year's end to the next whether or not a referendum is going to pass? And these referenda are not going to pass in the rural areas. In areas which have low residential tax bases, they are not going to pass. Over 75 percent here were non-residential in districts such as Lillooet, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Fort Nelson, Vancouver Island West and Cowichan — and we'll hear more about this later. I learned yesterday that during the bad old days Cowichan district — Duncan, Malahat — never succeeded in having one referendum passed for school purposes in that whole area.

So we think that they'll fail, and this will enable the minister to first of all be very grudging with the funds, and then to turn around and say: "Well, the people don't want it. That's what the referendum proves, that they don't want to spend that extra money." So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and so, politically, it's extremely cunning. But I don't think that it gets 95 percent or a straight A for integrity. I think it's a bit of — as I said, Mr. Speaker, not naming anybody — an act of flim-flam.

So the rich districts with high residential tax bases — the West Vans, the Coquitlams and places like that — I think will pass referenda. But I think other areas will not. So what we will have will be a two-tiered educational, system, Or is it three-tiered'? We have the rich districts with the high residential bases passing referenda; we have the poorer rural districts with small residential tax bases not passing them; and then we have one child in 20 going to a private school.

More and more kids will be going to independent schools. That has certain attractions for the minister and the department, because it's only 30-cent dollars there, you know. That's education on the cheap, as far as the province is concerned.

So those are our main concerns. I mentioned them a number of times. We don't think it's fair for industrial and commercial voters to be able to impose taxes on residential areas. It might be okay if the school boards had the industrial and commercial again, but they don't have control of that. So it will be only that small portion of residential users that will bear the extra brunt of education. I don't think it will pass, because only about a third of the people in any area have children in school anyway, and are unlikely.... If you have 60 percent of people indifferent or negative to it, then I don't think that there's a good chance for these things.

One of the questions in the minister's travelling road show called "Let's Talk About Schools" is: should we have referenda? The minister has obviously answered that question all by himself without the benefit of hearing about that. He must have somehow anticipated the answer. What about the other parts of the School Act? Have you already made up your mind about that? Is this a little cosmetic run around the province on the rest of the questions that are in that? I think we should delay this whole thing, and delay also your "Let's Talk About Schools" and try not to hot-house that through while nobody's looking.

If referenda were so good, I would suggest that the minister have a look at an act passed in 1919 but never proclaimed. This calls for referenda and an initiative of the

[ Page 4971 ]

province of British Columbia. Then perhaps when we finish passing this we could send the whole thing out for a referendum, and see whether or not the province would agree that we should have referenda for school purposes or not, or whether we should spend certain kinds of money on Expo or northeast coal. Why should the school boards have to submit an autonomous legally elected body to this kind of interference and these kinds of barriers and impediments and all the hobbling morass, when the Legislature and municipalities are autonomous and can do what they like in terms of expenditure?

Sure, there should be guidelines. Sure, there should be some sort of a reasoned approach. Sure, the province has an interest. Nobody denies that. But I would recommend the minister have a look at this, because I think this would give him a chance to settle lots of things. Maybe the province of British Columbia general public would have liked to know and have a voice in whether or not we should have paid off that $450 million debt of the BC Rail last year, or whether or not we should be prepared to lose $350 million to the northeast coal. It has a lot of possibilities, this idea of referenda. But for the school purposes I think it's nonsense. I think it's worse than nonsense. I think....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look in Beauchesne. I think it's a bit deceptive. I didn't say the minister was deceitful; I said that the action tended to be somewhat deceptive.

There are two kinds of attitudes towards education. There is the conservative approach, which says that what we need is good old-fashioned basic education: the five holy roads to knowledge. Back to basics: math, science and a foreign language, English and social studies or history. You can do all those things with a piece of chalk. I can recall that's what we had when I went to school. That's all we had. We didn't have any shops or anything like that; it was very cheap too — a piece of chalk and a map, and everybody got the McGuffey's reader, or something like that. That's the approach: longer day, more homework and hard discipline. Fifty percent of the kids of my day never even got out of elementary school.

If you have a school set up for the academic elite.... You mentioned earlier the numbers dropping out of the school system — I hope I can find it. Here we have the drop in attendance from 525,000 to 472,000, down 53,000. You are going to have more dropouts, because under your approach you will not be able to offer the options and services and assistance in language and other learning difficulties that were once offered, and they are needed now when everybody's child goes through school. The democratic approach to education is to offer as many options as you can within the limit of what you can expend so that every child, regardless of talent, had something useful for him or her at that school.

Talent is not synonymous with worth. A school system that attempts to cater to everyman's child has to be more than simply some sort of academic factory or industrial plant. We want a decentralized system where decisions are made closer to the people who are affected by them, and we want a responsiveness to the needs of everyone. We don't need a retreat to the educational system of 25 or 50 years ago. I mentioned earlier that down in Washington the new governor feels that we're reaching an age where we should be spending more money, not chiseling our kids out of their money.

The BC School Trustees' Association, an estimable body — sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don't; this time I do — want to meet with the minister. They're concerned about this. This hasn't gone over. This idea is no great hit, you know. This referenda thing is no real winner. It's not going to be at the top of the hit parade. They think that maybe the government is making a mistake. They'd like to speak to you. They'd like to have a meeting before this goes through, before it's too late to retrieve it, too late to recover. My suggestion is that there should be a reconsideration. The minister says that he consults, that he's flexible and reasonable. He's certainly affable. So why don't we just hoist the thing for a little while, until you've had a chance to meet with the various officers of the BC School Trustees' Association.

In the meantime, I want the minister to consider — and I know he has — what we're talking about to restore a reasonable kind of funding level to education for next year. Never mind all this nonsense about the squandering of public money on referenda; we're talking about something approaching $60 million, about 6 percent of the current budget for elementary and secondary education. I hope he does that. I hope he considers this. As I say, I don't consider the minister to be either lazy or without intelligence. I think he has a job to do. I don't like the job in some ways. I think some of the things he's done have been quite acceptable. I think the idea of developing guidelines for various areas is not a bad one, but don't hammer it and make it so inflexible and bureaucratic that nobody can operate within those guidelines without considerable disadvantage to one another. We don't like the concept of the referenda, for all the reasons I mentioned. I'll leave my remarks at that. I hope that some of my colleagues might be able to add something on the local level to what I've said in very general terms.

MR. LEA: This is one of those pieces of legislation that you know if you vote for it you're wrong, and if you vote against it you're wrong. It causes a dilemma, I believe, in the mind of every individual in this chamber.

The member who just finished speaking has laid out a great many of the problems it's going to create between the rich school districts and the poor school districts. If we vote for the referendum, for the legislation, we're at least saying that those children in rich districts are going to continue getting some of the education that they should be getting. The ones in the poor districts won't. If we vote against the legislation, it means that neither will get it, either in the rich district or the poor district. That puts us in a bit of a dilemma. Do we say, as a matter of principle, that we're not even going to allow the students in the rich districts to have their parents opt to pay some more money so that their children can get a better education, and cut out the ones in the poor districts? This is a very unfair bill to put before this legislature. That's really the dilemma we're facing.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But, Mr. Speaker, the real problem comes down to the whole concept of the funding of education in this province. The Minister of Universities from Point Grey stood and said: "Don't you understand that it's not government money, that it's taxpayers' money?" I think we all understand that. I think what people are questioning in this province is the priority by which this government is spending the general revenue coming into the province. The Premier's been very fond, in the

[ Page 4972 ]

past, of trying to break down the general economy of the province to the household situation. He likes to simplify to sell his message. I'd like to use the Premier's method to try to deal with this bill and the funding of education. I'm glad the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is here.

[3:00]

Basically, if we take a look at our own homes and say, "Okay, we have less revenue coming in; we're going to have to make some changes in our spending priority," that's the same as the province. Everybody knows there's less revenue coming in, so there has to be a change in priority of spending. The province has decided that they're going to spend money on certain items and not on others, or in a new ratio, Let's go to the home: less revenue coming in. As parents we know that we still want to educate our children; we still want our children to have a nutritious diets we want our children to be covered by medicare. So if we were looking at our priorities in the home, probably we'd say: "Well, let's set our priorities." One thing's for sure, we're going to set enough money aside to make sure that there's a nutritious diet for our children. We're going to set enough money aside to make sure we pay for our children's education, because that's their future. We're going to set enough money aside out of our budget to pay our premiums for medicare so that our children are going to be looked after in a proper way if they get sick.

Now there are other things that we would probably want as a family; maybe not need as much, but want. We probably would say: "Wouldn't it be nice if we had a swimming pool in the back yard. Should we build a swimming pool now and cut down on a nutritious diet, cut down on paying our premiums for health care, cut down on our payments to education, or should we put the swimming pool aside until times get better?" I think any sensible family would say: "We'd all enjoy the swimming pool, and there'd be benefits. It would probably be healthy to swim. It would probably be enjoyable to swim in a pool in our back yard. We could invite the neighbours over. It would be a social event. It would be nice." But if we had any common sense, we'd put the swimming pool off because revenue is down in our home, and we'd make sure we had enough money to pay for our children's education. It's a matter of priorities. We might also say: "Wouldn't it be nice if we could put a new driveway alongside the house. Let's widen the driveway. Maybe we could put a driveway right around the house instead of just up one side. But should we do it now when the family's revenue is down, or should we wait until the revenue is up?"

In other words, Mr. Speaker, do we build the Coquihalla now, at the expense of education, at the expense of the health care system? Do we build the Coquihalla Highway now, at the expense of a nutritious diet for many of our citizens in this province who could use a little bit more help — single mothers, for one — to feed their children a proper diet? You know what the answer would be, Mr. Speaker. There isn't one member of this House, when making up a household budget, who would put a new driveway and a new swimming pool, no matter how desirable, ahead of a nutritious diet, ahead of making your medicare premium payments, ahead of paying for your children's education. Not one. And yet this government has taken the other option. They said: "Let's put in the driveway. We'll call it the Coquihalla. Let's put in the swimming pool. We'll call it BC Place. We'll call it the domed stadium. Let's spend money on these things that are nice." I've been into the stadium; it's a wonderful place. I'm sure it's going to be a wonderful drive across the Coquihalla. But do you do it now? Or do you priorize the spending of your money to make sure there is going to be a future for the citizens of this province? Are you going to deprive children of the kind of education they're going to need to go into the future, for a highway? For a domed stadium? To pay off debt to BC Railway that didn't have to be paid off at this time? No sensible family would do that. So why does the family of British Columbia make a decision otherwise, when it doesn't make any sense? The government could come back and say that it creates jobs to build the swimming pool, the domed stadium. It creates jobs to put the driveway around your house, the Coquihalla Highway. They'll say: "Are you talking against those jobs, Mr. Member?"

Mr. Speaker, in an economy, unless the pie is growing you have only one option. You can only transfer the resources around within that economy. This government has decided to transfer resources around. They have transferred resources from education to highways, from health services to a domed stadium. And when you transfer resources you transfer jobs. They've traded teachers' jobs for construction jobs because they wanted the votes from the construction workers. They've transferred jobs from health care, education, social services; they've transferred the money, and therefore the jobs, to what they consider high-profile political issues — building a highway. But all they did was to put some citizens to work at the expense of others.

When we take a look at our future, surely down the road there are savings to be made in health care, especially in preventive health care, by spending money on it instead of on a highway. By putting money into a good preventive health care system to make sure it works, down the road the taxpayers are going to reap the benefits, not only in dollars but in better health.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, what we're talking about are priorities of spending, not whether revenues are down in the province. We all admit that. I don't think there's anybody in this Legislature who wouldn't say that there has to be restraint in certain areas. There is no system, no bureaucracy that doesn't get fat; that you can't lean it down a bit, make it more efficient. I've yet to see the bureaucracy in the private or the public system that couldn't stand a little of that every once in a while. But that is a red herring, Mr. Speaker.

Education means not only our social well-being in the future; it means our economic well-being in the future. What we have with this government and their priorities is that they're taking education and doing it year by year in a knee-jerk manner, and therefore not planning for the future. We shouldn't even be looking at the needs of education this year. We should be looking at the needs of education for next year, and five years and ten years and twenty years down the road. Anybody who's taken a look at our society today knows that we're going through profound change. We know that if we have an economic future, it's going to depend more and more and more on skills, on knowledge. When we cut back on education today, we are saying to our daughters and our sons and our grandchildren: "We're going to rob you of your economic future." How can any of us stand in this House with any pride and go along with policies and priorities that are going to rob the future citizens of their proper share of the resources and the economy of this province? We can't.

The priority of this government is neanderthal. It's not forward thinking; it's getting by. It's putting out one brush fire after another, instead of saying to the school boards and the teachers: "Can't we sit down and discuss with some sense of

[ Page 4973 ]

realism what the problems are?" And you can't do that without sitting down with the industrial sector of this society and saying: "What do you project for the future?" If ever there was a need to spend money and apply our brains and our thinking to education, it's now, because without that we have no economic future.

That's the dilemma we're facing. Not to do it is to shirk our responsibility as legislators. It's to shirk the responsibility that's been given to us by the electors of this province. That's what it's doing: for short-term political gain, long-term social and economic pain. That's what we're dealing with in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

What are we going to do with the school district that says: "Okay, we're going to have a referendum." We all know there's not enough room to put a referendum in place in time for the upcoming year. It's just impossible. We're saying to the school districts that we are going to put in planned failure for them. We're not giving them enough time to put all the facts in front of the voters before there's a referendum. If a referendum is going to be used at any time, it should be done when the other elections are going on in November so there is no added cost. All it means is another line on the ballot. But to have another referendum is going to cost a lot of money.

What if that referendum fails? You have a school district with a failed referendum and the cost of running the election or the referendum will come out of the budget, which will mean that there will be less money in the school district in the coming year,

This bill is ridiculous. It does cause the dilemma: do we say to the children in the richer school districts: "We're not going to allow your parents, because they are a little better off, to supply you with education they can afford, because it would mean that the school children in the poorer districts cannot." I see the dilemma. I see in front of me a bill that is unworkable in the first place, so in a great many ways that ends my dilemma. I think I would be irresponsible to vote for this bill knowing full well that it cannot work, that it's impossible to implement. It's asking the impossible of school districts.

What this bill says in another way is that we have no faith in the school trustees who have been elected at the local level. The minister has said: "Toe the line or we'll take you over. We the centralized government know best." Mr. Speaker, where's the democracy if you don't allow locally elected bodies to set their budgets and then at election time have the electors come up and say: "We agree with you; we think you've done a good job; we're going to elect you again," or "we think you've done a lousy job, and we're going to throw you out and replace you." That's the kind of tests we go through in this House to arrive in this parliament. That's the parliamentary test.

Why are we so afraid to let school trustees practise the responsible practice of making their own decisions and then going to the electors and saying: "Do you agree or disagree?" What's wrong with that. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But we're taking away that option for school districts and school trustees, because we're saying to them: "We don't have any trust in you as trustees. And we're saying to the people who elect them: "We don't trust your judgement." They're the same people who elected us.

Is there anyone here who doesn't trust the judgement of those electors in their own district? Oh, no. Then we say: "My, my, aren't they smart? They elected me." But, boy, when they elect someone else we say: "Aren't they stupid?"

I think we have to re-examine a number of things in the school financial formula. I think we have to examine whether the property tax is the correct tax to pay for education. We may have to look at income tax, corporate tax; there are all sorts of things we have to examine. We shouldn't be afraid to speak about it; we shouldn't be afraid to take a look at it. We shouldn't be afraid to sit down with our neighbours and our fellow citizens and discuss anything in the world. We should not be afraid to say: "Well, we can't discuss it. Because even to discuss it might set a precedent." We have to be adventuresome. I believe it was Nietzsche who said: "You're not living unless you're living dangerously." We have to live dangerously: we have to take risks or we're not fulfilling our duties as citizens in a democratic system.

[3:15]

I don't believe there is a member in this House who believes this is a good piece of legislation. I would like to remind this Legislature — although it might be assumed to be presumptuous, but I would like to do it anyway — that there's only one cheek in the British parliamentary system against the tyranny of the majority, and that's the integrity of the private member. The government represents the majority in the British parliamentary system. Private members, regardless of party, represent the minority. It's only us as private members in the British Parliamentary system that can say to the majority: "We represent the minority, and the integrity of the individual within the British parliamentary system is that that's our job, and we'll carry it out." There's only one cheek. In the American system it's a built-in check within their system, but in our system there is only one check and that is the honour of the private member, regardless of whether that member is elected in the same party as the government or not.

We know this bill is a sham. Every private member here knows it, and every private member who votes for it is shirking their responsibility as a member of this Legislature. If we do that, how can we respect ourselves, and if we don't respect ourselves, how can we expect the people of this province to respect body politics or to respect this parliament? We can't. We have no option as private members but to defeat this piece of legislation, because we know it's not workable. To vote for it would be to vote against our own consciences as individuals.

We have a duty, as private members, to say to this government: "We will not vote for an unworkable bill. We will not vote for a government piece of legislation that is not futuristic, that doesn't take into account that our future depends on education socially and economically. We, as private members, regardless of party, have had enough, and we refuse, on political grounds, to support it. Instead we demand in integrity and honour that the minority be protected against the majority, as it is laid out in the roots of the British parliamentary system." It's our duty. If there's any private member in this House who agrees that this bill is unworkable, that it is not a bill that will solve problems in the education system but will add to them, then we all know what our duty is. But that is something for each and every member's conscience in this Legislature.

1 conclude by saying that we can't look at each other and know whether we're lying when we stand to vote, but each and every member in this House knows within himself or herself whether they're standing in shame or in honour. If we're going to turn respect for this House back into a reality — if we're going to say to the people of this province:

[ Page 4974 ]

"Respect us as politicians" — then now is the time. Not only on this piece of legislation, but from now on, we have to say that we are going to vote our consciences as individuals. We're not going to pay so much attention to the mass party complex that we're all part of. We are going to do our duty as individuals. We're going to be able to say to ourselves: "My conscience is satisfied; therefore I've done my part to bring respect for parliament and respect for politics back into being."

If we do that — if we, as individual members, private members — defeat this piece of legislation, we can all walk out of here with heads high. Even government members, because they surely believe in the British parliamentary system and the individual conscience of each member as much as anybody else. It would be no shame. It wouldn't mean the government would have to resign. It would just mean that a piece of government legislation was defeated in the House because the private members of this House said: "We are the protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority."

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my compliments to the former speaker for his eloquent analysis of the issue. Although I may not be quite as skilled or as eloquent, I felt it was my responsibility also to get up and speak strongly against this bill. As a former professional educator before I entered this assembly, I have many grave concerns about the direction that this bill demonstrates the government is taking.

I come from an area that is not particularly rich. The eastern part of my constituency goes into the Kootenay area — the Burton-Edgewood-Fauquier forestry district — and with upwards of 50 percent unemployment in that particular area, it would be next to impossible for those communities to raise in a referendum the funds necessary to carry forward a first-rate educational program in the event of government underfunding.

The argument that this bill creates a three-tiered system, I think, is justifiable. The richer districts with large tax bases certainly could afford to pump the extra money in through referenda, whereas districts such as mine and others would not be able to afford this. This in effect is creating large-scale inequalities in the delivery of sound education throughout the province of British Columbia.

I'd also like to comment on an earlier statement that was made by the member for Prince Rupert in his justifiable analysis of the expenditures that have taken place in the last little while with regard to other ministries. Where did the money come from for the $375 million expenditure on the Coquihalla Highway? If that money is available for highway construction, is it not available, through general revenue, to replace some of the funding shortages that we see throughout British Columbia's education system?

There was a by-election a little while ago in Okanagan North; and somewhere, somehow, in the midst of that election, one week before the day of the election, this government found over $11 million to improve Highway 97 north of Vernon. I welcomed that decision. It was long overdue. But it makes me ask: where did the money come from? If it's available for those projects, then surely it's also available to build highways to higher education in this province.

With all due respect, and in the spirit of co-operation, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the minister that the principle behind this bill in fact belies the hidden agenda. I believe that hidden agenda involves the abrogation of responsibility for adequate funding of education in this province. It amounts to an unfair levy of financial responsibility on school districts and local taxpayers.

What really concerns me is that it's just a foot in the door. It's just the opening to a process of eventual privatization of the education system in this province. That's what truly worries me. The government is side-stepping its responsibility to supply first-class education in the province of British Columbia.

Another question that this bill raises is that it does not confer more financial autonomy on the local districts. It simply makes public whipping boys of local school boards throughout British Columbia and deflects the present attack from the true culprit here, which is fiscal mismanagement of the education process in British Columbia. Much like the paper that has just come out, "Let's Talk About Schools, " it's changing the agenda and deflecting the public outrage that is now prevalent throughout the province.

This bill does not resolve the key issue, which is the funding shortage. The question is: whose responsibility is it to pay for and supply education in the province of British Columbia? I firmly believe that that is a primary responsibility of any democratically elected government.

In 1983, throughout Canada, provincial governments spent about 5 percent of their gross provincial product on education. The government of British Columbia spent only 3.4 percent. That's significantly below the average for other provinces throughout Canada. As a result, school board services have been cut up to 26 percent in the 1985-86 year, compared to 1982, when you take into consideration the inflation factor. College services, which are also under the direction of this ministry, will have effectively been cut 43 percent by 1988 compared to the 1982-83 level, considering inflation. These are significant, draconian reductions in the level of educational funding. This bill does not resolve that conflict.

Relative to personal income, British Columbia spends less on education than any other province. This bill does not resolve those concerns. In fact, it intensifies them. Forcing local school boards to generate sufficient funds, when they do not have the capacity to do so with the tax base available, will only throttle further attempts at maintaining adequate funding levels.

Responsibility for financing public education is a priority concern of me and my colleagues, and should be a priority concern for this government. British Columbia can well afford to deliver a first-class education, if we consider restructuring some of the priorities that have been set in the past few years. Much has been said about the beloved megaprojects: northeast coal, rapid transit, Expo 86 — all good and worthwhile projects. We do not argue that. What we do argue is that in a time of financial crisis in the province of British Columbia the money that has gone into these projects has not generated the economic activity needed, and could have better been spent delivering the quality of education that has been requested by our citizens. As a result, our children are being punished by this government. Funding shortfalls of up to 25 percent are denying our children the right to a first-class education. This minister's bill is an absolute abrogation of responsibility in this respect, and I cannot support it on that basis.

I want to mention that the people in the province of British Columbia have clearly had enough in terms of the direction

[ Page 4975 ]

that this minister and this government have taken. They are opposed to any further cuts in education programming. They are concerned that the chronic underfunding of education will eventually be its ruination. It will in turn ruin our ability to train young people to compete in an increasingly tough job market during tough economic times. If we do not reassess our directions and our priorities, we will ruin the ability of our young people to meet the challenge of the future in a society of rapid technological change.

I mentioned that the people in the province of British Columbia have demonstrated their concern. We can see that the traditionally conservative boards have said to the minister: "Enough is enough. We have to stand up and be counted. We can no longer take it on the chin for the present mismanagement of the system." We see it in the personal letters that I have received from constituents throughout Okanagan North, particularly in the Kootenays, in the Arrow Lakes School District, which Tuns into Okanagan North. People are genuinely concerned that students in that area will not receive the educational quality they deserve. What has been the response? It was stated at a meeting up there not long ago: "Well, that's what you get for living in this area." Shameful!

[3:30]

Demonstrations of students right out here on the steps of the Legislature show the response to what is happening in the education system at this time — hundreds of students were out on the steps today; I counted about 400. They were calling for an end to the strangulation of the education system.

Any government that is listening to the people of this province and has the political smarts.... I know that any good politician can hear a vote drop in a ballot box from over a mile off. If they're listening to the people of this province, they'll take heed. It's my concern that they are not being listened to. The people are sending this government a clear message. They did it in the by-election in Okanagan North, and they will do it again if this government does not change its direction. We cannot afford to compromise our future by compromising the educational future of our young people in this province. You must stop denying the right of young people to pursue a first-class education in the province. This bill does nothing to address those concerns.

The passage of this bill by the members of this House will demonstrate that this government continues to ignore the people of the province of British Columbia and continues to carry on in its narrow, short-sighted approach to solving the problems facing us today.

I'd like to summarize with a statement that I saw on one of the signs out on the steps of the Legislature, which simply said — and I want you to listen carefully: "If you think education is expensive, then you should try ignorance." I cannot support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: When we talk about the cost of education, it has to include the quality of education. Any discussion on the cost or financing of education has to also consider what we're trying to achieve. What is education all about? What are the objectives? Is education a right of every person, no matter where they live in British Columbia? Do we believe in equal opportunity in education? We have to ask ourselves those questions when we consider how we are going to pay for it. We have to come up with some answers.

We have to decide what education should achieve. Should it be simply the basics — the three Rs — today in the twentieth century with the technological society that we live in? A society that is, because of its very technological advancement, requiring less and less person-hours from the labour force; a society where we are having more and more leisure time to use. If society is going to survive in that situation, we must ensure that that time is used selectively.

I seem to have a bad effect on ministers. Whenever I get up to speak. they leave. This is the second time this session already. You're excused, Mr. Minister.

As I was saying, with the developments in the technological arena and the greater amount of leisure time that people are facing, we must be sure that in our educational system we include lifestyle programs, so that people facing shorter work weeks and shorter work years have the broadened sphere of interest to enable them to fully participate and to utilize that spare time, not just in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society generally.

So, Mr. Speaker. I submit to you that we have to look at the quality of education. Back in 1982, I think it was, when this whole business of curtailment of educational funding was getting underway, I had occasion to meet with the minister in his office with some of my constituents concerned about busing — buses that had been taken off or were going to be charged for, because there just wasn't enough money. At that time, he had been doing a review of the school boards and their administrative costs, and so on, and evaluating them as to which ones had too much fat. He pointed out that Cowichan was an extremely efficient school district. I think it ranked about fourth out of the 75 in its degree of efficiency and lack of top-heavy administration. So I'm not talking about a district.... I think it's first now, as a matter of fact. By the minister's own words, he admitted that this was a well-run district.

I want to just go through with you, Mr. Speaker, what has happened in that district over the last two or three years. In February, 1982, the school board had completed and submitted its budget. A lot of work went into preparing that budget. It was prepared on the same basis as previous years. It was based on the kinds of programs they had had, with a very low amount of the funding going for administration. It was a well-rounded program that was providing equality of access to all the children in the Cowichan school district in a very broad range of classes.

That was in February. In March, the school board was told to cut $413,500 from their budget. In April, we had the royal assent to the Interim Finance Act, which we're now attempting to amend and in which the provincial government got the power to set the district budget limits.

At the same time, or just thereabouts, there was a move by the government which confiscated 37 percent of the tax base around the province — confiscated it from the access of the local school boards, directly into the provincial coffers. That was when they took the industrial and commercial tax base unto themselves. It was 37 percent province-wide; in my own constituency, it was over 41 percent in Cowichan and much closer to 42 percent of the tax base that simply disappeared in the Lake Cowichan School District. So here was a school board faced with the situation of not only having their tax base slashed drastically, but being told that the government was going to tell them how much they could spend.

[ Page 4976 ]

In June 1982 the primary swim program was cut. In a province like British Columbia, where we have so much water access, and in a district like Cowichan, which has lots of salt water, lots of fresh water and lots of rivers, is it not important that those children learn to swim? Well, the program was cut. Five instructors were laid off. The primary consultant's position was cut.

In August 1982 the board was told they had to submit a third budget. This time they had to cut by $441,500. We're still all in the same school year. In September they were told they had to close the schools, or at least that the teachers had to have six days off without pay, which meant that they had to cut back on their school year, or somehow reduce their budget by six days per teacher. In October the ministry advised the school board that there would be no allowance for inflation. I'm still in 1982.

Then I think we got to the real crux of the thing. In October 1982 the minister announced what his real intention was: to set the pupil-teacher ratio at a base rate of 19.14. In a district like Cowichan, where we had concentrated on classroom teachers rather than on administration, and where we were really involved in getting that close relationship, we had a fairly low PTR — I think it was 17. If we're going to work to 19.14, it's a drastic change.

In November the school board prepared its 1983 budget. They closed the school for three days at Christmas to make up the six days' loss. Then in September 1983 they again had to reduce the budget that they had submitted earlier, this time by almost $350,000. This meant the closure of one school. They cut out their camping program. They cut out their itinerant music program. Then, when they did all that, the minister announced a new fiscal framework, where tax spending and allocation of funds became a provincial responsibility.

In October we had the grade 12 exam policy announced. Cowichan found they had to close another school. This was at the point where we were having problems with the buses. They were being charged $9 per month for transporting the children.

Another five teachers were dropped at Christmas time, and then another seven in June 1984. In November 1984, three days before the issuing of the layoff notices, the board received from the ministry a new budget informing them that they must cut from the January-June budget a further $573,000-plus. They tried the Burns plan and that was turned down. So nine more teachers were laid off.

Now I've talked about teacher layoffs, a great many of them. They had to lay off nine more as a result of the latest decision at the first of this year. You might think: nine teachers, what does that amount to? It's very interesting: I have in my hand here a letter sent by the principals in the Cowichan School District to the board of trustees saying to them exactly what this means in the classroom and in the various schools. This is just a layoff of nine teachers at this point, after all these other things have been going on, so you can imagine the kind of upheaval that has been occurring in those classrooms year after year and month after month, when for the layoff of nine teachers you have these things happening. In the Cowichan Senior Secondary there was only one position lost. But that meant that seven teachers have program changes, four classes go up to 35 students, and there are 240 students affected by that change. That's just for the layoff of one teacher at Cowichan Senior Secondary. Chemainus Secondary: one position has been lost. There they had to make a choice of either wrecking their learning assistance program or creating havoc in the science classes. Mount Prevost Junior Secondary: one teacher is gone, with similar results. George Bonner Junior Secondary: the same thing — a position has been lost, with drastic results.

[3:45]

Then we get to the elementaries. In Alexander School there was one learning assistant position to be lost. That was to be split between two staff members. Primary classes have gone up to close to 30 pupils. Special-needs students such as native students, the transient population and those from split families create an intolerable situation in classes of that size.

At the Cowichan Station School, first- and second-year pupils are 29 to a grade. Second- and third-year pupils are 30 to a grade. All classes but two have to be realigned, and the third-year class had two teachers due to the realignment. That's hard on young children just beginning school. The teacher becomes a role model, and to have those kinds of changes occurring in the first or second year of education is very difficult for those students. That's just one position lost, and the total number of students affected is 75. In Crofton, with one position, we have all split grades, and the lowest class size is 27. The total number of students affected is 80.

All of these things are occurring, Mr. Minister, as the result of the need to lay off nine teachers. This is the kind of disruption that is caused in what, by your own words — as I pointed out earlier, when you were out of the chamber — is one of the best administered school districts in the whole province.

In Drinkwater two temporary teachers have been burnped, and there will be some classes there — and this again is an elementary school — with three teachers. A student in an elementary school — grades one, two and three — with three teachers in one year.... There has been a disruption of 45 pupils. One teacher is gone from Maple Bay, and 104 out of the total 155 students in that particular school have been affected by that. They will either have a new teacher or will have to go into larger classes during the year. The pupil-teacher ratio has gone up to 27.

Mill Bay. The class sizes there, as the result of the loss of a teacher, have gone to 27, and in the grade 3 class, which is an open class, they have 58 students in one open area, with two teachers. That's an impossible learning....  My next door neighbour's son is in that class. He is a bright little boy who has been doing very well at school, and she is quite concerned about what's happening as a result of this. If we turn that little boy off his interest in education and his desire to learn, the cost to society down the road and the human cost to him are going to be immeasurable.

At Maple Bay School there are 123 students who will have new teachers. Again we have open areas there, and split grades. Then we come to the schools like Cedar Lodge and Charles Hoey, where we have the children with learning disabilities — some of them extremely emotionally disturbed. At Cedar Lodge, four out of five staff members received termination notices. At Charles Hoey, two-thirds of the staff received termination notices.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MRS. WALLACE: It's just a disgrace. That's what happened as a result of what that minister has done over the past two or three years. He has taken the tax base away and has left only the residential tax base available to the local school districts. He has reduced and curtailed the amount of moneys

[ Page 4977 ]

available from the province, down to the point where education can scarcely be called education any more in this province,

AN HON. MEMBER: He makes Vander Zalm look good.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right — very good.

If he's done that to a well-run, well-administered school district, goodness knows what kind of reductions have had to be made in other school districts, Now he comes to us and says.... When he introduced the bill he said: "I've proved I'm listening." He's going to let the school boards raise more money through taxation, if they have a referendum.

In Cowichan, in the days when we had referenda, they never passed. The local taxpayer — and you people art all so fond of saying it on that side of the House — can only afford so much at the local level. The government is responsible for administering the provincially collected taxes, the general revenue. They have seen fit to use it for everything except education.

It takes me back a great many years to the days of the Columbia River Treaty, when we sold the Columbia downstream. We were scrounging in every possible way, through cuts in education spending and health spending, to try to recoup some of those moneys. Now we have a government that has splurged its money on projects that should have had a far lower priority — certainly some of the spending is questionable — and we are faced with this situation where they're not loosening the purse-strings.

They are going to have referenda if we are to improve the standard and quality of education in the school districts. In the first place it's going to be impossible to get those referenda through. In the second place it's instituting something that could be termed representation without taxation, inasmuch as the commercial and industrial interests on a school board have the right to vote on whether residential taxpayers will pay the tax. If there are enough of them, maybe they will impose that tax on the residential people. That is an injustice in this bill. It's an injustice to have that sort of referendum provision in a bill. As has been said before, there will be many school districts that will not be able to pass the referendum. That means that those poorer districts which do not feel prepared to do this, or who have a lower proportion of residential property, will have a different kind of educational system than do areas that are highly populated with well-to-do homes. I think of West Vancouver as an example; you could probably get a referendum through West Vancouver.

We have two classes of people in British Columbia. We have those who are entitled to a good education, if they can afford it, and we have those who are not. We will find that the parents of children in areas that are not able to get a referendum passed, or who do not propose to present it because they realize it's farcical.... We will find that the parents who can afford it will be putting their children into the private school system, which will reduce enrolment in the public school system and again reduce the funding from the provincial government. It's interesting to note that for every student who goes into the private system, it costs the minister 30 cents on the dollar, as compared to the student who is in the public school system.

It seems to me that that may be the minister's whole intent with these referenda. He wants to create a two-class educational system in which there will be those who can afford to have an adequate education, have access to university and be able to continue with a post-secondary education, and those who will not be able to have that kind of opportunity. Those who are poor will be poorly educated year after continuing year. It's a two-class system. That's what this referendum is all about — that's what this bill is all about. It's based on a situation that that minister has created which is untenable and intolerable, and it will simply exaggerate the differences that are already there and continue to push us down the road to a system where only those who can afford it will be able to have an adequate and quality education.

[4:00]

MR. MITCHELL: Earlier on, when we started this debate, my colleague said that he was happy to enter this debate — I want to go on record right now, Mr. Speaker, that I am extremely disappointed that in 1985 we will be returning to referendums in education.

[Mr, Pelton in the chair.]

I say, as one MLA out of 57, that if we are going to turn the clock back to an improper and unfunded educational system that depends on referendums, then at this time in our history each one of us individually should be ashamed. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because when I hesitated for a few seconds to rise, I was expecting one of the government members to rise in his place and defend this piece of legislation. I think each of us knows that really none of the private members can get up and defend the turn-back of education funding to what we're doing today.

I was looking forward to the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) rising in his place, because I was sincerely hoping that he would state what he said back on March 8, 1973. Mr. Speaker, if you would like to go back into our Hansard you can read what our hon. Minister of Highways stated about referendums. He's a very sincere person, and he was speaking from the heart. I'd just like to read it into the record. He was talking about elementary schools in rural areas. "Funding is most inadequate. In a lot of cases they haven't any libraries. They have no activity rooms and no proper playgrounds." School boards cannot plan programs from year to year if implementation depends on going back to the voters for funds this province's fiscal framework fails to provide.

He was saying that every time they wanted any capital projects, they had to go back to referendums. He was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the rural areas and those areas that do not have a large tax base will not have the same education as those that are from the rich residential cities in the core areas.

I find, Mr. Speaker, as an ex-serviceman and as a Canadian and as a British Columbian, that we are treating any child in any part of this province any different than we would teach children in other areas. In this whole history of education cutbacks that have taken place since 1982, we find they have been very systematic and very deceptive.

I remember when the Minister of Education, who is now our Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), when one particular school district in my riding settled the wage negotiations with their teachers, wrote a letter and complimented both parties for very positive and constructive negotiations. But then he was replaced by Mr. Bill Vander Zalm, and the first thing he did was start to cut back on education, cut back on the funds based on the years prior to the agreement that his predecessor had complimented the two groups for negotiating.

[ Page 4978 ]

But the interesting part about that is that in 1982, when he brought in his first restraint budget on education, he had an 18-month grandfather clause. It was only going to be for a short period. But then we got into 1983 and that minister was no longer with us. So the new Minister of Education brought in another bill, which removed the 18-month grandfather clause that restraint would end, because the election was all over. But he wrote into the new restraint program a grandfather clause that would run out in 1986. When we read that particular section, each one of us knew that it was put in there because somewhere between 1985 and 1986 there would be an election. At that time they could say: "Now don't worry; we have written the change into the legislation, and it will all be finished. We'll go back to some solid education funding. We will change it" — to fit whatever particular plank they had in the program for that election. We realized it was very cynical, but we accepted it.

But what happens is that we keep changing the goal posts from year to year. We talk about cutbacks, and that 1986 is going to be the final cutback, and that it's going to amount to something like 25 percent of what we were enjoying in 1982. But we have not accepted that we are in a new world. We're in a world of new technology; we're in a world where we need different studies. As many have said in the job market, you can nearly predict that a job that you have today will change so much that five or seven years down the line it will either no longer exist, or that the retraining needed to keep up with the technology will have to already be in place.

Take any worker in any workplace; if you are going to have to retrain him, whether in new technology or in a new job, he must have a solid base in general education — not necessarily just academic education, but general education. What is happening in our school system today is that we are slowly cutting out the support for those who are slow learners. We are squeezing out the funds that were going to handicapped students. We're cutting them back....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. MITCHELL: Although the handicapped or the slow learners are being provided for to a certain extent, the others must have larger and larger classes to fall under the the minister's guidelines saying that we must go back to the class sizes — the teacher/pupil ratio — of 1972.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read the guidelines? Have you read the service levels?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I have read the service levels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You have not.

MR. MITCHELL: Not only have I read the service levels of your proposed cutbacks to the 1972 teacher/pupil ratios, but I've also toured many of the schools that were designed for smaller classes. Those classrooms were not designed for the 35-, 40- and 45-pupil classes. The designers had faith that the Education ministry was not going to go back to pre-Depression days; they built schools that were cost-efficient in that time. Those were schools that could be heated economically for the sizes of class that were in place before this minister again moved the planning goal posts. All the planning and all the investment that has taken place over the last ten years has been made inadequate or redundant. I know that it's easy for us in this very spacious building — with our 57 people in here when we're crowded — to think that there's lots of space. But when you look into a classroom in my riding, which has up to 38 and 40 pupils — and that is only the beginning — jammed into the corners and at each end....

You can read the statistics today and they'll change tomorrow. But the real world is out there in those schools. The real world is where you're jamming more kids into smaller classrooms, and you are putting a larger burden on those teachers who must took after them. Not only that, but you have an overflow. We are getting classes now that are not only full, but they have grades 4 and 5, or 5 and 6 together. They have mixed classes. Because there is not enough room in some areas, they are cutting down classroom space.

We'll have move and more dropouts in our education system. I was a student who went through the 40 and 45 size classes in my day. As I said before, and I'm going to repeat it again, the big dropouts came in grade 8, and the next third left school in grade 10. This is what is going to happen. It's predicted by all those who are involved in education: if the students are not getting proper help, if you're not helping those who are not academically bright, they are going to be frustrated and are going to drop out of school. What's going to happen, Mr. Speaker? You are going to have these people out looking for work, and with the present economy they are not going to be able to get a job, because they don't have the academic requirements of many personnel managers.

But the worst part is not this year or next year. Two or three years down the road, once the economy gets rolling again and we get closer to full employment in our communities and the new technology comes along, you have to retrain the workers. Those out in the workplace aren't going to have the basic education that is needed, and they are going to have more frustrations.

So not only are you going to frustrate those who are not the academic elite at the school level, but down the road you are going to build another time-bomb that will go off. It's not me who says this; people in the minister's own ministry are predicting this. School trustees and people in the industry are all making this prediction. Education is so important, and each one of us must master it. We must provide for the students of today.

[4:15]

When you look at it from an economic point of view.... This is what this session should be zeroing in on: creating jobs and putting people to work. All economists in all universities have stated time and time again that when you look at a dollar invested into education, it has a spinoff in creating other jobs — six to eight in the ripple effect through the community.

When you compare that with megaprojects or defence spending, which only has a two to one ripple effect in the community.... If you are going to look at providing more jobs, we must look at education, vocational training and retraining for new technology, because this is not only needed for our communities but also to create the jobs that are needed out there. Every time we cut another school teacher or another janitor or we don't repair the school grounds, we're losing one and two and three and four more jobs out on the open market. If we are going to get employment up, we have to stop what is happening right now. The economy is going down because people are not spending. They're not taking a chance; they're not going on holidays. They are investing

[ Page 4979 ]

their money in bonds, because they have a fear of unemployment. This type of legislation is just adding to it.

It's interesting when you look at the speeches that were made by the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). He was opposed to referenda in 1973. There is another speech made by the Premier on November 14, 1974. He talked about assessments and how the cost of education should be divided between the homeowner and industry. At that time he stated that 8 percent of school taxes should come from the homeowner and 92 percent from the commercial and industrial base. I believe he said then that the property tax on industry should be 15 times more than on homeowners. I'm surprised that the Premier is not up repeating those statements that he made in 1974. Now he's saying that.... I'm not saying that he's saying it. Maybe he lost the payment in caucus or in cabinet. The minister is saying that any increase in education funding must be 100 percent from the homeowners' tax base. I say it's wrong.

I feel sorry for the present Minister of Education, because he is carrying the can for the whole history of Social Credit government mismanagement: the pre-'72 Social Credit governments, and especially the Social Credit governments in 1976 until this date.

HON. MR . HEINRICH: No change in 1974 or 1975, eh?

MR. MITCHELL: Only changes to the good, only improvement. As my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat said, Cowichan-Malahat was the start of the debt of this province. When British Columbia, under the previous Social Credit government, sold the downstream benefits of the Columbia River to the Americans for $650 million....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, Mr, Speaker. I always enjoy listening to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, but I'm just wondering if perhaps we could get to Bill 48 and away from the Columbia River Treaty. As much as he may like it and find it quite interesting, I'm having a difficult time because I don't know if you would permit me to respond to those issues, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr. Minister. I've been listening very carefully. I heard the word "referendum" on a number of occasions, but I don't think there was one involved with the Columbia program. I would ask the member if he would kindly stick to the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I was just working up to the referendum, Mr. Speaker. I am just laying the groundwork of why we're having this referendum today. The debt of mismanagement by the Social Credit government was created by selling that power and then spending nearly $3 billion to replace the power that they gave away. It's caused by the high taxes and the high interest that we're paying on the debt of Hydro, the high cost of servicing the debt of northeast coal, the high cost of Expo, the ALRT. The high cost of servicing that debt is the reason why this minister does not have any money to provide the needed education for the province of British Columbia. That is why I was saying that it all started back in 1966, 1967.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Can you read block letters'?

MR. MITCHELL: No, I can't read that. Mr. Speaker. If the minister has any additional notes that I could work on, would he send them over? I would be more than happy to incorporate them into my talk.

We have before us a bill that is calling for referenda....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MITCHELL: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the cooperation that we are having today. The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) tells me that I've got a phone call from Sooke. I really enjoy that cooperation. I know it's positive. I know he has nothing but my best interests in mind, but what he is afraid to realize.... He's not getting up and protecting the mismanagement of this government, and why we have to have a referendum for school costs. He's not defending the debts of this government that have caused the shortage of money. He's not making any effort: he just wants to deflect it, because he's afraid to look at the whole picture of British Columbia, not some narrow little bill that is going to add more and more taxes to the homeowner and going to deny more and more kids a fair and proper education. I know the minister realizes that, because he is an ordinary person and he understands it. I know he is packing the problem for his government. As a good lawyer, he's defending it; lawyers can defend all kinds of cases. He's doing an excellent job on it. He knows he's not competent. He's not happy with it. He is a lawyer. He came through the educational system and he learned all the techniques of taking it away and not letting people zero in on a whole problem.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If we're going to have referenda, why didn't we have a referendum on the $1.6 billion that is poured into northeast coal? Why didn't we have a referendum on the ALRT and how much it was going to cost per ride? One of your colleagues across the floor had the decimal point in the wrong spot. Instead of $2.70 a ride, it turned out to be $27.00 and some-odd cents a ride. All the way along we've got half information or misinformation, but we've never had referenda to approve it.

But I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there's going to be a referendum in the next election. The debt in this province has increased from $4 billion in 1976 to $14 billion under this present Social Credit administration. That referendum will be there at the next election. I know what the results are going to be. In fact. I think a lot of people in this House know the results, because the public have had enough. The people in British Columbia do believe that the future leaders of this province must have the broadest and the best education opportunities that are available. We cannot afford to have our leaders, who are going to make sure that this world does not blow up.... We cannot continue with uncontrolled debt or with 1.5 million people unemployed — 200-and-some-odd thousand in this province.

We must have education that is not restricted solely to those who are rich enough to afford it or to those who are academically elite who can win and earn their education because of God-given brains that they were lucky enough to have. We must have an education program that is going to give a broad education to every student. We cannot afford to have the dropouts in grade 8; we cannot afford to have

[ Page 4980 ]

dropouts in grade 10. We cannot afford to have people suffering because of some fear that if they get a good education it's going to break the homeowner on his next year's taxes.

Education is as important as health. I know that this government, when they thought they had an opening to raise more money for health, added a surtax on our income tax to take in twice as much money as the predicted shortage of money needed for health.

[4:30]

We must change our approach. If the government is going to continue to take all the industrial and commercial tax base for their general revenues, if they are going to continue to add surtaxes onto the income tax for health.... I say that education is every bit as important as health. If the income tax is a new system that we must look at, it must be fair and it must be fairly based on income, not on how many children you have, like your Health Act. The surtax on your health was based on the size of the family, which is wrong. A tax on income should be based not on how many children you have, or on how many you don't have, but should be based on income. And if there is more money needed, it should be raised properly, democratically, up front. We should not allow this legislation to pass that is going to play one school district off against another. It will create unfair education standards or opportunities. I, like all my colleagues on this side of the House, will be voting against this legislation. It's wrong, it's unfair and it's undemocratic.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this bill has more to do with politics than it has to do with education. It's a bill which attempts to bail out the Minister of Education from a very difficult position in which he finds himself in this province, as well as to bail out the government in the face of all the criticism that it has been facing on the issue of education in the last little while.

Mr. Speaker, we have this bill before us because the finances of the province are not there, largely because of the approach taken by government in this downturn, in this time of recession, an approach which has been totally inadequate, has been a total failure and has resulted in such a shortage in funds in this province that the government is still borrowing $60 million a week just to stay afloat.

As a result of this mismanagement, Mr. Speaker, the government attempted to do two or three things. It tried other bail-out programs. First of all, it adopted the very popular word "restraint" and felt that the people of the province would accept massive cuts in education in the name of restraint. They found that didn't work, so the minister then embarked upon a program of visiting around the province, a real public relations effort on the part of the Minister of Education. But that didn't work either. The people of the province were still objecting to the massive cuts in education and to the effects those cuts were having on the students in the schools.

They tried another tack, Mr. Speaker: they introduced a paper called "Let's Talk About Schools," in the hope that that would divert the anger and the frustration and the feelings of hostility of the people of the province towards this government on education issues. They thought to deflect those feelings by introducing a paper so that people could then get involved in discussing other educational issues, issues other than the massive cuts and the disruption that was taking place.

While they were using these various tactics, Mr. Speaker, they were able to centralize authority, as this government, of course, has been attempting to do in nearly every front in this province. They denied the school boards the right to set budgets. They ensured that the school boards would have virtually no authority over education. They cut revenues drastically and began a process which led only to the firing of teachers.

Mr. Speaker, that was the political agenda. It was announced by government that they would have to increase the pupil-teacher ratio, and the only way you do that is to fire teachers. That was the political agenda. Centralization was also the political agenda. The diversionary tactics used by the minister and the government — and this is yet another diversionary tactic — have not been effective, nor will this one be effective, because turning to a referendum at this stage is not going to solve the very deep, serious problems that currently exist in our school system.

Mr. Speaker, education has never been a priority with Social Credit. One of the areas that they were most willing to cut, one of the areas that was the first to be affected when the revenues of the province dropped so drastically, was education. That is so typical of the attitude of Social Credit to education ever since I can remember. In 1972, when that previous Social Credit government was finally defeated, education was one of the major reasons.

But there is no clearer demonstration of what I am saying today than the attempt made by School District 71 to ensure that the level of education was retained as much as possible and to ensure that there was not the disruption that took place in early February in that school district.

The secretary-treasurer of School District 71, Bill Burns, came up with an innovative program to ensure that students would not have to be relocated, put into new classes, taken out of some classes or added to others; that grades would not have to be put together and teachers fired. They came up with a plan that would ensure that disruption did not happen in the middle of the school year. Mr. Burns, through the Burns plan, devised a system which would ensure that the government would not have to pay out more money, which would ensure that the disruption in our school district did not take place, because he devised a plan whereby the teachers would be paid over a 12-month period rather than on the current ten-month basis.

When the members of the school board of School District 71 met with the education officials, they were told that this plan did not fit the political agenda. We all know what that political agenda is: it is to fire teachers in order to raise that pupil-teacher ratio. Here we had a chance for the Minister of Education to demonstrate that it's not all PR, that it's not all talk on his part. He could have accepted a plan which would have ensured that the hundreds and hundreds of students in that school district would not have faced the disruption that they had at the beginning of this month. It was a simple plan. It was ingenious, but it was unacceptable because it did not fit the political agenda.

The members of the school board met with the minister in order to discuss the Burns plan with him. They left that meeting saying: "I'm sorry. We can't accept this plan, because it presents an unfunded liability." I have talked to accountants and all kinds of people who are involved in this kind of thing all of the time, and they say that the Burns plan does not represent an unfunded liability. The money would have been there for those teachers. There is no way that the

[ Page 4981 ]

minister, in rejecting the Burns plan and stating that there was an unfunded liability, was correct. I think that is tragic.

Going to a referendum at this stage is not going to solve the problems in education. The low morale and the dispirited feeling among the teachers, the students and the parents who are concerned about education are not going to be resolved by turning the clock back and going back to a referendum, which is based on an unfair premise in the first place, in that the ability to tax commercial and industrial properties has now been removed from school boards. It's only the residences that will pay for any referendum, which is totally inappropriate to undo the damage that you people have done in the school system through your cuts and lack of interest in the field of education. Your policies and your approach only mean that the students of this province are suffering needlessly.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, if I've had a concern about education in recent years, it's been the progressive centralization of decision-making in Victoria as opposed to out in the school districts. In other words, progressively the important decisions have been made here at the centre, at one point in the province rather than in the many school districts and by the school trustees out in the area where the democratically elected representatives on the school boards have had less and less say about what happens locally. I'm supporting this bill because it's a step in the opposite direction. It's a decentralization to a degree. It's at least a step in the right direction.

One of the very real problems is overall funding, I know that most members opposite believe that education should be funded entirely — certainly largely — out of general revenue. Education should not be funded in any way out of the local property tax. If they take that view, they raise the very difficult problem of responsibility at the local level; in other words, the school boards would receive all the funds they were to spend from the provincial treasury. The totality of their budget would be administered out of Victoria and presumably decided in Victoria, because that's where all of the money would originate.

One of the main arguments for retaining some element of property tax in the funding of schools is that it puts some responsibility on the shoulders of the local school trustees. If they're directly responsible for the amount in property tax that goes to schools, they'll have to defend that amount. What better way than for them to defend that amount, both when they're up for election and when they come in for some exceptional levy via a plebiscite. They are going to be asking the electorate for their support when they're elected as school trustees, and if they have some exceptional requirement over and above the norm for the rest of the province, they also have to put that to the local voter, the local property owner or the local renter — the local people who have a say in their election. So it is a return in some measure to local responsibility. I'm all for retaining some element of funding for schools out of the local property tax. I find no inconsistency in the local property owner, renter, whatever, who directly or indirectly pays that tax, having some say. If they don't have a say, it's taxation without representation, and I think that's intolerable in our society.

[4:45]

What amounts of money are we talking about? Today — and I'm generalizing over the entire province — of the total school budget about 8 percent is funded out of the residential property tax. The rest is funded out of the general revenue of the province: income taxes, sales taxes. etc., and out of a uniform industrial-commercial property tax. So we're focusing on 8 percent of the 100 percent. We're not talking about a style of taxation which is supposed to put up a very large percentage of the total budget of a school district: it's of the order of 8 percent.

I also believe that the province should fund what I'll call the essentials, the basic budget, that it should be providing so many dollars per student to each school district, if I can simplify the formula: and that the local school trustees, if they want in some manner to add to that basic amount that comes from the provincial treasury, do so out of local taxation. But they have that latitude.

The device for getting approval — and, indeed, keeping them in office — is an election. It's democracy at work. Members opposite were talking this morning about the desirability of one man, one vote. They were at least purporting to be in favour of democracy generally. They should, I believe, be in favour of democracy at the local school board level and in seeing it work.

One of the real problems with government these days is not only its scale, size and growth, but also the fact that the average individual in the community can no longer relate decisions made by government to things that he experiences on a day-to-day basis. Taxation flows into one great pot, whatever the mode of taxation is. One level of government, in its wisdom, spends all the money. There is no direct relationship between what people pay taxes for and what they see in return, so they are disfranchised in the process. This is why I believe there should be some contribution from property, some contribution within the authority of local government to local school budgets. So I'm quite happy to vote for this bill.

I want to briefly quantify, if I may, the amount of tax that would be involved, the increment which would be requested if, for example, a school district wished to increase its operating budget by 2 percent this year. It's of the order of $15 or $20 per homeowner in some school districts. The highest is of the order of $60 or $80 per homeowner. The nature of the problem, as it's been explained to us by educators across the province, certainly by members opposite, seems horrendous — at least the way they put it; they're certainly persuasive. If those same people can not go out to the taxpayers locally and convince them that they are getting a bargain for this 2 percent increment, for example, in the school budget.... Is the quality of education, they might ask, worth another $20 on your yearly tax bill? But they would have to quantify it, price it, put it out there in front of the people. And the people will decide.

So basically, Mr. Speaker, I'm in favour of this legislation. It is, to some extent, returning the say over education, certainly the quality of education, to the people, certainly to the school trustees. I'm all in favour of that. Let's hear no more from the opposition side about centralization of the decision-making process. We've swung too far in that direction in the last dozen years: we're starting in the opposite direction, and I'm glad to hear it.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: I haven't got the same speech. Never the same speech.

[ Page 4982 ]

I hadn't yet got to the chapter in the book which the previous member spoke about. For anybody in the Legislature, it's an excellent book, if you get a chance to read it. I think a lot of things that you were talking about were pertinent.

But looking at school districts in my riding, in a rural part and the most remote part of this province, there are some special circumstances that I don't think this bill really covers. I'll take one, for instance: School District 92. I know the minister has always been receptive, when it came to dealing with the Nishga in School District 92; any time we've ever had to discuss 92, the minister has been excellent.

One thing I wanted to state, when we're talking about presenting property taxes increased in the case of a referendum: I would like to see referenda used more in this province, to allow people to have a say in decisions that affect them directly.

In School District 92 there are very few people who own homes. The people who reside in that school district reside on reserves in the four communities of Kincolith, Greenville, Canyon City and Aiyansh. If you took a referendum of property-owners for School District 92, you'd be talking about seven to ten people who own houses off the reserve. It's drastically unfair for a school district to come up against being pressured to bring in a referendum for the seven or ten people who are property-owners. I think the minister knows that. For seven or ten residential homeowners off of the reserve to make a decision concerning property taxes and school taxes is totally unfair. I would like to see something in this legislation discussing what would happen on that, and I'm sure when the minister gets up to close debate he will be saying something very favorable about School District 92.

In other school districts in my province, particularly School District 87, in which we've seen mines close down, school figures stayed relatively high even though the mines closed down, because people had no other place to go to. One of the concerns I have that maybe the minister can answer when he closes debate is in regards to property taxes in company towns. For instance, let's talk about Stewart, where the company owns a lot of homes for its employees. When the mine is closed down, how is this referendum going to affect the company town? Because it appears it is just for residential property, and there is no commercial property tax per se. I don't know the legalese on who exactly owns the homes in a company town — if it was Kitsault or Stewart or Cassiar. How are taxes generated in a company town in a so-called referendum? How would you be able to succeed in getting money, let's say, from the company? Are there exemptions in this act in reference to company towns? Because with the three different school districts in my riding, it would be very difficult to implement a referendum in a company town if a company owns the homes. I would like to see something in that act in regard to commercial property, if the company owns the homes in the area.

I think we also have to look to other school districts, where many people live off of reserves, when making decisions of this nature.

I disagree with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour in regard to the reference he made to property taxes. I understand his point, and I don't agree with it, but I respect it. I think this is something that all members of the Legislature have to look at, in regard to this bill.

That's basically what I wanted to bring up: School District 92 and the seven or ten homeowners who live off the reserve, and the company towns and how this bill will be put into effect in regard to them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would just like to speak briefly in support of this bill and perhaps make some attempt to rebut some of the accusations that have been made here during the afternoon's discussion.

There seem to be a lot of accusations that this government has not considered education a priority. I certainly challenge that. You should be in some of the other ministries that are trying to get money in order to keep going and to do all of the things that people in the province say are essential, only to learn that you can't have it because it's gone to Education, to Health, and to the social services type of function. It has been a priority, and I think it must be preserved forever as a priority. Certainly as the economy improves, if we are at that time taking the revenue that comes in to pay out in interest charges, as is happening at the federal level now because of spending, then obviously the more money we are paying on interest charges, the less we are going to be able to put back into education to maintain those services. So it's a case of where you want to put the money. Certainly everyone says there should be more money here and there should be more money there.

I spent some 26 years in the education business, and I saw both underfunding and waste. I saw a lot of quality education. To me, the quality education was really based on the attitude and performance of the people involved. I cannot relate quality education just to more money spent. I also saw and read and studied what went on in the United States when they decided some years ago that the way to quality education was to pump massive amounts of money into the programs. Fifteen years later, after horrible debts had been incurred, they found out through testing that it was an abysmal failure. They had a lot of debt, and then they had to go back to try to do something about getting back quality education. So quality education does not depend on the amount of money spent.

We've been accused of teacher-bashing. What this government has basically said is: look, there's only so much money available. Do the teachers need higher pay? Does someone give better-quality education at $35,000 a year than he does at $32,000? In the rhetoric, we hear: "No, we're really interested in quality education." But this year in the negotiations.... When the minister made it clear two years ago, a year ago, that there was a finite amount of money available, it became clear that.... The question was asked: "Do you want in your district, instead of a 3 percent raise, to leave 19, 20, 40 or 70 of your colleagues working?" The answer that came back was: "No, I'd rather have the extra money." If the B.C. Teachers' Federation is going to say that its primary objective is quality education in the classroom, then I think they're going to have to start supporting those stated objectives by their actions.

[5:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair. ]

I can tell you that I looked at it very closely in my own district, and there the 3 percent raise.... Remember, they were fighting for 5 percent in these times when the rest of the people in my constituency are suffering because oil and gas sales are down, agriculture is hurting, lumbering is hurting. These people are taking cuts and taking shorter work weeks, and they are the ones who would have to provide more money to pay teachers. That 3 percent that they ended up getting —

[ Page 4983 ]

subject to Mr. Peek's ruling, of course — could have employed about 19 more teachers in my district. The choice is really theirs. You can talk about quality education but you want higher pay. I think people have to start backing it up,

From having been in the profession, I do know that most of the teachers out there are interested in doing a good job with kids. Whether or not they get paid, they will do that good job with kids.

This government has not indulged in teacher-bashing. What has happened is that their organization has very carefully orchestrated a campaign to point out that since the government said there's only so much money, they have said: "You are against education. You are against teachers. You're teacher-bashing. You don't care about kids." That is patently untrue. I think we have to recognize that if we devote all our money to education.... You say we have to have better trained people. We have to have that, and it is true. There is certainly a positive correlation between trained and educated people and the services and skills that they perform on the job. But some of the members of the opposition are saying that all the money should go to training these people and none to promoting or stimulating the industries that will provide the jobs.

For instance, you say we need more engineers. But then you say we should not build B.C. Place, not put money into Expo, the Coquihalla highway or any of these things. If we quit building highways and facilities in this province, why in heaven's name would we need engineers? We have to recognize that some money has to be spent on creating the climate and the jobs that trained people can go to. Look at the extreme situation: if we had enough jobs, if we put all the money into creating the jobs, those people then would be able to train, and so would the employers, instead of the taxpayers. We've got to put some other money into that.

There are two other points I would like to make very briefly. You should not put this on the backs of the taxpayers; it should come from the province. I don't know in what way the taxpayers, through industry, commerce or whatever.... The taxpayers of this province also provide the funds available to the provincial government. As the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has just pointed out, these people have to contribute the money. If you want the Minister of Education to provide the total funding, obviously he has to decide how much and to whom, and then you have centralized control, the very thing you are speaking against. Local autonomy may mean the authority to spend. It may also mean the authority to raise the money, because the same taxpayers end up paying the bills. You say that the province should pick up 100 percent of the bill but should leave 100 percent of the tax base with the local people. Obviously that cannot possibly work.

Finally, I would like to point out that the minister has been accused of a massive PR campaign in going around to all parts of the province to find out what the people think. If it's a PR campaign to go and find out what the local boards and the local people think, then I think the minister is guilty, and I'm glad that he has done that. There was a reference to "Let's talk about schools" to try to find out what the people of this province think about what should be done in education. The minister is accused of using that as some sort of a diversion ploy. If going to the people and asking them what they think is a diversion ploy, then I guess the minister has to be classed as guilty. Surely that is what it's all about. Should we not let the people have some say? The opposition was saying earlier — not in this debate in the House but certainly earlier — that the local people should have some say. The guidelines are there. If they want to spend more they should be allowed that opportunity. Now that that opportunity has been provided to them, they say this is a political stunt by the minister. To allow the people to have a say in whether they want to go beyond spending on education from what the basic guidelines for quality education provide: there's something wrong with that? I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that. The people need to have a say.

Unfortunately, I agree with some members of the opposition. I was in the system when we had operating referenda, and the people often said: "No. Do with what you've got. You've got to utilize the money that you have." Do you know something? In times when we had to cut corners, the education didn't collapse. The members of my staff did not turn around at that time and say: "We're not going to teach the kids as well as we can." They all dug in and did the best possible job they could. I am convinced that 95 percent of the teachers in this province still will. They might grumble, as anyone grumbles when they get less money. But they will do the job the best they can with the pupils, and they will continue to do that job. So let's not say that less pay means less quality in education, because most of those people out there are professionals rather than gripers.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, let's get the record straight. The government is saying one thing and doing something else.

Referring to the voters at this stage to consider any shortfall that may exist in the various school districts is nothing more than a political ploy. The government has no intention of involving itself seriously in the matter of quality education, because quite frankly, the two things don't mix. Dollars and quality of education are not really the same thing: cost is one thing, quality is another. When the minister suggests that we should start talking about education and lays down rules that suggest a direction in which the debate will go, he is not serious. What he should be doing is sitting down and learning about the nature of British Columbians, the demography of the people and the communities.

When you talk about referring to the voters, you're not just talking about a certain class. You're talking about a variety. We're a mosaic. The member from Atlin was describing a situation where if you had a referendum there you'd only have seven people eligible to vote because there are only seven people who have property.

In the West End in my constituency, you have people living in apartments who don't own property. They have children and they care about the quality of education, but they probably....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You say they can vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Whatever the rules are, you're going to have discrepancies with respect to who is eligible to vote.

Interjection.

[ Page 4984 ]

MR. BARNES: No, not everyone is eligible.

The member is suggesting that everyone is going to be entitled to a fair vote, but I can suggest to you that the cost of education should be borne by all citizens. That is the whole idea of public education. It should not be broken up and split off in the way in which the minister is suggesting, because it's not an equitable system. Some people can afford it and others cannot, but everybody benefits from a well-educated population. Our concern is for quality education that's relevant, that rationalizes our economic community and the use of our resources and with planning as far as the future is concerned. All these things have to do with the equality and the relevance of education. This is the issue.

We've been listening to people make presentations to the school boards and hearing them discuss the problems that may result from the government's arbitrary decision to cut budgets. They have involved not just school teachers or administrators. They have involved participation by parents and, most important, participation by the victims themselves — the students, the people who have the most to lose. How often are they involved seriously? Are we listening to those young people? This is what we should be talking about.

I've been impressed with the general tone of this session in that we've been appearing to be interested in listening to each other. We've talked about cooperation as opposed to confrontation, but that may not really be what.... What we're saying is that we are elected to do a job for the people of British Columbia and that we should be concerned enough to put aside some of our partisan attitudes and half-baked ideas and try to look at the consequences, because the tax dollars are becoming more and more scarce. They are hard to find and you're not going to find people out there who are going to willingly accept this additional tax because of the government's attempt to avoid dealing directly with the problem. This is just another form of taxation. Indirectly it is an unfair tax on those people who probably can least afford it but who need it the most.

I'm suggesting that the quality of education should be the most important thing. We can always find a formula....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: How do you measure that?

MR. BARNES: We can measure it by dialogue, by going into the communities, by finding out the relevance of the study programs and the directions in which we're going. We can find out.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What's he been doing?

MR. BARNES: No, he hasn't been doing that. I can tell you, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that with English as a second language — and everybody knows what that is, except perhaps the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), who seems to suggest that English as a second language should not be encouraged because everybody should learn English.... That's what he said, but he doesn't understand that that's exactly what it means. It means that those people do not have a mastery of English and that they require extra help in order to learn English — that their mother tongue may be from some other place. They have a different background. Many of our Canadian citizens do come from different backgrounds. In fact in the city of Vancouver it's estimated that at least half of the 50,000-odd students involved in the elementary and secondary schools speak English as a second language. They are just learning it, they have another language that is their mother tongue.

These are problems when it comes to young people trying to get an education. They're serious. They can't keep up with the studies. They cannot follow the programs, because they can't communicate. It doesn't mean they're stupid or don't have the ability or the potential. They simply are not getting the help. This does not work on the regular student-teacher ratio that you've been using in talking about 18 or 20 students per teacher. You can't do that with those people with special needs. We have been confusing the debate by suggesting that the refugee fund is quite a few million more than what is needed for ESL — that's not the same thing. ESL is a specific amount of money that is needed for people who need help in English. We're confusing that in the debate.

The situation in Vancouver is getting worse and worse and worse, What's going to happen to those students? Not only the students, there are adults as well who should be informed and should be helped.

These are the kinds of commitments that can only come when we take a look at what quality really means — what it really means to deal with a problem from a humanistic point of view; not from a dollar, fiscal, actuarial point of view, but from a human point of view. If we do that, we can separate the two, and we can see the true costs. Involve the teachers in that instead of scapegoating them and accusing them of being irresponsible, greedy and self-interested. Let's talk about what the teachers are competent to do and are capable of doing, and give them a chance to do it — seriously. We know that they have the ability, but what can they do when they're always with a government that wants to dictate, centralize, control and try to con the rest of the voters into believing that that's the way it is. That is not the way it is. It's irresponsible, and it's the kind of thing that happens to people who don't know what they're doing.

You start talking to those students, and you'll find out that there are many possibilities; there are many ways in which we can solve these problems — very serious problems. There are not just problems in British Columbia; there are problems in Canada and in the world. These young people are frightened. They don't know what the future holds for them. They're worried about peace; they're worried about the relevance of what they're learning. This is the thing I would like to hear us talking about. We're talking about education as if we were talking about sawing down trees out in the forest. We're talking about young children — our future resource, the people who are going to carry whatever we leave for them.

I think this business of referring back to the voters to try to get a few more dollars to try to deal with the shortfall is really not addressing the problem. We should be talking education. But we should be talking about it without concerning ourselves with the cost, and then finding out what it would cost to do a quality job. They are two separate things. Sure it's going to cost money, but the way we're talking now, without considering the disparities and differences between one community and the next.... You can't compare the downtown east side with South Vancouver or Point Grey, or some place up north that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) was talking about. They're different. They don't follow the same formulas. They are different. That is just a fact. So who are we kidding? This is just another boondoggle by the Premier.

[5:15]

[ Page 4985 ]

MR. STUPICH: The bill before us now is just one more step in the attack on the public school system that has been going on for the last four, five or six years in this province by this administration. It started with financial assistance to private schools, and since then they have been gradually trying to lower the standards of education available in the public school system, hoping to push more and more people into the private school system in order to privatize education to the extent that they're able to do it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is expressing surprise that I would put it in those words. I'm dismayed, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm expressing dismay.

MR. STUPICH: I'm dismayed, Mr. Speaker. He's not dismayed. He's surprised.

It started with assistance to the private school system and with the pressure on the public school system. It continued with the removal from the local taxation base of taxation on commercial and industrial property, in anticipation that one day the minister would bring in the kind of bill that is before us today that would leave to school boards the opportunity of raising money only by increasing taxes on what he himself called a relatively small proportion of the tax base. He said some 8 to 9 percent of the money for the educational system is raised by taxing residents. By getting down to that kind of base, if indeed a local school board wants to raise any more money to do anything at all to maintain the standards of education in the public school system.... To get any amount of money, since it's working on such a small base, the taxes have to be increased tremendously to bring in the amount of money that could do anything at all for the public school system locally. The base has been reduced so far that it's made it just that much more impossible for the local school district to do anything at all.

I think it was the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) who was saying that this gives local school districts more authority. Mr. Speaker, it does nothing of the kind. At least up to now local school districts could come to the minister and make a case for getting more money for their own particular school district. Now the door is shut in their face. They're going to be told, "Well, go to your own residents and get the approval from them, and then you can spend whatever money you want to spend." Although I imagine the minister will still have the right to approve or disapprove.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not opposed to local school districts raising funds from their own taxpayers to do certain things in education that are out of the ordinary, that are extraordinary, that are innovative, that are worth trying in one district at a time to see whether or not they do add anything to the general level of education. Then, perhaps, eventually these do get worked into the general system throughout the province. But this business of going to referendum whenever the local school district wants to give something more than what is admittedly now a very low base, and a base that may be lowered again, annually.... Certainly the last three years' experience would indicate that the minister or the government intends to lower the base regularly each year. In this bill, it will be left up to the school districts to replace those reductions by going to their own taxpayers and trying to get that made up, if they are able to.

Where would this idea of a referendum stop? The province of British Columbia, the taxpayers of British Columbia, are responsible for something like $1.5 billion that was blown on the northeast coal project. There was no referendum on that, and neither should there have been. They're going to be paying it for the rest of their lives. Even the youngest will be paying interest on that money forever. If there ever is any return from that project, it will certainly be in in the twenty-first century. But it's proper that the government made the decision and went to an election afterwards and was re-elected even after having made that decision.

That's the way we should work. We should be prepared to accept the responsibility for the decisions we make as politicians. There shouldn't have been any referendum on that.

The Columbia River Treaty, which was designed by the Americans to provide flood control for them and cheap power for them, and to cost us $1.5 billion so far — again, there was not a referendum. The government made the decision and the government has been re-elected time after time, even after having made that decision. The time for the voters to have a vote was when it came to re-election time, not on the project itself. There's no way of informing people about projects like that at the time. Even the government was ill-informed in that particular instance.

B.C. Place — every person in British Columbia today is paying $1 a month interest on the money invested in B.C. Place. There was no referendum. They weren't asked individually if they wanted to go on paying $1 a month interest forever and a day, and there shouldn't have been a referendum.

Politicians should have the intestinal fortitude to make decisions and then to face the electorate when the time comes for re-election. And the same for school boards. School boards should have the opportunity to go their electors and say, "This is what we believe in our knowledge of what's going on in this district: this is what we believe we need to provide quality education in this community," and to go ahead and do it and to levy the taxes accordingly, and then at election time to face the voters, explain what they've done, why they've done it — and of course to inform them in the meantime — but not to hide behind a referendum and say: "We want to do this, but really, it's not our decision. It's your decision. You decide whether or not we should hire another teacher. You decide whether or not the teachers' salaries, shall be increased or reduced. Or, as the hon. member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) didn't suggest, but inferred, if we cut teachers' salaries in half we could hire twice as many teachers. Those decisions should be made by the school board. They should not be hiding behind referenda any more than we in this House should hide behind referenda.

Certainly, this government has never chosen to go to referendum on any of the issues that it has raised in this House. As I say, it shouldn't. Mr. Speaker, I speak very strongly against the idea of a referendum, of hiding behind a referendum for anything that elected politicians want to do at any level of government. I am opposed to this particular bill primarily because of that.

Yes, the school trustees locally should have the opportunity to raise extra money for extra things they want to do. I do agree with that. But I do not agree with obliging them to go to referendum every time they want to do something extra or

[ Page 4986 ]

something special or even anything to maintain what are rather low standards today and getting lower.

MR. HANSON: I wish to take my place in this debate and rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Speaker, the context of this bill is that over the last number of years, starting with a former member of this chamber, Mr. Bill Vander Zalm, who was Minister of Education, followed by the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and now by the member for Prince George North, education in this province has been steadily, continuously moving back until now we're in the disgraceful position of having the lowest per capita investment in education of any province next to Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, this beautiful rich province has the dubious distinction of having the lowest investment in education according to the gross provincial product of any province next to Newfoundland. The investment in education is approximately 3.5 percent, where the national average, according to gross provincial product, is 5 percent. We have a low participation in post-secondary education. We have lower and lower standards and quality of education in our province.

We have traditionally, under Social Credit rule, had the quality of education tied to the value of real estate. Mr. Speaker, we now have a bill before us, the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, which states that the depleting funding for education from general revenue has now to be made up by residential taxpayers who already are burdened by the fact that government has turned to them and moved more and more administrative costs for local government and schools onto them.

Mr Speaker, not only does this government in this bill want school districts to go back to taxpayers for funds that should appropriately come from the provincial government, but the referendum and ballot and so on — all the content and wording of the referenda — are dictated by that minister. It's the ultimate centralization. They don't even get to talk to their own taxpayers in their own language. It has to be dictated by that minister.

Social Credit is punishing the schoolchildren of this province. We often, as a cliche, refer to children as the most precious resource of this province, and that their future is where the direction of the province will be determined. The quality of their intellect, their sensitivity, their awareness about the resources and the management of those resources, their sense of morality, of how people of different ethnic origins should be co-existing in a modern society and so on: those notions and ideas are not framed entirely at home; they are also framed and developed in the classroom, and the way they relate to the educational system. It's a guarantee in a modern society that the provincial government, under the BNA Act, has jurisdiction of authority for education.

This bill is an offensive bill. This bill reinforces the notion that the value of real estate will determine the quality of education. It's a shameful notion. Poorer areas of the province will be doubly penalized, because the citizens will not be able to afford the kinds of essential programs that are required.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[5:30]

We know that there have been massive cutbacks over the last number of years, starting with Mr. Vander Zalm, followed by the present Attorney-General and now that member for Prince George North. Their role as Education ministers is to roll back funding for the public education system. When the heat develops and when their own credibility as minister is totally wrecked, they put in a fresh face, which confuses the situation for awhile; it confuses the trustees, the BCTF, the parents. Then they realize that the new minister is continuing the same rollbacks, the same dismantling of the public education system. Now, after taking unto themselves the taxing authority that used to rest with the school districts, authority on curricula, authority on developing and promoting quality education, and after rolling it back to the point where the education system no longer is functioning in this province, they come in with what newspapers call a clever scheme: phony editorials, stupid editorials that refer to a clever trick, a clever move on the part of Social Credit to turn it back to the poor residential taxpayers. See if they want to pay for English as a second language; see if they want to pay for counselling, for trips to museums, for science and lab equipment, for gymnasium equipment, for physical education and so on. Clever trick, my eye. Stupid. It's idiotic. It's a poor investment in the future. It's nauseating.

I don't know how that minister can sit in this House and function. He's never been particularly strong. In fact, he's been very, very weak. Now he has a situation where he wants to put the burden of the cost of education onto poor residential neighbourhoods so that they suffer. The heavily populated city core schools will have to support education. It's disgusting. It's abhorrent. And they think it's funny. They laugh and grunt away there. Morons.

Mr. Speaker, here we have that bully government which has taken all the money of the people of this province that was invested in BCRIC, and down the tube — total failure. Northeast coal, down the tube — total failure. There were all kinds of enormous deals for Expo. Remember, Mr. Speaker? Taking money that should have been in education, trading off all sorts of deals: CPR lands on the west coast of Vancouver Island traded for unlogged areas over in Sechelt on the Sunshine Coast.

This government has been a failure in managing the economy, and the schoolchildren are suffering because of it. We're a national disgrace. Imagine, a province of less than three million people with the largest and most valuable softwood in the world, the largest exporter of low-grade copper in the world, minerals and resources, and an old-fashioned, silly government that has taken all the money that should have been used for training, research and development, and having high quality skills and abilities refined within our school system, and rolled it back so kids have to wear their coats in the classrooms because there's not enough heat. There isn't enough money for crossing guards on dangerous streets where the police asked that there be crossing guards because there were too many deaths and accidents of schoolchildren. Those crossing guards aren't going to be able to be there any more. And they think it's funny. They laugh. There isn't any money for heat in the schools. There isn't sufficient money for libraries. The core curriculum is determined by morons. They know best. Victoria knows best. It's disgusting, Mr. Speaker. We have the lowest per capita expenditure on education anywhere in Canada. Ridiculous! And now we have this little trick which the province thinks is so clever. If they do a critical analysis of something for a change, it would be really nice; it would be interesting.

So they're going to institute inequities and turn back so that the rich, if they decide they want their kids to have extras and pursue excellence, will pay for it. If the poor can't afford

[ Page 4987 ]

it, they won't get it. Already we don't have proper reviews and proper diagnostic techniques for people with dyslexia and various other kinds of learning disabilities that require assistance. So those detections are not available. What happens? Those children flunk out of school and end up in juvenile institutions, in the correctional system or on welfare because they give up. If they had proper counselling and proper diagnostic tests and assistance, they could pursue academic excellence and become whatever they want to be in this society. But we have a government that doesn't believe in quality public education. They believe that if you've got a buck in your pocket and you can send your kid to school and give them an education, great! If you haven't got it, tough! It's a silly, stupid and retrograde way to approach education.

That's what this bill is about. It's not about giving people at the local level some kind of choice in education. It's tying it to the assessed value of real estate. That's what it's about. So Shaughnessy and West Marine Drive and West Vancouver and so on, fine. Their kids will go to university. East of Cambie Street, tough. They won't be able to go. They're cutting back on colleges. They're cutting back in education; they don't believe in it.

It's a real tragedy, because we've got a generation of kids.... They were on the steps of this Legislature today crying out for help. Loans have been cut back, bursaries are cut back. It's impossible. There's no summer employment. We're going to have a whole generation of welfare recipients, masses of them. We're close to a quarter of a million now. We're going to have serious structural unemployment in this province. Our young people are not going to be prepared to take on the kinds of jobs of the future at all.

I take this particular bill seriously, Mr. Speaker. I think it's very serious when school boards have to turn off the heat in the schools and when they don't have counselling, and they have to fire the crossing guards. It's serious. But they've never cared too much about it in the past, and they won't care too much about it in the future. When the people of this province go to the ballot booth in the next provincial election, I hope they are going to ask themselves: "What has this government done for my children?" That's the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. It cuts across party lines. I believe that the public of this province, no matter what their political orientation, want their children to have a chance. They want their kids to receive the best possible education they can, and they're not getting it under Social Credit because this government has failed economically. Our kids are paying for the failure in BCRIC, in northeast coal, in the 26 bills in the July 1983 budget. Our kids are paying for that in cold classrooms, reduced libraries, less instruction and bigger classes. It's a tragedy, and that is why I am going to vote against Bill 48.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I've heard a number of comments this afternoon. One that I would like to make reference to, to begin with, was from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). The big concern raised was: what caused the problems in the funding of education? I have a byline here: "Momentous NDP policy prepared a costly legacy." It was a grand and wonderful scheme that came in 11 years ago. The members opposite announced a new policy that influences the high cost of education even today. The object was to reduce the number of students in the PTR within the district from 21.5 to 17.1. As a matter of fact, even the members opposite, when they were government and in administration, had to cease that particular policy after one year. By the next February — one year after it had occurred — the level was hovering below 20.1, and the good faith commitment which the members opposite had made had to be pulled back. Do you know what the expression was? As a matter of fact, I have a comment from the minister of the day: "Because of the need for restraint in the face of inflation and recession...." Mr. Member, we had 17.1.1: consequently, it had to be addressed.

I can't understand the comments that I've been bearing, particularly those from outside. Everybody, trustees in particular, was telling me that everybody is opposed to these particular cuts. They're all opposed to them. And now we hear that 90 percent of the public want to support more money for education.

No sooner was a bill introduced than two comments came. One was from the Vancouver School Board. Do you know what they said? "Just a minute. The taxpayers haven't got enough money to pay for this." Well, I've been saying that for a year and a half. And then, what do you know!

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Never mind your industrial base. He's going to talk about the industrial base. The next thing came over in Victoria, where we had heard a lot of noise for a number of months. They said: "That's not right. The taxpayers are going to give us, the trustees, some flak."

Well, you know, they now have a golden opportunity. I'd like to make reference to a couple of items. We talk about the cost. You know, I had a good meeting with the Vancouver School Board. It was a cordial meeting and it was a lot of fun. But finally we got through all the inflationary figures that they talked about. You know what they ended up with? "Yes," they said, "for the short fiscal year it's going to be $1.8 million." And I bet you they will resolve that problem for the '85-86 fiscal year. Forgetting about inflation and all the other costs, we agreed the amount was in excess of $4 million. I think it was $4.2 million — not $17 million, and they said it. We said it together. I sat here and the chairman of the board in Vancouver sat here. There wasn't any problem — $4.2 million.

Well, you know, we're starting to talk about what moneys we will raise in a referendum. If people are prepared.... Let's go to Vancouver. I'll tell you what. They could raise $3.2 million, and you know what the increase would be on the mid-point average home in Vancouver? It would be $22. Many of the comments that have been raised by the members opposite when we're talking about increases — and I don't want to go through them all.... But I will tell you that on all of the charts, even with an increase, taking 2 percent of their gross operating budget, they still end up not paying any education tax, because the homeowner grant eliminates it all. The places where the homeowner grant doesn't eliminate it are the rich parts of British Columbia, not the poor parts that you've all referred to. Where are they? Langley, Surrey, Delta, Richmond, Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby. These are the rich parts of British Columbia. The interior is not where it's rich. The north is not where it's rich. It's all down here.

Timing. We've got seven weeks to prepare. It seems to me that when we have some problems to resolve we can do it within that period of time.

[5:45]

[ Page 4988 ]

Another thing that was raised by the members opposite was the matter of comparing the well-to-do city people to us poor country mikes. Let's have a look at what the cost per student is that we've already got built into the foundation and the framework. If you want to, I've got all of the figures on it here. Let's have a look at this: $3,200 or $3,300 down in the rich part of British Columbia, but we've looked after costs of the poorer parts. For example, for Vancouver Island North, where the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is from, you're probably up around a cost of $4,000 or $4,500 per student. We provide for it to look after these people. It's always in the framework.

"Let's Talk About Schools" is not a diversionary tactic at all. It's something that everybody is wanting to talk about. All of you people who would care to travel the province, and do it somewhat extensively, would find the newspapers are just full of comments. And, you know, they're interesting and positive comments. It's not a diversionary tactic; it has been a golden opportunity for people to talk, and that's exactly what they're doing.

1 wonder if perhaps we might go back to the very beginning. Why? Why did I — and I concede — take control of expenditures in public education? Not to save money at all, but to control the expenditure of public funds. We recognized what was happening. We know that the amount of money that has gone into public education in 1982, 1983 and 1984 is $1.86 billion, $1.89 billion, $1.90 billion respectively. It has gone up. That's a matter of record. What we have done is control expenditures with respect to districts. And most of the school districts acknowledged that something had to be done.

Some reference is made to this knee-jerk planning. I don't know where you get knee-jerk planning from. This whole program was put out over a period of three years to establish predictability in budgeting, something the school districts have been asking for for a long, long time. Another thing school districts had been asking for for a long time was that we try to develop some form of equity between districts with respect to per-student funding, because there was quite a differential. Those school districts of British Columbia where the enrolment was declining precipitously weren't feeling the pinch, but those that had a level population, such as Vernon — the member's not here — and maintained the same full-time equivalent teachers throughout this entire period — a well-managed district — could do it. But why should that particular district pay the price, when we're all funding out of here for the same service per student province-wide? It's only fair.

What's happened with all of this? The PTR has gone from 17.1 to 17.73. Is that so unusual? The opposition, when they were in government, had a PTR of 21.5 to 1.

I have no relish whatsoever to ever appoint an official trustee. Why this continues to float I do not know. That comment was made. I find that somewhat difficult.

There was one comment made by the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) with respect to the Arrow Lakes School District. He wouldn't attribute authorship to it, and I kind of wish he had. It was: "It's your tough luck if you live there." I'd like to know who said that. I was hoping that he'd be here to respond.

The Burns plan. To the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), I appreciate the way you advanced that particular plan, but do you know what it really meant? It meant you just pulled the credit card out of your wallet and pledged the credit of British Columbia to the tune of $93.2 million. That's exactly what it was. If every school district in the province took advantage of it.... And if one or two did, why shouldn't the rest have an advantage? All that happened was this: we take six-tenths of the annual salary versus six-twelfths, subtract the difference, multiply it by the number of teachers and we end up with $93.2 million. Do you know what we could do with that? We could hire more teachers, accommodate all the increases and have a surplus, because we agreed to roll it over. So you know what I did? I thought it was an ingenious plan. I thought: "Boy, somebody is doing some thinking. We had better just have this checked out." This was the advice given to me: "Yes, it's a contingent liability...."

MS. SANFORD: Unfunded liability.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes. Just a minute.

The auditing firm, a national firm, told me the following: "If you are going to reflect that in your financial statement, it must be backed up by a reserve." I said: "What kind of a reserve?" They said: "A cash reserve." If you've spent the money, you don't have the cash.

The second point came in as this: the auditor-general would turn around and say: "Maybe what we ought to do is put school districts on an accrual basis instead of a cash basis." That's something the accountants can understand. Every time I raised that concern to the secretary treasurers in the province, they said: "We're very happy with what we have now — very happy." The auditor-general then would say: "This is what you ought to be on." I didn't want to get involved in that, and I don't think that they did either. As a matter of fact, many school districts weren't prepared to touch that point at all.

There was a concern raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs- Wallace), and I'd just like to raise one point. I concede a well-managed school district. I note one thing though: in 1981 they had 7,400 students, in 1984-85 they had 6, 960 students; in 1981 they had 425 teachers, in 1984-85 they had 398; the PTR was 17.39 and has gone to 17.48. That is well beneath the provincial average. I think they've managed very well.

There was a point raised by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). I can tell you that I don't have the answer to the concern which you have raised with respect to the company town. I will find that answer. Stikine, for example, has a per student cost of $7,216. That demonstrates to you how we've tried to recognize the difficulty that students, teachers and administrators have in remote ridings which are difficult to serve. The same applies to Nishga. With respect to any referendum, we understand Nishga is the only school district where you would encounter a difficulty. You can rest assured that that matter will be looked after should it ever come to pass.

I would like to refer to the comments of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He made a comment with respect to centralization which I think is a fair comment. I don't like it any more than anyone else does. But let me give you some indication of what I am trying to do.

MR. LEA: Finally.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Be patient. I just wish I had the reserves and the carry-forward that the school districts in

[ Page 4989 ]

Prince Rupert and Trail and a few others have. It's funny how school districts have these when you ask a few questions.

We have reduced the size of the ministry from 711 to 435. That's step one. Out of that 435 consists all the correspondence school and all the staff at Jericho Hill, the school for deaf children.

MR. LAUK: How many?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are about 80 or 90 at that school.

I can tell you that we have compressed considerably. Secondly, the ultimate objective in the ministry is this: yes, we've got to be involved in finance; yes, there's some involvement in curriculum, certification, examinations, accreditation and the independent school system. I want the rest of this to get out to the school districts. We had to have some degree of sanity built in in funding and financing. That was the clarion call that came in 1982, even from the members opposite and those who support the party opposite who are on various school boards around the province. So somebody had to take this and handle it. I think this is what we've done. I'm coming out of that period right now. "Let's Talk about Schools" is not a diversionary tactic. In it there is reference to a number of areas, and selected questions have been asked by people who have been in the field for a long time. Anything that I'm doing now I think has to be done on a temporary basis until we get a report on which we can prepare a school act, something which will be a bill or a White Paper. That's something we're trying to do.

MR. HANSON: Give them money instead.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm giving them an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 18

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

Bill 48, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 37.

PENSION (MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is put forward in what I guess you might call bits and pieces, and is therefore best discussed at committee stage. I therefore move second reading.

MR. COCKE: We agree, Mr. Speaker, the bill is housekeeping. Not only that, it applies to a number of different areas of government — schools, colleges and so forth. We will be glad to discuss it in committee.

Motion approved.

Bill 37, Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the annual report of the BC lotteries branch for the year 1983-84; the annual report of the BC Heritage Trust for the year 1983-84; and the PNE report.

Introduction of Bills

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Act.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.