[ Page 9367 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Apology to auditor-general. Mr. Clark –– 9367

Ministry of Highways gravel stock. Mr. Lovick –– 9367

Financial reporting on land dealing. Mr. Williams –– 9368

Size of auditor-general's staff. Mr. Williams –– 9368

Government advertising of budget. Mr. Sihota –– 9369

Ministerial Statement

B.C. transportation plan. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 9369

Mr. Rose

Tabling Documents –– 9370

School Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 11). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen –– 9370

Mrs. Boone –– 9371

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 9373

Ms. Marzari –– 9377

Mr. Serwa –– 9379

Ms. Smallwood –– 9382

Mr. Loenen –– 9385

Mr. Miller –– 9387

Ms. Edwards –– 9391

Mr. Clark –– 9394

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), the Premier and all colleagues of the House, I take pleasure in welcoming to the House today 60 students from Laronde Elementary School in South Surrey, along with their teacher Mrs. Martin. I wish the House would make them especially welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS: In the galleries this afternoon is a group from the U.S. side: Lewis and Clark College and the Bonneville Power Administration. They are visiting Victoria for the day. I'd like hon. members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and the House Terry and Jennifer Roberts and their children Matthew, Kimberley and Rebecca, who are constituents of mine from Smithers. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: It's my pleasure today to introduce two constituents from that lovely little jewel of a constituency called Yale-Lillooet. I have two friends sitting in the members' gallery: Lloyd Foreman and his wife Lillian, who both come from North Bend. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, on behalf of our colleague the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), I would like to ask you to welcome to the House this afternoon Dr. Robert Greenwood, his wife Jennifer and their three children: Nicole, Monique and Michael. The Greenwoods are over here specifically to visit Victoria and to see the Legislature at work. I hope they enjoy what they see and hear this afternoon.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I must be the speediest.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to this House today a friend, a colleague, my assistant and past president of the Nanaimo constituency association, Doug Creba. Would the House please help me make him very welcome.

MR. PERRY: May I join the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) in welcoming Dr. Greenwood. It's a delight, I'm sure for other members of the House as well, to have another member of my profession here, and I suspect we'll be seeing more of them in the near future.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd ask the House to welcome on the floor of the House today the former Attorney General and former member for Vancouver East, Mr. Alec Macdonald.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We on the government side would like to welcome the former Attorney back. He used to sit right in that corner where the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) is, and we know that when he was in the House he couldn't wear his kilt in here; it was improper dress. But I would like to know where it is today.

Oral Questions

APOLOGY TO AUDITOR-GENERAL

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Finance. Over the last two days the Minister of Finance has referred to the auditor-general as a "bean counter" and as "having his snout in the public trough." Will he now apologize in this House to the auditor-general, who is a servant of this Legislature?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am indebted to the member for providing me with the opportunity to clarify the issue. It became evident to me upon reflection that I myself had been guilty of the same sin that I was criticizing when I talked about gratuitous remarks.

Shortly before lunch I made a statement to the press that I do agree it was inappropriate for me to use the phrases "bean counter" and "snout in the trough, " because those remarks were gratuitous. Therefore I did withdraw them and apologize for my intemperate reaction to comments contained in the auditor-general's report, which I felt at the time overstepped the normal bounds of propriety. So I am indebted to the hon. member for providing me the opportunity of once again restating what I had said shortly before lunch today.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has said essentially that the auditor-general is guilty of gratuitous remarks. Could he tell the House: is it a gratuitous remark to say that this Minister of Finance is hiding the true accounts of British Columbia, that there is a deficit, that he is hiding the fact that we lost money on the Expo lands, or that he is hiding the fact that there is no money in the BS fund? Which statement by the auditor-general is the gratuitous remark he is referring to?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I think I clarified the issue in my earlier response.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS GRAVEL STOCK

MR. LOVICK: Yesterday, in response to a question about fiscal management and about whether taxpayers were getting full value for their money, the Minister of Transportation and Highways informed this House that she would put her staff up against the auditor-general's staff any day of the week.

The auditor-general's report says that you, the Ministry of Highways, don't know how much gravel we have in our gravel pits. I have a question to the

[ Page 9368 ]

Minister. Does your staff agree with that conclusion of the auditor-general?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am receiving an awful lot of advice from my colleagues, and it has been suggested I respond by saying I would not leave a stone unturned to get you the answer. You are asking me if the staff agree with the comments of the auditor-general? Is that in essence what you are requiring?

MR. LOVICK: I hadn't thought my question was so difficult. I combine it with another. The auditor general also said your ministry doesn't know how much gravel is being taken out of the pits; essentially nobody's minding the cash register. Would your staff agree with that conclusion?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would suggest that the question is out of order. I took it on notice yesterday.

MR. LOVICK: This is a new question. The auditor general says that maintenance contractors are responsible for reporting what is removed from the gravel pits. In other words, any contractor can drive in, load up a truck, drive out, and we wouldn't know. Would you agree that your staff would accept that proposition as valid?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that question was taken on notice yesterday.

MR. LOVICK: I have a brand-new question, Mr Speaker. The auditor-general says that the uniform pricing policy for gravel used by the ministry means that in some areas contractors are getting gravel at prices well below cost. Can the minister confirm that that is the case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'll take the question on notice.

FINANCIAL REPORTING ON LAND DEALING

MR. WILLIAMS: The auditor-general states that the cost of $150 million to the Ministry of Finance for Expo lands was not noted in the government's books Is the ministry now prepared to accept project cost accounting as the honest way to present the books of the province?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The issue of full project accounting -which I take it is what the questioner asked about - is something that needs to be clarified, so I'm indebted for the question. Full project accounting would entail detailed reporting and analysis of all direct and indirect project costs and benefits. Full project accounting, while a laudable objective, is not practical.

The fact remains that it was never the government's intention that each transaction show a short-term accounting profit; rather, it was to enhance the provision of public services in the province and to strengthen the private sector of the economy. In effect, what I'm saying here is that the issue of full project accounting would entail a detailed analysis of the full cost benefits over the whole spectrum of society, an exercise that might be more appropriate for a doctoral thesis than it would be for any rational attempt to examine true cost benefits. I suppose this exemplifies one of the big problems we've had in dealing with these comments of the auditor-general. What we're basically talking to, I think, in simplistic terms, is an accountant's viewpoint versus an economist's viewpoint of decision-making.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think everybody understands that what the auditor-general wants is honest bookkeeping. He's not asking for a doctoral dissertation.

To the minister in charge of Expo lands. Are there further liabilities that government faces that are still being negotiated or are unresolved?

[2:15]

HON. MR. PARKER: I appreciate the question. We all know that the Expo 86 production was a great success in all the free world, and it's the only exposition that is debt-free. As far as the lands are concerned, there are no clandestine negotiations going on.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the minister responsible for the Expo lands. If we were scared about what happened over the last few years, we're equally scared about the future.

Is the minister then saying that the 25-year lease to McBarge is resolved?

HON. MR. PARKER: I guess I haven't had much to do with McDonald's lately. I would be happy to look into that question for the House. I take it as notice and I will come back in due course.

SIZE OF AUDITOR-GENERAL'S STAFF

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Finance. Ten days ago the auditor-general said: "With the resources I currently have I am really only scratching the surface of all the things I could look at. I have requested additional staff." Does the minister support that request?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As the House knows full well, the auditor-general is a servant of the House and therefore must take the decisions and funding appropriations provided by the House as what he has available to work with. I suppose if we were to seriously embrace full project accounting, I'd have no difficulty recommending to the House that the auditor-general's staff would have to be considerably increased.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister then agree that this would be a reasonable matter for a bipartisan committee, such as the Board of Internal Economy, to consider?

[ Page 9369 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No. My goodness, I'm really surprised at these social democrats across the floor - which is, I understand, the new label - with their suggestion that the prerogatives of the House would be pre-empted. The fact is that this gentleman is an employee of the House. You should tread carefully, hon. member, or you may well be treading into the same water and morass that I found myself in yesterday.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF BUDGET

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Finance has sort of apologized to the auditor-general. The auditor-general and others have said that the BS fund does not exist, that you have a deficit and not a balanced budget, that you lost money on the Expo land deals and that your privatization benefits fund is not a true accounting of the losses sustained under privatization. Will the Minister of Finance now apologize to the people of British Columbia for publishing a budget that misleads them as to the true state of the province's finances?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I said before lunch when I was addressing this matter with a few friends in my office, the fact is - and the auditor-general concedes this in the preamble to his report - that the government complied with the law of the day. The government complied with the accounting practices that have been in place for years. The government complied fully with the regulations surrounding the application of the reporting of the funds. So for the government to have done anything other than comply with the rules of the day, I suspect the members opposite might have a valid point.

But when even the auditor-general conceded that we had played the game appropriately and by the rules, I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand this suggestion that the government is somehow at fault. Surely, if someone is unhappy with the rules and the law, then the appropriate response is to address those issues, not whether the government complied with them - which we did - or as the questioner suggests, we should not have complied with them.

I have some difficulty in dealing with this question, because it seems to me you're trying to straddle both sides of the fence. Bear in mind, hon. members, the fence Is a picket fence; it is pointed. If you try to straddle it forever, you're going to wind up the worse for wear.

MR. SIHOTA: When British Columbians watch the news on TV at night, they know the truth is found in this book: the report of the auditor-general. It says the BS fund doesn't exist; it has made it clear that the budget is not balanced. Yet your government continues to run ads on TV selectively quoting certain British Columbians and suggesting that the budget is somehow balanced. Will you now admit that you're wrong, and will you pull those ads off TV?

MR. SPEAKER: It may be addressed to the wrong minister, but you may wish to answer.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, I'd like to, Mr. Speaker. I thought the question was a take-off on a repeat of the previous question.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker and the House, the budget is balanced, providing you accept the government's budget statement, which is that we want to take a business cycle view to managing the public affairs of this province,

When the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) made his comments during the budget debate, I noticed that he said that was exactly the same thing he would do If he had my job. Now he doesn't have my job. So clearly, if you do agree that it is government's responsibility to manage public finances over the term of a business cycle, you must have a vehicle like the budget stabilization fund to be able to cushion those year-to-year changes and those big year-to-year swings on the revenue side of the budget. There must be such a vehicle.

We can debate the name of the account, and we can debate its position on the presentation of the financial statements, but it should be clear to any sane, rational person there must be such an account if you are to utilize a business cycle approach to managing public finances in this province.

Ministerial Statement

B.C. TRANSPORTATION PLAN

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This morning I had the pleasure of introducing British Columbia's first ever transportation plan. The plan is the result of 18 months of hard work, hundreds of hours spent in public consultation, more spent in studying, planning and designing. It is a model of public involvement and participation, one of which we can all be very proud.

Our transportation plan covers projects that the ministry will be doing this year and projects that will be done over the next five years. Some of these projects are in the planning stage, others in the design stage and still others are currently underway.

What all of these projects have in common is that they are all pointing us toward our long- and short range transportation goals. Those are: to handle the demand for transportation systems that has increased so dramatically over the last few years; to provide an organized plan for the creation of an integrated intermodal transportation network; to get us all thinking about moving people, not vehicles; to work with the environment and the public to be affected, not just the geography, in designing transportation systems.

Instead of building roads to compete with buses, we want to build roads to accommodate expanded bus services; bus-only lanes to encourage a convenient option for transit commuters; park-and-rides to bring cars to a central area where transit can take over. This plan is the first step in many that will

[ Page 9370 ]

evolve into our transportation network of the future. It will change as the world changes around us. Our objective is to change our way of doing business to prepare us to meet the transportation, environmental and social needs of the twenty-first century.

The plan is being sent to all corners of the province: to MLAs-who should have their copies before the day is out-and to regional districts, mayors and libraries. Soon it will be available for public viewing by British Columbians from Vancouver to Fort St. John, and I encourage everyone to take the time to review the two documents I'm tabling here this afternoon.

MR. ROSE: Although I haven't seen the plan, I'd like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I'd like to start by saying that this is the first-ever transportation plan for British Columbia. I think that's a case of criminal neglect. The minister attended my riding on April 3 of this year. She visited Coquitlam, and among her announcements was the appointment of ex-mayor Baker and a number of other people to head - guess what! - an advisory transportation committee. Now if you've got a plan, how are you going to use the advice? The fact is that you don't have a plan. There's a list of projects you'd like to get on with sometime in the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports a fast, economical, multimodal transit plan as the only alternative to a number of road-clogging, pollution-spewing gasmobiles. We recognize, however, and emphasize that we must make it more attractive for more people to get out of their cars.

In the next 30 years the population of the lower mainland is expected to double to three million people. That's only at the rate of 214 percent per year Lower Vancouver Island can expect similar patterns, but probably a little slower growth. Given that our traffic arteries -come out to my riding at 7 o'clock in the morning or 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and you'll see-are jammed to the gunwales at peak periods today, vast improvements in people-moving have to begin immediately.

Major traffic decisions affect the planning for decades to come. If we don't have decent affordable housing and a way for people to get to work efficiently and cheaply, then our city will wither and die, because the workers are the ones that make it work. Today, at peak periods, only 5 percent of our commuters ride public transit. Toronto, on the other hand, has 10 percent of the riders.

We must equal Toronto in the next ten years. What will happen if we do this? What will 5 percent mean? An increase of 5 percent -or double the present -would mean 200, 000 fewer cars on the road and, therefore, less pollution, more room for transit and commercial vehicles, fewer accidents, time saved, less stress for workers and creation of employment to manage the expanded system.

In conclusion, SkyTrain can't do it alone. The system must be multimodal. After sinking more than $1 billion into monorail, plus distorting the former east-west bus routes to serve SkyTrain at peak periods, ridership after $1 billion exceeded a puny 1 percent. Is it going to take another $4 billion to get us to 10 percent - equalling what Toronto is today? I'm afraid it is, so let's get started.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it seems that every day we have a ministerial statement. The Chair has to remind members about the purpose of ministerial statements and replies to ministerial statements. The Chair would appreciate it if all members would look at their copy of MacMinn and see the clearly written statement about the non-argumentative nature of replies and delivery of ministerial statements.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would be sad if we turned into another Toronto in our lower mainland.

I take great pleasure in tabling the annual report of one of our very great Crown corporations, the British Columbia Railway group of companies annual report for 1989.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11, School Amendment Act, 1990.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

(continued)

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have to go to a committee meeting, but I do want a chance to comment very briefly on this bill, because I have been listening to the discussion that's taken place here before the lunch hour. Some statements were made that I'd like to comment on, and I'd also like to express some opinion about it.

[2:30]

First of all, I would like to congratulate the minister for his legislation. I think that all of us that sit on this side of the House envy the minister for having the privilege of bringing forward legislation like this. It's undoubtedly one of the best pieces of school legislation that's ever been brought forward in British Columbia.

All of us on the government side know that the legislation is good. More than us, the school boards, regardless of what some of them might say, know that it's good legislation. The public in British Columbia certainly realize that it's good legislation, and even the opposition realizes that it is good. I think that's very clear from the statements that were made.

I listened pretty closely to the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who made a very good effort in trying to discuss the legislation. It was interesting to see how it went. It really got down to criticizing the minister because he did not bring forward the budgets, the legislation and the spending estimates for next year, the year after and the year after that. That was something that he should have done, according to the speaker.

[ Page 9371 ]

Well, I don't know. I thought we were talking about this year-and this bill, as it applies to this year. I just want to assure the opposition that.... I can't speak for you, but I want to tell you that that minister will be here next year and the year after; so it will be for many years. You will have an opportunity to discuss it with him at that time. He has presented you with the information you need at this point, and I think that is good.

The critic ended up by saying that, reluctantly, she will not support the bill. I guess that really meant: "I'd like to support it, but you understand how it is."

There was quite a bit of discussion about block funding -that it wasn't very good and that apparently there were a lot of things wrong with it. Well, I guess various school districts have their views on it' I've talked about block funding in my school district, and they certainly represent the people of that community very well. I'm talking about the Mission School District, School District 75. They represent their constituency very well; they look after the interests of the students in that community. If they feel that something is not fair or is unjust, or that something should be improved, they never hesitate to let me know. I hear from them from time to time, and we meet.

We met to discuss block funding, and I have to tell you that as a school district, they were very pleased with block funding. They thought it was an extremely fair way of dealing with school funding, and they could see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. In fact, if it continues as it is this year, they said it would be just an excellent, first-class way of dealing with the needs of schools.

A lot of time was spent talking about the referendum. In fact, I think that most of the time the critic was speaking, she spoke about referendums. That was interesting, because really and truly, first of all, there isn't even a need for referendums. Funding for schools is in place, and the referendums only come into play where a school district might want to do something that goes above and beyond the needs of normal education in the province - good, high-quality education. If they wish to do more, they have the right to do it. But in that case they have to go to a referendum.

She made the statement that referendums offend the public. I find that really interesting. How does that happen? How does a referendum offend the public? Is it an offence, from the opposition's point of view, to give people the right to decide whether or not they should pay extra for something their school district wishes to put in place that is not normal throughout the province?

It's clearly the most democratic form of government. It is certainly not an offence to the public to have the right to choose; that's a remarkable statement for anyone to make. I think it shows that there is a complete lack of understanding of the will of the people. People in this province are concerned about taxation; they're concerned about the misuse of their funds. They want the opportunity to say yes or no when there are expenditures anticipated or suggested that are not really required.

What about this question of underfunding? Much was said about underfunding. Let's see how it's underfunded. Block funding, to begin with, encompasses all of the expenses in the school districts for 1989-90, plus a 6 percent increase for inflation, plus a 3.7 percent increase for enrolment. That's a 9.9 percent increase in total. On top of that, there's an allowance for the royal commission implementation fund, funding for computer programs and for the Pacific Rim initiative, etc. There's a 15.2 percent total increase in school funding, and it is suggested that that is underfunding.

As we heard yesterday, since taking office in 1986, government's commitment to increase funding for education has totalled 68 percent, according to the Minister of Finance. The opposition says that that is not enough.

Another comment was that government has not paid its proper share. I guess that's some of the logic that goes with socialism. On this side of the House, we see all of the money spent on education as the people's money. Whether it's spent by government or by the local school districts, it is still the money of the people of this province. That's who spends the money - not the government. The government spends the public's money, and it's the public's money, not the government's. Government doesn't give anything that it doesn't first take. It's a lesson that the socialists need to learn. They haven't learned it. They've been trying for a long time, but they still haven't achieved that.

Those are the comments I wanted to make, but I just want to conclude by saying that the legislation should go forward. And it will, and we'll let the public decide whether this is good legislation whether they're happy with the block funding system and whether they think that education is being properly cared for in this. Time will tell when the public will have an opportunity to make that judgment, and there's no question in my mind which way the public will decide.

MRS. BOONE: It's unfortunate that it is necessary for us to have this debate, as most British Columbians would prefer not to have our education system used as a pawn in the Socred game of divide-and-conquer.

The early '80s was a time of turmoil and uncertainty, as the Socreds manipulated the economy and the social system of this province to create an election issue. The phony restraint program, which was born so the Socreds could create a tough-guy image for this government, created problems that we are still dealing with today and created chaos in our school system.

This legislation is doing the same thing. It is creating uncertainty. Are we are going to have a referendum? Will schools have enough money? Will the referendum pass?

Mr. Speaker, there was a sense of deja vu as I attended a meeting about three weeks ago where some trustees were meeting with parents -as I did

[ Page 9372 ]

about eight years ago. The trustees were talking about how they didn't know what their budget would be, what the figures were going to be, what the legislation was going to be, and how much time they would have. They didn't know much about anything regarding the whole referendum process and the whole process around their budget. It reminded me about the time when I was a trustee in 1982 and 1983, when we suffered through three budgets in one year - three budgets in one year that the trustees and the boards were forced to do in order to come up to the expectations of the restraint program.

When the Premier was the Minister of Education, he managed to turn the whole system upside down. He listened to no one. Parents, teachers, trustees everyone was against the program. There were protests and pickets, but the Premier knew best. The Premier knew best, and he continued. And he devastated our education system. Our education system was cut so badly that they've been playing catch-up for the last few years.

This government brags about the amount of money that has gone into the system lately. Well, it has needed that amount of money in order to catch up with the amount that was taken away in previous years - because of what happened while the Premier was the minister and what happened during the restraint program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We've had the throne speech and the budget speech, and now we're now into discussion on a bill. The debate has to be a little narrower here. It has to be on the principle of the bill, and so when you are reflecting on previous ministers of education and how it affects them.... Only debate as it relates to the principle of this bill would be in order if you wouldn't mind, please.

MRS. BOONE: I'm concerned about this bill because of the referendum process and because it Is doing something that the Premier, when he was minister, worked towards. That was the suggestion that there be a county system, and it had all the boards worried at that time.

The Premier's not as bold as he was in his younger days, but he's still the same man with the same ideas. He has not eliminated boards outright, but this legislation is moving in that direction. Boards no longer have control over their budgets.

In the '80s the Socreds took away the commercial tax base, and now they're removing the residential tax base. All moneys go to Victoria now, and Victoria decides how much block funding will be available. This almost makes boards obsolete. If they are not satisfied with their budgets, they must go to referendum, and this referendum is good only for one year.

Referenda, Mr. Speaker, will be creating have and have-not districts. Those who had frugal budgets in the past will have frugal budgets now -and less. Those who had innovative budgets in the past will have innovative budgets now -and more. We will have districts in this province who obviously have substantially more than others.

Block funding includes supplementary budgets -something probably good - but as I stated, there are those who were frugal in the past and will not have that much. We've heard about the Surrey budgets, and we've heard about the Surrey district. Those with large supplementary budgets are substantially better off than others. Some districts that are side by side have as much as a $700 to $850 discrepancy. Why should children's education be so substantially different when they are right beside each other and have no differences in their costs?

The minister claims there will be a tax revolt if this funding is not brought in. Taxpayers are bound to be upset as they see their taxes being increased; however, this government has shifted the tax burden from general revenue to local taxpayers over the past years. Of course the taxpayers are upset. Of course they're upset, because they're paying more. And they're paying more because this government over the years has not been paying the amount that they should have from general revenue. Don't blame the districts; accept the blame that it is this government's fault that has forced higher taxes on the local taxpayer.

It is unfortunate that once again the Premier has chosen to 90 to battle with the education community. Everyone hoped that the ending of the eighties would end the turmoil in education. It was hoped that the Sullivan commission would bring about a strengthening of the system and a development of education for the nineties. Now we are back to where we were eight years ago. The more we change, the more we stay the same, Mr. Speaker.

I'm disappointed that the Premier has decided to attack once again the people who work so hard for the children of this province: the teachers and trustees. It has been claimed that referenda are required because of those greedy and irresponsible trustees -this from a government that has inadequate controls of highway costs and allows casinos to operate with minimum regulations. Teachers, along with other public sector workers, are portrayed as overpaid, and they are threatened with arresting wages - that's right, arresting wages - and all this at a time when we are facing teacher shortages.

[2:45]

This bill will totally tie the hands of boards and will centralize control in Victoria. Don't you find that a little ironic and a little two-faced, Mr. Speaker, to talk about regionalization and local control, to pretend to believe in local decision-making and then undercut one of the most legitimate forms of local control - that is, elected bodies? The school boards of this province are duly elected by the public, as you and I are. They are responsible to those who elect them. They are responsible for ensuring that our children have the best education possible. To say that they alone must go to referenda is discriminatory and ridiculous. Why doesn't this government go to referendum to see if the people believe that they should be spending public money to advertise the budget on

[ Page 9373 ]

the television set? Or what about a referendum to see if we should increase Medical Services Plan premiums or implement the property purchase tax? How about a referendum to see whether we should increase our ICBC payments?

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: "Ludicrous, " you say? Well, it certainly is. I like the word that the Minister of Finance framed; I think it's a good word. It is certainly "ludicrous" to think that only those boards should have to go referenda.

Trustees are elected to represent the public. A part of that is to decide the budget. If the public doesn't like what they have, they have the option of expressing that at the polling both, just as they will with this government. The ultimate referendum is on election day, and trustees face that day the same as you and I do.

Mr. Speaker, this government is out of touch with the people. It has been suggested by some Socred supporters that the referendum was implemented as a means of "getting at those NDP boards." It certainly does appear that this government is going out of its way to portray boards as spendthrifts - and that is untrue.

The people of this province do not want more confrontation. They do not want to waste money on a referendum process, money that could be put to better use in our schools. They do not want to pit families against those without children. They do not want to see some districts with first-class schools and others with just the basics. All our children deserve the same opportunities, whether they live in West Vancouver or Atlin. We need to treat our children as our most treasured resource, not as something that can be tossed about as an election issue.

We need a stable education system. We need to improve the morale in our schools, and that is not done by harassing those who work in the school system. This bill sets the stage for the elimination of school boards. That kind of centralized power is not in the best interest of our school boards or our teachers. More importantly, it is not in the best interest of our children.

The Socreds talk about regionalization and regional economic development. Then why are they moving away from regionalized education to centralized control, as this bill will do, in direct opposition to the idea of local control? It clearly shows that this government has no commitment to local governments or to regionalization.

I regret that the Premier has once again decided to force his own opinions on the people of B.C. He wanted to eliminate school boards when he was a minister. This legislation kneecaps to such an extent that total elimination of boards is eminently possible in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it's truly unfortunate that education is once again being used by the Socreds as a political football. This government is totally out of touch with the people. If they think that confrontation is what the people want, they're wrong. I ask the minister to show the people that he supports local autonomy. I ask him to show that he cares and that he will not encourage confrontation. I ask him to withdraw this bill and support education in British Columbia.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: We've just had introduction period, hon. member. Was there not an opportunity then? But leave was asked.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: We have a delegation of the Laronde Elementary School in the audience listening to the presentation today, and I ask the House to make them a special welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Training and Technology, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: We got one of them right. Go ahead.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: AT and T - it has a certain ring to it.

I take great delight in taking my place in this debate following the member for Prince George North, who carefully read a speech and argued, of all things, against referenda and used local autonomy as a basis for that argument. The two appear to be inconsistent; however I guess that characterizes the NDP position on this issue.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I have to rise and take my place because, like the member who has just taken her seat, I too was a school trustee. I sat as an elected school trustee from 1976 to 1979-until the date of my election to this assembly - and had the good fortune to be, for about a year and a half, the chairman of School District 57. 1 had occasion to meet a lot of very good staff, teachers and students, and watched the school board progress remarkably well during those growing years in our district. I watched funding that was certainly adequate and which provided for the maintenance, operation and growth of School District 57. 1 can assure you that it was a good Social Credit government that looked after education during those years.

The member spoke - and the previous speaker indicated that one should not dwell too much on the past -of 1983 and what had happened during those years. Let me respond as briefly as I can, as I approach the relevance of this bill, and say that yes, there were some taxpayer concerns in 1983. It was that taxpayer concern which re-elected the Social

[ Page 9374 ]

Credit government in 1983. That was the one issue, and that's why we were returned.

The taxpayer spoke for responsible government, and the taxpayer returned 38 members in the old House to this Legislative Assembly to continue that local autonomy and to ensure that responsible spending would be in place. The government of 1983 acted in the way that the taxpayer had told them to act.

The member for Prince George North won't accept that, but nevertheless that's the way it was. We were democratically elected to make a statement in terms of financial responsibility for this province, and we democratically did that.

The interesting thing - just to dwell briefly on the past -is that this is not the first referendum. There have been referendums in years past, and they were for capital budgets. One of the stories I recall - from listening to a trustee of some years more experience than I had at the time - was that referendums on capital projects were normally encouraged, particularly by the taxpayer.

It was interesting for me to learn that in the mid-sixties, when capital referendums were in place and District 57 in Prince George was going to the people for that type of spending approval, the large taxpayers - namely the pulp mills - would take out ads in the paper indicating that they would like to see the public support that referendum. There was a very good reason for that: they wanted to have their community be as attractive as possible to new employees, and on the basis of that they urged the people of the community to endorse capital spending, and that did take place.

Referendums were discontinued until this bill, but I am happy to see them coming back again. Now there has been a lot of nonsense....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sure I did. Yes, I did.

MRS. BOONE: You did not.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, this bill wasn't announced then.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, as a matter of fact, I didn't say that. I said we used to have capital spendings and that we may have to do it again; and we've done it and here it is.

If we look at the need for this, you will see that we have had some remarkable increases in education spending. We have some spending that has gone way past inflation, and if we look at the material here we see that since 1986-87 spending has increased by 31 percent and inflation by about 11.5 percent.

During this period the provincial government has provided substantial increases in grants: 24.4 percent over four years. However, since growth of spending approved by boards outstripped the rates of increases in grants, supplementary budgets increased dramatically from $66 million in '86-87 to $238 million in '89-90. These supplementary increases were funded entirely by local taxes, and this has resulted in significant increases in residential taxation.

Over the last four years the amount of money paid in taxes by the median homeowner has increased by 34.1 percent. Obviously there is a desperate need for this type of legislative control to ensure that the people who support our school districts have the autonomy and the democratic right to decide the future of their school boards.

There is something very interesting. The opposition will say: "Well, you're going to have first-class and second-class school districts." That's nonsense. The block funding covers everything any school board or school trustee will need. It's based on the formula for last year, on a lot of information provided to the board, and it's eminently fair. It covers salaries and benefits and compensation for teachers, administrators and support staff. It covers programs and services for all special-needs students, transportation costs, heating and maintenance of schools, learning resources, textbooks and classroom equipment, locally developed programs and services, native Indian education, correspondence and continuing education, testing and assessment, district administration and trustee expenses, English-as-a-second-language programs, school health services, teacher' non-instructional days, district resource centres, counselling, library services, local capital allowance and French programs. What more would a district want than that?

In addition to the block funds, the government will provide money for building new schools and additions, for changes resulting from the royal commission recommendations and for specific programs such as Pacific Rim initiatives and computer technology, provincial special resource programs for special education, scholarships and Passport to Education.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the statement that there will be first-class and second-class school districts is absolute nonsense. The government has provided remarkable block funding for all districts, and no districts need suffer whatsoever.

I wanted to bring up one thing at this point. I had the good fortune about three weeks ago, along with the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), to attend a science fair awards presentation. There were some remarkable winners, and I was pleased to see who had won. It was interesting in that the three top winners from district 57, students who will be going to Windsor, Ontario, for the national science fair competition, were from a school in McBride, which has a population of about 600 people, a school in Mackenzie, which has about 5, 000 or 6, 000 people, and from Cedars Christian, which is a small independent school in Prince George with an enrolment of about 140 students. It's interesting to think that here in three settings where one would not expect award winning students to come from, where in fact the setting is not as good as some of the very fine junior and senior high schools that we have in Prince George, we have our three District 57 winners from

[ Page 9375 ]

McBride, Mackenzie and Cedars Christian. That tells me something. It tells me that you don't need the fanciest classroom, you don't need....

MS. SMALLWOOD: You can't keep them down.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. They're brilliant kids. But it also tells you: what if you do supply the biggest high school and the best setting? Is that going to provide the best students? Not necessarily so.

These children no doubt had a lot of determination and a great family background - there's no question about that -and some remarkable support from their teachers and those other people helping them. I met with the students, and they told me of the support they'd had. But it was quite remarkable to note that in fact these students, who had won the science fair placements-the three top winners were from settings that one would not expect to produce students and projects of that calibre.

[3:00]

1 can't accept at all the notion that this type of referendum bill is going to result in first- and second-class schools. I don't believe in that notion at all. I think that, given the capability, the responsibility and the attitude of teachers and students nowadays and the awareness they have of the world around them, there will never be a second-class situation. The students of today are quite remarkable. They're far better off and far more aware. Their attitudes are far superior to those that I saw many years ago when I was in high school. I think we have just a first-class bunch of students and teachers in our system nowadays. I won't accept any notion that this type of legislation is going to result in a second-class system, because the determination and the attitude is there not to have that happen.

The last point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. The New Democrats have said we need local autonomy, yet they argue against this bill. School trustees, when hearing of referendum, have said: "What? The public will be deciding how we spend their money?" How outrageous that the school trustees would actually ask the taxpayer for some input on how the money was spent! I find that really an unacceptable attitude on behalf of many boards, and I've heard many trustees say that.

School boards, when they first began, were creatures of the local community.

AN HON. MEMBER: They still are. They're elected.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right, they're elected. They were responsible for hiring teachers, building schools, providing curriculum, and ensuring that the children of that community were provided with an adequate education. They seem to have grown over the years into a bureaucracy in control and a group all their own, thinking, for whatever reason, that after they become elected they are somewhat superior to and know more than those who elected them. I really do find that unacceptable. When one looks at the increases of spending over inflation that we've seen in school districts throughout the province when we look at our tax notices, then we know that somehow or other this has to be controlled.

We have a government that has said that taxpayers do have the right to decide on how that money, if it's extra, will be spent. Taxpayers do have the right to determine that locally, to have local autonomy to ensure that the money they contribute to the school board, if it's going to be over and above the block funding, is approved by them. Taxpayers have the right to decide. If a school board wants to provide additional services, whatever they might be, the local community has the right to decide on them. That is the principle behind the bill, and it's certainly a principle that I endorse.

For any politician in a democratically elected assembly...

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What's that got to do with it? I know your speech was written for you, because you have trouble writing them yourself. You had to read it. I know most of it was irrelevant. You talked about the Expo lands and a whole bunch of other things.

MRS. BOONE: This is my handwriting.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, good stuff -you're getting better.

Nevertheless, the relevancy - the principle - of this bill is democracy. It allows for local determination, and to say...

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Centralized? Allowing for local referendums, Madam Member, is not centralization. Amazing! I can't get the connection. If we did not allow local referendums, that would be centralization. When you do allow local referendums, it is decentralization. Have your speechwriter explain it to you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The heckling is nonsense, and it's counterproductive. When they say that local referendums are centralization, I think they've missed the boat.

We will provide democracy; we will provide for local determination. We will provide for a community, if it wants to go above the block funding, to have the opportunity to do that. I think that's absolutely fair.

The other thing I think we should note here is that the cost per pupil will vary greatly between districts -even districts that are adjacent -for a variety of reasons. There can be older buildings that require

[ Page 9376 ]

more maintenance; there can be teachers with a lot more seniority, who can cost up to twice as much as a beginning teacher. There can be a variety of things In one district or another: the number of students in English as a second language; the number of students who have special needs.

I find the previous speaker's comments curious, because she knows full well why districts have different costs. The things I've mentioned are very simple things to understand: the age of buildings.... If you take an area - particularly the Fraser Valley -you can look at why different districts have different costs. As the population grows, new districts will be building new schools. Areas that were populated earlier will have older schools with higher maintenance costs. There are a variety of things. Any school superintendent can explain it to you. If you have a problem with that, simply go to your board, to the secretary-treasurer, and ask him to explain it to you That can be easily done; there's a formula for it.

Interjection,

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I was a school trustee. I know how it works, because I've seen those budgets.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I knew many trustees Dave Kandal, the mayor of Matsqui, was a school trustee when I was.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you that old?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I'm that old.

Dave Kandal was president of the BCSTA during the years that I was a school trustee. We discussed differing school costs in the Fraser Valley a lot.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now you're getting it: things have changed a little. Things change in school districts: buildings get older; maybe more students who need English as a second language come in, for whatever reason....

MS. SMALLWOOD: That's exactly my point.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's my point. For whatever reasons, in one district which is right next to another, there may be more special-needs students That's why you will have changes....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, the block funding, as we're trying to point out to you, does allow for that change, in a range of $4, 000 to $13, 000 per pupil. It's in the information. That's what the ministry has arrived at.

Things have changed-you're absolutely right. That's what this legislation and block funding recognize: there are differences between districts, for a lot of the reasons I've been telling you about. It would take a simple phone call. You have telephone service, the same as me. Phone any secretary-treasurer in any district in British Columbia, and they will tell you why, in districts that adjoin each other, there's going to be one cost here and perhaps another cost there. They will give you the reasons. They are all eminently understandable. It would take a two-minute phone call for you to figure it out; you would find out why there are differences between districts -even adjacent districts.

I know that's given you a lot of comfort.

I really am going to close now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More!

HON. MR STRACHAN: I can hardly wait to hear what I'm going to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't read speeches.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have a speech written.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying this bill speaks to democracy. This bill speaks to local determination. This bill recognizes that, as a government, the Social Credit government recognizes the taxpayer has to have a voice. The New Democrats would deny taxpayers that voice. They would say: "No, let us -the centralist sort of committee - decide what's going to happen in the schools."

But we as the government set that aside. We say: "No, that's not correct. You can't have a centralist government determining what's going to happen in schools."

The taxpayers are the people who are writing the cheques. Those of us who have seen tremendously high tax increases on our tax notices realize that we must have a voice, and our government recognizes that. There has to be an opportunity for local determination. There has to be the right of the taxpayer to say: "Yes, I agree with this spending policy, " or "I don't agree with this spending policy." I think that's critical. That's democracy. That's what we stand for. With that said, I would urge all members to support this bill.

MS. MARZARI: The problem with this bill is that the advertising that goes with it has nothing to do with the reality it represents. Maybe the government side should read its bill; then maybe it would start to understand that words like "democracy, local determination, voice to the community, stability and autonomy" have nothing to do with section 135 of this bill or with the content of this bill as we read it in detail.

[ Page 9377 ]

I start with my community, and I start with the autonomy of my community as it builds and develops its schools. The people in my community sent me here to talk for them, their children and their public education system. They sent me here to say: "Look, we'll look at the Sullivan commission. We're going to look at the Project 2000. We're going to tell government what we think. We appreciate consultation. We want to tell you we have concerns about the dual entry system. We want to tell you we have concerns with how fast you're phasing in educational programs into our community. We want to tell you we have concerns about potential privatization efforts after grade 10. We want to tell you that we want to keep our schools open in our inner city communities. We want to tell you that we want day care centres in our schools. We want our schools" - my constituency says - "to be the hub of the community and to be the place where people can come and feel as if our school does represent our community, and things -services, social and otherwise -spin off from our school."

Two of my local schools have community school programs, meaning that parents, kids and seniors can come to the school any time of the day or evening and take part in programs that they themselves develop.

What I've got in front of me is a bill which radically alters how my community relates to its school board.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Tell me where.

MS. MARZARI: I'll tell you how it radically alters that in a revolutionary overnight way, and how my community's access, democracy, autonomy and stability are threatened. I'll read it to you in section 135 of this bill:

"In order to raise revenue to finance the Provincial block and debt service expenses of boards, the Province may levy a school tax equal to the net taxable value of the land and improvements....

" (2). The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations shall determine the total amount to be raised by school taxes under this Act on land and improvements from each class of property in all school districts."

There's a special section in there that relates to the Vancouver Charter, and there's another special section that relates to the University Endowment Lands Each one of those sections is basically saying that the provincial government shall now levy property taxes The taxes will be collected by the school board, but they will shipped off.... A cheque will be written, put into an envelope and brought to Victoria.

[3:15]

What will happen to that cheque raised on my community's property taxes which, until this moment, has been the purview of my city council? What will happen to that money? I'll tell you what happens to that money. It disappears behind cabinet doors -not to be discussed in this House and not to be discussed in the Ministry of Education. What happens to this money? How much money gets divvied out of central headquarters is going to be decided not at the school board level and not at the community level where I go to my parent consultative committee meetings, but behind the doors of the cabinet of the Social Credit government.

In this province, three million people have developed for themselves a system of government ranging from neighbourhood level to town council level to city council level to regional level to provincial level. And where do you want to run the school system from? The provincial government. Do you want to run it from the House? No. You want to run it from cabinet and from the minister's own office. I call that centralization. I call that black-hole control, because the power and the money are disappearing behind that double set of cabinet doors.

MR. REID: That sounds like some of your colleagues in Eastern Europe.

MS. MARZARI: Well, we'll talk about Romania someday, sir.

My community resents a two-tiered system of education. My community resents the lack of consultation with them. My community happens to be offended by uncertainty. My community is in revolt because of referenda. My community does not like this bill. My community says: "Give us more power; give us autonomy; give us support. Don't give us lists of what block funding will cover, because the block funding can't be stretched that far." You can make a pretty list any day of the week about block funding covering everything from polishing the woodwork to taking care of special education programs, but you are putting every school board in this province....

May we interrupt this program for an announcement from the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I gather the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam begs leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and also my colleague for that nice introduction. I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming 50 students. Half are in the gallery at this moment; the others will be here later on. They're from Mountain View Elementary School in Coquitlam. They're here with their teachers, Darren Stewart and Mark Long, as well as some parents. I know they're here to learn all about democracy, so would the House join me in making them welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We now continue with the program.

MS. MARZARI: My community is not interested in centralization, Mr. Speaker. What they see in this bill is the following: they do not see stability; they see block allocations determined by the minister. There is nothing in this bill that talks about consultation with

[ Page 9378 ]

communities. They see on top of block allocations -which look awfully tempting, because one thinks of a block of money which is guaranteed, chiselled in stone, which will always appear... They see that the block allocation is going to be a differential according to the community. They do not see the criteria by which differentials are going to be brought about. On top of block allocations and differential funding, they see special purpose grants. In the last week or so -after great protestations that this is the final word -they've seen the minister himself appropriate redress grants to 22 communities because of surpluses in previous budgets. They'd like to know which 22 communities those are going to, because there doesn't seem to be rhyme nor reason as to which communities those surplus or redress grants are going to be addressed to.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Strictly on numbers.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, I would like to know that they're strictly on numbers, because the school boards do not understand that it's on numbers. In fact, I suggested to them that they should do some political layovers as to what the swing ridings might be-and that might make some sense in terms of how these moneys might be allocated. They see....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Don't insult my staff.

MS. MARZARI: No, I'm insulting you, Mr. Minister.

They see closed cabinet doors... .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair, please.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

They see matters being resolved. They see special decisions being made through the minister himself, without consultation, and that is where they draw the line, I think, because that is where autonomy ends and centralization and the lack of democracy take over.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: It's not nonsense; it's in the bill.

They see the ultimate insult and the ultimate removal of their dignity and integrity. You've taken every school board in the province and held it up by its ears - like Lyndon Johnson did with that cocker spaniel. You just hold it there by its ears, so its feet cannot touch the floor. They're constantly in a state of suspended animation, because they don't know when they are going to be able to touch the floor again; they are simply stranded in midair. Are you aware that the ultimate indignity is referenda?

You've got your rhetoric. You've all read your own speeches and your public relations people's diatribes on how you're going to get the New Democrats this election because we don't support referenda. There is a sophistication in the community that understands that referenda should come from the bottom up, that if you're going to go to referenda, you go on the basis of what you need at the ground level. If you believe In public education, you should believe, or have, because of the elected nature of the school board system, because they go to bargain with the provincial government to get the fiscal framework sorted out, so that they have the basic requirements.... According to school board after school board, referenda insult them - no, more than insult them; they catch them in a terrible bind, because they know that when they go to referenda, they are going to have to be lying.

It's like being a single mother on welfare. Every single mother on welfare in this province knows that if she declares the little extra money she makes by babysitting the neighbour's kids, it's going to be taken away from her. On a daily basis she is afraid that she is going to be caught in the lie. Our school boards know that their referenda money, if they ever raise it, is going to end up going into basic operating costs, because they know that the block allocations are not going to meet all their needs. That is the simple matter, the simple crunch of the position you've put them in. You suspend them in mid-air. Not only that, you basically tell them they're going to have to go to referenda if they don't have enough to meet their basic needs. Those referenda are going to be called before the board even knows what the tax, rate is going to be - what your tax rate and the municipal tax rate will be. They have to call the referendum before they know what the tax bite is going to be in their community. They have to go to referendum before they even know what their per capita is going to be. They're not even quite sure what their total grant is going to be, when they have to start drawing up their referendum notices.

No, what we have here is a system of such....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's total nonsense.

MS. MARZARI: No, It's not; It's in the bill. We'll deal with it on a clause-by-clause basis. Maybe you haven't read the bill. But if you go through it clause by clause, you will see that you are leaving those communities completely stranded. They have to believe in you. It's what Ben Johnson called a "willing suspension of disbelief" -I think I have the right quote there. They have to totally believe that you're going to come through for them and give them the right block grant and that the municipality is going to be fair in its taxation. They are left completely stranded.

I have to go on to discuss why you're doing it. I mean, at a certain point people have to ask: why does the provincial government want to put us in such a bad position? Why does the province want to put us, the school boards, in such a terrible light in our communities ' forced -before we even know what the tax base or mill rate is going to be -to take a referendum out there, forced to lie and say we're going to spend this on special programs, when in fact we know we're going to end up putting it into ordinary operating budgets, forced to be not credible

[ Page 9379 ]

to our own communities? Why is the government doing this? Why is the provincial government interested in discrediting the local school boards and, in the process, undermining their teachers, their students and ultimately the communities themselves?

Mr. Speaker, the answer can lie only in some of the conclusions that we were forced to draw last year and the year before when we were debating Bill 20 and the finer points of Project 2000. When we started looking at the privatization of schooling after grade 10 and the possibility of alternative systems of education taking root and growing in our communities, we started to see and understand that this government is very interested in setting up a separate system of parallel structures in education in British Columbia. That has to do with demoralizing and destabilizing the public education system. I hate to be so blunt, but that seems to be the agenda here.

Why then are so many decisions being taken behind cabinet doors, when the obvious people to make these decisions - about curricula, about numbers of teachers in classrooms, about the services teachers perform, about special-needs students coming into the systems... ? Why are so many decisions now going to be made behind cabinet doors, with special grants being allocated here, there and everywhere to favoured communities?

I say that really the agenda here is ultimately just to get rid of school boards and ultimately to say that we really do not have a system of public-participating public schools. I think we'll have a system of provincially controlled schools and one of private schools which will compete with the public school system when it becomes completely demoralized Without school boards, we will lose the autonomy of our local communities to have the programs, the quality and the teachers that they have now.

Behind cabinet doors? I must go on at this point to talk about the narrow viewpoints that your government represents toward education in our province -a very restricted notion of what education can and should be. Not a broad-based notion, not a concept that actualizes the potential of every individual school child, but a notion that by being punitive towards the school boards.... It really does set a new tone for a community and its education. I say that the moralistic overtones of your own government and your own cabinet - and many of your back bench -as represented by many of your own people, really do lay a whole new layer of meaning on what our public education system is.

[3:30]

You are basically kneecapping it. You are taking it out. You are pushing it into the private sector. You are demoralizing it for your own particular political or religious purposes. You are funding private schools in a way they have never been funded before

I'm quite serious about this. I've spent some time thinking about it, because I cannot understand why we would go to such a centralist, behind-closed-cabinet-doors way of managing our whole school system I cannot help but think that the Bible belt - and this is what this government represents - is really out to constrict the body politic and redefine what we mean when we talk about education in this province.

MR. SERWA: It's a real pleasure to rise in the House today and speak to the second reading of the School Amendment Act 1990. 1 am pleased to support the measures, the philosophy and the principle of Bill 11.

I'd like to discuss a little bit of the background -probably discuss a little bit of the commitment of Social Credit in education to develop the background to the School Act and also to Bill 11.

The Social Credit government has always been committed to education. Between 1952 and 1972 Social Credit governments tripled the number of schools in British Columbia and laid the foundation for our modern system of school boards and school districts around British Columbia.

After the NDP held back education spending in the years 1973-75, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation supported the re-election efforts of Social Credit and contributed to modernization of the school system in the 1970s. In the 1980s' Social Credit governments have instituted standardized provincial exams, established a College of Teachers, and given educators the right to free and full collective bargaining, all in an attempt to equalize the standards of education around the province and ensure that our school system operates at its maximum educational potential.

Recent reforms of the school system have implemented nearly all of the proposals of the highly acclaimed Sullivan royal commission report on education. This will increase the ability of our schools to educate students to their fullest individual potential.

I suppose In history we have always had socialists: those followers of a political persuasion that think the sky is falling, that things are bad and getting worse. I remember looking at some old charts of the world. The cartographers at one time must have had a fair influence from socialists, because on the perimeter of those charts the oceans flowed over an abyss, and on the edges was the caption: "There be monsters." There be monsters-that's what our socialist friends see in every government bill that's put forward, including Bill 11.

The opposition, by nitpicking and selective editing coupled with creative development and dissemination of misinformation, has created a great deal of confusion about the intent, philosophy and principles of this bill. For the record, I want to go over and emphasize the important components, philosophy and principles of Bill 11.

This bill ensures a fair, predictable and accountable system for financing education. Bill 11 ensures ongoing public support of our public educational system and demonstrates again the high level of commitment of government in supporting school boards in the delivery of a full range of high-quality educational programs for students. The legislation is another important step in responding to the call for change contained in the Royal Commission on Education.

[ Page 9380 ]

The bill is responsive to the call and the frustrations of British Columbia school trustees. It enables a single budget submission to be initiated which will simplify the funding and budgeting process for our school trustees throughout this great province of British Columbia.

This bill encompasses block funding, the levying, collection and distribution of school taxes, and sets out the requirements for a new referendum process. The bill not only establishes block funding; it allocates the block funding based on enrolments in the school districts and the varying costs of delivering educational programs. There is a tremendous variability in the cost of delivering those programs in all of the school districts throughout the province. There is no question that in the northern parts of our province-the North Peace River area or Atlin school costs per student are very high indeed, and the block funding accommodates that with a sum of approximately $13, 000 directed to each student in those areas.

I happen to reside in a constituency in which the school district is fairly compact. Our block funding sum is approximately $4, 800 per student in School District 23. This is below the provincial average, but it nevertheless reflects the costs incurred by the school district. It reflects the knowledge that the school district is relatively small, relatively compact, and that there are almost an infinite number of variables such as the salary and experience levels of teachers and a number of other facts that come into the calculation of that block funding.

There is no question that if a board wishes to spend more than its block allocation and other allowable revenues, it must hold a referendum and get local taxpayer approval. This bill enables that option to occur. This bill encourages democracy and participation on the part of the taxpayers of a school district in supporting education. For the extras, I might add -because it is clearly the commitment and the responsibility of this government to ensure an equal opportunity for all students in the province to receive the best affordable level of education - enable every student, whether they be in Atlin or in the lower mainland, to realize their potential and that expectation.

When the thought announced by the Minister of Education for a Royal Commission on Education was first put forward, the nay sayers had a great deal of cynicism. The call was, as I recall in the early stages of the 1986 election, that it would never take place. It did take place. This cynicism prevailed, and the nay sayers again said: "When it comes out it will be tampered with; it won't reflect the inputs that have gone to the commissioner." The nay sayers were wrong again.

Then they took a new tack - the nay sayers again with their continued cynicism....

MR. MILLER: No.

MR. SERWA: Yes, it continued and it still continues. They indicated that it would be appraised and rejected. Again they were wrong. As a matter of fact, over 83 of the recommendations - the majority of the Sullivan commission report - were incorporated and are being put into practice.

It is regrettable that cynicism, hypocrisy and negativism seem to be a distinct platform in their political agenda.

The focus of the new school act and certainly of Bill 11 is on the learners -there is no question. I keep hearing members of the opposition speak about all of the stakeholders as if the educational system was created for all of the stakeholders in the system. It wasn't; it was created for the opportunity to learn. It was created as an opportunity for our young people to get the best possible level of education.

The members of the opposition tend to muddy and confuse the issue by focusing on all sorts of stakeholders that fundamentally must remember that their responsibility is to focus on the importance of the opportunity for the learner in the system. The focus on the learner would require consultation and cooperation among all educational groups, and funding systems that would lend greater stability and predictability to the system.

When the report was released, the government worked in close cooperation with the Education Policy Advisory Committee and developed both the statement of policy that embraced most of the commission's 83 recommendations and a school system mandate which reflected again a focus on the learner.

With the passage of the new school act and formation of the Education Advisory Council, further consultation and review of funding and taxation occurred. Again, consultation and review - characteristic of the Minister of Education. A review of funding and taxation occurred, and opportunities were provided for the major education stakeholder groups - trustees, teachers, superintendents and secretary-treasurers - to put forward proposals for change. These groups endorsed the concept of block funding, economic adjustments and the retention of the fiscal framework distributing system, and recognized the need for cost control. All of those stakeholders associated with education again recognized the need for cost control, Mr. Speaker, fundamentally in accord with the principles and concepts brought forward in Bill 11.

Increased accountability is provided through a referendum process governing local funding for extra programs and services that boards choose to offer beyond the increased funding provided by the province. That is fair and reasonable and an opportunity for local boards to undertake. There Is no opposition for that.

The member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) covered in an eloquent way all of the revisions that were covered under the block funding process and also alluded to a number of the funding requirements covered outside of the block funding system.

The previous school system was funded from shared operating accounts and supplementary amounts raised locally. Why the need for change? The

[ Page 9381 ]

need for change was evident. School taxation was being carried out in a climate in which taxpayers expressed increasing concern about rising school property taxation. Since 1986-87 spending has increased by 31.5 percent for educational costs, exceeding the inflation rate by a prodigious 20-some points. The inflation rate in that period was approximately 11.5 percent. The supplementary amounts, which were raised locally by increasing local residents' property taxation, rose dramatically in the amounts required, from $66 million in 1986-87 to $238 million in 1989-90. The supplementary increases, transferred or translated into percentage increases, meant that the homeowner's taxation responsibility had increased by 34.1 percent.

An important point, Mr. Speaker: to continue this arrangement would have resulted in increasing frustration on the part of the taxpayer and ultimately would have undermined taxpayer support for education. To ensure continued public support for education and to provide that fair, predictable funding that guarantees all British Columbia students a sound, complete education, the government has established a new school finance system.

The block funding system addresses the concerns, the needs and the expectations of all students in British Columbia. The system covers all of the costs incurred in the previous school year, a more than reasonable increase in the amount to cover the cost of inflation and increasing costs, approximately 6.17 percent, and an additional fund to cover the cost of increased utilization of the school system in a school district through increased enrolment.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, if school boards keep spending increases within or even close to the cost of inflation, there will be no need for referendums. All services, from staff salaries to transportation and enrolment increases, are covered by the provincial funding allocation. Additional funds are provided for school construction, royal commission implementation, computer technology, Pacific Rim initiatives and new programs. Those funds are not dependent on referendum for approval.

Clearly, in consultation with trustees of School District 23, they were apprised of a great deal of misinformation, disseminated again by members of the opposition, which caused a great deal of confusion. They were comforted greatly with the understanding that a number of costs for School District 23 were outside of the block system and would be paid for directly from the Ministry of Education in Victoria.

The new funding system guarantees a sound, complete education to every student in British Columbia. Those districts that want to exceed the funding allocation by the government in order to provide extras may do so. Where this is the case, the district must hold a referendum to ask the taxpayers in the district if they wish to support the extras, since it is those taxpayers who will pay 100 percent of the extra costs.

The government, recognizing the high cost of education and yet placing a continued high appreciation and value on the education and the role it will play in the future of British Columbia, has proposed various measures -brought forward in the debate on the budget speech - on property-tax relief. I'm very proud of that particular recognition and of the continued commitment of the Minister of Education and the government of British Columbia to maintain that very high standard of education.

There is an old saying that crowing hens, barking dogs and prattling politicians will come to no good end. I would like members of the opposition to hear that. Obviously, some of the members of the opposition missed that. I would like to say it again for their benefit. The old saying - they may not have heard it - is that crowing hens, barking dogs and prattling politicians will come to no good end.

I listened to the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) talk with a very negative attitude about the quality of education that is available in British Columbia. I'm proud of the quality of education in British Columbia, as proud as I am of the quality of the teachers and all of those professionals engaged in education. I have not a bad word to say. Students from British Columbia in international competition have produced outstanding results and outstanding recognition for the quality of education in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SERWA: I hear, again, more of that prattling going on. I have a great deal of difficulty with that, because socialism has been discredited by those forced to live under the yoke of oppression all over the world. That yoke of that political persuasion is archaic. Every individual that promotes socialism as a humane and workable philosophy is in retreat - all over the world. It just will not work. Political parties of all persuasions carry with them a lot of political baggage. That baggage becomes part of their tradition. Sometimes that tradition and its ritual are what become important in people's minds. They lose sight of the original goals of the party's founders. The socialists are in retreat. I hear the death rattle of socialism all over the world.

Members of the opposition have forgotten that they have a responsibility to the people who elected them. They've forgotten. They've missed the focus, the perspective and the point of Bill 11. The focus and the purpose of education is the learner, and if they are going to be meaningful, objective, accurate and fair, they too must focus on the learner.

Their belief that the concept of central planning and big government has all the answers has obviously been dismissed by peoples all over the world. Once again, they oppose the rights of the individuals to choose what transpires. Once again, they oppose a democratic opportunity in order to promote their craving for power in which they strive to control and manipulate the individual in society.

[ Page 9382 ]

Mr. Speaker, without any reservation and without any hesitation, I support fully the philosophy and principles, the ideals and the continued determination and commitment of this government of British Columbia to continue to evolve our educational system into a world-class, leading educational system.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad to take my place in this debate. It's very difficult to even begin to deal with the ramifications of this bill. It's difficult because of the contradictions. On one hand, the ministry - in their press release - talks about this bill ensuring a fair, predictable and accountable system; and yet, the reality in the communities where....

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction. I tried to catch the member's eye before she got going. If I could have the courtesy now, I'll do it. Otherwise, I'll wait until she's finished.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: I thank you for the opportunity of introducing Mr. John Wood from North Burnaby, a former Social Credit candidate, who's here to observe some of the activities that are going on in here and to see what it requires to be an effective MLA. Would the House make welcome John Wood.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'll do my best to show the guest from North Burnaby what an effective representative does on behalf of her constituents.

Let me go on about this bill and my very serious concern about what this bill will do to education in communities such as mine. The more I work with the school board, parents and children in our school district, the more I realize that the school system itself needs a complete and thorough revamping. But instead of tending to the concerns for stability and the need for accountability and predictability, what we have Is uncertainty and a school system that again feels as if it is being attacked by a senior level of government.

It's complete hypocrisy when the ministry talks about accountability and predictability and at the same time forces school districts such as Surrey to go to referendum, and then continually changes the goalposts and the groundwork so that the school district finds it next to impossible to plan and deal with the needs of the children in that school district.

This whole action from this government is like the last three years that we have seen under Social Credit. We have seen confrontation, instability and change for change's sake. What we have with this bill, with referendums and with the new system of block funding - where a minister flatly refuses, despite request after request, to sit down and talk about the inequities in the funding formula - is more confrontation, more divisive action. Who pays? The kids pay

Ultimately what we're talking about is not only the childrens' education but the instability that this sort of action creates in a community, and the instability that referendums and the government's unpredictability creates for families. Instead of dealing with the kids in the school system -instead of helping Johnny, Susie or whoever else with their homework - do you know what the parents are doing this week? Mr. Minister, those parents are out talking and drumming up support so they can make sure that their kids get a decent education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I made sure of that when they got their allotment in February. So don't give me that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says he made sure of that when he gave them their allotment in February. Yet the reality is that there are nine school districts-not just Surrey-and it's really interesting to see which school districts those are: Richmond, Surrey, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Vancouver - gee, what have we got; five out of the nine in the lower mainland, and the majority of them growing school districts -Prince George, Powell River, Castlegar, Queen Charlotte.

We have experts like the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) getting up and having the complete bombast and audacity to tell the representatives from the Fraser Valley what they need for their school system. I suggest to you, Mr. Member for Prince George South, that if you paid a little bit more attention to the needs of your school district, perhaps your parents would not have to be out on the hustings this week trying to get enough money to provide education for their kids. If you had been fighting for your school district, you would not be in the situation of having to go to referendum in this next week.

If our ex-cabinet minister from White Rock and our member from Newton - our current cabinet minister, who we would like to think had some clout in his government - had been doing their business, our school district would not be in the situation that it is today.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The member for Surrey White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) says: "What more do you want?"

MR. PETERSON: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm not aware of any member of this assembly who comes from White Rock or Newton. If the member is referring to other members, I wonder if she could please use their proper titles.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I find it difficult at the best of times to know where the members from Surrey that are represented on the government side are coming from. Very clearly, we only know where one -the member for South Surrey-White Rock - is going to.

[4:00]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

[ Page 9383 ]

You have a lot to account for as a government. You have a lot to account for as the Minister of Education - the confrontation rather than cooperation and the two-tier education system that referendums create. There are enough examples in North America for us to know how disruptive referendums are to the education system. There are enough examples -just to look at our neighbour from the south -to know about the kind of discrepancies the referendum system brings to the school system and to know that we do not need to import that system to British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We haven't. You don't understand it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, we have asked the minister time and time again to come and listen to what we have to say in Surrey. For the past three years, not only with this school board but with the previous one.... Before you even dreamed up this legislation, I met in your office and sat there with the previous school board, which you said in the past you had good relations with and were more than willing to sit on panels with, more than willing to provide information to as individuals.... Now I wouldn't like to even begin to suggest that your actions were partisan rather than serving the interests of the kids of Surrey. But if that's what the record shows, then so be it. The fact that you are prepared to meet with....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly interesting that this Minister of Education is prepared to meet with school boards up in the valley to talk about the funding formula and about the inequities they face as growing municipalities. Yet the answer that our school board gets comes from the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, who says: "If you go to the ombudsman, then we're not going to meet with you."

MR. REID: That's right.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's that kind of language, that kind of attitude, that has got that member into the back seat of his own benches. He had the same attitude when it came to the handing-out of lotteries.

The same attitude brought him to sit in the back benches. When he was providing lottery funds, he was telling members....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I suggest that you stick to the bill that is presently before us.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the education bill and the confrontation and instability created by this government.

As I sat and listened to the previous speakers, I was struck by the number of experts on education in the House. I was struck by the notes that were prepared by, I assume, the ministry itself, because they all read the same; they all said the same thing. As usual - because the more things change, the more they stay the same - we have a government that sits in Victoria and that cannot understand or hear that the best way to service the needs of children and the learners that a previous member spoke about is to listen to the people on the front lines and to meet with school boards, parents, teachers and people who are involved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Surrey picked two nights when they knew I was tied up. You don't call that political?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would just like to remind you that the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley has the floor.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am amused by the minister's comments. I am not sure if he is particularly paranoid because of the pressure his bill has created, or... For him to suggest that the school board picked the only two nights that he wasn't available is humorous. I wonder -through you, Mr. Speaker -if the minister sees school boards peeking through his window at his calendar. I wonder if, in his dreams at night, he sees teachers and parents, as well as school boards, creeping into his room. How on earth would a school board in Surrey know the only two nights the minister was tied up? Surely if the minister was committed to dealing with these problems, he'd be out there dealing with them rather than freezing forever the reality that our children face.

The minister finds that funny. Well, I have Invited you....

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says that when he came out to the parents' meeting, all they gave him was five minutes. Our school board, our duly elected representatives, were prepared to give him all the time he needed to understand. We have been working for three years - that I have been directly involved in this House - to have him understand. The minister, after refusing to meet with the school board, comes out to a meeting of parents, and he bemoans the five minutes.

I can imagine the minister came away from that meeting feeling a little bruised, because the parents at that meeting-a huge majority of the people in that audience-did not support his plans. A huge number of people in that audience were resentful of the system that he set up. Quite frankly, we're resentful of the fact that they had to come out to that meeting rather than being with their kids. People who are involved with the school system are involved because they care about their children. They care about....

[ Page 9384 ]

MR. REID: We'll see how they vote on Saturday.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The member for Surrey White Rock-Cloverdale says: "We'll see how they vote." I will be interested in seeing how they vote also.

This ministry and this government has done everything in their power to scuttle that vote and to interfere - from the Premier of this province publicly condemning referendums to the Ministry of Education finally recognizing that they have made a mistake and throwing some more money into the pot - after the ballots have been printed, and after, by their own legislation, they have met the requirements of notice, to throw more confusion into the referendum. This government has not only done everything to scuttle the referendum process and their own laws, but I would suggest they have done everything throughout their history to scuttle education in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's one of the lowest comments I've ever heard in this House. That's typical of you, and I guess it's a high level for you. That's got to be a high-level comment from your low-level position.

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, it seems to me that things are getting out of hand here in terms of attacks on my colleague, who is trying to give her reasoned speech in terms of this bill. If the Minister of Education and others who are heckling so strongly can contain themselves, perhaps she can be free to get on with what she's doing.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the member would stick to the bill, instead of making incorrect, disparaging remarks of that low a level, then maybe we could get on with the debate. As long as that member makes no reference to the bill and is just using that as an excuse to attack the integrity of members of this House, then I feel obliged to object.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It may be a little difficult for me as a new chairman to decide on the points of order. I would just like to say at this point that I would advise the member who has the continuance of the floor to stay with the subject that's under discussion, and perhaps to also request the rest of the members of the House to allow her to speak in the debate as she wishes, as long as it pertains to the bill before us.

MS. SMALLWOOD: And talking about low levels, let me give you a few low levels, because that's what this bill is all about: low levels. It's about a school district that is the second lowest in the province. Thanks to this legislation, it will be frozen there forever. It is about a school district that gets $700 per pupil less than Vancouver. The member wanted to talk about low levels. When this minister talks about education and his pride in education, I don't know how he can rationalize that when Surrey gets $17, 550 per classroom less than Vancouver. That's a low level, and that's nothing to be proud of.

It costs to deliver good education. You can tell the kids in Surrey that they can do it for less - and by God, we will. We'll show you that our kids will top the tests in the province, as they have done in the past - no thanks to and, quite frankly, in spite of this minister. We will continue to fight for equitable treatment. For this minister to suggest that Surrey can do it for less than Delta, Richmond, Burnaby or North Van and West Van.... You must have trouble sleeping at night, and you must be seeing trustees behind your doors. I believe you are paranoid, and you have all the reason in the world to be paranoid, because you cannot possibly justify these inequities.

For the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) and the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) not to be standing up here and fighting for those kids and those taxpayers and to be arguing that it's okay -"We can do it for less" -puts their representation In this House in question.

What we have in this bill - rather than as the ministry's own press release indicates, a bill to ensure a fair, predictable and accountable system of financing -is more confrontation and built-in inequities. Many of those growing school districts are still trying to catch up with the pre-restraint years. Some of those services in our district have not yet caught up to pre-restraint years.

[4:15]

The minister and his cohorts are all too ready to suggest: "We provided a good education last year, so why can't we do it now?" It completely ignores the fact that we are and have been suffering under the impact of growth in the lower mainland for a number of years. We have constantly been playing catch-up. We have not been able to recover from the attack on education by a previous Social Credit government. Now they are saying: "Don't ever look to catch up. You are forever the seventy-fourth out of 75 school districts, and be happy with that." That's what this bill does. It locks in those inequities forever.

I'm sure the minister would feel an awful lot more comfortable if the parents in my community weren't having meetings like the meeting they asked him to come to, weren't asking him the hard questions and weren't be asking him to justify how hungry children can learn. I don't know if the other members in the House heard the minister's answer, but when he was asked at that meeting how hungry children learn, the minister's answer was: "Well, some do and some don't." That's the Minister of Education.

I ask the members on the government side if they're proud of answers like that, if they're proud of a Minister of Education not advocating on behalf of kids in his own system and if they're proud of a minister who goes to the fastest-growing municipality - possibly in all of Canada - and says: "You can do it for less." The minister finds that amusing. I'll be

[ Page 9385 ]

interested to see if the government members from Surrey will find it amusing after the next election.

I've spent most of my time working in my community around the government's initiatives, trying to understand the impact, trying to firmly stand on the side of the parents and the children in the school system, and fighting to make certain they can have their concerns addressed. I haven't had very much time to look at what is happening in other school districts.

However, I was passed a note from a Coquitlam trustee, and in looking through their reasons why block doesn't work for their school district, I am struck by the similarities. I'm struck by the list of costs that are not covered by the implementation costs for new schools and new portables, that are not directly covered by the block funding and that the schools are going to have to wait for. They are going to have to cover the additional costs that are incurred by the higher standards required by many agencies - like WCB, WHMIS and health and fire marshals -that are constantly being upgraded and not covered in the previous year's expenditures.

When the Minister of Education says that costs are covered by his block funding, he is absolutely wrong. What is covered by the block funding is the expenditures, not the costs. The money that was put out....

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The fact is that many of these school districts postponed the painting of schools, earthquake protection and other maintenance costs because they were unable to fund them. But that will come home to roost. You can only postpone those costs for so long. As I said earlier, the costs of bringing the system up to pre-restraint years have yet to be made.

Mr. Speaker, when you deal with the facts of what this minister has created, the best the minister can come back with is socialist-bashing. It's the same as teacher-bashing, the same as trustee-bashing. That's how Social Credit implement their policy. If you make sense, if you ask the hard questions, and if they can't answer, the best they can do is turn around and bash.

The kids and the parents in Surrey are fed up. They want you, Mr. Minister, if you have not gotten the message yet, to take a look at the funding formula, to revise that funding formula and be fair.

MR. LOENEN: I've spent three years in the House Mr. Speaker, and I've seldom heard as vicious a personal attack directed by a member as I've heard just now from the member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley. I'm disappointed that she did not address the merits or otherwise of the legislation before us. She evidently has no alternatives to suggest to the legislation being proposed; instead, she has stooped so low as to make vicious personal attacks against the minister who has worked so hard on behalf of education and our children in this province.

It's this minister who steered through legislation that gave the teachers the right to strike. It is this minister who steered through legislation that gave teachers their professional college. It is this minister who has been in charge of the ministry to see to it that teacher salaries have substantially increased over the last number of years. It is this minister who has seen to it that in fact the workload of teachers during that same period of time decreased substantially. It is this minister who has made sure that the recommendations of the royal commission were dealt with and dealt with quickly. Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Education.

I would just like to say that the referendum idea is an exercise in democracy. I fall to see how people can possibly be opposed to going out and asking the taxpayers to take people seriously, and saying: "What is it that you'd like to see happen?"

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is an exercise in democracy, and it is simply not the same as the experiences in the U.S. In the U.S. the referendum covers all kinds of basic operating costs. It covers items such as new school construction. None of these items are included. We're not funding, in this province, education by referenda. What we're doing is giving people the option, if they so choose, to fund extras over and above the normal education costs. In fact, unlike the U.S. examples, we've made it easy, because all that is necessary is a simple majority of the people who bother to come out and vote. There could be nothing simpler. This minister has not made it difficult. This minister has made it as simple as possible. I think it is for that reason that out of the total 75 districts only nine have felt the need for it. The vast majority - 66 districts -did not feel the need for the extra funding.

No wonder, because look at what the basic block funding includes. It includes everything that is necessary to provide a top-rate education for the benefit of our children. It includes all of the costs of last year, which means that it includes all the regular student programs and all the special-needs programs - for the handicapped as well as for ESL.

In addition to that, the districts receive a 6.1 percent increase for inflation, which, by the way, is very, very generous because it is well ahead of actual inflation. Over and above that, there is money for growth. And in the lower mainland we've seen a lot of growth. Growth will be fully covered.

In addition to that, there are targeted funding grants for items such as the computer programs, the royal commission implementation, the Passport to Education and the Pacific Rim initiatives. And then there is capital for construction of new schools.

What it adds up to is that this government has a commitment to education which remains exceptionally strong, because we value education. We know how important it is for the future of our children and for the future of this province. I think we can stand up and hold our heads up high and be proud that this budget includes a 15 percent overall increase for education.

[ Page 9386 ]

For new school construction alone, there is $350 million. It's an unprecedentedly large sum of money, an increase of $100 million over last year. For our district, Richmond School District, last year we had new school construction to the tune of $16.5 million. To put that in perspective, that was more than all of the previous seven years combined. This year we see not the same level; we see a very substantial increase over what we did last year - in fact, as I said, a $100 million provincewide increase. What it adds up to is that this government is committed to education in a very strong way.

I listen to the members opposite, and time and again they tell us that it's not enough, that somehow we have loaded too much of the taxes onto the taxpayer, and that it will continue to do that under this legislation. It's not true. In fact, on average the taxpayers will pay 90 percent through the provincial government and the homeowners in the districts will pay 10 percent.

[4:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

For many years the opposition members have pointed to the Bob McMath commission, which went around the province and looked at taxation for education during the years '72-75. 1 have a great deal of respect for Alderman Bob McMath, who has served our community in such a splendid way for many years. He came through with a report that was widely hailed by all, and he called for a split that was 75-25 - 75 by the province and 25 by the local taxpayers. For years and years the members opposite have asked us to implement that. Well, we did, and we have exceeded that. And when it came to 80-20, they said: "No, it's still not enough; it ought to be 90-10." Now it's 90-10, and it's still not enough. Mr Speaker, where will it end?

The only thing we've heard from the members opposite is: "Give us more money, give us more money." They don't tell us where we ought to find it; nor have they told us any other substantial alternatives to the legislation that is before us.

Why is it necessary that we have this block funding system and the referendum? What has brought this on? We have to recognize that in our district - and it's typical of most districts throughout the province - for the past two years the average cost per student increased by 25.6 percent. That is almost three times the rate of inflation. Surely those kinds of increases have to be checked.

Teachers' salaries have increased 15 percent over the past two years, while at the same time teachers have experienced a very dramatic reduction in their workload. That, too, is far above what we have seen in other sectors of the economy. During that same period, while the teachers received a 15 percent salary increase, the rate of inflation was 9.6 percent, and salary increases in the private sector were no more than 7.6 percent.

There is a need for us to put some discipline into the system. Last Saturday I had occasion to have breakfast with the board of Kwantlen College, and they told me that many of their instructors do not receive as much as the teachers in the elementary schools and the high schools, and that that is causing tremendous problems for them. What we have to recognize is that when we allow these very large increases in one sector, it has implications for other sectors; there's a ripple effect throughout the public service sector.

For that reason there is a need, particularly in view of the fact that we see a weakening economy, for us to at least put some discipline into the system. That is what this legislation intends to do, and it will do so very effectively. It will not endanger or jeopardize the quality of education in any way, The NDP just don't have any sensitivity to that. No wonder, because as I listened to them over the past two weeks during the budget debate.... They don't worry about the deficit, and they have said time and time again that it is something we should not be overly concerned about.

As I said before, they have no true or real alternatives except to ask for more and more money. They have suggested that somehow we need these very rapid increases because of the ravages of restraint. Well, as I said in the first place, in the last three years we have seen a massive infusion of funds into education spending. But we also have to recognize that even during the years of restraint, study after study has shown that the performance of our students compared to other jurisdictions was very good, very high. There is no direct correlation between the level of funding and output. Therefore it is often a red herring for people to say, the minute there Is some restraint on funding: "You are endangering the future of our children" - blah, blah, blah. There is nothing to that; there is no substance to that whatsoever.

We are not creating second-class schools. We are proud of the output of our students. They do very well when we compare them to other jurisdictions on this continent and in the Western World as a whole.

One item has come to our attention - it has been brought to my attention by our local school board -which has to do with the different levels between districts. Yes, when you compare School District 38, Richmond, to Burnaby - which in many ways is very close, very similar in makeup -there is almost a $300 difference per student. It has been suggested that salaries and ESL can make a difference. However, the school board has done its homework. It has pointed out to us that if that were so, the Richmond School Board should in fact be receiving more money, because our teaching staff is more expensive per student than Burnaby's. And the same is true of ESL - we have more than the Burnaby district.

They have brought another item to our attention. It has to do with the fact that in our district we have growth at such a rapid rate that in the ESL program alone we're adding 50 new students a month. Since it is the case that ministry funding takes into account those students who are actually registered by the end of September, all of those additional students who

[ Page 9387 ]

come in later in the year have to somehow be carried by the system.

I think some of those concerns are legitimate. I was pleased to hear the minister say on a number of occasions that in subsequent years there will be an opportunity to look at fine-tuning the block and at whether the block is fairly divided between districts. We know that over the last two or three years, boards have had the opportunity to go to the local taxpayers for supplementary funding. In subsequent years the province picked up whatever they had funded through supplementary funding. I believe that some boards were far more eager and anxious to use that opportunity than others. It may well be that, as a result, those boards that have been frugal and that have been good managers are penalized under this system.

As I said, I believe that there is an opportunity for us - and I hope the minister will follow through on this -to fine-tune this and to look at some of the claims that have been made about discrepancies and inequalities that exist between districts. But having said that, I want to state once again that overall this is an excellent approach. It will introduce an element of discipline into the system that we have not seen in the last few years, without in any way jeopardizing the quality of education or the future of our children For that reason we are proud to support this legislation.

MR. MILLER: It's not that difficult to follow the second member for Richmond.

I wanted to comment at the outset on a small point. The member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) yelled over - he's not in the House now; too bad -that he wondered why I was the only male member here on this side along with the female members. I thought it was an extremely chauvinistic remark. I wanted to say that I'm quite prepared to stack up the female members of this caucus against any equal number of male members - in fact, more - from the other side of the House. just one final word on this point: I intend to send a copy of Hansard to the wife of the member for Yale-Lillooet.

I think we're dealing with some pretty naked politics with this bill. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) mentioned people being cynical. He's right. People are cynical, because they see in this bill the government simply continuing to play politics with education. We have a desperate government that's looking to set up straw men, imaginary opponents. It's that sham argument They really are reverting to type.

HON, MR. BRUMMET: That's not a general, neutral term.

MR. MILLER: I don't know how to make it....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Straw persons.

MR. MILLER: I accept the admonishment from the Minister of Education: straw persons, imaginary opponents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I should remind the member that the member's handbook advises that when a member is speaking and he reacts to interjections, then Hansard must print the interjections. If the member does not react to the interjections, then his speech will be read in Hansard as a whole. It might assist all of us, therefore, if all members would avoid the temptation to react to interjections that seem to correct one's diction from time to time. Please proceed.

MR. MILLER: The people I know who read Hansard - and believe me, there aren't many of them -always comment on the interjections as being the most entertaining part of the discourse. But I will bear your suggestions in mind.

I think the government is desperate and looking to set up straw persons - imaginary opponents, things they can run against. The government is reverting to type, using methods that have been tested and that have worked for them in the past. We can see what they're doing on another front with the doctors -exactly the same thing- trying to set up these imaginary, fictitious opponents to try and get the taxpayers worked up into a lather so that they will forget about the real record, the terrible record, of this government and be diverted from it in trying to deal with these straw persons.

MR. CLARK: They're playing politics.

MR. MILLER: Politics, naked politics -and it is not working.

When it comes to education, there are some statistics that comment on the performance of this government, statistics gathered outside the province by Statistics Canada, which consistently show this government to be underfunding education and to be a failure in dealing with education. I'm somewhat disappointed, because it was my view that the current Minister of Education had probably done more in the last few years to cool down the rhetoric, to get us out of those destructive education wars. It's ironic, and I'm sure it's disturbing to that minister, to find ourselves back once again dealing with issues on this basis.

The Statistics Canada indicators on expenditures on education for British Columbia include, just to quote a few: ranked last as a percentage of personal income from 1985 to '87; ranked last as a percentage of gross domestic product from 1985 to '88; ranked last per capita of labour force between 1985 and '88; ranked last in expenditures per capita from 1985 to '87, before climbing to ninth in 1988; and ranked last in provincial and municipal expenditures on education as a percentage of total provincial and municipal budgets from 1985 to '87.

[4:45]

[ Page 9388 ]

That's why we have had education wars in this province. It's beyond me that the minister is now using this sham device of a referendum to once again plunge British Columbia back into those wars. The surprising thing is that in many respects, the government members who have been up speaking -and I want to quote later on some comments made by the Premier and the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) - are attacking the very people who support their party.

In dealing with the process of referendum, we find, first of all, that there's a great deal of confusion about just what is going to happen. The announcement was made some time ago that there would be a referendum system. People didn't have any details; they were simply notified there was going to be a referendum system. We noted that on April 5 the minister said the votes were going to be held on April 24. We noted later on that he said the votes were going to be held on April 28, and we noted later on that he said the votes were going to be held on May 5.

It's hardly the kind of administrative competence that you expect from a government. They didn't even know; they had to change the dates of the referendum three times. It's almost as if they really designed this whole system with the expectation that it would fail. The real motive was to design the system to fail. Cheap politics.

The Province reported on April 17 in an article about referendums, under the headline "Confusion" and went on to say: "The referendum issue is a confusing mess, partly because of the government's failure to provide direction, and partly because an over reliance on referendums doesn't work in a democracy where representatives have to be just that -representative." Designed for failure.

Further articles talk about - and it's true; it's out there in the community - a groundswell of opposition to this process of funding education. In fact, the minister himself agreed that referendums are a very poor device. You're trying to institute ballot-box budgeting for school purposes, and it doesn't work. Two years ago, the minister said: "People very rarely vote for tax increases for themselves, so that means the education system could suffer, and it could suffer disproportionately from one district to another."

That' s a quote from the Minister of Education just a few short years ago; the minister whom, in my opening remarks, I praised for cooling down the rhetoric and these school wars that British Columbians were engaged in for so many years. The minister doesn't believe in referendums. We know he said this. He hasn't said he has changed his mind. He doesn't believe in them, yet they're proceeding with the referendum system. Who's playing politics with whom and at whose expense? Why do we want to get back into playing politics with our children's education system?

We find when we go around the province and deal with the issues that school boards.... By the way, the whole balloting system was designed for failure. Let's construct a ballot that we know will turn the voters off when they get in that booth. Lo and behold, we have this item: teachers' staff costs. I'm sure it's probably going to be bigger than the program costs, because that's the way it is in education. But they're hoping Joe Public will go in there and say: "Why should we shell out more money for teachers?" That's what they're hoping for. Designed for failure playing politics with education.

When we look around the province at the position that boards are in currently, we see that many boards, for example, rather than risk failure in this very confused system-where the minister has changed the date three times and where the ballot and everything is stacked against them - have scrapped it and decided they're not going to go to referendum. The risk is too great.

This is a sad comment on what boards in this province are saying. I know people-Social Credit, NDP or no political stripe-who are sitting on boards around this province, and their primary concern is what they're mandated to do: deal with education for kids in this province. Boards are not going to referendum, because they know it's going to fail, or they fear it's going to fail.

What are they scrapping by not going to referendums? I think the House should know some of the programs that won't be put in place in this province because of the cheap politics being played by this government in its desperate attempt to find somebody to run against so they'll have the. guts to call an election.

They're desperate; they're reverting to type. We find that in Surrey. There's another confusing aspect when we talk about Surrey. Not only have they changed the date three times, but they can't get their act together to inform boards of the process. They won't even inform boards of the process, and they expect boards to be able to go out to their people in the districts with any kind of reasonable degree of accuracy and convince people that they should vote for a referendum - after changing the date.

In the last-minute conversion, suddenly they discover they did the bookkeeping all wrong. What did we do - did we forget? You didn't have enough people adding up. You're the guys attacking the auditor-general, calling him a "bean-counter." Don't you have enough bean-counters in your ministry? Couldn't you figure out that there was more money coming to boards? So now we have Surrey going to referendum. They said they needed so much - honestly. Here is a board that sat down and calculated their needs. Now, all of a sudden, you're throwing this other money into the pot, and that's going to add further confusion. It's designed to confuse the electorate. And what's going to be scrapped?

I have to stop here, Mr. Speaker; I'm going to have to put my glasses on. As I noted to the Minister of Education in a little note before I started, if I'd had these when I went to school, I might have learned something. But I did learn how to read, and you just have to know how to read to see through the sham that this government is trying to perpetrate on the people of this province.

[ Page 9389 ]

Here's a quote from the chairman of the Surrey board: "I find it amazing that after they've said for three months that there's not going to be any more money in our budget, lo and behold, 22 districts get $4.5 million, and Surrey gets $1.275 million." I mean, what's going on over there? I think the auditor-general does need more staff. You guys are in such a mess that you don't know what's going on.

The school lunch program. There are 130, 000 kids in this province living below the poverty line. You're telling me that those kids can learn, and that they have any equal advantage with kids from West Vancouver and some of the richer districts? Do they have any kind of advantage? No. One of the ways we can redress that is through school lunch programs. There's the school lunch program for Surrey gone. Is that contributing to education? No.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: One hundred and fifty thousand dollars out of $187 million.

MR. MILLER: Yes, yes. Talk all you want, but there's the Surrey lunch program down the tube, thanks to this government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: And the voters don't support it?

MR. MILLER: "Small Price for Good Schools, " the Vancouver Sun says - "$7.7 Million Required." Almost half the amount is required to eliminate pesticides in school grounds. Look, I don't even think that's education. Where's the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) ? Why doesn't he go out there and get those pesticides off there? Why should we have to spend education money to get pesticides off the school grounds and to create programs for native students and students with special needs? We don't know what's going to happen with all the game-playing this government's doing at the present time. That referendum could go down to defeat Where are these programs, along with the upgrading of the schools for computers and emergency earthquake preparedness? Like the Surrey lunch program, down the tube, thanks to this manipulating government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We've got $2 million for computers sitting in the bank.

MR. MILLER: Two million sitting in the bank? At least it's better than the BS fund; that's not even in the bank, and you won't admit that.

The Howe Sound district....

HON. MR BRUMMET: They should have bought computers for the kids.

MR. MILLER: That's right, computers for the kids, and we might have more to say about that.

The Howe Sound School District will have to cancel its four-year computer program. There's another one. Lunches, earthquake preparedness, computer programs and projects for native Indian students and students with learning difficulties.... There they are.

The Sooke School District's computer lab improvement program. There it goes. Gone, thanks to this Minister of Education, who I don't think really believes in these referendums. I think he has to go along with it because we've got a desperate government that is desperately looking for an Issue, and they can't find one. Every time they think they're close, it evaporates. It's like a wraith that disappears into thin air.

They thought they'd nail the teachers; it didn't work. They thought they'd nail the doctors; it didn't work. Then one of the Premier's strongest supporters.... Was it REAL Women? That REAL Women issue came along, and that blew a hole in all their plans too. But I can see that some of those people are still on board.

The Premier - again terribly inconsistent, but we've come to expect that -meets with the Richmond board. He says he's open. Then he trots down to the radio station and says it's a con job. What kind of way is that for a Premier to act? He tells the board one thing, and as soon as he gets out of the room, he says the complete opposite. He said: "I'm going to vote against it. My wife's going to vote against it." I don't know If he asked her first. He said: "And all my friends are going to vote against it." I don't know if he's asked them, or whether he's still suffering under this delusion that whatever he does is right, and everybody else better do the same thing.

If it wasn't enough that the Premier volunteered his wife and friends after telling the board he was open, we have Mr. Steacy. He also writes a letter. He has to write a letter to the paper too, because we know that they're pretty close. They were pretty close when it came to that leadership convention up in Whistler, when the Social Credit Party lost its collective mind under the influence of something. I don't know; there was a lot of it flowing in the streets. I don't think it was snow; it was summertime. But they went up there and lost their collective mind.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: No, I don't have a quote from Peggy.

Here we have this terrible example of a government playing cheap politics with the education system and really, when it comes right down to it, it's the children who are going to suffer.

I had high hopes for that minister. I think he tried his best to get us out of those wars, to get us out of that position where people were fighting all the time, and to get on and deal with the issue of education and.... Well, we know... What more can I say?

I think there's a legitimate concern about taxation. When it comes right down to it, I suppose.... I had lots of arguments with people on taxation when I was an alderman. The companies used to come and say: "You're overtaxing us." And the homeowners used to come and say: "You're overtaxing us." In fact, every-

[ Page 9390 ]

body said we were overtaxing them, and they always went like this: "Shift more of the burden onto that sector. No, shift more of the burden onto that sector." I don't think it's easy to come up with an equitable tax system. But in the final analysis, I guess you could say there's really no such thing as a fair tax. The person on whom the tax is imposed will always think it's unreasonable.

When I had a real job as a millwright, when we picked up our paycheques every second week, the first thing people grumbled about was their income tax. I can understand that. But you know, when they sit down and think about it, people are prepared to pay taxes if they think the benefit is going to a good cause. And education ranks very, very high.

We don't have to appeal to the negative in people. I think we can appeal to the positive in people. Why that party over there always wants to try and appeal to the worst aspect instead of the best has always confused me.

When I look at the issue of taxation and when I look at the principle of this bill, it does bring to mind that they really have isolated this one small area. And I'm painfully aware, as are all British Columbians that in the last three years we have been hammered by tax increases from this government. No wonder people are fed up, Look at what they've done.

Did they say to the people of British Columbia: "Well, we'll have a referendum on the fact that we're going to cut taxes for corporations - let the people vote on it"? No, no referendum there. We lost 250 million bucks.... It's about $500 million, my finance critic colleague corrects me. Water taxes were frozen at a cost of $60 million a year. Was there a referendum? No. But we paid the price.

[5:00]

MR. SPEAKER: On the principle of the bill, please.

MR. MILLER: I'm trying to establish the principle of referendums in taxation.

I remember there were tax breaks to banks in 1987. 1 debated that bill. I asked why we should give a $6 million tax break to the chartered banks, who are guaranteed a profit. And they went and shut down branches. I think they shut down a branch in South Peace River. They shut down a branch and they left the people in a small community with no bank whatsoever. And we gave them a $6 million tax break. Did we ask the people in a referendum whether we should give the banks a break? No.

In the '87 budget there were higher personal income taxes - $195 million. A referendum for that? Nowhere to be found. Where was this government, this great government of principle, when it came to that issue? Higher taxes on goods and services in 1987; fuel, insurance - $58 million. I didn't see any referendum. I didn't see those backbenchers on the Socred side standing up talking about the taxpayers and the rights of the taxpayers and how we had to protect them - not at all. They sat there like a bunch of sheep, and they're acting like sheep today.

The new property purchase tax. We want to talk about the impact on homeowners and the fact that now people can't get into homes to pay property tax because you put that property purchase tax on and fattened your coffers by $150 million. No referendum on that.

The list goes on and on and an - $150 million in medicare premiums. Referendums? Look at the cumulative effect of all these tax increases, and this government's statement that they've got to protect the taxpayer really does ring hollow.

The fact of the matter is we have a government that is in deep, deep trouble. They have shown in the past that they have no respect for boards and institutions that are elected. They like those boards and institutions that are appointed - appointed with those friends and insiders; they're easier to control.

This democracy is kind of a messy business. These school boards that are duly elected by the electors in municipalities are kind of messy, because quite often they sit down as a group and decide what the education priorities are in their communities. They decide in a very sincere, democratic fashion what the priorities are in their communities, and this government doesn't like it. We know what they did In the past when they didn't like it. They simply abolished the boards.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: We've seen it. This government took over duly elected boards in this province because they weren't tame boards. They're really disturbed. I hear all kinds of comments about the boards being taken over by the NDP. But the Richmond board is controlled by the Socreds. They decided to go to referendum. They're the ones that are going to be disappointed in their MLA butting himself into their process. Stay out.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure of my time here. I don't know if you are either, but I have lots that I'd like to say on this. If you could just advise me as to how much time I have to say it in, that might influence the speed at which I....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Ten minutes. Thank you very much. I am so serious about this that I didn't bother looking at the clock when I started.

There are serious problems in education, and it would be a shame if they were forgotten because of this political device - this desperate government that's casting it's net as wide as it can in trying to find an issue to get elected on. I can give them some advice right now: stop playing politics with our children; stop playing politics with education, because nothing you do is going to work-you're going down the tube.

There are serious problems, in particular in the north, and I want to talk about the problems that will not be addressed. My board in Prince Rupert decided not to go to referendum -not because they didn't

[ Page 9391 ]

need the money but because they fear failure. The odds are stacked against them; it's a rigged game.

There are serious issues. I have seen teachers in my community... One of the problems in northern communities is that we get a turnover; we don't get a consistency of people staying. I have seen the stress.... I know that earlier the minister kind of rejected the notion of stress in the teaching profession; I think it's real. I've really seen quality teachers leave the system because they don't have the kind of support....

AN HON. MEMBER: You made that up.

MR. MILLER: I didn't make anything up -you check the record. I've seen quality teachers leave the system because of that stress, and every time I see that, I think it's unfortunate for the kids that that person might have influenced.

Teacher's aides have been reduced - they don't have that support. The whole question of northern students and their access, issues like.... I noted it, and I'm not proud of it. I don't think anybody's proud of it. The rate of teen-age pregnancies in my region is double the provincial average. I think that calls for special circumstances, for special learning conditions. We've had to fight and scrap for every single program we've ever gotten. They always feel threatened; there's never a feeling of security.

I think those are important issues in education. How do you convey that kind of thing in a referendum? It does anger me.

I've seen native Indian people trying to deal with the issue of their own sovereignty and with the issue of educating their children. It's a difficult task, and there's a high dropout rate. One of the ways, in terms of a cultural approach, is native language programs. It's a minor amount, but the Terrace district chopped $25, 000 from native language programs at the same time as this government gave those few lines in the throne speech: "Oh yes, we want to be nice. We want to increase cultural programs for native Indians." In fact, we've seen those things cut.

Ballot-box budgeting does not work in education. Those of us who have been around for a long time know that that is not the way you finance education. You cannot leave it to the vagaries of one side having a better campaign or somehow people not being able to illustrate or get the issue across; or, quite frankly, to people's ability to be selfish and say: "I don't have kids in the school system. Why should I vote for this?" We have an education system that is broadly based. It should be financed 100 percent from certified finances-money that boards know they're going to get. You shouldn't have to go through this kind of exercise in order to finance education.

This will be a failure. It will be an abject failure, as all of these other desperate measures are. I hope this government will learn a lesson: you can't pick on education and on teachers in order to be politically successful over the long term. W.A.C. Bennett was fairly successful, in that he always had one group who were the straw people. Where this government has failed is in managing to alienate everybody, and I think that will tell whenever they gather the courage to go to the ballot box.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I should comment on the fact I'm very happy that I'm not going to have to sit and wait before I speak to hear the comments that have been coming from the other side about how democratic this legislation is. This bill is one of the most centralizing that this government has been able to find so far, and that is not an unusual thing for the government to do - to centralize power in the hands of a minister. This government has a real penchant for centralizing. Their attitude about things is the attitude of the pyramid, I believe. In every type of activity in which they have legislation, they want to put it to where there is a single point at the top -they call it the top, but sometimes it isn't the top. It prevents any movement at all, because if you have to have everything come to a point, it can be stopped by that point.

This government, which is made up of members of the Social Credit Party, is absolutely delighted to have things centralized. I will use a single example, which will demonstrate exactly what I mean. It's what the Social Credit government called not centralization, but regionalization. The whole idea, said the government, is to spread power around. The government says they are going to spread power around by giving it to people in the regions. But how are they going to do that? By simply gathering some people in the regions to find out what they want to put in the ear of the centre of government.

The same thing is happening with this bill. Instead of having a democratic system -the kind of democratic system we have honoured in observance for years, with local school boards - we have everything decided now by the minister. We are still going to elect school boards, according to the proposed legislation, but they won't have any power. Over the many years they have existed, the boards have attempted in many ways to get closer to the people who put them into office to run the schools. They have found all sorts of ways to find out what those people think and to be in touch with the community. But no, this won't matter anymore, because it's the minister who's going to make the decisions. It's the minister who's going to decide whether they're going to have the money to do the plans they put forward. It's the minister who is going to decide what the capital money can be used for. A single person is going to have the control that should be - under the process that we used - given to representatives of the people.

It's almost as though the minister has decided that the school boards are going to be like the kids that are given their allowance. They can't operate like parents in their own homes, so to speak. They can't even operate like managers in a corporation, where they would have some say about how the money is spent and what money is drawn for this.

It's interesting to contemplate the idea of school board members running for election and then holding the position of being a school trustee. If anybody

[ Page 9392 ]

asked a school trustee what the money was for how much money they were going to get for what program -the school trustee won't know anymore, because the only person who is going to know is going to be the minister. The only person who any longer has accountability under the legislation will be the minister.

That may sound like a very good thing for some school trustees: those who might prefer not to take responsibility. If you don't want your school trustees to have to take responsibility, it may be quite interesting to suggest that the minister is the only one that knows what's going on.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I have been talking to the secretary-treasurers in School Districts 1 and 2 - the first two districts in the province - and they have both suggested that no longer will they be able to answer the questions of the people who phone in. This year, of course, it's a total shambles. This year, because the minister didn't get his legislation in place in time, it's even worse than usual. It's a total shambles. The people are phoning in and saying: "What is my tax bill going to be and where is it going to come from? Who is going to assess it and what is it going to be for?" Well, they frequently phone city offices, because the cities collect that kind of taxation. Cities don't know. How would they know? They have always said that they simply pass on the taxation to the school boards, and the secretary- treasurers now are asked and they don't know what the tax rate is going to be at all. They don't know yet what it's going to be.

[5:15]

They don't know the criteria, and the legislation does not require that the minister lay out any criteria for the many decisions he has to make. The minister is going to decide what the block is. The minister is going to decide whether anything is added to the block. The minister is going to decide what comes out of the capital budget and goes anywhere, and he isn't required under the legislation to tell any board or anybody else what the criteria are for his decisions. Is that what this government thinks is responsible government? Is that a good substitute for the kind of knowledge ... the common knowledge and the actual attempts that were going to be made by school trustees in every local district? The government's strange attitude on taxing people, and suggesting that it is more democratic to have a minister do it than to have the local people do it, is going to fall in on them.

I wish the minister were here. I am sure he has gone because he says we're not saying anything new. I assure you, there are only so many things that need to be said against this bill.

Local school boards are going to have to make their budgets according to the only rules and the only timetables that are included in the bill. They are going to have to put together their budgets before they have any idea what the minister has decided their tax amount is going to be. That makes it practically impossible to be responsive to the situa-

tion. They can't consider what the local load is going to be at all, and that of course is the major issue. I am sure the minister has heard it all, because there is no question that there isn't any board in the province that agrees with the legislation, which requires them to have no cushion whatsoever for deciding local expenditures. The only way they can do it is to go to a referendum, which has all the difficulties that have been proven over and over again not only in British Columbia but in other parts of this country, in other parts of North America, in other parts of the English speaking world, in the European world and in other parts of the democratic world. Referenda don't work for such complex issues as the minister is proposing in this bill.

The only kind of referendum that most people are familiar with is whether or not a community is going to build a curling rink or skating rink. Shall we approve the expenditure for a skating rink or shall we not? It's a very simple question. What this legislation proposes, as a referendum proposal, is complex and difficult. Put it into the whole business of the complexity of what school financing is, and most people will not understand it even if they give it a whirl.

The government seems to have recognized that if the minister goes at it, he's going to have a referendum and save money. On whose backs is he going to save the money? He's going to save it on the backs of the children. He knows that there is often an attitude that if I don't go to school, and if I haven't got anybody in my household going to school, I shouldn't have to pay school taxes. That attitude has been countered by people on both sides of this House, but what the government is doing now with this proposal to go to referendum plays right into the hands of that attitude. The very people who will oppose school taxation for special programs and that kind of thing are probably the people who are going to come out in a referendum and oppose it. It's going to be far more difficult to make the complex decisions that school trustees have made so far-and make extremely well - in a referendum that is complex and has several parts to it and has many things involved in each of the parts.

I was sitting here waiting my turn to speak when I read a letter sent to me. It's from someone in School District 2. A copy has gone to the minister, so he will also have read this, I'm sure. It's a letter from a parent of three children, all of whom have learning disabilities. This parent describes the many difficulties that the family had in getting a response to these difficulties in these three students. He's a little angry at the school board. He says:

"This school board has finally got someone on staff that understands 'LD students' just as the government comes out with the great idea of holding a referendum to increase the funding to schools. Fantastic! There go the special ed programs.... There goes any chance of training or retraining teachers....There goes any chance of having smaller class sizes...."

That's what the public perceives. The public understands right away that this whole business of referendum is just a difficulty that the minister is

[ Page 9393 ]

putting in place for school boards in order to cut the funding and not just to be more democratic. Obviously, anybody who would propose that the minister have all this power is not interested in greater democracy.

When trustees agree to run for school boards, they agree that they will make the decisions that are difficult and that they will take the flak if it's flak or the appreciation if it's appreciation when it comes time for the local vote. They did not run for election so that they could go onto a board, take an allowance from daddy, and go out and spend it. If it's spent okay, they'll maybe get the same allowance next year; if they don't spend it all right, then daddy will take it back. The school trustees have shown their responsibility. They're not going to run if all they're doing is handling money that comes from somewhere else, on the decision of somebody else. Why should they? Why should they put in the kinds of hours and the efforts they do, and neglect their own families and so on, for the minister to decide whether the people in their district deserve the money?

When it comes time for the people in the district to say what they want, they're not going to be talking to the minister; they're going to be talking to the board members. The minister can't, by osmosis, absorb what the people in a district want. He isn't going to be in a position to give the kind of response to the people in the district that the school board could. He's suggesting that if anything is worth doing over and above what he decides should be done, it has to be voted on -as I say, not only in a very complex and difficult-to-understand referendum ballot but also only one year at a time.

That puts a plug in everything, because if you can only get a referendum for something for a year... You can't get it into the block, because the minister has said it won't go into the block. So if you want to have it funded again, you have to go to a referendum again and again, with all of the same problems -except that after the first time around, it's a little harder to raise interest, and it becomes more and more difficult.

Trustees run and expect to accept responsibility because they are responsible people. They expect the responsibility that they are now losing by the retroactive legislation this minister hasn't got through in time. They expect to be useful public servants. They are willing to put in the time and effort to be useful public servants. They have experimented with advisory committees, meetings with parents, board meetings in different places, and any number of ways in which they are in touch with the people in the district. Is this the government's idea for getting government off the backs of the people - minimizing government by putting it all in the hands of the minister instead of the school trustees? It's the most amazing thing, Mr. Speaker. This legislation is not honest in the least.

The minister talks about spending: "It's time to stop spending on schooling." He's on very difficult and dangerous ground there, because British Columbia already-by most criteria-is at the bottom of the list of the provinces of Canada. I know he's going to suggest it's not true, because I've heard him suggest that.

What happens is that if you consider the expenditure on education as a percent of the income of the people of British Columbia, we're tenth, If we look at the expenditure as a percentage of the gross product, it's tenth. If we look at the expenditure per capita of population - ah, there's the one - we're only ninth on that one; we're ahead of Prince Edward Island. If you look at the expenditure per capita of labour force, we're tenth. If you look at it as a percent of provincial and municipal budgets on education, we're tenth. It's when we come to the per capita expenditure that the minister thinks we're doing fine. We're fifth there, I believe. That's interesting. By any other measure, we're at the bottom of the heap. There's no reason in the world why British Columbians should be at the bottom of the heap, and there's no way that this province is going to proceed and take advantage of the future if we're sitting at the bottom of the heap and won't spend the money on our... There's no way we're going to have a population that's ready for the future in this world unless they are educated well and have the best possible processes for our education to take place.

The best possible process has been proven to be a matter of local boards of trustees, people who are willing to take the responsibility.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister has just said that if local trustees would take the responsibility, we wouldn't be in this bind. I think the minister should not be suggesting that school trustees have not taken their responsibility. I think the minister is feeling paranoid again; he's had another attack of his paranoia. He is being absolutely ludicrous - that's spelled 1-u-d-i-c-r-o-u-s. I don't like to show off.

The minister suggests that he is searching for stable, predictable funding. That was the beginning of a number of his phrases. At one point he also said he was looking for stable, predictable, accountable methods of funding education. Accountable. The minister pretends somehow that he is more accountable to the local people in communities than the trustees. That is a farce. It is impossible. It can be seen as a farce by any of the voters in any district and any of the people in this House.

He suggests that he also is searching for a rational system of funding education, and I hope he continues his search, because he hasn't yet found it, not in this bill.

He says he's looking for equity. Now that's an amazing one too, because if there could be one thing that would be equitable, it might be that everybody in this province knew how they were going to be taxed, knew what the rules were before they went into it, knew that those rules were fair and had agreed to those rules. But no, we've got the minister deciding. He decides from year to year what the tax rate is going to be, how he's going to apply it and

[ Page 9394 ]

whether it's going to apply the same in one district as another. And he's going to decide what we're going to do with every penny that goes through - unless you take it to a referendum. The difficulties of referenda being so great, he's likely to have the major power here, because of course not many referenda will pass, even if they are taken to the people, And boards, who are quite willing to take the responsibility...

I am quite offended by the minister's statement. The boards are willing to take the responsibility~ They have taken the responsibility, and they will take it again. They do not expect to be the front men for the complaints that come in about whatever the minister decides to do.

[5:30]

The minister has a pattern of excuses for why he does things. He just recently indicated how he can bash school trustees, and he's been bashing teachers for some considerable length of time. It seems to work fairly well for what he wants to do, and one can't say too often how much every one of us should reject that attitude and that approach to dealing with school financing. It's all very well to blame the trustees and the teachers; but the minister takes away any power that they have to work within the system, and then continues to bash them. If that's what the pattern is, the minister should be withdrawing this bill and withdrawing himself from the position that he's in.

This bill has been put forward too late for the process that the minister has already put into motion. It is a bill that is almost uniformly opposed by all the stakeholders in the education system. It is a bill that has an amazing defence. The defence that the minister and the government puts forward is pathetic. It contradicts everything that most people who live in a democracy know about how local democracy works. It is basically the kind of thing where the minister would do much better to withdraw and say: "Look, let's do something that is going to be approved and supported by the local people who want their schools run by other local people."

I can simply say that I will oppose this bill, and I believe that the minister would do extremely well to take another look at it, draw it back and remember the very basic tenet of local democracy.

MR. CLARK: I detected a faint round of applause, but I think that was for the previous speaker.

I wasn't planning to speak today. I was going to stay in reserve, prepare learned remarks, study the bill and speak at great length on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. But I've been pressed into service today, and I'm quite happy to speak on this important bill.

I was reading in the last few minutes, in preparation for these remarks, the comments by the Minister of Education two years ago, when he said: "I'm against referendums. People very rarely vote for tax increases for themselves. That means that the education system could suffer. But it could suffer disproportionately from one district to another." He's changed his mind. He's had a conversion on the road to Damascus. just as the Premier changes his mind 14 times on the way in from the parking-lot, the Minister of Education has changed his mind. He's now a convert; he believes in education.

The real reason, though, is that the Premier Is playing Edgar Bergen, and the minister is playing Charlie McCarthy. The Premier says, "Oh, we want referendums, " and he pulls a string and the Minister of Education's mouth opens up - It sounds like Fred Flintstone, but that's another matter - and he says"I've changed my mind; I'm now in favour of education by referendum." He has changed his mind. You know, Mr. Speaker, they're all Charlie McCarthys in the cabinet. They're all reacting to this one-man rule we have in British Columbia. Someone suggested that the minister was Mortimer Snerd, but I think Charlie McCarthy better represents the cabinet.

There were four members of the Social Credit caucus, though, who said: "They can't pull my string. The Premier can't put words in my mouth." So they walked. Remember? They almost walked over here, but they didn't really; they said: "We're independent Socreds." They were sort of deviants. In fact, they made a movie about those four; they're called Mutant Ninja Socreds. I hear they even like pizza. But they crawled back. They said: "We're leaving the Social Credit caucus...."

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that the same as the Green Party?

MR. CLARK: It's a new form of rodent, and we've heard of rodents jumping a sinking ship. But for the first time in the history of British Columbia, they're swimming back before the ship goes down. Those four rodents from the Social Credit Party swam back.

With respect to education and the bill....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: They didn't leave the Social Credit caucus because of their education financing, though. They left the caucus because they thought they couldn't get re-elected. Now they're back in, and they too are supporting referendums. They're supporting the bill. We hear them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 11, please, hon. member.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's Bill 11 we're on. I wondered what the number of the bill was.

Yes, yes, yes, no. They're fighting among themselves in Social Credit. They're fighting among themselves in the cabinet. But the Minister of Education lost. I think he lost this fight. I think he wanted to solve the education funding problems.

HON. MRS. GRAN: You can't win them all.

MR. CLARK: The minister says you can't win them all. He lost, and now he's got to eat these words that we keep reading out. "People very rarely vote for tax increases for themselves."

[ Page 9395 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Read the first part. Be honest.

MR. CLARK: The minister wants me to read. I've got it. It says the minister opposes referendums "because tax increases are necessary to keep the system going."

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Before that, sorry.

"The Education minister disagrees with the Premier on requiring referendums before school taxes can be raised. The Premier said Thursday that, as a taxpayer in Richmond, he'd have to vote in favour of requiring referendums. But the minister said he opposes referendums because tax increases are necessary to keep the system going, as with everything else. People very rarely vote for tax increases for themselves. That means that the education system could suffer. But it could suffer disproportionately from one district to another."

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about Leonard Krog?

MR. CLARK: I think the minister has been krogged. If the Premier wants the new version, we'll happily oblige in this case. We'll use the words from the Minister of Education. We'll say them repeatedly in here, because he lost the fight in cabinet. The strings were pulled on the puppet, and he had to say: "No, I was wrong two years ago. I think referendums are a good idea." But we know. Those on this side of the House who know the member - and we see him in the dining-room and talk to him -know that he really wants to solve the education problem. He wanted to. But he lost, as all these other members lost on all these other important questions, when the Premier said that we have to have referendums; we have to have this group to pick on for the next election; we have to set up....

MR. WILLIAMS: The Provincial Secretary agrees he lost.

MR. CLARK: Yes, the Provincial Secretary agrees he lost.

It's pretty obvious that.... It's tough.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Quit singling me out as the only good guy.

MR. CLARK: No, we've seen the Premier contradict other members of the cabinet from time to time, and they lose too -except for a couple of members who left. Remember? We had that minister who used to be responsible for Expo lands, and she left the cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're saying there's a bunch of losers over there.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, she lost, but she left the cabinet - unlike the Minister of Education. Her head was held high, and those four mutants bowed and genuflected before their leader. They were running, but she was behind them, instead of in front of them. But she left. She lost - with the Premier - and she left the cabinet. This minister lost, and the education system lost. That's what has happened with this bill.

Yes, the education system has lost as a result of the referendum system. The minister fought for education; I'm convinced of that. I'm convinced that he tried to convince his colleagues to do the right thing-the rational thing-and fund the education system appropriately and get all those people off his back. Get all those stakeholders....

I don't understand the language. You know, there's a whole language in education. Stakeholders. All the stakeholders were constantly attacking, and the minister went to cabinet and said: "Let's solve this problem. Let's fund the system. Let's get those stakeholders off the back of Social Credit. Let's become the education government."

They even said it was a triple-E budget. Remember that? It was education, environment and economy. They tried that a couple of years ago. The minister won his little debate, and they tried this triple-E budget. But we don't see that anymore, because education has gone.... They tried it; they didn't get the support they sought, and so the Premier pulled the string, and they changed their tune.

Yet education is the only area in which there are going to be referendums. Can you just think - if you really let your mind have some imagination - of the referendums we could have in British Columbia? How about a referendum on the sale of the Expo lands? How about that, Mr. Speaker? Would the people of British Columbia have preferred to have had that site developed in small parcels by British Columbia entrepreneurs, or sold in one parcel to Li Ka-shing? Now there's a referendum question.

What about a referendum on the Premier's position on funding for abortions? Just imagine! Oh, there is going to be a referendum. That's right; it's in Nanaimo, and Social Credit's leading the fight.

just in case Mr. Speaker thinks that I'm reaching in terms of this bill, I want to read - I just can't resist -a letter to the editor from Charles Steacy. Remember Mr. Charles Steacy? His wife's name is Peggy. The Premier gave up his credentials at the Socred leadership convention for Charlie and PeW And Peggy -we've heard a lot about Peggy. The Provincial Secretary knows about Peggy.

After the Premier said he was voting "no" in Richmond for the referendum, Charlie wrote a letter to the Province newspaper defending the Premier. I think he might have been asked. Charlie said: "The arrogance of the Richmond School Board, as reported in the Sunday Province, is incredible." The board will decide Tuesday, and we don't know what the money is to be spent on. Charlie defended the Premier's position. I think it was when Peggy phoned the Premier and said: "I hope you don't mind; we've

[ Page 9396 ]

mailed the stuff out and the taxpayers will pay for it. We really appreciate it. By the way...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this Bill 11, hon. member?

MR. CLARK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about referendums and support by Social Credit.

She said: "By the way, Mr. Premier, my husband is writing a letter defending your position on the referendum in Richmond." I am sure that's where the genesis of the letter came from. That's why they're connected, you see. Referendums - that's the thread that connects these apparently disparate elements.

Yes, we could have referendums on that question. We could have referendums on tax increases that the government has imposed. We could have referendums on the 693 fees, permits and licences that have been increased by this administration. But no, the bill only deals with referendums with respect to education. It only deals with one thing, and because we're not permitted to talk about other things not in the bill, we're forced to talk only about referendums In the education field. And of course we know the minister's position on referendums in education. The minister's position is that people very rarely vote for tax increases for themselves, so that means the education system could suffer -and suffer disproportionately from one district to another. We know the minister's comments, and yet he's brought in this bill and has to defend it because Edgar Bergen told him he has to defend it, so he's in here doing his job He's a good Social Credit cabinet minister.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Candice's father, Murphy Brown's father.

Yes, yes, he's done his job like all these other Charlie McCarthys in cabinet, and they defend the Premier day in and day out. They defend him on all of the positions he's taken, even when they're different positions. They come in here and defend them over and over again, and that's why they're in such tough shape.

[5:45]

With my remaining time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Bill 11. We have to look at this in the context of the last few years. We saw in 1982 the restraint program. Remember Bill Bennett? This current Premier ran against the record of Bill Bennett Remember that? Now they're not running against it Now he looks good compared with this government, so now they're trying to say they are part of the same

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In 1982, there was the infamous restraint program, and they cut funding for education. School boards responded. They had basically two things: they could raise residential taxes, or they could raise industrial and commercial taxes. Because of the cuts in education, they raised industrial and commercial taxes dramatically in response to cuts from the provincial government in 1982. They raised them quite high. They didn't raise residential taxes too high in 198283. The government responded by taking away the industrial and commercial tax base from school boards, and they froze it for five years. The industrial and commercial property taxes on schools never went up for years in British Columbia. That's what happened there.

The school boards were then left with only residential rates that they could affect. They took away their industrial and commercial, and they forced school boards to raise residential taxes in order to cover the cutbacks by Social Credit over the last seven or eight years in British Columbia. It's a perfect solution. They cut back on education, and they put school boards in the middle - in the sandwich -between themselves. They told taxpayers that they had cut back on education spending, but school boards had to pay the price.

They were throwing out school boards all over the province. They were the ones cutting back. It's perfect politics. They insulated themselves from that. School boards responded correctly, by saying- "It's not us. It's them over there in Victoria. It's those guys. They're the problem." Quite correctly, they pointed the finger at the government. But they raised residential rates. So now that residential rates are so high because of consistent underfunding by Social Credit, they want to ride to the rescue of taxpayers. They want to say: "It's not us who did the damage; it's school boards that are the problem, and we're not going to help out school boards. We're going to bypass school boards and go right to the residential taxpayer and give them a tax break." That's another bill coming up before the House, but it deals tangentially with this legislation. They want to ride to the rescue of the poor, beleaguered taxpayer that those school boards have taxed and taxed, forgetting all the time that the reason they taxed and taxed was that they cut and cut. Then they cut back. They removed the industrial and commercial and froze that, and there's no more money from that source. They put school boards in the sandwich.

It's amazing that there are so many Social Credit members elected to school boards, given the kind of abuse they've taken from Social Credit governments over the years. But I gather that may be changing. Who knows?

This is the last straw for these school boards. They've been stripped of the industrial and commercial tax base, they've been made the scapegoat for higher taxes and for cuts in education, and now they're taking away their residential taxing authority and centralizing that in Victoria and saying- "You only have the power to decide priorities within the money we give you, notwithstanding core curriculum and everything else." Then they said: "If you want to do any more, you have to go to referendum."

It's a clever political strategy, I must say. They've been re-elected on that side using this kind of strategy. It's a clever strategy, but it's not good for children's education. They've played politics with the system. It's done them well, they got re-elected - no

[ Page 9397 ]

quarrel about that. They're now playing politics with the system again by trying to ride to the rescue of taxpayers a bit, while at the same time forcing a referendum.

That's what they've done. It's a clever strategy, but it undermines the quality of education. More importantly, coming from Vancouver East, I think that certain districts will suffer more. What was it the minister said? "They will suffer disproportionately from one district to another." And he's right. He was right two years ago, and he'd be right today if he stood up and said it in the House. With respect to inner-city schools and the unique problems of districts like the east side of Vancouver, the referendum system cuts to the heart of the question in my riding of Vancouver East, because we will pay the price for referendum funding. We, more than any other constituency, will pay the price, because of the problems of ESL, the natives and the question of a disproportionate number of handicapped people coming into the system. The framework doesn't accommodate them; it doesn't accommodate the unique problems of East Vancouver. The referendum system means that districts like the east side of Vancouver will pay a price - and our children will pay a price. That's why, on this side of the House, we're opposed to referendums.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I am prepared to debate, Mr. Speaker, and I seek your advice. Do you wish me to continue?

MR. SPEAKER: If the member would move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House, it will probably pass. If it fails, you will have to talk until 6 o'clock. I am prepared to accept the motion.

Mr. Zirnhelt moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

MR. ROSE: I rise on a point of order. The hon. Speaker insists it was a point of information yesterday, but I wonder if we could be advised of the House business for tomorrow.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Your speaker adjourned debate.

MR. ROSE: Am I correct in assuming, then, that the House business of tomorrow will be the adjourned debate on the bill that we have been considering all day today?

MR. SPEAKER: The standing orders are very clear as to the order of business tomorrow. The first order of business on Fridays is private members' statements, which will take the first hour, and whatever happens after that, I will have to defer to the government House Leader, if he wishes to let you know.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am glad you cleared up this matter on the basis of the standing orders. On page 8 of Standing Orders it says: "Friday (Private Members' Day)." It lists the priorities: "Throne Speech Debate, Budget Debate including Committee of Supply, Urgent government business...." Then it goes on to "Public Bills in the hands of, Private Members." If one looks across to page 9 -that's the page following page 8 - it says: "Notwithstanding standing orders 25, 25A and 27, urgent government business may" -only; it doesn't say that, but that's my emphasis - "with the consent of Mr. Speaker, be considered on Friday...."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, Friday is as Wednesday used to be. It's a different day from other days, and it is a day when we will follow the standing orders. You asked for the advice of the Chair. The Chair advised you that the orders for tomorrow will be that the first order of business following introductions and prayers will be to deal with private members' statements. The next order of business will be determined by the government House Leader. He may require leave to proceed to continue the debate on this bill, or... The government House Leader has that choice. He may decide on another course of action. Several courses of action are available to the member if he wishes to advise the House. If he doesn't wish to advise the House, tomorrow will be the most appropriate time.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I know that you know that I have no desire to be truculent. However, it doesn't appear to me, since it's the first month that the House has sat, that urgent government business should take place on Friday, which is clearly a private members' day. Since this House has sat in this parliament, we have had no private resolutions or notices of motions called by the government House Leader, nor have we had any private members' bills, which were quite common in past parliaments.

I'm really concerned about this. I would suggest, as a beginning, that there's a notice of motion standing under the name of the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) having to do with Korean veterans, which would take 15 minutes to deal with. My friend from Burnaby North has one dealing with International Literacy Year...

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member has stated his point of order. The Chair has been quite clear as to what the procedure is. If the government House Leader wishes to advise the House of tomorrow's order of business, he may do so. If he does not choose to advise the House, we will only have to see what the business is tomorrow. He always has the option of calling the Chairman and adjourning into Committee of Supply, which of course meets with the approval of the Speaker.

Unless you have some other point of order...

[ Page 9398 ]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I'm pleased that your refinement has prevented you from cutting me off immediately. But I wanted to make that case as strongly as I could, and I make the case to the government House Leader that in the manner and spirit of fairness and cooperation, he consider the suggestions that I have offered. I think it in no way negates anything having to do with the government priorities, but it will help give both sides of the House and each side's private members an opportunity to debate something of importance. It's a habit I think should be developed.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not really a point of order; it's a point of information.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can advise the opposition House Leader that I will take his suggestion under advisement. But for tomorrow, the education bill is of the utmost importance, so we will do private members' statements, and then we will go to second reading of Bill 1i - the education bill.

MR. ROSE: With the consent of the Speaker,

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With the consent of Mr. Speaker, but it is urgent government business. I'll take the other suggestions under advisement for subsequent Fridays.

The only other thing I would recommend is that if the opposition House Leader and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) have any aspirations of going into comedy, they do not give up their day jobs. And with that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.