[ Page 9399 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Management and enhancement of British Columbia soils. Mr. De Jong –– 9399

Mr. Barlee

Hon. Mr. Savage

Government financial management. Mr. Williams –– 9401

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Senate reform and representation of the West. Mr. Loenen –– 9403

Mr. Rose

Lotteries. Mr. Sihota –– 9405

Hon. Mr. Dirks

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

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 9408

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9410

Mr. Jones –– 9413

Mr. Mowat –– 9416

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HUBERTS: In the galleries from the great constituency of Saanich and the Islands is a grade 4 class from Brentwood Elementary School, with their teacher Mrs. J. Howard. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. LOENEN: In the members' gallery with us this morning is a constituent who has made a wonderful contribution to our community, worked in municipal, provincial and federal elections and really been on the winning side of things. I would like the House to please welcome Mr. Victor Marxreiter.

Private Members' Statements

MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SOILS

MR. DE JONG: I have entitled my statement today: "Management and Enhancement of British Columbia Soils." I know that much has been written on this subject in general, and particularly over the last little while as related to forestry and other land uses. I am basically speaking today on the possible consequences that may arise out of a new type of industry in the lower mainland and throughout British Columbia which is called sod-farming or turf-farming.

This is perhaps a very sensitive issue on which I'll be speaking, and I trust that this House as we debate it this morning will debate it with some degree of sensitivity. I also want to assure this House that I'm not critical in terms of what could have been done or may not have been done to avoid the situation in which we find ourselves at present and could find ourselves more deeply in the future.

I believe the title I've given my topic today is very fitting for the nineties and probably should draw more attention than some of the other concerns that make the headlines in the media. The primary reason I've chosen this topic is that those who own land for agriculture production have basically two goals: firstly, to manage the soil for maximum crop yield and production; and secondly, to ensure the proper fertilization and soil care to maintain or even enhance the soil for future years and for flexibility of crops. The sincere and dedicated farmer who is determined to make his living from the land knows that in order to foster the security for a living from the land for his family, he must care for the soil, have adequate drainage and have an adequate water supply to ensure plant growth during the dry seasons.

The provincial and federal governments, on the whole, have indeed recognized those needs of the agricultural community over the past 20 or 30 years. Many programs, through close consultation with the industry, have been established to lend that type of stability to people in agriculture. Some excellent drainage and irrigation systems have been put in place through the ARDA program — some under an area program and others for individual farmers, ranchers or fruit growers. All of these programs have had the desired effect, which was to assist the farmer to maximize yields or crops from his fields and to help maintain soil capability and build upon that.

The matter of soil erosion has been a concern to farmers across Canada, often due to topography coupled with single-year crops and row cropping. Heavy rains or fast snow-melts can wash a lot of topsoil or humus into creeks and rivers in short order if it is not controlled. While a lot has been done in educating farmers and community groups to deal with these problems, I'm sure that much more can be done. I believe that a certain amount of credit for what has already been achieved can be given to the agricultural community as well as to both senior governments.

Over the past 30 years a new type of farming industry has been developed, and it is growing at a faster rate than many anticipated. While this type of farming appears to be profitable for those involved, it is viewed by the average farmer, who makes his living from the land and hopes to continue to do so for generations to come, as the worst kind of robbing of the soil. It is only a matter of a few years of sod- or turf-farming before the top layer of soil — often referred to as the humus, which has taken years to build up, through fertilization and working the land — will have disappeared. With an average of one and a half to two cuttings per year, the total layer of humus essential to any agricultural crop will have disappeared from the farmland onto city lots.

As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I'm not criticizing government but rather, as a matter of concern, representing the many farmers who love to work the soil and who take great pride in producing some of the finest fruits and vegetables and forage crops grown anywhere. At the same time, I do not propose to have sod-farming eliminated in British Columbia, for two reasons. It does provide income for landowners in the agricultural land reserve, particularly in view of the limited markets available for many of our other products, due to unfair competition allowed through the trade agreements arranged by the federal government agencies. Secondly, our modern age is geared in many respects to oven-ready or ready-to-eat products and, in this case, instant lawns.

There is much to be said in favour of new residential developments being fully developed and landscaped prior to being occupied. However, I do not believe it should be at the cost of the precious soil or the depletion of the soil from the rich valley bottoms in our province. As there have been remedies for reclaimed gravel pits, which used to be a horrible situation in our province, particularly in our area.... We have had many discussions with those operators, and now a sensible plan has been developed. I believe that the same thing can be achieved by good discussion with those in the sod-farming indus-

[ Page 9400 ]

try, so that the depletion of our soil will not be what it is today.

MR. BARLEE: I would like to respond to the second member for Central Fraser Valley. I concur with many of his remarks, but I feel that perhaps he didn't cast the net wide enough. If he had, he probably would have caught the real culprit. If we examine it very closely, there are several real culprits. We have to go back a little.

I notice that he did not mention one of the greatest contributors to soil degradation in British Columbia — and this is not just in British Columbia. When you consider the other western provinces — Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan — the greatest contributor to soil degradation is the forest industry in British Columbia. The 1988 FRDA report by Utzig and Walmsley was rather interesting, because they make a devastating comment about the forest industry in British Columbia. By the way, this study estimates that approximately 400,000 hectares — that's about one million acres, Mr. Speaker — of degraded forest soil have been created by forestry practices in this province in the ten years from 1976 to 1986; this is a four-year-old report. One million acres!

It is also estimated by these two authors that 20 percent of the area harvested during that period has been degraded. So not only is it a degradation of our soil.... I think that the members on the opposite side should be aware that approximately 1,000 years of soil is destroyed in one day of slash-burning. That problem has not been corrected by this government. These authors go on to say that that results in an $80 million loss annually to the province. Then they go on to finish up their report that this $80 million loss will, in ten years, probably become a $160 million loss, and the one million acres, which has been lost through very poor forestry practices, will probably go to two million acres in another ten years. That's a devastating record, which this government shouldn't be very proud of.

I noticed that the second member for Central Fraser Valley also missed one of the other culprits, and I think we should take a more holistic view of soil degradation. There are many kinds of soil degradation, and I think that he did not mention one of these.

The main failure is to enforce the provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which, by the way, was passed by a far-sighted government in 1973 — an NDP government — and is still considered by the majority of the farmers in this province to be a very necessary and important act to preserve farmland.

I should mention that Senator H.O. Sparrow, who is generally regarded as one of the leading authorities in this country on soil degradation, stated in his 1984 report on soil degradation or conservation — this report is available to the members on the opposite side of the House; it's entitled "Soil at Risk: Canada's Eroding Future" — that the ALC Act was the most important step. I quote from him: "...since, before its passage, alienation of agricultural land for urban, industrial or residential use was the dominant form" — I emphasize dominant form — "of land degradation in this province."

That eminent authority went on to say: "Unfortunately, the act has fallen into disuse, and the committee would like to see stricter enforcement of its provisions." He meant stricter enforcement of its provisions, Mr. Speaker, and many of us on this side of the House would like to echo the statement by Senator Sparrow. His concerns are well justified when you look at the dismal record.

[10:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I want to respond to a couple of the speakers. My colleague from Central Fraser Valley.... As you probably are well aware, we have just signed a soil accord agreement between British Columbia and Canada, which is a joint agreement of $1 million each. It's basically designed for conservation, water control and water preservation for agricultural purposes.

Of course, the idea of the whole policy of soil conservation, as my critic opposite said, is to maintain not only the soil but the quality of the soil. That's extremely important, from the point of view not only of the forest sector but also of the agricultural sector. The rules and guidelines under the Agricultural Land Commission for establishing turf farms or sod farms are very clearly laid out within the act. I think, hon. member for Central Fraser Valley, if you understand some of the specific areas, there's a depth of soil in some areas of up to 30 feet which can support a turf farm — beyond that, it's done by the rules and regulations of the Land Commission.

MR. DE JONG: In response to some of the comments made by both the minister and the critic, I said at the outset of my statement that I was not going over the entire gamut of soil conservation or soil building and could not touch all the subjects. However, with regard to the first item that the agriculture critic brought up about forestry, I understand that during 1972-75 the slash-burning practice had increased considerably. I read an article in a magazine the other day on forestry saying that it was one of the fastest and worst ways to damage the soil in the forest lands and that it is apparently diminishing or perhaps going to be largely eliminated.

Back to the Minister of Agriculture and his last comment on the depth of soil taken away for sod purposes. I am sorry I have to disagree with the minister on that. I believe that when soil permits are applied for — and sod-farming should be on a permit basis — there are a number of important issues that should be taken into account. When these permits are applied for, consideration should be given first of all to the depth of topsoil present on the land; secondly, to the type of base soil below the topsoil and whether it is suitable for agricultural uses; and thirdly, to the topography in relation to water levels, for adequate drainage. Those are some of the fundamental principles that should be considered. While the sod-farm operation is going on, I believe some application of

[ Page 9401 ]

fall wheat or fall rye would be the appropriate thing on those lands left bare for the winter, because we do lose a lot of our good soil through wind and/or water erosion in the wintertime.

I believe that even though there can be other methods used for replenishing the soil to rebuild the humus those lands once enjoyed before the sod operation occurred, similar practices can be put into place to rebuild the soil after the depletion of the topsoil as it was applied for under a use such as sod-farming or turf-farming. I'm strongly in favour of continuing the industry, but at the same time I believe that we ought to take care that land used for that purpose can be used again for future farming purposes.

GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

MR. WILLIAMS: I noticed the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) here earlier. I'm sorry he's not here now. It's been a bad week for the Minister of Finance. He had trouble starting the budget speech. He didn't even know if he was in order. By the end of this week, he wasn't out of order; he was out of control.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now he's run out of the House.

Integrity in finance is a fascinating thing. There's a psychology involved. There's a sense and a feeling among the public about people in institutions, about whether funds and the institutions are managed well. It's true of banks, and it's true of governments.

Under W.A.C. Bennett, Social Credit was seen as a prudent manager of funds. Under this administration we're seeing that erratic leadership is not just the flaw of the Premier, which everybody understands. Mark my words, everybody understands erratic leadership from the Premier — that's his great flaw — but it pervades the Ministry of Finance as well. The old bedrock of Social Credit — financial management — under this minister has become sinking sand.

By responding to the auditor-general's report the way he did, the Minister of Finance chose the low road and he chose to name-call. He exploded any claim that this government has to financial competence. Mr. Minister, wherever you are, the auditor-general is a professional. He measures his words These are very measured words in this report, and because they are measured words they damn this administration far more than anything we can say from this side of the House.

On the question of highways alone, he says on page 99: "The way the ministry negotiates contracts for professional services cannot ensure cost-effectiveness." Madam Minister — after the Coquihalla: "...cannot assure cost-effectiveness."

On page 100, Madam Minister: "The ministry does not have an organized process for assessing the markets where it buys services for major projects. They don't understand the market they buy in, Madam Minister.

On page 101: "The ministry does not have enough specialists in project information services to advise senior management." There are not enough people there to do the job that has to be done.

Finally, on page 102, Madam Minister — and don't take this on notice; read the report: "We believe the ministry does not have enough senior technical advisors to support management in its scrutiny of major projects." Major projects like the Coquihalla. You've had four years since the Coquihalla scandal was exposed. The auditor-general still tells us you don't have the ability to scrutinize major projects.

You've privatized everything, Madam Minister. More than ever you need that ability to scrutinize these projects, because you don't have the in-house capability. After four years, we are told that nobody is home. The auditor-general tells us there is not full reporting on privatization. We lost money on the Expo lands. He tells us we lost money in the privatized sign company. He tells us we lost money in the privatized environmental lab.

Last year he showed that you don't even adequately check companies cutting trees on Crown land. You don't scale or measure properly. This year he shows us that you don't check the number of gravel trucks loading up in our gravel pits. Madam Minister and Mr. Minister of Finance, our resources under this administration are a supermarket with only the buyer at the checkout counter. On gravel pits alone, the auditor-general tells us — and you took the questions as notice two days in a row, Madam Minister — that 80 percent of the information on what's in those pits is over five years old. You know and I know that's the pits, Madam Minister.

On the overall books, he says, Mr. Minister of Finance — who has done a disappearing act — that you turn them on their heads; unlike any other province in Canada, you never put the most inclusive information first.

Finally, on page 19, the auditor-general says that he hopes you'll take his recommendations to straighten out the books. In case you don't understand, he says on page 19: "We will be pleased to assist in the process."

On highways again, Madam Minister, the auditor-general concludes: "The ministry's current processes and resources are not sufficient to ensure that it gets value for money on its major projects." This four years after the Coquihalla scandal. The Minister of Finance calls this bean-counting. We're talking about $1,016,000,000 in highways estimates last year. Some beans, Madam Minister — and some has-beens.

The strength of Social Credit under W.A.C. Bennett was finance and highways. The auditor-general, a professional, has exposed the current administration on questions of finance and on questions of highways. The auditor-general, in his professional, measured tones, is saying that under new Social Credit, you can't manage either highways or finance.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm delighted to be able to stand before the House this morning and respond to those terrible attacks. I have stated previously —

[ Page 9402 ]

and I have absolutely no problem repeating the statement that I made earlier — that there are and have been weaknesses within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in operation and management. I have no argument on that at all. But those weaknesses, as I stated earlier, have been identified by the ministry staff. They were related to the auditor-general, and corrections are well underway to ensure that the areas that have been made....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's terribly unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that members of the opposition like to stand up and make their speeches, put forward their criticism and chastise members of the ministry staff, the civil servants, but then they don't want to listen to the responses that are being made.

We are very much prepared to take credit for the corrections that are presently underway within the management area of the ministry The privatization process has been an overwhelming success. One only has to travel the province and talk to people in the outlying areas to receive the comfort that people feel right across the province in the privatization process It's a very serious argument. I think the criticism levelled by the first member for Vancouver East is very unjustified.

There are areas that have been identified as weaknesses by the auditor-general in his report which we have serious misgivings about. The auditor-general has suggested on more than one occasion, and in more than one section of his report, that the ministry should be far more involved with the management of some of the private contractors' operations. It is contrary to the policy of this government to become involved in the day-to-day management once a contract has been let to have a job done. We have....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I require your assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have roughly 140 members of ministry staff out in the field right across the province. They are doing a first-class job of monitoring. The criticism that has been levelled by members of the opposition, with regard to the job being done by these government employees, is certainly not warranted.

I have absolutely no problem at all in once again repeating that I will put the efforts of the ministry staff up against the efforts of the auditor-general's staff any day of the week. If one wants to fully read the auditor-general's report, he has also agreed that his staff could not begin to do as good a job as that which has been done within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on the privatization project.

[10:30]

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance headed off to North Saanich to see if he could salvage his nomination, I guess. The Minister of Highways is here to deal with their sinking ship. The Minister of Highways had a long time to try to figure out whether it was the auditor-general or the comptroller-general. You may be right about stacking up your staff against the comptroller-general, Madam Minister, but not the auditor-general.

Did you read the report, Madam?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then you clearly did not understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: If she did, how could she take it on notice?

MR. WILLIAMS: And if you did read it, why did you keep taking the questions on notice?

Just a device. I'd be ashamed to have to deal with responses in terms of a ministry that has fallen apart, and that has, to quote the auditor-general, "no corporate memory."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's brain-dead.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you know, Madam Minister, that in an age of information and technology, that's as close as you can get to saying it's brain-dead?

The ombudsman, a couple of years ago, said: "You can't do what you people are doing. You can't privatize and deregulate at the same time. If you privatize, you've got to gear up and be a more capable regulator than ever in order to check out the privatized operations."

Instead, you've cut staff; you gave them the golden handshake. Is it any wonder they're in effect saying this administration is virtually brain-dead?

The failures are all documented. The Minister of Finance, when he was talking about the Coquihalla in 1988, said: "We have accepted almost unilaterally every single recommendation by the inquiry commission." What we find in this report is that you still can't even estimate the cost of a highway.

What on earth is the Ministry of Highways about if it can't even estimate the cost of a highway? You've got a bigger project on the Island here in terms of the Island Highway, and you don't have the capacity to deal with it. That's what the auditor-general is telling us. You buried half a billion dollars. How much will you want to bury if you carry on with the inadequate staff that you presently have, Madam Minister?

Back to the Minister of Finance for just a minute. He established the BS fund. He ran away from this debate in this chamber just five minutes ago. He gives his apologies only in his office. He ran away again; he always runs away. This is the minister who established the BS fund. It's a fund that you can't write a cheque on. This is a minister who didn't even have the wit to see what the public service had done.

[ Page 9403 ]

Interjections.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, now that the comedy hour is over, maybe we can get serious.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the member's time starts.... Order, please. I'll ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to withdraw that remark.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw it if it was intended to impugn, but it was the practice I was talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, having dispensed with the first private members' statements, we can listen to what the third member has to say in his private member's statement, and the cross-court volleys can be appropriate to this particular interjection. Please go ahead.

SENATE REFORM AND
REPRESENTATION OF THE WEST

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise something that is of great importance to the people in our province and in fact to the people throughout Canada, namely Senate reform. I want to start with a quote which I want to read from....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) just said that the Minister of Highways was lying. I think he should withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will interject. If the member said that, then the member will withdraw. The member indicates he did not say that, so I'll ask the second member for Richmond to continue.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to quote from British Columbia Report, April 2, 1990, from an article written by Ted Byfield. I quote as follows:

"Why does the Senate matter so much to the West? The explanation is wholly borne out by our history. The chief power over economic development must always lie with the central government. If this government is controlled solely by the more populous region, it will shape economic policy to sustain the wealth, power and populational dominance of that region at the expense, if not the impoverishment, of the less populous areas of the country.

"This was foreseen when the Americans framed their constitution. The smaller states therefore insisted that there be two legislative bodies controlling the central government. One would be based on populational representation; in the other, each state would be represented equally. Hence, to this day in the American Senate, California, which has about the same population as Canada, has two Senators. So do states with small populations, like Rhode Island and Montana. But in Canada we were given not a real Senate but a farce — a collection of appointed political bribees, toadies and retirees, unelected, impotent and dedicated by habit and interest to the perpetuation of centrist power."

Today, more than ever, we need to think about what holds our country together. There are two problems. The first is simply that the Senate is a joke. It is a throwback to a former time. We are the only federation in the whole world where the Prime Minister appoints the members to the second chamber. The people of this country and this province want, need, demand and deserve better.

The second problem is that we have unequal representation. The Meech Lake debate has brought out that the 150 years and more of western alienation has once again surfaced and come to the fore.

I believe firmly that we can solve both of these problems at once — that we can kill two birds with one stone. I talked about senate reform in 1987, 1988 and 1989; and I believe that today it is more necessary than ever. Quebec feels betrayed and alienated, but I can tell you that a lot of westerners feel left out and alienated as well. The reason for that is that somehow we just don't count. The rules are stacked against us. The city of Toronto, all by itself, has more MPs and more representation in the House of Commons than the whole of British Columbia.

There are longstanding irritants like the procurement policies. B.C. has consistently received less than the share one might expect, given our population.

Of the $7.5 billion spent in fiscal year '88-89, B.C. received $457 million, or 6 percent of the total. Given that our population is 11½ percent of the national total, that amount represents a shortfall of $405 million.

We also have a shortfall in federal research-and-development spending of $148 million. Certainly the kaon factory project would go some way to correcting that inequity.

In terms of B.C.'s overall share of governor-in-council appointments, such as senior civil service positions, boards, commissions and Crown corporations, we receive a fair share overall. But our representation falls far short in key decision-making positions, such as directors, chief executive officers and chairpersons. Part of the reason is that B.C. has only one major head office, and that is the Vancouver Port Corporation.

Given that our position as Canada's face to the Pacific Rim is crucial, it makes sense that key offices dealing with the Asia-Pacific should be located here in British Columbia.

In addition to that, we do not get the kind of consultation from Ottawa that we deserve. We are, for instance, surprised that all of a sudden the federal government has decided to freeze established programs and their financing levels. That alone will cost B.C. $110 million per year — and possible more.

The list goes on and on, but one of the things that very severely hurts this province, and particularly the business sector, is the policy whereby the federal

[ Page 9404 ]

government pursues a high dollar and a high-interest value. That, more than anything, is a detriment to the development of this province, because those monetary policies are set in Ottawa for central Canada. What we need is a low dollar and a low interest rate, and we have to drive that home.

In all of these various ways, we see that the west really is not represented.

The B.C. population, as we know, is rather upset about the Meech Lake accord, and rather upset with Prime Minister Mulroney....

MR. ROSE: We've had this debate before, and I know that the hon. member is quite serious about this. But it's hard to be very serious about something which he himself describes as a joke — a collection of old pols and has-beens and turncoats.

What I would really seriously ask him to consider is what has an elected Senate, a reform Senate, got to do with B.C. getting any more of its share of Crown corporations, banking or anything else? I think it's a non sequitur. I don't see the link there at all. It's just nonsense to expect....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Do you think for one minute that if Meech Lake goes through, Quebec is going to give up its 20 Senators? Did the fact that Prince Edward Island has four Senators have anything to do with the closing of the Summerside base? It didn't stop it. The base at Summerside was closed anyway, in spite of four Senators from a province that has 120,000 people.

We have a triple-E Senate now: it's elderly, expensive and expendable. Somebody said: "An appointment to the Senate is a taskless thanks." It's full of old pols, has-beens and friends of the government. The other day, Harvie Andre threatened to appoint 17 more.

If we need one in Canada to make things more equal, perhaps we could have a Senate in British Columbia so some of the regions that feel underrepresented here, or perhaps not represented in this House.... A bicameral House here would be a wonderful thing. It would be a wonderful repository.

MR. WILLIAMS: Name names.

MR. ROSE: I've got some names here.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: It's been quiet around here. It's been quiet lately, except when I or my friend the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) get up.

We could put Don Phillips in. After all, this is a red chamber. We could turn this into a Senate, or a casino or something. What about Phil Gaglardi? What about Peter Toigo? He's a great big British Columbian.

[10:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: David Poole.

MR. ROSE: There's an answer! It would make his puny little $200,000 golden handshake look insignificant if he had a lifetime job here. How about Peter Hyndman? He could fill the place up with Pouilly-Fuissé.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Dan Campbell, Charlie Giordano....

I'm convinced that what we should do with the Canadian Senate is get rid of it, because it wouldn't make a particle of difference to our representation even if each province had ten Senators. Besides, you're not going to get that anyway. Can you believe for one minute that Ontario and Quebec are going to give up their 20-odd Senators? Where on earth would you put all the has-beens? It's what you call a real pig house. All of the pork in Canada...

MR. WILLIAMS: How many snouts?

MR. ROSE: ...and all of the snouts are reposited in one building. One building is enough. Let's burn it down.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the member wishes to occupy the woolsack.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, that was very entertaining. I guess we could all add some names.

It really is too bad that the NDP has consistently refused to find a way to demand justice in central Canada for the people of this province. We must come to a point where, in order to keep this country together, there will be fairness, justice and a level playing-field for all. The alienation that has driven this country apart will be healed. That is a prospect and a goal worth fighting for. It's not something to poke fun at, particularly in this time of development as a country.

I was delighted to note last night that the former leader of the national NDP, Ed Broadbent, was reported as having said that one of the things he was pushing for was a better mechanism in the Meech Lake proposal to lead to Senate reform. Evidently he has not given up on it.

The reason I feel there is so much discontent about Meech Lake in the west is because of broken promises. On May 6, 1987 — almost three years ago to the day — the Prime Minister was in Alberta, where he said: "The federal government will offer the provinces a detailed proposal for Senate reform in meetings scheduled for 1988." He did not live up to that promise. In fact, he is currently urging that we buy the companion resolution to Meech that has been suggested by New Brunswick — that we actually go for it.

What is so disappointing is that that companion resolution does not even mention Senate reform.

[ Page 9405 ]

There are two things to note here that are important. First, the Prime Minister did not live up to the promise he made in Lethbridge. Secondly, he has evidently forgotten all about Senate reform, because in the companion resolution that he now wants us to adopt, he does not even mention it.

It's for that reason alone that the western people feel a deep sense of betrayal over what happened during the Meech Lake discussions. It may well be that there will be a time when this province will have to seriously reconsider its endorsement of the Meech Lake proposal, if for no other reason than that the Prime Minister has gone back on his word and has not kept the promises he delivered to the west in 1987 — almost three years ago to the day.

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

LOTTERIES

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, today a public inquiry will open into the lottery affair, involving a former Provincial Secretary. It is regrettable that the terms of reference of that public inquiry are so restricted that the inquiry will be unable to look into the salient issues which surround lotteries and gaming in British Columbia.

I think most members of the House are well aware that the inquiry is restricted to a matter that really is not in any dispute — at least not significantly — namely, the role of the lawyers who reviewed the RCMP recommendation that charges be laid against the former minister.

What the inquiry should be doing, in my view, is examining the wider matter of how lotteries in British Columbia are handled, how gaming and lotteries interact with one another and what kinds of rules and standards ought to be in place for the sale and distribution of funds.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give some examples of the kinds of areas that I think ought to be attended to by a public inquiry, and that are not being attended to under the public inquiry that commences today. I mentioned that there are concerns right from sale to distribution of funds. Let's talk about sales for a moment.

In this province — unlike others — we have mail-order boiler-room operations in Vancouver, Richmond and in other portions of the lower mainland that buy ads in the Toronto Globe and Mail and for profit sell lottery tickets. Ontario — that's another jurisdiction — dealt with the same matter. They came to the conclusion in their province that the practice was contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code. That type of disreputable behaviour was then terminated in Ontario, because it was deemed to be contrary to the Criminal Code.

The British Columbia government has chosen to cast a blind eye to that type of behaviour. Perhaps the inquiry ought to be taking a look at that matter. It ought to be taking a look at the legal opinions that are before the Provincial Secretary's ministry that sanction that type of behaviour. Perhaps the inquiry should be giving some guidance to the public as to whether or not that type of sales ought to be occurring in British Columbia.

In my view, it ought not to be happening. People ought not to be profiting privately from lotteries, and in my view, that's contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, from an administrative point of view, there are no rules as they relate to lotteries, and the few that exist are regularly broken. We've seen that in the affair involving the Semiahmoo House Society. I need only to make reference to page 15 of the report prepared by Ernst and Young in that regard that outlines the five rules that were broken during the course of the Semiahmoo House application. Yet it appears as if the government has taken no steps to correct that situation to date.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what the government ought to be doing is taking into account the recommendations of the ombudsman and the auditor-general as to how lottery funds ought to be vetted and examined. They should be vetted openly by a committee of the Legislature that then hears representations from communities as to why a particular grant should be provided.

I don't know if the minister knows how many grants have been approved where no application form was filled out. If he knows, he should tell us. I don't know how many grants have been approved above the one-third limit. If he knows, he should tell us in his response. And if he can't respond to that, maybe he should respond to the types of questions that I think a committee of the Legislature should be asking when vetting these kinds of situations.

For example — and I don't know if this is a good project or a bad one in that community — the minister is very familiar, I am sure, with the Nelson Golf and Recreation Society's application for lottery funds. The kind of question that ought to be asked by a committee of the Legislature, when examining that kind of project, is to inquire why, in that situation, the amount allocated to that society was significantly more than any other nine-hole golf operation in British Columbia.

Let me give an example of what I'm saying. In Tumbler Ridge, the cost of a project to build a nine-hole golf course was about $1 million. In Oliver, a nine-hole expansion was $846,000. In Alberni, a nine-hole expansion was $783,000. They all requested funds; they all received approximately one-third of the funds. In Nelson, a nine-hole expansion is supposed to cost $3.6 million. A million dollars is requested, and $700,000 is approved. Now that is the type of example that ought to come before a legislative committee so we can see whether or not there is anything wrong with that application, and so the applicants can explain why the costs in Nelson are so out of line with the costs elsewhere. They ought to explain why it is that the GO B.C. grant is in this case for a non-profit society. Originally that society was a private golf course. When did the change take place

[ Page 9406 ]

from a private enterprise to a public one? That is the type of scrutiny that ought to take place.

There were increases in property values in the surrounding area. When was the announcement made that the golf course would be built in Nelson? Did that result in property values escalating significantly in the surrounding area? Those are the types of questions that deserve scrutiny. The project may well have all sorts of merit, but what I'm saying is that there has to be public confidence in the process.

The Semiahmoo experience is an experience where we did not have scrutiny. Because we did not have scrutiny, the former minister took full benefit of the rules to benefit people within his own riding, to try to further the pork-barrelling that goes on with lottery funds today. I think it is important that the same types of questions be asked with respect to other applications, be it the Nelson application or the other.

My question to the Provincial Secretary is this: is the provincial government now prepared to accept the recommendations of the auditor-general and the ombudsman as they relate to an advisory committee — preferably of the Legislature — to review these types of applications? As a former municipal alderman, I know that when groups came for grants from municipalities, we had a very open process. Staff reviewed it, it came to us as members of council and the group made its submission. It was all open and up-front, and everybody knew the rules.

Right now these decisions are made in the back rooms of the minister's office, and they are decisions that invite suspicion. Surely this government must now be prepared to allow for openness in the process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Let's see, we're already into May. Sometime in February, new guidelines were announced for the handling of GO B.C. funding. It's interesting that several months later the member opposite still doesn't know what the guidelines are. But that's typical for the member opposite actually. I was in his constituency not too long ago, after seeing him on television doing a bit of a whining act and saying that he didn't know what was going on.

He was complaining that he didn't know about a GO B.C. grant to part of his community. When I got there, I found that there were over 700 volunteers working on that project. Over 52 different organizations were involved in that project, and that member didn't know what was going on. I would be ashamed to go on television — having it go from one end of our province to the other — and stand like a youngster, saying: "I was left out of the party. I didn't know what was going on in my community. Nobody asked me."

He is revealing his ignorance again today when he says that we don't have guidelines in place for GO B.C. We do have guidelines in place. If he reviewed those guidelines, he would find that they are very good ones. We do indeed have a mechanism in place, and we have tightened the guidelines. I only approve now projects that meet those guidelines and that are under $150,000.

If you look at it more closely, you will see that there is a committee of cabinet ministers in place to review all applications that are over $150,000, or those that are under $150,000 which don't meet the guidelines. This is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because you do come under various pressures to approve things that don't meet the guidelines.

[11:00]

Tell the people in Atlin. I'd like to see the member opposite tell his colleague from Atlin that they should not have received the assistance they did for their arena; indeed, they got 80 percent of the cost of that arena, not one-third.

I'd like him to tell the good member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who wrote me a nice little letter which I would like to quote. This is the second paragraph: "As I understand that the amount requested may be extraordinary and that special granting funding is dealt with on a case-by-case basis, I would like to urge you to consider the following facts concerning Intersect."

She goes on in the last paragraph and says very clearly: "I realize that you receive many requests for financial assistance and that many of the decisions are left to your discretion. Therefore I would urge you to give this application your serious consideration and do whatever is necessary in order that Intersect may continue providing valuable service."

I've got other copies of papers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Who wrote that?

HON. MR. DIRKS: The good member for Prince George North.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't have discretionary power to approve that any longer. If the member opposite would read some of the press releases that go out, he would be aware of the fact that something like this would then have to go to a committee of cabinet ministers, who would then approve it.

Mr. Speaker, we do have good guidelines in place. This is a tremendous program. In fact, in the last two years, over $1 million has gone into that member's constituency to help projects like the one I spoke about. It is a good program. It's in place; it's working very well. All we really need is for members, like the man opposite, to become acquainted with what the guidelines are. That would help 100 percent.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) comes into this House and squawks like Colonel Sanders about all sorts of issues, but you never hear him talk about his own riding.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 9407 ]

MR. SIHOTA: In 1982, in his own riding.... You know, that riding had been gutted by a recession caused by the policies of the Social Credit government. It had lost its plywood mill and the sawmill operation, and it lost David Thompson University. That member said: "Vote for me, and I'll solve all your problems." He has introduced a number of tourism programs into his riding. What we've seen in that riding is the loss of $20-per-hour jobs replaced by $5-per-hour jobs in that community.

New Democrats say: "When we form government, we would open that university in Nelson." I don't hear the member saying that. I don't hear the member complaining in this House about the 11 percent cutback in agriculture funding. In his riding, the tree-fruit operators in the Creston Valley have all been upset by the funding cutbacks in agriculture. He doesn't say a word in this House. He doesn't criticize the minister.

I want the member to know that in his riding in Creston there are 200 people, with an average age of 80, waiting for continuing care beds in that community They have to wait two and a half years for a bed. I don't hear the minister say a word about that in this House — not a word about his riding. He doesn't talk about the two British Columbias that we have. He talks about the prosperity in Vancouver, but he doesn't talk about the economic havoc in the interior of this province.

This minister talks about all sorts of issues, but he dare not say a word about his incompetence with respect to his inability to protect the people of his riding. Worse still, when it comes to lotteries, he is not prepared to make a promise in this House about open, fair and honest government. He's not prepared for there to be public scrutiny as to the expenditures of lottery funds in this province. He is incompetent as a member from Nelson-Creston in his role as an MLA, and he is equally incompetent as a minister of the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Standing orders don't really deal with the terms of reference for scope of debate in private members' statements. I think that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew went somewhat beyond the bounds of what would be normal parliamentary practice. I would ask all members to consider that on Fridays, as we always approach a weekend, perhaps these things could be in somewhat better temper.

The first member for Nanaimo wishes to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for their indulgence in allowing this introduction. We are being visited today by a group of Girl Guides from my constituency of Nanaimo: the First Departure Bay Girl Guide Company. There are some ten young women here with us today including their leaders, Ms. Inge Appleton and Ms. Allison Shaw. I would ask the House to please join me in making these people welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, acknowledging the pleadings of the opposition House Leader of last evening, I'd ask leave to go to public bills in the hands of private members.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) is not here. The next order of business, Mr. Clerk.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: It's a complaint, I guess. When the House was informed that private members' business would not be called today — regretfully — and then we're told at the beginning of Friday at 11 a.m. that a piece of legislation would be called, when the member has had no notice of it, nor is she even present, I think it's an example of — if not deception — a pretty frivolous thing to do.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Standing orders are clear, Mr. Speaker. It is Friday; it's private members' day. Standing order 8 says that every member must attend the House. The member for Prince George North can come. I'll wait; I'd look forward to that debate. Does the opposition House Leader want to summon the member to the assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is bound only by the published standing orders, and Orders of the Day indicate public bills in the hands of private members. There is only one such bill that has reached the procedures to go into second reading; that's Bill M201. The member is not present, so we are going to go back to public bills, in which case I recognize the second member for Cariboo.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the precedents, if there are no bills, it says: "...orders and...motions on notice." So if it is private members' day, we could go to a certain resolution. I myself suggested last evening as we were about to adjourn that the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) had one on literacy, and the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), who spoke about Senate reform this morning, had a very interesting resolution — I think it's No. 5 — which covers the need to strike some sort of formal recognition in British Columbia for the Korean vets, in the form of....

[ Page 9408 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You're talking about items that we would cover under routine business. We've already passed that part in our standing orders, and we are now past the point where the government House Leader has the option of calling Committee of Supply. If you refer to page 8 of Standing Orders, on Fridays, which is private members' day, you can call Committee of Supply or the budget debate. The budget and throne speech debates have both been dispatched. He can call urgent government business — there was no indication of that — or public bills in the hands of private members, then private bills, and then private members' statements. We've done that business, so now we're just following the routine orders put forward.

The points are interesting, but they are not in order. I would ask the second member for Cariboo to begin discussion on his point.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to carry this too far, but I would certainly like, from the Chair or the Clerk, to know what 27(3) means. It says: "Notwithstanding standing orders 25, 25A, and 27(2), urgent government business may, with the consent of Mr. Speaker...." I read that to mean the consent of Mr. Speaker to go on with the urgent government business. Otherwise, as my hon. friend the government House Leader suggests, it is private members' day. But I think it's only fair and courteous that we be given some notice, especially when we ask the night before.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would only suggest that the government House Leader may wish to meet in private with the Speaker and the Clerks to discuss the matter and to establish guidelines. In my limited experience in this House, I can't recall this event having occurred before; nonetheless, here it is today.

In the meantime, I recognize the second member for Cariboo.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

(continued)

MR. ZIRNHELT: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I would like to introduce to the House my brother Len Zirnhelt, who works for that famous accounting firm Peat Marwick and is down from Prince George, and his wife Judy, who are in the precincts. They'll be here to listen to the debate later. She is a kindergarten teacher in the fair city of Prince George. Make them welcome, please.

I'm glad the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is here, because I feel I am delivering a message on behalf of the people of the Cariboo and probably on behalf of the people of the province. It's nice to be speaking on this bill when you know that the majority of the stakeholders in education and the majority of the population support the point of view you're about to put forward.

The first thing I'd like to say is that the principle of democracy, which has often come up in this debate on referendums, has to do with people participating in decisions that affect them. I really think it's worth revisiting the debate that took place last year on the new School Act, and the position put forward by us during that debate. It dealt with the fundamental mandate of the Ministry of Education being to encourage social well-being and economic prosperity, which I laud. But I think what is noticeably missing is a reference to encouraging democratic participation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think this issue is worth revisiting. A case in point is a referendum we are about to experience where we see school districts dealing with matters and campaigning only with selected members of their constituency. It makes the whole idea of referendums as part of democracy a bit cynical. So I think that this issue of low turnouts in school board elections.... The fact that we are dealing with a very serious matter which will affect economic prosperity and in fact the quality of the decision-making that will be necessary for us to maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy requires positive participation by people. I am concerned that referendums on specific subjects are not going to encourage that.

I think the principle here is that school board elections are totally adequate to decide whether or not people have exceeded the local mandate. In fact, we have a check and balance through the provincial electoral system, so that if spending in one sector of the provincial budget is out of hand, then people can take care of it by giving a party a mandate during a general election. So I think that there are sufficient checks and balances and that very specific referendums like this aren't necessary.

[11:15]

The process of tax reform requires a bit more in terms of democratic practice. People need to be informed about the implications of new procedures that have to do with the collection of taxes for one as significant as this. I'd like to go back for a minute to the history and show that this is probably an ill-conceived approach.

The tax reform forum met throughout the province. Its public information sheet didn't include anything to do with referenda. It had to do with municipal taxation, but this education tax forum didn't include the Minister of Education. When I appeared before it, I regretted the fact that he wasn't there along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). A lot of the stakeholders called for a review of school financing. Missing from that whole process were public information and public participation in the debate.

We see that the findings of the property tax forum didn't mention anything about referenda. The Royal Commission on Education didn't recommend any-

[ Page 9409 ]

thing to do with referenda. So I wonder why the government has brought it on. It came as a surprise to all the major stakeholders. The surprise came in the announcement from the Premier, who was in a little hot water with his own colleagues, when he decided to help save his skin and incite a little reaction among some of the public who were already concerned about the GST and about financial matters and spending by governments. He also wanted to put a little pressure on the school system. This was just at the time when his own Minister of Education had done a decent job of creating a little more peace in the school system. It was a tenuous peace, but at least people were looking at the new direction proposed by the royal commission and adopted, in a large part, by the government. That was a positive step to bringing peace between the stakeholders.

It could be destroyed by this process; in fact, it may well be destroyed. The next time the government brings in a major issue to do with democratic process, it should go through the process of public information and public debate and then listen to the people. There's no question. None of the stakeholders I have heard have spoken in favour of referenda; it came as a total surprise.

The cynicism has increased, when you look at the fact that the Premier — whose idea this probably was, and solely his — is himself campaigning against the referendum in his own area. That probably indicates that it was a shallow decision by him and his colleagues who finally brought this into legislation.

One of our roles here is to show the downside of this process. We are here to show what's wrong with these amendments. In specific terms, I would like to deal with a problem that's been brought to my attention by people in my constituency that has to do with the functional literacy of people dealing with complicated issues of government.

It's fair to the taxpayers to promote things in general terms and let them decide on the effectiveness, honesty and integrity of the people running for political office. We have here a very complicated ballot, and I would guess that anywhere between 10 and 30 percent of the voting population will have trouble deciphering its meaning. I've stood up for people trying to get back into the school system and become literate. They keep coming to me and saying: "We can't deal with this stuff. It's very complicated; it's too specific."

In trying to salvage something because the Premier made an announcement about referenda in his speech to the province, the government is trying to come up with something, so it restricted the nature of the referendum to three subject areas — new and enhanced programs, additional activities for students and local capital initiatives — in addition to those recognized by the province. There's no room here for recognition of basic education where you have a school district that doesn't feel the formula suits their needs in that area. A basic-needs budget cannot be taken to the people in a referendum. It's a terrible oversight. People in the school districts feel very strongly that their hands are tied to these specific items.

I'd just like to comment that we have a problem developing in Vancouver where, because of the time restrictions for this referendum, they are going only to those people who they are sure will come out and vote yes. In the long term, this creates a bureaucracy and expenditures that should be put into the school system which is trying to get the money to spend on the school system. This is a major problem that has developed across the line in the United States, where two-thirds of the referenda failed. They failed because people are generally uptight about the amount of local taxation.

It seems to me that if we're going to talk about tax reform in this province, we should look at it in general terms and relate it to all sectors, not just pick on education, bring in a referendum and try and incite reaction against this very important sector of our social activities.

One of the other problems is the limitation of the referendum to one year at a time. That means you can't bring in some of the very critical programs that need to last for more than one year. I'd like to point to one of serious concern in my area: elementary counselling. I know we're making some progress in this field, but I think if it was seen to be an important matter that should be a long-term budget item, there would be no ability under this system to continue the financing for more than one year. I say that this might be the sort of program that is cost-effective, because as children get older it gets more difficult to deal with the problems that they have had in learning, and the social problems that might be brought to school have to be dealt with so that the school can do its job later on. I am told by experts in the field that inadequate counselling and failure to deal with these issues at the elementary school level can lead to an increasing tendency towards suicide and depression. I think there is no cost-effective way of dealing with that if you don't deal with it when people are young.

I point also to another type of program that would be jeopardized if it was in a school district that felt that English as a second language was critical. I know that in my own district the funding provided by Indian Affairs to the provincial government is totally inadequate to deal with ESL. We have schools in the Chilcotin where 50 percent or more of the students are students of English as a second language. That affects them right up to high-school level. There is no financial ability on the part of the school district to deal with that. Were that the case in other school districts, you would still be limited to the existing budget and you couldn't go to referendum to bring in what again would be a cost-effective program. By dealing with English as a second language at the elementary-school level, you're saving yourself costs and saving yourself the dropouts that will happen later on in the school system.

Specifically in my riding, where I have three school districts, School District 27 is opposed to the referendum idea. The elected officials are opposed to the referendum. I've not seen one bit of evidence that

[ Page 9410 ]

indicates that people are in favour of it. In School District 28 they have written a letter to the minister opposed to the referendum idea. In School District 30 they felt that because of the situation they had this year and the time-lines, they weren't able to go to referendum, but they are generally opposed to the idea as well. Not one school district is in favour of the referendum idea.

I would like to conclude by summarizing my comments.

First of all, I feel that this idea is ill-conceived. In itself it did not go through the democratic process of local consultation and listening to the stakeholders. That makes people a little bit cynical about some of the other changes that might be brought in. I think it's poorly timed. It seems to be a political strategy leading up to a provincial election. Because of the timing, it may lead to an increase in the school warring, although I see that the minister, by granting further moneys, has offset some of that. I think we have to be very careful to take a positive approach to conflicts among the stakeholders in education. That includes the taxpayers, the teachers and the administrators.

As we enter into an era of supposed fragility in the economy, and knowledge-based industries are going to be more important, we have to seriously look at education as an economic investment for which there will be a direct payoff. We've got to look at a system of accounting that will recognize that. Until we end up being a little higher in the order of things here in terms of contributions of the provincial product to education, I don't think we're going to be able to rest. We still have to find ways of investing in education in order to....

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It's not a simple answer. Encourage the debate, but don't take simplistic referendums on specific subjects.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much more consultation?

MR. ZIRNHELT: We need more consultation in the process. We haven't had consultation on this subject matter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, come on!

MR. ZIRNHELT: Not on the referendum idea. Where? When you have a chance to speak, Mr. Minister, would you please tell us about the consultation on the referendum?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to conclude my comments.

HON. MR. FRASER: It's always a pleasure to talk about education in this chamber, because education happens to be a subject very close to me and one of which I am very fond. I've spent a significant amount of time in the school system in my community since my election in '83.

MR. JONES: Did you learn anything?

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Burnaby wonders whether I learned anything. The answer is yes. The question is: could you learn anything new?

I heard some of the remarks of the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) yesterday, and I would like to thank her for suggesting that the concept of block funding is a good initiative. She's absolutely right about that. It is a good initiative, and it was brought in by this government, by this minister. It's easy for me to support such an initiative.

I look at some other comments from other members of the NDP that are perplexing, perhaps not surprisingly. The member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) said last year that we should be ashamed of our educational system. I don't support this view. We've got a wonderful education system in British Columbia, as one can determine by looking at the awards and contests our students win and at the capability they display across the country, whether it's in the wonderful program Math Counts, which is supported by my own professional association, or in Olympics of the Mind — any of the organizations that involve our students, always with the full cooperation of the teachers. These demonstrate over and over again that the system we have in British Columbia is excellent.

I note some conflicting statements by the Leader of the Opposition, who says they want to have local decision-making on the fiscal consequences of opening and closing schools, etc. He suggests on the one hand that it should all be local; then later on a radio show in Vancouver he says that we really shouldn't decentralize, that what we should have is a system that would give equal education to students throughout the province no matter where they live, whether they have a big or small residential or industrial tax base. I guess the question to him and to everyone out there would be: what does he really mean, and what is he really saying?

From my point of view, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the province collects the taxes and distributes them to the schools is good. There's no question that in many communities there is great difficulty raising money for education, and in others there is little. It's our job to make sure that all students in the province, to the maximum of our capacity — and we have lots — receive an education that will allow them to go with ease from one district to another and from one school to another. It's important for us to ensure that the distribution of funds meets that condition. That is one thing that block funding does.

It's interesting to note in the complaints we hear from the opposition from time to time that costs vary from district to district. It's absolutely true. They do vary — and for legitimate reasons: the weather, the number of students involved, the size of the school district and whether native education, ESL or special education is involved. All those things are taken into

[ Page 9411 ]

consideration, and the funding is given accordingly. So if there are special needs, such as there are in my city.... It's wider than my riding, of course. We note with great pride that ESL funding in Vancouver alone is in the order of $18 million to $20 million, which is a significant amount of money. In Vancouver, the cost of educating each student is about $5,300 a year, a lot of money.

[11:30]

When you work through the Ministry of Education in this province, you want to make sure that the costs are met. Of course, that involves teachers' salaries. When you look at funding per pupil from one district to another, you wonder why there are differences. Very often, since 85 percent of the cost of a school is in teachers' salaries, you'll find that salaries are different. They're different for a number of reasons. One is that senior teachers get paid more than new teachers. It's important for us to make sure that we have some new teachers in the system and some experienced ones — that there's a mix. It's a highly desirable profession that I would commend to anyone. It's a rewarding career, as some members can testify. Certainly teachers' salaries are not insignificant. Some of them are significant, and that's important.

We have to have people in the system who are capable of delivering to our young students the capacity to think. While we hear a lot about buildings — that physical attribute of the education system — what we're really appealing to is the mind. If you look at some of the better-known people in the world, such as Abraham Lincoln...you find that he went to a little, one-room country schoolhouse. I suppose it would be called terrible in this day and age, but the fact is that he always had the capacity to think and was encouraged by his teachers to think and reason in spite of what one presumes to be bad physical conditions. That is what we're talking about when we talk about education: developing the capacity to think and the will to reason. With those two things, our students can go anywhere.

Most people who graduate from high school will have at least five careers after graduation. They will have to think about the fact that what they learn today may not be critical to their jobs tomorrow. But if they have developed that will to reason and that capacity to think, they will be able to move from job to job more easily. In a system like ours, there are all kinds of retraining opportunities out there. Our school systems are full of them. Whether it's at the university, college or high school level, re-education opportunities are everywhere. Certainly if you look at Vancouver Community College, for example, page after page of courses are available to students of all ages, and the same thing happens all over the province.

When you get to referendums — and I happen to support them — there are a couple of things that are important to remember. Firstly, people do have the right in a democracy to decide what they want to do That's obviously how we all got here, so there's certainly no way you can object to that. But when you talk about what's happening in the city of Vancouver — which I understand is going for a referendum — you have to look at what the school board in Vancouver has done. It turns out that the minister has already provided the Vancouver School Board with $2.6 million to supply the district with computers. We find, evidently, that they have expended something in the order of $600,000, leaving $2 million in reserve; yet they're going to referendum for more money for computers.

Then we talk about funds for dual-entry, and funds above the block funding are prepared. Certainly the capital funding, which is above and beyond the block funding, shows that the school boards are provided with adequate funding by this minister. Last year the minor capital expenditures amounted to about $50 million; today it's $75 million.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: So while our friends opposite get into a lather and try to heckle my colleagues on this side of the House — It's just "clack, clack, clack" or "cluck, cluck, cluck, " or whatever it is; "yack, yack, yack, " signifying absolutely nothing, doing little, complaining wildly, doing all those things they're so good at doing — the Minister of Education has done a magnificent job implementing the recommendations of the Sullivan report and ensuring, by so doing, that the students all over British Columbia are funded adequately. If the school boards choose to spend more than they get, I guess it's their right to ask, and the taxpayers of those districts can vote as they see fit.

You wonder what the members opposite are doing. The member for New Westminster yesterday suggested that the education bill should have been the very first bill. The interesting part about that debate is that the very first bill was the supply bill, so I presume....

MR. REE: The first bill was to perpetuate the democratic process.

HON. MR. FRASER: Thank you very much. My colleague reminds me that the first bill was the bill to perpetuate the parliamentary system. I agree with him; that should be first. Then we had a supply bill. That's important, because if we didn't have any money to pay the civil servants who run the system, we would be in chaos.

Had the opposition not fussed away about the supply bill, which is very normal, we could have got to this one sooner. So they complain about lack of presentation, but in fact the presentation of this very bill was strangled by the opposition, who were complaining about a supply bill, which is normal and which they used to have themselves. In fact, they virtually invented the supply bill system. We did get into it as fast as we could, Mr. Speaker. There was simply no way we could have done it faster.

She also suggested the Premier is against referendums because he suggests that he's going to vote

[ Page 9412 ]

against the referendum in Richmond. The two actually aren't related. He, of course, wants referendums. He doesn't have to agree with the school board; nor do you or I. If it happens that a school board wants to spend....

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: That's called making a choice, individual choices. It seems to me that that's what it's all about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: They will cluck and clack over there, yelling and screaming and trying to harass me unmercifully. My feathers will not be ruffled today, Mr. Speaker.

The interesting thing about local autonomy is that it's simply unworkable in a big system such as ours. If you really want to think in big terms — which I know they have difficulty doing — you simply have to think about where the students are going to go after they graduate from high school. I would like every single student in B.C. to graduate from high school.

But if we're going to have a chance to compete in this big world of ours — we're no longer a little province in a little country on a little continent; we're now part of a big picture — our students have to compete, and they have to be given every single chance they can get. We're going to do it, and that Minister of Education sitting over there will do it with the support of everyone on this side of the House.

It's not for us to be difficult about the funding of money. We spend approximately $3 billion in public education, not including advanced education — just K to 12. There was some objection that we collect the residential school taxes now rather than sending them over to the school board. The fact is that residential taxes amount to something in the order of $750 million, but they budgeted $3 billion, so whether they go here or there doesn't really matter. What is important is that they go to the school districts ultimately, and that is where they all go.

I am aware that some school boards and some trustees are not in favour of referendums, which strikes me as shocking. I wonder why a school board would be afraid of a referendum? You would think that if the program they presented were reasonable and met the needs of a community, then the community would be supportive. My sense of things is that communities want and ask for education and are supportive of the education system. Indeed, the teachers we have seem to me to be dedicated to their jobs. I made a point of saying that many times, and I will continue to say it.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I really hate to interrupt my good colleague when he is making a good speech, but I would beg leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It is indeed my great pleasure today to introduce to this House two guests in the members' gallery: His Excellency Wolfgang Behrends, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Canada; and Mr. Siegfried Haller, consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany in Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: I join with everyone in a special welcome to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

It is with great pride that we can brag about the education system in our province, regardless of what the opposition says. We always will, and we always do. When we talk about school funding, I know, as my colleague the minister has said, that everything is covered and accounted for.

There was a complaint yesterday by the opposition that some districts got extra funding after the fact. That seemed to be a complaint from them. But interestingly, that only strikes me as being an example of his commitment to his ministry and to the students of British Columbia, for if he is able and willing to talk with districts, even at the eleventh hour — which they complained about — it seems to me that he is being responsive and responsible to the students of this great province.

How much more can we say about education except to repeat endlessly that we on this side of the House care about it, that we are determined to provide it, that we are going to make sure that the dollars are spent wisely, that we want every student in British Columbia to graduate from high school at least, that we will encourage every student in British Columbia to go past grade 12, that we....

MR. JONES: I thought you wanted them to postpone their education.

HON. MR. FRASER: He's such a fool, Mr. Speaker, that man from Burnaby.

...that we encourage both young men and young women to take whatever interests them so that they can meet their maximum potential, that the willing....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, that member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) suggests that I don't support education. I do. If he wishes to use a quote out of context, then it is on his head, not mine. But I say and have said and do say that I want every student to graduate from grade 12; that I want every student possible to go to post-secondary education; that I want the men and women who graduate from these schools to take the courses they want, regardless of whether they are traditional; and that they be given the chance to reach their maximum intellectual capacity. The system we have in place in high schools

[ Page 9413 ]

will give them that chance, and accordingly, I am in favour of this.

MR. JONES: Just so there's no misunderstanding of my view of this bill, let me say at the outset that I believe this piece of retroactive legislation — because it is retroactive — is the most noxious, most odious, most insidious, most invidious, most brainless, most mean-spirited, most anti-democratic, most anti-education, most anti-teacher, most anti-school-board piece of legislation that that minister has ever had the audacity to put on the order paper.

[11:45]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I have been involved with education for virtually all my adult life and before that as well, and I have seen Social Credit administrations time and again attack our education system. This is just another example of such an attack.

The Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) attempted, incorrectly, to demonstrate some knowledge of referendum history in this province, but the members opposite should think back to some 18 years ago when in March 1972 the minister of the day, Donald Brothers, and the Premier of the day, W.A.C. Bennett, brought in a very similar piece of legislation. We know what happened to W.A.C. Bennett in 1972. He went down in flames.

It's very interesting to look back at newspapers of the day. There's a real sense of déjà vu. The Vancouver School Board had just lost a referendum on their operating budget, and you'd think the story in the Vancouver Sun was from today, because exactly what was happening then is happening again.

Let me quote from the Vancouver Sun of March 30, 1972. Dr. Ian Kelsey, chairman of the Vancouver School Board at that time, said: "By repeatedly telling the public that education costs are 'running wild,' the government was obviously inciting people to vote against the referendum." What do we see today, Mr. Speaker? We again see government members opposite saying that they are going to vote against the referendum and inciting the public to follow their lack of leadership.

Another example of déjà vu was a comment that the board chairman, Dr. Kelsey, made in the same article. He was saying that the government's motives of the day were political, and: "...the defeat of the referendum may contain a hidden blessing that will backfire on the government." What he meant was: backfire against the government in the election of 1972. And that is exactly what we saw in 1972. I think it is déjà vu, because that's what we're going to see again. We're going to see the taxpayers and the public of this province repeat the performance of 1972. There will be a backlash against this anti-education government, and they'll be thrown out of office, as they were in 1972.

We had the Minister of Education in 1985, Jack Heinrich, raise this issue again, and every single board in the province rejected the concept of a referendum. And what happened to Jack Heinrich, Mr. Speaker? He went down in flames in 1985, as well as in 1986.

HON. MR. FRASER: He didn't even run.

MR. JONES: That's right. He couldn't handle it. He got out of the kitchen. There was too much heat. He may park his Mercedes-Benz convertible over behind the buildings, because he got a cushy government job following that, but he couldn't handle it in the kitchen; he couldn't handle it in the public arena. The school boards of the day rejected Jack Heinrich's referendum proposal, and they're going to reject this minister's proposal today. So we have a sense of déjà vu there as well.

Charlie Giordano. What's Charlie's position on referenda?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Point of order. I was under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the debate was on Bill 11, the School Amendment Act. Charlie Giordano has never had anything to do with the School Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that the member for Burnaby North take this into consideration.

MR. JONES. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that the name Charlie Giordano embarrasses government members, but Charlie does have a position on this bill; he does have a position on referenda. Let me quote from the Vancouver Province of June 3, 1988. Charlie Giordano has a very strong position. He is quoted as saying: "The idea has widespread support among the party faithful." So Charlie Giordano does have a strong position on this bill and on referenda. And what happened to Charlie Giordano? He went down in flames, just like W.A.C. Bennett and Jack Heinrich.

So we have the current Premier, who has long supported this concept. And this Premier is going to go down in flames, just like the predecessors that I mentioned.

HON. MR BRUMMET: Quite a few of your predictions have never come true.

MR. JONES: Let's get the Minister of Education's view on this issue. It's wonderful to have Hansard, this wonderful record. The hard-working men and women of the Hansard staff recorded accurately — and I will read accurately — what the Minister of Education said to me on April 26, 1988. It was not that long ago, Mr. Minister. It was about two years ago that the Minister of Education said exactly: "I do not want a referendum in this province. I don't think this government wants a referendum in this province. I have said clearly on the record to the trustees and in this House that I don't want to see a referendum, because there are many negative aspects to a referendum."

[ Page 9414 ]

I will let members opposite judge. I had faith in that Minister of Education, because I think that in many ways he was an advocate for education. His statement on April 26, 1988, was indicative of that advocacy role. That minister has now abandoned his advocacy for education by bringing in this piece of legislation. He has kowtowed to the Premier and the cabinet. He did not have the courage of his convictions.

The date was April 26, 1988. Nothing has happened in the interim to convince me, the public, school boards or teachers in this province — nor the Minister of Education — that we need referendums. What are the negative aspects the minister was talking about on April 26, 1988? Let me tell you some of them. First of all, that minister knew that referendums give the illusion, but not the reality, of democracy. What's on the ballot in an education referendum is not a simple, single issue. It's complicated.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) has the audacity to say she's going to vote against the referendum in Surrey. That's leadership. It's a complicated ballot. What that minister is saying is that there isn't a single thing on that ballot that is worth voting for. She knows — or perhaps she doesn't know; perhaps it's too complicated for her — that there are some very worthwhile programs, some of which, such as the painting of buildings, were held back in restraint. Part of this ballot is to get on to a reasonable program of painting buildings every so many years. That was cut back tremendously in restraint. The Minister of Transportation and Highways doesn't even want to see a regular program of painting the schools in Surrey at reasonable intervals.

That is what is on the ballot, and you tell me that I don't know what's on the ballot.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Madam Minister, you don't know what's on the ballot. You're voting against expanded programs for learning assistance, enhanced gifted and enrichment programs, expanded programs for learning-disabled children, increased integration of special-needs children, improved English-as-a-second-language programs, improved programs for hearing-impaired and expanded adult literacy programs — just to mention a few. The Premier of this province indicated, even before seeing the ballot in Richmond and knowing what was on it, that he was going to vote against the referendum in his district.

The second reason the minister had reservations about the referendum system in 1998 is that he knew that although people support education in this province and recognize its priority, they are very loath to vote for a tax increase for themselves. It's a rare opportunity they do such a thing. It's very clear in history, particularly with Social Credit administrations in this province, that there's a backlash and a residual feeling of concern about increased property taxes, which I want to talk about in a minute.

This is not a measure of public support for education, because every public opinion poll in the last five years has indicated strong support for public education. This is a vote on whether the people want more taxes, and we already know the answer to that.

The third reason that Minister of Education was very reluctant — in fact, two years ago he stood firmly in his place on the question of referendums, which he doesn't do today when asked by this member — is that he knows that referendums will divert a tremendous amount of energy from the school system into politics. Today teachers and parents are going to be on the phone to people they believe will support the referendum, and they will be trying to pull the vote tomorrow.

Maybe this experience will be valuable in their political education, and maybe they can put that political education to good use in the next provincial election. I know which side those people will be supporting, because they know that this is an anti-education government. They know they can't count on this government, despite their having lulled the people of the province into a false sense of security in the last two years. The real face of Social Credit is exposed in this bill.

Another reason that that minister refused to support referendums is that he knew....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't have any reservations about that member expressing why he thinks the way he does or why he has reservations. I'm a little upset about his putting on the record that I had reservations about it and that I think that way. I don't think he is clairvoyant enough to stand up in this House and put on the record how I think and why I think that way.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that you need my assistance on this when we have such a professional sitting right in front of you to give you advice. But my view of the fact is that it's really a point of debate, I think the minister was attempting to stop this magnificent oration from my colleague from Burnaby, to slow him down while he was in full flight. That's what's behind this. It has nothing to do with a point of order.

HON. MR. FRASER: On the same point of order, I think my colleague the Minister of Education raises a good issue. That member is not privy to how anyone thinks; therefore he should contain his remarks to what he wishes to say, not what he thinks someone else might wish to think.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to say that all of these views are very interesting. I advise the member for Burnaby North to continue.

[12:00]

MR. JONES: I will certainly adjust my remarks to accommodate the concerns the Minister of Education had. I have no reluctance to do that. But what I do resent, Mr. Speaker, is that every time I say some-

[ Page 9415 ]

thing that the Minister of Education doesn't like in this House, he feels....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I ask you sit down for a minute. There's apparently a point of order raised by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano,

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, you have picked up on my point of order by asking the member to sit down, because I noticed the member did not sit down at any other time you recognized another member on a point of order. He has now learned that when someone else is recognized he should sit in his chair.

MR. JONES: The concerns I have.... I can only assume they are shared by others who oppose referendum and perhaps falsely assume that the Minister of Education, who very clearly stood firmly and adamantly in this House two years ago and has somehow now changed his mind.... In addition to those points I've already mentioned, a referendum confiscates the legitimate authority of a locally elected school board. It's also unfair to single out a particular aspect of provincial responsibility that's well handled by locally elected school trustees for this kind of referendum treatment. It very clearly undermines the ability of school boards to plan in a reliable and predictable way so that there are going to be no surprises.

The school boards of this province do not trust Big Brother in Victoria to set the entire budget for a school district, a very complex operation that has individual needs that the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) pointed out vary greatly from district to district. The people that know the needs best are those elected in the districts to determine those needs.

It is incredible hypocrisy for this government to introduce this bill as a triumph of democracy, when in fact it is doing just the opposite. We saw the same kind of thing in California in the seventies with proposition 13. Proposition 13 was a triumph of democracy as well. What do we see a decade later? We see the leadership in California hanging their heads in shame over what happened and doing everything within their power, including passing proposition 98, which mandates that 39 percent of the state budget will be for education. They are guaranteeing an ongoing and improving level of funding for that state. They don't trust Big Brother, and the people of British Columbia don't trust Big Brother in Victoria to set their budgets either.

The proudest accomplishment of the Minister of Education in his tenure was that he had the temerity and the moxie to tell the Premier of this province and David Poole to butt out of education. That was a couple of years ago. He won that battle, and we did have a Sullivan commission; we had consultation, process and involvement. We were beginning to get trust in this province. Even with the implementation process of the "Year 2000" program, although there was some disagreement, there was a tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm for those improved recommendations for our public school system.

But with this bill, all that good effort on the part of the Minister of Education has gone out the window. He has succumbed to the agenda of the Premier. And we know what that agenda is. The sad goal of this Premier has long been, since 1979 as Minister of Municipal Affairs, to eliminate school boards. He makes no bones about it. He has never repudiated his belief in the county system. What we see in this bill as step one is to emasculate the school boards; and step two is to bring in the county system, which will eliminate school boards.

The Premier has been contained for the last year or two, but the loose cannon is back; the charisma without substance is alive and well and sitting in the Premier's chair; the Lamperts and the Sopows and the Jessops have lost their leash. This bill is being unleashed on public education in this province, and as Ian Kelsey said in 1972, it is going to backfire on the government.

The Premier has always had trouble with those pesky school boards. It's been a thorn in his side. They're just not docile enough. They stand up and fight for the rights of children in their communities, and that's really annoying to a government that wants to get on with things and get things done and determine, in the minister's office, every penny that's spent on half a million children in 75 school districts. What a wonderful Minister of Education we must have! We don't need any consultation; Big Brother will look after education in this province.

As I mentioned, one of the good things that we had in this province was the Sullivan Royal Commission on Education, which, unlike the bombast and the heat from members opposite, brought some light to the education system. That commissioner understood the importance of school boards. He heard from some 6,000 parents, and during all that discussion there was in no way any suggestion that our school system should be financed by referendum. In fact, this system has been rejected, just as it was in '85, by every school district in this province.

Sullivan knew the importance of school boards. Let me quote from the Sullivan commission report:

"Many briefs to the commission emphasized the importance of school control at the local level by people who are knowledgeable about community needs and priorities. The commission concurs with this view and sees no reason to change the system of elected school trustees. Among their roles, board members, under the act and its regulations, ensure that provincial educational policy is implemented, contribute to the development of provincial educational policy, establish district-wide policy to direct all schools within their jurisdiction, manage school district personnel, allocate provincial resources within their school district, determine the financial resources to be raised within the local community for educational purposes...."

"Determine the financial resources to be raised within the local community" — Mr. Sullivan didn't say that should be determined in Victoria; he said it should be determined at the local level. And the Minister of Education opposite has the temerity and

[ Page 9416 ]

the audacity to say that this bill stems from the Sullivan commission report. That's utter rubbish. That's nonsense. Sullivan is being demeaned by this bill in this House at this time.

This bill is a cowardly approach to restraint. The previous Premier of this province, in his efforts to be a tough guy, at least was straightforward with the people of British Columbia and had the moxie to hammer education in an upfront manner. This government tries to do it by the back door. This is a back-door bill from back-door Bill.

That minister tried in 1988 to fly this trial balloon on referendum, and yesterday, in purporting to speak for the taxpayers of this province when he introduced the bill, suggested that the taxpayers of this province are not prepared to pay increases of between 15 and 30 percent per year. And in a document that he sent out — a press release — he said they're not prepared to pay 15 percent per year.

If we want to be straight with the facts, then we have to say, what years are we talking about? Are we talking about, for example, the years between 1982 and 1988, when the overall increase in school board spending was 11 percent? That's more like 1.5 percent per year. That's a tremendously different figure than what the minister is quoting, between 15 and 30 percent. During that same period, residential property taxes went up 77 percent — an increase seven times that of school board spending,

What we have in this province is not a spending problem. What we have in this province is a taxing problem in which the culprit that has caused the problem for the residential homeowner has been this provincial government. This referendum is a profoundly cynical act on the part of the province to deflect the frustration onto the local school boards and away from those who are really responsible for shifting the burden onto the residential homeowner, and shifting the responsibility for their mismanagement onto locally elected school trustees.

It's very clear that this system is going to create disparities. We have disparities now, and we see disparities in the United States that have this system. The gap will widen: the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer in terms of their educational experience. It's clear that this government can't work with boards, teachers and parents and ends up, in the process — from their inability to consult, have dialogue and work together — punishing kids as a result.

We don't need this bill. What we need is a government that understands the importance of education for the future prosperity of this province, and understands that we need more than a short-term, bottom-line mentality. We need a government in this province that believes in local democracy and understands that this is no way to run any government service, let alone our crucially important public education system. All I can say to the minister and the Premier is: shame on you for introducing this bill to the House at this time.

MR. MOWAT: I am very pleased to take my place in this debate today in support of the Minister of Education's School Amendment Act.

I must, however, reflect on the last speaker, the member for Burnaby North. Some of the predictions he made were interesting. On the quote he made near the end regarding the royal commission, I refer to Hansard of March 24, 1987, when he stood up and said about the royal commission:

"We don't see consultation; we don't see any of the reasonable sort of approaches expected. What we see is a one-man show with qualifications of a Crown prosecutor whose major claim to fame in education was prosecuting a teacher. I think there is an unfortunate linkage here. I don't think we're going to see the public acceptance, and the media have indicated that."

That's what the member said about the royal commission, yet he was just up praising it.

[12:15]

1 would like to talk in generalities about the School Amendment Act and then specifically about the Vancouver referendum. As I see it, the minister has announced very clearly that the block funding for education would include all the actual expenditures incurred in 1989-90, and there will be an increase of 6.17 percent and other increases as they are needed. For example, an increase will be given for enrolment increases. When you add those in, the total result is an increase of 9.9 percent over the '89-90 operations budget.

The minister has also announced capital funding expenditures, and these would be outside and above the block funding. I'll go into more detail about that later, but one example would be that previously school boards paid their share of the mortgage payment. Now the government has taken all of that into block funding and pays for all of their mortgage payments. Under the royal commission implementations that the member spoke about, we note that the implementation funding of all the additional programs that will be put in place this coming year as a result of the Royal Commission on Education will be put into block funding. So anything that's not in — anything to do with the royal commission — will be funded in addition to the block funding.

In regard to computers, there were concerns from the opposition that there would be a problem with them and that we would have to go to referendum in order to have computers for the students in schools. Now we note from the minister that computer funds will be provided above the block funding. For example, in the past two years there has been over $16 million put into this.

I would also like to note some areas of concern regarding software and teacher-training. These would be provided at the same level as last year for any hardware, software and teacher-training. Yet some boards in the province are going to go to referendum for these computer funds. I have a concern that the taxpayer may not be aware that a lot of requests in referendums throughout the province — and there are only nine of them, as I understand —

[ Page 9417 ]

are going to cover items that are already covered in special block funding or above block funding.

One item that's been a concern to us is portables. But as I understand it, for anybody who is in need of portables, the funding is above the block funding. Yet again, some of the boards are going to referendum to get capital for portables.

There's also the concern about dual entry. Anything we need in the way of funds for dual entry would be provided from royal commission implementation. As I stated earlier, those funds are available for implementation of any of the royal commission's recommendations. That is above the block funding. The block funding will cover most of the concerns I just spoke about.

One item also of concern is capital expenditures. It should be noted that last year $50 million was distributed for minor capital expenditures; this year it is $75 million. Again, I point out to the member for Burnaby North that this capital expenditure is well above and not included in the block funding.

MR. REE: Why do they need a referendum?

MR. MOWAT: That's a good point the member for North Vancouver-Capilano raises. I guess I'm posing the same question. The taxpayers will have that opportunity tomorrow to decide if the referendums will be covering funds that are not included in block funding, or if they really need these extra expenditures.

Regarding per capita pupil expenditures, we note that the minister has put in higher funding per capita. It's provided in the block funding, but it's provided for special areas that we have concerns about English as a second language; special education, where we have, through the Ministry of Education, done an outstanding job of mainstreaming some of our disabled students. Some of these students we originally thought we would mainstream have been placed in the system at an expense that's not normal for the normal pupil. We are putting many very seriously disabled students into the classroom, and they are now having their access to education, as was recommended by the royal commission — which I commend the minister for.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We are funding the special education programs and English as a second language. We're doing enrichment programs and native language programs. They are all based on the needs of the district, and they are above the block funding. Again, we note that some of the districts are going to referendum for these funds. I'm very concerned that the voters may not know what funds they are going to be voting on.

I also want to be specific about the Vancouver referendum. The ministry was providing the Vancouver School Board the sum of $2,714,990 during 1988-89. That money went for computers. As of June 30, 1989, they had only spent $697,649. The rest — over $2 million — has been held in trust, in a reserve, while the school board decides what they'll do about computers — what type of computers, what type of hardware and what type of training. In the Vancouver school referendum, they have asked for funding for computer programs; yet they have over $2 million in this program for computer funding for the coming year.

Also, the Vancouver referendum asks for money for capital expenditures. We note that the Vancouver School Board has over $10 million in capital reserves which they could have accessed last year, or could spend this year on capital items. They have just placed it in a reserve and haven't spent it.

I think we have to look at the whole reason: why referendums for school boards only? As I understand it, through the research I have been able to do, the school boards of British Columbia are the only group which can, after the provincial budget has been set for them, expand their budget to any amount they wish. When they expand that budget over what the provincial government, through the ministry, has set, they then come back and expect the provincial government to pick up the total bill, or up to 90 percent. I think it's our duty, as members of this Legislative Assembly and guardians of the taxpayers, not to take open-ended budgets that the school boards generate, but to very closely look at these expenditures.

I'd like to say that in Vancouver the last nine referendums that have been put to the taxpayers have passed. I have confidence that the voters of Vancouver, the area that I represent, will look very closely at the referendums that will be voted on tomorrow. They will make the decisions. The money we are spending will be from the taxpayers of Vancouver and from the taxpayers of British Columbia.

In closing, I wish to say that I sit in favour of the School Amendment Act. I think we have been more than fair in block funding. The expenditures of the previous year have been taken into consideration with an increase of 9.9 percent. Block funding takes care of many items, such as the capital and computers. Block funding also looks after English as a second language, special-needs education, enrichment for gifted children and many other programs.

I close my speech today by stating I'm strong in support of this School Amendment Act.

MS. CULL: I understand that there's an agreement that we adjourn this debate. If it's in order, I will move that we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:27 p.m.