[ Page 8103 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents –– 8103

Fair Election Practices Act (M206). Mr. Hanson

Introduction and first reading. 8103

Oral Questions

Federated cooperatives forestry road. Mr. Howard –– 8103

Louisiana-Pacific. Hon. Mr. McClelland replies –– 8104

Mr. Williams

Westar Timber. Mr. Lea –– 8107

Mr. Howard

Nuclear accidents. Mr. Rose –– 8107

Preparedness for demonstrations. Mr. Michael –– 8107

Mining stock transactions. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 8108

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 12). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 8108

Mr. Rose –– 8109

Mr. Parks –– 8112

Mr. Cocke –– 8113

Mrs. Wallace –– 8114

Mr. Barnes –– 8115

Mr. MacWilliam –– 8119

Hon. Mr. Hewitt 8121

International Commercial Arbitration Act (Bill 20). Committee stage –– 8123

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 20: minister's office –– 8123

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Lockstead

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, last week Burnaby had two great events: one was the visit of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales; also, Burnaby experienced a twinning agreement with her sister city in Leicestershire, a city called Loughborough, in Britain. It becomes a sister city. In your gallery today is His Worship Mayor Albert Dodd, the mayor of Loughborough, and the mayoress, Doreen Dodd. I would ask the House to kindly bid them welcome.

Further, Mr. Speaker, here to attend the International Options Clearing Corp. meeting, which is held in Vancouver this year, is a group of options people from all over the world. Representing Midland Doherty Ltd. Is the director and vice president of Midland Doherty and his wife, both former British Columbians, Mr. John and Barbara Vivash. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: In the unavoidable absence of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I would like to make an introduction on his behalf. Visiting in the gallery today are a group of students from the Campbell River Christian School. They include Jason and Jamie Arbour, Nicole Baechler, Lorri Dyck, Howard Munro, Jennifer Tanguay, Dan Mills, Reg Purdy, and Adelle and Louise Heal. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Trevor McMonagle. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a visitor from Britain today. He is the father of Roger Keene of our government information services. He is Mr. Paul Gomes of England. He's very involved with various transportation groups, having been a member of the World Ship Society and the Institute of Transportation; he's a founding member of the Omnibus Society. He is visiting Expo 86, to see Expo and to ride on our new light rapid transit SkyTrain, and, of course, to visit Roger. Will the House please welcome Mr. Gomes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like the House to welcome a group of grade 11 social studies students from Fort Nelson. They have made their way down here to visit the Legislature today. As part of their trip, they were also able to attend the Expo opening on Friday. They are supervised by their teacher, Miss Pingle. This is part of the annual sojourn of the social studies class from Fort Nelson Secondary School. Because they have come probably the furthest possible distance in the province to visit this Legislature, I would like the House to give them a very special welcome.

Hon. Mr. Segarty tabled the sixty-ninth annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board for the year ending December 31, 1985.

Introduction of Bills

FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES ACT

Mr. Hanson presented a bill intituled Fair Election Practices Act.

MR. HANSON: In commenting on the bill, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the provisions included in this document are long overdue in this province, and that they would protect the people of the province from abuses of power by the government in power. The main purpose is to free the Electoral Commission to operate independently of the party in power. This bill would provide the commission with a mandate to establish fair electoral boundaries, set election spending limits and oversee all aspects of provincial elections, to ensure fairness and the greatest possible access to voting rights.

Mr. Speaker, the main provision of the bill frees the Electoral Commission to recommend a formula to ensure fair representation with minimal political distortions. It provides for the appointment of a chief electoral officer to be recommended by an all-party committee of the House, in the same manner as the auditor-general and the ombudsman are appointed in this province. It eliminates political appointments by ensuring that the Public Service Act is adhered to when hiring staff for the chief electoral officer and all the apparatus of the election machinery. It provides for a non-partisan distribution of seats, to eliminate decisions based on biased formulas for representation being made by politicians.

It ensures increased efficiency in voter registration by using the data banks of government that deal with the public. It ensures disclosure of election contributions. It ends the discrimination against 18-year-olds in British Columbia, bringing their voting rights into line with those in federal legislation. It ensures that all eligible citizens have the right to vote in the area in which they reside. And it provides the right to vote by mail ballot to eligible citizens who are physically disabled and unable to get to the polls.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the opening, this bill and the provisions of this bill are long overdue in this province. We've had gross distortions and gerrymandering which are an abuse of power, and this would certainly go a long way to bringing British Columbia into progressive voter rights.

Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES FORESTRY ROAD

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), I'd like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary and ask if Federated cooperatives entered a claim of some $184,000, under section 88 of the Forest Act, for building a road to an area of Anstey Arm on Shuswap Lake in 1982 and '83?

[2:15]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice, and bring back a response as soon as possible, and advise it to the minister.

[ Page 8104 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the parliamentary secretary if he could also inquire and determine if that particular road provided access to lakefront property owned by a company called Queest Beach Holdings?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, l will take that question as notice, refer it to the minister and bring back a response as soon as possible.

MR. HOWARD: May I pose another question then, Mr. Speaker, and ask whether the minister would inquire and determine if' one Herb Treat, who is woods manager of Federated Co-op and in charge of road building for that company, is a director of Queest Beach Holdings?

MR. MICHAEL: I will take it as notice.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask the parliamentary secretary whether timber on the property held by Queest Beach Holdings was logged and taken out via that section 88 road, to the benefit of Queest Beach Holdings. I wonder if it could be determined whether one Clifford Michael, who is the president and a director of Queest Beach Holdings, is the same Clifford Michael who is the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. MICHAEL: l can answer that one, Mr. Speaker. The answer is yes.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, during the past few days several questions have been asked of me and other members by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) concerning the $40 million waferboard plant being constructed by Louisiana-Pacific Corp. In the Dawson Creek area. I am pleased to be able to answer those questions and to inform all members of the details of the construction and financing of this successful economic development project, undertaken by Louisiana-Pacific with the cooperation and support of the provincial government.

We have, to the end of creating economic renewal programs, embarked on a series of innovative and positive measures to assist business in investing in British Columbia through the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Trade and the Municipal Affairs ministry. It's unfortunate that that member for Vancouver East didn't check his facts before attempting to create an environment of mistrust and innuendo aimed at the government and the companies involved in this plant.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The questions were asked in question period, Mr. Member.

The member seems unaware that this $40 million investment by Louisiana-Pacific and the government will result in nearly 400 new jobs for the Dawson Creek area. He seems uninterested that an estimated 250 million square feet of waferboard will be sold to the U.S. market when the plant is at full production. He seems unaware or uninterested that this new plant is the first in B.C. to make commercial use of aspen.

The member neglected to mention during his questions that Louisiana-Pacific's arrival in our province will have a major long-term impact on the economy of the Dawson Creek area. that the construction of the plant brings significant new freight business to B.C. Rail, and that the construction creates immediate jobs for construction workers. Moreover, it will provide the impetus to establish a system of log harvesting for aspen which will facilitate further development.

Other specific questions were raised by the member for Vancouver East. He asked whether I had investigated the question of machinery for this operation. He was quick to point out that CAE Machinery of Vancouver produces equipment that can be used for this type of plant. l am very pleased to answer that specific question for the member, and say that CAE received a contract for three waferizers and some blenders worth more than $1.5 million from Louisiana-Pacific for the Dawson Creek plant.

I am, in fact, as a result of my investigations following that member's questions, which I am sure he researched from the Marjoie Nichols column in the Sun, informed by officials of CAE Machinery that their waferizers are used in all Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s waferboard mills, that they consider Louisiana-Pacific an old and valued customer, that they are distressed that the member would infer that they are in any way unhappy with Louisiana-Pacific's purchasing actions, as Louisiana-Pacific is in the process of upgrading its U.S. equipment inventory, and that they look forward to a substantial and ongoing relationship with that firm for their United States plants as well.

The company is currently awaiting another $700,000 order from one of their U.S. plants, Mr. Speaker. We have also, as a result of the member's questions, discussed with Louisiana-Pacific officials their further purchasing practices, and we find that they have been very open and are informed that they will be announcing many more contracts for Canadian firms, most of them in British Columbia. I have a list which I will be able to table at some other time of some of the B.C. and Canadian companies with whom they will be doing business, as soon as those are finalized and formalized.

Mr. Speaker, that member wanted to know why the loan didn't come from the ERDA industrial development subagreement. The answer is very simple. The loan was too large to fall under the terms of that agreement when compared with the funds available over five years under the industrial development agreement.

The member asked me why the Ministry of International Trade, Science and Investment was involved. Well, maybe a small lesson in economics is in order at this time. The investment is coming from the United States, the project's primary market is the United States, and that sort of makes it international trade and investment.

He asked me when I first was involved in this. The Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment brought the Louisiana-Pacific project and other similar proposals before the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, which I chair, in late 1985.

Questions that he asked about the impact on the plywood industry have been thoroughly addressed. It became obvious that in the face of changing market conditions and competition from oriented strandboard and waferboard, the establishment of new waferboard mills in B.C., with private sector initiatives, should be part of the industrial adjustment process.

[ Page 8105 ]

To summarize the questions, Mr. Speaker, the government provided an interest-free loan to a corporation from the United States to create 400 new permanent jobs in this province, to maintain existing jobs at CAE in Vancouver, in the member's own riding, through the resulting purchase of equipment from that firm to make B.C. a leader in the introduction of new waferboard plant technology; to create a use for the previously underutilized wood-product resource of aspen; to create additional foreign markets for our own wood products, to broaden and enhance the economic infrastructure of the Dawson Creek area, to bring new freight business to B.C. Rail; and to demonstrate to British Columbia what business and government can accomplish by being in partnership.

The 125 people who have permanent jobs at the waferboard plant aren't complaining. The 275 people who'll be working in the woods aren't complaining. The workers and management at CAE aren't complaining. In fact, the president of CAE has sent a letter to that member's chief researcher, Marjorie Nichols. complaining very bitterly about the misuse of what were not facts in this whole case. Nobody's complaining except the member for Vancouver East, and for both those members, jobs are being created in their constituency. It's the first waferboard mill in the province.

It's interesting, just as an aside, Mr. Speaker, that the papers today are talking about this place being kind of dull these days, and I can see why now. With the kind of research that the members on the opposite side do, it makes it pretty hard to find anything dramatic to raise in the House.

There's one other question that a member asked me, and I'm sure he would wish that he hadn't asked it. He asked me how many interest-free loans have been provided in B.C. I'd like him to check his mail, Mr. Speaker, because last week I provided to each member of this Legislature information on low-interest loans and grants provided by my ministry to each of their constituents. The total number of such contributions was about 3,245.

Perhaps if the member has any more questions on this matter, Mr. Speaker, he would raise them with me privately and avoid any further embarrassment.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hope the Chair will be as generous with the opposition as the Chair has been with the government this afternoon in the handling of question period.

There is no administration in North America that would make the kinds of grants that were made by this administration — $25 million. The maximum in all of the United States is $10 million, under their legislation. You check those jurisdictions; they will tell you in Oregon, in Minnesota. Nobody will be suckered the way this administration....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Is there a question?

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, first, I would remind the second member for Vancouver East that when the Chair stands, it is incumbent upon all members to take their places. The penalty is well known, and at this time I will ask the second member for Vancouver East to leave the chamber for the remainder of the day.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you throw us all out?

MR. SPEAKER: Give me the opportunity, hon. member, and I'd be quite happy to oblige.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that in keeping order in the House it is very important that we watch carefully when any member is canvassing the conduct of other members in this House. I would submit that a careful review of the comments of the minister will show that he not only provided information to the House but also cast aspersions on and denigrated the conduct of members of the opposition as a whole, and made a personal attack interspersed with that speech. I would recommend Mr. Speaker review the comments.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, during the course of question period, from time to time members ask questions that are not replied to in question period, but are taken as notice. When a series of questions are asked, some of them lengthy, some of them numerous, it is the option of the minister either to respond to those questions during question period or to table or to make a statement at the conclusion of question period. That is not for the Chair to determine; it is the determination of the member involved. Hon. members, if during that same course of reflection the member wishes to check and see how many questions on that subject were asked by the hon. second member for Vancouver East, he will find that there were numerous questions asked, taken as notice and responded to.

It if is the wish of members not to have questions responded to in question period, then those questions should be placed on the order paper. If not, hon. members, the Chair is bound to listen to the answer, particularly when several of those questions are asked.

[2:30]

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I accept most of what you've said, but with respect, I think you have missed some of the points that I've made. I've sat here and had my conduct canvassed by the minister in a speech in which he is supposedly responding to questions asked — open-ended or closed, narrowly confined or wide-open; that may or may not be the case. But the minister has canvassed the conduct of me and every other member in the opposition benches, probably including the Conservative member here as well, because I don't think he restricted himself to the official opposition in his comment.

That is the point that I'm trying to bring up here: that members should be very careful when they are canvassing the

[ Page 8106 ]

conduct of others. If he had restrained his enthusiasm to the information rather than personal attack, then I think we could have avoided this incident.

MR. SPEAKER: The points by the member are well taken, particularly as they relate to the conduct of other members of the House. On a similar point of order, I have three people standing, hon. member; I will recognize first the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen anything quite like this in my experience. I find it very sad, because we worked together — two parties — on a rules reform committee. We worked very well together. One of the purposes was to try to get some kind of order and civilization into this chamber, as difficult as it is.

One of the things we worked on was the oral question period. The minister does have two options. There are certain ministers we don't even ask questions of, because they're constant clock-eaters; you know that whatever you ask them you might as well forget the question period. This is a perfect example. The minister had a perfect right to get up and respond to questions briefly and precisely: or he could have done it after, where he didn't eat up the whole question period. He had it all written out. He had what amounts to a statement on motions, where somebody else could have got up and replied at equal length. He chose not to do that, because he hid behind the rules; that's what he did.

I draw the House's attention to 47A. I feel very badly about this, because there are a number of people in this House that try to act fairly and don't think it's funny to bend the rules or hide behind them. Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude by saying this. I'm terribly angry, and I'm terribly disappointed with the whole demeanour of this particular question period. Rule 47A(b): "Questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." The member for Vancouver East was thrown out of the House because he tried to respond in a way that he considered appropriate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with respect....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. If we are discussing points of order, and we are trying to convey some sort of information, may we at least have the courtesy of hearing those who are putting forth the arguments.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) nearly always explodes when I stand to speak.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the rules regarding oral question period, I think the root of the problem may be found in something to which the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) inadvertently alluded: that is, that we have found over recent months that questions are carrying far more preambles and statements, in some instances, than was the case some time ago. Mr. Speaker, if a series of questions arc posed to members of the government benches containing statements and, at times, inferring other aspects of action, then I think we're going to have the kind of response which my colleague the minister gave a few minutes ago. It's unavoidable, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the last question that was asked of me....

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, right now I'm in the middle of some points of order. I will allow you that opportunity at the conclusion.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke seeks the floor, for the purpose of...?

MR. MICHAEL: A question.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, not at this time.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we still have a short time left in question period, but I must not let the remarks of the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), in referring to the reason for the expulsion of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), go without comment. Clearly, hon. member, the reason for the expulsion of the member was not because of the statement he was making, nor because of any other purpose other than the fact that he remained standing while the Chair was standing in its place, and that is an automatic expulsion in this chamber. It applies, as all members know, equally. That was the reason for the expulsion, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena will withdraw that remark at this time — categorically.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: I have to stand in order to get your attention, Mr. Speaker. Which remark did you want me to withdraw?

MR. SPEAKER: The member will withdraw the remark that the Chair knows very well that that is not the case. The member will withdraw that remark.

MR. HOWARD: Well, if the Chair says he does not know very well that that is the case, I withdraw it.

Interjections.

[ Page 8107 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, for the second time I'll ask the member to withdraw the remark.

MR. HOWARD: I thought I did, and if there's doubt in your mind. I do.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. members, the Chair will at this time comment once more about question period. It is totally unacceptable to the Chair to hear arguments from members that the Chair is anything but impartial in question period. For any member of this House to state that preambles have been limited in questions by the opposition is totally without foundation, and a careful check of the records will bear that out. The same applies to those who would comment on responses to questions.

It is my firm belief that members of this House are allowed every possible latitude in this most important period of time in the parliamentary day, and that is question period. This is an opportunity where members of the opposition have every right to question members of the government. That right will be upheld by the Chair.

The rules which guide us in question period are firm, and I have stated on many occasions that if the Chair were to firmly force adherence to the rules of question period, there would be very few questions acceptable. I urge members to consider that before they would make such comments as to their availability to question in this House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We're back in question period, Mr. Speaker? I just answered the last response by the member for Vancouver East before he left, and he had in it, I believe, two questions. One was questioning the size of what he termed as a grant to Louisiana-Pacific in the Dawson Creek area. Just to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, there has been no grant given to Louisiana-Pacific. There was a $25 million repayable loan made to that company, not a grant. The second implied question had to do with some information about what the United States might do in similar terms. I promise to bring a full answer to that question to question period on Monday.

WESTAR TIMBER

MR. LEA: A question to the Premier. Is the Premier aware of or does he have any knowledge of negotiations going on between Westar Timber and any company for the sale of the Prince Rupert pulp mill?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. LEA: A question to the Minister of Finance. Arc there any applications for help or advice in front of the Treasury Board in regard to a possible negotiated sale of the Prince Rupert pulp mill by Westar to another company?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the member, I would have to take the question as notice, because the member would appreciate, having been a minister, that the number of Treasury Board applications before the board at any given time are quite numerous, and I would not want to give a spur-of-the-moment answer which might be incorrect. I'll take it as notice.

MR. LEA: Is the Minister of Finance aware of any negotiations between a company called Tembec for the purchase of the Prince Rupert pulp mill from Westar"

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not even familiar with the name the member has mentioned. Could he even spell it for me? I don't know the name.

MR. LEA: It's T-e-m-b-e-c.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as my previous answer indicated, obviously I'll have to take that question as notice.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance and to the Premier as well. Because Westar owns and operates more than a pulp mill in the northwest — they have three sawmills operating in the area — I'd like to ask whether the questions asked by the member for Prince Rupert could be applicable there as well. In his inquiry, would he look to see whether any of those sawmills arc involved in any negotiations about sale?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If there appears to be any context and if it falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance, then I would be happy to answer the questions.

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS

MR. ROSE: I have probably what somebody could refer to frivolously as a world-shaking question. The whole world is concerned about the irresponsibility of the Soviet government in not advising their neighbours about the recent tragedy at Chernobyl in the nuclear plant. I'd like to ask the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs what action he has taken to protect British Columbians against a possible accident at the plant at Hanford, Washington, which is about 500 miles from the Canadian border.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I will take the question as notice.

MR. ROSE: I have a second question, Mr. Speaker. Sister Rosalie Bertell, who is a renowned expert on nuclear science, says that Hanford is an accident waiting to happen. I wonder if the minister has decided to raise this issue in every available forum, including the federal government, because at the moment the federal government's long-term policy is not to oppose nuclear plants that are near our borders. Now this is especially pertinent, since our nuclear moratorium in B.C. Is due to expire in February.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken on notice.

[2:45]

PREPAREDNESS FOR DEMONSTRATIONS

MR. MICHAEL: We live in a province possessed of a great number of politically aware and environmentally conscious groups and individuals quick to bear witness to their convictions in street rallies, demonstrations, marches and all manner of peaceful protest. Can the Attorney-General assure this House that the police and civic authorities are prepared to handle the inevitable large demonstrations sure to follow during the weekend in the wake of the terrible incident and

[ Page 8108 ]

subsequent spread of radioactive dust throughout many parts of the world?

We have in the past witnessed such activities in response to events connected to the nuclear policies and performance of the other superpower, the United States, and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that on the weekend we will see massive demonstrations. I wonder if the Attorney-General has prepared the police and civic authorities for these demonstrations.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 48, I believe it is, about two days' notice being required for a motion, and to give verbal notice, very regrettably, that we saw during question period an opportunity for the alligators in the House to have their way and for decent, respectable people not to be able to respond. I need, therefore, to give notice of a motion with respect to the conduct of the Chair in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: What a surprise.

MINING STOCK TRANSACTIONS

HON. MR. SMITH: May I answer a question put to me in question period, and taken on notice. On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Speaker, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked me why I had not responded to a question which he asked me during question period on June 25, 1985. That was a question about a company called New Cinch Mines and their problems with the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

I've had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to review Hansard for that day, and I did indicate in the answer I gave on that day that if there was any basis for charges to be laid after viewing the evidence, those matters would be dealt with. The matter was being fully investigated, and if charges were laid people would be dealt with in public. I received no further made, and no evidence was uncovered, Mr. Speaker, which would support the laying of a criminal charge. It is not normal to report back to the Legislature that a criminal charge is not being laid. But since a question was revived, with renewed interest, ten and a half months later, I know the member would want to know that. No charges arc being laid.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM)
FINANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm pleased to stand and move second reading of Bill 12, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before you provides a legislative backing for the return of local spending autonomy to school boards in the province. The Education (Interim) Finance Act, which this bill amends, was first introduced in this House in 1982, as part of a series of government-wide measures to gain control over the ever-increasing spending in the public sector. It gave the Minister of Education power to establish budget limits for each school district. Mr. Speaker, the reason for that, of course, as we all know, was the economic downturn in the province and this government's responsibility to attempt to provide services within the taxpayers' ability to pay.

Over the past few years, Mr. Speaker, we have, I believe, put our financial affairs in order. It is now possible to remove those budgetary restrictions placed on school boards. The bill before you will do just that. School boards will now have the ability to set their own school board budget level. Each year the government will set a shareable operating amount for each district and will provide grants to ensure that each district is capable of financing this level of spending without resorting to unacceptable levels of local taxation. Sharable operating amounts will continue to reflect differences in local conditions. For example, the fiscal framework that we use will continue to take into consideration the high cost of running small schools in dispersed school districts, as well as supporting special needs students. Also, the province will continue to provide greater support to districts with a weaker tax base.

If a school board wishes to spend more than the shareable operating amount, it will be able to do so, provided it is willing to levy local taxes to support the supplementary amount it wishes to spend over and above the amount provided under the fiscal framework. The government will no longer have the power to directly control school board budgets. The shareable operating amounts will provide an appropriate level of spending to support a quality education, and therefore the provincial government will not share in the cost of expenditures beyond that shareable amount. However, as I said, school boards will be able to finance supplementary spending through residential property taxation. They will not be required to seek prior approval of their taxpayers through a referendum, but they must, of course, be sensitive, and certainly accountable, to the local opinion of their electorate. Along with the ability to tax comes accountability and responsibility at the local level.

The amendments proposed in this bill also meet some of the concerns expressed through the "Let's Talk About Schools" project that was carried out by my predecessor last year. Some of the results of that project indicated that over 80 percent of the public felt that the province should set a basic level of service in education. Mr. Speaker, through the shareable operating budget, the province will provide sufficient funds to support such a level of service by the fiscal framework formula that we have in the Ministry of Education.

Secondly, the "Let's Talk About Schools" project indicated that 75 percent of the respondents said school boards should have more autonomy than they had at that time. This bill will allow them to set spending limits and will re-establish clear local control over budgetary divisions.

Under this legislation, the school boards have the discretion to exceed shareable operating amounts, but, as I said before, they are fully accountable to their taxpayers for the action they take. I think this new approach greatly clarifies responsibility for budgetary and financing decisions. Mr. Speaker, some of the results of setting budgets in the last week indicate that a number of school districts have been very responsible; some have increased taxes on local residential property owners by a very small amount; and some, I must admit, have exceeded what I think are realistic amounts. Of course, their electorate will have to judge the management ability of those school boards.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 8109 ]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the School Act review committee which I am in the process of appointing will also have an opportunity to propose further modifications should they be required with regard to the funding of schools. The proposed financing system that this bill provides will stay in place until the work of the School Act review committee is finalized and its recommendations debated and incorporated into a new School Act.

With those remarks, I am quite pleased to answer any questions that the members may have on the principle of the bill. I move second reading.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself, the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano, I take pleasure in introducing to the House some students from Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver and their teacher, Jim Adams. Would the House please give them a very nice welcome. Thank you for being here.

MR. BARNES: I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I would like the House to join me in welcoming the executive director of the Vancouver Food Bank, along with one of the board members: Sylvia Russell and Mr. Arne Olsen.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I think that my attitude towards this bill is well known and echoes the feelings about it throughout the province. To me it is a bill designed to restore a modicum of local autonomy, to add confusion into the tax picture and to get the government off the hook for the fact that they are directly to blame for the tax hikes that are going on in about 60 out of 75 school districts.

While the minister has talked about his view about this bill and also the fact that he thinks that some of the tax hikes have been excessive, he can't have it both ways. Either he is going to give the school districts some power and the means to raise their taxes locally and take full responsibility at the next election for their actions, or he isn't. You can't be half-pregnant about this. This thing is cleverly designed as a political document to let the school boards finance residences only; not the 100 percent of the tax base available to them through the machinery, commercial, industrial, but only percent, which amounts to 12 percent if you limit the tax base.

So under the guise of giving the school boards more power, he has set up a perfect situation. Incidentally, it applies in my riding as well as that of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), where the school board agonized the other night whether or not to add $21 or $25 to each residence and finally, through the aid of a lobby, aided and abetted I think by a prominent MLA in that area — but I can't prove it — decided to go for $21 on each residence. I assume that budget has been submitted to the ministry.

Who is responsible for that tax raise? Is it that irresponsible school board, one out of 60 who said that they didn't have enough money because the framework screwed them out of it, even to maintain a status quo budget? So when those tax notices go out from the municipality, who are they going to get mad at? The minister is going to scapegoat and talk about greedy schoolteachers. They had nothing to do with it. There's no raise in there. There is hardly even any money available for increments.

What is the result of this besides a blatant attempt to have the residential property-owner get mad at the school board, and by extension schoolteachers, and by extension all kinds of education? The result in my riding is the nine junior-high cafeterias to be closed down next September, for a saving of $236,000 or roughly $50 per student; that's the subsidy. Had they added a $25 increase instead of a $21 increase…. They are frightened. They want to keep it to a minimum because they don't feel that they should be raising it locally anyway. Their means of raising that money was confiscated from them. It was taken away from them. They didn't have the opportunity to spend them. I know, for instance, if Vancouver had that tax base back, they would have had a reduced school tax by 60 percent. Instead of that, they are forced to load an increase on the local taxpayer. They don't want to do that. Nine cafeterias are being closed in my riding. It would have meant $4 a residential property. And the school board is struggling. They have a Hobson's choice, because they know they're going to be blamed whatever they do.

This is going on all over the province. It's another example of the confrontation tactics that this government has been involved in as far as education goes for four years, if not five — going back to Vander Zalm — and it's just unacceptable. It is just absolute nonsense. And they say: "Well, we've got extra money. We're giving you $110 million from the excellence fund." Where did they get the $110 million from in the excellence fund? I don't need to say it again. It's in the record fifteen times that it was a shell game stolen, confiscated, from the base budget.

[3:00]

So on the one hand they starve education, and then they blame the schoolteachers and the school boards for a drop in quality. They say: "We're not mad at the schoolteachers at all." They knew last fall in a document which was.... It was a leaked one, but not by me this time, Mr. Minister, by Eric Buckley. The minister's own document said you're going to be something like $150 million short, because you've changed the framework, or the framework doesn't take account of a number of things including inflation and increments and a number of other things.

So it isn't just a case of school funding. It's the manipulation of school funding for an advantage, for a political advantage, to cause confrontation, to cause fights, to cause controversy, to cause anything but calm and stability in our education system. Everybody knows that. You take that well-known Social Credit card-carrying chairman of' the B.C. School Trustees' Association, Mr. Eric Buckley. What did he say yesterday? He says: "Trustees blame cabinet for school tax confusion." The minister promised clarity a few minutes ago. Clarity. It's confusion.

So for $4 a residence, nine cafeterias are going to be closed in my and my neighbour's riding. What's that going to mean? That's going to mean that those kids who go there — many from single parent families, many from families in which both parents are working — for nutritious breakfasts and lunches are going to be forced into the fast food outlets. They'll become fast-food junkies.

[ Page 8110 ]

We talk about concern for education. There's no concern for education or for children. The whole purpose of the thing is to hammer trustees and hammer teachers and create a problem so that there is a diversion. Let everybody know: the problem in education is this government. It's not the boards or the teachers. This government has pushed hundreds of teachers right out of this jurisdiction down to California.

What has Buckley got to say? It says in yesterday's Sun: "B.C. School Trustees' Association president Eric Buckley charges that the cabinet has deliberately made a maze of school taxes." A maze of school taxes. A three-tiered tax system he calls it, right? There's one from the government – always too little, right? There's another one from the local residences – a tax base of a pinhead, 8 percent, while the government takes 92 percent of the funds and then shortchanges each of the districts. Then the final one will be from the excellence fund. We'll be debating that later, but that's a slush fund. That's all that is. All that is is money confiscated from the school budgets to put in an excellence fund. If you want to know how to deal with an excellence fund, I can give you some good models, and they're not like yours at all. They're not political models. They're models of social service and responsibility. They operate in North York, they operate in Toronto, they've operated in New York. There are all kinds of models if you're looking for models. But I'll talk about that in the next debate.

"In total, B.C. boards have told Victoria they need $130 million just to maintain last year's level of service. That has resulted in tax increases in 60 districts." I don't know, Mr. Speaker; that doesn't seems to me to he heading toward increasing stability in school funding or education. It's the continuation of the whole process that has gone on for four years.

Here's another one, on page A3 of the Vancouver Sun, April 22: "Average School Tax Increase Put at $30 by Board Official." Here's another one from the Vancouver Sun on May 5. The Vancouver Sun is hardly a radical leftist document, you know. It's hardly a rag of the far left. Certainly its editorial opinion is.... Some of its columnists maybe tend to be a little bit pink, but not very many of them. Some of them. I think it's a reasonably balanced newspaper. What have they got to say about this? "Last year the policy was to fire school trustees who refused to follow the ministry's budgetary guidelines. This year the policy is to grab money from urban homeowners. What will it be next year?" We've had policy changes, directives, changes in autonomy.

One of the worst things that l can see in this whole thing is the business of the break in trust as far as the sunset clause is concerned. Trustees were promised in 1983 that if they stayed quiet and permitted their total global budgets to be taken over by the Minister of Education, they would get some relief in three years.

I can give you another quote, if I can find it here, from the same Mr. Buckley who was quoted as saying they had been betrayed. They were promised they could have their autonomous right to teacher bargaining, setting their own budgets, raising their own taxes – to a number of things – and they were betrayed in Bill 12. The sunset clause, which abolishes the minister's right to control the global budget of the school, is still there. The sunset right has been removed, which means we're going to have a total centralization of the powers, as we've had for the last four years. The minister will get up and say: "Well, we gave you back those rights. You can now tax 8 percent.... You have to live with it, though. If the people, the ratepayers, become irate payers and get mad at you, then you're going to have to take the consequences."

Mr. Minister, your party is going to have to take the consequences. All the polls indicate that you're a flop. Your educational policies have flopped. You may think that you're going to bash teachers because of some kind of resentment about teachers, that the teaching profession is greedy, lazy and incompetent, as you term them, but you're not going to get away with it. They know your excellence fund is a sham, and they also know that Bill 12 is a sham, because all that does is give them and local boards enough right to hang themselves. People may say: "Well, I don't know about that, you guys in the NDP. I think I'm a little worried about that. If I were the Socreds, I would go out and say: 'The NDP voted against giving local autonomy back to the boards. The NDP is against excellence.'" l know all those things: I know all the propaganda and half-truths; I know what you're going to do. But after all, I think there should be some kind of integrity. I think the people have a right to know the truth about this.

What are they being given? They're being given a modicum of autonomy so that they can become inviting targets – just sitting ducks is what they are. They were fooled once; they believed you once. They won't trust you again. Even your friend and card-carrying member, the chairman of the BCSTA, says he has been betrayed. Your own card-carrying chairman says the school trustees have been betrayed.

I don't think you should be applauded for giving the boards the right to load the homeowners, while you maintain the lucrative 92 percent, the taxes on machinery, equipment and commercial, on the grounds that somehow that's equitable because that's going to be shared throughout the province. We had a system before in which if you didn't have the right kind or enough machinery or equipment in your particular municipality, then you got a grant to make up for it. If you had too much to pay your school budget, it went to the Crown. That's fair.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

But that's not what you're doing now. And who is it going to hurt? It's going to hurt the urban boards because you took away their tax base: and, by and large, their assessments are large enough that they don't profit entirely from the homeowner grant. It's a clever little manoeuvre. I think it's absolutely clear, and it's absolutely shameful. I don't know whether we can win in the battle for the minds and hearts of the electorate.

Anyway, what have we got here in Bill 12? The bill gives the school districts authority to set their own budgets and levy residential property taxes to cover the difference between the boards' budgets and the fiscal frameworks. Well, I percent in the inflation rate will be a 12.5 percent increase in the property taxes. Our survey of school districts a little while ago showed that at least $45 million will be needed in all the school districts just to maintain last year's level. What have you really given them? You've given them the power to get in trouble, that's all. You're dumping more and more of the costs of schools onto the homeowner. Instead of adding more government responsibility, you're dumping it on the schools. What have you done? Since 1982-83 you've cut $75 million from provincial support to schools. That's not even counting inflation. It forces residential property taxes to increase $13

[ Page 8111 ]

million. You've dumped $13 million more on local residences.

Of course, they're not going to blame you. That's what you think — that they're going to blame the schoolteachers and those spendthrift school boards, on which there might be, I think, 20 schoolteachers out of some 300 or 400 school trustees. You've cut services, and the worst part of it is that whether you're talking about learning assistance, cafeterias, busing, safety, cleanliness or whatever, you're hurting the kids. I know you'd like to make it this way, but this argument isn't about schoolteachers. This argument is about young British Columbians, and you're cutting their throats. You're ruining their opportunities, on the grounds that somehow, if we only got back to the little red schoolhouse, everything would come up roses. Well, it's not going to. The damage that you're doing right now we won't see for perhaps almost a generation. You've got a situation where you've narrowed the curriculum to the point where it is meaningless for up to 60 percent of the kids. So they quit. Not because they can find work; they just quit.

What's bill 12 all about? It's a sham. The B.C. school trustees and your member, Mr. Eric Buckley, say it's a sham, and for once I agree with a Socred. Your policies are shameful and your fund is a sham.

The minister still maintains the right to alter how much is shareable. The minister can say: "You can do that if you like, folks. Here's your local autonomy. We'll give you some local autonomy. You can do what you like. If you want to add a drama class, or spend extra money on busing or field trips, you can do that; we'll let you do that." On the surface. But the minister, in this bill, has the power to alter that and decide how much the government will share. That's not a fair policy, that's not an equitable policy, and it's certainly a timid step toward any kind of autonomy that I know about.

If you're going to sit back like an armchair quarterback and second-guess every trustee.... What do you want to do? Do you want to take over the whole thing? Why don't you? You got rid of the resource boards, you got rid of the hospital boards; you appointed them all, any kind of opposition. When the college boards were partially elected and caused you a little bit of static, you got rid of them, appointed them all, nice, malleable Socreds, so they don't make any racket.

Maybe if you got rid of school boards you'd get rid of some more opposition. You could have a one-party state here, which reminds me a little bit of Yugoslavia or Zambia or even Alberta. That's what you've got. That's what you want. You don't want any voices. You've systematically cut the budget as you've raised it everywhere else.

I've been over these figures with you — 11 percent, 1983-84. Am I getting to you? Under restraint, 1983-84, you increased government spending 11 percent; 1984-85: 5.3 percent; 1985-86: 3.9 percent. All the time you're cutting school budgets. You're adding $13 million over that same period on to the local taxpayer. I think it's absolutely shameful; you should be ashamed of yourselves. You've got a situation now where once upon a time, in 1979, when we started out with Vander Zalm, we had 2,000 teachers under 26 years of age — young, vibrant, energetic teachers. Do you know how many we have now? We have 377 in the whole province. They've gone down to California.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's happened to enrolment?

MR. ROSE: Don't talk to me about that. Don't talk to me about enrolment. You have cut school budgets 25 percent and over the same period enrolments have dropped 10 per cent. You're savaging schools while you're pumping up everything else in government spending. You're deliberately downsizing schools. You're the people who cause these dropouts. There's the guy that's responsible. Same old policies, brand-new minister. I know how the people in Agriculture liked him.

What have we got now? Teachers under 31: in 1979 we had 8,000; today we have only 3,000 under 31. I think it's dreadful, shameful, inequitable, and I'm not the only person who thinks that. Even the school superintendents have opposed you publicly. What are you going to make them, civil servants? When you get rid of all the school boards and you go into regional boards, which is probably your long-term plan, will you then reappoint inspectors so that the local boards, locally elected, when they're sick of your policies, will have to take direction through the government superintendent like we had in the old days, and they will report directly to the minister? I wouldn't be at all surprised. You think that those administrators hired by the school board get too much money anyway.

You'll go back to a system where the Deputy Minister of Education got less money than some school principals and superintendents in Vancouver. That was bad news. No wonder we had bad policies in schools. We couldn't attract the proper kind of people. Are you going to do the same thing all over again? Downsize everything everywhere you look?

[3:15]

If you hadn't taken $24 million for non-salary inflation out of the excellence fund and spent it there, and $5.6 million out of the university operating budgets and spent it on excellence, and $75 million on the universities, and 4.4 percent on college budgets and $6.2 million on student aid, and $6.6 on textbooks and $3.3 on BCIT and $19.0 for salary increments, you would have money in the school budgets which would not require those increases in taxes. But you know that!

I'm saying that you took that money out of the school budgets and gave it back in the form of capital and salary grants, not excellence grants. That's where you spent it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: If they had a decent tax base and these funds hadn't been removed.... Do you want to know where they come from? I'll tell you where they come from.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could remind ourselves that we're not in committee; we're in a bill. The member was doing a good job of staying to the principle of the bill, but he keeps being interrupted. So perhaps the member would stick to the bill.

MR. ROSE: Well, if I was sticking to the principle, then that makes me principal. If the minister wasn't sticking to the principle, I ask you, what does that make him?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will endeavour to maintain order and not give guidance to the member.

MR. ROSE: The public school system was underfunded last year by $65 million. That's where you got part of your education fund. If you had put that back.... He admitted

[ Page 8112 ]

here in his speech, twice during the education estimates, that if he'd known then what he knows now.... You're a relatively new minister, a tyro — not a tyrant but a tyro — as a school inspector. What are you? Oh yes, you're the Minister of Education. I keep forgetting. They wouldn't have had to raise those taxes to the point they did in 60 districts out of 75.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the other people are going to vote on this. I just can't stomach this somehow. I don't think this twinkle, this window of autonomy, is really going to wash very well. If they're desperate for money, I think they're certainly going to raise taxes, the same as they're certainly going to go after the excellence bait. I don't blame them for that. But I think the principle is wrong. Restore complete autonomy to the districts. You've taken it away — 92 percent of it,100 percent for four years — and you think you should be congratulated for giving them back 8 percent in order to create more controversy and struggle and fights in every locality, including mine.

MR. PARKS: I rise to support the bill, and rather than deal with some of the overall comments that the colleague from Coquitlam-Moody has just concluded with, I think it's important to note that although he rambled for most of his allotted time, he commenced his remarks by at best alluding to, at the worst specifically accusing me of getting involved with the deliberations of our school board a week ago this past Tuesday evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's new about that?

MR. PARKS: The member chirping from the background asks what's new about that. Quite frankly, I have no hesitation in conceding to him and everyone else in this chamber – for that matter, everyone else in the province – that I take pride in participating in a very important facet of my community, of our community. In fact, I found it quite amazing that the most important school board meeting in Coquitlam, which took place within this past two-week period...that the other representative from that school district, the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who just happens to be the education critic, did not see fit to make the arrangements to be in attendance and give his participation with respect to specifics. Again in the House this afternoon we have him referring in grand generalities about the school system being gutted and the minister not providing sufficient funds.

I should take this opportunity, because I'm sure that hon. member did not mean to mislead the House when he referred to the fact that the Coquitlam school district submitted a budget with a zero increase for wages. In fact, if that member had been at the school board meeting, I'm sure he would be aware that their budget incorporates a 2 percent wage increase. If he had been at that school board meeting, Mr. Speaker, he would have noted that the overage, if you will, that the Coquitlam School Board has now decided to take to the residential taxpayers in Coquitlam represents some $2 million plus, comprised of approximately $800,000 for maintenance and just in excess of $ 1 million for the salaries and increments.

What is so interesting is that if you analyze the past two or three years' performance in the Coquitlam School District, you will see that until this past fiscal period just ended, the school district had surpluses. They have taken all of those surpluses and decided to spend that money to maintain the number of teachers as well as to provide for increments, while at the same time the number of pupils – the enrolment in our school district – has steadily decreased. It has decreased to the point that in School District 43, the Coquitlam School District, we presently have 13 schools with less than 50 percent capacity utilization.

AN HON. MEMBER: Close them down!

MR. PARKS: I'm not here to advocate school closures; that's not my role. That's the role of the school board. But I will tell that hon. member as well as the House that I did make that point at that school meeting. The motion to put forth a surplus budget, as I refer to it, was on the floor when I arrived at that meeting – having to come from Victoria, I couldn't get there until well into the meeting – but I did note to them that I thought it was somewhat curious that a school district with declining enrolment, with more than a dozen schools with less than 50 percent capacity, using in excess of a million dollars this past year out of their surplus fund, still saw fit to specifically provide for further teachers and for further teacher increments and salary increments.

MR. ROSE: It's a contract.

MR. PARKS: Loudly and clearly in this House, as well as in various press releases, the Minister of Education has very clearly – I'm sure, even to that member – made it known that the fiscal framework was not going to allow for any increases, be it negotiated salary or increments. The school boards were told that in very plain terms. In very plain terms they were told that if the school boards wanted to provide increases for salary or increments, they would have to pass that on to the residential taxpayer.

Our school board, specifically, has elected to do that, obviously. It's unfortunate that they have taken that route, to cast more burden onto the residential taxpayers, while at the same time they have looked at the situation where we have in one school – obviously well under capacity – an operating cost per student of well in excess of $4,000 per student, hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in excess of the provincial average. Yet with these facts, that particular school board saw fit to say: "No, we will use this rhetoric about the system being gutted and our duty to preserve the system. Don't worry about the declining enrolment; that's a fact we don't want to address. Don't worry about the increased number of teachers; that fact we don't want to address. We have a political agenda." That's what those school trustees are suggesting.

That is the issue that I addressed at that school board meeting. I wonder if that's not the issue that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has been addressing: a political agenda – not dealing with the realities of school board management, not talking about responsible fiscal management. He uses the phrase: "We have the trust of the taxpayer. We must deal with the taxpayer fairly." Of course we must. I would expect everyone in this House to take that position. But I don't think it's fair or reasonable or properly fulfilling our role and our responsibilities to the taxpayers to merely say: "Well, no, we won't put the school boards into that decision-making process. We won't say that the reason they were elected to be school trustees was to responsibly manage the affairs of that school district."

[ Page 8113 ]

Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there were in excess of 100 taxpayers and parents at that meeting that the member for Coquitlam-Moody saw fit not to attend.

MR. ROSE: Where was that meeting?

MR. PARKS: That meeting was in the school board offices, and because there were so many parents and taxpayers....

Interjection.

MR. PARKS: I didn't interrupt you, hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. It's been a while since we've taken a bill through the House. I think some members have forgotten that we're not in committee. We're in second reading of the bill. Perhaps we could proceed without interruptions.

MR. PARKS: The meeting was taking place in the school board offices, where they usually do, but because there were so many parents and taxpayers — so many concerned parents and taxpayers — the meeting was adjourned to an elementary school across the street. That overflow crowd of concerned parents and taxpayers vociferously and vehemently made their intentions known to the school board. They did not appreciate the so-called management talents of the school board, and they did not appreciate having the school board decide to pass on tax increases to them. That obviously fell on some deaf ears, since the majority of that school board saw fit to increase the budget over the fiscal framework guidelines. They don't mind passing on another $21 for the four-month period, perhaps some $56 for the next calendar period, to a school district where, I believe, the net school taxes this year are something like $18. Obviously that means it's going to balloon to something in the vicinity of $75 next year. That represents about a fourfold to fivefold increase. We're not talking about pre-tax dollars, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about post-tax dollars for the taxpayer; that's an extremely significant increase to the residential taxpayers of my school district.

I went to that meeting, saying: "I don't think our taxpayers deserve, and I don't think that the school board needs, those funds." Obviously the member for Coquitlam-Moody thinks the taxpayers of Coquitlam want an increase in their taxes and are prepared for an increase in taxes. Well, I happen to think – in fact, I know, Mr. Speaker – they are not prepared to accept this frivolous increase that is going to be brought about as a result of the school board not dealing with the issues in a responsible fashion. The school board's election will be coming up this fall, and I would expect that those taxpayers and concerned parents will show their concern at that time.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody suggested there wasn't enough flexibility in the school boards to levy the budget that they would like to levy, to find the sources of funds they would like to have. He indicated he was critical of the government taking away the ability of school boards to increase taxes for the non-residential taxpayer. Well, this government is clearly on record as seeing the need to encourage the business sector, the non-residential sector, and to minimize to a reasonable extent their taxation level. I take it that the member for Coquitlam-Moody – and, for that matter, as the education critic, he is undoubtedly speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition – wants more taxes thrust onto the backs of the already significantly burdened business community. Well, I'm not prepared to endorse that position, and I compliment the minister for bringing in a bill that recognizes that those who are most directly affected – and that would be the residential families – are those who will have to deal with the school boards, should the school boards elect to increase taxes.

The alternative that could well have been followed, rather than the procedure set out in Bill 12, would perhaps have been a referendum system. I wonder if the opposition really wishes to see that system brought back. I happen to think it's a bit onerous. If we are in fact prepared to give school boards the autonomy which this government is clearly prepared to give, and they elect, as they have in Coquitlam, to pass on additional tax burdens to the taxpayers, that should be their prerogative.

That's what this bill puts forth, that's the principle I can support, and I'm sure that the majority of my colleagues in this House will see that also.

[3:30]

MR. COCKE: I'm amazed at what we see before us in the House today. In the first place, we're discussing a bil.... And what an interesting title: Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986. What this actually does is put an end to interim educational finance. There was a sunset clause in each of the last two bills they've brought forward in this assembly, and now the government has suddenly decided: "Let's not play cat and mouse anymore. Let's be honest for a change." You see, either they were not honest to begin with or they are honest now — one or the other. There were promises from that side of the House that the sunset clause would actually take effect, that there would be an end to this question of interim educational financing. But no, they come out with a hammer like this and, as I say, place themselves in a very unenviable position with respect to integrity.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) made a statement along these lines — I'll just paraphrase: that those hundreds of people who came out and took the meeting across the street from the school board office so that they could have their day in court, so to speak, were almost unanimous in their condemnation of the school board for insisting that taxes must be raised in order that the school board might maintain its integrity with respect to the contractual arrangements they had with their staff.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes. Don't say no.

The government has absolutely forced – this is what the government tries to do, and what a bunch of political animals they are in this respect – the school boards to go to the public for an increase in local taxation on two bases. The first is that they stole their commercial and industrial tax base; that now accrues to the provincial government. The second is that they have placed such rigid restrictions on the budgets that the school boards cannot achieve those budgets without raising this money in order to honour their contracts. If a teacher, for example, comes up for an increment – and those increments are contractual from day one – and if that person is fortunate enough to be teaching here as opposed to California, then that

[ Page 8114 ]

person is entitled under contractual arrangements to expect to get that in the pay packet. That's just the way it works.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister, interestingly enough, said that teachers here get paid more.

MR. PARKS: They sure do.

MR. COCKE: All right. Take an American dollar and see how many Canadian dollars that buys. Come off it!

MR. PARKS: Twenty thousand dollars – U.S.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and you compare that with a like person in exactly the same situation – and remember that you're talking about $1.40....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we have had a good school system here, and it is being run down as quickly as possible. I want the members of this government to understand that they're not winning any popularity contest by this merciless savaging that's going on within our school system. The school boards don't trust this government. The parents don't trust this government. Moreover, the opposition understands why they don't trust this government, and yet the backbenchers – the government supporters – don't seem to understand what's happening. It's not only happening under this minister; it's been happening since the beginning of this "restraint period." It's happened to the extent that school boards are in an impossible position.

Now let me read you a couple of quotes, and I wonder if anybody will recognize them:

"…in cooperation with local school boards. After all, the local school trustees have been elected by the people of their own area…they know the area and are responsive to the needs of their community. We would therefore return authority to local school boards, while at the same time eliminating the bureaucracy in the Department of Education. We would also work to return dignity and responsibility to individual classroom teachers — trained professionals who deserve more authority in setting educational objectives for their pupils."

Who made that statement? The author was Bill Bennett. Every word in this article that was distributed in 1975 has given the lie to everything that's happened since. The Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, issued this type of statement, and then we look at what's happening now to our education process in the province of British Columbia. It's in chaos. It's in chaos not because of the fact that there's a reducing student number. It's in chaos because we have a government that has used that as an excuse for placing education at the bottom of their priority list. If it's not at the bottom, I ask you, Mr. Speaker: why is it that there is so much intense animosity toward this government's policy with respect to education? Here we're only dealing with K to 12, but at all levels people are beginning to understand that they did not keep this promise.

Imagine! "In cooperation with local school boards," then gratuitously he says: "After all, the local school trustees have been elected by the people in their own area." I wonder why the Premier doesn't have a talk with some of those Education ministers that he's had over the last year or two or three. "We would therefore return authority," as if authority wasn't in the hands of the school districts at that time.

One of the things that you can depend on the Socreds to do…. You can depend on it absolutely. If you see them come out with a promise during a campaign, then you take that promise, turn it absolutely around 180 degrees, and that's the direction they're going. Freedom-fighters. Dictators: dictators not only in education but dictators in health care, dictators in human resources, dictators in every human service that this government has responsibility for.

School boards. Who are they anymore? The local populace – can they elect a school board? They turn around and find them fired right under their noses. We saw that occur in Vancouver. We saw that occur in Cowichan-Malahat, and it could have occurred in many other school districts if, in fact, they hadn't knuckled under to this dictatorial group called the Socred government of British Columbia. Shame! Shame on this group of people who have so run this province into disrepute that it is going to take the NDP years to bring this province back to where it will receive the respect of the rest of this country and, for that matter, the rest of the Commonwealth.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You don't mean that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't mean anything more, and I can tell you right now that what occurred in this House earlier today was not any more of an indication than what we are seeing right here. I just wish that they would do what they originally said they were going to do, and that would be to be cooperative and helpful, creating a better school system for the children of the province of British Columbia.

They don't seem to recognize that our most important resource is our human resource. They don't seem to care about the most important resource in this province. It is not timber, it's not coal. It's people, and young people are not getting the care and concern from this government that they deserve.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it seems that we have a continuing debate on education going on in this Legislature and around the province, and this is just one of the many ways in which we are indulging in this debate.

This government has really put school boards between a rock and a hard place. They have put them in an untenable position as far as how they handle their finances. They have lost their autonomy, and I say that advisedly, because they have lost their autonomy. If this bill passes, they will have restored to them the right to level taxes at the local level, but only if the minister approves of what that tax is for, because if in fact the minister decides that whatever it is they are going to do with that money is something that he doesn't think they should do, he can simply reduce their budget by that amount.

[3:45]

He is absolutely the overseer. He is the total authority, and school boards are subject to his whim. They can only act if he thinks that is what should happen. He is making the decisions, and what we are seeing is of course a reduction in the tax base. The government confiscated the industrial and commercial tax base some years back and took that into their

[ Page 8115 ]

pockets for the funding of education. and has simply left school boards with only the residential tax base available, which puts them in a position…. Certainly in both the Cowichan and Lake Cowichan School Districts, which I know about, they are in an untenable position, because they are forced, if they are going to be able to provide even a barebones education base, into increasing the tax load on those residential people, those who are responsible for their election and re-election, people who have been facing some severe economic times, a high percentage of them unemployed, living out of UIC now in most instances, living on social assistance and facing a tax increase.

Now in both instances this is going to have to happen. Our current school board chairman at one point indicated that that would not be the case, that if there was no more money forthcoming from the government they would manage. But even he has found now that that is not possible, and they have voted in favour of a budget that is going to cause a tax increase not as large as the chairman of the board would have had it, but there is a group, a majority on that board obviously, who believe that rather than increase the taxes by any appreciable amount — I think the amount they voted on will be something like $5 per average household in Cowichan — they are prepared to cut. Every one of those people who voted against the larger increase and in favour of the smaller increase has been unable to come up with any ideas as to how those cuts can be made.

So the board is really in an untenable position. Lake Cowichan is striving to persuade their electorate that it is of sufficient importance to maintain even the level they have if they are going to maintain even their accreditation, that they must have that extra dollar. I think they are talking about something like $13 per household. Now that doesn't sound very much, but I tell you it is important to the family that is trying to get by on a welfare cheque or a UIC cheque or is living on a very reduced income because of one or more members of the family being unemployed.

So it is a serious situation, and this bill is…. While we agree with the idea of the school board having that ability to tax, it should be on a much fairer basis. You should be starting on an entirely different level. You shouldn't be having to tax the local resident just to cover the bare essentials of an education system, any more than the minister responsible for this bill should be forced to take money out of his so-called Excellence in Education fund to come up with obligatory increments in teachers' salary that they are law-bound to pay or for textbooks or for any other of those kinds of things that are part of the basic system.

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents to me just one of the many things wrong with this government's attitude towards education. Somehow they think — and I don't know if it is deliberate, but I kind of wonder if it is — that if somehow they can discourage young people from getting a good education, they will have a larger number of untrained people in the low priced job market, which will drive down the labour costs and drive down the whole social strata of British Columbia.

We've worked very hard to get a society established that is proud of the kind of standards that we have. It seems that what this government is doing is trying to destroy those standards, trying to destroy the opportunity for every young person to go on to further education or even to complete a grade 12 education. Certainly the figures that were tossed around here some time ago about the number of dropouts in the high school system indicate to me that the minister is achieving just that through economic pressure on families who are forced to move, to leave the district, and as a result the children leave school at grade 10 or 11 level and don't enrol wherever they go. It's a whole new ball game, new friends, a new area, and they just don't carry on. If they do carry on, the interest is gone.

That's certainly something that has happened in the Lake Cowichan area, and it was reflected in that report about the 40 percent dropout. Lake Cowichan was named as one of the areas with a high dropout percentage. That was based on the fact that 40 of those students who left that school in that particular year — and that's a large number in a school with an area the size of the Lake Cowichan district — left because the families moved away. If they didn't enrol somewhere else, they would show up in the total 40 percent. If they did enrol somewhere else, it would give some other school a better level.

That's just one example of the kind of thing that's been happening with education in Lake Cowichan, and it's one example of why we're into a situation where school boards and residential owners are being asked to do the impossible. They're being asked to pick up a much greater portion of the tax load than they should be asked to pick up.

That last dollar concept was there for the localized thing, for the thing above the standards. Those standards used to be set at a reasonable level, but now we're looking at that as being spent for basic needs, things like paper in the classroom, or for just anything you would consider as a basic need of the curriculum. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it's just out of the question for me to see my way to support this move.

The minister is saying that this is a great democratic move, but as I indicated before, it's not that. He still indicates what that basic budget will be, and as long as he sets it at the level he's setting it at, school districts are in a most unfortunate position in trying to deal with their problems, in trying to deal with residents who say: "Look, we simply cannot afford any more school tax," and with the school itself which is saying: "We cannot operate on the level of funding that we have."

It's an impossible situation. It's been deliberately promoted by this government, and the people who are paying the price are the young people of British Columbia. They're being denied a very basic human right – the right to a good level of education.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few remarks along the lines of the debate leader on this bill to amend the Education (Interim) Finance Act.

The thing that I find most disturbing is the creation of another piece of legislation, the excellence fund, of some $110 million, when in fact the government is not meeting the basic requirements of school districts. I know that that is another piece of legislation and that there will be ample opportunity to debate it at the appropriate time, but it seems that the government is fragmenting the system of education funds that should be made available, first in terms of the diverse needs in the province throughout the different school districts. In any event, it should be involved in consultation to ensure that school districts are not having to apply through this new fund under a new set of criteria — and we're not even sure what those are — dealing with excellence.

I had a recent appeal from the Vancouver School Board requesting that I, along with other members of the opposition, appeal to the government to assist them with their

[ Page 8116 ]

application for funds to deal with shortfalls in terms of basic needs in city of Vancouver schools. For instance, over a three-year period the Vancouver School Board anticipates needing $1,494,000 to meet the needs of proficiency in English-as-a-second-language students. They need $321,000 immediately, next year they'll need nearly half a million, and in the third year $675,000. It just goes on. They're wondering if they will be able to get sufficient funds through this program. They're expecting something over $14 million in three years in order to deal with shortfalls that really, I think, the minister should be addressing in terms of guaranteeing that these funds are available. 1 find it something less than encouraging when you consider the kinds of things they are asking for. Just look at some of the categories: integration services for a number of programs, native Indian education services, computers and special education, a comprehensive approach to child sexual abuse….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We are on Bill 12, and, as you yourself indicated, there will be ample time to debate the Excellence in Education fund legislation when it comes before this House. If the hon. member would confine his remarks to Bill 12 and not other proposed or presently filed legislation….

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will accept your clarification. I really just wanted to indicate to the House that we have two separate approaches to providing educational funds, and there really should be one. That's the point I want to make. People in the school districts are having to apply indirectly for something that they should be receiving directly, and they have no guarantees that they're going to get this.

[4:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is adequate for debate, but the substance of the Excellence in Education legislation should not be discussed. The point of there being two separate bills could be.

MR. BARNES: Well then, that leaves us with the bill itself.

You know, the bill has become more political than it should be, because we're trying to deal with real educational needs while the government is clearly exercising every technique at its disposal to create the illusion that it is trying to make the system more efficient through a model approach to providing educational funds, while at the same time it is obviously placing a great burden on school districts, who have to try to extract the additional funds they need from a limited tax base. It's really an approach that is neither tenable nor credible, to say the least. It's irresponsible on the part of the government, and we've already begun to feel the consequences. I think that in light of some of the evidence we've had recently about students dropping out of the system because of its lack of relevance to their real needs, this should be cause for concern. It's not a case of the opposition trying to make political points. Where there is no valid argument…. I question the government's sincerity, when it has removed the basic opportunities for school districts to fairly tax locally for the extra funds they need and when the only option they have is to tax the residences. Those are certainly not the only segment of the population or community that benefits from a well-educated community. Everyone benefits, Mr. Speaker – every sector, every walk of life, from the cradle to the grave. But the government's approach to funding education gives the impression that by providing the grants for education that it is, it's making a gratuitous effort, and anything beyond what it deems to be adequate is the responsibility of the local taxpayers, who do not have the sole responsibility for educating the population.

We're still a democratic society. We're still a mobile people. We're not bound to live in any one community or any one district. Even though we may be born and raised in a community, we are still mobile; we can move from different parts of the province — different parts of the country, for that matter. But the clear indication here is that people who own residential property have the sole responsibility for picking up the shortfall in education. That may be the impression that has been left over the years, because we perhaps have not spoken up enough about what education really should mean in contemporary society. It certainly means a lot more than it has in the past. It certainly means a lot more than reading, writing and arithmetic. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a really sensitive and caring Minister of Education would be reaching out into the community, trying to find out just what direction education should take in the future, instead of digging up old arguments, hanging on to traditional patterns and making such diversionary comments as: "School teachers shouldn't sit on should boards" — this kind of irrelevant statement, totally inappropriate for a sensitive, caring minister.

We have a serious problem in this province. With this legislation we could be looking forward. It could be thinking in terms of where do we go. We're at a time in our history when we're talking about free trade. We're realizing that our traditional sources of revenue are being transformed as a result of new world demands. All kinds of very real changes are taking place in things as they have been in the past and the way they will be in the future. But the minister is sticking to something that is irrelevant and doesn't address those issues. It doesn't seem to me that the government is in tune with what should be happening. We're talking about the lives not just of future generations, but people who are in fact here today.

Just last week the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) described a condition involving the dropout of students that was appalling and should have shocked this government.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And inaccurate.

MR. BARNES: Not inaccurate. Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting that every single number was accurate, but I'm sure the minister does not deny that young people are dropping out of the system. Intelligent people are dropping out of the system.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Fewer than in 1973, '74 and '75.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister will have his opportunity to reply in the close of debate. In the meantime, the first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't bother me that the minister interjects. It shows he has feelings. It shows he has some emotion that he can't control himself when he hears these disturbing comments. I don't mind at all to have him

[ Page 8117 ]

interject. I hope he will stand up. I hope the minister, when he gets an opportunity to respond, will stand….

He has just suggested that the number of dropouts is far less now than it was between 1972 and 1975. Those years, by the way, were when the New Democratic Party was the government. He's trying to make a point that things arc better now than they were then. I think the facts speak for themselves.

The trouble with this government, and especially this minister, is that he's looking back instead of forward. He reminds me of a former President of the United States, Mr. Harry S. Truman, who compared himself to a floojee bird. He said the reason he flies backwards is he doesn't care where he's going, he wants to see where he has been. That seems to be the way this minister is assessing the education system in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to begin to look forward. I can assure you that that is not an easy task for any of us, because none of us have crystal balls; not the opposition or the government side have crystal balls. We do not know for certain what tomorrow will bring, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker…. This government has been talking about partnership. It has been talking about partners in enterprise: we are going to move forward together. Where's the evidence of this partnership? Where's the evidence of this government sitting down with the school districts and talking to them honestly and fairly, being willing to recognize the diverse differences from one school district to the other. This is what we need. We don't need dictatorial policies. The situation is different from one district to the next; it is not a simplistic situation where you could come up with a core program with a model of what the situation should be and say: "This is it. This is a centrally controlled program, and if it doesn't fit, then you can go and make it on your own." That's not fair or responsible, it does not work, and it certainly does very little to encourage cooperation or stimulate any sense of enthusiasm or optimism on the part of people who are dedicated to trying to provide an important educational program for our youth which will benefit the whole of society.

I know that these words are platitudinous and that we've heard them before and they sound somewhat rhetorical. But it is time for us to recognize that there is some substance to this idea of cooperation. It's not just a catch-term that you use for political reasons, political expediency. Cooperation can have meaning if you demonstrate to people that you mean it. Justice can have meaning if you ensure that it happens, that people can see an example of it every now and then. Don't just use it as a means of appearing to be a nice guy. Action is what we need.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Not at the moment, Mr. Member. Perhaps in a moment I'll sit down and you can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I was ruled out of order, I know, for reflecting on some applications to the excellence fund that will be debated in this House very soon, but I think the more you think about it and the more you really look at where the government is going…. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — is he now an expert in excellence? Is the Minister of Education saying that he is an expert in knowing what dollars should be available for education?

It reminds me of the time that I asked the Ministry of Human Resources how they determined how much money should be available for people on social assistance. I'm not going to get into that debate, but the point is, what criteria does the government use that the public can be satisfied relates to the needs of the community? Isn't it time that we began to entrust some confidence and some authority to those people who arc committed to trying to help our youth?

I'm very disturbed by what the government appears to be doing. I know that we're not going to change the government's mind. This is not a new initiative. It's quite consistent with the government's policies with respect to human services. The government has arbitrarily done other things that are just as profound in other fields as those it is now doing with this Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act. We all know what they are, and we are just beginning to see the consequences of some of those initiatives that took place beginning in July, 1983.

This is still the remnants of those restraint measures, still part of that idea that the government claims it cannot spend money it doesn't have, that it has no money of its own and that tax dollars have to be protected. These are not really policies that the government adheres to. It is selective policy making. It applies only in certain situations, particularly when it comes to human services, those things that the government has successfully told us are not things that we can afford. They only come from the surpluses. Only when you have surplus dollars can you afford to do those things.

[4:15]

This is the government that said, "Not a dime without debate," a government that was going to husband every dollar. We all know those debates that were led by the Premier of this province when he was in the opposition: "Not a dime without debate. We must balance the budget. We must look after people's money." Yet, Mr. Speaker, in just 11 short years this government has managed to husband the public's dollars with great compassion and great concern to the extent that we have gone from a $4 billion debt to nearly $19 billion. This is the government that really cares. Not since Confederation has there been anything like this. In 11 years, $15 billion. It's really enough to just make you shake your head. You don't know when the public is going to realize that this is a shell game. This is not an honest government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARNES: This is not an honest government. This is a government of deception — of deceit and tricks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The member is well aware of rules and decorum in the House, and the hon. member will withdraw the comments.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make my last stand on those comments, and if they are offending a member of this House, I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will continue.

MR. BARNES: But those certainly express my feelings. Mr. Speaker, I don't take lightly what the government is attempting to do, although I realize the ability of the members of the opposition to alter their course is limited. I can appreciate the constant interjections from the….

HON. MR. GARDOM: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 8118 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House Leader rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm not interjecting. I'm just trying to follow the usual practice in the House and ask the hon. member if he would mind giving leave for me to make a short introduction — which he doesn't have to do.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I had already indicated to the member that I didn't feel prepared to give him leave, or to sit down at the time, but now that he has succeeded through his point of order — and I'm still wondering what that was — I think that he should be allowed to make his introduction, and I'll proceed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the point of order made by the member for Vancouver Centre is quite correct.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just trying to recognize reciprocity, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House Leader wishes to….

HON. MR. GARDOM: As I do many, many times for the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, as he's well aware.

Mr. Speaker, I do know that every member in the House would like to bid a most cordial welcome to Mr. Peter W. Hamilton, who is a Kiwi and the first secretary to the New Zealand High Commission. He is in our gallery.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to make one point only. It's simply this: the time has come for us to make education in this province relevant to the needs of the times. This cannot be done by a government that is bent on centralizing power for motives that boggle the mind, because we don't know what those motives are. One could suggest that they're political. I fail to see any political advantage in strangling the educational community the way the government is doing. Perhaps it's just blindness. But where there is blindness perhaps there is hope. Perhaps we can work together. Perhaps the government can be enlightened. I certainly hope so.

You know, the problem with the government and its approach to education funding is that it has not realized that things have changed so much in society that people are laughing at the process. Young people are shaking their heads and shrugging. I saw a person-on-the-street series of interviews by one of the television crews recently, just talking to young people and asking them what they think about the education system and where it would take them — where it would lead them.

There is a problem in our community, and the problem is that there is no rational planning. There are perhaps desperate attempts on the part of the government to get hold of the situation. The government may feel that by strangling the educational system, by putting pressure on school boards, it will make them toe the line, will make them tighten up their belts and be more cautious in their expenditures. And you know, no one can take exception to that. I think there has to be a certain amount of tension in any real progress. There has to be alertness. There has to be accountability and responsibility. I think the government should be willing to involve more people in this forum, in this atmosphere of give and take. It should be prepared to recognize that circumstances vary from one district to the next.

This is where this approach to funding fails. It is a catchall. It is too simplistic. It doesn't allow flexibility. You have $110 million that will come in another separate category, we call it the excellence fund. That in itself, again, leaves you shaking your head. We've been criticizing the government for slush funds, for all kinds of pork-barrelling funds that it has set aside, so that it can use discretionary powers in making allocations. We've criticized the government for the more than S20 million that it uses for government information services. We believe that the government has successfully found a way to manage the news.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: It no longer has to concern itself with the so-called free press. With $20 million you can buy just about everything; certainly all the prime time on television that you need.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member would concur that he's a fair distance off the principle of Bill 12. If one could get back onto Bill 12 and the principle of the bill.

MR. BARNES: I realize that I am not speaking strictly to the bill. But I can assure you that this bill inflames this kind of response from the opposition. It is obvious that the government has not taken seriously the need for proper educational funding in this province, or it would not expect school districts to be able to get the amounts of money they need from residents in this province.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: It's not humbug, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom). It's a serious problem. It's one that I hope we will be able to clarify as time goes by, for the benefit of the voters, who will have to make some decisions about whether this government really puts first things first. The first thing, it seems to me, would be to ensure that young people have confidence in the education system: realize that it will prepare them to face the days ahead, and give them an opportunity to participate constructively in society, instead of dropping out and wandering off and who knows what's happening to them.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that this again is an example of the fallout that is happening as a result of what the government's policies are all about, with respect to young people.

As you may or may not be aware, there's a serious issue of prostitution: that is, people of all ages are walking the streets, mainly in the city of Vancouver, in the Mount Pleasant area and in other parts of the city, selling their bodies in order to support themselves. Among them are many young people. This is a thing that we sometimes forget in this place. Can you imagine your own son or daughter being so disillusioned, so discouraged, that you leave your home, you quit school, you drop out, because the system is not relevant; it doesn't seem to address your needs; and out of frustration, you are down on the streets selling your body. Those are students that should be in school, Mr. Speaker, but they're not in school. I think the minister should be concerned about that.

[ Page 8119 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm going to stand to oppose this piece of legislation. The bill, as it reads, gives school districts authority to set their own budgets and to levy residential property taxes in order to cover the difference between money allocated through the fiscal framework and the money that is required through their budgetary necessities. I think we should just look at the position that that piece of legislation will force upon the boards, the position it will force them to take.

First of all, the districts only have access to the residential property tax base. It has been estimated that every I percent of inflationary increase that will not be covered through government funding will cause an approximate 12 1/2 percent increase in residential property taxes. Secondly, after the minister's grant of $19 million from the excellence fund, boards will still need to raise an extra $45 million from homeowners in British Columbia just to maintain the service levels of last year – not for any increase in funding or programs, or any expansion, but just to hold their heads above water. When you break it down, $45 million represents a 24½ percent property tax hike over the 1985-86 level.

That's the reality of this piece of legislation. That is the position that this minister and this government is placing school boards throughout this province — putting them between a rock and a hard place in trying to deal with the economic realities they must face. Earlier, during previous debates, I mentioned to the minister that schools and departments within schools have to purchase from companies throughout British Columbia and in other parts of the world whose costs are also rising. I mentioned increases in science budgets, for example — some years it's 15 percent, some years up to 20 or 25 percent, depending on the articles they're buying. They have to face that reality. They also have to face the reality that when you consider inflation, the government has effectively cut back funding for education approximately 25 percent since the restraint program was introduced. So they've got a two-headed monster. They've got a government that keeps cutting back and cutting back, and saying there's no more money in the pot, and they've got an economy that continues to place the burden of inflated costs on their budgets.

[4:30]

What can they do about it? Well, the minister has come up with a cute little tool to place the onus directly upon those elected boards. If you need the extra money, you can have the extra money. All you have to do is go to the homeowners and say: "We're going to increase your taxes." That's a nice, simple way for the government to absolve itself of the real responsibility to put the funding into education that should be in there in the first place, instead of reducing education funds: to put the necessary amount — we're talking about $45 million this year just to maintain it — into the fiscal framework where it should be, instead of forcing the boards to be the whipping-boys of this government and this minister, in order to squeeze the money out of a taxpayer who is already overburdened.

I realize the minister will say that the money has to come from somewhere. He'll also say: "We can't afford to put any more money into it." But as my colleague from Vancouver Centre indicated earlier, this government has continued to spend more and more money elsewhere. As a matter of fact, from 1975 to 1985-86 — ten or eleven years, a decade — this government has increased its spending and increased the deficit from an accumulated debt load of $4.2 billion to one of over $18 billion. So the government is spending more money elsewhere, there is more money in the pot elsewhere, and I'm saying that this government has got its priorities all screwed up. It has not been placing the funds where it should, and that's in providing a first-class education for our young people throughout British Columbia. When the minister makes the argument that if there needs to be extra funding, then it's the responsibility of the boards to find that money, I say to the minister that that is incorrect, that the government is neglecting its real responsibility to the taxpayers of this province.

There have been millions and millions of dollars wasted elsewhere in government propaganda. We have a government information machine that chews up $20 million to $25 million annually, pumping out the good-news advertising that we have seen going on and on ad nauseam on the radio. If you can take that money and put it into real programming in education and into other fields where it will do some good…. I say that this government has its priorities all backwards.

The Education (Interim) Finance Act was due to expire in December of this year. When the government first introduced the Education (Interim) Finance Act, it had a sunset clause in it. It said: "This is only a temporary measure." Mr. Speaker, income taxes brought in just after the Second World War were brought in as only a temporary measure. It shows that you just can't trust this government again when it says it's only a temporary measure. It's only a temporary measure, and now they've taken that sunset clause and removed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister wanders in here and makes blithe comments and doesn't even know what he is talking about, as usual. Mr. Speaker, between 1982 and 1985 this government has cut almost $76 million from provincial support to schools. It has forced residential property taxes to increase by almost $14 million, while at the same time it has cut services to children in schools by 23 percent in real terms. Those aren't figures that I throw around easily. They are figures that have been researched by Statistics Canada and also by this very Ministry of Education.

Mr. Speaker, there was a brief submitted to the Premier by Dr. Eric Buckley of the B.C. School Trustees' Association early this year. I want to read into the record some of the comments he made with respect to local autonomy and taxation, which this bill is directly applicable to — the taxation portion at least. Dr. Buckley says:

"The public has a high expectation of renewed local autonomy, reduced property taxes and improved Excellence in Education programs. If boards are faced with the choice between cutting services even further or doubling and sometimes tripling residential taxes just to keep pace with inflation, consider that boards' legal obligations to pay increments will result in an increase of 15.75 percent in local residential property taxes. Each additional I percent of inflation not covered by the government will result in another 12.5 percent increase in residential property taxes."

That's the burden that this piece of legislation is placing upon those school boards. You are putting them in an extremely difficult position. You are neglecting your own financial responsibility of supplying them the necessary funds.

Mr. Speaker, to compare what has happened in British Columbia, in terms of the money spent by this government,

[ Page 8120 ]

with other areas of Canada, so we have an idea of how we stack up with other governments, in 1985 and 1986 the average cost per student was $3,946; in Alberta, $4,805; in Saskatchewan, $4,475; in Manitoba, $4,477…

HON. R. FRASER: How much went into the classroom? That's the question.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That's a very good question. I don't argue with that point at all.

…in Ontario, $4,259; in Quebec, $5,349. The only area of Canada that has a lower per-student allocation by the government is in the Maritimes: to $3,900 put in by British Columbia, they put in $3,848. We are the second-lowest province in Canada in terms of the money allocated by this government and this minister on a per-pupil basis. Yet through this piece of legislation he is saying that more and more the burden of the cost of education now has to be placed upon the individual taxpayer, the individual homeowner and the individual boards out there that have been elected in the various areas of the province.

HON. R. FRASER: The whole thing; it all comes from the taxpayer.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, isn't it interesting that the Minister of Post-Secondary Education makes that comment, because I want to read some comments from an earlier letter that was written and distributed in — it was a while back — 1975. It's a letter under the signature of the Premier of this province, and it says:

"We in the British Columbia Social Credit Party believe that meaningful education policies can only be developed in cooperation with local school boards. After all, the local school trustees have been elected by the people of their own area…they know the area and are responsive to the needs of their community. We would therefore return autonomy to local school boards…."

Return autonomy to the local school boards? This government has taken an opposite direction ever since it has gotten into power, while at the same time eliminating bureaucracy in the department of education.

It is interesting that he says further: "The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded…." And now the Minister of Post-Secondary Education is telling me that that's exactly where we should be going. Those are the statements you just made, Mr. Minister, and here is your Premier saying: "The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded." Those are the words of the Premier of British Columbia.

He goes on further to say that these taxes place "an unfair burden on the property owner. As government, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would change this system…and provide revenues for ever-improved educational facilities from real growth sources. We would look to tax revenues from our resource-based industries — industries which would enjoy steady growth…." The Premier is saying we should not be placing more burden upon the property owners and taxpayers of British Columbia and that the real source of revenue to finance education is in the industrial sector and in the growth industries.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I submit that this bill is exactly the opposite to the philosophy that was written under the Premier's signature in 1975, and it shows very plainly that this government and this Premier don't know what the devil they're doing. They say one thing, and they do a 180 in the opposite direction. That's why education is in such chaos in this province; that's why it has become such a critical issue in terms of the lost potential, both in terms of jobs and in terms of the future of our young people. Here we have the Premier saying one thing, and we have his government doing exactly the opposite. It just shows that this government has no credibility. It shows that the Premier of this province has no credibility when he says one thing and his Minister of Education does exactly the opposite. "The current system of financing education out of property taxes is outmoded," and there is his own Minister of Post-Secondary Education saying exactly the opposite. I wish you guys would make up your minds. Why don't you make up your minds?

I want to add into the record another statement that the Premier makes in this little handout. It says: "We would also look to the provincial sales tax and to other revenue sources which increase naturally with our provincial development. This new approach would help to hold the line on property taxes." Now isn't that interesting? "This new approach would help to hold the line on property taxes." This bill before us today puts the lie to the Premier's statement of 1975. There is no way on God's green earth that you can hold the line on property taxes when you're asking the individual school boards throughout British Columbia to directly raise the revenue needed above and beyond the fiscal formula by going to the taxpayer in this province and saying: "Hey, buddy, we need another buck." You're not going to be able to do that. Again it puts the lie to the Premier's credibility. The statement that he made in 1975 and the action of this government today are exactly opposite.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Ten years ago.

HON. R. FRASER: Eleven.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Eleven years ago. Very good, I'm glad you can count. The statement still stands, and it just shows that you guys can't follow your own policy.

[4:45]

Another interesting point: the Premier says — and for the Minister of Post-Secondary Education's benefit — "Just as important as the source of educational revenue is the manner in which it's distributed." Well, well, well. "As government, the British Columbia Social Credit Party would increase direct payments to local school boards, while decreasing the cost and importance of the central bureaucracy." Mr. Speaker, every statement that I have read has been an outright lie as to the direction that this government has taken since that time in 1975 when they came to power — an outright lie. There is no question about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order?

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard that member say that the Premier lied.

[ Page 8121 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I'm afraid you're incorrect, Mr. Minister. The Chair is listening very diligently, and the member has crafted his words in such a way that he is in order. So will the member please continue.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the evenhanded attitude that you have demonstrated.

Mr. Speaker, the points I have made are points that stand because they stand under the signature of the Premier of this province, who made those statements and distributed those statements to the public in British Columbia in 1975. I want to say to this House and to that Minister of Education that Bill 12, the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986, flies directly in the face of those statements. It is a poor piece of legislation. It's placing the burden of taxation for school purposes directly upon the shoulders of the residential property owners. It's placing the boards in an almost intolerable situation. You are asking them to be your bludgeon boys for you, to go out and do your dirty work for you.

It's on the basis of those arguments, Mr. Speaker, that I stand in opposition to Bill 12. At that I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm prompted to say "aye," and sit down and end the debate and call the vote, because some of the debate I think has been absolutely atrocious.

MR. ROSE: You wouldn't….

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm the only one who's been up other than the opposition, so I guess when I'm making the comment it has to reflect on some of the people across the floor.

Mr. Speaker, let me first deal with the member for Okanagan North. He is somebody who is supposed to have gone through the process of becoming an educator, yet I'm often amazed at some of his comments in this House. Some of the comments that he makes I'm not sure I'd be too excited about hearing in a classroom — or the intent of his comments.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to address the question of the Premier's statement in 1975, because I think if the member for Okanagan North took it upon himself to spend the time to look at the Education (Interim) Finance Act that was passed a few years ago, to look at the amendments and to look at the fiscal framework, he would find that the intent of the legislation passed a few years ago — the removal of taxes on nonresidential property; in other words, the industrial and commercial tax base — carried out to a great extent the Premier's statements of 1975. Prior to the Education (Interim) Finance Act, which was interim in the sense that the School Act was going to be revised — or not revised but a new School Act was coming in — we wanted to have a separate act dealing with the interim financing of schools.

Mr. Speaker, under the old system the industrial, commercial and residential property taxes went to the school boards. That paid for the operation of the school boards, and the balance went to the province, including the residential property owners' funds as well. Under this system the residential property owners' funds stay within the district, and rightly so because there are children coming from families of the residents, but the industrial and commercial tax went to the province so that it would be equally shared throughout every school district in the province based on a formula known as the fiscal framework.

Mr. Speaker, the system really indicates that 45 percent would be shared by the residential property owner under the formula, and 55 percent by the province through the grant system. There are a few that have achieved that level, and those are basically the ones that have a high assessment base, but many, many school districts in this province, including the member's across the floor, are funded in excess of that 55 percent share.

Let me give you some of the ones that are financed well in excess of 55 percent: the Central Coast School District, the Stikine, the Arrow Lakes, the Nishga — all because they don't have the ability residentially, industrially or commercially to raise the funds. The fiscal framework allows for that to take place.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal framework was an attempt, and a good attempt, to ensure that relief came to the residential property owner. The fiscal framework covers many divisions of funding. It covers the cost of kindergarten related to the students, the cost of grades I to 7 — those who need learning assistance; French programs for immersion; French as a second language, the Programme Cadre; libraries; in-service implementation, where teachers can be instructed on new programs, new courses, new curriculum; the administration costs all through grades 1 to 7 — and then grades 8 to 12: career preparation, learning assistance, counselling for students in the secondary schools so they can have some assistance in understanding what may be available to them and what they are best suited for in the business world, special programs….

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, what I am attempting to do is to show you, because you will not take the time to find out yourself, that the fiscal framework provides that funding out of the grants through the Ministry of Education.

We talked about the handicapped, the special programs in the high schools: training the mentally handicapped, the severely and profoundly handicapped, the physically handicapped, the visually impaired, the hearing-impaired, the autistic. They are all provided additional funds if the school district identifies that they have these types of students. Severely learning disabled, educatable, mentally handicapped, severe behaviour children, rehabilitation, English as a second language, Indian education, gifted students, hospital programs, homebound programs, identification and planning, special health services….

Then it goes on to the administration: cost of the board and school trustees, superintendents, supervisory officers, secretary-treasurers, business professionals, personnel relations, testing and assessment, instructional support, coordinators, operation and maintenance, custodial services, utilities, auxiliary services, district resource centres, school health services, regular bus service, special programs, transportation, housing. Two percent of the fiscal framework goes specifically for local programs; 2 percent of the budget goes there and can be used at the discretion of the school board for local programs they think are unique to their areas. Plus we contribute to the teachers' pension fund and textbook allocation.

[ Page 8122 ]

Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have been in this ministry, I have found out very quickly that that type of funding is far better than each individual school district taking advantage of the industrial and commercial tax base to the detriment of other ones in the province. I know my words are falling on deaf ears over there, but it is one of those things that…. At least I get it on record that the arguments that have been put across the floor are strictly the arguments against, always against. Any idiot can be against something. Those who have the responsibility have to act, not just complain.

This bill is an amendment to the interim finance act, and it will be in place until the new School Act comes in. The promise was made to lift the provincial control. That was the promise that was made that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was so angry about. That was the promise made, that we should lift the provincial control. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this bill does, which should put to rest, I think, the public's concern about the statements that are made by the opposition that we reneged, that we went back on our word. This bill achieves exactly what was stated by my predecessor, because what it does is to give back to the school boards the opportunity to tax where they feel it is necessary to do so.

But I'll defend the position of this government on its fiscal responsibility, not just in the schools but in hospitals and in the total budget, because as government we have a responsibility to all of British Columbia, not just to certain sectors of it. It is interesting. Before I sit down I just thought I would mention that there is an election in Alberta today, and of course education is always an issue in election time. But this is put out by the Alberta Teachers' Association, a publication. Just to quote from it: "The provincial government share of the total fiscal commitment to public education in Alberta has steadily declined over the past 15 years, from 83.8 percent in 1970 to 64.6 percent in 1985." Well, interestingly enough, our average provincial share is about 75 percent. So I guess there is concern in Alberta as well. It says: "The first consequence of provincial government underfunding for education is that property taxes have risen throughout the province. The result of attempting to restrain expenditures at the provincial level is that the slack is invariably picked up by the local taxpayer." Well, Mr. Speaker, the point I make is that the argument will always be there. If my budget was a half a billion dollars more, those members across the floor would still send out the press releases, steal the documents, in an attempt to say it's not enough. There's no responsibility shown for the total public of this province, just attempting to make a political point.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for….

MR. ROSE: The minister made….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Wait a minute. Let me at least identify which member is standing. The member for Coquitlam-Moody wishes to rise on…. Could you please let us know which standing order you're rising under?

MR. ROSE: I'm standing on a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which particular one?

MR. ROSE: I don't know. I have a point of personal privilege, if you don't care for that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe it's privilege. I'll hear it under order rather than privilege, because privilege does require you to actually state it.

MR. ROSE: Well, I have to stand up when the item comes before me. There was an allusion to the members on this side stealing documents. That, to me, is unparliamentary, that some people over on this side of the House….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has listened very carefully. We had a little discussion about the world "lying" and a little discussion about the word "stealing,"but in no circumstances was it directly related to a member. The Chair has been listening diligently and carefully to make sure that that was the case. Had someone suggested that a member had stolen something, or a member had lied, I would have asked for that withdrawal; that's not the case. I'm sure that if it is the case, we'll ask the minister to withdraw. I would ask the minister to continue with this matter.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, if the member is offended, I did mention the word "steal." What I should have said, I guess, was "acquired in the dead of night." That might have been a little more accurate.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it's fair to say that there's never any easy answer to this debate. The opposition, throughout my estimates and now, have attempted to indicate that (a) we have gone back on our word and (b) we don't fund education enough. I'm just here arguing the opposite, saying that we have done what we said we would do; we have given more autonomy back to the school boards. With that ability to tax, should they so desire, comes accountability as well. I think that's good for any level of government. Before they didn't have that, and now they have it. They have to accept that with ability comes accountability. I think that's fair. I think it's good for a democratic system and a board elected by the people to have that accountability.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other comments that were made, but they were far-ranging. The bill does, as I say, give local autonomy back to the board. It is a move, I think, in the right direction. It's still an interim act, one which, if I am successful in having the School Act review committee complete its work, will disappear when a new School Act comes into place.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 12, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[5:00]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 20.

[ Page 8123 ]

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL
ARBITRATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately one of my colleagues is slow getting to the chamber. May we have a short recess?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will accept a short recess, and the members will be recalled with the ringing of the division bells.

The House took recess at 5:04 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:05 p.m.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the short recess. As you can see, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is on crutches; it took him a little while to get here, and I appreciate the fact that he made it. Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 20: minister's office, $197,228.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, it's certainly a pleasure for me to get to my estimates, and I know that there will be many questions coming up on this very important issue. I would like to start out by making a few comments and certainly, first of all, giving credit to my staff in the ministry, who have been very helpful to a relatively new minister in this portfolio. I have with me my deputy minister, Roy Illing, who will be assisting me to answer your questions. He has been with the ministry a long time and served it very well, along with others in his staff. I would like to certainly commend them for all the help they have been to me.

I would just like to offer a few remarks about the great strides that have been made in energy policy during the last year, and mention examples such as the Western Accord and natural gas pricing through the federal-provincial agreements. At the provincial level, of course, and based somewhat on those, we have done a major restructuring of our marketing and gas royalty systems in order to accommodate the changing markets. We have done a great deal to encourage the private sector to market our gas much more aggressively. We have provided incentives for the oil industry through the oil royalties holiday, and that resulted last year in a great deal of optimism, in a resurgence of seismic work, drilling activity and development work in the industry. Natural gas sales have resulted from some of that deregulation, if you like. Unfortunately we have had a bit of a setback from falling world oil prices. There has been some setback there, but I think that with the steps that have been taken we are very well positioned to take advantage of any gas sales that materialize, which are being pushed by the aggressive individual companies now marketing them. We are in a good position to take advantage of any upswing in the industry, and are certainly much leaner and meaner and more able to cope with existing conditions.

As I think everyone in this province appreciates, there is a sort of delicate balance involved, in that while industry is somewhat hurt by these conditions — so we have jobs at stake, we have oil companies facing difficult times — yet at the same time consumers are benefiting from the lower fuel prices. That's consumers both domestic and industrial. Our efforts, our emphasis, has been devoted to trying to hold the markets that we now have and to increase those markets in the petroleum industry. I know there may be a number of questions about that, but we'll let those develop as time moves on.

I can give you as one example of what has happened in aggressive marketing the PetroCan sale to the California utility of 7.5 billion cubic feet per year over a l5-year contract. This actually was a 10 percent increase in what gas had been moving at in the last year. There are other contracts being negotiated and we hope this will benefit the province. Even though gas prices are down, and therefore royalties, which follow them, are down somewhat, we can get more revenue to the government as we get more gas moving. That is the objective, and that will also keep our industry alive in the province.

In the electricity field, the other section of my ministry, there has been some effect. Any one energy source which has gone down so much in price can affect other sources of energy. So we've had to struggle to hold the electricity markets. As people know, that's affected partly by weather, so there was quite a good sale of electricity for export, which means some $250 million revenue to B.C. Hydro did not have be raised from provincial consumers. That meant that Hydro was also able to restructure its requested increase to about half of what they thought they would need last year, and that benefits all of us. The power we have is beneficial in that the available power can be used as an economic development tool for the province, and is being used in that way.

There's been some talk about Site C, and we know that in the long run Site C power will be necessary for the province of British Columbia. It is on a watercourse that has an established reservoir. Therefore it makes sense and has gone through the hearing process. But I can assure the House and the people of this province that the Site C project will not go ahead unless it makes economic sense. That's a difficult negotiation, of course. Buyers want to get it as cheaply as they can, and we could certainly use the jobs in the development. If the Americans are in a position to help us pay for power we're going to need eventually, that would benefit all of us in the long run. Electricity exports are a good deal for British Columbia. Last year they amounted to $250 million. It's only an estimate of what will happen this year. It depends on weather conditions and all of that.

There is some surplus of power according to the demand in the province at this time. I think that a lot of the development in the province in the past happened because electricity

[ Page 8124 ]

was available. We're in a better position when we can say that there is electricity available for industries that we'd like to attract to the province than to be doubtful about whether or not we can serve their needs.

[5:15]

We have used some of this surplus power to create jobs through the electricity discount sales that were authorized under Bill 28, and eight industries have qualified for rate discounts for incremental sales of electricity. l should emphasize the incremental, in that in each case the discounts were used to try to add electricity uses. That, of course, generated more revenue for B.C. Hydro as well as for the government through the water tax. Any electricity that we put to work benefits us directly and indirectly.

As far as the mining industry in British Columbia is concerned, I think it's safe to say that there are better times ahead. We're seeing some evidence of that now. Copper prices appear to be on the way to recovery. There is estimated to be, according to the World Bank, a 2 percent increase in world copper demand. That may not seem like very much, but 2 percent of present world production is probably far greater than what 10 percent would have been ten or 15 years ago. That 2 percent could be the equivalent of one Lornex mine per year. If these can be developed in British Columbia, that benefits us in terms of economic development, jobs and revenue to the province for the needed services.

The total value of B.C.'s mineral production in 1985 was $2.42 billion, up from $2.35 billion the year before. It's no secret that coal is now if not our most important mineral, certainly the one that deals in the greatest volumes, and the value of coal production has more than doubled in the last five years from $0.5 billion in 1981 to more than $1 billion in 1985. Production last year was 23 million tonnes compared to 11 million tonnes just two years ago. That has to be a real success story for British Columbia.

In the meantime there's lots of activity going on in the province and lots of evidence that things can happen in these times. Examples might be the H-W mine on Vancouver Island, which is a rich ore body and has created more jobs. This has been a good find. The Blackdome mine near the Gang Ranch is under construction and starts operations this year. We have Nickel Plate, the Mascot mine near Hedley, and that's expected to start construction within the next month or two. That will be a fairly large operation as well. Serem has their Lawyers property up in northwestern British Columbia, and they are expected to make a production decision any time now — that's in the Toodoggone area. Gulf Resources is moving close to a production final decision for the Mount Klappan anthracite project. I'm expecting some results of test sales fairly soon. That could certainly rejuvenate the economy of northwestern British Columbia.

We certainly don't consider mining to be a sunset industry. l know that every once in a while someone attributes that to us and then criticizes us for it. I don't think there's any evidence to indicate that this government considers mining a sunset industry. As a matter of fact, we've taken some very supportive measures to help the mining industry become even more viable in this province. We've entered into cost-sharing agreements, building the road into Serem's property in the Toodoggone area. We're cost-sharing studies in transportation and other infrastructure needs for the Mount Klappan project. Last year we introduced a number of budget changes and other measures to ease the burden on mining. This year we have put in place a new $5 million program designed to stimulate a new wave of mineral exploration. This will be done through direct cash grants to prospectors and exploration firms. And we are now in the second year of a $l0 million federal-provincial development agreement which also promotes new exploration and mining development. So the 1986-87 fiscal year holds the promise of continuing recovery for the mining sector.

Again, there has been a lot of emphasis on some of the negative aspects of the oil and gas industry, electricity and mining. I really don't share that, and I've met with a lot of people. I've met with financial backers and they say: "Yes, we've got to try to deal with the developments that can make their way under current conditions." I've talked to people in the mining and the petroleum industries and they're very optimistic. As I think most members would be aware, in the petroleum industry it is not all doom and gloom. Our actual lease sales are ahead of where we were last year. In the last sale — the $7.5 million sale — somebody with money is supporting the position that I take: that there is a good future for our petroleum industry in British Columbia.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll take my seat. I anticipate eagerly the questions that members opposite — or on this side — may have.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to notify the House that the person who would normally be speaking at this time, the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), was called away on quite an urgent matter a short while ago. He asked me, in case debate on this minister's estimates came up, to fill in and take part, which I intend to do.

This portfolio is really quite large and extensive, and I thought the way I'd like to proceed, at least for the rest of the day and tomorrow, or whenever, is possibly to discuss not the whole issue and the whole gamut of the minister's responsibilities, which are varied…. There are some cases that are related, but not necessarily.

So I thought I would start off the opposition debate this afternoon with reference to the mining industry in British Columbia, a matter in which I have had a bit of experience. I have extensive notes, and I am sure I won't be using them all. I am going to concentrate on the mining side of the minister's portfolio and responsibilities for the next little while.

Before I get down to some specific remarks and questions, I'd like to give a bit of an overview of the situation in Canada and in British Columbia. I am going to try terribly hard not to repeat the same speech I made on this matter last year.

By the way,,just for the record, we do have a new Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This member was previously the Minister for Lands, Parks and Housing. We had several good debates under that portfolio as well. Some of the stuff that I may discuss this afternoon with the minister may be new to him and some may not, but we shall see.

I want to begin by saying that mining is a key sector of the Canadian and the British Columbia economy, accounting for some 5 percent of the GNP and 20 percent of our total export earnings. For the country as a whole, the industry employed 274,000 Canadians in 1980 and was the basic source of economic livelihood for some 175 communities. I am not going to dwell on the Canadian thing too much, Mr. Chairman, but I just want members of the House to know, and for the record, how important that industry is to the economy of British Columbia and Canada.

[ Page 8125 ]

The recession has had a devastating impact upon mineworkers and mine-dependent communities. Unemployment in metal mines has increased from 4.6 percent in 1981 to 16.2 percent in 1982 and continued to increase. As a matter of fact, very shortly we will be putting on the record specific figures as related to British Columbia.

The impact on mining-dependent communities has been nothing short of a catastrophe in many parts of British Columbia, and I also plan to discuss that matter with the minister, and perhaps even suggest some solutions to that problem.

[5:30]

One of the concerns that many of us have, Mr. Chairman, is that unlike other industries there have been really very few signs of recovery in the industry — in Canada as a whole but certainly in British Columbia. The minister a short while ago discussed some of the operations that are currently under construction and presumably will go into operation and production, and that's good. There's nothing wrong with that. We're very much aware of those operations, and we're also aware. on this side of the House, of the activities of the commissioner of critical industries, and his participation I think in two operations in this province which were closed and reopened as a result of his work. We're not putting that down. We're not criticizing that at all.

Just for the record, I should say that the Canadian mining industry is dominated by a small number of giant corporations which operate on a world scale.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who told you that?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I think I got it from your speech last year, Mr. Minister.

So the two largest producers within each respective sector…. For example, Canadian Nickel: 96 percent of that operation is controlled by foreign interests. And iron mining assets, for example: 75.8 percent is controlled by foreign interests. And on and on. Metal mining is only — well, still significant — 27.4 percent controlled by foreign multinationals on the basis of asset ownership.

The international character of the Canadian mining industry and its weak integration with the domestic economy has minimized the employment potential of our mineral resources, Mr. Chairman. Research and development activities essential to new product development, creation of spin-off manufacturing industries and the centres of technological expertise are typically located outside of Canada by foreign-owned multinationals.

I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I've had the opportunity to visit and I've been very well received, as a matter of fact, by some of the larger mining operations here in British Columbia, both open-pit and underground. Most of our operations are currently open-pit. One of the things I noted and asked questions about of the management and the union people who accompanied us through these tours, was the amount of equipment that was in fact foreign-produced, purchased from foreign countries. The companies have no choice but to import this equipment from other countries around the world. Germany and Japan are two of the largest suppliers; a bit from France and other countries. I think some from Sweden as well. I can't think of all the countries now.

The point I'm attempting to make here is that in my view the government has not provided the initiative for some of this highly technical and specialized equipment to be produced here in British Columbia. It is ironic, in that we have the technology. I discussed this question with some of the technical people at one operation — Newmont, up near Princeton — and after they had purchased this highly technical equipment, they improved upon it once it arrived here, proving that we have the technical know-how to do these kinds of things.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

So I see no reason why we as the leaders, the elected representatives — certainly that government — shouldn't seriously be looking at ways to provide a second industry in terms of the production of this type of equipment here in British Columbia. I know that some of that work is taking place here, but certainly not nearly enough.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: See? The minister agrees with that remark.

Anyway, I have reams of figures which I'm not going to reel off here, much of it relating to the mining industry in other provinces. I'll leave that aside for now and maybe get back to it later if we have the time. I have in front of me a short document entitled The Mining Industry in British Columbia. A Year in Review. I'm going to quote from this document, which I had assistance in preparing. Many of the figures in here came from the mining industry itself; they were provided by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. At this point I will rattle off a few of these figures and hopefully get one or two questions in there as well.

First of all, the mining industry in British Columbia continues in serious trouble. Of course, 1982 remains by far the worst year on record for the industry. During 1982-84 — we'll get up to 1986 — the mining industry lost some $250 million. Latest statistics on the industry show that in 1984 there were 28 mining companies operating in B.C., 19 of which reported losses, 11 of which had negative cash flows. Return to shareholders' investment in the industry has been negative since 1982. That year marked the first time shareholders have received negative returns since the Mining Association began annual reports on the industry in 1967.

I might interject and tell you that I have had what I would call fruitful meetings with the Mining Association of British Columbia, or their representatives, as well as the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines representatives, and I appreciated the information they provided to me.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I worked hard to get here. I'd also like to think I have a bit of a social conscience left. l lose a little bit more every year. No, I still think I've got a little bit in there somewhere. Anyway, back to the debates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you acting as a critic for the minister at this point, for 30 minutes?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I think so. Yes, why not, what the heck. I've just begun. I didn't realize that 15 minutes had gone by.

[ Page 8126 ]

I'm just going to finish this off very quickly. Dividend payments for 1984 were the lowest ever received — in the mining association's annual report for 1984. B.C. mines operated at an average of 80 percent capacity. Now those were the mines that remained open. I'm going to talk about mine closures in a little while.

About 4,100 direct jobs in the industry have been lost since 1984, and I have an attached table for breakdowns which I may or may not use later on. However, and just as important, the generally accepted multiplier effect is 2.5 percent in the mining industry. If you utilize the 2.5 multiplier effect on job losses, there have in effect been 10,250 total jobs lost since 1982 in the mining industry.

I'm just going to stop right there for a minute, Mr. Chairman. I had another document here which I wanted to quote from. It's interesting to note that prior to the 1975 election, right through the years 1973, '74 and '75, the official opposition at that time went around this province attacking the then government of the day on their mining policies. I would like to ask that minister if he could tell me how many metal mines in British Columbia closed down because of the policies of the government of that time. My information is that three mines did in fact close, but not because of any economic or tax pressures or anything done by the then government — not for those reasons at all . But when mines run out of ore, they normally close. Not always — we have cases on record where mines have run out of ore and not closed for a while. But generally speaking, when a mine runs out of ore….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't know what that member's chirping about over there.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

The Chair might comment to the hon. member that we're dealing with the current minister's administrative functions and not those of a previous minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm very much aware of that, but I'm going to be making a point here in a minute.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm going to be doing that too; we'll get to that.

But this is an important point, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking the minister: how many mines have closed over the ten-year period that the Social Credit Party has been in power as the government of this province? I have a lengthy list here. It includes some 12 mines. I understand two of these operations have temporarily reopened — possibly for three years, I don't know; whatever the agreement reached with the critical industries commissioner was. I think it was a three-year period for which those mines got a break in electrical rates, or water rates will not be increasing. And the unions — the working people themselves — made concessions. But I think it's over a three-year period. I could go through this list mine by mine — the number of jobs and the dates of closures. I believe it to be reasonably accurate. But the point of going through the list item by item, this list which I think would be reasonably accurate — and I want to give the minister a few minutes to answer…. I'll just give a few more figures before I sit down on this section of my presentation, and then perhaps the minister can answer, because I do want to stay with mining for a while, but I will be going off onto a different tack.

This high rate of unemployment in the mining industry is a major blow to single-industry towns as well: lost wages, lower consumer spending, small businesses hurt, houses sold — in some areas if they can sell them at all, and I have correspondence from people who are unable to sell their homes in certain communities — and the outmigration of some of these talented people in the industry, a lot of whom move to Ontario.

This also means the loss of income to governments and a massive expenditure of unemployment insurance. Just as an example, in 1982-84 job loss in the mining, smelting and refining sectors cost the federal government over $43 million in unemployment insurance, cost workers $111 million in forgone wages and cost federal and provincial governments $39 million in lost income tax. That is from 1982 to 1984.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I have left the minister enough time — or maybe I have — but if the minister could respond…. I simply don't want to start on a whole new tack at this point and then have our time run out and have to do the whole thing over again tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am sure that that member opposite would be very disappointed if we didn't have a little chance to discuss this, so we will just ignore our colleagues for the moment and have our nice discussion here.

I think, without worrying about the details, that the member opposite has been trying to make the point that the mining industry has gone through the same difficult times as everybody else since 1982. I can fully accept that. As far as how many mines closed in the early seventies as compared to how many closed and what have you and all the factors involved, I don't have those numbers for you and neither do I intend to spend the time researching them, because I think there is plenty to do now to deal with the concerns and the problems that we have without dealing with it. My philosophy tends to be to study live horses rather than dead horses, because I am not going to be counting those. So I have plenty to do without spending any valuable time on going back over the last 15 years of argument. Yes, I have some opinions on that. I know the mining industry has had some difficult times. Every chart I've looked at, everything I've studied indicates that world mineral prices going down is basically the major factor in bringing down the profits of the mines to make it difficult for some of them to keep operating.

However, it's interesting to note that despite the dip that we faced in 1982, which seemed to be the low point, it's back up in 1983, 1984 and 1985, and I expect it will be up much higher in 1986. Of course, one of the factors was coal production, and that was an adjustment. To give you a few numbers, in 1980, total solid mineral production was $2.2 billion; 1981, $2.12 billion. In 1982 it reached a low of $1.88 billion. In 1983 it was up again to $1.96 billion. In 1984 it was up to $2.36 billion, and in 1985, almost $2.4 billion. So while prices have gone down, while the industry has had some severe setbacks, total mineral production has gone up, jobs

[ Page 8127 ]

have been created, and the industry is working hard toward keeping that going.

[5:45]

We also note that the 1985 exploration program is continuing in 1986. As I mentioned in my opening comments, we have put up $5 million in addition to the $10 million federal-provincial sharing to try to provide those incentives. That $5 million this year is allotted to prospectors, the other thing is for mines where good potential has been shown. A good portion of that money will help those people to develop that, as again I indicated in my opening remarks. What the financial institutions and the industry have got to concentrate on are the better plays, rather than the long-term larger plays. Those are happening now.

The third part of that $5 million funding this year is going to go to try to expand…. Where a mine is getting close to running out of the better ore and doesn't have the cash flow to try to do that further exploration or drilling program to indicate where they might expand without having to start all over somewhere else, that money will help those mines expand. We've been in close contact with the industry. I'm looking for that $5 million and have assurance that it will generate an awful lot more money from the private sector. That's what we've been trying to do in our partnership program. We provide some incentives, some stimulus, and that creates the major investment from the private sector rather than from government funds.

As far as that the government should act more to keep the mines open and preserve these jobs, I have some difficulty with that. These mines were having difficulty because of the low world prices of minerals and therefore the decreasing markets for those minerals. If the government somehow had a magical formula to get all the money to keep all those mines operating and stockpiled the minerals, it would actually exacerbate the problem, in that it would force the prices down further and make it more difficult and require more government money, and eventually the mines would be completely dependent on subsidies, and that means that the taxpayers, instead of benefiting from that resource, would be heavily supporting it. That's probably a too brief summary of my views on that, but surely to goodness we couldn't keep the mines open somehow or other artificially without doing more harm than good in the long run.

I hope I have responded to the member's comments. I think there are plenty of numbers available about the jobs that have been created from the extra coal development in the northeast, in the southeast, through the province, in the mining sector, and we're looking for much greater production in the future.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.