[ Page 4457 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Private property. Mr. S.D. Smith –– 4457

Mr. Rose

Highway 3 — the need for upgrading. Mr. Lovick –– 4459

Mr. Chalmers

Spotlight on preventive health care. Mr. Crandall –– 4461

Mrs. Boone

Environmental lab privatization. Ms. Smallwood –– 4462

Hon. Mr. Strachan

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

On vote 23: minister's office –– 4464

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Jones

Mr. R. Fraser

On vote 27: Northeast development region –– 4475

Mr. Clark

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. RABBITT: This morning in the members' gallery we have Peter Jones and his wife Eleanor. Peter is the vice-president of 12,000 members of the Association of Professional Engineers of B.C. With them is the executive director, Harry Gray. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that recent amendments to the Engineers Act have allowed for the first time the appointment of a non-engineer to the association investigation committee. This committee investigates complaints against engineers to see if disciplinary action is warranted because of incompetence, negligence or unethical conduct. I would ask the members of this assembly to give Peter, his wife and Harry a warm welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER: The Speaker has asked me to introduce for him two constituents of West Vancouver-Howe Sound. Would the House please make welcome Mrs. Josephina Haydahl and Sverre Haydahl.

MR. MERCIER: In the gallery today are teachers Don Atwood, Dave Williamson, John Walls, Irene McClure, Elizabeth Clark and the grade 10 students from McPherson Park Junior Secondary School. This school opened in September 1951, and I am proud to say that I was a student in the first group of grade 7 students that year.

The school will close forever in June this year, so 1988 is a special year for McPherson Park Junior Secondary. It might interest the House to know it's ironic that I have a daughter, Suzanne, who is a grade 9 student this final year of operation of the school. In September, all McPherson Park Junior students will move to an expanded Burnaby South high school, also a former alma mater of mine. I ask the House to please welcome the grade 10 students from McPherson Park Junior Secondary, and wish them well as they proceed on to Burnaby South high school.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature this morning are my wife Launi, our son Tore, and our daughter Heidi. From Coquitlam we have Launi's sister Gloria, her husband Jack Danielson, and their son Steven. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Private Members' Statements

PRIVATE PROPERTY

MR. S.D. SMITH: I want to address a question today which I think we're going to be hearing a good deal more about over the next weeks, particularly as we lead up to the next federal election, and perhaps even in the by-election going on in Boundary-Similkameen. It relates to the notion of private property rights.

We've got many assumptions in this country about ourselves and what we're about. Some of them that we're revisiting and looking at currently relate to the open trade with the United States and the right of people to own property. Many people in this country have always assumed that we have those things — that we have open trans-border trade with the United States, and that we have the right to own our own property. We've always made that kind of assumption about Canada. But lately, as we have been dealing with a number of current and larger issues, we have had to ask ourselves what kind of Canada we have and what kind of Canada we are in.

Some of those issues, I suppose, are things like the Meech Lake accord, which will grant to us as provinces a greater opportunity for participation at the centre. I know there are some members in this House who oppose that and don't want to see that change in our constitutional framework. We're looking, as well, at Canada's place in NATO and the kind of world we want to live in, and the way Canadians might want to contribute to peace in that world. I know that there are some people in this House who oppose that and who would pull out of NATO, thereby diminishing the ability of that instrument to provide peace. Free trade, as well, is an opportunity to expand the economic pie in Canada, to increase the value of all our property and our services, and our ability to provide them, and we have some who oppose that as well. Indeed, we have one who says that he would rip up the agreement if it was ever entered into. I suppose what we would do is go down to the Peace Arch at Blaine with the 2,000-page document and tear it up. He would turn himself into Ed the Ripper, I suppose. But there are people who say that.

Then there is on our order paper, as on all order papers across this country, a resolution dealing with embedding in our constitutional framework the right to own property privately.

All these things are important about the kind of Canada we have and the kind of British Columbia that we want to share in that Canada. They are about individual opportunity versus a kind of collective control. On the one hand, through liberalizing trade, through changing our constitutional framework, through embedding private property rights in the constitution, we will enhance the opportunity for individuals to grow; and on the other hand, if we don't do that, presumably we will enhance the opportunity for a more collectivist control of our nation. Probably that is one of the reasons why we're seeing growing opposition to some of these issues.

[10:15]

I began this by saying there was an assumption — a correct assumption — that you had the right to own property. Before 1981, in our parliamentary system, all rights were presumed to be held by individuals unless and until parliament took them away. Post-1981, when we created the constitutional framework that we now have and embedded into it a Charter of Rights, we now have a situation where ultimately the only rights you have are those found in that constitution.

It's important for us to know a little about our property rights and why we should have them. It's about owning your own home, or your own car or boat or family farm. It's about protecting your idea, about young people being able to get a patent on software that they create. It's about publications and censorship, and about giving meaning to an individual's ownership of seniority rights.

Why do I talk about this today? Because when we hear about property rights and removal, we hear our socialist friends talk about it only applying to large corporations and not needing to embed it in the constitution, because as Allan Blakeney said: "We wanted to be able to get at nationalizing

[ Page 4458 ]

the copper mine and the potash mine without undue compensation."

It always starts with the large corporations, then goes to the smaller corporations and then to something that's inconvenient if you have a mineral claim in an area, a piece of ground that's inconvenient, or if you have a timber right that you want to use something else for. If you don't have these miserable little rights — like the right to own your property — embedded in the constitution, you don't have to worry about that, because you can devise systems and mechanisms to take those pieces of property away without having to go through a certain process that ensures that the individual gets his full and fair value.

All that may seem very sensible, and you may ask yourself why there would be any debate about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member. Your time under standing orders has expired.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to congratulate the learned member for Kamloops for his very thoughtful deliberations and say that I think he has one of the best minds of the nineteenth century. I guess I'm the only one who was actually there when we debated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the repatriation of the constitution, because I was then in my other guise as an MP in Ottawa. I don't really understand the reason behind the debate this morning. This Legislature before 1983 already expressed itself on this subject, and I don't know why we need to do it again, unless it's for some special mail-out to the cattlemen or something up in Kamloops.

In March 1984 Premier Bennett went to Ottawa — I believe it was in 1984. He was a private-property man, and he couldn't get the other Premiers to agree with him. The fact that it is going to go ahead again by someone, yet unnamed, in amending the Charter.... I don't think it has much of a chance, because now if Meech Lake goes through, it's not going to help us amend the Charter. It may even hurt us, because each province will be guaranteed a veto. All it would take is little Prince Edward Island, with 120,000 souls, to say no, and property rights are out.

Why would they say no? They said no before. They said no along with Newfoundland, Alberta and Saskatchewan, because they were concerned about one thing — especially P.E.I. — and that was to protect the foreshore and oceanfront of P.E.I. from a complete sellout to foreign owners. If P.E.I. then with a Conservative, right-wing government — was opposed to the inclusion of property rights in the constitution, I am quite sure they will do it again in order to protect their country.

I support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I think we have to realize what it does. The Charter protects the rights founded on the belief that the main enemy of freedom is the state. It's state intervention that is protected against by the Charter. Whenever there is a concern about private property or private power, it's the power of the state that worries most people. On the other hand, when you start talking about the social rights to a decent environment, clean air, clean water, decent housing, decent jobs, and all kinds of things that bring on individual well-being, the proponents of property rights are very silent.

Is there anybody among the right-wing property-rights people who is going to go to the mat for the kinds of amendments to the Charter that I think are necessary for people?

I have a number of excellent quotes here from scholarly people who have written on this subject. I mention, for instance, Prof. Andrew Petter of the University of Victoria. He writes in The Advocate: "Nor could one invoke the Charter to challenge the common law of trespass that legitimizes that refusal. Common law rules governing the property entitlements of private parties are seen as pre-political norms not subject to Charter scrutiny." What that means is that we already have in common law all the protection of private property we need. The common law was first developed to protect private property and as a dispute-settling method over land disputes. That's where our common law came from — in the ownership of property, deep in our culture.

People came from all over Europe and all over the world to this country for a specific purpose: land. People came here for land. Land-starved people came to North America for land they could own. It's so deeply embedded in our culture that nobody's going to threaten that. I think the member need not worry about that in any real sense. I think he's put up a bogeyman and suggested that if we don't pass this amendment — it's a blue herring — somehow that's going to threaten us.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the opposition House Leader says we ought not to worry about this; we ought to trust it; we ought to be certain that in this time when all our rights are embedded in a constitutional framework, we ought not to be concerned. Well, I'll tell you, I am concerned.

The reason I'm concerned is the behaviour of the socialists in the House of Commons on May 2, 1988 — not in the nineteenth century, friend of mine — in which a resolution identical to our resolution No. 1, which says everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice came before the House of Commons. And guess who voted against it, my friend. Guess who voted against it. Guess who stood up in the House of Commons and said no to the right to own your own home. Guess who stood up and said no to the right to own your boat or your property or your seniority rights. Well, guess who, my friend. Jim Fulton from Skeena stood up and said no to the right to own your own home; so did Pauline Jewett and Margaret Mitchell and Nelson Riis and Ian Waddell. They all stood up to say they oppose putting this fundamental right in the constitution of Canada. That's why I am concerned, my friend, and that's why I say the Leader of Opposition, wandering around the Boundary-Similkameen constituency today doing his little Groucho Marx imitation, should stand up and say he opposes the position of the NDP in Ottawa.

They would oppose farmers in Boundary-Similkameen owning their own farms, the people in the Grand Forks area who left mother Russia to come to this area for freedom of religion and freedom to live collectively in the kind of lifestyle they want. He should stand up and condemn this little perfidy that has gone on down there in Ottawa. These socialist members of Parliament did not stand up in B.C. before their constituents and say: "We oppose the right to own your own home." No, they didn't. They snuck off to Ottawa, stayed in their little cubicles until the opportunity arose, and then they stood up and voted against this most fundamental right.

Even though they wander around looking like little yuppies with their nice, well-trimmed suits and well-coiffed hair

[ Page 4459 ]

and neatly trimmed moustaches, as the old saying does so well go, if they look like a crow and they sound like a crow and they fly and they, have black feathers, then the odds are that indeed they are a crow, even if it is a socialist crow.

HIGHWAY 3 — THE NEED FOR UPGRADING

MR. LOVICK: It's difficult to talk about something that belongs to the real world, something that is mundane, concrete and tangible, after we have been taken to the heights in the realm of fabrication. However, I do not mean to be contumacious, nor do I mean to be controversial. Instead, my subject today is highways.

Specifically I want to talk about Highway 3. We all know that that is the Crowsnest route that goes from Hope to the Alberta border. As we also know, it is a very important road. Indeed, it traverses five constituencies: Yale-Lillooet, Boundary-Similkameen, Rossland-Trail, Nelson-Creston and Kootenay. It is a road whose importance will be recognized at least by the members representing those constituencies.

Certainly it was a road whose importance was acknowledged by the former first member for Boundary-Similkameen. Indeed, that member said during a throne speech debate in March 1985 that Highway 3 was most important to us in the south end of the province. Unfortunately, it seems that the Bennett government of the time did not listen to that member.

In fact, Mr. Hewitt, the former first member for Boundary-Similkameen, was a member of the self-same cabinet that approved in 1985-86 a total expenditure for construction and improvements of about half a million dollars. That doesn't sound like a problem necessarily until we realize that that sum of money is about $4.3 million less than was spent in 1982-83, that it was about $3.5 million less than was spent in 1981-82, and that it was even $2.8 million less than was spent in 1983-84, at the height of restraint. The member for Boundary-Similkameen may have worked very hard, acknowledged the problem with Highway 3 and argued with justification that it deserved better, but his words clearly weren't heeded. The government of the day did not listen.

Highway 3 is the southern transprovincial route. In fact, it is a route that, with improvement, could be made a shorter alternative to the Trans-Canada Highway. It would certainly represent — as most of us would recognize with any objective analysis of the map — a better and wiser use of taxpayers' dollars than, let us say, the Coquihalla. It would be a better road to build, especially if we are talking about megabucks, as we were with the Coquihalla.

[10:30]

We hope that that very point will be considered by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) as part of that long-term transportation plan for the province that we have had reference to in this chamber.

For the short term though, I hope we can all agree that Highway 3 does need to be upgraded. Certainly that western portion — the Hope-Princeton — was a very marvelous engineering feat for its time, but it's an old road. It needs help; it needs work; it needs upgrading. The Anarchist Mountain stretch from Osoyoos to Rock Creek needs work. My colleague the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) tells me that there are parts of Highway 3 in her constituency that are in desperate need of upgrading and improvement. In short, it seems to me that the people of this region have every right to ask that Highway 3 be upgraded. Indeed, I think they have a reason to go beyond, to say that it is their right and it is overdue.

The simple reason why Highway 3 ought to be upgraded is that the traffic flow demonstrates that it has similar volumes of traffic to the Coquihalla. We are not talking about a minor route. Let me give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker. If we look at the traffic flow statistics for 1986 and at the average daily total figures in August 1986 at route 3, measured in Allison Pass, we discover 7,130 vehicles. If we look at route 5, at Dry Gulch Bridge, 2.4 kilometres south of the Coquihalla tollbooths, we discover 7, 064 vehicles. That pattern holds throughout the months; I haven't been selective. I assure you, Mr. Minister.

The point is that there is a pretty compelling case for giving some attention to Highway 3. Unfortunately it seems that there is a direct correlation between the underfunding of improvements to Highway 3 and that black hole called the Coquihalla. We have spent so much money on the Coquihalla that we have starved the southern portion of the province, the southern route. The Coquihalla, we all remember, was where the $1 billion went walking and where certain members on the other side of the House tried to suggest that it either didn't happen, or even if it did, that it wasn't a problem. We all recall that rather interesting debate.

It's interesting to note that this year's estimates budget shows that there is some $36 million budgeted for Coquihalla construction — and that's the scaled-down, smaller version: phase 3. Highway 3, in short, deserves some attention, and I would remind the minister of the words of his immediate predecessor, who I notice is in the House. The former Highways minister stated during the estimates debate last year, July 15, 1987: "We have budgeted $7 million for paving Highway 3." A change of Highways ministers, alas, seems to mean we have also had a change of plans.

Certainly there is no reference to Highway 3 in the throne speech, or the budget speech; there is no reference to it in the minister's opening comments about his estimates; nor is there, as nearly as I can make out, any reference in the estimates. There should be dollars for upgrading of Highway 3, and I hope we can hear assurances from the other side that there will be dollars.

MR. CHALMERS: I'm pleased today to respond to the member opposite with the sudden interest in highways coming from the socialist in the comer. Being a member from the interior, of course, I understand, as all the people of the interior understand, the need for and importance of highways and transportation systems in this great province.

A great deal has been done to open up the north and the interior because of the Socred vision of Mr. W.A.C. Bennett and his son Bill Bennett, and that tradition will be carried on, I can assure you, by the present Socred administration and future Socred administrations in this province. The Highway 3 that the member talks about was brought in to become a modem highway by the Socred government. It was opened in 1949, but over the last 39 years a great deal of upgrading has been done to make it a very good highway indeed for all the people. It will continue to be that way.

It's very important, of course, to Boundary-Similkameen, and it would make me wonder if maybe this issue is being brought up today because of the by-election. The sudden interest in highways by the socialists.... They talk about the present minister, hoping that he's going to have money in the budget to upgrade Highway 3.

[ Page 4460 ]

I would remind the House and the member for Nanaimo that the great Highways minister known as Pot-hole Lea, during the NDP administration between 1972 and 1975, spent virtually no money on highways, not only Highway 3 but highways throughout this province. In fact, his answer to the problem of the highways, and the fact that the pot-holes were getting deeper and greater, was for the American tourists to stay home. He suggested that it was their cars and their trailers that were creating all this problem for B.C. highways. It was certainly not that mentality or attitude that developed the interior of this province.

A great deal will be done to upgrade Highway 3 as well as other highways throughout this province. You know, it's important on Vancouver Island that they have a new highway built. It's important in the northern part of this province. It's important throughout this province that we have good highways built and maintained. Although our party has been called by some the Blacktop Party, that's not something that I as a member am ashamed of, because highways are what made this province, and that will continue to be the case.

MRS. BOONE: What about the people?

MR. CHALMERS: What about the people? Well, those people have to move around, Madam Member, and I would suggest that that's even the case in Prince George North. I think that highways are very important up there. Maybe it would be interesting to hear from you someday about what needs to be done in that region in highways as well.

Highway 3 is going to become a very important route with the opening of the Coquihalla Highway coming soon, something all of us in the interior are looking forward to. Highway 3 will allow an opportunity for those in the southern part of the province to create circle tours to Vancouver and the Okanagan using the Coquihalla and Highway 97. Highway 97 is being widened on an ongoing program for the last five years. They've started four-laning the highway. It will eventually be four-lane from the U.S. border all the way up to Salmon Arm, where it connects with the Trans-Canada Highway. Once that is done and Highway 3 has been improved even more, great opportunities will be there for the people of the interior and from all over the province to travel on those circle tours.

All of us in the interior, I can assure you, are looking forward to that, and certainly those in Boundary-Similkameen, who know that Socred governments have provided excellent service to that area for many years and, with the election of Russ Fox on June 8 of this year, will continue to provide good service to that area. I thank you for the opportunity to mention that, Mr. Member.

MR. LOVICK: Isn't it interesting that when I present a case for upgrading, and I present a case that suggests that Highway 3 has not been well served by the government, all we get is an effort to dredge up some mythical past and some ideological diatribe about people on this side of the House who aren't in favour of highways. What patent and total nonsense! I am frankly offended by listening again and again to this mindless iteration and incantation about the socialists who don't believe in highways.

Let me tell the member what we don't like about your attitude toward highways. We don't like the fact that we had unrestricted and unrestrained spending on the Coquihalla for half a billion dollars. We don't like the fact that highways policy in this province has become a joke because it's a political pork-barrel. That's what we don't like. We are talking about a sensible, coherent, long-term highways policy and transportation for this province based on need rather than on partisan politics. That's the point to be made.

I would also remind the member that even though his sense of history begins in 1952 with the advent of Social Credit, the highway in the southern interior of the province was built prior to the advent of Social Credit in this province. As you note, it was built in the late forties — not after your government came in. I am suggesting that if there are dollars to be spent on major and rather esoteric highways projects, like Coquihalla phase 3 — which I think is — then it seems to me that a transprovincial route that should be an arterial route should get some priority status.

I am intrigued that we do not have clear statements from government about how that is going to happen. Rather, what we had was a rather airy-fairy and somewhat vague comment about plans for Highway 3. Let me quote again the former Minister of Highways' comments in a throne speech: "As far as turning Highway 3 into a major artery, I can tell the member that this is another very big ticket item somewhere out in the future, as far as the long-range plans of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are concerned."

Mr. Speaker, that is our problem. It is vague and indeterminate. Surely we need an approach to transportation and construction that tries to lay out for a ten-year period or longer where the priorities ought to be, based on traffic patterns and evidence. The people of this province deserve nothing less. Certainly the people served by Highway 3 — in Boundary-Similkameen — deserve nothing less.

MR. CRANDALL: I am amused by the second member for Nanaimo who talks about the concern the opposition has for overspending on highways. It's my opinion that the concern there is not that they don't like overspending, but rather that the achievements in building roads in this province have been primarily during Social Credit administrations. That's what they don't like — the Social Credit achievement. It isn't that the overspending has happened; it's that all the major roads have been built by Social Credit, Liberal or Conservative, and none of the major roads in this province have been built during the NDP administration. In fact, I would challenge the second member for Nanaimo to tell me what the NDP administration built during those dark 1,000 days from 1972 to 1975.

I want to digress before I talk about the preventive health care issue that I plan to talk about, First of all, I want to talk about....

MR. ROSE: On a point of order. Not that anyone here is without sin, Mr. Speaker, but I doubt if it's in order — as has happened just recently — for a rebuttal of a previous topic to be the beginning of a new statement which deals with another subject altogether. If this trend develops, I know what this is going to turn into.

As I say, we've done it as well. If that's the way it's going to go, fine. I would have loved to have my colleague rebut some of the demagogic remarks of the member for Kamloops. I thought the subject was closed there. Similarly, the other subject — having to do with highways — should have been closed. I understand that the member for Columbia River had an entirely different subject, and I commend him to get on with it.

[ Page 4461 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member would just take his seat for a moment, please. I would mention, as the hon. member did, that the second member for Nanaimo committed the same sin as the member for Columbia River. Certainly within the strict context of the rules, the point made by the opposition House Leader is absolutely correct. I would caution members that when we are doing our weekly members' statements, the subject they are to address when they stand is the subject which appears on the order paper. Having so said, I will recognize the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

[10:45]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, you have precisely made the point that I was about to make. I think the only difference between the two is that the member for Columbia River was somewhat longer than the second member for Nanaimo.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I'll ask Hansard to make that time up for the hon. member.

SPOTLIGHT ON PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE

MR. CRANDALL: I want to spend a minute talking about the spotlight that this government has put on preventive health care. I believe one of the most positive directions put forth in our budget this year — and I've talked about it briefly before — is the issue we have highlighted by focusing on preventive health care. It is my belief and understanding that the politics of wellness will be well received in our province and, gradually, across Canada. I believe this will be another one of those political issues, like good financial management, which start in B.C. and then roll across the country. I believe the politics of wellness will similarly start in British Columbia and roll across Canada.

The major point I want to make on the issue of preventive health care is that our government's initiative to focus on prevention is, I believe, going to bring about an entire new thrust for preventive health care, and an entirely new thrust for health care in general. It's good to see preventive health care put in the spotlight by a government that is willing to take new initiatives. Some may feel that a push on preventive health care by our government will not achieve significant results. In the initial part of my statement this morning I talked about achieving results. This government, I'm very convinced, is concerned about achieving results, and I believe we will achieve results here as well.

There are some parallels that we can look to. We can look right within health care issues to the stop-smoking program put forward by the Canadian Cancer Society. Smoking is much less popular than it used to be. In our airlines, cigarette smoking is now prohibited on all the short flights. For those people who do not smoke, that is a great move forward. We also found this with the introduction of seatbelts. People who had no interest in using seatbelts use them today routinely. I was one who wasn't excited about seatbelts, but when they were passed through legislation, I now find I use them every day.

Why do we have a concern for preventive health care? First of all, I'm convinced that good preventive health care with an emphasis from the provincial government will improve the quality of life for British Columbians. When we focus on health issues, I think we usually focus only on the costs. That's not the whole issue with preventive health care.

We are also very significantly going to improve the quality of life. As people live longer and more healthily, besides simply reducing costs, there will be an improvement in the enjoyment of life. But of course it will reduce costs. There will be less acute care needed. That's the obvious reason: avoiding the need for acute-care treatment.

In addition, I believe an improved preventive health care practice will in time move across the line from just avoiding acute-care costs to providing improved treatments, even within our acute-care system, to where treatment costs are not only avoided but also reduced. I think of health issues such as cancer, arthritis and heart disease, where a preventive health program will avoid costs; and even after people contract or have health problems, we will be able to reduce the costs of providing effective treatment.

We spend much of our time in our society supporting various ideas of life, but in practice we very often don't get interested in issues of health until ours is in poor condition. I believe very sincerely that the people of our province would benefit from having a preventive health care system put in the spotlight by our provincial government. I believe that as a people we would benefit from a good education program providing information on nutrition. Similarly on exercise. Jogging has become a popular thing, a thing that the yuppies do. But I'm not sure the majority of our population recognizes the benefits of sufficient and good exercise. I'm also not sure that in a province where we have abundant fresh and pure water, our population is sufficiently informed on the benefits of pure water. Our diet is comprised of a lot of drinks and liquids, but we don't really benefit as much from pure water — and many other things on the health prevention side — that I believe we could benefit from.

MRS. BOONE: We certainly can't argue with the concept of prevention. We have been promoting that for some time. Perhaps you did read my estimates from last year. Is that where you got most of your notes from? I would anticipate that's where they came from. We have been promoting prevention for many years, and it is something we must do. But we must not just give lip service to it. What we see right now in this province is lip service to the idea of prevention, but actually no — or very little — prevention taking place.

The fact that 40 percent of the people in our hospitals are there because of alcohol-related disease shows that we have a job to do in that prevention area. If the province developed some drug and alcohol awareness programs to put into schools, then we could be dealing with those issues. If the government was truly interested in prevention, they would be following the Jansen report. The Jansen report clearly indicates that the marketing of alcohol must remain in government control, because any move to take it out of government control would lead to an increase in consumption. That is clear in what is being told to this government by anybody who has anything to do with alcohol and drug abuse. They are telling you not to let this out of the hands of government.

You mentioned your smoking programs. The smoking program is having a good effect. It's not having as strong an effect on the female population as I would like to see. I understand that young women out there are still smoking, but young males are tending to quit. You also mentioned it was developed by the Canadian Cancer Society. What is this government doing to promote anti-smoking? What is this government doing to get that message across to us?

[ Page 4462 ]

One of the saddest parts around here is what is happening in our mental health field. I don't care where you go in this province. If somebody has any kind of problem whatsoever — whether it is depression or an eating dysfunction — they are not able to get the assistance they require in their communities. If you happen to be a young person — a teenager — with a severe problem, you are virtually out of luck at this point. Those are the things I think we ought to be dealing with — getting some prevention out there so that these people are not going to have mental breakdowns, or be put into our psych units — which are already overused — and are not going to be put into some other areas. We do not have the support systems out there for any of those areas.

If you look into our health units, we have audiologists, speech pathologists and dental programs. All of them are very good programs. They do their jobs very well. But again, we are not addressing the situation of where we get our staff. We're not training enough of those people. If you went to any health units around this province, you would find that there is a lack of staff, not because they don't have the money to fund them, but because they don't have the ability to get the staff there. We must address those areas as well.

If we really thought about prevention, then surely we should start reinsituting the family planning and planned parenthood that was cut back so many years ago during 1983.

The Finance minister in the budget mentioned that they were going to be keeping on physiotherapy, chiropractic, massage practitioners and all those other alternatives because they were good, helpful, worthwhile and preventive. Yet he did nothing to remove the $5 deterrent fee that he imposed last year. Surely if we are serious about prevention, we shouldn't be putting a fee on to deter people from those areas.

A major area of prevention that I feel we should be dealing with is poverty. That's something that this government has not been addressing at all. We've seen the whole area with regard to hungry children and prevention in that end. What happens when children are hungry? They don't learn as well; they can't function as well in school. We have not been addressing the situation of the many families out there that just do not have enough money to survive on — let alone feed their children. They are the working poor; they are sometimes people that are on social assistance. The poverty in this province is something that has not been addressed at all.

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince George North talked about lip-service — that we only pay lip-service to the issues of preventive health. I want to remind her that this government in its budget for 1988-89 has doubled the funding for drug and alcohol programs. That isn't lip-service, Mr. Speaker; that's achievement, just like in other areas of our administration. I won't mention highways. This government is an achievement-oriented government, and we don't just pay lip-service.

A good health preventive program, Mr. Speaker, may even consider an issue which we have not talked much about, but an issue that concerns me. It's an issue that concerns me because of some of the small communities that I represent. It's the issue of loneliness. Man is a social animal; we like to be with other people generally....

Interjections.

MR. CRANDALL: Certainly women too; certainly both men and women are social animals. Generally we do not like to be alone. But many British Columbians do live alone; some do so by choice, but some do so simply because the circumstances of their life have left them alone. Even with the excellent communications that we have today — television, radio and newspapers — people still do not like to be left alone. The issue of loneliness can also affect our health, I believe. That may be another issue that we can wrap into a preventive health care program, and one which I would like to see us do; again, partly because of the many people who live alone in our small communities, where there are a small number of people.

[11:00]

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB PRIVATIZATION

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to say that I'm very pleased to see the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in the House. We've missed him in the last couple of days; we had a lot of important business we wanted to talk to him about.

My topic is the privatization of the Environmental Laboratory. I'd like to start by quoting from the minister's briefing notes that were circulated prior to the meeting at the Environmental Lab, to dispel any comments that the minister might make that they haven't privatized the lab yet and that our concerns are premature.

First of all, what I have here is a calendar of events, a schedule, to direct the restructuring and privatization of the lab. The dates show indications that July 1 is the date when they will issue layoff notices if necessary; on July 15 they will add fee regulations to the Environment Management Act, allowing B.C. Research to charge fees to permit-holders; on August 15 B.C. Research starts a new audit program; and October 1, 1988, is the target date for closing the deal on the privatization of the laboratory. I think it's important that the House remember the date October 1, 1988, because it will be of relevance in later comments in the statement.

For the official record, and for some members of the House who are not familiar with the role of the Environment Lab and some of the services that they provide for the people of this province, I'd like first to identify some of those services.

1. The Environment Lab is the first line of defence for environmental problems in the province. I would remind the House of issues like the cucumber pesticide poisoning last year; the cyanide discharge into the Coquihalla, which is a drinking-water source, a few years ago; and the chemical plant fire in Richmond, which resulted in widespread contamination of residential areas. The Environmental Laboratory was the first line of defence in those critical times, and they provided tremendous support and backup for emergency services.

2. The scientific support needed by the law enforcement branches for upholding the environmental statutes of the province: that is, to protect fish and animal habitats as well as air quality and drinking-water for the province. No one in this room has to be reminded of the importance of protecting air quality and drinking-water because of not only the health and safety aspects to communities but the tremendous costs of trying to deal with health problems afterwards. One of our previous statements in the House talked about preventive health and wellness; well, this is the front-line defence for preventive health and for wellness.

3. The independent standard in the province by which the quality of analytical data from private industry is compared.

[ Page 4463 ]

This is the standard, the assurance, the check and balance that we will have one standard in the province for analytical data.

4. An independent laboratory where the public in any part of the province can have the quality of their drinking water verified. This is fulfilling the responsibility of the Environment minister to protect the health and safety of the people, and will ensure that the province can be confident that their drinking-water is safe.

Now the question is: what will the privatization of this lab mean? Can we ask the minister to ensure that these specific issues will be addressed?

1. There will be no uniform standard of quality, of data, making it extremely difficult for the ministry to determine when pollution is beginning to occur as industry expands.

2. There is an issue of confidence, an issue of response to environmental disasters.

3. No uniform standards by which legal cases can proceed successfully.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says that it's the same as 1, but it is not. First of all it's an issue of regulating, and secondly it's an issue of justice — whether or not the courts can be assured that all standards are using the same data and testing.

5. There would be nothing preventing a few private permittee companies from eventually owning or controlling all the relevant analytical expertise in the province, rendering the B.C. regulatory agencies absolutely toothless.

6. Probably the end to the provincial-federal accord on environment, since the province can no longer uphold its obligations.

I want to talk a little about what the lab does in specific communities. In Terrace-Kitimat, for instance, the lab is responsible for extensive monitoring carried out to assess any effects of industrial activity on health and safety. The air is tested for acid rain, and there are additional equipment tests for airborne particles and fly ash from pulp mills, smelters and other sources.

Just to touch on some of the highlights, in Atlin-Cassiar the Environmental Lab performs analysis of air samples for asbestos. This is very important for that community. As a quality assurance check on routine analysis carried out by the mine, in Cassiar they have participated in testing the dryer vent discharges from the mine — again, for asbestos.

I welcome the minister's comments and look forward to a wrap-up.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's always nice to welcome the member to the assembly and hear her debate on this subject. I know that it's a subject that's near and dear to her heart, and one in which she expresses some genuine concern and enthusiasm.

First of all, with respect to the calendar that the House was advised of, the member has the dates correct, but makes a quantum leap in suggesting that something will happen in August, without advising the House that this is only May 13, and that there's a critical date, June 24, on which bids close. Do you have that part of your calendar? You didn't tell the House that bids close on June 24, and you are all aware that today is May 13. You see, we will have to have a buyer on the day the bids close before we can anticipate anything else happening after that. That's the way any offer for sale works.

On the presumption that there is a buyer on June 24, the day the bids close, and that the buyer is acceptable to the province of British Columbia, we will entertain privatization of the lab process. However, let's not lose sight of the fact — and this is the other item the member did not bring to the attention of the Legislative Assembly — that we have a genuine concern with standards, which the member mentioned. I can assure you that standards will not change. For that reason, we have contracted by letter of May 4, 1988, with the B.C. Research Council to do an audit process for us. B.C. Research will add eight new jobs for chemical analysis and technicians. They will have a responsibility to collect fees for doing tests; they will establish a users' committee; they will report all audit results to the Ministry of Environment monthly; they will acquire equipment from the current Environmental Lab; they will carry out an efficient and secure audit program on behalf of the ministry, the government of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia. They assure us — and they are the experts in the field — that the concerns expressed by citizens of British Columbia and those concerned with what we do in the Ministry of Environment will be of prime concern to B.C. Research, in whom I have eminent trust.

So I can't accept the notion or any argument that we do not have a first line of defence, that we will be changing standards, and that private industry will run amok. What we have heard here is an opinion from the New Democratic Party that the private sector cannot be trusted, or in some way are faulted in doing what they're doing. Their degrees — their chemistry and biology degrees, their technical diplomas — are just as good whether they are working for the BCGEU or whether they're not working for the BCGEU. They have had the same standards of training, and even if they are employed by that nasty private sector, we're sure they'll carry out their duties to the best of their ability.

You don't understand the audit process either. I've explained to you that B.C. Research is in place. Now you're not criticizing B.C. Research, are you? I don't think you'd want to do that.

Let me summarize; I see the green light is on. Standards do not change. Whether we have the private sector testing, with audit done by B.C. Research, the standards remain the same. Confidence will remain the same. Response to environmental emergency, such as chemical or other events that have happened in the last year, will remain the same. The member's third comment was again to do with standards. The member didn't say what number four was, and number five in her comments is again answered by the fact that we have B.C. Research in place. I'm quite convinced that the program of audit research that B.C. Research will carry out for and on behalf of the people of British Columbia is sufficient and will do the job extremely well. I'd also like to point out that the rule will be retained in the Ministry of Environment of six full-time-equivalent people to interface with B.C. Research and also with the Ministry of Environment and the user group. Twelve FTEs will be established at B.C. Research to carry on the extra audit testing that they're doing.

I have to deny and reject out of hand any concerns that the member opposite has expressed and assure you and the people of British Columbia that this privatization, when and if it occurs, will occur without detriment to the environment or the people of British Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Once again the minister is doing everything he can to belittle the people's concerns. If the

[ Page 4464 ]

people of this province do not have a concern, Mr. Minister, then make the information available to them. Stop closeting the information would allow the communities to understand whether or not you are indeed doing your job. Provide the information for the testing for the waste management permits so that we can measure, first of all, whether or not this ministry is fulfilling its mandate with the resources that they have.

I want to talk a little bit about the responsibilities and finish up that area. In the southern interior of this province, which is not particularly different than other areas, the laboratories do the testing for water and effluent samples in the lakes and the rivers. They provide this information and do testing for agencies such as fish and wildlife, waste management, pesticide control branches. All of that work is provided by the environmental lab of this province.

I have here a memo, Mr. Minister, that was sent out on May 6 — about the same time as the meeting at the Environmental Lab — by Mr. Ferguson of the waste management section of your ministry. The subject is the restructuring, the privatization of the Environmental Lab. I'd like to read to you one of the statements in his memo: "As a result of this action, the capability of the Environmental Laboratory to perform analytical services is expected to be reduced to approximately 50 to 70 percent of current capacity. All ministry staff are thus being requested to reduce monitoring activities requiring analytical services to only essential requirements until approximately October 1, 1988.

[11:15]

Is that your direction to your ministry staff? Are you closing down your responsibility to fulfill the mandate of protecting the environment, peoples' health and safety and the communities of this province?

Your record, Mr. Minister, is abysmal. You are fleeing your responsibility faster than anyone in their broadest imagination could possibly suggest. We are seeing here a dumping of the very tools that you have to fulfill your mandate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 23: minister's office, $211,618.

MR. BARNES: I am going to be very brief, and I'm sure the minister will appreciate that. I just want to canvass a couple of points that were dealt with very comprehensively by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and of course by the debate leader. They have to do with some comments made by the Premier. I know that when you mention the issue of hungry children in the schools, the minister gets a little twitchy and thinks that we are playing politics, but I just want to get some clarification for the record.

The Premier has said that kids go to school hungry because their parents don't love them enough. They are lazing in bed when they should be up making their kids' lunches. Could the minister indicate whether he really believes that is the case, and even so, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of what the Premier says or not, does he not agree that those youngsters are nonetheless hungry? If they are hungry, does he not agree that their ability to consume their educational experience is significantly impaired? If he agrees that their ability is somehow impaired, does he feel that it makes sense, under the present formula through his ministry, to provide funds to our school system for students who are not going to be able to benefit from that experience to the best of their ability?

I put it to you in the form of a problem that I would think you and the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) would be concerned about. Sure, there is an ideological or political problem in how to resolve the question of inadequate sustenance and incomes in families. It is a problem that we have been wrestling with for years and will obviously not be resolving today. But there is a fallout, regardless of our ideological and political differences, which is simply that right, wrong, indifferent or otherwise, the youngsters who are hungry remain hungry and therefore are going to school and sitting in class unable to function and absorb the experience and to participate to the best of their ability. There are always exceptions, and I am sure there are youngsters who are managing one way or another.

To give you just a brief example of what some people are trying to do about the problem, on Wednesday morning of this week I attended a program at the Kiwassa Neighbourhood House in the east end of Vancouver, just around the comer from Seymour Elementary School. There were some 20 youngsters there who are charged 25 cents for a breakfast, which is hardly an attempt to recover the costs for the breakfast, but nonetheless, if they have it, they are asked to pay 25 cents. That is a direct attempt to deal with the problem and forget about the politics or trying to shift the responsibility. As a result, those youngsters are going to school, participating in the programs and not having to be exposed or subjected to a means test or anything else. The food is there. They go and they take it in.

That is a sensible solution, not an ideal one. The ideal solution would be that there were no dysfunctional families and that everyone was equipped with the ability to manage their affairs frugally, responsibly and in the ways in which we would like to see all of our consumers out there managing so that the whole system would work much better.

Unfortunately, with the pressures of life, the tug-of-war that is involved, the temptations, the ups and downs, the emotions, the challenges and the impulsive things that can happen, it's not that simple to go from day to day over a 30 day period and be able to predict that everything will turn out the way you start. We know, through test after test and example after example, that our social assistance program is not even an attempt to address the problems. We've agreed that it is not adequate. We know that it's not adequate.

We know, for instance, that the amount of money that we provide for a single mother with a child would require at the very best an absolute capacity to manage those affairs under the most ideal of conditions. There would have to be the proper social housing available at the right price. There would have to be a certain percentage, without fail, of the income, like 25 percent of the income. There would have to be amenities in the community so that there wouldn't be the expenses of transportation. For instance, a person would have to be able to go and shop at one of those economy stores and not at one of those 24-hour joints that charge you twice as

[ Page 4465 ]

much for a carton of milk than you would pay in a supermarket. These kinds of things are important when you are trying to work out that equation. A lot of those people in the downtown east side don't have that.

I'm saying that it's a problem that is complex — and you're quite right when you say that there are politics involved in this issue of feeding hungry children. Why don't we expand the issue and really take a look at what we're talking about? I agree that there is a problem of management, but I suspect that even though there may be cases where the Premier could maybe win a round or two, he would lose just as many. The suggestion that 80 percent or 85 percent of the people who are on social assistance are managing has never been proven. What we're doing is assuming, because those people keep their mouths shut, don't protest, don't write letters to the politicians and are too proud to go public, that everything is being managed. We have no idea about what is really happening unless we ask them.

I would suggest that maybe what the minister should do in a ministerial initiative is say: "Look, let's do a questionnaire." We do polls all the time to see whether we are making right decisions politically. Why don't we inquire into those homes and drop them a simple questionnaire? "How are you managing? Are you having shortfalls? What do you do to supplement your income? Are you having to commit what we call 'survival fraud' in order to make ends meet? In other words, are you getting $50 or $100 that you're not reporting to your worker?" This kind of thing.

I think that these are the stories that we don't hear about, and this is probably one of the reasons why there's a much greater loss to us than we see on the surface. I'm sure that you realize that even though we feed these children — and it has been suggested that you feed them five days a week when they're at school — what happens to them on Saturday and Sunday? What happens to them when school is out for the term at the end of June, in July and August and until the first of September? These are the problems and we all know they're there.

It's not as though you're losing a political fight in terms of what the solution is. The point is, let's address the problem seriously and realize that the hungry children should be fed by whatever means. That's our duty. Otherwise the public school system is at risk. We know we're failing. We're spending tax dollars that are being spent in a way that we know is not going to be effective. You agree with the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) in his very effective description of what happens to a person who does not receive adequate nutrients and who is not fulfilled in terms of the health facilities needed to function. So we know that they are impaired in some way, and all I'm saying is: what are you really going to do about this? It's a problem that is only partially political. It's a human problem.

I listened to what the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) said yesterday when he was talking about the youngsters who were getting out of the school system and going for a walk. They just know that it's not the way it should be; we know it's not the way it should be. You even agreed with the minister that he was making some good points, and that there was a lot of flexibility in the system, room for creativity and room to expand their imagination and to take some initiative and do some things.

I am challenging you in a constructive way to assist by confirming that this problem is not being looked at in the way it should be. In the meantime, the children are hungry and should be fed. It's a joint responsibility not only of those families, but — where they fail — of the community in general and certainly by the various levels of government. We shouldn't turn our backs on these children. We are doing even more for children in foreign lands than we are doing for children at home. I don't think there is any excuse for it, notwithstanding the ideological differences that we try to hide behind from to time.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his comments and his concern. First of all, I believe he asked me to comment on what the Premier said. I don't know what the Premier said. All I know is what the press has reported the Premier said, and I have a little reticence about accepting the exact wording of that.

Let me point out something in the Province this morning as an example of why I have some cynicism about that. It's by a staff reporter, so this objective reporter is not even identified. It says: "It's okay for the Social Credit government to send propaganda to B.C. teachers, but it's wrong for the teachers' union to do so. That's the position of Education Minister Tony Brummet, who yesterday charged that curriculum material sent to teachers by the B.C. Teachers' Federation is 'propaganda."' I did not say that.

I said that they have no right to pretend that it's authentic material that the teachers have been told to do as lessons in the classroom. The BCTF or anybody can send any propaganda of any kind that they want to the teachers, but you see how that's translated. It goes on to say: "Brummet defended Premier Bill Vander Zalm's right to send teachers material on the Socreds' privatization plan and to ask for their help in explaining the scheme to students." That was specifically not in the letter.

The next editorial will attack me for saying something that I didn't say. I don't know whether they're doing the same thing to the Premier. I might give another example of balanced reporting. Yesterday I thought I had a fairly good debate with the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). There is a lengthy report today, again by the Times-Colonist staff, that goes on one full page about what the complaints were, what they said and what the school board chairman said.

I got some coverage in this. I tried to explain a lot of that, but it said: "Brummet said teachers' salaries had, in fact, been taken into account." It's the only mention I get, of all the explanations that I gave. I guess that's considered balanced reporting. I have a little trouble with that.

To the issue that the member raised, the matter of hungry kids, I acknowledged yesterday that children do not learn as well when they are hungry. I acknowledged that quite openly and will continue to do so. We are concerned about that. The government has a program in place to help them. It's run through Social Services and Housing. The Vancouver School Board refuses to use that program. They say: "We are not going to tell Social Services which children need this help."

[11:30]

MR. BARNES: You don't think they've got a valid point?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I don't. It's built around the cynicism that the Social Services and Housing people will publish that list in the paper. They work with confidential issues all the time.

[ Page 4466 ]

In other words, there is a program that says: "Let us know who the problems are, and we will do the best we can to deal with them." The school board says: "No way. We've got an item going here."

Let me put it this way. The Vancouver School District says they are not playing politics with this, and that they're concerned about the children.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Right. But let me put it another way. They say the fiscal framework isn't adequate to fund the educational measures, so they have absolutely no reservations about going to their taxpayers for $18 million, because they say that's the inadequacy of the fiscal framework. I don't agree with them, but they say that. They go to their taxpayers without a survey or anything for $18 million. They say nobody is adequately feeding these kids.

But in that $18 million, they can't incorporate $300,000 to feed the kids when they believe the kids need feeding. I have some difficulty when they can add 50 teachers. They say: "You don't fund enough teachers." On an average salary of $40,000 or more — with pensions and everything else — that's $2 million. No problem. That's a decision they make at the board table, because they would not get a lot of public sympathy in saying: "We are adding 50 teachers at a cost of $2 million." It's no big deal; they keep quiet about that. They just add it into the $18 million.

When it comes to an emotional issue like hungry kids, then they turn around and say: "In the $211 million budget that is there, in the $18 million above that, we can't find $300,000 to feed kids because we believe in that, so we will attack the provincial government because it's a nice emotional issue."

The rest of the member's comments have absolutely no relevancy to my ministry. You were talking about whether Social Services should survey whether people can manage and that sort of thing. That is properly the debate of Social Services and Housing. I have said....

MR. BARNES: What about the students in your system? The students are being affected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the hon. members to speak one at a time and direct their remarks through the Chair.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Exactly, but if you want to draw that, that the students are being affected, then how can a school district that says the students are being adversely affected by not enough teachers, by not enough this, by not enough that, and we are going to put $18 million above what the ministry said we need into meeting those needs and doing that. When it comes to feeding children, we believe also that that's inadequate, and we want to feed them, but on this one, we can't find $300,000 out of $18 million. This is one that we can view as a live issue and hand to people to make a big political furor out of it."

That's the point that I'm making — not that the children shouldn't be fed, not that it isn't a concern, not that isn't that; but if they say they're inadequate, why can they come up with $18 million for the other inadequacies and make a political football out of this one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby North.

MR. BARNES: Unfortunately, I have an appointment, so I'm not going to be able to stay here. You're going to get off the hook. But I'm going to leave you with this thought: you never did say what happens to the children in the meantime. In other words, you have these big groups....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair recognized the member for Burnaby North.

MR. BARNES: I beg your pardon? I'm not recognized?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: I just want to wind up by saying: what happens to the children who are hungry? We've got these two big bodies, the Vancouver School Board, the provincial government or any other large bodies out there debating. The children are hungry. They cannot learn until their bellies are full. Can't we have an interim system? Can't we stop our differences and our arguments and ensure that they're fed? Why doesn't the government say, look, this is totally against our policies and principles, but this is even different from the adults in the food bank lineups. We're talking about children. We're spending precious taxpayers' dollars to create a situation where they can learn. We're letting them go in there, knowing full well that they're hungry and not going to be able to learn. That's irresponsible. That's all I'm saying. You must agree with that. While we settle the debate, why not feed the children? What about a rescue program? What about something temporary? We do it for all kinds of things.

You can remember when the former Premier, Bill Bennett, was pushing to finish the Coquihalla Highway. Remember all the money he poured in there? He said: "I've got to have it finished." He had an obsession. He found all kinds of dollars. Isn't it a shame that we can't?

I agree with you. It's only a few hundred thousand dollars. But I think it's a real tragedy in our time that we can't get over our differences to feed those children, especially when they are at risk. It's tough enough for them. We're letting them down.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know whether it's been missed: that's exactly what I've been saying, that it seems to be strictly a Vancouver issue. There may be other hungry children out there, but they're not making an issue of it; they're dealing with it. Maybe they're going to Social Services, maybe they're.... This seems to be strictly a Vancouver issue. All I'm saying is, by all means go ahead and feed the children.

MR. BARNES: But without the help of government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They don't need our help for the other things, for up to $18 million. So I'm saying, go ahead and feed the children and quit playing politics with it.

MR. JONES: I find it difficult to switch gears after that debate, but I think it's important that we move on to canvass a few other areas under the Minister of Education's estimates.

I'd like to go briefly to the topic of governance of education. It's a critical issue in this province, and probably a much underrated topic, one that we take for granted, one of the many issues in our society that we cherish and we treasure, and because it's been in place for such a long time, we tend to take the system for granted.

[ Page 4467 ]

I must confess to my personal biases in this regard, in that I served on a school board for nine years and was chairman of the board for four years. I notice the assistant deputy minister is here, and he shares that experience as well.

I think the minister will see in a few moments the reason for my raising this topic. It's a fear on my part, and I think it's a fairly widespread fear in this province that there is potential for a change in the governance of our education system in this province. Let me give the minister a little bit of background on this issue. It's a background that I'm sure he's aware of, but I think it might be worthwhile for me to refresh his memory.

I'm sure it goes further back than this, but I'll go back as far as 1979, when the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is now the Premier of this province, produced a paper called "Regional Government Reform." In that paper the Premier recommended that regional districts be replaced by counties. That paper said that "county boundaries would be established to correspond to one or more school districts." This "lends itself to consolidation of local, regional, school and hospital functions."

You can imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the school trustees around this province were very concerned by that paper. There was a response to the minister of the day by the president of the B.C. School Trustees at that time — a trustee colleague of mine, Gary Begin. He said very clearly to the minister in his letter: "If it is not the intent of your government to tamper with the established instruments of school governance that have served B.C. well since 1872, please let it be known." Very clearly, the trustees at that time were very concerned about the directions in which the now Premier seemed intent on taking this province. Their concern was stated in a 1982 BCSTA document. Their concern was very clearly stated: that fully autonomous school boards would be eliminated under a county system.

That's a little bit of ancient history. Had that been the end of it, I would not be standing in my place raising this issue. However, in September 1986 the now Premier told the convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities in Vernon that he strongly still favoured the county system and questioned the idea that there be one educational policy for British Columbia. Clearly what we've seen since that time, with the introduction of the eight economic zones, is the precursor to the county system.

I note that in the 1987 brief by the Minister of Education to the Royal Commission on Education, which I've referred to before in these debates, there was absolutely no mention of school trustees or of school boards.

There was even one more recent statement by the Premier. It was in a copy of the newsletter of the Greater Vancouver Regional District at the end of last year: the November-December 1987 issue. In that newsletter there was an interview with the Premier. The Premier said very clearly in the article: "Counties would assume more functions than are now held by regional districts. I could see where in the future there is going to have to be a greater awareness of the function of school boards and how they operate locally and regionally, but counties could potentially accomplish that." He also said: "There will be changes, particularly in regard to the services provided and how they, the governing council or board of directors, are selected."

The trustees are still very concerned about this issue of the governance of education in this province, a system which, as Gary Begin stated, has served this province well for over a hundred years. The school trustees of the province are so concerned that a major part of their submission to the Royal Commission on Education talked about their concern with respect to the county system of government.

If I could quote briefly from their brief, they said: "Based on comments and initiatives out of Victoria in recent months, it is clear that the provincial government intends to look seriously at implementing a system of county government in British Columbia." They also point out that "...discussions have been held recently with regional district representatives about county government.

[11:45]

The principle, the position, the vision that the now Premier had in 1979 is well on its way. Clearly, the Premier has had no hesitation in communicating his vision of the governance of school districts in this province; he does not shy away from taking a position on this matter. He does not try to divert or evade the issue. So I ask the Minister of Education who, to his credit, has worked hard and spent a good deal of time meeting with school boards when they've requested it and has often served in an excellent capacity....

If the member for Vancouver South would not be so rude as to walk in between the minister and me, I would pose my question again. Does the Minister of Education agree with the Premier of the province that we should consolidate school, regional, hospital and other functions into one county system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess we're always dealing with the interpretations that people put on things. For instance, I don't know who my critic was quoting when he said: "It is clear that the government intends to implement the county system." That's somebody's opinion; I don't think it's clear at all. If you recognize what has been happening in the new funding formula and the new fiscal framework, we have said that the government will fund up to this level. We'll approve the fiscal framework up to this level, and school boards will be accountable to their local taxpayers for expending above that. I think that's very indicative. In other words, if we're going to be judged by someone else's interpretation, that makes it difficult for us. I would rather be judged by our actions.

When the Premier was Minister of Municipal Affairs, he was a strong advocate of the county system and he may still be. I don't think he should be denied the right to state his views quite openly, which he is wont to do. I think we need to be judged by our actions. The member also knows — or should know, as he seems to be pretty good at getting letters — that I have written countless letters to people who have asked this question and have said that I do not see any advantages to the county system. I've said that to the Premier.

I don't know what will happen. I can't predict what decision might be made five years down the road. I can tell the member quite clearly that I am not an advocate of the county system. I have said that to the Premier, to cabinet and to others. I don't even know that it's being discussed. It almost seems in our discussions as if it's a dead issue. The only people raising it are the opposition or other people who are speaking out. They say that the regionalization and decentralization is clear evidence that we intend to go to the county system. It isn't. That's the label that you try to hang on it. We don't.

For instance, I wrote to Dr. Dante Lupini, president of the Association of B.C. School Superintendents, who raised

[ Page 4468 ]

this, saying: "My God, is this the start of the county system?" I pointed out to him that there is no intent to take over any of the functions of existing government agencies in the region. The development region exists to provide an opportunity for existing agencies to meet on a regional basis and to make decisions or recommendations on how available resources should be utilized. In my region, the school board rep has joined our committee to express the concerns of education. There's absolutely no intent to take over any functions of the school boards — only to supplement them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The chirper may get his chance later on, if he can just resist and hang on for a little while.

I don't know that the economic zones.... Indication has been made clearly over and over again by us that we don't intend to take over any local government functions. The only people saying that we are intending to do so are the opposition critics, hoping that if they say it often enough, maybe the public will believe there's some plot in that direction. There isn't.

I happen to be one of the ministers of state, and I would like, as far as I'm concerned, to allay that member's fears about the county system. I can't find any good evidence of how it will work better. I've looked at it and I'll admit that I will take a look at anything proposed. I don't want it translated that by looking into it I'm looking to implement it. I'm not. In my analysis, I've found that I don't see any particular advantages. I would hate to think — maybe I'm going too far here — that somebody elected on a platform who wants better water and sewers makes the educational decisions. I want the school boards dealing with education. Does that help?

MR. JONES: I find that very refreshing and I'm very much appreciative of the minister's response, both its forthrightness and its — I think — correct position in terms of education. I don't want to belabour that point.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You agree with me?

MR. JONES: One hundred percent, Mr. Minister. The only area where we disagree is what I quoted from the B.C. School Trustees' Association's submission. They suggest that there are moves going on, and I'm very pleased to see you're on the correct side of this issue and that it is you and the Premier who will be debating this. I wish you very well in that debate.

I'd like to move on very briefly to an issue that has been canvassed in this Legislature, but it's an important one that the minister has been responsible for — it was certainly an important part of his annual report — and that's in the area of the fund for excellence in education. I think what's at issue here is in terms of a government setting up a fund, and it's important in our democratic system that we have these kinds of things. I'm sure there are important things that funds can be set up for, certain one-time causes in, say, education that can accomplish a good deal to the benefit of the young people of this province.

However, I'm critical of the fund for excellence in education because it was only used to a small degree for the purpose for which it was intended. As the auditor-general pointed out, it did not serve the major purpose of a fund in that the major value of this kind of thing is for one-time initiatives  — initiatives that have a one-time cost rather than ongoing costs. I'm critical because for that portion that did go for the purpose intended — setting up computer labs and that kind of thing — I don't believe there was the kind of coordination that I hope will be in place in the future. In terms of the purchase of hardware and software and that kind of thing, I hope the minister will assure me that there is the kind of coordination that I read of in his recent initiatives.

One of the most critical areas, as far as the fund goes, was he portion that was spent. The promise to the people of British Columbia was some $600 million in this fund. Although I don't have an accurate accounting — perhaps the minister will help me with this — I suggest that only approximately half of that fund was spent. I would like to ask he minister if he agrees with me that although the plan for the Excellence in Education fund may have been a reasonable one because at the time we needed an infusion of computer technology into our school system, the fund was clearly mismanaged from beginning to end.

MR. R. FRASER: I look forward to once again taking part in this debate, especially when we talk about the fund for excellence, a great fund which I had some part in as a member of this Legislative Assembly. Indeed, the government of the day did suggest that the fund would in time total some $600 million: $110 million the first year, approximately $200 million the second year and $300 million in the final year.

As the member opposite knows, the fund for excellence has now been withdrawn, but I note with some humour that the opposition was against the establishment of the fund for excellence in 1986 and then in 1988 was against its withdrawal. Imagine that! What a flip, what a turnaround. Didn't like it for openers, and then they liked it for closers. It's really and truly amazing how they could flip the same fund — be totally against establishing it and then totally against removing it. You can't have consistency when you do that. I've listened to all the debate that we've had day in and day out on this education issue. What a great opportunity the opposition has had to grill the minister unmercifully for days — practically this entire week — and in my view they could have done it much more quickly and effectively than they did.

I would like to talk about other things as well. Burnout is not the word I want. I want to change the subject and talk about the BCTF presentation which was raised by the minister and defended by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), who said it was a great submission and should be used in the schools. There are two pieces to that document. One is a videotape, from the CLC essentially, and the other is part of a program put together by the BCTF. I happened to view the tape yesterday with some interest, and indeed it promoted the idea of collective bargaining from the CLC's point of view.

I don't have any problem with a union or a business or a government or an opposition putting forward a point of view. Quite clearly, I don't agree with everything in the tape, or the reasons that they give for decisions that were taken by the government of John A. Macdonald, for example. I doubt that unions were made legal because the Prime Minister of the day wanted to embarrass a Leader of the Opposition. I suspect his reasons were more profound than that. That is the reason given in the tape.

I have no problem with the idea that trade unions should be promoting trade unionism. It would be illogical, from my

[ Page 4469 ]

point of view, if they failed to do that — just as businesses would promote their product, and the opposition will try to promote something, I hope, and government promotes its programs. That's not illogical. I would have very little difficulty with that tape going into the school.

On the other hand, the part of that submission to the schools put together by the BCTF was embarrassing — not to me, but it should be to them. With all the opportunity and all the money they have to produce something really good to promote the BCTF, which has a long history, they should change directions over the years. That's not serious either. They are allowed to change; the members are allowed to change the direction of the group of which they form a part. They have this great opportunity and all sorts of money — 28,000 people paying between $50 and $100 a month, an income of $14 million or $15 million a year. They have such a great chance to put together a project that would be acceptable in the schools. But some of it is so bad and so unrealistic that it destroys the good parts, because they've become illogical. It's unacceptable because of the bad parts of the presentation by the BCTF. I found it very disappointing. Because teachers as a group are all educated, probably all went to university, many of them have post-graduate degrees.... It's discouraging for a person like me to think that 28,000 people paying hundreds of dollars a year in dues, being able to hire the best in the country to produce a submission, produced something that really will, in time, be embarrassing to them, if indeed it isn't already.

I had the chance to watch the news last night and watch the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) tell all the students who came out here that B.C. was the bottom of everything.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Who did that?

MR. R. FRASER: It was really the second member for Point Grey who said: "B.C.'s the bottom of this and the bottom of that in education." It isn't true.

MR. JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the first member for Vancouver South is into the postsecondary estimates, and I thought we were on the Education estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the point of order. I would ask the member for Vancouver South to continue on vote 23.

[12:00]

MR. R. FRASER: It always seemed to me that the two were connected somehow; there didn't seem to be a big gap between education and post-secondary or advanced education — whatever title you happen to put on it.

I was using that discussion point, Mr. Chairman, to tell you that if you're going to attack the minister or the government or whatever you intend to do with the program, then all parts of the program you present have to be good enough so they can't be picked off by some little detail. B.C. is not the bottom of education; B.C. has got a good education system. The minister himself has said our students are doing very well compared with the students in the rest of the country. The proof seems to be in the capacity of the students.

The arguments we've had all week long lack substance. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) said at the end of page 9: "What special student groups will be addressed?" The minister was not specific, because the report to the royal commission said we will try to help students with special needs, whatever that group happens to be. He didn't say the grade 9s with English, the grade 10s with physics. It was left open so that whatever group was having more difficulty than they should have could be given some help.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds logical.

MR. R. FRASER: Sounds logical to me. How else would you do it?

He picked away at words, and tried to dig in somehow, as if there was something behind the words, when indeed, as I said and will repeat, if the Minister of Education can't take a leadership role in the province, then who can? And this minister has.

If you're going to attack the government or its policies day in, day out, then at least get something of substance. You seem to go for content. You're so worried about the fact that we want to educate or should educate our children in rooms. We're not talking about rooms; we're talking about minds. We're talking about giving the kids in the province of British Columbia a chance to learn. It doesn't matter whether it's over the radio or through satellite or through home education or through the schools. It doesn't matter whether the teacher is a female or a male. It doesn't really matter if the class is big or small, as long as we do our very best to make sure that students have the best opportunity that we can provide for them on as individualized a basis as we can.

I know the schools in Vancouver South, which I visit consistently, do a good job, Mr. Minister. There are a number of superb teachers in the riding of Vancouver South. The class sizes vary. There are classes with as few as ten students and with as many as 37.

Obviously some teachers are better at teaching large classes, and some are better at teaching small classes. Some students do better in small classes; some do better in large classes. If you want to talk about stretching the mind and the opportunity for education, then we want to talk about flexibility — not little structures and little boxes. Flexibility. We want to talk about opportunity. That's what this minister is providing, and that's what I applaud.

MR. JONES: I very much appreciate the serious comments of the first member for Vancouver South, all very relevant to the topic we were discussing with respect to the funds for excellence. I particularly appreciate his remarks with respect to taking time in the Legislature and the importance of all members — particularly the member for Vancouver South — to make a serious contribution to this debate. I think we're all better for it.

I would like to go back to the Minister of Education, because I know he wanted to respond to my question with respect to the fund for excellence. I did suggest to the minister that a small percentage of that fund was not used for the purpose. It did not involve one-time efforts; it was supposed to be a three-year plan, and it did not end up to be a three-year plan. Many of the costs of that fund are ongoing costs. The early expenditure of those funds, in terms of computer hardware and software, were not coordinated.

A small percentage of that fund was spent on the purposes intended. Does the minister not agree that fund was mismanaged from beginning to end? Is it not fair to say that the

[ Page 4470 ]

unexpended portion of those funds are being used to fund the increases in education funding in this year? Where did the money go if that's not where it went? Finally, would the minister not see it as fruitful to have a full accounting of that fund?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I will respond to the member for Vancouver South briefly and concisely. I have to assume that any member of this House who speaks is serious from their perspective, even if other members don't see it as serious or relevant. I could make the same comment about anybody, including my critic.

However, I can say we're not the highest spenders on education in this country. Neither are we the lowest spenders, as some people try to make out. I've said that I don't necessarily equate high spending with quality. I can tell the member that as far as I'm concerned, we have one of the best education systems in Canada.

The member commented on the package sent out by the BCTF, and I think that is unfortunate, because I've done an analysis of it. It is not incidental, extraneous material that has been sent out. My concern — and the reason I made an issue of it publicly — is because in my opinion it is a professionally designed, carefully orchestrated indoctrination project. It basically deals in fairness and professionalism of teachers, because it is being sold on the idea that it is fair. Teachers, in my opinion and experience, all want to be fair. We'll leave that.

Getting to the computer questions or the funds for excellence that the member was asking about, I think he asked if I agree that the fund was mismanaged. The answer is absolutely no. The fund is fully accounted for in the government records. I think the member is well aware that all funds have to be accounted for. In this case, they're certainly accounted for. If the member wants me to agree that the fund was not distributed as originally intended, yes, I can agree with that. Of the $600 million allotted, in my understanding, to the end of March 1988, $328.23 million was distributed from the fund. I imagine some of the ongoing commitments are there yet. The Ministry of Education got $155.68 million from that fund. That was made up of operating contributions to school districts of $85.86 million. I might point out here that a fair amount of that went into the operating functions, because many districts.... In a time when the government was running a deficit of a billion dollars a year, school boards made the point that they legitimately had to pay these operating expenses, so some of that money was allocated to that. But a lot of that money was allocated to special projects in school districts: $52.23 million.

Just this morning I got a letter from a school superintendent that said: "I want to thank you very much for the funds for excellence, because it helped us to train many teachers on computers. It got us into the position where we now have one computer for every ten students in our districts, including elementary and secondary." That's what we've been able to do with the fund. As far as saying that there are ongoing expenses from that, that was a finite fund in the first place. It was carefully announced that this was one-time funding for these projects and that if you bought some computers or other things, the operation of that would go into the operating fund.

So yes, some of that money has gone into topping up education funding, but I can assure the member that all of it has gone into education or post-secondary education. The manner in which it has been distributed may have varied from the original projections, but I would call that an adjustment to the needs that were there rather than mismanagement. I can tell the member that we've got $15 million for computers for next year. We've got Pacific Rim initiatives, which are all programs, and all of those programs take into account teacher-training software as well as hardware. The fact that the fund was not administered to the end as originally planned is correct, but the money all went into education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Dewdney requests leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: It's a particular pleasure for the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) and I this morning to welcome probably the most enthusiastic group of students that ever visited the Legislature. There are 32 students, and they come from Mission Central Elementary School. They're here with their teacher, Mr. Tom Watkinson, and three parents: Mrs. Friesen, Mrs. Ball and Mr. Lloyd. These are grade 7 students. I'd like you to give them a good round of applause, because they are really impressed by being here and visiting Victoria for the first time.

MR. JONES: I thank the minister for his forthright answer. We do differ on the management of those funds. I think the auditor-general sides with me in this debate. At the time the auditor-general reviewed the Ministry of Education, he was under the assumption that the fund was going to be a three-year plan. I intend to write the auditor-general in order to have a full audit of the fund for excellence in education. We'll let the auditor-general decide whether or not there was mismanagement of those funds.

There are a couple of other minor questions with respect to the auditor-general's report that I'm hoping we can deal with very quickly. I wonder if the minister could make a very brief comment on page 86 of the auditor-general's report. It's just of general interest, but I would like a clarification, if possible. It's at the very bottom of that page, and it suggests a role change in the ministry moving from a mode of closely monitoring school district activities and processes to one of monitoring results only. I think I have some concerns about that role shift, but I'm not really clear on what is meant by that suggestion. I would like the minister to elaborate if possible.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I can comment briefly that instead of the content of the course being the program, we are looking toward the intended outcomes and objectives. Then the course material can be more flexible. We are moving toward looking at the intent, and whether the intended outcomes and objectives are reached; in other words, results. I think we have moved in that direction, with the new funding formula. We have brought it up to a base level, and we have then indexed it for the future, and an index will be applied. We're more concerned with the outcomes than the apportionment or arrangement of that money.

[12:15]

So we're moving into flexibility, and we will have to.... I share the member's concerns, because moving into the new area of measuring outcomes in analytical skills and those sorts of things presents us with quite a different and substantial problem than measuring how many facts students

[ Page 4471 ]

learn — to use the extreme; it's easy to measure that. In terms of measuring what they are achieving in special ed programs and that sort of thing — the end results — we're going to try and focus on that. We've got quite a job ahead of us, and we need the cooperation of the school districts, the teachers and everyone to say: "What are we going to end up measuring, how are we going to measure it and will our measurements actually do the job of measuring it correctly?"

MR. JONES: I don't feel I am any clearer. I sense the minister shares my concern, and I also sense it's the kind of debate the minister and I would like to have. I think we'll have to forgo that one until a later date.

I would like to ask a related question, again as part of the auditor-general's report. The auditor-general expressed concern about the government exams in this province, and in particular the portion of those exams that are multiple-choice, that do not test the higher-level skills of grade 12 students. I would like to ask the minister if he is considering other avenues, because he suggests he is moving in the direction of more direct assessment of student achievement. In that assessment process, is he considering finding better ways to assess the higher levels of learning of our students in this province? Will he consider giving less weight to percentage marks because of the complaints in the auditor-general's report about the influence on the curriculum of heavy emphasis on grade 12 examinations?

I believe that the comments in the auditor-general's report were that these exams are narrowing the curriculum, and as a result of that tremendous focus on the exam, important parts of the curriculum — I suppose those that aren't easily tested by multiple-choice questions — are being ignored. I would like to ask the minister: is this process of greater emphasis on assessment going to be finding ways of assessing the higher levels of learning of students, and is he considering giving less weight in terms of the school mark versus the government exam mark?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You have to remember that the auditor-general's report was for a period in time — basically on last year's operation. Since then, the ministry has moved dramatically to new assessment procedures, to look at the whole examination structure, to try to develop and test, if you like, the new ways of assessment. There will always be assessment and monitoring, but we want to make sure that we're monitoring the intended outcomes rather than the covering of materials. So there is a considerable program going on in the ministry since the report was in effect finalized. The auditor-general, of course, got a little further into the educational process than perhaps he should have.

MR. JONES: I must apologize to the House, because I was listening to the opposition House Leader. Very briefly, the question was: is there a move towards testing higher-level skills and is there a consideration of less waiting in government exams? I'm sorry, I missed the answer from the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I did say that we were going to move towards that emphasis right now. In order to test the higher-level skills, we have to try and define them and any intended outcome — what our target is, in effect — and then we've got to look at how you assess whether you've arrived at that target. So the higher-level skills and that.... Our emphasis right now is trying to develop the measurement tools, the assessment tools, to see whether the program works and how students are achieving that.

I'm sure that there will be dramatic changes in the future. I don't know what the royal commission report will recommend in that respect, but we'll certainly put that into the whole pot. Education is changing, the type of testing is changing. and we'll have to have a cooperative effort on that, because we can't do it without what's happening out in the field. So that's going to be very important.

MR. JONES: The minister has indicated that he would like to move in that direction. He certainly has my support in that. It sounds like that's a very slow process. I think the students of this province would like to see a faster response on the part of the minister to those concerns.

Very briefly, I would like to move on to one small question to the minister with respect to the voucher system. Some six or seven months ago the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) indicated that a committee is examining the total education budget to determine if there are ways to spend money more efficiently, without hurting the system. One of the options that will be examined is the voucher system. In the last six or seven months, has that task force or committee that was examining this particular system of funding education reported, and is the minister willing to make any comments on that report? I understand also that this was a resolution at the Social Credit convention, so I'm sure the minister has given some considerable thought to this matter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The task force did report to cabinet. They did look at the voucher system, and I'm happy to say that they confirmed my views on it. I don't think the voucher system is the way to go.

MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think this is becoming a very nice end to the week. There were some low points in this week in terms of debates of the estimates, but I'm very pleased with those forthright responses of the minister, and very pleased to see that he understands the importance of the preservation of our public school system and agrees with me that that particular system would create real damage to our public school system either way.

Very quickly, also, on computers. Clearly the minister has made some response in terms of the continuing need for the provision to students of computer hardware and software. I think the minister understands that computer competency is becoming a very basic skill — not one that I possess, but in fact one that I've studiously avoided. If we even look around our own offices, we see the growing influence of computers in society. The minister and the government often talk about competing in the provincial, national and international marketplace, and I think those skills are a good illustration of the things that we have to equip our students with if we are going to compete in the twenty-first century.

I asked the minister last year, and I think the question stands, because he did not respond last year. I know the minister does not like interprovincial comparisons, but I think it's important for the people of this province to have some understanding of how we stand relative to other provinces in the provision of computer hardware. I think we were slow in getting started on this program. Last year I indicated that in 1985 we were very far behind Alberta. We had some

[ Page 4472 ]

5,000 microcomputers while Alberta, with a much smaller student population, had over three times as many. That was three years ago. The funds for Excellence in Education were geared at filling that gap. Unfortunately, as I pointed out to the Minister of Education, those funds were not used for the purpose intended.

I want to know from the minister where he sees us today in terms of the provision of microcomputers for the students of this province and where he expects us to go in the future. We've certainly had very little information. The press releases that I get from the minister talk about multi-year programs with no clear explanation of what those programs will be.

The former Minister of Education established the Provincial Advisory Committee on Computers, and that was the kind of committee that I think all members in this House would be very proud of: a broad spectrum of people from the education community, business and labour — a blue-ribbon committee, in fact. That committee recommended the purchasing of an average of 6,000 microcomputer systems per year for a five-year period, which is a total of 30,000 computers. That would be roughly one computer for every 16 students, and if we add in those we already have in the system, it would lower it to roughly one for every 12 students in the entire school system.

The advisory committee, in terms of interprovincial comparisons, pointed out to the minister that whereas their recommendations would put us at a point of having one computer for every 12 students, the Alberta proposal was to have one for every eight students, and that was a 1985 goal. They still haven't achieved it, but as I pointed out, Alberta was far, far ahead of us in 1985, and I would expect that to be so today. That same advisory committee report pointed out to the minister that Ottawa's goal, as compared to one to 12 for us, was one to seven to be achieved by 1990.

That advisory committee recommended to the minister.... Let's understand that this is an advisory committee. These were not a lot of pie-in-the-sky people. There were ministry officials on that committee. They understood the politics of education in British Columbia. They came in with their recommendation, their very lowest figure, and I think you see that by the numbers one to 12 as compared to one to seven and one to eight. That was the minimum. They would have loved to have recommended to the government a much higher figure. This was a realistic estimate that the committee felt this government would find acceptance with. They reduced what they really would have liked to recommend according to the reality of what they felt the political climate to be.

I'm suggesting to the minister that what we're doing.... I recognize the efforts of the minister and the $11.7 million for computers is not to be sneezed at; I'm not saying that. The minister accuses me of suggesting evil motives on the part of the government. What I'm suggesting for our children, for the future, is that we should be doing better. The advisory committee recommends to the minister that we should be doing better — $11.7 million is not to be sneezed at, but the recommendation was double that. The recommendation was an annual cost of $25 million for five years. A real multi-year plan with the details spelled out — that's what the advisory committee said.

I'm suggesting that we are shortchanging the students of this province in terms of the provision of computers. I would like to ask the minister how he intends to respond to the recommendation on provision of computers and the other 31 recommendations of the Provincial Advisory Committee on Computers.

[12:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll respond as briefly as I can. I don't think that in this province we were slow in getting off the mark. We were one of the first provinces to put in a pilot program to test the use of computers in the schools, and then I guess we can be blamed for waiting to get some results from that pilot program. There was a period of time when we weren't adding computers to the schools very carefully. If you take the fund for excellence, I know that $20 million went into getting computers in the schools — $15 million for computer initiatives, with this multi-year program we put in.

Quite frankly, I don't know how many computers are in the schools right now or what the ratio is. That is not incompetence or mismanagement on the part of this ministry; it's just that computers are going into the schools so quickly that any month that you take a survey, you'd be out the next month. I know that a lot of computers have gone in. I mentioned earlier that one of the districts was already at one to ten; now we've given them extra money. We've given them the money for another 48 computers in that district this year, and if we can get a cost, it might be 50 or 60 computers, and they're already at one to ten.

One of the other reasons I don't really know is that as new schools or additions are built, there is a funding allotment for equipment. It's fairly generous. Besides all we've been doing, there's been a lot of money going into computer funds. The provincial advisory committee advocated $25 million per year. That included networking systems and all sorts of things to bring us into the computer age. I think that even with the technology in computers changing, maybe moving a little slower isn't all bad. When you get into tough times, and you get $15 million out of a recommended $25 million, that isn't bad.

The member says $11.6 million. But this year, we are setting up a computer centre for analysis along with PEMC, and the rest of the money is going into the district. We're setting up computer centres throughout the regions — we're talking about educational regions of the province now — and all of those things plus the computer training. With that money and a commitment that we're going to do this for five years, I would think that by the time this program is in place, it wouldn't surprise me if we have one computer for every five students in the school system.

I'm going to try, for my satisfaction and the member's satisfaction, to pick a point at the end of the school year. If I find how many computers there are in your district in June, and then they order a bunch of computers out of this new money for September.... Maybe I could find out in June, and then I could interpolate with how many computers have been added. I would really like to do a survey and find out how many computers they have and how many pupils they have, and I can do the arithmetic from there. I'm sure that all of us can.

I'm delighted with what we are doing. I'm certainly delighted with what school districts have done out of their budgets and out of the equipment allotment for new schools and additions, when there's always a percentage. They've added a lot of those. Yes, it would be nice to find out just where we are. I don't think we're behind other provinces. I indicated that in Ontario they are targeting about $10 million

[ Page 4473 ]

per year for three years for a school population 3.5 times ours. I think we have every right to hold up our heads with this computer program we've got in here.

MR. JONES: I'm delighted at the efforts we're making, too. I'm suggesting to the minister that the contribution the province is making is half the bottom-line recommendation of the committee. I also mentioned other statistics from Alberta and Ottawa that would indicate we are behind. We were behind in '85, and I'm suggesting that, despite the good efforts of the Minister of Education and an important $11.7 million contribution to the school districts, we're still falling far short. I'm afraid that's what the figures at the end of June will show. I know the minister doesn't want to do it, but I'll be very pleased if he does that kind of reporting, which I think is important to the Legislature.

I'd like to raise one further issue — I think we have a few minutes left. It's one of many that I wish we had more time to raise, but I think it is a significant one. The minister is well aware of his important responsibility for the public assets we have in terms of the 1,500 school buildings in this province and the tremendous investment the public has — some $4.8 billion worth of facilities that it's very important not only to preserve but to add to when necessary, when we have shifting populations and schoolchildren who, unfortunately, have to travel distances that are often difficult for them. I think there is an expectation on the part of the public that they have a neighbourhood school. We see subdivisions going up. The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) clearly pointed out the problems in Surrey. I'm sure the members from Langley and Maple Ridge have all experienced this kind of problem. Yesterday the minister, through his government colleagues, announced considerable expenditure in capital funding. The problem that I see.... I know the minister doesn't want me to talk about the restraint years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Talk about anything you like. Quit accusing me of saying I don't want you to talk.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MR. JONES: I apologize to the mercurial Minister of Education for suggesting anything he would take offence at. I have no intention of doing that. As I've explained many times to the minister, my job is to suggest to the minister areas that he can work on. I'm trying to help him do his job. One of the areas where I can help him do his job is to have him look at the kind of capital financing that we had in the early eighties. For example, my figures suggest that in the 1981-82 school year the contribution to capital funding was $218 million. That was some ten times greater than what we saw in 1983-84 — so two years later we see one-tenth of the contribution to capital financing of school districts in this province. I fully believe that the minister agrees with me that those levels in '81-82 and '82-83, where we had $145 million contributed to the capital funding of schools in this province, or in other words, in those two years an average of $180 million.... The following year it dipped so low, it dipped to one-tenth of what it was two years earlier.

The minister understands the principle that either you pay a little now or you pay a lot later, and I think that's the situation we are facing in British Columbia now. We have a tremendous backlog. I can't prove my figures, but I suggest to the minister that it would take something like $175 million every year for five years in order to keep up with the tremendous backlog in terms of capital construction and maintenance of our school buildings, which is an investment in the capital assets of this province.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The minister in this year has announced some $53 million, and I applaud that. That's important. All I'm suggesting is that it is insufficient compared to what we had in 1981-82 and '82-83. What the minister has promised next year is much better, and I applaud him for that. Next year the promise of $118 million is more like the investment in those capital assets for the children of this province that we need to make. I encourage the minister as far as he has gone, but I am suggesting that the tremendous backlog that we saw during the restraint years has created an inadequacy and real problems down the road. I know the minister understands that in terms of those capital assets to the province we either pay now — which we didn't do in the mid-eighties — or we pay a lot more later. I'm sure the minister would want to respond to that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the member very much for clarifying his position. I think he agrees with me that we have made great strides in moving up the funding for capital. If you take the minor, the major and what's been put into the budget — $132 million this year besides the $53.9 million  — I have been able to convince the government to commit to $118 million next year. I announced those totals earlier. What we did this week was announce which projects have been approved in planning for the $118 million next year.

The member says we're making progress. I agree. I think we're making tremendous progress. But the member wants to focus on 1985 — the low year — and keeps bringing that up. I don't know how far you want to go back. The big money was going into school construction during the boom period when our population and the enrolment were growing; then there was a population decline. Surely that member isn't going to suggest that we should keep building schools when we're closing some because of a population decline.

We recognize the inadequacies, and the argument I've used is that we've gotten behind. That's why I got $50 million last year, $55 million this year — we stole some of that and that's why it went down to $53.9 million — and $118 million for next year. In the ministry we have developed a five-year plan to get us up to scratch. For instance, of the projects that were approved, about half of the approvals in construction have gone to Surrey because that's a growing district and a large district.

MR. JONES: The minister doesn't take my word for it, but I know he takes the auditor-general's word for it. The auditor-general indicates that the schools are not being maintained, and that major fluctuations in the approval of capital amounts are the major cause of the problem with respect to maintenance.

It's been a very instructive week, Mr. Chairman. I think I've learned a great deal from my colleagues the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) and all the other colleagues that have made an important contribution to this debate. I've learned something from the Minister of Education and even

[ Page 4474 ]

from his colleagues opposite. I understand the difficulty of the role of the Minister of Education, particularly when it comes to funding. My major responsibility, I think, is to encourage that minister.

We could have some debate. I know the minister often responds with: "Where is the money to come from?" I'd like to have that debate with the minister sometime, because I'm suggesting.... We'll find out after the next election when we see tax reform in this province that will free some funds for the proper funding of education in this province.

This week we've heard some lengthy debate on education; and on occasion, particularly today, we saw a minister that I think was open, responsive and concerned. That's very much appreciated by this side of the House. Unfortunately, at the same time, often we saw the problems that the Minister of Education faces in solving some of the serious problems. I'm not going to suggest that that's a result of a lack of leadership, because I know the minister is a very hard-working minister, and it's not an easy job. As the minister describes it, he doesn't make it a very attractive job, actually. I know the tremendous problems faced in the Ministry of Education.

Unfortunately, we spent a lot of time in this Legislature this week where, I suggest, the minister was being defensive and evasive. Very clearly, just like we saw the Premier the other day when he had a chance to say, "Well, what I really meant to say the other day was this," instead he resorted to a dictionary defence. This Legislature works so much better, as we saw this morning, when the responses are forthright and the opposition understands what the government is trying to do and the government understands the point that the opposition is trying to make. Certainly that's very much appreciated when it happens.

I understand a large part of the minister's evasiveness when I was questioning with respect to the submission of the royal commission. I took that submission seriously. I think that much of the behaviour of the government during the time of the royal commission indicates some lack of taking that royal commission seriously. But I understand that the minister did not want to elaborate on that submission; he did not want to appear to be influencing that Royal Commission on Education. In fact, he took great pains to deny any influence. I would say to that that he did protest too much, methinks.

[12:45]

The people of this province did not call for a royal commission. Very clearly, I was one of those voices that called for a royal commission for many years, and the purpose was to have an objective, non-political look at education in this province. We felt at that time that the direction of the Social Credit government was not a reasonable approach and was not dealing with the tremendous needs in the education system, and that a royal commission would look objectively. That's why I object so strongly to the ministry making its own submission to the commission, which then reports to the government. Clearly the minister must understand the difficult situation that he puts the Sullivan royal commission in. When the commission receives some 2,000 briefs and one is from the Ministry of Education, there cannot be an equal weighting of those presentations. Very clearly, the purpose of a royal commission is a public process. The minister did not even have his brief submitted in public; it was done in camera.

My purpose in that questioning — and I know it was frustrating for the minister — was to get the future directions of this government on the record. I wanted people to see that direction, prior to the royal commission and prior to government legislation, because I have some serious concerns. It was quite reasonable for the minister not to engage in debate. I had hoped for that debate before it became legislation, hoping to persuade the minister against some of the directions that I see that going.

I wanted to debate such things as year-round school, merit pay, school-based budgeting and contracting out before the legislation. I wanted the minister to explain, and I thought he would, the $1 million. for the response to the royal commission, because I find that very unusual as well.

The saddest part of this week to me was in the midst of that debate when the minister used this Legislature as a platform to carry on the confrontation in this province that he has with the B.C. Teachers' Federation. The minister already had made use of other avenues to deal with that problem. I suggest he should find even further avenues. I suggest he should set up a council of those that have serious concerns with education in this province — the parents, trustees and teachers — and use that forum to resolve problems in a consultative way rather than confronting the B.C. Teachers' Federation and individuals from this Legislature. That's the kind of suggestion I made in my submission to the royal commission.

I have seen, as I indicated earlier, the evidence that the minister is a very hard-working minister, There's clear evidence that he has been a strong advocate for education, and I just want to encourage him and wish him well in persuading the government in terms of making education a higher priority and making consultation the mode of operation of this government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think one of the reasons I'm accused of being evasive on the royal commission report is that my critic chose to attribute motives to simple statements that we made: "Obviously the government must mean this or the minister must mean this." I kept trying to say that I mean what it says in the document, so I guess we could have that debate.

The member says it should have been an objective commission, yet he admits that as a politician he made a presentation to the commission, so I guess it's okay on that side. With him, it's not political; if I make it, it is political. He spent a good deal of time trying to establish my incompetence and lack of leadership, but he acknowledges that I am hardworking. I guess it's just that I don't know what I am doing, according to him.

I think we made great progress, and I am prepared to defend that. I think my ministry has done a great job in helping out education. As far as this comment about confrontation is concerned, it's a sad day when, under the union label of the CLC and the B.C. Federation of Labour, a carefully designed and orchestrated program goes into the schools which is calculated to indoctrinate the students. That type of approach cannot go unchallenged — from anybody who tries it.

I guess to be nice, to avoid confrontation, I should just say that whatever other people do, I stand back and do not challenge a professionally designed indoctrination program.

Vote 23 approved.

Vote 24: ministry operations, $64,091,579 — approved.

Vote 25: public schools education, $1,859,342,139 — approved.

[ Page 4475 ]

Vote 26: independent schools, $48,075,170 — approved.

On vote 27: Northeast development region, $813,598

MR. CLARK: Could the minister tell me what the status of the Agrifuels ethanol plant is, and whether he personally supports that project?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know what the status of it is. It is a project on a scale that we are not really working on in the minister of state operation. I have my own views, but I don't think they are relevant.

MR. CLARK: If the minister doesn't want to tell us his views on it, that's fine. He's giving us some assurance that.... As I understand it, several hundred thousand dollars will be given for consulting fees. By and large we find for most of the ministers of state — I assume yours is the same — that you will be having projects funded by your office. That's what the budget is for. None of that money will go towards looking at the economics of ethanol production in the Dawson Creek area. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I will not say that, because what we do in the operation is set up subcommittees in my region, and they set up task forces, which want to look at economic diversification and economic development. It's from the task forces that the recommendations come that we would like to do this study, and we might need some financial help to do that. I don't tell them what to study. They make the suggestions and ask me. If they feel that the ethanol plant, along with other things, is part of it.... I'm just saying that when it gets to the total large projects, we are not in that league, as far as I'm concerned.

MR. BLENCOE: I am wondering if the minister would confirm that the regional seed capital fund under the minister of state system is not yet in operation.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe it's available. The documentation, the forms, the agreements, the contracts and so on are being finalized. If the member means that it is not yet operational, we have had requests, for instance, from my region for it, but none of those have been processed yet.

MR. BLENCOE: Will you confirm that the guidelines for how the guarantee program will operate have not yet been approved?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They have been approved. There may be revisions as people make suggestions, but they have been approved.

MR. BLENCOE: Would the minister agree that we've had eight months on this program, and millions of dollars spent, and yet we still don't have any program in place? We've got umpteen committees. When is the taxpayer going to see some results from all of these programs?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know about the millions of dollars being spent that the member refers to. Last year we ended up spending something like $134,000 in our region, and all of that went to organization, to set up the task forces and to get some studies underway. Some things have happened, and many other studies are underway right now. The committees have not completed their studies and reported in. From my perspective, it is an admirable program to have some assistance available for people to have their input and put together a set of recommendations.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister says he's spent only so much money, yet he got $1 million through special warrant for an emergency. We still have to wonder how that was not used, and what the emergency was.

I wonder if the minister would tell us about the announcement of the approval of the reindeer reallocation to the northeast. It was trumpeted as the first such project presented to the cabinet under the new system of economic development. The seed capital program is not in place that was supposed to be on May 1. We had this great announcement about the reindeer reallocation. I'm wondering if the minister would update us on this great program.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Through the minister of state operations and the ability we had to give some assistance, we got approval for reindeer to be allowed in game farming in British Columbia — a dramatic improvement. The reason we haven't spent any money on it and that the seed capital program is not important to this is that this is all going to be funded from the private sector and the people there. None of them are asking us for any help. All they want is the right to go ahead.

MR. BLENCOE: Then why would you funnel the reindeer reallocation program through the minister of state at all? Why did you do that? So the minister of state now has nothing to do with that program. Is that what you're saying, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

MR. BLENCOE: As we look into this program, it becomes a bigger and bigger joke on the province of British Columbia. I'm wondering if the minister will tell us how many committees and task forces he has working in his region, and how many members sit on those task forces or committees.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I can tell you that we have six subcommittees that were set up by a decision of the people at the main committee meeting. I have with me my regional development officer. How many task forces do we have? We have approximately 17 task forces that are....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Is that a problem with that member?

We have about 17 task forces. I don't know at what point in time, because these task forces are what the title says.... They are given a task to do; when they've completed that task, they will make their recommendations and proposals, and then they'll be out of business. So I don't have any problem with 17 task forces.

[1:00]

MR. BLENCOE: Would the minister tell us what the tasks are of, say, three or four of the task forces, and how they

[ Page 4476 ]

are going about it, and what they're studying, and when...?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Would I be real? Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the public are paying for these task forces. A lot of money is being spent. We'd like to know. Would the minister please give us some indication of what some of those task forces are doing, who they would report to, and what kind of things they hope to do for the region?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Did I hear the member say that he was real? It's interesting that he has to make that observation publicly.

There's a the task force on regional road strategy to see how roads affect the economic diversification. There's a committee on Project '92, which is going ahead to plan a celebration for 1992, the fiftieth anniversary of the Alaska Highway. That has been turned over to a committee, but we assisted them in getting going. So our task force, in effect, is out of the picture, and it has been taken over by municipal-regional. There's a fisheries contract out there to study the Peace Canyon fish hatchery and its review. There's an agricultural land review committee looking at how the agricultural land policies either hinder or supplement that; they'll be reporting. There's continuing work on the reindeer, because they found a parasite that needs to be dealt with before the reindeer are actually moved. There's a goods and services committee. There's a committee working on mental health services. We've contributed to the northern university. Preventive counselling has got a task force — psychiatric services and mental health. These committees are all working to take an inventory of what exists and to say how we can improve these situations. They will make recommendations.

MR. BLENCOE: Would the minister tell us how local government fits into those task forces?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have local government representatives on our large committee. That's every municipal council and every regional district, and school boards have been invited. Our steering committee is made up of one representative from each of the municipalities — one from the elected bodies — one from each of the regional districts, plus myself and my senior staff.

MR. BLENCOE: If one of these committees or task forces — one of these umpteen groups you've got meeting I don't know how often — starts to make decisions for their region which may be in conflict with the local council or the local regional district in terms of their policies or community plan or whatever, would the minister please tell this House which organization will have the final decision in terms of policies and procedures for the region?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I tried to tell the member that these committees do a study, they analyze a situation in my region, and they make recommendations to the powers that be, whether that's at the local level, the regional district level or the provincial level. We carry those forward. I don't see how they could possibly be in conflict with what a municipality does in the steering committee, which has to approve the recommendations going forward. It's made up of the representatives from each municipal council and each regional district. They don't make a decision for those people. The steering committee represents all of the municipalities, and they have input.

MR. BLENCOE: In the minister's estimation, what is the role of regional government and local government in economic development?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, we don't have a regional government under my minister of state structure. There are two regional districts in my area, and each has a representative on our committee, or several representatives on the steering committee. Each of the regional districts is represented, as well as each of the municipalities.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister missed my point. What is the role of the regional government in economic development? Local government has been established in this province for a long time and has a lot of tradition. What's the role in economic development of regional government and local councils as opposed to your minister of state system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess the member has some sort of mental concept or something. The regional districts' and municipal governments' roles are to carry on with their duties under the Municipal Act as they have always done.

MR. BLENCOE: What happens if regional government decides that economic development is in their parameters and purview as traditionally laid out by law? How does that fit into your minister of state system, which seems to be reinventing the wheel on economic development? How do the two fit together?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again the member has his concept that we are another form of government; we are not. My minister of state operation is an opportunity for people from all through the constituency, from all walks of life, including any group that wants to be represented, to come together to study the situation with their municipal representatives who are on the committee, and to make recommendations on what should be done. They do not do any governing.

MR. BLENCOE: I would suggest to this minister and to all the ministers of state that one telephone call or a group of 37-cent stamps on envelopes to the regional directors or the councils in their area could determine very quickly within one to two months the economic priorities of the region. What you've done is reinvent the wheel. There's no need for this system at all, and you continue to usurp the role of traditional government. Regional government has the capacity to do the very things you're doing.

You clearly haven't answered my questions on what you see today as the role of regional and local government within the minister of state system. Sure, they're participating in your system; they have no other choice. They've got to participate, but they've already got the systems in place to deal with what you've got. Will the minister confirm that on his regional development committee for Northeast region he has 45 people or 45 organizations represented?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I have a list here of all the groups represented, but I haven't counted them up. We

[ Page 4477 ]

have tried to get every group, every municipal body, every local government, school boards and others. We've invited the teachers' association from each district and representatives from the unions. The teachers and the unions haven't come to any of the meetings. We have all the other organizations there — I think something like 100 people are involved and very interested. They don't have the narrow perception that the member for Victoria has. He should get out into the world sometime. Those people up there are very interested in a coordinated effort with some assistance that can be provided to them to do studies and these sorts of things, in order that they have input according to what they see as the priorities in the region. Everybody is working together on that.

MR. BLENCOE: I would let the minister and other members on the other side know that I just returned from the north central municipal association meeting, where I heard a number of concerns about the system you're putting in place. There is great confusion in local and regional government as to what this system means in the long term for their tradition of being able to make decisions in their regions, elected by the people in their regions. Indeed, Mr. Minister, you now have in your hands nearly $4 million of seed capital — if that ever gets off the ground — to do the work that local government can do if you ask, without setting up a cumbersome bureaucracy through your local MLAs, regional directors and cabinet committees to do the things you want to do.

Quite frankly, as I travel the province and talk to local government about what you're doing, I can tell you what is going to happen. We are heading for a major conflict between local government and the unelected bureaucracy that this government has decided to set up — unelected, with no mandate in law. We are going to have a conflict between local government and these bureaucracies, because when it comes to starting to make decisions for those regions and communities, whose decision-making is going to be supreme? Is it going to be the Premier and this government's inner sanctum cabinet of eight special ministers, or is it going to be elected government at the local level?

That's our concern, and that's the concern we're picking up. We will continue to defend the rights of local governments to govern their regions. We don't need the minister of state system; it should be history.

Vote 27 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:11 p.m.