[ Page 7357 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Access for the disabled. Mr. Mowat –– 7357

Ms. Smallwood

Recriminalization of abortion. Ms. Marzari –– 7358

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Labour-management cooperation. Mr. Peterson –– 7360

Mr. Sihota

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

On vote 16: minister's office –– 7362

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. G. Janssen

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: In the precinct today we have a very old friend of mine. He's a veteran from the Second World War, shot down when he was in the RCAR He is a great individual. In spite of becoming a paraplegic, he went back to school at Dalhousie and graduated in law, and is now chairman of the Human Rights Commission in Nova Scotia. They are out having a meeting this week. I ask the House to make Mr. Don Curren very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED

MR. MOWAT: I'm here today to speak about a subject which is very important to me, and that is access for the disabled. First off, I want to say that when I say "access, " I'm not just talking about the ability to get through a door or to be able to get to the second floor of a building. I'm also talking about a state of mind.

Every citizen in Canada must be made aware that they must give the disabled access to society in the same way they do everyone else. They must accept the disabled as equal members of the population. In fact, when you note that one of seven Canadians — in the Vancouver lower mainland it's one of five — have a permanent disability or are disabled associated with age, you realize that the disabled are the population and not just a small fringe group.

This is just one more reason why the disabled must have access to a normal life. This week, starting June 4 and through to June 10, has been declared National Access Awareness Week by both the federal and provincial governments.

I am proud to say that British Columbia leads the way in pioneering programs for the disabled. We have the most stringent building code in Canada with regard to accessibility. As well, we are working through the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities to keep British Columbia at the forefront of policy development for the disabled. The Premier's council convened for the first time in January of this year and has made a number of recommendations to the government.

While I know this government is the most responsible of any province that we have ever seen, we want to be sure that only the most appropriate actions take place. I must still urge the ministers to give speedy consideration to recommendations of the council. I can guarantee that they act only in the best interests of us British Columbians.

One of the biggest problems uncovered by the council in their brief existence concerns the disabled and GAIN benefits. I must say first off, though, that one of the recommendations the government acted on when called upon was the increase in GAIN payments for the disabled. I commend the minister for his quick action. But a serious dilemma remains in this area: because of the strict regulations as to who can receive GAIN, it is virtually impossible for the disabled to further their goal of employment. Anyone who enters full-time employment is cut off from GAIN and associated benefits. It is this last point that is most painful for the disabled, of course, because they not only lose their income and rental assistance but also benefits such as assistance for medical supplies and equipment such as wheelchairs. Please take my word for it, Mr. Second Member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), that they are very expensive. As a result, there's an incentive to continue receiving GAIN supplement. The council is currently investigating this issue further, but I would hope the minister would also investigate this question and be ready to act when the council makes a recommendation in this area.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased at the interest that members, by their careful attention to it all, are taking in my statement today.

There's one other issue, somewhat on a lighter note, that I would like to raise regarding the Premier's council. A contest is currently underway to create a logo for the council. The contest is open to children and adults across the province, with some great prizes. I ask all members of the House to promote this contest in their ridings, not only to develop a logo for the council but to increase awareness of the activities of the council and the disabled in general. After all, that's what National Access Awareness Week is all about.

This is the second year for the celebration of activities, and it has been an ongoing and busy week. The Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) kicked it off on Monday by giving out the Premier's awards of excellence for accessible designs to four winners. Among the winners were design teams for SkyTrain and the SeaBus in Vancouver. Also on Monday, I, together with Rick Hansen, presented awards to committees, companies and individuals who have shown an outstanding commitment to the disabled this past year. As well, throughout the week Victoria has been the host of the seventeenth annual conference of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies at the Empress Hotel. As an interesting and perhaps telling aside, it was found that the wheelchair access ramps in the newly renovated Empress Hotel are too steep, and the management has agreed to rectify the situation.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, it shows that the government and we as legislators must ensure that the legislation we draft takes into consideration all British Columbians, particularly the seniors and the disabled.

MS. SMALLWOOD: As the designated respondent from our side, I'd like to join the member and the government in acknowledging National Access

[ Page 7358 ]

Awareness Week. This is an important week for a couple of reasons. First of all, it brings awareness, which in turn brings the power to be involved, not only for the people seeking access but for the community, where awareness of the plight of the less fortunate empowers communities to be more inclusive and the stronger for it.

The point I would like to stress is that not only is National Access Awareness Week striving to break down barriers for people in our communities; it is also making the statement that those who have disabilities want to enjoy the same dignity, the same respect and, indeed, the same independence that those of us without those disabilities may enjoy. I stress independence, because I believe that most people dealing with a disability have something to offer to strengthen the community and the lives that touch theirs. It's a very important aspect, and I hope that the government ministers who are making decisions and policies that affect the lives of disabled people keep it as a fundamental principle. I would hope that the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond), for instance, would be listening right now. However, we unfortunately haven't seen too much attention paid to this particular statement.

[10:15]

The importance, I believe, is the focus: whether you treat these people as having a disability or whether you recognize the contribution that they make. If the focus is a disability, then the treatment is client-practitioner; it's doing for; it's charity. I believe that it is the wrong way to go and has caused many of the problems that we are facing today. If the focus is the asset, instead, the strength of individuals, and the abilities and things that they can bring to make our society richer, then the policies for social assistance and financial support would be different. I believe that the focus would be one of empowering rather than inhibiting. I would hope that the minister, if nothing else, would read the statement and suggestions, and take a second look at the focus this government brings to this issue.

MR. MOWAT: In closing my member's statement, one important point I must note is that even though this is National Access Awareness Week, we should all realize that awareness of the disabled is not something that we should have started last Sunday and end tomorrow, only to be put back into the closet for another year. It should be a year-round activity. This is a point that is not lost on our government. Through programs such as Go B.C.'s "Growth and Opportunities," our government is working to help many disadvantaged British Columbians lead a much easier and more meaningful life.

I've seen this program used to have elevators installed in buildings such as community health centres and recreation centres, to increase access, and to help build a new children's play area at the Children's Hospital in Vancouver and provide access for disabled children.

As well, the government has taken steps to ensure that transit will be accessible. I'm pleased to report that from now on the Greater Vancouver Regional District will be installing wheelchair lifts on all of their new buses. This is a very impressive undertaking by B.C. Transit on behalf of all of our disabled citizens and visitors.

The government also announced this week that more than 60 community agencies across British Columbia will receive funding to provide specialized services to families and disabled members. The funding was based on community need and included everything from family support groups to respite services. Our government also assists in funding innovative ideas like the apartment complex near Granville Island in Vancouver which houses six high lesion respiratory quads. But people are what make programs such as this work, and I commend them for their courage in moving into the community.

I want to close by re-emphasizing the importance of the awareness of the problems the disabled face every day. We hold events such as National Access Awareness Week in order to raise the profile of certain issues. It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that the profile of the disabled stays high in society's consciousness throughout the rest of the year.

I urge each member of this House to go out and promote among our communities the issues you heard about this week. If you do, the battles that the disabled have fought throughout their lives and continue to fight every day will have not been in vain.

RECRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION

MS. MARZARI: A few weeks ago during the debates on the estimates with the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), we were discussing with him what his stance would be with the federal government around a new abortion law — that is, a law that the Prime Minister of this country has suggested might be coming forward in this session of the federal Parliament.

During the course of that debate, my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) put to the Attorney-General a couple of questions basically about what position this government would be taking to the federal government in the formulation of a new law. The Attorney-General responded that his personal opinions had nothing to do with the issue at all — which was not the question being put, but that was his first stance.

His second answer was that this whole subject was not suitable for federal-provincial discussion. We debated that for a few minutes, saying that it was strange that pipelines were debatable between federal and provincial, as well as cost-sharing agreements where EPF was and any number of coordinated activities between federal and provincial levels. But he was adamant that this was not a suitable subject for federal-provincial discussions. Then ensued 45 minutes of altercation in the House around whether we were really dealing with a Health issue, which

[ Page 7359 ]

was more appropriate for the Health minister, rather than the Attorney-General.

It was not a very edifying debate, and it brought once again to the fore the whole issue of women's ability to choose, especially since last January 28 when the Supreme Court of Canada told women that they were real, whole people. It has become a very emotional issue. This House has, on two or three occasions now, reflected, developed and shown that emotion around the issue.

Since last January 28, 1988, a number of things have happened in this country that are worth referring to today. For example, every single woman in the federal House last summer stood up for choice for women and opposed the recriminalization of abortion. That is every single woman — I think there were 38 women in the House last year — across political streams, across political stripes.

In this House, too, all the women on this side and two of the women on your side have made statements and put themselves on the record. The two who haven't, I dare say, have feelings they haven't brought into the area of public discourse.

Second point. Your government buried a report from a special committee commissioned by your Health Ministry on abortion. That report, I gather, stated that women in B.C. do not use abortion as a birth control device, and that is simply not even on the table for discussion.

Third point. The Premier has announced that he is setting up a ministry for women in this province. Okay. That's just a third point in the context I am developing.

Fourth. The statistics have shown that there really has been no increase in the rate of late termination of pregnancies in this province. In fact, talking to Dr. Patricia Baird at UBC, who runs the genetics clinic, she is claiming that termination in fact of defective pregnancies has been much, much earlier, especially because of chorionic villus sampling, which is a technique of testing the viability of the fetus early on in pregnancy. So late terminations of pregnancy have, in fact, declined in this province.

Another point. A federal royal commission has been announced, but not yet appointed, to investigate and report on reproductive technology. This is going to effectively look, we hope, at the point at which science is really challenging traditional notions of what motherhood is and what choice is and what childbirth is about.

The final point. The Attorney-General has himself claimed that personal opinions have no place in discussions with the federal government, and the provincial government has no room or time to discuss these items with the federal government, a point which I don't accept but which has been articulated by your side of the House.

On top of all these facts, our Premier decided on May 25 that he is going on his own, flying off on his own accord, to talk to Ottawa about finding new ways to punish women by asking for special new laws to recriminalize abortion, stating that without a law it is wide open — any age for any reason.

Let me put a couple of ideas forward to you. It really does depend on what assumptions you make about women, right at the very beginning, as to what you ask for when you go to Ottawa to talk about this issue of choice. If you make the assumption that women are basically children or chattels or furniture, then you make assumptions that abortion at any stage should be criminalized. You can't trust women to carry a child to term; therefore criminalize it.

If you make the assumption, on the other hand, that women are equal partners in society, are fully viable citizens and human beings that have their autonomy and integrity, then you do other things. For example, you do what the Brooks decision just did a few weeks ago in the Supreme Court of Canada, when Chief Justice Dickson said that it is discriminatory, basically, for society to charge women the full costs of having children, and that firing someone for being pregnant is not a fair thing to do. In fact, both men and women have to share the costs of our common goal, which is having children in our society. It's a slightly different point of view, is it not?

Taking abortion to Ottawa and asking for it to be recriminalized — put back into the Criminal Code — is a little like overkill, is it not? I mean, if you're out to punish women, fine, do it. But if you don't want to punish women.... Let's put it in the context, perhaps, of red light, green light — of traffic control, of coming to a stop sign and stopping — where there's mutual...

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that the red light has gone off, and her time is up under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI: Okay.

...consensus. This is the kind of attitude and assumption I would prefer this government to take on abortion.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Abortion is a federal issue. The government of Canada has said that the Parliament of Canada will deal with this issue during this term. The province of British Columbia has asked the government of Canada to fulfil that commitment.

MS. MARZARI: I was actually looking forward to a debate. In fact, I thought that, since the Premier was staying in the House for this statement period, we could enjoy a debate together. Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that I have extra time? It means I still have three minutes left.

The regulatory regimes which we presently have basically involve MSP and cost-sharing arrangements around our medical services, basically revolve around doctors observing their oaths and ethical practices and women having the right to choose. This regime, which now basically leaves the control — if you want to call it that — and the choice to the woman and her doctor, seems to be working quite well in this country. Nobody seems to have complained, except people who have a religious motivation that basically rests on the notion that women

[ Page 7360 ]

should be controlled and that they shouldn't be trusted; they should be treated like children.

I'd suggest that recriminalizing abortion does a number of things. It puts doctors' behaviour under the Criminal Code, and it reintroduces the notion that their practice could be criminal in one way or another. If you follow the assumption I talked about earlier, about women needing control, it takes us towards the following questions. At what point in a pregnancy should a woman be incarcerated because she's smoking or drinking? When do you put young girls in homes, to make sure they're eating right during their pregnancy, so that they'll produce healthy babies? At what point do you introduce handmaids' jails into our society, so that women are guaranteed to carry to healthy term, and won't have choice and won't be choosing to exercise it? These are absurd extensions of the assumption that you so fervently make.

What we really have to look at once again are the words of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, when she said: "The fact that the decision whether a woman will be allowed to terminate her pregnancy is in the hands of a committee is just as great a violation of the woman's right to personal autonomy in decisions of an intimate and private nature, as it would be if a committee were established to decide whether a woman should be allowed to continue her pregnancy." That is the issue, gentlemen; it's choice.

[10:30]

LABOUR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION

MR. PETERSON: A week ago Thursday, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the expansion of the Captin wheel-manufacturing plant in Delta. Just to give you a bit of background, the plant manufactures wheels for Toyota cars. Recently it opened an expansion, whereby their employees will increase by 60.

During this opening session, there were some very important people sitting up on the stage. There was the Premier of our province, the mayor of Delta, a cabinet minister from the federal government, Hon. Charles Mayer, the chief executive officer of Toyota and one other person — a production plant worker. His name was Sam Wright, and he worked on the assembly line. He was a younger man, and he was extremely proud as he stood up there. I listened to his speech with great interest, and I would like — I'm sure he wouldn't mind — to quote some of the words in his speech, when he addressed the crowd at that opening.

First he talked about when he was looking for the job, and he said: "I was prepared to work hard in a job that would challenge me on a daily basis and give me the opportunity to learn new skills." He carries on later and says: "I realized that my fellow employees at Captin had the same career goals as myself." As he carried on, he said: "But most important, I could see the individualism being formed into a team, and it was soon obvious that teamwork made all our jobs easier. Now, instead of an individual having a problem to solve, we all shared in solving it. What's important, though, is that as each day passed, the obstacles became easier and easier to overcome."

Remember, this is a young man — I would say maybe 25 or 26 years old — and he's relating his feelings to all these important people at the opening of this big plant. In closing, he said:

"I would like to say that by Toyota establishing the Captin plant here in B.C., it has given me what I was looking for — a job for a lifetime...a job that recognizes hard work, gives its employees a chance for advancement, and challenges me on a new daily basis and has taught me new skills.

"On behalf of the team at Captin, we thank you, Toyota, and the federal and provincial government for their assistance in bringing Captin to B.C."

These words come from a production-line worker.

The topic of my statement today is cooperation between labour and management. I couldn't help but wonder, if we had that cooperation through our whole industrial base in British Columbia and through our public sector, how much better an effect there would be on our economy and our quality of life, and how in fact this would enable us to carry on in the manner that we are right now.

On reflection, and by looking at some of the stats, I realize that that indeed is happening in British Columbia. Let me read some of the stats. I don't care if you're talking about the union sector, the non-union sector, industry or the public service, we are indeed doing very well in British Columbia. British Columbians should be proud of themselves.

Let's look at work stoppages. Let me give you some statistics. In 1986 the number of workers directly involved in work stoppages was 114,830, and the worker-days lost was 2,965,949, for a simple stoppage duration ratio of time workers to paid workers of 1. Now let's look at 1987. The number of workers involved was 328,607. I'll get back to that statistic in a moment, but the worker-days lost was only 567,741, and the ratio was 0.2 –– 1 might add that the reason for the large number of workers directly involved was that unfortunate day on June 1, when there was a one-day work stoppage throughout B.C., condoned by the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition. I believe it was an illegal walkout, and it was condoned by those people sitting over there. That's the reason for the blip.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, in 1988 we carried on; this is an amazing statistic. Workers directly involved in a work stoppage was only 49,133; worker-days lost, 40,067. The ratio I talked about comes out to 0.1. So we have made dramatic, amazing progress in this province in the last three years, just excellent progress. Why? Because of the cooperation between management and labour.

What is government's role in this? My feeling is that government should be a facilitator.

MR. SPEAKER: Under the standing orders, the hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIHOTA: It's very interesting to listen to the member talk about labour-management cooperation,

[ Page 7361 ]

because the record of the government in this regard is very clear. It's evident that this is a government that has chosen a course of confrontation as opposed to a course of cooperation. It takes two to cooperate.

When the government was elected in October 1986, the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) tasked a group of people to go around this province and draft new labour legislation. That was a cooperative model which was applauded by all. Silently working in the Premier's office, there was another group that was drafting the provisions of Bill 19. When it became evident that the public process the Minister of Labour had started was just a sham, and that the real methodology of the government was to build in-house labour legislation, there was a violation of process. There was indeed confrontation throughout this province, caused by the destructive and controversial legislation this government brought in.

It compounded the fact by introducing, on June 1, seditious writs in the courts as another way of heightening the level of confrontation. One would have thought they would have learned from their experiences surrounding Bill 19, but instead the Premier instructed the Attorney-General of the day to proceed with the seditious writs.

The Minister of Labour, in his report to the Premier on Bill 19.... I don't have the actual quote here, but just to paraphrase it, he said something to the effect that if the legislation didn't have the support and the acquiescence of the majority, then the greater objective would not be achieved. That was the essence of what he said. You know, the Minister of Labour is correct. We now have in this province a schism between labour and management and particularly against the government. But the understanding of the violation of process that was triggered by the government has brought — in a funny sort of way — management and labour together, frustrated with the government.

Much has been said in the past few weeks by the members opposite with respect to where our party stands on the matter of new labour legislation in British Columbia. I want to take a minute or two to talk about it, because I think that the approach we're taking represents a different process, which serves as a striking example of the difference between what the Socreds have done and what the New Democrats are prepared to do.

Last September, shortly after I was appointed labour critic of our party, I commenced a series of dialogues with management and labour across this province. We've talked to all major employer groups and many trade unions in British Columbia. As a consequence, we commenced a process of consultation.

We will be introducing later on this year, around December, our principles as they attach to new labour legislation that we would introduce. It's based upon a consultative process that is underway now. We're not prepared to move in the back rooms and in the confrontational fashion that this government has.

We are prepared to respect process and try to draft equal, fair-handed legislation that attends to the interests of both management and labour. By proceeding in the fashion that we have, we are confident that going into the next election, we'll be able to put before the electorate a striking example of legislation and of principles which guide legislation that can work. That's when people in this province will recognize that indeed there is a new generation of New Democrats: people who believe in fairness, people who have worked consultatively with management and labour, people who will put together a package of labour legislation that can truly work as a catalyst to bring an end to the inevitable conflicts that happen between labour and management.

We're proud of the process that we've commenced. We'll be deeply proud to introduce what we have coming down towards the end of this year, and it will again demonstrate that if there is one party in this province that is interested in labour-management cooperation, it is ours. I know, from the Premier's comments this weekend, that that concerns him.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that under the standing orders his time is up.

MR. PETERSON: I'd like to reply to that member. There is one party in this province that is interested in labour-management cooperation and it's the Social Credit Party. He talks about the record being clear. Mr. Speaker, I'm astounded at some of his statements.

Let me quote the record of the last three years resulting from this government, with some assistance from Bill 19: "The labour record over the last three years was the best, and as well, more people are working in B.C. than ever before. Worker-days lost due to work stoppages fell from nearly three million worker-days lost in 1986 to only 400,000 in 1988." That doesn't just happen: that's cooperation and that's work from this government. "In 1988, only one-tenth of 1 percent of total worker-days lost was due to work stoppages — that is, strikes, walkouts, lockouts, etc." That's progress; that's cooperation. "The year 1988 witnessed an 86 percent drop in the number of work stoppages over 1986, despite the fact that '88 was one of the heaviest bargaining years in recent memory, involving 385 collective agreements and nearly 212,000 employees." That's progress; that's cooperation, Mr. Member. "Legislation was introduced also to increase the participation of workers and employers in developing Workers' Compensation Board policies, programs and procedures."

The Industrial Relations Act, Bill 19, has served the province very well since proclaimed in July 1987. Despite the controversy surrounding this piece of legislation — we know who was pulling your strings during that controversy — the act has been successful in its aim to create a stable, long-term labour relations climate which will attract investment to British Columbia and create more jobs. The proof is there; the proof is in the pudding.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew stood up in this House and said he was going to come up with some miracle legislation. We still haven't seen it. He talks about it like he talks about everything else, but

[ Page 7362 ]

it's simply talk and not action. You like to create controversy to get yourself a headline, but you're not interested in getting the job done; you're not interested in British Columbia. It's time that members of this House brought you to bear, Mr. Member, because enough is enough. I would suggest that you contribute to some good solid substance in this House and not the malarkey you've been handing us.

[10:45]

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MRS. GRAN: Seated in the House today is a grade 7 class from Alice Brown Elementary School, with their teacher, Peter Luongo, who is one of the most hard-working, dedicated teachers that I know. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 16: minister's office, $224,490.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I welcome the opportunity to discuss my estimates and would like to make a few introductory remarks before we get to the rest of the process.

I think everyone will agree that these are exciting times in education in this province. There is a spirit of enthusiasm and cooperation, and of looking forward to change through an evolutionary process, the promise of a better and more relevant education system, which will produce students better equipped to survive and flourish in a rapidly changing world.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This government believes very strongly in the importance of education, and recognizes that our children are the future of our province. The government sees very clearly the link between education and the social and economic health of our province. From a personal perspective, I would certainly like to thank the Premier and all of my colleagues in cabinet and caucus for the excellent support that they have given to the initiatives that have been put forward by the Ministry of Education as a result of much consultation with people in the field.

Education is an investment, not only in the individual personal development of students but also in the economic development and the future prosperity of the province. The government of British Columbia is committed to developing an education system capable of preparing the youth of today for full participation in the dynamic economy of tomorrow.

We can be very proud of our education system. There are many fine examples of the current success of the school system. Just one example is the latest results of the international test of science and mathematics, which was reported in January 1989, where B.C. students placed first in science and a close third in mathematics in an international competition involving 12 jurisdictions around the world. Our students excelled in problem solving, and it's a credit to the thinking and problem-solving skills that are being taught in our school system.

So we have a very good system now, but the enhancement of the education system must be an ongoing process if B.C. students are to maintain and even improve on current achievements, or if they are to hold such international stature.

Mr. Chairman, we know well that even in very difficult times we tried very hard to be fair, to support a sound basic education system and to bring as much equity to this system as possible throughout the school districts of the province. Even during the restraint period, funding for education fared better than in virtually all other ministries of government, and certainly much better than for people in the private sector.

Over the last few years, we have continued to bring about significant improvements in the funding provided to the 75 school boards, and we have introduced special initiatives in support of education excellence, such thrusts as moving into the international education area, and support for rapidly changing technologies with our funding for computer programs and other technologies in the school system, as they affect the curriculum and the needs of the students in preparation for the twenty-first century. Every year since 1984 there have been improvements and fine-tuning in the system, in line with the resources made available to education, and these resources have been substantial and increasing at a dramatic rate.

I would like to give credit to the fiscal framework advisory committee, who have each year, and on a continuing basis, looked at the funding for different sections of the education system. Many of their very well considered and thought out recommendations to us have been implemented since I've been minister.

I would also like to commend the College of Teachers, which has come up with a very expeditious start and has taken a very professional role in looking at the professional side of teaching. The people in the executive are certainly very dedicated and committed to making sure that the teaching profession remains highly regarded. 

With respect to funding for education, our system is already among the best in Canada. It is being given new focus and direction. Funding is being significantly increased in 1989-90 again, with a number of new initiatives being undertaken. Overall, the budget for the Ministry of Education for the 1989-90 fiscal year provides for an additional $253 million, bringing the total to $2.2 billion — a 12.8 percent increase.

We have set the path for new initiatives with respect to the Sullivan royal commission recommen-

[ Page 7363 ]

dations, and we have given ourselves a realistic ten-year time-frame in which to bring about those changes. But we think that we must get started, and so we are starting now. I guess it's pretty hard to pin down when the process actually started, but many of the initiatives are ongoing. There is a lot of consultation going on with the teachers as the details of the content of the implementation are being developed. We've recognized that there has to be money for that, and we have committed ourselves as a government to $1.4 billion over the next ten years, over and above the standard operating budget, in order to implement the recommendations of the report.

We are at present focusing more attention on the progress of individual students, with a provision for dual entry in the first year; the initial development of a new provincial curriculum structure for grades 4 to 10 to be phased into schools over the next several years, thus placing greater emphasis on problem solving and creative thinking as well as literacy; and the development of new differentiated grade 11 and 12 programs, providing a choice of pathways leading to graduation, and a choice of equitable pathways so that they all have credibility.

In addition, funding will provide for expanded teacher education programs, support for special programs for rural teacher education, the establishment of an Education Advisory Council for the enhancement of native Indian language and culture programs, the further improvement and development of assessment and performance evaluation procedures, and programs and increased funding for independent schools.

The Royal Commission on Education also recommended.... We had suggested it over the last couple of years and have been getting increased funding for capital programs. Now we have committed ourselves to a six-year program of $1.5 billion, and for this year one-sixth of that — $250 million in capital expenditures — is more than double what we spent last year, which was probably more than double what we spent the year before.

Ironically, the economic good times in the province are generating a great demand for schools, and we are trying our very best to keep up with it. Obviously we can't meet every expectation out there, but we are giving priorities to the situations where students don't have classrooms or where it makes no sense to put props under the props. In that system of priorities, we have done a fair amount of fast-tracking in addition to the rational system that we set up over a year ago where when we give planning money it's because we are assured of the construction money. That has helped school boards to plan. It's a much more rational system and is moving much more quickly. We are still looking at other improvements in that regard.

The budget provided for major improvements to the education funding system, and the 1989-90 grants to school districts have been improved. The grant allocations again far outdistanced those in the other provinces. School boards are now notified early about the general grant increase and the maintenance of the provincial sharing ratio to allow them to engage in sound planning for their budgets.

The increase in grants to the school districts is two and a half times the cost of inflation as measured by the consumer price index. Funding has been substantially improved to provide for inflation, fixed costs, enrolment increases, operations and maintenance costs, student transportation, teacher salaries and benefits, other support personnel salaries and benefits, curriculum resources, special education, educational supplies and materials, and extra funding for smaller dispersed schools and school districts.

I might point out that we have already moved and will probably be moving further to allowing school districts to spend 30 percent of their educational materials — which used to be textbook funds — rather than just the 5 percent on local choice, so it's 70 percent on prescribed. I suppose we will gradually move even further as boards are ready to accept that responsibility and as the system changes so that it requires a greater variety of materials.

The province has taken steps to ensure that the funding system recognizes current costs, as far as possible, relative to provincially established levels of service. Increases in funding for '89-90 give the fiscal framework a high level of integrity and support a sound basic education program. The province has significantly increased the size of the basic education program in which it shares costs with school boards. Approximately 81 percent of school board budgets are offset by provincial grants, including the homeowner's grant. About 5 percent of school board budgets are offset by what we call miscellaneous revenue, which includes such things as federal French grants and surpluses and other local revenue from fees and rentals. Approximately 14 percent of school board budgets are paid out of local residential taxes.

In some districts, homeowners pay significantly more than 14 percent because their local school board has chosen to offer services above the provincially shared basic education program or to exceed the provincially determined costs. School boards have the authority to increase local residential taxes to pay for supplementary budget amounts, but they are responsible to the local taxpayers for those decisions. As the province continues to increase its grants and the size and cost of the basic education program in which it shares, it is also encouraging school boards to reduce their supplementary budgets and keep residential tax increases to a minimum.

This year the province has taken the additional step of alleviating the increase in local taxes by increasing the homeowner grant to seniors by $50 or by $70.

[11:00]

School districts across the province will receive $1.6 billion for operating and debt service costs, an increase of 10.5 percent, or $149 million more than last year. The homeowner grant, I mentioned, will be increased, and that increase to the provincial taxpayer cost $44.5 million.

[ Page 7364 ]

Contributions to the Teachers' Pension Fund will rise by $13.3 million to a total of $134.8 million. Grants to independent schools, by the formula based on the cost of the public schools, will increase by $8.4 million for a total of $57.1 million.

Besides these major initiatives, the Ministry of Education budget also supports other very important priorities, including third-year funding of $5.3 million for the Pacific Rim education initiatives, which includes scholarships to student-teacher exchanges, curriculum development and language programs.

It includes second-year funding for the five-year computers-in-education program. Last year I'm told that 8,400 computers were purchased, and the target is to place more than 40,000 computers in schools across the province. I might add that this year we carried on with the funding we had last year in our five-year plan.

This year we're going to be requiring school boards to install a computer in each school for the assessment and monitoring process. In that regard we put in an additional almost $6 million for those computers. I say that and emphasize it because I have read somewhere that we took that out of the computer money that was put into schools. We put in the same money we put in last year, which was our plan, and we added the extra money for the computers.

A third special initiative is the continuation of the $8.4 million Passport to Education program, which allows students to build up credits for paying for later education based on their school and community performance. I might say that the take-up on that has been very good.

Further regionalization of the correspondence education program, with implementation of two more centres, brings the total to six regional centres. All of the evaluations of those regional centres show that students are performing better on correspondence courses because they have closer access to checking of tests and to the people who are administering the program.

Mr. Chairman, it's important to point out that the province has worked hard to ensure that tax increases are minimal, but these tax patterns can only be achieved if school boards keep their budget at reasonable levels. The province has again provided generous funding increases to allow boards to provide quality education programs. We have indulged in a lot of consultation. Speaking for myself, right from the time I became minister I've promoted that in the first talk I gave I suggested that if all of us devote our energies towards pointing out the good things in our education system and cooperatively working to fix up the weak spots, we would all gain a great deal more. That has produced considerable results. It's not necessarily a total commitment to that consultation process. Some people like to carry on the confrontation. I'd even like to dream of the day when the opposition and my opposition critic will cooperate to try to improve the education system and to fix the flaws rather than to dwell on them.

I enlist the cooperation of the boards and the teachers in working together to achieve our mission in the public interest. I had an opportunity over the last few years to visit most of the school districts in this province. I talked to students, teachers, parents, community groups, and I must say that it confirms my belief in the enthusiasm and the fine achievements of our students and the obvious dedication and professionalism of their teachers. I never cease to be impressed with the great things happening every day in our schools and with how extensively schools are reaching out to their communities and involving them in the educational process. On that basis, I'm very optimistic about the changes that are being planned, because teachers will be involved. I have every faith that the teachers are both interested and very capable of implementing the changes for a better learning process for the students of our schools. Many of the citizens out there share the enthusiasm for a better education system and what it can achieve in meeting the needs of students and in preparing them for the future.

The Royal Commission on Education has focused a great deal of attention on education in our province. I would like to commend the late Barry Sullivan for his dedication and his work in bringing about the recommendations, in effect giving us the future direction for education in this province. Not only will this keep us in the game of change and preparation for the future, but I think he has given us the guidelines to be one of the leading educational organizations in Canada and elsewhere. Teachers, administrators, parents and the public have worked very hard to prepare excellent, well-thought-out presentations both to the commission and to myself. I would sincerely like to thank all of those people who have contributed and participated and who take an ongoing interest.

The provincial advisory committee has to be very highly commended. These people put in a lot of time, not just at the meetings but in studying a mass of material in a short time and making many good recommendations. I think they are to be commended, in that they recognized it would be impossible to achieve a 100 percent consensus at all points because of philosophy and other points of view, but they always kept before them the ultimate good of the education system.

Lastly, I would certainly like to thank the dedicated staff in my ministry. I guess no one will ever know the extra hours that were put in, and not only by senior staff who are committed to taking these programs forward and putting them together time and time again. We have to recognize that when these people are putting in that kind of time and reports have to be put together, it spins off to everybody in the ministry. Every typist was expected to get something ready on a fast-track basis. So to everyone in the ministry, directly or indirectly involved, I would like to extend my commendations and the gratitude of the people of this province. At the district level, many extra hours were put in by superintendents, administrators, school boards, teachers and parents in feeding input into the advisory planning committee and to myself in order to bring about what we

[ Page 7365 ]

hope will be a very improved education system that we can be proud of.

With me today are my assistant deputy ministers, Mr. Jack Fleming and Mr. Wayne Desharnais. With all of the positive things that are going on in education in this province, I certainly welcome the few questions that the opposition may have on my estimates.

MS. A. HAGEN: I welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue with the minister on the matters that I know have taken a tremendous amount of his time and effort over the last year. I will begin my comments by picking up on the theme with which the minister concluded his remarks when he acknowledged and thanked the staff of the ministry, and the many people throughout the province who are involved in the education of our young people, for their endeavours.

I want to thank the minister on behalf of the people of the province. He has been, in this past year especially, a minister who has been seen to be, and who has been, an advocate for education. I think that's recognized in the province. I've certainly heard people speak about it, Mr. Minister, and it's something that should be acknowledged in the House. The minister has worked extremely hard during probably one of the most interesting and dynamic years that education has had in the province in a number of years.

It has been a year characterized by, I think for the first time, optimism, considerable renewed energy and a refocusing. The minister and I will agree, I think, that the source of that kind of spirit within the province came largely from the royal commission and the excellent work done by Mr. Barry Sullivan and the members of his commission staff — and indeed by the public of the province — on behalf of education. I would certainly agree with him that the reflection this document provides about the province's people and their feeling about education, the strong statement it makes committing us to the very best education we can possibly provide for the children of our province, for their future and for the future of this place in which we live, and committing us to the parents and the teachers who are the direct workers and the people looking after our children. All of that, I think, came out of that commission.

Out of it too came not necessarily all of the answers, but a very clear sense of direction, which has helped to guide the work of the ministry and the work of people throughout the province. There has indeed, as the minister has noted, been consultation. Out of that consultation the ministry has developed a mandate statement and policy directions. The minister is moving towards the introduction of an act late in June. I think that process has been one that we commend.

I want to note that the minister and I might have a little difference of view around some of the dynamics associated with that process. When one consults, there is bound to be an expression of different viewpoints. That's part of examining very important and fundamental questions, and I think that when we look at the outcome of some of that consultation, we will inevitably have differences of opinions. You and I, I think, may have some as we discuss this part of the government's work and the part of the enterprise in our province over the next few days. But I think that all of those concerns come forward from a genuine commitment to our children and to the education of our children.

I think that's the fundamental principle that guides our work in this House, and I believe it guides the work of the people we call the stakeholders in education: the parents; the people the parents and communities elect, the trustees; the teachers, through the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the College of Teachers; the various PSAs; and the groups of senior officials who work together. All of those people are guided by common goals. I think that if we keep that in mind, we can use some of the disparate views as a means of arriving at the very best decisions we might take.

We are entering into these estimates on a late Friday morning, with not very much notice, which is not uncommon with estimates. I think the minister and I both know that we're not quite sure when we might resume the estimates process. To my knowledge, it hasn't been officially scheduled as yet.

But I am very happy that we are beginning the discussion. One of the reasons I'm especially pleased is that this week the government provided us with a timetable of its legislative agenda still to be introduced into this House. There is a list of 57 statutes — I don't know whether that's the Heinz variety or not — including the School Act and the Independent School Act, and a date for the introduction of those acts. According to that schedule, those two acts will be first introduced in this House on June 26.

[11:15]

I'm sorry they won't be in the House earlier than that time, because in fact our debate will inevitably occur when students and parents, and to a considerable extent trustees and teachers, are taking a well-earned rest. I know that on June 30, after a year of the kind of activity that normally goes on in school — and which has gone on even more extensively because of people's involvement in the implementation of the royal commission — most people will be taking a well-earned rest. It would have been a fine thing if we had been able to have had that debate on the School Act when the people who are most directly concerned were still within the framework of schools and the education system, instead of on holiday. These estimates, if they continue over the next couple of days and next week, if that's the government's wish — and they set the time — in fact will provide us with an opportunity for some discussion of the issues during the time that school is in session.

With those remarks, with a very special commendation to those various organizations and individuals who have worked so hard this year... I want to mention a couple of groups I didn't hear the minister mention specifically, although he mentioned their membership generically: the School Trustees' Association and the Teachers' Federation. I want to share in

[ Page 7366 ]

my introductory remarks the sense that things are moving in the system, which the minister has spoken about, and to conclude with the recognition of the work that he and his ministry have done in that regard.

Let me move more specifically to the first topic that I would like to examine with the minister. The royal commission brought down recommendations in a number of areas. It dealt with the mandate of schools and with the curriculum that children are taught in schools. It described the children themselves: who they are and some of the variety of living circumstances that they have in the province. In particular, it focused on their needs for the future. It talked about the people who teach those children. It spent time looking at the special needs of the system and the support systems that need to be in place, and it talked about financing provincial schools.

It would be fair to say that in the past year, the minister has moved on every one of these issues in some way or other. Again, that is commendable However, there is one area that I want to deal with over the next few minutes.

In his policy directions of January 27, the minister provided everybody concerned with education with a blueprint of those policies — very often with some timetables — that would guide the system, particularly for the coming year and with projections into a longer-range future that he spoke about a moment ago, when he talked about a ten-year timetable.

In those policy directions, the minister referred to the funding system. That's what I call: how much do we pay for education? He referred to the taxation system. That's what I call: who pays and how much? That's really what we're talking about when we're talking about education finance. It has those two components: the elements of the dollars that are available, and where we get those dollars. We always say we get those dollars from each of us. They come in different ways, and the impact of how those dollars come has very significant effects on the people affected by those taxation measures.

In the policy directions, the minister made commitments to a timetable where he indicated that the funding system would be in place to the 1990-91 fiscal year, and between now and then there would be an examination of the funding system to ensure that it is fair and equitable. It is also stated that there would be a review by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations into the taxation system so that any improvements to the system would be ready for the 1990-91 fiscal year.

I'd like to ask the minister what the current state of affairs is. What is the current timetable for the review of education funding and taxation systems in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The funding that we announced for the 1989-90 school year is in place. Of course, that's what will be discussed in the budget, so there are not too many changes to that, other than the homeowner grant, the base grant from 55 percent to 57 percent and all of the improvements that we have tried to make within the existing funding formula.

I must admit that there is work going on. The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations is looking at all of the numbers. I don't know whether they've gotten to other alternatives. They'll be trying to lay the base within the Ministry of Education and the Finance ministry, and there are some other discussions going on. We have been getting some input from school boards about funding.

We've concentrated our efforts in trying to get the act and this implementation process underway. We're still committed for the next year to come up with a more equitable system if we possibly can. I say "if we possibly can," because everybody who has studied it has said that there should be local taxation to provide local autonomy, and that property taxation provides a base. Whether we continue that or not, I don't know.

We'll be taking a very comprehensive look at it. I would imagine it will require legislation in the next session, which we'll be looking at next spring. The budget implications, to the extent possible, would be incorporated in next year's budget. We'll be doing a lot of consulting as we get.... The advisory planning commission has at this point worked on implementation strategies and discussing the legislation. As soon as we get that put together, then we'll move on that. I will agree with the member; I, too, wish that the act had been in the House earlier. We would have liked to have had it out there early, but I guess my enthusiasm was somewhat dampened by the realization of how much time the legislative people have to put in to develop a whole new comprehensive act. Again, I should include them with my staff in commendation of.... They pulled out all the stops to try to put it together as quickly as possible. The process is quite onerous. Yes, I welcome the debate on it. But I might point out to the member, regarding her opening remarks, that there has been a great deal of debate and probably more input into what the legislation should contain than there has ever been before.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the policy directions of the funding and taxation issue, the minister announced that his ministry and, as he just noted, the Ministry of Finance would be involved in the review. Could he advise the House what other formal structures there are for this review process of funding and taxation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We haven't pulled together the other structures, as I say, because of other priorities, but at the staff level and with myself, we have had meetings with the BCSTA. The BCTF has made some suggestions in their ongoing staff meetings, where everybody is trying to come up with the answer. If someone can come up with it, we'd certainly welcome it — the perfect taxation system. Before that is done, I expect that when Finance has a lot of the alternatives for what it means if you drop this taxation, when they have those numbers and our ministry can put them together, then we can bring together what the school districts are talking about.

[ Page 7367 ]

To have suggestions like, "Well, you pay it all and don't bother us, " isn't very productive in that sense.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, who pays? The taxpayers pay. It is a case of equitable distribution or collection of the funds.

So there are no formal meetings set for this yet, but I expect that there will be as soon as we move on to that phase.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps the minister would confirm some information that I understood had been given about the whole review process — that is, that there would be some structure, some formal group, in place by September of this year, and that the minister had requested them to report back to him by January 1991. Could the minister advise us whether there has been any move at all to indicate — if not who will be involved — that there will be some formal process outside of the two ministries that he has said are working on some of the technical aspects of preparing for this review?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I don't have the dates that the member seems to have. But the Education Advisory Council, as they finish the legislation, will be moving on and are committed to discussing the financing, and they represent a broad group of people. Municipal Affairs is discussing this. And UBCM, I know, is putting together their suggestions, as is the BCSTA. I just don't know when we'll be able to pull the meetings together of all these groups. But the important thing, I think, is that these people are inputting right now with their suggestions. Then we'll have to put it all together and see how it ties together.

MS. A. HAGEN: Has the minister, in his own mind, or has his staff advised him of an appropriate date by which this review with recommendations might be concluded? Is there some sense of how much time it may take? Because as he has noted, there is technical work to be done, and there are a very significant number of people within the province, in the various organizations concerned especially about taxation — which is, I think, what he's talking about now particularly — a very significant number of groups that are interested and concerned. Is there some time-frame within which the minister and his staff and the staff of the Ministry of Finance are working?

[11:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The time-frame really is already our commitment to bring it into next year's taxation structure. Working back from that, the budget material has to be there for January, so a lot of work has to be done. The technical work is what I was referring to. We're not waiting for one final proposal before we work it out. The technical work that's being done now is: "If this, what is the cost; if this, what is the effect?" That will be all the information that can be brought to the table when the alternatives are considered. But working back, if we're going to get it into next year's budget, which we're committed to, then it will have to be ready in January.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister advise us if those groups that are examining this issue have been given any kind of a mandate, if you like, or any terms of reference by the Minister of Education or the Minister of Finance? What are the goals of this review of taxation and funding? What is it that the minister is seeking to achieve? What are we about in this enterprise? Could the minister please define this for us so that we understand what he wants to have come out of this study which so far is going on behind the scenes but presumably is going to go forward in a more public and consultative way sometime within the very near future?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thought it was already public and self-evident, from the royal commission report and what we have said, that the whole purpose is to come up with a more equitable and easier-to-operate taxation structure to finance education. We know that education is costing money; we expect it will cost more in the future, and we have committed more money. So it would be: how do you collect that money in a more equitable way — from what sources and in what ways — and how do you distribute it?

That's the major underlying objective of it, but we haven't set up a mandate. For instance, we're not about to tell the UBCM: "You have a mandate to fill in these blanks on this form." We have said to them, "We know this is of great interest to you, so will you make your suggestions for the taxation system: to what extent should it be property taxation, what should it include, " that sort of thing. The other organizations — the BCSTA, BCTF, other people — have been invited to put in their proposals. As I've said, as we get the time, as we get through the legislation, then we'll pull these groups together and say: "Okay, now let's look at it. Your proposal may be wonderful from your perspective, but it just doesn't work. So what about putting together enough of the proposals?"

We are very optimistic that we can come up with a better and more equitable system. As I said earlier, I don't think there is a perfect system, because the perfect system, as nearly as I can get it, is that more money should be spent and less taxes collected, and that we can't do. I can tell you that now.

MS. A. HAGEN: So far I think our comments have probably been mostly directed to the "who pays?" side of this ledger, the taxation side of it. Just one more question there. The royal commission provided some recommendations around financing of education. The Education Policy Advisory Committee also dealt with this matter, and in its report to the minister in December provided some initial input

[ Page 7368 ]

around some principles, if you like, or some directions that might be taken. Has the minister taken any stand on any of those directions? Are those recommendations, the recommendations of the royal commission, the discussions on those recommendations and the recommendations from EPAC a part of the framework for the discussions that are going on now, particularly in the taxation area?

What I'm trying to get at with these questions, Mr. Chairman, is whether there has been any kind of direction from the ministry around areas that it particularly wants to explore. Or is it really quite an open process at this time, where royal commission recommendations are simply a part of a number of ideas that might be in place or generated through the work that the various groups are doing?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess if I've taken any position on these, it's that I would like to see a simpler system that everybody can understand. I would like to see, as is recommended by others, an equitable system: equity of tax burden on people, a fairness and evenness of taxes paid.

The royal commission, for instance, recommended block funding. Even the school boards, the BCSTA, the BCTF and others have some reservations about whether block funding is the answer because of the geographic diversity in this province. If you give an equal amount per student, it might be very fair in one place and absolutely inadequate in another part of the province. In other words, there are some questions about block funding, the base funding and those sorts of things. I am very open-minded on the answer to a simpler, more equitable system to fund education.

One of the recommendations in the Sullivan report was that the tax rate should be the same across the province. If by that he means the mill rate, it may not be quite equitable between the person who has no children and a $200,000 house and the person who has six children and a $50,000 house. I am just using a few examples to say that if he means the tax rate — the amount that people pay — it presents another connotation.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I am very committed to a simpler and more equitable tax rate, but I am very open-minded about how, and I am willing to listen to anybody who has a better mousetrap.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister notes that the issue is not simple, and on that I think we would have absolute agreement, no matter who we happen to be talking with on this particular issue.

Let me just turn for a moment to ask some questions of the minister about the funding. It's how much we pay, not who pays it. At the present time, as we all know, there are fundamentally three sources, if you like. We all contribute through what we call general revenue — the money that comes to the province through our income tax, sales tax and all of those things. There is the money paid by business and industry through the non-residential tax, where the tax rate is set by the province for various sectors within that non-residential area. It is collected at the local level and comes into the province to be — we presume — simply turned over to become a part of the grant that goes to school districts.

Then there is the amount that the residential taxpayer pays based on the school district budgets, mill rates and a whole bunch of other complicated things that include elements that most people, even those of us who work with the system, have a job keeping up with — like what is shareable of the school district's budget over and above the provincial government's grant, and what is supplementary that is presumably at the discretion of the local school district.

In a general way, I want to ask the minister if the review of the funding formula — which I presume is going on in a little different way from the annual review of which he spoke in his remarks earlier — had some direction from the minister as to how some fundamental principles should be addressed. I think it would be really important to give some direction around what the government's intent is, in policy terms.

The minister noted in his statement, for example — and I am not sure I can quote it exactly; it's difficult to do when one is listening intently to a number of matters that the minister is addressing — something about the funding system recognizing current costs. I think he mentioned that he felt the fiscal framework had a good deal of integrity.

Are there some principles with which your ministry is working? I presume this is in your ministry's hands, Mr. Minister. Are there some principles that your ministry is using as guidelines as they look at the funding formula, the promised review of that toward 1990-91 and the funding that will come from the province for school districts which, let's remember, is a very fundamental part of what happens at the local level?

The minister is wont at various times, I think, to suggest that what happens at the local level is 100 percent the responsibility of decisions taken by school districts. Certainly the decisions taken by school districts affect the tax level in their local districts, but what the provincial government decides to do about its grants affects it too. That's just a matter of fact and not stated in a contentious way, but simply to say that both parties have an impact on what the local taxpayer contributes to education through residential taxes.

So, Mr. Minister, please give us some idea about what kind of principles, guidelines or policies there are to give direction to a review of the fiscal framework, which is the current method for arriving at a formula, but more broadly just to deal with funding for school districts coming from the province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess the guiding principles for the fiscal framework, in my mind, are simplicity, fairness, equity and adequacy. I wish that

[ Page 7369 ]

were as easy to accomplish as it is to say, because we have a fiscal year, school year and calendar year, and all three of them kick in to the process here. The local taxes are collected in the calendar year, the provincial government works on the fiscal year and the school district works on the September to June school year, so it is very complex.

When we say that we have moved to current funding, up until last year we funded any increases — for example, increases to teachers' salaries were totally borne by the district for one year, and in the following year we picked it up in the fiscal framework. Last year we moved to putting an allowance for current levels of funding into the fiscal framework.

[11:45]

We're trying to do it current. "Current cost" doesn't mean whatever any district wants to spend. In my opening comments I said, "the current costs as determined in the fiscal framework." In the fiscal framework we have maintained the 75-25 sharing ratio, which was put into effect when the financing formula changed. We have maintained that, give or take, 74.87, 75.32 — whatever these numbers are — but basically we stay with that.

In actual fact, we put up about 81 percent of the money because of little extras that are tossed in and so on. In the shareable we might say that everything considered, the cost for this district according to the fiscal framework should be $20 million — I just picked a number. On that basis, if they're at the provincial average, from consolidated revenue, from all of the taxes that we collect, the province would put up $15 million — three-quarters of that — and the local taxpayers would put up the other 25 percent.

Recognizing that whenever we increase the fiscal framework that automatically generates an increase of the local 25 percent portion as well as the 75 percent, we have tried to make accommodations by additions to the budget, by including more things For instance, last year we included an allotment for substitute teachers which hadn't been included before. We increased a number of allotments last year to try and pick that up. This year, recognizing that the increase that we generated would create an increase in the taxes just on the shareable portion, we then, for instance, increased the homeowner grant by $50. 1 think that more than picks up what we put into the shareable.

I might point out that we have increased the fiscal framework amount — what we consider the shareables, 75-25 — trying to pick up some of the deficiencies that have crept into the system, trying to pick up the increased enrolments and so on. We have put in an increase of 10 percent plus, which is more than double the consumer price index. We felt that was an amount not only to maintain the status quo but to provide for a better and improved educational system. We recognize that.

Over and above that, the school boards have the right to go above that amount. From district to district it seems to vary as to how much they decide that the fiscal framework won't cover. They decide on a certain amount, and that is called the supplementary budget, and the amount is 100 percent collectable from the local taxpayers because it's over and above what we share on the 75-25 ratio.

So yes, we do allow for both parties. I don't know whether that helps, because I know that the fiscal framework is fairly difficult to explain. If you want to call it the provincial grants, we've gone up. If you want to say the shareable, we moved that up. We have no control over how much the local school boards, accountable to their taxpayers, want to go above all of that fiscal structure.

MS. A. HAGEN: I thank the minister for his discussion of this matter. It's certainly my understanding that although there had been moves, as the minister has noted, the current costs are still not reflected in the fiscal framework. The majority of costs within school districts are salary costs. Something like 56 percent of budgets are teacher salaries, and another 20 percent or 23 percent are for other staffing purposes. The royal commission recommended that the government remove all references to teacher salaries from the funding formula, and that it not use the fiscal framework to counteract bargaining outcomes. I know the minister has given some indication of this issue.

As I talk to trustees and to people who work closely with the formula, it's certainly clear to me that one of the major problems is that the real cost of education is not covered. That's where we are at this stage of the game. What we've been talking about this morning is reform, so I don't want to get sidetracked too much into what is; what we're really talking about is the kind of direction that the minister is giving about what will be.

The royal commission stated as one of its goals for funding and taxation that it be predictable and that it be stable. Maybe we could add those to the minister's goals. I don't think he has talked about either of those things. What we've had, really, over the past number of years is a roller-coaster, where, although there have been some improvements, we still don't have that system in place where people know well in advance the rules by which they are playing.

I've had it explained to me that the price we pay for education.... Let me put it this way: the cost of education has to do with what price we pay. When I am dealing with my grocery bill, I want to know the cost of my grocery bill. It has to do with the prices I pay and all those items that are on the cashier's tape, and we add all of those up. That really tells us what the cost is. The cost of education is — very largely because it's a human enterprise — the cost of the people who work in the system plus the costs of textbooks and supplies and running the schools, operating the schools. Those are the fundamental costs.

It seems to me that when Sullivan and the royal commission were dealing with this whole issue of funding and were dealing very strongly with a perspective, a point of view, that said that we were

[ Page 7370 ]

not funding adequately, that there were deficiencies in the funding for education, and that we had to look at those prices in order to get at the cost of education.... I don't believe that at the present time the fiscal framework is dealing with the price of the main component, for one thing, and there may be other elements where it's not dealing with the price. In that reform that we're talking about, in that change, we've got to address those issues.

I recognize and I agree with the minister that there's a tension here, an appropriate tension, between what the province is prepared to commit and what districts are prepared to pay over and above that. In the middle of that is that ability to pay, if you like, that comes from the differing tax bases that deal with the shareable amount.

I want to ask the minister this. In the review of the funding formula, is one of the principles that he is prepared to look at the principle that says that we will acknowledge, as a starting point, the real price that is out there in the system, and move from there to deal with the tension between how much comes from the province and how much comes from the local taxpayers, whether it's the non-residential taxpayers or the residential taxpayers? Is he prepared to acknowledge the real price that is out there? Or is he setting some arbitrary figure of what he thinks the price should be?

I might go to the grocery store tomorrow, and I might want some tomatoes. The only tomatoes that might be available — as my husband noted to me last night — are very expensive. Those are the only tomatoes that I can buy. I have a choice there of buying those tomatoes or not. But in the case of education, we don't always have that choice in terms of looking at that base amount.

I want to see in that formula we're looking at, whether we can acknowledge that here today in 1989 or maybe next year in 1990, that that's the price. We'll work a funding formula that acknowledges that, where we all agree that that's the price. Then we'll work out something about the sharing. Is the minister prepared to make that fundamental commitment to acknowledge that this is the price? That price is teachers' salaries, support-staff salaries, transportation, supplies and operating the schools — times, presumably, the number of kids in the district.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think we've gone a long way to trying to recognize the real price. Let me illustrate. Last year school districts said, through their supplementary budgets, that the real price is $162 million more than you're putting into the fiscal framework — that's what we meant by bringing it to currency — so we added $172 million. We said we recognized that the price that we put was too low. We increased it. They said, "Thank you very much, " and bumped it another $152 million to the local taxpayers, because it in effect created that tax room. This year we moved up 10.5 percent on what we determined was the real price last year. School boards said, "Thank you very much, " and now they bumped it another $240 million, over and above. So I guess when we're trying to recognize the real price, I have to ask what the real price is.

We have tried to be as realistic as possible in funding education and in sharing it and maintaining the 75-25 ratio. Whatever we have done since '86, when we allowed school boards to go above that.... I'm not saying that it's bad. I'm simply saying that it's their accountability to the local taxpayers if they say we want to go above the real price because we think our kids deserve more. Fine and dandy. But if they decide to go that way, then I think it has to be local accountability. If they simply say, "We'd like to say the real price is twice what it is now, and you fund the real price, " that's the credit card approach, with open credit. We can't do that, because we have to be accountable to our taxpayers.

Let me point out something else. Last year the average homeowner in this province, after homeowner grant, paid $137 towards a quality education system. I don't know whether you can consider that horrendous or not. I do admit that when you're talking about averages, the person who has the average, say $60,000, home may pay $137, because the mill rate is the same; the person who has the $200,000 home is certainly paying a lot more and may not have any kids at school. So I can understand the objection to taxes.

With all of the increases, including what we put up — the 10.5 percent that we increased in the fiscal framework this year, plus all of the supplementary amounts that the school districts have done — would you believe that when we apply the $50 homeowner grant to the taxes, the average tax paid by a homeowner in this province to a quality education has gone down this year by $10 from an average of $137 last year to an average of $127 this year? So we think that we have contributed to the real cost.

Last year the real price was $152 million above what we allowed in the fiscal framework. We increased the fiscal framework by 10 percent, and the school boards have now increased the additional by I don't know what percentage, from $152 million to $238-something million. If you can give me what the real price is — not the demand, not the desire — then I think we will do our very best to accommodate the real price. So yes, we're incorporating that.

[12:00]

When I look at those figures, I sometimes wonder. You know, 85 percent to 90 percent of the people on polls say: "We think more money should be spent on education." I agree; I'm very partial to education. "We think that it is warranted, that it is a good investment." But is $127 per homeowner on average in this province exorbitant? Certainly the province could pick up that $127, and all it works out to, I guess, is $792 million extra that we would have to collect in sales tax. If we bump the sales tax to 8 percent or something of that nature, do we drive out the industries that fund us in the first place? Do we reduce the jobs that are lost because of those industries, and that sort of thing? As well as our educational concerns, we do have to look at the goose that lays the golden egg. Many of the programs that the

[ Page 7371 ]

government has taken in the economic measures have benefited us in education, because we've got more money to spend. We have spent more money, last year and this year, in increasing amounts — 12 percent, 10 percent more. So I don't know what the real cost is. The credit-card approach or the realistic approach?

What if I said, okay, I happen to be rich. Here's the extra $240 million. That's what you have said is necessary for the real cost this year. Would that generate a 10 percent wage increase next year because we've now got tax room? These are the kinds of things that we have to concern ourselves with, Madam Member. I hope that you can appreciate that any increases we put in through provincial grants come from the same taxpayers out there, just the other pocket. If we put that in, does it generate less tax at the residential level or does it generate more tax room in the minds of the people out there, who say: "Yippee! We've always wanted to...." Heavens to Betsy, in my personal life, in education and in everything I've ever done I've always wanted to spend more money than I had.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have to limit myself to what I get.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister insists on going back over previous years, and I'm really trying to stick to principles here. I understand some of the difficulties he's talking about in respect to identifying costs, but let me quote a couple of figures for the record that perhaps are more real than percentages.

This comes from the latest annual report we have of the minister. It only takes us to '88, and there may be some changes since then that make some difference, but I doubt it. If we look over a five-year period, in the actual dollars that come out of residential taxpayers' pockets.... This is after the homeowner grant, because that's what you're talking about, Mr. Minister; you're talking about the net cost of school taxes when you say that the average cost to a taxpayer is a certain amount. In 1983 the residential taxpayers of British Columbia paid about $166 million in residential school taxes. In 1987-88 they paid a little bit more than $313 million, and by my calculations that's about an 89 percent increase. Coming out of consolidated revenue — that's what we all share in — in '83 the amount was $989 million, and in 1987 it's up to $1,226,000,000, a 23 percent increase. It's interesting that in that period of time the non-residential taxes went down significantly, by about a third. I know there have been some changes in the last couple of years in those amounts.

There is no question, no matter how the minister slices it, that there is a shift of taxation to residential taxpayers, and there's a concern out there. There is a need for us to get to a stable and predictable funding formula that is based on certain principles that the ministry defines as the principles that will guide that reform. I haven't really heard the minister say today that those principles are in place. There's some move toward them, but I'd like to hear them much more specifically and clearly defined.

However, I want to move on a little bit in this discussion, because the intent here was to examine the review and reform process into 1990-91. Would the minister please advise us whether he needs any legislative change to significantly alter the method by which funding flows to school boards? For example, should the group — as yet undefined, unnamed and unorganized, but we understand working — recommend and the minister agree that the method we should go to, hypothetically, is block funding, which is different from the fiscal framework or might involve some major changes from the fiscal framework, can the minister implement that kind of change for the 1990-91 school district budget year, and then for all the processes that flow from that, without a legislative change?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, the second member for Dewdney requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: Today we have two schools from Mission visiting the Legislature. They are Mission Central and Hillside Elementary. There are about 29 grade 6 and grade 7 students in each group. I'd like the House to give a warm welcome to the students, their teachers and their escorts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the vote pass?

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question prior to the introduction, and I want to ask if the minister is prepared to respond to that question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I thought the member had just left the question hanging and was ready to allow my estimates to go through.

The member can do anything she likes with figures, but I think we also need to consider the facts. You can point out that non-residential taxation went down. At that time the government committed itself to — and has more than lived up to — the decreases in non-residential tax which come into the province being more than compensated for by the increase from consolidated revenue.

The shift onto the residential taxpayers.... I notice the member very carefully uses the '87-88 figures. If you used the 1985 figures, you would find out that the residential taxes — when we said the fiscal framework and that's it; no spending above that — stayed pretty constant and stayed in line with increases in the consumer price index, which was probably low during the restraint period and all that, but they pretty well stayed in line.

In '86 we removed the cap and allowed school boards.... As a result of the survey, "Let's Talk About Schools, " where parents said, "We think that the local trustees, elected by us, should have the right

[ Page 7372 ]

to spend over and above what you say they should be able to spend...." Other surveys also indicated that. People were demanding, "How dare you tell our people they can't spend an extra dollar when we're willing to put it up?" That's from '85. Then in '86 and '87, the supplementary started kicking in. The first year it was something like $25 million; the next year it went up to $125 million, plus the small increase in the shareable. That's what drove it up on the local taxpayers. So the net taxes to the residential taxpayers have not gone up a great deal.

I can give you all kinds of figures, if you like. You used '83, didn't you? Okay, in 1983, non-residential taxation, according to my figures, was $663 million, in round numbers; in 1987-88, it was $447 million, in round numbers. It went down — a deliberate attempt by the government to stimulate industry and development. That has happened. I guess you'd have to call it a success.

In the process, the grants from consolidated revenue in the general fund went from $955 million to $1,227,000,000. 1 would say that we more than compensated for the decrease, and then looked after that policy decision by government to stimulate business and industry. And it has worked, because more money has come in, and we've got more money to spend on education. So we've looked after that part of it.

There will always be the argument: "Well, the reason we have to raise local taxes is that you don't give us enough provincially." I tried to make the point earlier that the more we have given provincially in the last two years — more than double; almost triple the consumer price increase, which seems to be a base that people want to go by when it's convenient.... We've provided in our grants two or three times the consumer price index, and it has been absorbed and added onto. I don't know where the limit is. I'm certainly receptive to any ideas about how to handle taxation, but I'll tell you one thing: if people want spending autonomy, then I think they have to have accountability for raising money, at whatever level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Langley requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, in the members' gallery are two very good friends with their family: Ib and Linda Moller from Langley. On behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming them here today.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, no matter how the minister slices it, more of the education cost is going onto the local taxpayers. I don't want to recanvass the whole issue of the restraint program or Mr. Sullivan's very careful analysis and comments about lack of funding and the increased responsibilities that school districts are bearing as a result of ministry policy — all issues that have an impact on this complex matter. At this stage of the game I'm trying to get at some fundamental answers to the process of trying to make it better.

My final question to the minister before we had a couple of other items of House business was this: if the minister acted on a recommendation that required a significant change in the way in which schools are funded — how much we're paying through a process — if he acted on a significant change, such as the introduction of block funding, to name one example, would he require legislative authority to implement that change for the 1990-91 school year? Is legislative authority required to implement any significant change in the way in which funds are allocated to school districts in the annual process that begins with the 1990 school year?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought I had answered that question earlier. If we changed to block funding, or if we changed the sharing ratio, or if we changed the homeowner grant — well, the homeowner grant requires legislation; sorry, that's the wrong one — or how we share the funding and what method we use to do it, we would not need that legislation. We can go to block funding, for instance, without legislation. However, I think the member should be well aware that if there is a basic structure change in how taxes are collected.... Right now, taxes are collected on property assessments. If you're going to change that system, then yes, it requires legislation. It would have to come in in the next session of the Legislature, whenever that is. I think that should answer the question quite clearly. Tax structure changes require legislation; funding formula changes, no.

[12:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister has indicated that it is his intent to be in a position to implement change in the 1990-91 school year in respect to taxation. As I think about the timetable the school districts and the ministry follow, the minister gives some indication of the commitment of the province, through grants and shareable amounts, around the middle of February. The school districts will be doing their final determinations of budgets and passing tax bylaws from April 15 to May 1, depending on the School Act legislation we're going to be debating later on.

Can the minister explain, if there were to be changes in taxation, what kind of timetable would need to be followed in order for those changes to take place for the 1990 taxation year, certainly at the local level? That's where the legislative change would need to take effect.

MR. R. FRASER: I think what we want to do, apart from listening to some rather bland presentations from the opposition, is to point out the difference in philosophy that comes down here. I'll just remind the members opposite that one of their people who sits on the front counter here said to us and to all of British Columbia: "We should be ashamed of our

[ Page 7373 ]

public school system." That's what that member said.

Now we're having little chit-chats about Mr. Sullivan and the taxation rate.

What are we talking about here? We've got an education system that's blowing the brains out of every other province in Canada. Our kids are coming on so strong, it's just beautiful. That's what's happening in British Columbia, and the Sullivan report — which I think had some shortcomings, incidentally.... It is not as good as Radwanski's in Ontario. What did he say? He said: "Let's use some high-tech teaching methods." Not a bad idea. Little things like "Sesame Street, " which cost about 7 cents a viewer, compared to $3,500 a student.... Maybe we should upgrade the way we deliver these programs and make it a little more exciting for the students, give a little variety.

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: You know the Hawthorne theory, Mr. Member for Nanaimo — Mr. Second Member, dragged in here on the coat-tails of one of the nicest people who ever sat in the House. Chat, chat, chat. But it was you who said we should be ashamed, and I say we've got a great system here. Our minister is doing a great job, and this government has given more money to education than we can probably spend. And what do we get? Where is Ms. McMurphy now? She is working for the B.C. Teachers' Federation. One might think she had a motive — a little stepping-stone, dragging teachers into trade unionism so that she herself could get a job with the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

I want to tell you that our teachers in B.C. are wonderful, they are doing a great job, and I want everybody to know that the philosophical difference is that we appreciate them and you don't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Following that very relevant introduction, the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I take it to heart. I'd like to thank the member for Vancouver South for his suggestions. I know we are considering many innovative approaches in education — distance education, etc There is a lot of that happening. I thank him for his enthusiasm, and I assure you that I'll vote for him if I ever reside there.

With respect to my critic's last question about the legislation.... I know she is dwelling on this particularly, and I've tried to answer it several times. Some of these changes would require legislation in the spring session. There are things that we can do without in the legislation.

I think the question was: what about the timetable? Okay. This year, as an example, the government announced that it intended to increase the homeowner grant by $50. That was announced, I believe, at the end of January. No, I'm sorry; it was announced in the legislation. In January we said: "This is how much money can go into education; the exact sources of it and that sort of thing can then be done by legislation." The homeowner grant presented the tax relief when the budget was brought down. Then it took legislation after that.

It is possible to do quite a bit to accommodate the budget demands, and then get the revenue and all that sorted out in the legislation. There may be some things that aren't possible. I can't guess at every possible eventuality and say: "This will be covered, and this won't."

We're saying that for the next year we intend to come up with a simpler, more equitable system. We can do a lot of that just by the way we disburse the funds. Education can do that without legislation. Then Finance and others may have to restructure some legislation as to where the money comes from and the way it is distributed.

For instance, a school board could say this year's budget plus 5 percent, and that will be funded on the present sharing formula. Should we improve on that? I don't think they would object too strongly if the legislation came in later, because the taxes come in June, and of course, there are the next school year cuts in September. They've already pretty well budgeted for the school year to the end of June, so the fiscal year ends up as the balance at the end of the year. That is the real difference for school districts.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I have one last question on this theme for the minister. Then I'm going to leave this debate, and one of my colleagues will be picking it up.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You mean I have to answer the same questions again?

MS. A. HAGEN: No, this is a different question, Mr. Minister. If you'll just bear with me, I'll make it very brief and to the point. I want to complete this section of our discussions today.

One of the problems we have with the residential tax base is that the ability-to-pay issue has surfaced more and more. We're not going to get into that in great detail. If there were to be a new taxing mechanism — hypothetically, a tax credit to ensure that some index balanced the actual taxes that people paid based on their income — would it be possible to introduce that change in the 1990 spring session, so that it would take effect that year?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member asked me if it would be possible to base taxation on income. I believe that system is already known as the income tax system. I don't know how it could be applied, but it's a way of raising revenue. If the government decided it would scrap all taxes and raise everything by income tax, that might please some people. It also might send all the workers over to other provinces where they have less income tax to pay, because somewhere you've got to pick up the extra millions. If you ask if it's possible to attach it to income, of course it is; it's the system already in place. Is it applicable to education? I guess those are the decisions that have to be made.

[ Page 7374 ]

Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I note that in the gallery is a very important constituent, Mayor Fred Jarvis from Taylor. I would like the House to make him very welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would just like to continue pursuing the question of school board taxes as it relates particularly to one-industry communities that have seen a decrease in population. They are still faced with maintaining an infrastructure, such as the education system. As the minister is aware, the machinery tax has been removed; the assessments have been lowered on many of the forestry mills, particularly those in my riding of Alberni and in other ridings. That has reduced the tax base that communities can rely on to fund the various infrastructures, such as the schools, which fall under his ministry. Consequently, the amount of tax that has to be collected from the fewer people who live in those communities has to be raised.

In the community of Alberni, the largest centre in my riding, the major one-industry employer there, MacMillan Bloedel, used to employ 6,000 employees and is now employing some 4,000 employees. They will, in fact, be employing fewer and fewer people as they continue to modernize their processing plants and their harvesting methods in the forest. Also, the supporting industries that used to rely on supporting a larger community....

Alberni is the only centre on Vancouver Island that is experiencing a decreasing population. The rest are growing — some by leaps and bounds. That fact initiates the closing of some schools. That has happened in the riding, particularly in the Alberni area, and it does reduce costs to some extent. However, as the minister is aware, with our lower population and the assessments being lowered on the industry there, we are asked to come up with more and more money from the fewer and fewer people living there, who are making the good dollars that were paid by the forest industry.

Therefore, I think that the taxation question as it pertains to schooling is very important, and that something must be put into place, other than the property assessment taxation we now have to rely on for school funding. As the member for New Westminster has pointed out, we are searching for new avenues to raise that revenue to ensure that our children and our schools operate under a system, and that we maintain the high standards that the ministry has set. As the member mentioned, other avenues might be income tax or perhaps re-implementing the machinery tax and other taxes that may give us a better tax base in order to keep in place the infrastructures of those one-industry communities that are suffering so much.

I would like the minister to respond to this question. Is this ministry considering the particular circumstances that are faced by small one-industry communities? I recognize that Vancouver and Victoria, with the diversification of the larger centres, have some avenues that they can move into, to continue to raise those dollars and keep the system at the high level where it is today. The situation is much different in the small communities. Would the minister care to elaborate or respond? Is there some avenue that his ministry might be considering to ensure that we maintain the high standards?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Consideration for some of the problems that the member points out is already built into our formula. I'm working on the assumption that if the population goes down from 6,000 to 4,000, there would be fewer students. The cost is based on the number of pupils, which generates the number of teachers. If the building is half empty.... The capital costs themselves are a very small portion of the budget, so it wouldn't be a significant factor. It's the operating costs we're talking about, and they go down or up in conjunction with the number of pupils in the system.

[12:30]

Built into the fiscal framework, of course, is the fact that if the tax base, the total assessment value, goes down, then the provincial share goes up, because our provincial share is based on the local tax value. The formula already accounts for some of that. It doesn't account for it almost immediately, like the next day or something, because we have to fund for the year. Many of these things are already built into the formula to accommodate those needs.

The other thing is: am I not aware of the needs of small communities? You bet I am. We have special funding formulas for small secondary schools, for dispersed schools; they get more money and that sort of thing. All of that is already built into the formula. If there's a policy decision to reinstate the machinery and equipment tax, then at some point.... But the districts aren't going to get the high share provincially and the high share locally. They seem to want all of the tax base locally as long as they get all the money from the province, to put it in extreme terms.

I don't want to keep repeating myself over and over again. The non-residential tax went down by deliberate policy of the government to reduce the industrial tax to encourage industries to keep going or to create new industries. Therefore we have improved and greatly increased the amount from consolidated revenue. If you want the machinery tax, we take back the consolidated — you don't gain anything.

Sullivan looked at this issue of non-residential taxation, and he said that because industries don't necessarily have the decency to distribute themselves according to school district boundaries, therefore the non-residential tax collected by the government into consolidated revenue and used for the equalization of school district budgets is a fair and good system and should be continued. You'll have to argue with the royal commission report, which we aren't going to rewrite; we'll just do it.

[ Page 7375 ]

I can see the clock, and I would like to point out that I have 37 1/2 seconds left before I've been asked to move that the committee rise, report wonderful progress, allow that member to do his homework over the weekend, and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to wish everyone a very pleasant weekend, and we'll see you back here for an extended sitting on Monday.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:34 p.m.