[ Page 5707 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation (Bill PR404). Mr. Reid

Introduction and first reading –– 5707

An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College (Bill PR403). Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5707

An Act To Amend The Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR406). Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5707

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR 402). Mr. Parks

Introduction and first reading –– 5707

Oral Questions

B.C. trade missions. Mr. Williams –– 5707

Funding for Kelowna sewers. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5708

Expo 86. Mr. Barnes –– 5709

Mr. Williams

Private Members' Statements

Island Jetfoil Corp. Mr. Reynolds –– 5710

Mr. MacWilliam

Okanagan lakes pollution. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5711

Hon. Mr. Pelton

World peace and disarmament. Mrs. Wallace –– 5713

Ms. Sanford

Pension funds. Mr. Cocke –– 5714

Mr. Williams

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5716

Mr. Davis

Ms. Sanford

FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1985

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE
CHILLIWACK FOUNDATION

On a motion by Mr. Reid, Bill PR404, An Act to Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation, introduced and read a first time.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the objects of this foundation are all charitable. They are to provide care for needy men, women and children, and in particular to the sick, aged, destitute and helpless; to promote education and advancement and scientific or medical research for the increase of human knowledge and the alleviation of human suffering to better underprivileged and delinquent persons; to promote recreational activities and the conservation of such human, natural and heritage resources as are not political in nature; and to provide for such other charitable purposes as may in the discretion of the board appear to contribute to the cultural, recreational, religious or physical well-being of the inhabitants of the regional district of Fraser-Cheam.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

AN ACT RESPECTING PACIFIC BIBLE COLLEGE

On a motion by Mrs. Johnston, Bill PR403, An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Johnston, Bill PR406, An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

On a motion by Mr. Parks, Bill PR402, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Oral Questions

B.C. TRADE MISSIONS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's now two months since the Premier usurped prime-time television to give a speech on the state of the economy. In that speech he said:  "We'll expand our exports and investments by establishing a number of B.C. trade offices within Canadian embassies and consulates." Could he advise us how many desks are now in place in consulates and embassies in the Pacific Rim and around the world?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the federal government makes accommodation for those desks within their ministries of trade.... Ten are slated to be established. However, if they can't accommodate us, we may have to go with what wouldn't be our first choice, or necessarily a choice at all, and that is to put in separate B.C. desks. So it'll be sometime within this year — at one level or the other.

[10:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier is confirming then that what he said on television is incorrect.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not true. What I said was that we would be attempting to establish these desks. Within the estimates of the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) are amounts for the establishment of those desks. Obviously our first choice is to be part of a Canadian presence. Knowing that there is a move within the federal government to get stronger Canadian trade offices, and perhaps to separate the trade offices from External Affairs embassies.... That has created some delay in their making a decision, or a way in which British Columbia can be part of a Canadian presence. I would think that member would support a Canadian presence and would understand the desire of the federal government to strengthen our trade in a Canadian way. As I understand it, they feel we would have stronger trade representation with that separation.

Having visited a number of Canadian embassies and trade offices abroad, I have always been very impressed, with the limited numbers of people that we have, by what a good job they do. I want our British Columbia desks to be part of it. As I say, money for it is contained within the estimates of the Minister of International Trade and Investment, and one way or the other — but preferably in the Canadian context — they will be developed very shortly.

MR. WILLIAMS: I quote from page 11 of the speech, Mr. Speaker, to refresh the Premier's memory: "We'll expand our exports and investments by establishing a number of B.C. trade offices within Canadian embassies and consulates" — full statement, full stop, incorrect on television, prime time.

A further question. In the same prime-time exercise some two months ago, the Premier said: "We have reason to be optimistic, too, that Ottawa will move forward with special enterprise zones on the east coast and in our province." I would note that the senior civil servant responsible for that area said in the Toronto Star yesterday: "It isn't clear what the province wants." This is Martin Abrams, director-general of framework policies for Sinclair Stevens. Then he said: "Only a few municipalities want the zone. There is no pressure from private companies. We want to be sure that it's new investment, not a displacement of existing investment." Can the Premier advise what great progress he's made here, as in desks around the world?

[ Page 5708 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the Minister of International Trade and Investment had good discussions with his counterpart minister. Obviously ministers deal with ministers on the political context, not with bureaucrats. I have no knowledge of the statement that you're quoting, but I do say that our agreements are with ministers; our agreements are with governments. Our agreements are trying to do something better. And if it is not unfolding as quickly as we had hoped it would, given that our budget was introduced some months in advance of when the federal budget will be coming down and given that the federal government is still coping on a broad front with a large number of inherited economic problems, as well as dealing with new solutions, I would not criticize them for any delay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, I know you would criticize them, as do your federal MPs. But we want to be part of the building team in this country. There are always those, even when they are elected to represent British Columbia in opposition, who do not support British Columbian projects or things that are good for Canada. Thank goodness, our party and our members do not think and operate in negative terms.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the same prime-time speech, the Premier indicated that we would be proceeding with the forestry agreement. Mr. Sinclair Stevens has now indicated that Ottawa is prepared to proceed with the forestry agreement intact — at the $300 million level — and argue about the other details later. In view of the fact that the planting season for trees is on hand with us right now, and the fact that we need jobs in the forest sector more than ever, is the Premier prepared to quit playing politics and create jobs now? Is he prepared to get workers in the forests of British Columbia now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member from Coquitlam is inconsistent, as always, in his approach to the way in which we'll deal with the federal government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, no. That's where you have your business. You're the member for Vancouver East.

The ERDA agreement covers negotiations that took place at the ministerial level between our Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) and their Minister of Agriculture, Forests and Forestry, Tourism and Tourism, Industry minister and Industry minister, and part of the total economic package. It was not developed in isolation. The federal government has as its responsibility — and it's the responsibility of those who fight for the interests of British Columbia — to provide the federal share of the money for those programs, not to come to the government of B.C. This is in response to the thousands of little people that work in the tourist industry and would be assisted by the tourism program, and our farmers in agriculture, who....

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you remember the question?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes. Do you remember why you asked it?

The thousands of people that work and have invested in agriculture who are waiting to see an agricultural agreement and whether our members in Ottawa can get a proportionate share of federal funding to go into a program that serves them and their part of the economy, as well as those in forestry.

What has happened is that the original ERDA negotiations, as developed by the ministries, added up to a $325 million provincial contribution and a $325 million federal contribution. We have put up our share because we consider all parts to be important. So far, as I understand from a letter received by our Industry minister, the Hon. Mr. McClelland, the federal government has only been able to provide $250 million for their share. Therefore, there is a shortfall of $15 million a year.

As I understand it our caucus members in the federal government caucus are fighting to have the share increased for all of those. They know that tourism's important, as are agriculture, forestry and others. And I hope they can get it. If they can't, I'll be waiting to see in what areas they propose to cut their contribution — whether it's in agriculture, tourism, industrial jobs, small business or forestry, or whether we can get a balanced package. For this government, we feel that all elements are important and therefore have provided the full funding for all agreements. We want to have the same type of signing that Quebec had, in which the allocation for all the money for the programs was done in one announcement, rather than piecemeal.

FUNDING FOR KELOWNA SEWERS

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Premier again. On March 9 the Premier announced that the province would be paying three-quarters of the cost of new sewers in the Rutland area of Kelowna. Could the Premier advise the House why a municipality in his riding is receiving 75 percent funding, while virtually every other municipality throughout the province is eligible for only 25 percent provincial funding for sewer construction?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a good question. I had noticed that that member had shown a great interest in Okanagan South. I had expected him to have been informed on this and perhaps not have had to ask the question. The city of Kelowna had an agreement in place for 75 percent funding for a number of projects. We were able to reallocate within that to help the citizens of Rutland, who would have been adversely affected on their taxes. It wasn't a new agreement or a break from the new formula, but a reallocation. That has been well reported in the Kelowna press and understood by the Kelowna people. If your research hasn't been able to develop that, I'll send you copies.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Premier. I appreciate the answer. A total of $300 million is in fact outstanding in sewer projects around the province that was pending when the formula funding was changed from 75 to 25. Does the decision of the Premier to revert to the old formula in the case of Kelowna mean that other municipalities that had applied for that funding previous to the change in the formula are still eligible for such funding?

[ Page 5709 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: That will depend on the nature of the project, the priority and the quality of representation given by their local MLA.

EXPO 86

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Tourism. Would the minister advise the House whether the cabinet has met with officials of Casino, Australia, in connection with a proposal to establish one or more gambling casinos on the site of Expo 86?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker

MR. BARNES: Is the minister indicating there was no meeting?

Mr. Minister, is the government considering, now or in the future, granting licences or any facilities for gambling on the Expo site?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, hon. members. You are aware that future action cannot be determined in question period, but the first part is in order.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the second part of the question is out of order. The answer to the first part of the question is no.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the preview centre, the $24 million silver golf ball at the east end of False Creek, which leaks so badly it could be the most expensive shower bath in British Columbia, could the Minister of Tourism confirm that because they have not repaired the leaks the preview centre will be closed down in the coming winter so that they can deal with the leakage question further, at a time when they should be previewing Expo?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member is making assumptions that I think are clearly beyond his expertise and mine. The problem is either a design or a construction problem, and the dispute over that is between the person who designed the dome and those building it. It will be corrected; it's not an insurmountable problem.

But yes, there is a problem, and it's being worked on at this moment. It's going to be done in two stages. The first part will be to repair it temporarily to get us through the summer months; and then it will be repaired further on a permanent basis. But the costs incurred are clearly a matter to be cleared up between the person who designed the dome and those who built it, Cana Construction.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I rise on a point of order. Standing order 8 says every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given by the House. There are only eight members of the opposition in attendance at the question period today. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether they have permission of the House to be absent.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, our members have been given leave. Beyond that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By whom?

MR. COCKE: By me.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we're trying to emulate the cabinet, who are so tardy in this place. As early as last Thursday....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes. Therefore we felt that we needed a cup of coffee during part of this session.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member for New Westminster suggests that he has given his members leave of absence from the House today. I'm wondering if he considers himself to be "the House" in conjunction with standing order 8. Do you deem yourself to be the House or something? What's the matter with you? Can't you read the rules?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[10:30]

MR. COCKE: On a further point of order, I'm acting Whip today, Mr. Speaker, and can give leave on behalf of a caucus, as has been the precedent set in this House long before that elderly member came here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, on numerous occasions members have attempted to use standing order 8 to bring to the attention of person or persons unknown to the Chair obvious conclusions that certain seats are empty. On numerous occasions the Chair has ruled that that is not a matter of a point of order. It is the member's individual conscience that guides him, plus what responsibilities he may have. To use an opportunity to bring forward under standing order 8 is not an appropriate method to discuss that particular standing order.

HON. MR. McGEER: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, as an assistance to you, it would clarify matters if the member opposite would table with the Clerks the list of permissions granted by the NDP on behalf of the Legislature as a whole, so that they would be able to keep the official attendance records for the purposes of pay.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we will if they will. Imagine that flight-happy minister...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: ...the one who hops back and forward to the university, being the one to promote that proposition!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could assist the opposition in clarifying that while the government members are eligible to be away on government business on behalf of the people. the opposition has a different function and therefore less reason to be out of the Legislature. Perhaps at the conclusion of today's sitting you might remind all members of the difference in the responsibilities between the

[ Page 5710 ]

executive branch working for the people and those from the opposition, who are absent only to play politics.

MR. WILLIAMS: We're all partners in enterprise, Mr. Speaker.

Private Members' Statements

ISLAND JETFOIL CORP.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up in private members' statements today and talk about the Island jetfoil. We've heard some comments from the opposition, especially the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Vancouver Centre, who have been asking questions about the Island jetfoil in the past couple of weeks and putting inaccuracies out there in the public mind and also, I think, scaring away investment in British Columbia.

I would like today to read some notes from the Island Jetfoil Corp. on the type of company it is and where their money came from. There have also been some inaccuracies in this House as to the type of money that was used to put the jetfoil into operation.

Island Jetfoil, Mr. Speaker, is privately financed. Sixty-eight shareholders from Seattle, Victoria, Vancouver and across Canada have contributed approximately $5 million in equity, which has been matched by approximately $10 million in long-term debenture financing.

A sister company, Island Research and Development Corp., has been financed by equity contributions, long-term debenture financing and SRTC transfers under the federal R and D enhancement program. It should be noted that the Island Research and Development Corp. can only get off the ground and do its marine research and oceanographic program if Island Jetfoil is up and running and can provide the crews and maintenance facilities for the advanced research jetfoil that IRDC has acquired.

It should be made clear, Mr. Speaker, that Island Research and Development Corp. is one of the best things to come out of the federal SRTC program, for the following reasons.

IRDC has created approximately 100 jobs in the Victoria, Vancouver and Edmonton areas. Its long-term research contracts will mean permanent jobs and cash flow coming into British Columbia for years to come.

The R and D projects that IRDC has taken on have already started to generate production-phase planning which will mean new manufacturing opportunities in British Columbia and in Canada as the prototype systems which IRDC is developing go beyond the prototype stage and are built for sale around the world. When the federal government extends the SRTC program, there will be a further incentive for R and D companies such as Island Research to become competitive in the world markets.

The Boeing Co., headquartered in Seattle, sells billions of dollars of aerospace technology every year but spends very little money in British Columbia in manufacturing, R and D and other direct costs. What has been accomplished with Island Jetfoil and with Island Research is that a significant portion of Boeing's manufacturing, R and D and other costs will now start to be spent in British Columbia, which after all is only 90 miles from Boeing plants.

Up to now, Boeing has not had an incentive to work in British Columbia because of our labour costs, uncertain union situations, and little direct incentive from government. Perhaps Island Jetfoil will be the catalyst to create thousands of jobs in British Columbia directly related to Boeing in Seattle. Every time there's a negative comment in the press or the opposition, British Columbia's potential large customer, Boeing, reacts negatively. Every time there's a positive statement or a business starting, as Island Jetfoil did, Boeing reacts in a very positive way. There is no recession in Seattle. Perhaps it's about time that we worked together in British Columbia to obtain some of the spinoff from the Boeing boom.

Island Jetfoil has been swamped with reservations on the flights from Seattle to Victoria, and Victoria to Vancouver. Several flights have been sold out. Island Jetfoil is asking everyone to bear with them as the reservations centre is expanded and more people are trained in Victoria to handle the overload. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has asked Island Jetfoil to fly the Expo 86 logo. And it should be noted that Island Jetfoil's arrival in Vancouver is the first symbol of the positive economic effect of holding a world transportation fair in 1986.

Island Jetfoil has not cost the taxpayers a penny. In fact, rents received by provincial Crown corporations and federal departments are already going back into the economy, to reduce taxes for everyone else. We heard the concern of the second member for Vancouver East about where it's landing. The government is making revenues off a private company providing a good service to the citizens of British Columbia.

Island Jetfoil needs everyone in British Columbia to ride and enjoy the trip between Victoria and Vancouver, and therefore encourage further private investment in our transportation infrastructure. I might ask the second member for Vancouver East why he doesn't try a ride this afternoon at 2:30 to Vancouver and go back to his constituency on the Island jetfoil. He'll find it's a comfortable ride. He'll find hundreds of other British Columbians and tourists from the Seattle area riding the Island jetfoil this afternoon. Why doesn't he talk about the positive aspects of linking Seattle, Victoria and Vancouver again? In 1903 that link was there; it's been stopped for a few years.

If he had met those people from Seattle yesterday.... Where was that member? Thousands were lined up on the dock in Victoria and on the dock in Vancouver to welcome that brand-new high-tech ship to British Columbia. Where were they? Sitting with their negative comments — negative about British Columbia, the saddest thing of all; sitting right here, and he's proud of it — Mr. Negative. That's what he wants for British Columbia; he wants to knock it down. He doesn't want Boeing to think about moving to British Columbia, putting in a major research facility and providing thousands of good union jobs in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: "More Americans, " he says. He's afraid of that American technology that might assist Canadians with jobs. He wants to do everything else.... Knock the Americans; it's their fault for everything. Well, Mr. Speaker, the last time he was in a government they booted him out. That's why they'll never be government in this province again. That's why people like the Island Jetfoil people risked their $5 million and signed their names to notes for $10 million. They could go broke. Maybe it won't be successful. I'm sure he'd be happy if it weren't.

[ Page 5711 ]

But we should take the opposite approach. We should encourage them. We want people to travel that jetfoil. Wouldn't it be terrible, Mr. Speaker, if it was successful, even so successful that maybe we didn't have to put any more B.C. ferries on? Maybe the people would like the jetfoil instead. Maybe they'd like the way private enterprise runs that system better than the government. Wouldn't that be terrible?

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't know whether the previous member was giving a speech on Island Jetfoil or just taking another opportunity to kick shins again. In the confrontational nature that he approached the whole thing with, the issue does seem to be rather confusing, to say the least. I would remind him that this side of the House has approached this legislative session in the true spirit of cooperation. Hopefully the member will learn that developing a more positive environment through positive comments, rather than kicking at shins again, would provide a higher intellectual atmosphere in this House, as well as some positive suggestions.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't think it is in his nature; it certainly isn't. It's too bad that the whole thing was soiled with that confrontational attack on my honourable colleague from Vancouver East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I would be remiss if I didn't comment on that.

On the topic, I and my colleagues certainly welcome the initiation of Island Jetfoil to the Island. We welcome any project that's going to develop our tourism potential and trade potential. We certainly look forward to the benefits that the Island Jetfoil service will provide. I think the citizens of Victoria will themselves have direct benefit from the initiation of the jetfoil service. I certainly can see direct tourism benefits accruing both to the province and to the Island from that service.

I might add, by the way, that the islands face some serious problems in terms of getting people over here. With its present service I think that Island Jetfoil provides just one further link that will alleviate those communication and transportation problems. Beyond that, perhaps it will alleviate some of the problems that the Islands 86 group faces in preparing to get some of the spinoff benefits from Expo. One of the concerns, of course, is that transportation links may be inadequate. I know that the state of the Island Highway is of some concern to the Islands 86 group, and certainly it poses some considerable problems in the transportation of tourists throughout Vancouver Island.

But as to Island Jetfoil, my congratulations to the company for their initiative and for their.... I know they had some problems in starting up, and I believe those problems have been solved. I look forward to the benefits of that service.

MR. SPEAKER: There are two minutes left. Do any other members wish to speak on this? If not, the proponent in reply.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to thank the member for Okanagan North for his comments. I think his comments were very good. If his attitude prevailed in this House, we wouldn't have the problems we sometimes do. I would like to congratulate that member for the way in which he has conducted himself since his election, because he does approach things in a more positive manner than the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) certainly does. He talks about me kicking shins in confrontation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Now there you go again.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a very hard time not to. I'm sitting so close to him. I can't help but think that the questions the second member for Vancouver East asks on this issue are confrontational. They have to be answered. The fact that he made statements that weren't accurate....

MR. MITCHELL: Keep it above board.

[10:45]

MR. REYNOLDS: I did keep it above board. The Island Jetfoil rides right above the water.

I think the second member for Vancouver East should take a ride on that jetfoil back to his constituency. It leaves at 2:30 every day. It travels at 50 miles an hour over the water. It's just a beautiful boat, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a positive thing for British Columbia. I think the people of British Columbia would be encouraged if the second member for Vancouver East were to ride that back to Vancouver one afternoon. It doesn't cost him anything. Like the rest of us, he's got a pass on the airplanes and the ferries, and this charge is one that he can charge to the Legislature — to go home on. I hope that he will take the time to do that, and show that maybe he's going to change his ways. If he wants to stop kicking shins, I promise that I'll stop kicking his, and we could all get along much better in this Legislature. But somebody has to present the facts on issues that this member brings up in the Legislature. I intend to continue doing that.

I certainly will give credit to the member for Okanagan North for his comments about cooperation and his welcome of the addition of the Island jetfoil to British Columbia. I agree with him: it's a positive thing for British Columbia. I know that the thousands of people who are going to use it and arrive in Victoria and Vancouver over the next few months are going to bring millions of dollars to British Columbia that may not have come here if it weren't for the Island jetfoil. I know all members of this House appreciate that and will welcome those tourists when they come to British Columbia.

OKANAGAN LAKES POLLUTION

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to spend some time outlining some concerns I have in terms of sewerage assistance and the environmental impact in certain areas of this province. The Okanagan drainage basin, probably well known to members of this House, includes a chain of lakes that stretches virtually from the border at Osoyoos up as far as Armstrong. It's a very large geographical area — an isolated geographical unit, if you like. The largest body of water, of course, is Okanagan Lake, which serves the cities of Penticton, Kelowna and Vernon, as well as other urban centres in the valley.

[ Page 5712 ]

Some background information. The total population of the Okanagan basin grew from about 110,000 in 1971 to almost 200,000 people in 1981. The population prediction for 1991 is an estimate in excess of 261,000. We've got a significant increase in population in the valley. We also have increasing agricultural production, and more intensive agricultural methods have placed a growing burden, as has the increasing population, on our water resources. In addition, the number of tourists visiting the Okanagan lakes basin has more than doubled in the past decade to well over one million visits annually. I might point out that these tourists bring in quite a bit of revenue to that area.

The majority of these tourists make extensive use of our water resources, our lakes, as a prime recreational resource. Because it's not only a prime environmental resource, but also has an economic function, the significant environmental decline that has been evident in our Okanagan lakes basin is of great concern, I'm sure, to all British Columbians. I might point out that because of climate, topography and an exceedingly slow water cycle, it takes approximately 70 years for Okanagan Lake to drain. The lakes are in danger of being lost, to be quite blunt about it. One of the problems is excess nutrient-loading from agricultural runoff, septic groundwater leakage, and inappropriate sewage disposal methods that are endangering our prime resource.

A summary report on the Okanagan basin implementation agreement, dated September 1982, is highly critical of the failure of the government — this is no reflection on the present Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), because this is past policy — to establish a single management jurisdiction for water resources in the Okanagan basin. It's time that the government realized it must act now to save those resources from further environmental damage. Milfoil growth and accelerated eutrophication are a direct result of excess nutrient-loading and inadequate waste management programs.

If I could just very quickly read a quote from the Vernon Daily News, dated April of this year, it says: "The provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs has refused to allow the Okanagan Basin Water Board to increase the tax levy raising funds for sewage facilities assistance programs. This decision makes it difficult for communities in the Okanagan Valley to make long-term plans when they're not sure of what financial assistance is available. It really comes down to dollars and cents." The chairman of the water board has said that communities in the Okanagan Valley are doing their utmost — and I concur in that — to improve the quality of the lakes by installing improved systems for treating and disposing sewage. Cutbacks in funding make it difficult to try to help these communities. The chairman has said that improved sewage disposal is a preventative approach to the problem. He said the board can carry out harvesting programs for weeds in lakes, but it must also look at the reasons the lakes are having the problems they're now incurring.

This is the summary report which outlines many of the documents. The government has not acted on that report, and I think it's time we took a detailed look at the recommendations and proceeded with them immediately.

I might cite a specific example, Mr. Speaker, one that the Minister of Environment is fast becoming acquainted with. The city of Vernon was a leader in how it handled its effluent. From 1972 to 1975 the NDP government assisted in the development of a land-based spray irrigation program. The process of effluent disposal on grassland crops which is the essence of the program, however, is now overloaded, and the city has to dump excess effluent into Okanagan Lake. That's happening throughout the Okanagan Basin. The city is working hard. They're exploring a number of options: expanded spray irrigation, application of effluent on forest crops, rapid infiltration, advanced waste-water treatment. They've been working very diligently to pursue those options.

The critical issue that I want to raise — I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) were here — is the funding. The technology is not a problem; the funding is the crisis here. We have a lack of funding. The city must receive help from the government to expand the system. Vernon is caught in the grips of having to front-load 75 percent of its cost of sewage. As was pointed out earlier, the city of Rutland, the suburb of Kelowna, has just received 75 percent funding. The community of Ganges in the islands group has received virtually 100 percent funding for its sewage development programs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over 100 percent.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Over 100 percent. There is a vast inequality here, Mr. Speaker, that must be addressed. I want to say very plainly that the citizens in the north Okanagan are most distressed at the fact that they are limited to 25 percent dollars, whereas other communities, whether through political preference or whatever, are being given from 75 percent dollars up to 105 percent dollars.

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank the hon. member for Okanagan North. He and I have discussed this subject privately on a number of occasions, and I certainly believe and hope that our discussions will prove fruitful in the long run.

I won't comment on the funding formula, hon. members, because that does not fall within my purview, but I would like to make a couple of comments about the disposition of the sewage and its treatment.

The amount of treatment that municipal sewage must receive depends to a large degree on the location of the discharge. It must be understood that sewage treatment is intended to do in a few hours what nature would normally take a long time to do. As most hon. members would know, Mr. Speaker, in the treatment of sewage there can be three levels: primary, secondary and tertiary. I won't go into what these involve, but needless to say, the degree of treatment applied must be directly related to the protection of the environment receiving the effluent. In some parts of the province the receiving environment has the capability to assimilate wastes without any treatment at all, while in other areas which are very sensitive it is necessary to require the best possible technological way of waste treatment. There may even be some situations in which no discharge of waste at all is the only feasible solution to environmental protection. Some of the factors which determine this position are volumes of waste water, the characteristics of the waste and the use of receiving waters — for example, relating to fisheries, recreation and public water supplies, etc.

The Okanagan area of the province has been recognized for some time as requiring a high level of environmental protection. This is reflected in the degree of treatment provided to the various sewage discharges that presently exist. As the hon. member mentioned, Vernon, which is having a problem — and a bad problem at the moment — was a leader in the development of a plant and facilities whereby

[ Page 5713 ]

some of the effluent was deposited on land and used for irrigation purposes. I understand that Oliver and Osoyoos are also irrigating with treated sewage. The problem at Vernon now, as I understand it, is not that the system doesn't work; it works very well. The problem relates to the amount of effluent that there is to dispose of and the lack of an area in which to dispose of it. That, I think, is the main problem right now.

The city of Kelowna, which as I recall might have been mentioned during question period today, has one of the most efficient and complete sewage treatment plants in the world, I'm given to understand. The Ministry of Environment has been involved in that right from the very outset. There are problems, however, and these must be recognized. Of course, as the population grows, so does the need for more land. Land is not always available, therefore municipalities within the boundaries of the land do not wish to accept effluent from their neighbours. We run into that all the time. We find it with landfill sites and many other things, like disposal of toxic wastes. This is something else which we must address. It's a difficult problem to go to someone and say they have to accept effluent from someplace else, but it's certainly a problem that we have to address.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to say that insofar as I'm concerned, the Ministry of Environment is willing to do everything it can to find solutions to the problems that exist. The Okanagan Basin study identified phosphorus, I believe, as the pollutant of major concern, and recommended that the amount entering the lake system be reduced by 90 percent. It is a sizeable amount, but I believe we can achieve this goal. At the moment I don't think we have any one method that can do it alone, although the coal-filtration method that we have discussed might just possibly be the solution. I would say that certainly there is no doubt, hon. member, that an overall plan is required. You have my assurance that the Ministry of Environment is actively working on a plan. I can't give you a time-frame, but I would hope that it would come about as soon as possible.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I must say that I'm extremely happy with the dialogue. I think we do have a spirit of cooperation here, and I think we are seeing the issue on a very logical and objective basis. I compliment the minister on that. Many of the points that he has made are quite accurate. He also made the point that he's not responsible for the funding. I might point out again that that is the critical issue — and one that has to be addressed.

[11:00]

May I take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to outline a proposal that I will be seeking leave to table with the House: "Sewerage Assistance For Environmentally Sensitive Terrain" — otherwise known as the SAFEST program. It's a proposal that I would like to put before the House for the consideration of all. Funding is to be provided above and beyond current levels, as established under the present Sewerage Assistance Act, for innovative approaches to sewage disposal in problem areas. Such a fund could be established through the Ministry of Environment or the Municipal Affairs ministry, with costs shared according to the original 75-25 formula. Money would be used for capital expenditures, systems design, construction, research and development. Normal operating costs of the completed system would be covered under the present sewerage assistance plan.

To qualify for SAFEST funding, a community must prove a need based upon the following criteria: (1) inadequacy of the existing system; (2) environmental impact of present disposal methods; and (3) the negative economic impact of the present disposal system. Approval for funding should be based upon the following criteria: a detailed cost benefit analysis, a demonstrated positive environmental impact, proven economic benefits to the community, and an innovative systems design implementing proven alternative methods of sewage disposal such as land application, irrigation of effluent upon forest crops, the implementation of rapid ground infiltration, the coal sorption process, and biological or chemical treatment processes.

I think such a program would provide the initiative, the incentive and the opportunity that is presently lacking throughout British Columbia to resolve many of the increasing concerns as to the environmental impact of our present inadequate sewage disposal methods. I think it's most important that we take a long-term look at where this province is going in terms of environmental stability. That water resource in the Okanagan lakes basin is an invaluable resource; you cannot put dollars and cents on it. But if it's lost, it will have a major economic impact on the community.

I see my time is up. I will table this at the conclusion of this session.

WORLD PEACE AND DISARMAMENT

MRS. WALLACE: "Peace is not just the absence of war. It is more than that." Those were the opening remarks at a conference I attended last February in Vancouver dealing with human rights and the peace of nations. They were made by the chancellor of the University of Toronto. Another speaker at that conference, Professor John Humphrey of the faculty of law at McGill, said: "Arms are symptoms of political malaise."

What we are experiencing around the greater part of the world, in Canada and in British Columbia is not only political malaise, it is economic and social malaise. We know that the unemployment figures in British Columbia alone stand at nearly half a million. In the age group 15 to 24, there are 74,000 unemployed young people in B.C. alone. That compares to the 1,800 single unemployed who, 50 years ago, mounted the freights to join other young Canadians in their trek to Ottawa.

In this year dedicated to youth, the front-page story in last weekend's Sun recalled those Depression years, when there were across the whole of Canada 70,000 unemployed youth. Here in B.C. today we have 74,000. There was not even social assistance in those days — or "relief, " as it was called — for single unemployeds. If they were lucky, the only thing they could get was to be accepted into a work camp run by the Department of National Defence at 20 cents a day.

In Vancouver, as in other cities across Canada, young people were marching in the streets, were forbidden to tin-can, were read the riot act, and were clubbed, tear-gassed and driven out of city after city as they trekked across the country to Ottawa.

Canada was not able to mobilize the economy for peace. Yet in a few short months after the war was declared that same economy was mobilized and the derelicts of the Depression became the heroes of the Second World War. It is a harsh, cruel and untenable fact that in both the First and Second World Wars Canada resolved its unemployment problem

[ Page 5714 ]

through those rows and rows of crosses in Flanders fields and those thousands of names engraved on the cenotaphs across this nation.

Important as it is, it is not enough to pray for peace or to march for peace. War is a side-effect of the international economic and social structure. Where you have affluence and poverty existing side by side, you invite conflict. Murray Thompson, a co-founder of Project Ploughshares, tells us that there is a growing realization that violence does not provide security. Killing revolutionaries does not stop revolution.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There is an increasing recognition of the links between militarization and economic deprivation. A current example is Canada's apparent willingness to participate in Reagan's Star Wars proposals. In Canada we've seen our government sign a memorandum of understanding to participate in U.S. space stations. There's grave concern, and with real good reason, that that's very closely connected to the Star Wars proposals. These proposals fall on fertile soil because they create jobs. Like the youth of the Hungry Thirties, today's youth are finding that the only employment possibilities are in the main in the field of war and preparation for war.

Production and sale of arms results in huge profits, and that production and sale simply sets the stage for war. Production and sale of arms results in huge profits, and that production and sale simply sets the stage for war. During the last decade Canadian military exports to the United States increased tenfold. During that same decade Canada's sales to Third World countries increased threefold.

Any major war today means nuclear war and total annihilation. Annual military spending, including NATO, the Warsaw Pact and China, amounts to $558 billion a year. We have in stock 51,500 nuclear weapons in the hands of those nations. It's time to call a halt. The arms race must stop now before a new technology, such as the cruise, undermines our ability to verify arms control agreements. The time to stop the arms race is now, not 20 or 30 years down the road, as would appear to be the thinking of the Trudeaus, the Mulroneys and even the Bennetts of this world. There is a virtual volcano of public opinion demanding that it stop now. Yet governments ignore that here in North America and in Europe.

How long can the public sustain the fight? Fear alone is not enough. A poll taken in Ontario just recently shows that 52 percent of young people between 18 and 24 expect there will be nuclear war in their lifetime. And yet of those young people, 88 percent believe that Canada has a role to play. We should play that stronger role, and B.C. should lead the way.

I see my time is up.

MS. SANFORD: It's very difficult for me to understand why the world continues on this mad escalation of the arms race. We've had reports, articles and stories written over the years indicating that if the world would only discontinue the expenditure on arms that it's currently embarked upon, we could ensure that every person in this world had a house in which to live, some kind of accommodation that would be suitable; we could ensure that not one single person in this world would need to go hungry; we could ensure that everyone had adequate clothing; we could ensure that everyone had an opportunity to education; and we could ensure that everyone had an opportunity to have basic health care. That's astounding, Mr. Speaker. When you look at the problems that exist in the world — the kind of deprivation that exists in so many parts of the world, the starvation in places like Ethiopia and many other places in the world, the fact that in the United States alone there are thousands and thousands of people who do not have an adequate diet, and in many cases not even enough food, let alone a nutritional diet.... It's happening here in British Columbia. It's happening in Canada.

Over the years we in Canada have been respected brokers in international affairs. Countries have looked to us for some leadership, for some sense of rationality in this whole madness. Unfortunately what I see happening is that we're moving closer and closer to becoming a part of the problem — getting involved in the Star Wars development, testing the cruise. All of this will ensure that the countries of the world will not be able to turn to us for some sort of rational way out of this madness. We have served on international commissions, as we did prior to the Vietnam War. We did some good work at that time. We have served well on United Nations forces in various parts of the world. We have always been respected.

It is my hope that this government, as a result of the statement made today by my colleague from the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), will indeed take the initiative to ensure not only that the problems of this province can be solved if we reverse the mad escalation of arms but that the problems of the world could be solved. Let's do it.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm disheartened that there is not even a response from the government on a statement as critical as this.

I want to just follow along the lines that my colleague has and give you a few more specifics. I indicated when I spoke before that the world — the NATO countries, the Warsaw Pact countries and China — spends $558 billion annually on arms. There are two billion people in this world who drink contaminated water. Six months of that expenditure on arms would provide a permanent supply of pure drinking water for all of them. Around the world the number of children who die of measles is equivalent to half of the children who live in British Columbia. If we stopped spending on arms for five hours and used that money to clear up measles, we could wipe it out.

[11:15]

Here in Canada 65 percent of our citizens oppose the cruise missile testing, yet we're testing. Peace and disarmament are at the centre of the world's agenda, yet in Canada we are increasing our military spending and involving ourselves with Star Wars. It is time we realized that in the nuclear age we can no longer afford to use armaments and war as an answer to economic security and job creation. We must put human good before corporate good. We must mobilize our economy for peace, and we must do it now.

Without a fair and just economic and social system, peace will escape us and war will annihilate us. That's why my bumper sticker reads: "Risk peace, not war."

PENSION FUNDS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the statements made, particularly the last statement, I would like to talk about capital formation for our country, and specifically capital formation with pension funding. Pension trusts are

[ Page 5715 ]

becoming one of the major centres of power in our social system. We don't think about it too often, but it's true. I'm going to bring you some figures shortly that I'm sure will astound you.

These trusts are the product of the moulding influences of our major institutions, corporations, governments and labour unions. The assets of pension trusts are the most important weapon in the economic arsenal of our country. If we're serious about controlling the financial and economic destiny of this country, we should be participating in the planning of the use of the huge assets of our pension funds.

I want to take you through a few figures. These are astounding. The book value in our trusteed pension funds in the third quarter of 1984 was $90.7 billion. This was an increase — and listen to this — of $2.4 billion over the previous quarter in 1984. It was a massive $10.6 billion increase over the year earlier.

Let's put that into perspective. That increase in growth is absolutely dramatic, but let's compare it to 1975. In 1975 there were roughly $20 billion in assets in all our trusteed pensions. Nine years later, in 1984, there was $90.7 billion. These figures don't include an estimated $21 billion in reserves in insurance companies for the future benefits to active pension plan members in their ambit. So let's add them together. We're looking at $112 billion as of the last quarter of 1984, and it's growing. We saw an 11.69 percent increase last year in the trusteed pension plans. Project this for another ten years and we arrive at $274 billion. And if we include the insured plans at a modest increase of 10 percent per year, add another $54 billion, making that, ten years down the road, $328 billion in assets of our pension plans in this country. Private and public — I'm taking them all into account here.

Now I suggest that as long as we in the legislative assemblies across the country and in parliament give no leadership these accumulated sums will do nothing more than they have heretofore. They've been helpful, but let me tell you how they've been helpful. They finance debt — this is mainly government debt — to the tune of 45.9 percent. They call it bonds; that's a euphemism. It's debt. Some 25.9 percent of those funds are in equity investments — not well-directed, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion. It's the blue-chip syndrome with no thought of getting back the title to our own economy. And mortgages at 7.3 percent. That's the way those sums are invested.

I'm here to tell you that I believe we should be starting a cooperative effort to buy back our economy, and we can. We can and we must if we presume to mature as an independent world economic leader. In spite of our recession, depression or however you want to describe it, we are sitting on the threshold of great economic potential in this country. We can build our economy to scale to compete in world markets. We can provide a legacy of wealth for generations to come, but to do so requires the courage to direct the utilization of the immense assets of our pension funds.

We are now thinking about our direction, but we must remember our neighbour to the south, the U.S.A., which now has $1,105.6 billion in pension assets. Those assets have grown from $267 billion in 1975. Look how they're growing. They will surely use their tremendous assets to strengthen their economy. We must defend ours. In British Columbia we don't even have an act governing pensions; we defer to the federal act. We first need an act here before we can be taken seriously in our direction in pension planning.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's intriguing that government members have not chosen to respond on either the last statement or this one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got the floor.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there were no anxious faces on the other side.

This government goes flying the world seeking for others to solve our problems. Right today, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has flown to Europe, to London, to Japan seeking to borrow funds for projects and debt in British Columbia, among other things. The hon. member for New Westminster has pointed out that the funds are right here in Canada. They are right here in British Columbia in the form of savings through pensions of the citizens of this province and the nation. There are the means to create wealth within British Columbia, internally. We don't have to have new ministers of international trade and investment scouring the world, accepting terms that are not really acceptable to us, when we could do better with our own funds. We have an incredible opportunity here.

We have a forest industry in this province that is frequently 35 years behind the times in terms of industrial technology. In newsprint alone, to give you an example, 58 percent of the machinery in newsprint operations in British Columbia is pre-1950. Let's compare it with our social democratic friends in Scandinavia: 7 percent of the newsprint machinery operations in Sweden are pre-1950. They use the savings of the people in Sweden to create wealth for the Swedes, to create benefit and jobs for the Swedes. We don't even attempt that. Here in British Columbia we don't even have a statute dealing with the question of pension funds in this province. That's nothing short of incredible.

Let's took at a sister province like Quebec. What has Quebec wrought with its pension funds? They have one of the most extensive operations in North America in terms of developing their commercial structure and their economy in that province. They are truly becoming "maitre chez nous" in Quebec, and they're using the pension funds to do it. If these scatter-brained fly-abouts on the other side in the cabinet had any marbles at all, they'd realize that the solutions are right here at home. There's pension money and savings right here in British Columbia. You don't need to take the first-class jet to Tokyo. The solutions are right here under our feet in British Columbia, if you only had the sense to realize it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. Incidentally, the figures that I raised here do not include the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. They're over and above those other pension plans. The plans I'm speaking of are pension plans that are trusteed, pension plans that are governmental, and pension plans that are insured pension plans in the life insurance companies.

One of the reasons I left the life insurance business in the first place is that I saw that we in this country, great savers that we are, utilize our savings through our financial institutions — unfortunately, we don't make those decisions — and just reinforce the multinationals, because they're blue chip. We reinforce foreign ownership in our country; that's our problem. We have not directed our pension plans. We have not directed any of our financial institutions to take charge of the equity position that Canadians must hold in order to direct our own future. Our problem is that we are amassing these

[ Page 5716 ]

fantastic sums and then putting them to work for GE, GM, Ford, you name it. That's where it goes, but not for Canadian development.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to be a competitor in a world market, we must first own our economy. Once owning our economy, we can direct that economy to do the things that we can best do: harness our own resources to be brought up to where they should be, and be as labour-intensive as possible. We have a potential in this country to be one of the greatest economic powers on earth, and because small people like that over there, who say no and are wrong, are not listening....We have an opportunity to be a great economic power on this earth, and we're ignoring that opportunity by ignoring our own savings and our own investments.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would seek leave at this time, as I had mentioned before, at the close of this session to table the proposed sewerage assistance program outlined in the previous discussion.

[11:30]

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

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

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise with the minister several specific questions having to do with financing, planning and other problems in North Vancouver School District and then revert to a topic which I was discussing earlier on in these estimates; namely, the overall financing formula for education in this province and how it impacts unfairly on the North Shore in Vancouver.

First, and specifically with regard to School District 44, restraint — a ceiling on budgets — is creating some problems, as elsewhere. There have been some layoffs. There have been some layoffs in support services; roughly half of the janitorial and custodial staff has been laid off in School District 44 over the last 18 months. Approaching a third of the teachers' aides have also been dismissed in the interests of economy.

I'm sure this kind of thing is happening variously around the province and that School District 44 in North Vancouver is not alone in this respect, but there is a special consideration — and one which I would hope the minister would comment on — and that is in relation to the children with special needs. In School District 44 some 6 percent — six children out of every 100 attending primary and secondary schools — have special needs, physical and mental. They constitute, as I understand it, a larger proportion of the total school attendance than in any other school district in the province currently.

When we talk about teacher-pupil ratios or pupil-teacher ratios, that is a new consideration — at least it's new in recent years. One can't make a comparison back to the bad old days of the early 1970s when there were no provisions for the mainstreaming of the disabled. In North Vancouver the pupil-teacher ratio in the mid-1970s was of the order of 19 to 1. Currently it's of the order of 18 to 1. It will be rising to 19 to 1 or more. But within that global ratio which is used for comparative purposes, there are now the children with special needs.

There are an exceptional number of children with special needs on the North Shore. I wonder whether, in their various calculations, officials of the ministry could recommend to the minister some alleviation of the restraint or some additional allowance to School District 44 on account of the disabled children who are attending North Van schools in unusual numbers.

Capilano College is located on the North Shore. Capilano College differs from other community colleges around the province in that it has always emphasized mathematics and scientific subjects. It has in some measure specialized in the lower mainland and attracted people who are interested in chemistry, physics and other courses leading on to professions like engineering. Those endeavours are certainly more expensive than the teaching of language, literature, history and so on — disciplines that involve little more than classrooms and libraries. Capilano College, having expensive laboratories, etc., has costs.... It offers courses which are out of the ordinary, more expensive to deliver than those of other colleges around the province. Can some consideration be given to the fact that Capilano College is offering more in the nature of instruction which leads to jobs in this province than other colleges? Can some favourable financial consideration be given to that college on that account?

More specifically, Okanagan College — and the minister has already mentioned this — has been given some relief because it has two satellite campuses, as I understand it, one in Penticton and one in Salmon Arm. Why the discrimination? Capilano College has two satellite colleges, one in Squamish and one at Sechelt. It is not getting any consideration. Okanagan College is obviously regarded as a special case, but it's not a special case. Capilano College has, if anything, a greater problem of delivery, if you like, of services to these two satellite campuses outside the lower mainland, one at Squamish and one at Sechelt. So I would ask whether some relief can be given to a college which has been operating with a budget in the order of $12 million a year, is currently facing a 10 percent cut in its budget, is delivering courses which lead more directly to jobs than do those of most other colleges, and has two satellite campuses which I would argue merit at least the same treatment as Okanagan College.

Switching in my remaining few minutes to the matter of overall finance — the financial formulas which make up the financial plan for the delivery of funds by the provincial ministry to the school districts — on average we're talking about $4,000, in round figures, per student in our primary and secondary schools. Most of those dollars are supplied by the province in one way or another to the great majority of school districts. In other cases only 60 percent, or something like $2,400 of the $4,000, is supplied to school districts, and the remainder is raised locally.

On average, $3,000 of the $4,000 is supplied by the province and $1,000 is raised locally. But 56 out of the 76 school districts receive on balance, net, all of the $4,000 from senior levels of government; 20 do not. A few, like North Vancouver, receive as little as $2,400 out of the $4,000. Others lie in between. For example, Windermere School District pays on its own, out of the local property tax, $10 per residence. So it's not receiving the full amount from the province; it's putting up something. Central Okanagan is putting up in the order of $20 per residence. It's not receiving

[ Page 5717 ]

the full amount of $4,000; it's receiving something less from the central government. In New Westminster the homeowner is putting up $96 per residence to make up the total $4,000 per student. In Burnaby it's $203 per residence.

North Vancouver is putting up the most — $285 per home on a per student basis. I'll repeat, North Vancouver receives $2,400 from the province and has to put up the remaining $1,600 out of residential taxation, hence the $285 per home which is levied there, So some districts pay a great deal more than others, and North Vancouver pays the most per home. North Vancouver doesn't have the most expensive homes. We've got a kinky formula which allows districts like West Vancouver, Howe Sound and Squamish to pay no more than is paid by North Vancouver; indeed they pay less per home simply because the formula has been shaped in such a way that they are not penalized as they may have been had an older formula continued.

I'll repeat: in West Vancouver the tax going into schools per home is considerably less than that in North Vancouver — $181 per home in West Vancouver compared to $285 per home in North Vancouver. Yet the average assessed value in West Vancouver is 50 percent higher than in North Vancouver. So that formula has to be changed. To put it another way, North Vancouver gets no part of the shareable 35 percent school finance fund.

I'll repeat: 56 school districts get all of the 35 percent. Some 20 only get a part of it; North Vancouver gets none of it. That is inequitable. I would argue that the selling value of a person's home is not a reliable indication of ability to pay. There are a considerable number of elderly retired people who are continuing to live under the same roof, to live in a home which they built years ago, but which is now assessed at a high price. It's only when they sell that home that they'd realize that value, and yet they're having to pay $285 additional taxes a year, whereas people in similar, even identical, homes in other parts of the province pay nothing. I think that's wrong. So that has to be changed.

[11:45]

1 want to make one further point before I sit down, Mr. Chairman. Costs in North Vancouver are reasonable. The cost of the school educational system is not the highest in the lower mainland. It's of the order of tenth. So the minister can't say: "Your local taxes are high because your costs per pupil are high." He can only say: "We've got a kinky formula which happens to penalize your school district on the North Shore." It's one that the government, in all conscience, must change, and one that I hope the government will change for the next school year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would just like to refer to the member's last comment with respect to the cost per student. I presume the comparatives which the member has referred to are within the regional area. In 1984 the average total cost for School District 44 was $3,917 per student. The regional means is $3,547, and the provincial average is $3,758. So if we want to look around at costs on a per student basis, I think we can put to rest the fact that North Vancouver operates one of the leaner systems. I'll just confine that to the regional area. There's a difference of $370. They are $370 per student higher than the other districts within the immediate confines.

With respect to special needs, I cannot advise the member of the number of special-needs children within the district. But I do know that under Bill 6, if you will recall, we specifically made provision that special needs would be handled by the government so that the claim could not be made by anybody, particularly board members, that we were underfunding and using the disabled people as a political football.

Interestingly enough, I remember speaking on the North Shore to a number of.... It was quite a large crowd in a school gymnasium. One of the major concerns that the people in that area advanced during that meeting was that they felt that the special-needs children were not the recipients of the full amount of the funding advanced by the provincial government. For some time I have been concerned about the total amount of money put out in special needs. It exceeds the sum of $200 million, on a provincial basis.

When school districts were complaining about insufficient funding, I offered to put a team from the ministry in every school district that was concerned. I want you to know that of the 28 or 29 school districts that complained about being underfunded in special needs, I had the grand number of two districts say: "Yes, we would be prepared to have you come in." The only conclusion that I can draw is that they were a little nervous about our getting too close to the manner in which those funds were being distributed within the system. Interestingly enough, one particular school district said: "No, you can come on in and have a look." It was in the lower mainland: I won’t tell you the name of the district, because I don't to make special education a football for political purposes. Interestingly enough, though, we found the sum in that district.... Of all the money that was put in, there was about $300,000 which was not going to special needs but which was being pushed into general instruction. So I repeat: in the area of special needs the provincial government will do everything within its power to ensure that those areas will be properly addressed.

In the North Shore we found a school district which, over the years, has dropped down from something like 24,000 to 17,000 in student numbers. There has been a significant drop. If we want to look at the budget in the area, and the way the budgets were traveling, you'll find out why something had to be done. I recognized one serious problem in the North Shore, with respect to the funding of the district, and I'll tell you what it involved. They had entered into an agreement involving retirement of senior teachers. There was quite a bit of money; as I recall, it was something around $700,000 or $800,000. They were unsure as to how they were going to address it. That was funding that they had committed. We have made a policy decision to assist all school districts in this regard: that is, to allow boards to amortize the cost of future severance, as well as severance costs incurred in the past, over a period of three years. When I made that policy change, it gave a considerable amount of relief. I suspect that the North Van school board will take advantage of it.

On the issue of assessment, I understand what the member is saying. The member raised this yesterday, I believe. I had a personal conversation with the member as well. I told you that it was being looked at, and in fact it is being looked at. We know that there is an anomaly in the North Shore district. We're having some difficulty with respect to the difference between the level of taxes paid in West Vancouver and in North Vancouver. I concede that the member has a point. As recently as 20 minutes ago I was talking to one of the officials in the ministry and again raising the point that the member had raised with respect to it. I believe that some of that may be corrected this year. My object for the next year will be to resolve that problem, because the whole object of

[ Page 5718 ]

this exercise is to bring equity. As for the ability to pay, I think that in West Vancouver it would certainly equal that of North Vancouver.

On the concept of assessment, that's the system which has been in place for years and years. I recognize that assessments are promoting inequity to a degree. Obviously the value of one's property reflects the amount of taxation paid. That is a very important issue. The question we have to ask ourselves is: do we eliminate that concept in total and use perhaps a flat-rate tax, or any tax at all, with respect to school purposes, or do we use the residential tax base? As I recall, the member yesterday felt that no, the residential tax base should be used and should make a contribution. The question really is a matter of equity and the relationship of funding.

I suppose we live in an imperfect world. I am really at a loss as to how that could be changed totally when we get into the area of assessment. I do know that two-thirds of the school districts — that is, the residents within the school districts in British Columbia — on average pay no school tax at all. Obviously there are properties within each school district which are more valuable and do in fact make a net positive contribution. North Vancouver is a problem in this area.

With respect to the PTR to which the member referred, according to my calculations it will be 18.8 for '85-86. The big argument which is always advanced is that in '75-76 the PTR did not include the accommodation of certificated staff to service special-needs students who have been mainstreamed within the school. If you were to take out the special-needs students in North Vancouver, the PTR for '85-86 would be about 19.7. Including the special-needs students, it's 18.8.

On Capilano College, the cost of the campus to accommodate the multi-campus concept was about $1.4 million in this year's budget. I have not received from the college any really major concern with respect to the campuses that the member has referred to. I believe one is at Squamish and the other is at Sechelt. Correct? There was some concern overall, and I mentioned in the House yesterday as well that there is some nervousness about the multi-campus concept because it is draining from the core campus.

The amount of money we have put into the college system — and it seemed to be generally supportive.... I might make reference to the fact that the former principal of Capilano College, Paul Gallagher, is also one of the authors of this system — a very competent man who is now the new principal of Vancouver Community College. He'll probably be having more to say about this because I believe he is on the joint committee with respect to it.

In the areas of math and science, the member advises that Capilano College is heavy in these areas. If they are leading to people whose employment opportunities are much better, I then leave to Capilano College exactly the same offer that was made to all others: that is, there is a $5.8 million fund. I would think Capilano College will be coming in with a proposal as to how to use a part of that fund. Here's the offer; you come back. That's been made to them, and I believe they are probably addressing that area.

[12:00]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the Legislature, during the debates on these estimated expenditures on education, my colleague from Okanagan North made what I thought was a sincere, genuine appeal to the Minister of Education to try to assure us that he had some concept of what the policies of this government in the field of education are doing to the schools in the province.

The MLA for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) has recently been in the system. He has been in the classroom, he has communicated with students, he knows what the situation is. He tried to point out yesterday that while the minister is attempting to show that things are really okay in education in this province, the measurement is within that classroom. If you look at what is happening in the classrooms of the province — and it may be difficult for the Minister of Education to understand this, because he has probably not spent time in front of a classroom — and you measure what is happening there, then you see very clearly that there is a crisis in education in the province today. That's the point that the MLA for Okanagan North was attempting to make today, and that's the point that I hope I, too, can impress on the Minister of Education.

Mr. Chairman, it's now at the stage where the quality of education in British Columbia has deteriorated so much that it's going to be years and years before we're going to be able to recoup and recover from the blow that has been dealt education in British Columbia by this government. It's not just in the public education system — kindergarten to 12 — but also in colleges and universities. I know the universities are not under the jurisdiction of this minister, but I can assure this House that we do have a crisis. It stems from a government that is so short-sighted that it is prepared to expend moneys on major megaprojects while at the same time putting our education system in crisis. It's tragic, because it's the children of the province — the young people who are attempting to obtain an education, who are attempting to be people in and of this society who make a significant contribution in the future — who are being denied the right to develop to their full potential. It is because of the attitude of this government to education and the priority it sets for education.

I cannot understand how any government could be as short-sighted as this one is in a field as important as education. They have taken a very centralist approach. They've taken away the right of locally elected officials to make decisions about education that affect the areas in which they were elected. They have become very dictatorial: laying down programs; interfering and ensuring that moneys that might otherwise be made available to keep campuses, such as the one at Parksville, open are not made available to keep them open. I'll have a lot more to say about that in a few minutes.

I have never seen a teaching force as demoralized as B.C.'s is right now. That means only one thing, Mr. Chairman: that the children of this province are not being given the opportunity to have the education that I think they deserve and that the people on this side of the House think they deserve. There is no way that teachers can impart to students a love of learning and an understanding of the issues that are before them when they feel as demoralized as they do at this time.

School boards. I can never remember them, even back in 1971 and 1972, when education was a major issue in this province, being as united in their opposition to what is happening to education. The minister talks about his confidence that the school boards will toe the line, that they will submit the proper budget at the right time, that there won't be a problem. I'm not as convinced of that, Mr. Chairman. I know the extent of some of the anger that exists on those

[ Page 5719 ]

boards as they try to do the best they can for education in the face of a government that does not put a priority on education.

The whole issue of education, and the debates that have been taking place in this Legislature over the past week on this particular subject, has not received the attention of the public or the press — and it's because of the press that the public is not realizing what is being said here and the concerns that are being expressed. I think it's partly because the cuts have now gone on for so long that it's no longer newsworthy that education is being dealt such a blow by this government. It was more newsworthy about 18 months ago, when boards and parents and teachers were realizing what this government was up to. But because the cuts have been happening time and time again, it no longer receives the attention that it should, because the damage that's being done is going to take years and years to repair. I don't know that we're ever going to recoup in many respects.

Unfortunately again, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that it's the young people in the classrooms who are being dealt the severest blow, because it's their future, as well as the future of this province, this country and indeed this globe that depends on the education, understanding and skills that we can give young people. We're depriving them. I don't know how we can get this across to the people on the government benches who are in charge of making the decisions that have been made in this area — what the impact is. They're very short-sighted over there. We have seen that time and time again. They don't look down the road. They look only towards the next election, towards improving their image, and towards the glamour and glitter of megaprojects, and it's at the expense of young people in our classrooms.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, as I say, it's very difficult to impart what's really happening to people who don't understand the situation, who refuse to see what's happening, and who refuse to recognize the damage that is being done in terms of the future of those children, of the province, of the country and of the globe.

I'd like to spend some time talking about the colleges in my constituency. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) just brought to the attention of the minister that he felt there was some injustice in the funding formula as it exists, because his particular college has a number of campuses and he felt that the funding formula was not being applied equitably and that his campuses were being denied moneys which seemed to be going to other campuses. I can only echo what he's saying. This government has been fiddling around with that funding formula for colleges, and it's often to meet a political rather than an educational need. I know that Malaspina College, which serves the southern part of my constituency, and North Island College, which serves the northern part, both have complaints about the funding formula, the way it's applied. They wonder why there seems to be so much decision-making based on a political rather than an educational need.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let me elaborate on that. In the spring of 1984 they fiddled with the formula again and brought in something known as the remoteness formula, which ensured that X number of dollars would be available to colleges that had a central campus and outlying campuses. Because there was a remoteness from the central campus, there would be X number of extra dollars available. But lo and behold, North Island College wasn't entitled to a penny, because they don't have a central campus as such.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're going to change that.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I hope you change the formula to benefit the campuses and the colleges within my constituency. That will be a nice change, Mr. Minister, because at the moment they're at the short end of the stick.

It was only when North Island College complained about the remoteness formula and the fact that they weren't entitled to a single penny that the minister did come up with some additional money. They got an additional 2 percent, while colleges like Selkirk, for instance, got an additional 15 percent under that formula. That's what happened.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, that's the case. The minister may not like that, but that's what happened. They wouldn't have received a penny, Mr. Chairman, if they had not asked for that additional money.

More recently they've had another change in the formula, with talk about a multi-campus factor, which ensures that colleges like Okanagan College get a significant amount of money, while Malaspina College, although it has a multi-campus setup, was forced to close the campus at Parksville. Malaspina College received additional money for the campus over in Powell River, but the multi-campus factor provided no money for the campus at Parksville. As a result, that campus has had to close.

I understand that I'm on my last two minutes on this. I have a number of questions that I wish to pose, but I would like the minister to give me information about that multi-campus formula that's now in place and tell me why it does not apply to the Parksville campus. If the minister would give me that information, then I have a number of questions on campuses that I'd like to pose.

[12:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Before I get into the matter of the multi-campus, I would like to make reference to North Island College. It is a fact that the cost to operate North Island College is the lowest cost of all of the colleges in the province. The reason it is the lowest cost is because of the nature of the delivery of the service which they are encouraging. Interestingly enough, North Island College does not have a core campus.

The member might be interested in knowing that what I want to do is try to establish a campus, hopefully in the Courtenay area. I'd like to get started on that, because what bothers me is that I found in my travels in that part of British Columbia that many students enrolled in Courtenay and Campbell River for first-year programs were not comfortable with the nature of the service offered, and the dropout rate was very significant, particularly in first-year core programs, primarily academic.

What I have met with is resistance from the board and administration. I want you to know that I disagree with the

[ Page 5720 ]

board and the administration, and I think the member probably knows that. So what we're going to do, as time progresses, is try to address that issue so that when somebody wants to have first-year university, they'll have an opportunity to attend. We can open, when it comes to pass, with seven or eight subjects — just like the old grade 13 — in a college in a core area so there's onsite delivery. That's what I would like to do, and that's what I have in mind.

That's going to cost some money, but I think the member should be aware that I have met some resistance to doing that. I have already had two papers prepared. The board for North Island College knows how I feel about it, and I have made that point to them very clearly.

On the multi-campus concept, we did provide Powell River with funding for a campus. We did not for Parksville because.... There are communities all over British Columbia that have in fact closed some of these small satellite campuses which have really been a drain. The Kootenays is a good example. There were three small campuses, and the board decided: "Look, we just can't continue to afford to operate these." In particular, although they may be desirable, it's a matter of cost and where we are going to get the most value for the dollars which are being spent.

The member has made reference to the government allegedly being short-sighted. Well, you know, there's just a fundamental disagreement, whether it's philosophical or not, between the members opposite and the government. I think that on the long-range basis what we have done — well, I know it — has been the right thing.

There may have been some pain as we have gone through this three-year program; that I don't dispute. Nor do I dispute that the school board in Courtenay has canvassed many options in order to try to resolve the problem which they have meeting a compliance budget. I recognize that.

But all I need to do is point out what was happening and I've said this repeatedly.... When we found what the cost was and how it was going up so rapidly.... And I don't put the blame for that on school boards particularly. I don't put the blame on anybody. It was the system, and I think the government over the years has been part of allowing those costs to get out of control. It just so happened that the time had come when we had to address the spiralling costs. Many of them were built into the system, and in the good times the just kept climbing and climbing, even with declining enrolments.

I point out again that as the enrolments declined, it just seemed that we became very heavy with administration in many areas. Now it seems that if we are to protect the system from exploding within, then there have to be built in some control factors and accountability factors. That's really what the new method of funding did.

The government did this over a period of three years with the support of the School Trustees' Association on Bill 6, knowing full well their budgets would be capped. As far as the allegation of centralization is concerned, it is true when I comes to capping budgets. That's not a question. I can see that right off the bat. As far as allocations are concerned, I was always.... If you recall, Bill 6 was appropriately and properly amended to ensure that the boards had control to allocate their budgets in the manner they deemed fit.

I have made over 20 amendments to the framework as a result of good advice which came from school officials.

MRS. WALLACE: Changing goalposts.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, the goalposts were not changed. Those changes which were made were the result of requests, dialogue and consultation which was carried on extensively, not just with the ministry and within the ministry but with the people who were responsible for delivery of the service in the field. This was done in the fall of 1983. Budgets were then predicted for three years. The only difference with the budgets is there's something like $30 million to $35 million more.

So I can't accept the allegation that we were not looking at the system from a long-range point of view. The object of the entire exercise was to ensure that the moneys which were available — at least the largest portion of them — would be in the classroom. I think that point has been made often.

I recognize that the member has some other questions to ask, but the last question raised is the one I close on now, and that is with respect to the satellite campuses. Look, the whole concept of the formula was not just generated within the ministry. It was generated with all of the guidance and instruction of those people who were involved in the colleges. You know, I can state without equivocation that that concept was generated and supported publicly by college administrators who felt that the way funding was going it was not working well.

You remember when we had the Academic Council, the Occupational Training Council and the Management Advisory Council — three levels of bureaucracy. Now all of that is gone. What they in fact were doing, that particular group of three, was acting as a buffer between government and the colleges. They became nothing but recipients of major lobbies — who is going to get in to cut up the pie. It's just not necessary. The removal of those three bodies was advocated by the college instructors' association, the association of colleges and the administrators. What really surprised them was that they never thought we would really bite the bullet and get rid of all three. That was told to me by the college instructors. They didn't like what was happening. I agreed with them. We eliminated it. It seems to me that there was some degree of support from the opposition for that concept.

The concept of multi-campus is going to be subject to review again by the college administrators and the ministry. I think we have to keep in mind, with the limited number of dollars which are available for allocation to colleges, that we've got to get the best value we can. I cannot attach every particular campus, because some are really very small. I think they were taking away from what our true objective ought to be: that is, a regional college. You can't have a small campus.... In my riding, for example, there are areas where they want campuses. There is no funding available under the multi-campus for a town of 6,500 people in my riding. They would like it. The college at New Caledonia had some arguments with respect to funding not being made available, but I can see the reasons for it. If I'm going to be responsible for putting out these particular rules and regulattions, then it's going to affect everybody, you can rest assured, including my own riding.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has said that a number of these smaller satellite campuses were closed because they were a drain on the system. I'd like to point out something to the minister at this time.

The campus at Parksville indeed is small — comparatively. The total amount of money made available from Malaspina to keep that campus going was $91,000. The

[ Page 5721 ]

campus itself had negotiated $106,000 worth of income from the federal government for one program alone for Parksville. Now where is the drain that he's talking about? There certainly is not a drain on his budget....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The college board. You people have interfered with that college board. You have not given them the opportunity to keep that campus open in spite of the fact that people have attempted time and time again to appeal to this ministry, to appeal through the board itself to the officials in the Ministry of Education. They have been told time and time again there will be no money for Parksville.

This money was for a specific program. This money was not for the administration and for the other costs of that college. Mr. Chairman, he talks about a drain on the system. Has he any idea of the impact of the closure of a campus on a community like Parksville? I don't think he does. What happens to those highly qualified people who were teaching at that campus? They are not going to be able to get a job within the community of Parksville. They are an asset to that community. They are going to leave that community because they cannot work.

Has he any idea of the impact that it has on a group of 30 mentally retarded adults who were able to receive courses at the Parksville campus and who were able to take their place in society and make some contribution to the economy of the province through what they learned through the campus programs? Those people are not going to be traveling to Nanaimo in order to continue the education that they were embarked upon. The courses aren't offered at Malaspina, for one thing.

We had a program developed through the college in conjunction with the school board which ensured that counselling was made available and an alternative program was made available for students who could not fit in with the regular school system in School District 69. Those people were given an opportunity to learn to perform, to fit in with society. They were kept off the streets, and they finally had an opportunity where they felt that they could play a part as well.

[12:30]

Programs like that ensure that those young people who are not otherwise able to fit in are kept out of the jails of the province. They are kept off the street and out of the jails. You're talking about being a drain; there again, I'm pointing out how short-sighted this government is. If you look at the impact on a community like Parksville, on the people who were benefiting from the programs there, if you look at the contribution made by the educators within that system, then you can't talk about a drain. Then you recognize that the only thing that the government understands is $91,000 out of a $9.2 billion budget, while it spends millions and millions of dollars on the megaprojects they have undertaken.

I've written to the minister. I don't know if he has read the letter. I've not heard back from him. I have written a special appeal to have the minister interfere in the other direction this time. He's good at interfering. I want him to interfere the other way, under this $12.6 million extra funding that has been made available to colleges. I'm asking, on the basis of the few points that I outlined just now, that the minister direct funds to ensure that the Parksville campus is reopened. It was closed on March 31. There is absolutely no reason why those programs cannot be reinstated, why that college campus cannot be opened.

I've appealed to the minister to use some of this additional funding to ensure that the impact that that closure has had on Parksville is reversed. There are enough people lining up at the food banks in Parksville, there's enough hardship there, without this kind of action by government, which the minister terms a drain. He's looking at only one thing. He's not looking at the service provided, the jobs provided, and the benefits that flow from a campus like the campus at Parksville. I hope he can give me a response to that. I have written to him, I have appealed to him, and I hope he can consider this morning, even on the basis of those few points, an assurance that that college campus is reopened.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise some other things as well. Our school district in the northern part of the constituency of Comox, School District 71, was singled out for the SWAT team. They sent in, with a lot of fanfare and publicity — cameras following them around and a show of force from the provincial government....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Who brought the cameras?

MS. SANFORD: I have no idea who brought the cameras. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the people....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I did not, I have no idea who brought those cameras in. I do know that a visit was made to the two school districts involved on one day; it seems to me that if they were not interested in getting any publicity that day, they would have gone into one of the districts, done their job there and then moved on to the next district. But that was not to be the case.

The report which resulted from the so-called studies that were made in School District 71 has now been made available to the minister. But I understand that the minister is not prepared to make it available to the school trustees of School District 71. Is that correct?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's not correct. The reports will be made public, in other words. Thank you very much.

School board members were asked to appear, within four days, before the people who were sent in on this SWAT team to make recommendations about changes in the whole formula, the whole structure of the district. As a result of that request, one of the school board trustees wrote an extensive article in the paper, explaining to the people of School District 71 the impossibility of that particular request from the provincial government. There is no way that a person who works full time and has community responsibilities aside from the work that he does on the school board can possibly come up with the kind of changes and extensive analysis that was requested of the board at that time.

He poses within this article a number of questions for the minister and for the team itself, and I would like to read some of these into the record. Referring to the team that was just sent in, he asks:

[ Page 5722 ]

" Have you thoroughly analyzed the energy conservation program which our district proposed in February of 1982, which was subsequently emasculated by the beginning of restraint? Can you tell the minister how many more teachers the board would now be employing if the original energy conservation program had been approved?"

Is that included within the report? Again, we're referring to the short-sightedness and the adverse impact of the direction the government has taken on education.

"Can you tell the taxpayers of this district how many teachers' jobs have been lost because the Education minister decided that it made more sense to cut out expenditure for energy conservation than it did to take a scientific approach to managing the system?

"Can you make a rational judgment on the cost effectiveness of the administrative system used at Highland High School?"

Now there's a more local problem and a more local issue, but nonetheless my guess is that that team did not undertake to analyze the administrative systems that were used within the various schools in order to report back to the minister.

"Have you gathered enough information to acquaint the minister with all of the cost implications of having several hundred thousand square feet of flat tar and gravel school roofs, years past the life expectancy of that type of roof?"

Is that included in the report? What is that going to cost because those roofs are not repaired?

"I hope you have a footnote about the cost of repair to structural damage caused by leaks which cannot be properly repaired because the roofs should have been replaced long ago."

Is that included in the report on the cost-effectiveness of the way in which school boards operate?

"Why was School District 71 singled out in this particular case? Is it because they embarrassed the minister with the common-sensical approach that they took in introducing the Burns plan formula, which eventually the minister rejected without really understanding what it was all about?"

That became clear a few weeks ago during debates in this Legislature. He did not understand. He didn't know whether it was an unfunded liability or a contingent liability he was talking about, and I doubt if he does now. He didn't understand, and he was surprised that the unfunded liability that is presented to school boards every day of the week is much greater through the system of sick leave for teachers. That too is an unfunded liability, the same as the Burns plan would have represented. In other words, there was no unfunded liability at all, because that's been the accepted way of operating in this province for years and years. Why was School District 71 singled out?

Within the school districts in the Comox constituency, we have the same problems that a number of others have referred to: overcrowding, students sitting on the floors because they cannot jam any more desks into a given classroom and students who have to sit on the windowsills in lab facilities because there's no more room in the lab for any more students to participate in the particular lab experiments that are going on. We have very dangerous situations in the various workshops within the school district because of the overcrowding and the type of machinery and equipment that's being used. The Workers' Compensation Board must have their hair standing up on end, when they look at the situations in the schools in terms of any safety procedures. Of course, when you cut back on the custodial services, you only make the problem worse.

But a particular situation exists with respect to split classes. I don't know if the minister recognizes the problems that a split class presents to a teacher. Within School District 71, for instance, there are 28 classes with grade 2 students in them; of these, 17 of them are split classes. That's a terrible situation in terms of a satisfactory educational experience for those kids. I hope the minister can comment on some of the issues I've raised.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the member would probably like to continue speaking.

The only thing that I would like to point out is on the PTR. The 1985-86 PTR is projected to be 17.9, which is well beneath the provincial average. So I would take her comments with some degree of reservation.

I can assure the member that the comments made with respect to why any particular board was singled out.... We knew in advance that the Courtenay School Board had done a considerable amount of work and had considered a number of options. Why that particular board was selected will, I think, be clear in time. I can assure you that there was no particular reaction on my part to the fact that it emanated out of the Burns plan; I'll tell you that now. The significance of that particular plan, if you want to translate that provincially....

You and I had better agree to disagree right now, because you will not accept what I'm going to say, so I won't even take the time to go over it. I will tell you that the provincewide implication was in excess of $90 million if all school districts took it, and you're doing nothing more than deferring an obligation until the following year, and then repeating it all the way down the line. You will disagree with that, but I will tell you that the calculations proved conclusively exactly what was going to happen.

[12:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report inestimable progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House Mr. Dave Abbott. Mr. Dave Abbott is well-known as a broadcaster in British Columbia. He has been in South Africa in recent years and has returned to station CJOR. He will be starting on Monday doing live broadcasts in Victoria back to our city of Vancouver. I ask the House to join me in welcoming Dave Abbott.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I haven't seen him in years, Mr. Speaker. He looks younger than ever. Welcome home.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.