[ Page 5593 ]

CONTENTS

Groundwater Regulation Act (Bill M203). Mrs. Wallace

Introduction and first reading –– 5593

Oral Questions

Legal contracts. Mr. Macdonald –– 5593

Mr. Reynolds

Expo 86 advertising budget. Mr. Cocke –– 5594

Pemberton flood. Mrs. Wallace –– 5594

Commissioner of critical industries. Mr. Stupich –– 5594

Safety of prostitutes. Ms. Brown –– 5595

Ministerial statement

Funding for Canadian Commercial Bank. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5595

Mr. Stupich

Private Members' Statements

Soil erosion and agricultural crisis. Ms. Sanford –– 5597

Hon. Mr. Schroeder

Mrs. Wallace

Licensing of taxis. Mr. Davis –– 5598

Hon. A. Fraser

Discovery parks. Mr. Parks –– 5600

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms. Brown –– 5602

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Reynolds

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5604

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Barnes

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 5609

The House met at 10:06 a.m. Prayers.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: In the gallery today is Mr.

Chuck Emery, chairman of the B.C. Marketing Board, some times called the superboard. Please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GROUNDWATER REGULATION ACT

Mrs. Wallace presented a bill intituled Groundwater Regulation Act.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have introduced this bill in this Legislature, but it is a continuing concern to me. As I'm certain the members will realize, I have a concern about water in strata underneath the earth's surface, which has no regulations covering it under the Water Act.

We have had many instances when one well or one source of supply has been depleted by the drilling of a well adjacent to it. We are getting more and more need to rely on this underwater supply, as more and more of our surface water becomes polluted or destroyed in other ways.

Bill M203, Groundwater Regulation Act, introduced and read a first time.

MRS. WALLACE: I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[10:15]

Oral Questions

LEGAL CONTRACTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the acting Attorney-General about the privatization of the services of the Attorney-General's department — although some seem to enjoy the joys of privatization more than others. In March of 1984 when Bud Smith, principal secretary to the Premier, was making his decision to come down and serve in the government in Victoria, did the department suddenly take two legal contracts away from lawyers in Kamloops — Jensen and Kaser — and give them to one Daphne Smith of the firm of Mair Janowsky Blair? That's my question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to a matter that happened in 1984, and I was wondering whether the question was urgent and important.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if the rules were strictly applied to every question, we would have very few. I think in the spirit of question period…. The Minister of Education was going to respond for the Attorney?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Attorney-General, I'd be quite prepared to make the question as notice, as you would expect me to do. I will advise the Attorney-General of your inquiry and I'm sure that there will be a response brought to the House in due course.

MR. MACDONALD: Another question to the acting Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker: in October, now, of 1984, when the new woman lawyer comes to town in Victoria — Daphne….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's '84?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, '84 — very current.

Did the Attorney-General's department then, having issued temporary contracts to that point, take legal work worth about $4,000 a month away from three Victoria firms and give it to the firm that Daphne Smith joined, which was the Hutchison and Gow firm? Do you know whether that happened too?

Additional to that, does the acting Attorney-General know, however, that the Attorney-General managed in that shuffle of the work to keep a third of the work for Loretta Chaperon, who is his active and faithful campaign worker in Oak Bay?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, I have no knowledge of what the member is asking, and I will take that question on notice as well, on behalf of the Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question. Is the acting Attorney-General aware that a senior official of the Attorney-General's ministry said that there was political interference involved…?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've listened carefully to the previous question and again the framework for this question. It appears to me that in he revamping of the rules which took place in the previous session, we must have changed the rules for question period. Is that true? Apparently the member opposite is seeking to bring information to the House, rather than to ask the question. I ask you to rule on it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: While that may be the case, hon. members, it is hardly anything new in the rules. Nonetheless, in light of the fact that the member is aware that the minister to whom he is directing his remarks is not here, I would ask that the rules of question period, which state "urgent, important, brief, precise and stated without argument or opinion" be adhered to at least in some fashion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, so that you will be relieved on this point, the contracts are still going on, although they were let in 1984. So the matter is current.

This senior official in the department said there was political interference involved. This is the case of Smith v. Smith, Bud v. Brian, and Brian managed to keep some of the work for his campaign workers. My question is this: is the acting Attorney-General not concerned that Bud Smith might fire the Attorney-General when he is out of town, the way he fired Maury Gwynne?

[ Page 5594 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the acting Attorney-General. When he's checking on this information for the member for Vancouver East, can he ask the Attorney-General to report to the House how much work Mr. John Brewin is getting in the Victoria area, also?

EXPO 86 ADVERTISING BUDGET

MR. COCKE: I have a question to that skeleton cabinet. I'll direct my question to the Provincial Secretary, because he gets so excited every time anybody directs a question.

Can the minister confirm that Michael Powell — I think this is somebody he might know, Mr. Speaker — has been appointed to supervise the spending of a $25 million advertising budget for Expo 86?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. Michael Powell is not known to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise whether this Mr. Michael Powell is a recent senior partner in the advertising firm of Vrlak Robinson? I think we've talked about that firm before — the advertising agent of record for the Social Credit party.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Like I said a little earlier, I'm not familiar with Michael Powell. And never having met the man, never having dealt with the man, never having had any correspondence with the man, needless to say it would be very difficult for me to say whether he had been working with Vrlak Robinson or any other communications firm in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: I will probably direct similar questions to the minister in charge of tourism and Expo 86, but would the minister, perhaps on my behalf, ask the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) whether Mr. Powell's Trojan effort on behalf of the Social Credit Party in the past has been the prime consideration in placing him in charge of this $25 million budget?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, you know that the rules of the House do not permit a member to ask a minister a question wherein he should attempt to influence a colleague in the cabinet. So that's highly out of order, and needs no response.

PEMBERTON FLOOD

MRS. WALLACE: I know that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) is going to be very happy that I am finally going to ask him a question. The questions relate to the Pemberton flooding which took place in October, 1984. As the minister is aware, both he and I have received innumerable letters from flood victims in Pemberton who were hopeful that this new minister might be more responsive to their problems. Can the minister tell me why he has not contacted those flood victims to this point in time?

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank the hon. member for the question. As a matter of fact, for many days, dreading the first question that might come my way, I carried into this House a great deal of information about the Pemberton flood. You obviously know what has happened. I haven't got it with me today. However, I do recall that in that particular list of information I had, it seemed to me that.... I got the impression from that list that everyone had been dealt with and that all of the claims had been dealt with, with the exception of 21. Now I received that information some time ago, so quite possibly it has changed. On that basis, perhaps I should take the question as notice and bring back more detailed information as soon as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not sure whether I outwaited him or outsmarted him. The minister says that as far as he knows, there are 21 claims unsettled. To the best of my knowledge, he has not been in contact with any one of those 21 people. I am not disputing the number; I take his word for it. It's now six months since the flood, and the residents there have expended any reserves they had. They're close to dire straits. I'm getting letters all the time — copies of letters to the minister.

My question is: has the minister decided to review the guidelines and the compensation offered to these people who have suffered such severe losses?

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, the member has my assurance that we will do that. I'm not just sure of the geographical location of dire straits, but I will endeavour to find them.

COMMISSIONER OF CRITICAL INDUSTRIES

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday I started a line of questioning with the Minister of Finance as the minister responsible for the critical industries commission. I questioned the appointment of the commissioner in view of his thoughts on government getting involved with industry as he presented them at a debate sponsored by the MacDonald royal commission into the economy in June 1984. Apart from what he said about government helping, he also said that he considered the forest industry to be a sunset industry in the province. Yet forests is one of the two main industries that this commissioner is supposed to be helping.

I ask again. The minister said he would respond during debate on the bill. I wonder if that's the correct and proper time to be discussing the personnel. But the minister may want to leave it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was expressing a view yesterday with which the Chair may not agree, that the actual appointee in a bill which is before the House may not be appropriate to discuss in question period. But if the Chair has no difficulty with that, I would answer the question.

On the basis of my lengthy conversation yesterday — it started in the morning, Mr. Member — with Mr. Phillips, quite clearly he has very strong views with respect to the continued growth of the forest industry and the mining industry. He has a good grasp of that which the bill seeks him to do. I'm satisfied that Mr. Phillips — the member may want to make a supplementary question — will bring to this new office, breaking new ground in fact, considerable experience in a variety of activities and endeavours, and certainly I would like to examine the precise context in which he described an industry as a sunset industry. I don't doubt the member's quotation, but I'd like to see the full context. I don't have that available to me.

[ Page 5595 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think we'll go into this in estimates, perhaps at greater length. But I wonder whether at this time the minister can tell us whether or not any other applicants were interviewed in connection with this appointment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Several individuals were considered for this appointment.

SAFETY OF PROSTITUTES

MS. BROWN: My question is to the acting Attorney-General, too. I was actually hoping to give it to the Attorney-General himself. The Alliance for the Safety of Prostitutes issues from time to time something they call a bad trick sheet, which is really a list of experiences that they've had with consumers of their services who have been violent or threatening in some way. I'm wondering whether the Attorney-General's ministry is advising the Vancouver police or whether the ministry itself is following up on this sheet and finding out whether these people are being dealt with in any way.

[10:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the sincerity with which the member advances the question. I don't know anything about the issue other than what I've read in the newspaper. I'm sure the Attorney-General will be quite prepared to give a full answer when he returns. Again, I will take that question as notice.

FUNDING FOR CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. On March 27 of this year I made a preliminary statement to the House on the actions being undertaken by the governments of Canada, Alberta and British Columbia, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the six largest Canadian chartered banks to provide an infusion of capital to strengthen the Canadian Commercial Bank headquartered in Edmonton but carrying on business in western Canada, particularly in B.C. and Alberta. At that time I assured the House that a further statement regarding the circumstances which led to the province's participation would be made, and I do so now.

A little bit of background: the Canadian Commercial Bank is Canada's tenth largest bank and, more importantly, it is the second-largest western Canada based bank. At yearend, October 31, 1984, the bank had assets of $3 –– I billion, of which $340 million represented loans to businesses and individuals resident in B.C.

For a number of reasons the bank recently experienced a sharp deterioration in its U.S. loan portfolio. This in turn significantly depressed the value of the bank's total loan portfolio. It became apparent to the management of the bank, given the magnitude of the problem, that the bank could no longer remain a viable operation without some financial restructuring.

On or about March 14 of this year, the management of the bank advised the office of the inspector-general of banks in Ottawa of the bank's financial difficulties. The inspector-general and staff performed a detailed analysis of the situation, including an on-site re-evaluation of the loan portfolio, and concluded that a support package of $255 million would be required. This support package would, under that plan, be provided by the governments of Canada and Alberta, six major chartered banks and CDIC. the deposit insurance corporation.

The key to a stable and growing economy, and the financial security of our citizens is a strong and responsible financial services sector. It was my concern with respect to the financial security of a large number of our citizens, as well as the recognition of the need to maintain confidence in our economy in related institutions, that this government, along with Alberta and the government of Canada provided CCB with the basis of carrying on business. The problem was twofold. It is important, because I think, frankly, Mr. Speaker, not members of this House but some observers have permitted the two problems to merge into one.

There were two distinct problems. First, there were debentures of $49 million, the holders of which were being asked to accept lesser security and to defer interest payments in order to secure loans from the major chartered banks to provide cash to continue day-to-day operations. This condition required all debenture holders to agree. After some days of negotiations, i.e., following March 14, no agreement was in sight.

On the late afternoon or early evening of March 24, the negotiations for this support package had reached an impasse because the support participants insisted the holders of the bank's $49 million of subordinated debentures postpone receipt of interest and principal until the support group had been paid out. The majority of subordinated debenture holders were trust companies, and unanimous consent could not be obtained from that group. At this juncture it became apparent that no agreement was going to be reached which could provide financial assistance to this troubled bank. Given no agreement, the CCB would not have had an opportunity for an orderly workout of its problems. This placed in jeopardy both the debenture holders, of which there was only one significant holder in B.C. other than the government of B.C., and the deposit holders.

This represented the second and far more significant problem for a much larger number of B.C. citizens and institutions. In a very fragile period of renewal, I suggest that we cannot afford a major shock to investors' confidence. The so-called flight to quality that accompanies such events is usually, in those circumstances, to government securities and not loans to investors who want to and who can contribute to the renewal of our economy.

Well, it was an interesting afternoon and evening — and overnight period — Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House. It continued until the very small hours of the morning. In fact, in the early hours of March 25, it was proposed to the governments of Alberta and Canada that those two governments, along with the government of British Columbia, provide a separate arrangement to purchase from the trust companies and various other institutions $39 million of the bank's subordinated debentures. I'm sure that members of this House will agree — I trust that they will agree — that the Canadian Commercial Bank had to be maintained as a viable banking institution in order not to cause grave concern in the financial community should the bank not open its doors for business on the morning of March 25, 1985. That really was the problem which was before all the participants.

This financial support is a vote of confidence by the governments of British Columbia, Alberta and Canada, and by the six major banks and the CDIC in this vital western-

[ Page 5596 ]

based Canadian bank and in the economic development of western Canada and British Columbia in particular.

I want to elaborate just a little more on the economic viability of this bank and its importance to the province of B.C. The Canadian Commercial Bank has a regional office in Vancouver which, as of last note, employs some 38 British Columbians. The bank has total B.C. loans authorized at $382 million, of which $340 million is currently outstanding to local British Columbia institutions and individuals. By business category, 37 percent of these loans are with transportation and financial services institutions, 31 percent are real estate–related, 18 percent rest with manufacturers and 14 percent are spread among wholesalers, energy-related institutions and local residents of B.C. Further, British Columbia clients of the Canadian Commercial Bank employ approximately 10,200 British Columbians, and they have annual sales in excess of $2.1 billion.

But these statistics, as cold as they may seem, represent only the borrowing exposure that British Columbians have with the Canadian Commercial Bank. On the deposit side of the bank's balance sheet, there are 1,184 retail deposits totalling $30 million of British Columbians' savings. Of these deposits, 99 were in excess of the $60,000 limit insurable by CDIC and represented at that time a potential loss of $6.8 million of B.C. savings.

There were 243 wholesale deposits with a total value of $135 million. Only $14.6 million of these deposits would have been insured had the bank become insolvent. These wholesale deposits were spread across British Columbia institutions. They ranged from municipalities and credit unions — including B.C. Central Credit Union to a significant extent — hospitals, school boards and pension plans.

Mr. Speaker, the governments of B.C., Alberta and Canada are jointly preparing the final details of the agreement to purchase equally the $39 million of subordinated debentures. That is the extent of the province of B.C.'s involvement in part two of the support package.

The agreement has not been finally signed, Mr. Speaker; I expect it will be in a very few days. I therefore would prefer not to comment on all of the details, but certainly I've given the general outline of what the agreement will contain.

The members of this Legislature and the people of B.C. can be assured that through that weekend I acted only in what I considered to be the best interests of British Columbians, whether they were depositors or creditors of the bank, or British Columbians in general who could have been severely harmed by the spillover effect of the insolvency of a major western Canada institution. All of this will be taken into account in the final agreement which I referred to a few moments ago, and in the control and security of the $13 million of subordinated debenture to which the province of B.C. has committed itself.

The action, Mr. Speaker, with the passage of time will be seen, I trust, by members of the House on both sides as the appropriate action taken in what was a very worrisome time, particularly with respect to individual depositors in British Columbia. I did not move to save a bank. I moved to the best of my ability to save people who had directly or indirectly placed their money in that particular bank.

Mr. Speaker, I have a document to table which members may want to see, which is the security of the subordinated debentures and deposits with respect to CCB.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the opposition does endorse the actions taken by the Minister of Finance. But may I say also that we're not very happy about it.

The minister said that he moved to save the depositors and to save the business concerns that had money invested in the bank. There were a number of people that he moved to save — the interests of western Canadians generally, in particular a large number of British Columbians — if the bank would have collapsed.

Mr. Speaker, the concern was not with the Continental Bank or any of its shareholders — they were numerous — or with the depositors. The consideration was only whether or not we would continue to have faith in our monetary system. That was the real concern. When you look at the number and stature of the people who are involved in Ottawa, and when you look at the stature of the people who were summoned to a meeting on Friday and told to be there.... One newspaper story has it that they were summoned, and then they were asked to participate. The heads of the six largest commercial banks were summoned to a meeting, and the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance, other ministers, other deputies.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Only federal government.

MR. STUPICH: Oh yes, federal.

The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that it was not concern about a bank, even the tenth largest bank in B.C. It was concern about the monetary system itself, and faith or lack of faith in that monetary system, and what damage that might do to our economy in the event that that kind of faith was shaken. That's why it had to be done, and done quietly, without knowledge of it getting out until the deal was made. And we support all that.

But we cannot help but feel some shame, as people involved in politics — some of us for quite a long time — that over the course of generations we have developed a monetary system that is supposed to be serving us, and instead of serving us it is our master. It rules us. We are able to do nothing with that monetary system.

The fellow calling the meeting, Gerald Bouey, was the one who led us into the depths of depression, who told us that we couldn't possibly let our dollar sink lower than the American dollar or we might — and he said "might" — risk the danger of inflation. So instead of that we embarked upon a policy of very high interest rates, knowing for certain that the answer led to high inflation. So we abandoned a policy that might lead to high inflation in favor of one that was bound to lead to inflation. And look what's happened to, us. A depression at least as bad as that of the thirties — from following a monetary system that was supposed to be established to serve us, which is now our master.

It's our master to the extent that we don't dare let a major bank in Canada fail — and I agree with that. The minister had to participate in the way he did. We don't dare let it fail, because we can't. Until we can come up with some better solution, some better way of handling our affairs, we can't risk the failure of a major bank in Canada. It's just that simple. Our creation has become our master, and that's a pretty sorry state of affairs, Mr. Speaker. Now I'm not blaming the minister for this, because I don't have the answer any more than the minister does today.

[10:45]

[ Page 5597 ]

But I do say that the action that we've been forced to take in this instance was not out of concern for depositors and investors and people who borrow. We have not shown that kind of concern, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the problems of individuals in B.C. who have gone bankrupt — a greater number each year than the depositors in the Continental Bank — or with the businesses that have gone bankrupt and are going out of business every day in B.C. We're not showing our concern in helping them. We're simply saving faith in the monetary system, because we don't have anything better to replace it with right now. We know it has failed us. Yet until we do come up with an answer, we have to agree that the minister acted properly in doing what he could by playing his part in saving Canadian faith in the monetary system.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of rebutting at this point; that can happen at another time. But the member inadvertently said Continental Bank a couple of times. I'm sure he meant Canadian Commercial Bank. I'm also sure he would want Hansard to be corrected. We're not speaking about Continental Bank today.

MR. STUPICH: I thank the minister for that correction. He put one word in my mouth when he said "today." Let's hope we're not speaking about it tomorrow.

Private Members' Statements

SOIL EROSION AND AGRICULTURAL CRISIS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, issues that relate to agriculture generally do not receive more than a passing nod from the general public. They are not issues that grab the attention of the public, but they are of vital importance both in economic terms and, of course, in terms of the very food that we eat. The statement I make today will, I hope, evoke more than a passing nod from the provincial government and result in some attention and some action on the issue as it relates to agriculture and the production of food in Canada.

This is an issue which deserves serious attention not only provincially but federally and, indeed, internationally. The issue that I wish to bring to the attention of the House today is soil degradation and soil erosion, which, if it continues to go unchecked or unattended to, as it does now, will result in very serious loss of agricultural capability in Canada. It's an issue that can be addressed, and it's an issue that must be addressed soon.

On the international level, a book has been written recently entitled Soil Erosion: Quiet Crisis in the World Economy. I'd like to make reference to that very briefly during the seven minutes that I have at my disposal. This book, written by Lester Brown and Edward Wolff, points out that as population pressures drive up the world's demand for food, intensive farming methods are beginning to convert earth into a non-renewable resource. The dimensions of the problem span the globe, report Lester Brown and Edward Wolff in this book. The soil loss during spring ploughing in northern China, for example, moves airborne across the Pacific Ocean, where it will eventually be observed and measured in Hawaii. That's the nature of the problem on an international level. The two authors of this book point out that food, like oil, has become a global commodity in an economically interdependent world. The loss of soil here today becomes the loss of food elsewhere tomorrow.

In Canada a book has been prepared on the same topic as a result of a Senate study headed by Senator Sparrow, who traveled the country with his committee looking at the same problem as it applies in Canada. They have reached much the same conclusion. It applies in British Columbia as much as it does in other parts of Canada. The first statement made by Senator Sparrow in the report that they produced as a result of the study they did on soil erosion and soil degradation in Canada is as follows. Mr. Speaker, I think it's startling, and I think it's very revealing. Senator Sparrow states: "Canada is facing the most serious agricultural crisis in its history. Unless action is taken quickly, this country will lose a major portion of its agricultural capability."

This report came out in July of last year, but it has received very little attention. It has received no mention that I can ascertain from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), the Ministry of Agriculture, or from anyone else in government.

Senator Sparrow also says that farmers who realize the necessity of taking conservation precautions find their implementation costs costly in the startup stage. They may not be able to afford the expense of a new piece of conservation tillage equipment, or the loss of income caused by replacing a cash crop with a nitrogen-fixing rotation crop. In these days of high costs and low commodity prices, the least expensive way to operate is often the only way a farmer can survive. That means that the farmers cannot afford at this stage to take the necessary steps that are required to ensure that soil is conserved in this province for the production of food in the future.

The other thing that Senator Sparrow says is that dust storms have yet to occur with any frequency in Abbotsford and Chilliwack, but he points out that they were not expected in Ontario's lush Niagara Peninsula either. He saw dust blowing so badly near London, Ontario last year that it reminded him of the Depression years, when he was a boy in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, what is needed? We need a government that is prepared to make a commitment towards resolving this problem. We need something far more than the current ARDSA program is providing. I recognize that there may be some additional funding this year, or some special designation of funding for the problem, but it's not nearly enough. We need a provincial start on the problem; we need a national policy on the problem; we need research; we need education; and we need an insurance that this problem is not just a farmer's problem but a problem of society and one that society must take responsibility for — and that means, Mr. Speaker, through government.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, a brief response to the member's statement, which I welcome, by the way.

We in British Columbia have an act. Although in recent years and months it has been determined that the enforcement of the act and the functions under the act could best be handled under the Land Commission, we do have a Soil Conservation Act. Fortunately in British Columbia in the primary areas of our land reserve we have sufficient moisture content so that the kind of thing the member has described, which takes place in other areas across Canada, does not normally take place.

I can remember living in Regina when I was going to college. My grandfather's ranch was some 120 miles west of Regina, and there was a dust storm. It was the kind of storm

[ Page 5598 ]

where you cannot keep the dust out of your living accommodation. It seeps underneath the sills; it's on your furniture. In jocular fashion, I remember calling my grandfather one day and saying: "Grandpa, your farm is just going over top of Regina now. Is there anything you would like me to save for you?"

The problem to that degree does not exist in our area, fortunately, because of our weather conditions. However, we have soil degradation of a different kind. Since my coming to this office, we have expressed our concern in this regard and have, indeed, sought to bring proposals to government which could be considered, perhaps, even during a time when funds for new programs are simply not available.

For instance, in the Peace River country the kind of soil degradation that is taking place there is the failure to reclaim from the after-effect of fertilizer, failure to reclaim sour soils, which can only be done by liming. We are instituting this year for the first time a pilot project of a lime program for the Peace River country. It is not a large program, but it is an indication that we are concerned over this kind of degradation as far as being able to retain the capacity of production in soil.

I'm also concerned that in construction and road-building sites, we have so many times simply taken soil which is productive and used it as part of a mound to create an approach to a highway or fill for an overpass or an underpass. I'm concerned that when we need an area because of some other social requirement for an area of land, we should at least, in my opinion, keep the topsoil. After all, the topsoil is what is productive. It's not only productive in its location where it is found now; it could be transported yards, miles or a distance to some other area where it could be productive. However, if we do not lift it from its present location and take it where it can be used, then we have suffered soil degradation of another kind, and I'm concerned about it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I welcome the statement. I want you to know that I'm concerned about it; and I want you to know that I've already made some recommendations to government about them. I am not at all satisfied with the kind of progress that we've already made, but I think that as soon as we can convince the economy to take a major upturn, and when revenues can become recognizably increased, then at that time we can take larger steps toward what, I agree, needs to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: There would be about one minute, hon. member, on this portion.

MRS. WALLACE: Very briefly then, I want to compliment my colleague for bringing this position to the House and raising this issue here. Certainly there are a great many concerns in B.C. that don't relate to those prairie concerns the overuse of fertilizer, particularly chemical fertilizer, as the member has mentioned; leaching and the quality of on soil — because we have so much rain here the trace elements disappear. We have real problems. We have one piece o legislation that protects the agricultural land reserve, and am very pleased that is there. I hope that minister makes sure it is maintained.

MS. SANFORD: I'm really not convinced that the minister at this stage recognizes the seriousness of the problem know we don't have the dust blowing the same as in Alberta; the major problem here is one related to the degradation of soil in various ways. Because we have a heavy rainfall at the moment, we do have a loss of very productive land on a very rapid basis in all parts of British Columbia where this productive capability exists.

Mr. Speaker, the Soil Conservation Act obviously is not doing the job. Senator Sparrow says in his book that the problems in British Columbia are at least as serious as those in any other part of Canada, including the dusty Prairies. It's a different kind of problem, but the problem exists. We had a lime subsidy in this province not long ago; that has now been eliminated except for some being made available in the Peace River area at the moment, as I understand. That should be made available everywhere. We also have the problem of compaction. Because farmers are finding it very difficult to make ends meet, they are attempting to get into the fields earlier than ever, attempting to have a larger production. They get larger equipment. They get out there very early in the spring, the soil compacts, and that too results in erosion and degradation of the soil.

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that I will continue to pursue, and one which I hope the government will take more seriously than has been indicated this morning.

[11:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the next speaker, I'll just remind all members that during the members' statements, through the good offices of the Hansard booth, we have automatic timing, and in all cases the green light signifies two minutes at every stage.

LICENSING OF TAXIS

MR. DAVIS: I'm addressing these remarks to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), because the licensing of taxis is governed by the Motor Carrier Act, and the Motor Carrier Act is administered by that ministry. The main thrust of my comments this morning is in the direction of deregulation on the one hand and greater competition on the other — greater competition leading to lower taxi fares and greater use, certainly to the more efficient use of our taxis.

The result of my recommendations, if they are followed, would be the licensing of taxis on a broad regional basis, rather than by individual municipalities. In other words, in the lower mainland the responsibility for licensing would be turned over or directed to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, rather than to the numerous individual municipalities that make up the GVRD.

Our lower mainland area particularly — but this applies in some measure to the Greater Victoria area as well — has a large number of municipalities. Each of these municipalities has the power to license taxis, giving them the authority to pick up passengers in that municipality. They don't have the power to grant them the authority to pick up passengers in adjoining municipalities, at least within the region. As a result, many taxis return empty. They deadhead back to the municipality in which they are licensed. This is obviously inefficient, and if it were more generally possible for taxis to pick up business on the way back, they would be better occupied. They would run fewer trips in total; they would use less energy — certainly they would waste less energy; there

[ Page 5599 ]

would be less pollution; there would be fewer taxis on the streets, conserving space.

The Economic Council of Canada looked at the deregulation of taxis across Canada and pointed the finger at Vancouver in particular, suggesting that if regulation was on a broad regional basis, as opposed to regulation by the individual component municipalities, taxi fares could drop at least 20 percent. This is an indication of the economies of being able to pick up in other areas outside the originating municipality — the better use of the total taxi fleet. They said there would be perhaps a one-third saving in energy and at least a 20 percent drop in overall costs, and therefore the consumer would be better off to the extent of 20 percent.

I think those arguments in themselves are compelling. If I can focus on 1986, our Expo year, I hope that by next year we're licensing taxis on a regional basis because otherwise — at least it has been the pattern — only Vancouver-licensed taxis can pick up at the Expo site and take people to their destinations, possibly on the North Shore or Burnaby, New Westminster or south of the Fraser River. Conversely, of course, people coming in from outside the city of Vancouver can ride a taxi originating in, say, Burnaby or the North Shore, but that taxi, having arrived at the Expo site, will have to return to its source municipality empty. So there is an obvious diseconomy there, an obvious waste of resources.

The Vancouver Board of Trade looked at this situation and recommended that the government proceed in a measured way toward regional licensing as opposed to municipal licensing. Most municipalities agree with this. I was surprised that even the city of Vancouver, which derives some significant amount of revenue from licensing, last year as a result of work done by a Vancouver city council group headed by Alderman Don Bellamy, said regional....

[Interruption.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With your permission, hon. members, I'll call a brief recess. I'll ring the bells. I understand the problem can be rectified in four or five minutes.

The House took recess at 11:07 a.m.

The House resumed at 11: 11 a.m.

MR. DAVIS: Opposition to this idea of regional licensing as opposed to local or municipal licensing understandably comes from the majority of taxi owners in the city of Vancouver area. There is a limited number of licences available. As a result, taxis have taken on an artificial value. The cost of entry, in other words, is higher than the simple cost of buying the vehicle by itself. Entry is purchased in part, at least, from the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver, I gather, is prepared to give up that revenue, but the taxi-owners operating there currently have a higher investment than one would expect by merely pricing the vehicle; it's an investment in a licence.

I would advocate for the GVRD or broad-area licensing that there also be a limit to the total number of licences issued for the broader GVRD area. I wouldn't recommend the situation which now exists in Seattle, where it's wide open and anyone can operate a taxi. There should be a limited number. Montreal, by comparison with Vancouver, has its licensing over a broader area, but in Montreal there are four times as many taxis per capita than there are in Vancouver. So I suggest that Vancouver city has been holding a tight rein on the number of licences issued. Perhaps the overall policy for the broader area should be for a somewhat larger number, but a somewhat larger number over time so that the investment that the existing taxi owners have in the Vancouver area is written off over a reasonable period of time. There would be some transition phase.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think the regulation, other than the limitation of total numbers for the broad area, should focus essentially on the quality of the vehicle, safety, cleanliness and the operators of the taxis — the drivers — knowing a good deal about streets, locations and so on, so the customer is well served.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a few comments in reply to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour, specifically on the taxi licensing and more specifically in the lower mainland. As you know, the Motor Carrier Commission licences all taxis throughout the province, but where we have the difficulties is in the lower mainland. The hon. member has said that he's in favour of regional licensing. I believe that I am as well, but one thing that wasn't mentioned is that there's a lot of opposition to regional licensing of taxis. If my information is correct — and it comes from the cartel that the city of Vancouver operators have now — they don't want to see regional licensing.

I would say that the Motor Carrier Commission has had hearings to discuss regional licensing. I expect to get a report shortly from the chairman of the commission on it, but there is lots of opposition to regional licensing in the lower mainland. Maybe we shouldn't be too concerned about that. I think what we have to be concerned about is the service to the public. I'm inclined to agree that we move to a regional basis.

I'd like to remark regarding the city of Vancouver. It's my opinion that the city of Vancouver has got a ripoff going on regarding taxi licences. Only recently they had an auction of taxi licences. It is my information that the cheapest price for a licence — nothing to do with the vehicle or anything, but for the privilege of new licences.... At the auction they went for $25,000 each. This is the price that the city gets and puts in their coffers. But I also understand that right after the auction sale they were in turn sold again for a fee of $50,000. Now I haven't got documentation on this, but I wanted to deal with the city of Vancouver.

When I said ripoff.... I'm not aware that that happens anywhere else in our province. When we're talking about costs of taxis and that, I'd suggest that's the contributor to the cost of taxi fares with the system they have for the restriction of licences and by the way they dispense their licences.

That, of course, is not within the jurisdiction of the Motor Carrier Commission. That's over and above that. They have, I want to emphasize, the authority — I assume they have — under the city charter to do what they're doing. I'm not suggesting in any way that they are doing something illegal. But I don't think that they're giving much thought to the people who pay the taxi fares, because that's who are going to pay for this additional licensing, over and above the licensing that we charge — the Motor Carrier Commission. It's the end user, which is the general public. Maybe if we could find a way to get rid of that, we would be able to drop fares as well. But the general concept of regional taxis has been looked at now.

[ Page 5600 ]

1 wanted to conclude my remarks that we started on last year. Hopefully something will be resolved prior to Expo 86, as the member mentioned. I'd like to say also that — I know the member didn't mention it — we have further complications with licensing of taxis in the lower mainland. I refer to the Vancouver airport. Why, there are fights there 20 times a day. And a new player in the game, Transport Canada.... They want their pound of flesh off the taxi operator as well as the city and the province. The Minister of Transport for Canada and I set up a hearing process on that. The hearings have taken place, and we're waiting for their recommendations. The Motor Carrier Commission was on the committee that conducted the hearings. The Minister of Transport for Canada and I want to handle that situation and get the report shortly. So those are just a few of my opinions regarding taxis.

[11:15]

MR. DAVIS: If the city of Vancouver has special powers through its charter to license taxis which other municipalities don't have under the municipal act, then I think it's time that we changed the Vancouver charter to make the powers of Vancouver conform with those of other municipalities so we're able to move to this broader regional licensing concept.

As the minister says, our concern primarily should be concern for the user of taxi services. Much of our transport legislation in this province was written in the 1930s and earlier when the concern was addressed primarily to the operator — protecting the operator, making sure that the operator could cover his or her costs. Modem regulation, to the extent that it's defensible, really looks at the public convenience, necessity and the interest of the consumer, primarily or totally. Regional licensing certainly moves us in that direction. So change the Vancouver Charter if necessary; but otherwise these are matters within the reach or jurisdiction of the provincial government, and I hope those steps are taken.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Last July the Motor Carrier Commission issued a report, and one of its recommendations was qualified. "While the licensing of taxicabs on a metropolitan basis appears to be a desirable objective, it is premature." There were qualifications. Again, these relate primarily to the transition period, allowing the purchasers of expensive licences in the city of Vancouver to somehow get part or all of their money back while this regionalization takes place.

To again emphasize my point, I can do no better, I think, than read the conclusions of the Economic Council. In 1981 the Economic Council of Canada recommended to municipalities that they give serious consideration to the advantages of assigning the responsibility for licensing of taxicabs to an authority that can assume regulatory control over the entire urban area. They mention airport taxis. The council recommended that when existing contracts granting exclusive privileges to service federal airports expire, the right to carry passengers to and from such airports be extended to all licensed cab owners. In other words, make the service at the airport generally part of the broader regional licensing.

I know I should address these remarks at another time to the minister responsible for municipal affairs, and I hope I will have that ministry's cooperation as well.

HON. A. FRASER: This is fairly new to all of us. I don't know whether I can say a couple of words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you had your opportunity.

HON. A. FRASER: That rule is not very fair. One member gets two shots at the bag, and the other one only gets one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, when the rules were debated, these rules were set in place by all members of the House. You had your opportunity to object in debate at that time.

DISCOVERY PARKS

MR. PARKS: Over the past couple of years I've had the opportunity of visiting discovery parks, at least the discovery park in Burnaby. I consider it one of the most exciting opportunities that British Columbians have in the field of advanced technology. So I was somewhat shocked when I heard the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) make statements on March 12 in this House that in effect stated that there was no research being carried out anywhere at that discovery park — not a square foot. Even when I, perhaps in too much of a pejorative context, tried to bring to the hon. member's attention that that was not an accurate statement of facts, he insisted that there is no research being carried on there, rather that it is just a typical commercial lease facility. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that that hon. member is about as accurate with respect to discovery parks as he was with respect to the future of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. As we, I'm sure, are very well aware, just within the last month the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce opened their new $25 million regional centre in Vancouver, It's certainly a very healthy future for a bank that that particular member suggested was looking at imminent bankruptcy.

As someone once put it, probably the worst time to try to understand a revolution is right in the middle of it. I think it's fair to say that we are in the midst of a technology revolution. Maybe everyone in this House is not aware of some of the very fine companies and fine research developments that are taking place at discovery parks. Discovery Parks is what's called an incubation research concept. Very simply, that means that we're trying to get scientists together in one facility to brainstorm, think-tank and liaise with research facilities at our three universities and technical schools. It has been tremendously successful. It hasn't been just a so-so success; it has been tremendous.

I'd like to apprise the House of a few instances that I'm familiar with. I think that it will assist all members of this House, on both sides of the floor, to very proudly speak of the success of Discovery Parks. It's not the role of government to create jobs — we've established that. But when we have something that we as government have encouraged, and that has had the tremendous success that Discovery Parks has, I would suggest that we all should be encouraging that.

The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was concerned about the future of agriculture — a very real concern. There's a company at Discovery Parks called Northwest Digital Research. All of their research is dealing with very sophisticated software packages. They're working with Hewlett-Packard on resource management. They now have programs developed for agricultural crop yield enhancement and for

[ Page 5601 ]

aquaculture. It's that type of research that is already addressing the concerns that the hon. member was raising.

I think one of the most exciting opportunities known to the public in British Columbia is the success of Mobile Data International. Coincidentally, coming across my desk this morning in this month's edition of B.C. Business was a feature story on MDL as it's called. I think most of us have heard of the mobile computer-based terminals that are being used by the Vancouver city police and police, fire departments and other emergency services around the world. It is a facility that has enhanced communications in the law enforcement and fire protection fields, and it's a B.C. technology. It's a B.C. technology that is being exported around the world, creating jobs here, bringing back surplus trade balances to British Columbia. The research was done at discovery park. The commercialization, the manufacturing and the marketing is not done at discovery park. That's not the context of discovery park. You have the research done in the incubation centre in relatively small facilities, research-intensive, but then you have manufacturing, marketing and commercialization elsewhere, in this case in Richmond.

Another very excellent example of what has being going on at Discovery park is Newtec Industries. It's clearly showing leading-edge technology with respect to electronic sensors and pressure transducers. Now that might sound a bit complicated to most of us in the House, but it's really very basic. If you own a boat or a recreational vehicle or work in a mine or anywhere where there are potentially foreign gaseous substances, British Columbia leads the world in the ability to detect those gases.

Seven years ago this company had two scientists who spent some time away from their research at SFU and had a concept. Two years ago they had five employees. This year they've got 26 employees at discovery park and 40 in their manufacturing facility elsewhere in Burnaby. Over 80 percent of this company's product is being sold outside of Canada. We're talking $4 million this year. Next year they're probably looking at sales in excess of $15 million. What are we doing? We are seeing soon, they expect, most recreational vehicles and boats having one of these pressure-sensitive transducers — they're too technical for me — and they are going to save lives. Not only are we going to get the benefit of job creation and the influx of dollars to our economy, but it's also going to decrease the likelihood of accidents in recreational vehicles and boats.

I trust I will be able to conclude the tenor of my remarks in my rebuttal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked that the minister of science and technology, who no doubt had warning of the fact that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was going to speak on this subject.... The minister of science and technology, being the mother, father, and all the other kinds of relations to Discovery Parks, isn't even here to reply. Now, I recognize the minister is busy flying back and forth to Vancouver, but it strikes me that he is giving the back of his hand to a very important subject that the member gave notice of last Tuesday.

[11:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. You are replying to the subject matter of the person....

MR. COCKE: The subject matter is Discovery Parks. The father of Discovery Parks, Mr. Speaker, is not here. The minister responsible for Discovery Parks is not here, and that minister was notified as of at least Wednesday, because the draw was last Tuesday for the subject.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't preach to the House, Ask your question.

MR. COCKE: I have no questions to ask, Mr. Minister.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I understand the rules, the intervening five-minute period is to rebut or add comments to the comments made by the member. Adding comments in the nature that they're being added is not adding a scintilla of content. I would suggest that the remarks were not made in any way contradictory to the program of the hon. minister of science and technology, and as such, there of course is no need for him to defend anything because there was no accusations being made towards that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, I think your remarks are well taken. However, you of all members in the present debate have a privileged position in that you have an opportunity to reply and comment on that later. The member for New Westminster is going to comment or reply to the....

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I did in part indicate that the minister of science and technology obviously does not take this question as seriously as his colleague in the back bench. I suggest that he doesn't take it seriously because it's an embarrassing situation. That member gave us one or two examples of something that's happening in Discovery Parks. He alluded to the fact that my colleague the member for Vancouver Centre indicated that not nearly enough was going on at Discovery Parks. I allude now to the discovery park that was set up over here on the Island, where zilch is happening. The only discovery park that is having any success whatsoever is the Discovery Park in Burnaby, and that is partially going bankrupt. So I believe that if the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) were really serious about.... I'm sorry to see the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) leaving. If the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications would take the question seriously and spend more time working on his Discovery Parks, which were an expensive creation of his, instead of running backwards and forwards....

I'll yield to the member for Nanaimo for the balance of my five-minute period.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The total time for any member other than the proponent is five minutes. It is provided that that five minutes may be made up by more than one member. I would suggest that there are two more minutes left in the five-minute period. The member for Nanaimo will have two minutes.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately — and I'm not sure that's the right word to use — the facts of the matter are that Discovery Parks in B.C. are not the record of success that the member would have us believe. The facility near BCIT is fully rented, according to my information, with

[ Page 5602 ]

some 44 small B.C. firms in it. These are generally new companies, which is a plus. They have been developed on a small scale during the past three years and located at discovery park.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the SFU park, according to information I have, there is only one occupant.

MR. PARKS: It's huge, for crying out loud.

MR. STUPICH: It may be huge, but it has one occupant, Mr. Speaker, Microtel, a subsidiary of B.C. Tel, which does employ 250 people. It's not a newly created R&D company in the province of British Columbia. It simply relocated there.

There is one occupant planned for UBC discovery park — the federally funded Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada, which will employ 100 people when operating in 1985. I don't know how long that one is.

There is no activity in the discovery park in Victoria, according to the latest information I have — and the member may have some other information.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, they were presented to us some time ago by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications as the answer to the problems in British Columbia. At the time we wondered what sort of subsidies and grants might be offered to try to get new investment locating in the discovery park — not simply the relocation of existing industries, but new investment.

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there just hasn't been anything new to come from this particular endeavour on the part of that minister and that government. If the member making the presentation today has any information to convince us that it is new investment, I'd like to hear it.

MR. PARKS: It's truly unfortunate that I only have two minutes to reply because, as I said earlier, what is happening at Discovery Parks is unbelievably exciting and, even more so, successful. We're talking about 48 corporate tenants at the Burnaby discovery park at this time, some 350 persons employed, purely in a research mode — not the commercial mode, not the marketing mode, but the research mode. As soon as they develop something they then have a subsidiary outside the Discovery Park context to market, to commercialize and to make money — create jobs — okay? But within discovery park there are literally a myriad of successes in the last three to five years that were created at discovery park — not elsewhere, but at Discovery Park.

Yes, the SFU facility is Microtel's. It is a very sophisticated single-purpose building and in the future it's hoped that further telecommunications research will be tied in to the SFU discovery park complex. At the moment its 250 employees are the only use of that particular facility. That nodule was built for that purpose.

The incubation facility at Burnaby was built for that particular purpose: small — very small — 550 square foot complexes. You've literally got father and son working on forestry technology at Cetec. These are the people who have come up with how you reduce the cut through a log in the sawmills. It might not sound very important, but when you can reduce your waste by 30 percent — and that's what they're doing — that is potential profit. The sawmill of the nineties is being worked on at discovery parks.

As I mentioned earlier, we have this MDI situation, where last year they had $27 million in sales. That's technology created at a discovery park, jobs then created outside the park, and sales going internationally.

I'm not that familiar with UBC or the Victoria comments. My problem, Mr. Member, was that I was replying to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, who said that at Burnaby's discovery park there was not one square foot of research. I felt that this House should get the record straight and that each and every one of us should be proudly preaching the story of advanced technology in this province. We are going in the right direction. It is creating hundreds upon hundreds of jobs and, even more importantly, it's creating the types of jobs that are what this province needs.

We've heard about the necessity for diversification from the opposite side of the House time and again. This is the type of diversification that we should have, so I can't appreciate any negative comments with respect to those two facilities in particular. If the Victoria experience hasn't come along quite as rapidly, let's be positive and hope that we can develop that, but let's not criticize.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member indicated he had much more to tell us if time would permit. I ask that leave be given for his time to be extended.

MS. BROWN: No, we can't do that.

MR. STUPICH: If everybody agrees, why not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have standing orders here that are quite specific. All members are aware of that, and I will not ask for leave.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

MS. BROWN: My statement pertains to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of the Constitution Act of 1982, which in exactly five days from today, on April 17, will become law. There are many statutes, both provincially and federally — but certainly provincially — which we know are going to be affected once the Charter becomes law. We know that the courts will gain much greater power and that the balance between the judiciary and the legislative branches of our political system is going to be altered in very major ways.

The courts will now be interpreting, reviewing and changing the contents of laws passed by this Legislature. As a result of this, several groups, such as women's groups, trade unions, the disabled, senior citizens, and ethnic, racial and cultural groups are very concerned about how the courts are going to be dealing with them and what kind of rulings they are going to be bringing down on the legislation which will be tested under the Charter. Because of the seriousness of this, Mr. Speaker, we had anticipated and indeed we had hoped that the Attorney-General would have given some indication to this House as to precisely what pieces of legislation were being looked at by his ministry in terms of being brought into line with the Charter.

We need to know. We need to have a dialogue with the Attorney-General. We need to be prepared prior to April 17 so that we can best benefit from the Charter. In addition, these groups would like to have known whether the government was anticipating any financial or other assistance to them in

[ Page 5603 ]

those instances where they decided to test the legislation against the Charter.

In five days, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 17, sections 15 and 28 will come into effect. As of now we still have not heard from the Attorney-General of this province, nor indeed from any member, as to just what pieces of legislation are going to be changed to bring them into line. I think that it would have been forgivable if in fact the government had had three months or six months or a year in which to get its act in order. But that's not been the case. The government was given three years. Since 1982 the government knew that it had three years to bring its legislation into line with the Charter.

Mr. Speaker, the government also knew that the affected groups in our society wanted to have some input into this process. We wanted to be part of the dialogue, to make suggestions to the government and to have some feedback from the government on this issue. Indeed, a number of groups have sent briefs to the government on this matter, and as far as one can tell there has been no response from the Attorney-General, from the Premier or from any member of the government.

While all sections of the Charter affect women insofar as we are Canadian citizens, there are indeed certain special sections which affect us particularly. Section 28, for example, states: "Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female." This section, if the government does not use its override, puts us ahead of women in any other jurisdiction in North America and possibly in the world. It is the equivalent of the equal rights amendment in the United States, which was defeated.

[11:45]

But as I said before, Mr. Speaker, it has to be tested in the courts. When women's groups decide to test some of this legislation through the courts, we have no indication whether any financial or other assistance will be forthcoming, either from the Attorney-General or from the government. We have no idea to what extent the government intends to use its override section. The Attorney-General has not indicated whether in fact he's going to be supportive or whether the government is going to be opposed when issues such as those dealing with mandatory retirement, for example, which the Advisory Council on Aging has spoken out in opposition to, are being tested through the courts. When trade unionists and disabled groups try to test the legislation through the courts, we have no idea just what the position of this government is going to be, and whether they will be aided or opposed by the Attorney-General.

I raise this issue today because there are only five days left. When I raised this during the Attorney-General's estimates he indicated that in fact an omnibus bill would be introduced shortly. Of the five days remaining, two of those are holidays — Saturday and Sunday — so in effect we have three days and still no indication from the Attorney-General as to just what's going to happen on April 17 when sections 28 and 15 of the Charter become law. I'm hoping that the acting Attorney-General, who is sitting on the floor of the House at this time, will give us some indication as to what his government is doing in terms of this very important piece of legislation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I regret to advise you that I'm not prepared to make comments on this. I'm the second acting Attorney-General. I've had no notice that comments were expected from the Attorney-General.

MS. BROWN: It's on the order paper.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I understand I'm being prepared for estimates that are coming up, so you know where my mind is. I apologize to the member on behalf of the Attorney-General, but will ensure that he gets a copy of the material from Hansard.

MR. GABELMANN: The response from the Minister of Education is so typical of the general response of the government to the whole issue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds pointed out in her comments, we've now had five days short of three years to prepare for these monumental changes to the laws of our country, the implications of which are far beyond the ken of most of our society, and certainly probably beyond the ken of most of us in this House. We don't know what the implications are going to be. It was essential that the government proceed in a public way to hold discussions not only among members of this House, but among all citizens of this province as to the potential implications of sections 15 and 28 on the laws of this province.

We have had, I understand, internal discussions in the Ministry of the Attorney-General as to what laws, if any, should be amended prior to the April 17 date, but no discussion at all with those people in our society who will be affected by these changes. Yet when we have an opportunity, if only five days before, to have a discussion, however briefly, in the House, the government isn't prepared. That's been their record on the entire question of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's quite despicable that the government shows this kind of attitude to the most fundamental law in our society.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would just like to say that the minister did say during his estimates that he would be presenting an omnibus bill, and I'm sure we'll see that bill before that date of the 17th. Some of the members have mentioned there's been no discussion. I know for a fact the minister has been discussing with those groups that the members have been talking about the changes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think this government has a good record in that area. This government was one of the governments that sat down and negotiated this legislation.

The only comment I would have as a private member, Mr. Speaker, is that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds talks about the women's groups, trade unions and other groups getting assistance from this government to take cases to court. Certainly trade unions don't need any financial assistance to go to court to test cases. I think most of us would love to have the funds that they've got sitting in their bank accounts now. I get a little upset when they want all the money from the government side. Let these groups get their own money if they want to challenge things in the courts, as everyone else has to do. This government has a good record in that area. The minister will be presenting an omnibus bill, and there will be a chance to debate that bill on the floor of this Legislature. There will be a chance for groups across this province to comment on it. I think it's rather unfair to accuse the minister of not having had discussions, because I know he has.

[ Page 5604 ]

MS. BROWN: In the three minutes left to me, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, that the Charter of Rights Coalition of B.C., who prepared a very extensive brief and submitted it to the Attorney-General and a number of other groups, have not had a response from him. The Attorney-General indicated during his estimates that in fact he had not responded to these. In addition, as my colleague from North Island said, notice of this statement has been on the order paper for a number of days, so the Attorney-General knew that it would be coming up at this time.

In addition, when I spoke about financial assistance, I very clearly indicated that groups such as the disabled, who are not wealthy and do not have large bank accounts; senior citizens groups, who are not wealthy and do not have large bank accounts; women's groups, who are not wealthy and do not have large bank accounts; and a number of other groups would be forced, directly as a result of the fact that legislation hasn't been dealt with, to test laws through the courts. All the government has to do is to give some indication that they are aware of this and state whether they would be willing to assist them either with legal counsel or financially, or whether they would not.

In addition, the Charter applies to laws, not to individuals. That is the reason why the dialogue is necessary prior to April 17. As I also pointed out, really there are only three working days left, and for the minister to bring in an omnibus bill, even if he does so on Monday, does not give us enough time for dialogue to take place before Wednesday, the date when the act becomes law.

One of the bills which is going to be affected is the Workers Compensation Act, which discriminates very clearly against widowers but not against widows. The pension and insurance legislation clearly discriminates against widows, along with the Property Law Act, the Homestead Act, the Married Woman's Property Act, the Land Act, the Expropriation Act, the Estate Administration Act, the Residence and Responsibility Act, the Name Act, the Human Rights Act, the Employment Standards Act, and a number of other pieces of legislation. If in fact the minister is dealing with these, he should have had some dialogue and some input from the people who are directly affected by those pieces of legislation.

It's all well and good for a parliamentary secretary to say that he knows that the minister is thinking about these pieces of legislation, and he knows that that work is being done. I hope that he is correct. But for it to happen in secret and in privacy, and for us to find ourselves three days before it becomes law still not aware of that is just not good enough.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to go into Committee of Supply.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 17: minister's office, $179,543.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make introductions?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, just entering the gallery behind me are 23 young ladies from the Canyon Heights area of my constituency. They are all Girl Guides, and they come from three different schools in the constituency. They've come over on the ferry this morning. With them as guiders are Jenny Hunter, Diane Meacher, Jasna Mullen and Pam Such. I would ask the House to welcome them to this Legislature today and to Victoria.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I will make a few comments on the events of the past year. I regret very much that my critic is not present today. I understood there was an arrangement between the Whips that these estimates would be called today at 11:30 or so, and that he would be present. Is he going to be here?

MRS. WALLACE: Don't worry, we've got lots of critics.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Lots of critics. Okay — outwaited or outsmarted.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to cover perhaps 10 or 12 points. The first item is with respect to the ministry itself. As the members have known for some time, we have gone through expenditure controls in the public sector, and of course the Ministry of Education has not been immune from any of these controls. I think it's important to note that we have been able to reduce the size of the ministry by something in excess of 30 percent, and I think I can say with all the confidence in the world that the ministry is operating very smoothly and morale is good. Everybody has been quite busy.

[12:00]

1 think probably the biggest item.... Commendation should go to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for addressing the major issue involving non-residential taxation. For a long time we have noticed the drive towards increased taxation, particularly in the non-residential sector and on machinery and equipment. As you know, the statement out of the budget was that the financing of education through machinery and equipment taxation will be phased out over a period of three years. The first year is going to be worth something in the order of $80 million and, of course, that will be picked up by consolidated revenue.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There has been a most encouraging response from the colleges and institutes with respect to the budget which came down, and when the allocations were made. I informed the press early one morning last week, and then met with all of the college principals and the chairman of each of the college and institute boards at the Airport Inn in Vancouver. What I am particularly pleased about is that the amount of funding going to colleges will be 100 percent of the funding made available to them in the fiscal year 1984-85.

As you will note, in the budget there was an adjustment fund, something in excess of $12 million. Since the bringing in of the budget, and up until last week, a great deal of effort has been made by officials within the ministry as to the allocation of those funds on a fair and equitable basis, primarily predicated on a formula which all the colleges, with one exception, have endorsed and felt to be a considerable

[ Page 5605 ]

improvement in the funding of post-secondary education in the area for which the Ministry of Education is responsible. They were pleased with the amount we have put in as a result of productivity increases within the colleges. The actual amount for their operating was increased by I percent or $2.4 million. We added another $1.4 million to assist in satellite campuses throughout the province. We also added a $3 million institutional renewal fund. All of that money, I might add, has been turned over to the colleges. There are no strings attached to it. It's up to the college boards and their administrations to allocate the funds in the way they think best.

The balance of the funds, in the amount of $5.8 million, was put out to the colleges for them to come back to us with innovative ideas which would reflect the needs of their community, and as long as those funds can be used for the creation of courses which will lead to productive employment. There were a number of positive comments, but I think probably the best comment that was made came from the principal of Malaspina College in Nanaimo when he said he felt that for the first time in some time the colleges are going to be permitted to come up with some innovative scheme which will assist them.

The big issue, Mr. Chairman, has been with the public schools and the new method of funding. We are now into the third fiscal year of a three-year program. The third fiscal year commences July 1, 1985. Remember that the object of the new method of funding was to attempt — and it has succeeded to a considerable degree — to bring equity as between school districts. It became patently obvious to most school districts in British Columbia, and particularly those whose enrolment had either plateaued or was growing, that a number of school districts were in receipt of funds far in excess of their requirements because of the precipitous decline in enrolments. I'll always remember that the first push that came in to me when I was assigned the portfolio was to introduce a funding scheme which would be more equitable.

As you know, I toured the province extensively. I met with well over 50 boards in British Columbia, and they were not token attendances either. The discussion periods went anywhere from two to four hours. I believe a great deal was gained, certainly by me. I was primarily concerned about their ability at that time to achieve a balanced budget for the transitional or short fiscal year, being January to June 1985.

1 do not deny that there are some reluctant school boards at this time. We are doing what we can to assist, but I have to repeat that it's most important that boards do submit their compliance budgets so that they are able to pass the validating bylaws on May 1. Why that is so important is that it must be remembered that the mill rates must be struck; the information must be passed to the municipalities so that the appropriate mill rates can be reflected on the tax notices, keeping in mind that it is municipalities who collect the funds and then advance a good portion of the funds for public education from their coffers after they have collected them on behalf of school districts.

The recent Treasury Board directive, in my view and the view of government, was something that had to be done. Our objective is to preserve, as much as possible, employment in the teaching force. School districts which were submitting non-complying budgets were primarily doing so because of the uncertainty with respect to any potential awards that may be made by the CSP office. The CSP commissioner had issued two judgments, neither of which was an award. They were primarily directives. When we looked into the contents of those documents, both said that the CSP office would not be making any statements or decisions before April 20 and probably not until after May 1. The reason for that was that those who were advocating increases and arguing before the CSP office and the arbitration awards kept raising the point that the government is going to put more money into the public school system. They then went and looked historically and found that there may have been evidence in the past that this had occurred. The CSP commissioner had made it very clear: "Until I have all the evidence before me I'm not in the position to do so." If those school districts wish to voluntarily enter into an agreement, that's fine. If they do not, we will attempt to mediate a settlement. One voluntary agreement occurred in Fort Nelson; the other, a mediated settlement, occurred in Alberni.

I met with the superintendents at their invitation in Vancouver last week. At that time I told them three or four things which we have agreed to do to assist districts which are incurring financial difficulties. Despite the comments made in the press, I think I have to point out that all the information which was passed on to them was really quite well received. One of the items was that we have agreed to maintain the average floor or keep the average district teacher's salary in the district. In other words, if some particular school district were prepared to negotiate zero or in fact something less than zero, at least the floor was established as far as the average district teacher's salary is concerned. The objection which school districts had is this: if they in fact were to take reductions, that would indicate that they would receive less funding the following year if the average district teachers' salaries in that district declined. Our agreement with them was that we would maintain that floor. We also made a provision for severance or early retirement, which would allow school boards to amortize the cost of severance over a period — we suggested three years. Already there has been advantage taken of that, and the result has been the preservation of jobs. That is the information which has been communicated to me second-hand, after I had authorized it to occur.

I might mention as well that the examinations in January, which were conducted and are now supervised by a board of examiners.... I don't believe the political arena or politicians should be making comments on examinations, one way or the other. A board of examiners consisting of educators in British Columbia handle that particular aspect. What is important is this, though: the information which I am now receiving first-hand is that the result of those examinations has caused a most encouraging and positive influence within the school system.

I'd like to identify and welcome two of my senior officials, my deputy minister, Mr. Jim Carter, and my assistant deputy minister in charge of schools, Mr. Jack Fleming, who have been around for a long time, and who, I might say, are of immeasurable help.

The last item I'd like to make reference to is the school review. My position, and that of government, has always been that we do not accept the great old Canadian way of doing things: "Let's appoint royal commissions." If in fact we as elected people wish to make changes and respond to the concerns of the community, then I think the answers which we want to find ought to be found by talking directly to the people who are involved. That's the reason for "Let's Talk About Schools," which was widely circulated. Despite what you have read in the press, the responses that have come in now, we know, exceed 17,000. That's just the count as of last

[ Page 5606 ]

week. I am told it will probably be considerably higher. You also recognize that I am keeping at arm's length from this entire debate. We set up the Provincial School Review Committee. We've had an advisory committee. They were the authors of the paper; there has been absolutely no comment made by government on it. Accept my word for this thing: I have kept at arm's length distance from it.

We now are in the process, I am told, of coding all of the material which came in. There will be a report prepared, and that report will be made public upon completion. Together with that report, something else will be made public: that is, the polls conducted by Gallup, involving hundreds of British Columbians, both lay and professional. I think it is going to provide us with a great deal of information in the preparation of a new school act.

One other item which I shall mention — and then I'll sit down — involves a particular committee of three individuals whom I appointed to examine school boards. Two boards were under examination. I've received an interim report which, I can tell the House, did not really contain any significant information at all, other than that they had visited the boards, and that the content of the report which they are going to make will cover five or six particular areas. Today is April 12, and it is my understanding that that report is to be submitted to me today; whether it's ready and will be submitted, I can't tell you.

As far as opening comments are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to say that it has been a difficult year, but for the most part, although all school districts have had some difficulties, many of them have coped very well — at least, reasonably well — and some are still having some difficulty. But I expect that they will all submit compliance budgets within the due time so that they can pass the validating bylaw on May 1.

I'd be quite prepared to attempt to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman, which the members opposite may care to advance.

[12:15]

MR. BARNES: I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate on the Ministry of Education. However, I'm not speaking as the critic, who is not with us this morning but will be speaking about the nuts and bolts of the ministry in due course, perhaps the first of the week. But I would like to just reflect a bit on some of the directions that the ministry seems to be taking as far as the public school system is concerned.

In all of the years that I have been a member here, I cannot recall any period when the public school system was so much in the news. It's difficult to get press on mundane things like education issues and social welfare and the humanities, culture, and all of those usual unproductive, non-dollar generating activities that are so important in society. But this is one of those periods in our history when a lot of things are changing. We're not sure what the changes are leading to. It just seems as though a lot of what we have known in the past, a lot of the traditions and styles of life that we have been used to, seem to be eroding, are under attack or under some kind of threat. So we're learning a lot. Even in this place, which I sometimes call the crazy house, I think we're beginning to realize that we're going to have to start talking a little straighter, even those of us who are of different political stripes. The reason is that we're all in the same boat — Social Credit, the NDP, the United Party. All of us have children and families in this province, and all of us pay taxes, directly or indirectly, in this province. No one escapes. Even the newborn will find that in some way there is a tax burden on his head. That is really the issue.

The issue is society. The issue is that nearly three million people in the province of British Columbia are finding themselves concerned about the future of one of their major institutions: the public school system. Where do we begin? What are our concerns? How do we address them? Is there any way in which we really can satisfactorily resolve the concerns? These are the things that I've been hearing for months: these kinds of abstractions of problems that we simply can't get a handle on.

When the politician has to stay in office, in the case of the government, it has to find ways of maintaining its majority. We call that power in the parliamentary system. To maintain that, the government has to use the skills and techniques that its members know best, the political techniques of survival. The view of those serious social problems from a political perspective, and a political perspective only, is the way these practitioners can operate. Notwithstanding their good will, notwithstanding their ties in the community, notwithstanding any of their concerns about these problems, they are bound by the nature of the system to do their duty politically to their party.

Education has become a big issue in this province, and it's in the hands of those of us who have been elected to make decisions. The minister just made reference to a new public schools act that will be coming down. He's made reference to "Let's Talk About Schools," which is a program currently being participated in by citizens of the province to express their concerns and their desires about the public school system.

As I say, the time has come for us to get down to the bottom line. The bottom line, quite contrary to what we may think, is not dollars and cents. It is not whether the public can afford to pay, Mr. Chairman. It is not really the issue. It is, of course, a factor. Obviously we have to consider the costs of just about everything we do, as legislators. But that is not the issue. The issue is the public school system, singularly, separately, by itself, without any consideration for anything else. The public school system has to be viewed as an organism on which we all rely as fundamental in a democratic society, for the benefit of all the people. That is the issue. That is the thing that people are concerned about in this province.

As I say, never before have so many column-inches been written, so many programs on radio and television, so many delegations, so many students and parents and teachers and clergy — organizations banding together, forming, demonstrating, trying to resolve this problem, trying to find out what the government's objective is. Many of these people are cynical, but I suggest that it is confusion. There are certain realities involved in this whole issue that have to be understood, Mr. Minister of Education and Mr. Chairman, before we can seriously address the problem of the public school system,

I recognize the difficulty of a politician in a political party trying to resolve this matter objectively without considering the electoral implications. They are very real, and sometimes we get so carried away with ourselves, we begin to beat the drums on the political implications and forget the fact that the public school system is a right and that it should be enshrined constitutionally as the right of every single citizen to have a

[ Page 5607 ]

full education in those primary and secondary years of their lives in a democratic society.

It is a right. If it's a right, how much of a right is it, and to what extent? And what about quality? How much quality? Who determines what that quality should be? Is it going to depend on how much we can afford? It is, as you can see, Mr. Chairman, not a matter that can be taken lightly if we are to maintain the integrity of the system. If we are to maintain this tradition that we've had where, regardless of whether you can afford it or not, you are going to, at least in this society — one of the world's leading countries, one of the free democracies of the world, unique in its mosaic and proud of its culture and heritage and all of those great things that we have in this country.... We are leaders; we are not a Third World country.

We have the resources, not only in natural minerals; we have it in human beings. Let's not condemn each other, because I think that everyone realizes and knows that, but why are we not dealing with that? Why don't we have any passion about it? How can we listen to these protests from young children who are coming, who don't understand the politics and are wondering why they have to pay for certain fundamental basic courses in education? Why are they having to do this? Why are they being told that there's going to be a charge for your lab equipment or your extra books or to take music or to take the arts or to have an excursion trip or to do any number of things that we know are good for our citizens?

We know it's necessary for them to have a full life, for them to fully appreciate what it's like to be a Canadian and to be living in a democratic society, to feel good and to be part of and participating in the society. We know that's important. Why do we tell them that we cannot afford it? Why do we tell them we can only afford to send them through some kind of mainstream of education which involves some kind of trade where you will go in.... Perhaps it is even sterile in terms of your sensitivity to the humanities, to a cultural society and to those kinds of things that we should be able to afford. These are the qualities and the values that we are forgetting, when we are talking about dollars and cents, that are so vital to health, to imagination, to creativity, to diversity and to what it is really like to be a free Canadian living in a democratic society.

We had better be careful when we play with this public school system. This is what I hoped the minister would have been addressing. Understandably, Mr. Chairman, the minister is addressing fiscal concerns. But it just isn't credible; it simply is not credible. There's more to it than that.

Philosophically this government preached from one end of the province to the other that it did not — and I repeat, did not — believe in deficit spending. It did not believe in over-expending beyond the expected revenues. That's why it brought in restraint: to resist expending funds where they needed it. Mr. Chairman, as you know, in the last few budgets the government has abandoned that position. I understand it. We've been telling you to recognize the need to spend money that you do not have in the coffers when times are tough, and when things get better you can begin to stockpile and to pay off some of those debts. It only makes sense. You don't starve your family because you do not have the means; you find the means even if you have to borrow — perhaps beg, stopping short of stealing.

We now have a change in philosophy on the part of this government. We now have, believe it or not, a budget before us that will require nearly $1 billion of extra funds that the government doesn't have. My point is that I understand we need to spend the money. We have to carry on with our services — they cost — but we also have to pitch in and ensure that we begin to generate revenue. We have to manage our resources a lot better than we're doing; we have to be more imaginative; we have to rationalize the school system so that it is compatible with our industrial development and our economy. We have to connect the two, and we are failing to do this. The provincial and federal governments are not sitting down and talking together with respect to education. We're not sitting down and discussing it with the people whose future is involved — the young people of this province.

We're failing on those fronts but we are succeeding, because we have convinced the public that education is, in some ways, a frill. In some ways education, although we know we need it, is a matter of whether we can afford it or not. It's a matter of degree, and I think that is the problem; we have to debate educate and the quality of education separately from dollars. Let's first of all determine what a good education is, not "can we afford something," and see what is wrong.

[12:30]

Obviously, it's always a matter of government priorities. The government has money for government priorities. It always has had, and it always will. I think the new Prime Minister is proving that in Ottawa. The government always has had and always will have money for its — and I emphasize "its" — own priorities, and not necessarily the priorities that the public may perceive to be the case. For instance, it has money for its advertising campaigns. Something like $18 million is being spent to tell the people that things are all right: "Hey, it's good in British Columbia." What is the objective of that when you're cutting back on basic education, on fundamental requirements such as English as a second language for students who can barely communicate in the class? You're cutting back on programs for people who have special needs, who require remedial education, training and so forth in order to be able to compete. But these things we know. These things we've already talked about time and time again. So, Mr. Chairman, the debate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Are you the designated speaker on the opening?

MR. BARNES: No, I'm not the designated speaker. So do I have to sit down and have someone intervene?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will have to be an intervening speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I've been very interested in what my colleague is saying and would like him to have the opportunity to continue.

MR. BARNES: Unless the minister wishes to speak right now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I only want to make a couple of comments with respect to those ideas advanced by the last speaker.

[ Page 5608 ]

You know, we're not talking about restraint in public education; we're talking about control of public expenditures. What we ought to do is examine those public expenditures which have occurred over a lengthy period of time. I've said before that between 1976 and 1982 the expenditure in public education almost doubled. It was just short — by $98 million — of $2 billion. It had gone from $1 billion to almost $2 billion in seven fiscal years. I'll tell you what I was concerned about. I'm the greatest advocate there is of the public education system. I'm a product of it. I recognize the value and I want to preserve that value. But what I was concerned about, and what our government was concerned about, is that its expenditures were getting out of control. Nobody, I don't think, is really disputing that. The question then is to ensure, with the resources available, that they're spread equitably throughout the province among all school districts. That's all we're doing.

Now when we established the funding program which we have, you will find a considerable spread between various districts throughout the province on the cost per student. Why? Because we recognize it costs more to serve students in Stikine, Nishga, Prince Rupert and Terrace than it does in Delta, Langley or Surrey by virtue of the size of the school district, the climate, and the spread between those in elementary school and a smaller number in the senior levels.

There was something else that we had to recognize, and that was a most significant decline in student population. Student population has declined in British Columbia from 525,000 students in 1976 or so to.... We are projecting, for September 1985, something in the order of 468,500 students. What we were finding is that the budgets were going up at a 45-degree angle, student population was declining, and of course the number of people involved in servicing that declining student population was also increasing. In addition, we found more and more people involved in the public education system, but not in the classroom. Now it seems to me that my job is to preserve the system, preserve the classroom and make sure the dollars are in front of the students. That's exactly what we have done. I can prove absolutely conclusively that some school districts in British Columbia which had experienced major declines in students were having the biggest increases in costs. Is that fair to the growing districts in British Columbia? Is that fair to the taxpayers in British Columbia? It's not, and so somebody had to take control of it and do it.

I recognize what the member is saying. Education shouldn't be a political issue. I didn't make it a political issue. It became a political issue because, as you know, in everything in life there are vested interests, and of course the vested interests are concerned about a number of things: how is it going to affect them? I recognize that that's just part of human nature, and that's where the conflict arises. That's all I didn't want to have happen in British Columbia what happened in California. We in British Columbia don't need proposition 13. We don't need it at all. Do you know what would happen if we were to continue taxing industry and commerce particularly, at the rate that we were? We would just drive more and more away. It's those economic generators which give us the revenue to provide what I think is very fine public school system, which I want to preserve That's exactly what we've been doing.

We're getting a lot of press right now. I notice these bulletins coming out from the BCTF, drawing comparative across Canada and going into the U.S. I can bring in an present before you in spades evidence from the United States, and from many states within that nation, of what is going on in education. All we need to do is look in today's press, the day before yesterday, and the week before last week in the state of Washington immediately to the south. The same issue is going on. I'm now told that the same topic is being discussed in Manitoba. I haven't got the information, but it's coming to me. But what happens is this: if taxation gets out of control, politicians cannot resist what the majority of the people say. Suddenly, we're going to end up having budgets like they did and have the results that they did in that state. We don't want that in British Columbia, and we don't need it. There's no reason for it. So all we had to do was to take what we had, spread it evenly around, and ask everyone to help a little bit. And do you know something? Every school district that I attended — every one of them — said: "Yes, look, something had to be done. Now we don't know if we agree with your methods. We would like you to do it a little bit differently." Mr. Chairman, there is no easy way to do something when you're taking away from somebody something which they've been used to having. I concede boards lost some degree of autonomy. There isn't any question about it. That was clear when Bill 6 came in, but I want you to know — and I'll remind the House again and again and again — that B.C. school trustees told me: "It is is not inappropriate at this time to do what you have to do." They were looking for some help as well.

What's really happened is that we're in the third year of a three-year program, and right now it's getting into the short strokes. In some districts there are some difficulties. In some districts they have been recalcitrant, and they've refused to address the issue. One of those school districts — first member for Vancouver Centre — is Vancouver. Now I have always attempted to take the high road with every school district. I have always turned my cheek the other way, but sometimes you have to speak up and say: "Enough is enough." There was no reason whatsoever for the Vancouver School Board, in my view, to put King George School on the block, downtown. You agree with that: there was no reason for them to put that on the block. That was done because it was thought it was politically astute to do.

I'm waiting for a report to come in; it's supposed to be in today. I made reference to it earlier. What we're trying to do with the three people who are involved is to seek alternatives, to find resolutions, and to use the money which we have in the best possible way. I don't want education to be public issue No. 1. It's not necessary that it be. But I'll tell you, I'll do what I have to do and seek the support of my colleagues which I have — to preserve what we do for the future.

MR. BARNES: I don't think that education should be an "issue," but it certainly should be concern number one. It certainly is that now, although it's tied in with politics and everything else.

As far as your singling out the school district in Vancouver is concerned, and what you call the political posturing and politicking of the school board there, with the threat of having to close down King George and other schools, Mr. Minister, those schools could have been closed down. It just depends on priorities. I think politics was started here. You didn't consult with them in advance. You did not come out with your "Let's Talk About Schools" a year ago or two years ago, so that you could have avoided this confrontation. You I shake people up when you tell them: "We're going to do

[ Page 5609 ]

this." You even had the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) making announcements on your behalf about pupil-teacher ratios — the number of teachers there could be.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's government policy.

MR. BARNES: That's fine. That's what you were doing, but let's not confuse things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, would you direct your comments to the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to give you an example of how this game is played. Take the school district of Burnaby. Burnaby is one of those school districts that did comply with your directives and did in fact manage everything very well. They worked it out very well. It turns out that because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. The Chair did not make any directives. Would you direct your comments to the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, in Burnaby they are going to be faced with devastating problems as a result of the minister's directives with respect to the number of teachers allowed. Although they have worked within his budget and are efficient, they're going to have to do something about his new directive.

My point is: where is the consultation? They are providing a quality system — a system that works, that's efficient and that's within the budget. But they're not going to be left.... They're going to have a problem as a result of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman.

However, I'm going to leave that to the critic. As I say, I'm here to make a contribution as one of the members who is concerned about fundamental education in the public school system. I'm not pretending to be an expert, but I am a parent. I did have four children educated in this province, and I'm proud of how they are managing. However, I must say, although they've had their education, they still have difficulty getting into the workforce, getting into careers and having options and opportunities, It's not all because of a lack of will or a lack of ability or whatever; it's circumstance; it's the system. We have to take a look at the options and the opportunities.

When you have this user fee, this fee for extra activities in certain special courses, and even in core courses.... Even core courses you're having to pay for. Mr. Chairman, if the student doesn't have the money for a basic course, what does the student do? We don't have a system where we allow youngsters to earn a few dollars each week while they're going through school; we should, to give them some sense of involvement, some sense of achievement. We should have some way in which we can give a youngster a chance to be productive, to test themselves. There are a few skills, a few programs that are available, cost-shared with the federal government, but these are entrepreneurial kinds of things, where a youngster needs to have far too much ability to be able to include very many. Probably only 5 percent of those students have that type of ability and imagination and skill to be able to apply, even make out the application forms for some of these jobs.

In the free enterprise system we say you've got to pay for everything. If that's the case, give people some opportunity to have some money. Sure, if you've got money, then we can charge a fee for everything. We can learn how to participate in a free enterprise system. Sure, if you've got enough money, enough coupons, funny money, whatever you call it…but some cash. But if you have no money, and you're going ahead as though everybody has access to jobs and opportunities, then we have a small number of people, and the numbers are growing all the time, who cannot get involved in the system.

[12:45]

It's not just the youngsters now; we're talking about the unemployed, the underemployed, or the people who are needing retraining, and all kinds of problems in this system. The education system has to be viewed separately from cost. I think, in fact, if you started to seriously address education in terms of cost, you would find that it is quite cost-efficient; that it does return a great deal of value for the dollars spent. It's like the myth. It's a good analogy too. The school system is the myth about culture and the artsy programs that we can't afford. We cut back and tell people they have to scrounge on lottery funds and do a number of desperation campaigns to try to raise money to survive, when in fact the multiplier effect for every dollar spent on culture is something like five to one in terms of value to the economy. It's the same thing in education. It's just hidden; the cost is not direct. We don't see the dollars, we only see spending them. But what's the difference between spending money on a youngster's life, a youngster's future, and investing money in industrial development? For instance, it's like giving certain benefits to the people you're going to have in your new economic zones — allowing them to dodge in order to save money. You're forgoing tax revenue to do that because you believe that in the long run it'll be better for the economy. It's the same thing with education. We can't afford to deficit-finance when it comes to the lives of young people. This is the point I'm trying to make. We're deficit-financing to the tune of almost $1 billion in this budget that we're talking about right now.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to save the remainder of my remarks for another sitting of the House.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, these are relatively minor amendments to the bill. I therefore will not take the time of the House to explain them in detail, and look forward to the discussion when the bill is called for debate.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.