[ Page 9467 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Agriculture stabilization plan. Hon. Mr. Savage –– 9467

Mr. Barlee

Oral Questions

Purchase of computer equipment. Mr. Lovick –– 9468

CGA reaction to budget. Mr. Clark –– 9468

Government advertising of budget. Mr. Sihota –– 9469

joint committee on Robson Bight. Mr. Long –– 9469

Tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet. Mr. Jones –– 9469

Government advertising of budget. Mr. Sihota –– 9470

Toxic waste disposal. Ms. Cull –– 9470

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

Mr. Vant –– 9470

Mr. Harcourt –– 9471

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 9473

Mr. Rose –– 9475

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9479

School Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 11). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet) –– 9483

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Smallwood

Appendix –– 9496

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, we have in the members' gallery today His Honour William Diebolt, chief judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia. He has been chief judge since October 5, 1989, and he is leading a very dynamic court, with many changes being made. I would ask all members to join me in making him welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN: This week is Nurses' Week in British Columbia. On behalf of all British Columbians, I ask this House to acknowledge and to express our warm appreciation to the men and women who represent the heart of health care in our province: the nurses of British Columbia.

In the House today, representing the RNABC, are the president, Margaret Neylan; Jean Myhill, president of the Victoria chapter; and Lynda Thornton, also a member of the board. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: On behalf of the official opposition, I'd like to add our welcome to the RNABC delegation and to thank them very much for lunch.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon we have a very distinguished British Columbian, a man who is distinguished by his military career, outstanding contribution to business and significant contributions as a volunteer with several community health organizations. He is also a strong representative in forestry interests in British Columbia as a director of Wildlife Habitat Canada for the first five years of its operation. He was the respected volunteer chairman of the Nature Trust of British Columbia for 19 years; he was the first chairman of that foundation. Since 1971 he has fashioned a most impressive record of conservation –– 170 projects involving 26,000 acres, with expenditures of $13 million. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Bert Hoffmeister, who has recently retired as chairman of the Nature Trust of British Columbia. We will be throwing an honorary dinner for him tonight in Victoria.

With Mr. Hoffmeister are Mr. Ed Moul of Vancouver, the new chairman of the Nature Trust; Mr. Ron Erickson, the executive director; and Mr. Rod Hoffmeister, Bert's son.

MR. HARCOURT: I too, on behalf of this side of the House, would like to extend similar greetings to Mr. Bert Hoffmeister, who is a distinguished Canadian in many areas. He's not only interested in the Nature Trust, but was one of the early pioneers in the movement in Vancouver to preserve neighbourhoods and to bring about a different way of running our cities. To his colleagues also I would like to extend greetings and thank you for your visit.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'd like to ask the House to welcome today two distinguished citizens from the northwest — two people who have served long and faithfully in various roles in our communities. Nancy Orr from Terrace has served as chairman of School District 88 and has been on the board of School District 88 for almost 20 years. In the gallery as well is Andy Burton. He's an alderman in Stewart, has been on the municipal council for a number of years and has lived in Stewart 32 years, I believe. Both are long-serving people of their communities. Would the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf as well as my own, I would like to welcome to the House Mr. Sunny Khurana and his wife Jagdish. I welcome both of you. I had the great pleasure of attending their wedding recently, and what a handsome couple they make. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine, who for the last nine years has served admirably as the regional director for the largest unincorporated area in British Columbia, the area of Langford. That's Rick Kasper. I'd like to ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Rick Kasper, who has intentions of becoming a member of this House, in that he is now the nominated NDP candidate for the new riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

MRS. McCARTHY: On behalf of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree), I would like to ask the House to welcome the grade 11 students from Handsworth Secondary School. They are accompanied today by Mr. Jim Adams, their teacher, and some of the staff members from Handsworth Secondary. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome. As they so do, I would like to also add my welcome to Major-General Hoffmeister, who has been an outstanding citizen of my city.

Ministerial Statement

AGRICULTURE STABILIZATION PLAN

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I rise to make a ministerial statement. I would like to take the opportunity to lend the support of our government to the position taken by our Premier and the other three western Premiers at the recent meeting in Portage La Prairie, Manitoba.

We in British Columbia take note of Ottawa's moves to provide financial aid and support to the people of Canada's Atlantic provinces, and I refer to the fisheries announcement made yesterday. British Columbia fishermen and farmers feel a real sense of kinship with Atlantic Canadians who have been traditionally dependent on a primary resource — the fishery. We recognize the severe stress being experienced by these fishing communities whose economic

[ Page 9468 ]

hardship has been caused by national and international forces which are largely beyond their control.

Our Premier is demanding recognition from the federal government that British Columbia's diversified agriculture economy is also adversely affected by recent world trends. The projected 1990 agricultural shortfalls are a direct result of international trade subsidies. As such, this deficiency must be addressed by the federal government. Our tree-fruit industry in particular needs both short-term income support and long-term assistance to restructure and reposition itself according to global standards of competitiveness.

Provincial treasuries are simply not equipped to take on the treasuries of the United States and the European Economic Community. Western Premiers have demanded that the federal government offer $450 million in assistance to Canadian grain and oil seed producers, and that $50 million in assistance to other agricultural producers should be paid immediately and without any strings attached.

B.C. advocates the goal of trade liberalization and solutions to the international subsidy wars at the current multilateral trade negotiations under GATT. These are crucial to the survival of western farmers. However, the Premiers were unanimous in declaring that the federal government has not adequately represented western farming interests in these GATT discussions. We in British Columbia strongly support our Premier and Premiers from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in urging the federal government to act upon Its previous commitment. There must be full provincial participation in these trade policy negotiations and discussions.

Substantial changes in federal agricultural policy and financial arrangements will be required to meet the income needs of our producers in B.C. and also to address the long-term viability of this industry. We are demanding that a long-term stabilization plan be in place by this fall.

I fully appreciate the problems in the Atlantic fishery, but there are no strings attached to the announcements that were made for the Atlantic fishery, and there should not be any strings attached when it comes to helping farmers in western Canada and agriculture in general.

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished by that statement. Here's the Minister of Agriculture, who speaks for the government of British Columbia. His is the only ministry that suffered a drastic reduction of 11 percent, and that is not support of the farmers.

Not only that; good management is saving money, but not when your ministry needs it. That minister left $3.3 million on the table last year, unspent, from the very ministry that needed it most. That absolutely astonishes me.

After ten years of inactivity, the same government is hiding behind the Lusztig commission. They haven't done a good job for the farmers in this province, and I think they'll realize this when the polls come up this fall.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

MR. LOVICK: My question is to the Minister of Government Management Services. Can the minister confirm that the $10 million in personal computer equipment, purchased hastily, about which I asked her colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), is presently sitting unused in seven-foot piles occupying several hundred square feet on the fourth floor of the Greater Victoria Public Library?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. LOVICK: I have a new question to the same minister. Given that Surrey and other school boards have recently gone to referendums because they didn't have sufficient funding for supplies and computer equipment, among other things, I wonder whether the minister has advised her colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, that perhaps she ought to transfer that $10 million of equipment to the Ministry of Education.

[2:15]

CGA REACTION TO BUDGET

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Finance. Peat Marwick Thorne and the auditor-general have made the case that the budget is not balanced. Now the certified general accountants have said that the budget is not honest; it is "smoke and mirrors, and not really balanced." I note by the minister's campaign leaflet that he's a member of the Certified General Accountants' Association. In light of these scathing comments by the president of that organization, has the minister decided to resign from the association?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Notwithstanding the fact that the question is out of order, I just feel that I can't resist the temptation to tell the hon. member that he's wrong. I can't resist the temptation to tell the hon. member that he is wrong on both counts. Number one, I am not a member of the Certified General Accountants' Association; and number two, the budget is balanced.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister explain why his biography and his campaign material is less than truthful — if I can say that — by saying that he is a certified general accountant? And if he is not a member, can he confirm to this House that he has absolutely no accreditation from any recognized accounting profession in British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: The requirement for question period is to deal with a matter of urgency, and since the general election took place some four years ago, the Chair is having some difficulty determining the

[ Page 9469 ]

urgency of this particular question. However, the minister may wish to reply.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF BUDGET

MR. SIHOTA: My question is to the Provincial Secretary who is the minister responsible for literally tens of millions of dollars in government advertising, which is done mostly through the public affairs bureau. Could the minister tell the House what process he has in place to ensure that these publicly financed ads and publications are both accurate and truthful?

HON. MR. DIRKS: A very effective process.

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the minister responsible for women's affairs in British Columbia — given that response from the Provincial Secretary.

There is an ad right now that runs on TV which says: "There is pay equity for women in government, expanded day care and a pension plan for homemakers." Can the minister responsible for women vouch for the accuracy of those statements in the ad and explain whether pay equity programs and a pension plan for homemakers are in place provincially?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The first thing I would like to clarify is that I am not Minister Responsible for Women's Affairs. "Programs" is the word.

What I can confirm to the hon. member is that pay equity in the public service will be dealt with this year, and that a White Paper will come out for the B.C. pension plan.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question?

MR. SIHOTA: No, a new question to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if you have a new question, I have another member to be recognized.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ROBSON BIGHT

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Parks. Yesterday the minister announced that a joint federal-provincial committee will be studying the impact of humans on the killer whale habitat of Robson Bight and Johnstone Strait. Can the minister explain why the committee's background report is not expected until next winter, and whether the ecological reserve has been studied previously by this ministry?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'd like to thank my colleague for the question. Robson Bight was established as an ecological reserve back in 1982, so as you can see, it's fairly young. A report was done in 1987 and updated in 1989. The Parks ministry had a scientist on site for the year 1989 and has renewed that contract for the year 1990.

We're very pleased that the federal government has joined with us in forming this committee. We have done a tremendous job, even though it's an ecological reserve, in that the environmentalists, Mac-Blo and Tourism — being the government — have promoted the killer whales in Robson Bight. We do know that 90 percent of the whales sighted in Johnstone Strait go into Robson Bight. The purpose of the committee is to study the interaction between the killer whales and the whale-watchers, loggers, commercial fishermen, sports fishermen and, of course, tourists. The committee has been set up to enable them to view the situation on the site this summer and report back to us by this fall.

TANKER TRAFFIC IN BURRARD INLET

MR. JONES: I have a pressing and urgent question for the Minister of Environment regarding increased tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet. I am sure the minister is aware that there has been an increase of some 2,000 percent in the amount of petroleum products through Burrard Inlet since 1984 and that tanker traffic could triple with the planned industry expansion. Has the minister decided to join with the city of Vancouver and the municipalities of North Vancouver, Burnaby and Port Moody in calling for a moratorium on the increase of tanker barge activity until a sustainable level of such traffic is determined?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would remind the hon. member across the floor that his party was against the pipeline, which would have eliminated all ships from Burrard Inlet a few years ago. It was his party whose leader got up and asked us to put one tug on the ships in Burrard Inlet when we already had four going through the Second Narrows, two through the First Narrows and one all the way to Victoria.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, we have a tug through the Strait of Georgia; it was there six weeks before you asked for it.

We also have three ships on standby in case there are any problems. There has never been an oil disaster in Burrard Inlet. I want to assure the member that we are on top of the situation. Everything is being looked after in that area. We do not support the moratorium, because we want to make sure that British Columbians can keep on getting oil until we have a better solution.

MR. JONES: I can't believe the Minister of Environment thinks a natural gas pipeline is going to affect in any way tanker traffic that carries petroleum products in and out of Burrard Inlet. The minister appears very unconcerned about the increase in tanker traffic, although I'm sure he's aware than an Environment Canada study predicted that within the next five years there would be an oil spill that would be some 40 times that of the February spill, which was a disaster for that area.

To the Minister of Environment. Given the clear and present danger of increased tanker traffic, is it

[ Page 9470 ]

the policy of the government to encourage such tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet, or is he just going to leave it up to the petroleum corporations to determine what happens in that ecologically sensitive area?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would inform the member on the other side that the pipeline I was discussing was not the gas pipeline. He was also against that, and it's saving 300 tankers a year from crossing the Georgia strait. The oil pipeline was recommended years and years ago, and his party was against that, and the Leader of the Opposition was against it. It's not a gas pipeline but an oil pipeline that would have eliminated the oil tankers from Burrard Inlet. Your party was against that. Now they want to do something else.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me and talks about a leak or an accident in Burrard Inlet over the next five years. I would ask him where he is getting his Ouija-board from.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING OF BUDGET

MR. SIHOTA: This question is to the Provincial Secretary. In light of the fact that the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) has indicated there is not a program in place dealing with pay equity or a program in existence for a provincial pension plan for homemakers, and given the fact that the minister says he's had a very effective process reviewing the accuracy and truthfulness of ads — which obviously failed in this regard; maybe Eli should be gone — and given the fact that this ad now contains untruths, will he agree to pull the ad?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I think if the hon. member would review those ads as carefully as we review them and evaluate the whole process, he'd find that he is in error.

MR. SIHOTA: It's obvious that the Provincial Secretary, who can't think that quick on his feet, can't even listen to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs and understand what she's got to say.

There is another ad which runs on TV and says: "Some of B.C.'s best financial experts are giving top marks to the B.C. government's balanced budget." The Provincial Secretary should know that this is not an accurate statement, in that no less than three financial experts in the past few weeks have said that the budget is in a deficit situation.

My question to the minister: is the minister prepared now to run an ad on TV which says that some of B.C.'s best financial experts are giving the government a failing grade for their failure to balance the budget? Is he prepared, in the name of balance and fairness, accuracy and truth to run an ad along those lines?

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

MS. CULL: To the Minister of Environment. just over two weeks ago I asked the minister to open all eight provincial toxic waste depots at convenient hours. Yesterday the minister announced that a toxic waste disposal site in Victoria will be open for only three days over the next six months.

Can the minister explain why he is forcing municipalities to open separate sites for a very limited duration rather than providing regular, well-publicized access to his ministry's existing depot on Cloverdale Avenue?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member very much for the question. She is absolutely wrong. This agreement was made.... We're not forcing anybody. The Capital Regional District came to me after we announced our policy of having hazardous waste days around the province. They are working with the provincial government and are paying half the bill. It's a well-publicized program, and in three days of this year we expect — and so does the Capital Regional District; you can talk to Murray Coell, the elected official in this area — we will eliminate most of the hazardous household wastes in the Capital Regional District.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

(continued)

MR. VANT: I am very pleased to resume the very important debate on Bill 11. Just before lunch I was quoting the Williams Lake Tribune, and it had to do with the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) and his previous role as chairman of School District 27.

It referred to new wages for the teachers — and of course, he had no pecuniary interest in that — that would lead to the hefty increase in taxes. The poor, hard-working taxpayers could just take it or leave it.

But thanks to the wisdom of this government and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), whose heart is obviously in the right place — very concerned about the children in our school system — we have this opportunity to have a referendum on what I would call the "extra extras" in spending for our education system. I'd like to mention that because the referendums are for those extras, what is very important in this is the basic education funding provided by the very generous block funding.

Indeed, I was somewhat confused by a statement made by the second member for Cariboo last Friday, May 4. 1 quote from the Blues. He said: "A basic needs budget cannot be taken to the people in a

[ Page 9471 ]

referendum." He went on to say: "It's a terrible oversight." If I interpret that correctly, it seems to me that the second member for Cariboo is advocating -perhaps as is the case in some American states - that all of the education funding be subject to referendum.

Well, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker and this House, that is not the intention of this government nor of Bill 11. The referendum is not for the basics in education. It is for what I would term as not just the extras, but the extra extras.

I say that because, first of all, the basic block funding is very generous. Also, as recommended by the Sullivan Royal Commission on Education, that block funding can be adjusted from year to year, based on the capacity of the government to responsibly support the necessary public spending. That capacity is very properly and responsibly determined by what the taxpayers can reasonably provide.

So the very generous block funding, which is based on historical basic funding levels for each school district in the province, will be adjusted each year based on price inflation and on public and private wage settlements. I think that's very important.

Also, this year alone the government has very generously allowed no less than $140 million for the royal commission programs. This is in addition to that basic block funding. The royal commission programs include such things as continued development by educators of every aspect of the education system, from the primary right through to the graduation programs; expanding teacher education programs; and development of methods by which schools and school boards can provide their communities with more comprehensive reports on how the students are progressing, making that system learner-centred and more user useful.

Often in debates I've listened to in this Legislature, when it comes to education, there's not enough focus on the children who must, above all else, benefit by the system.

Recently the B.C. Teachers' Federation mentioned — and I quote from their Issue Alert of February 13, 1990: "Requiring referenda to fund educational services is disastrous. Denied stable, reliable tax revenue, school authorities are unable to budget with confidence."

I find that statement somewhat outrageous, given the very generous block funding which has been put into place. It's very predictable. Each year it's adjusted very responsibly. On the contrary, since I've become an MLA— as I said this morning just before lunch, and the hon. opposition House Leader didn't hear me — every year the funding for education has been increased. That's according to the estimates which were debated and tabled in this Legislature.

Contrary to the B.C. Teachers' Federation Issue Alert, the government has ensured stable, predictable, sufficient and historically equitable financing for education. Being historically equitable is very important because, as was noted quite some time ago, the funding varies considerably from district to district.

I was pleased that in School District 27, the Cariboo-Chilcotin district centred in Williams Lake, the per capita amounted to $6,155. At first glance that seems to be considerably over the provincial average. Well, there are certain historical reasons for that, because it is one of the largest school districts in the province. In order to get the pupils from the rural areas to school, naturally they have a vast school bus system, which is very expensive to operate. So the funding program is historically very equitable.

The referendum allows democracy to take place rather than what was the previous case, where school boards got carried away with their supplementary budgets and had as much as a 112 percent increase in one year. Now, at least, those who have to pay have a chance to voice their opinion on these extras. Apart from the $140 million provided for the royal commission implementation, there are many other aspects of school funding that are in addition to the very generous provincial block funding.

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, my constituency office door is always open to all of those involved in the school system. Recently a couple of schoolteachers visited me, and they kept saying that somehow they thought there were cutbacks in the system. I don't see that, with the continual increases we've had in recent years. Also, from 1980 to 1989, teachers' salaries increased overall by no less than 73 percent; whereas in that same period, inflation increased 57 percent. At the same time, private sector wage settlements increased 51 percent. So in relative terms —and I think very properly so — the hard-working, dedicated teachers have had substantial wage increases.

The basic funding is firmly in place. There have been attempts by certain interest groups in the province to compare apples to oranges and to somehow equate our very generous educational funding system with that of other jurisdictions, particularly the States. But we are not going to subject to referenda things like school construction costs, which are very necessary to implement the Sullivan royal commission. It is without hesitation that I strongly support Bill 11, because it ensures good funding in every school district throughout the province for a very important education system.

MR. HARCOURT: I rise to speak on Bill 11. We regard this as a sad day in British Columbia politics, particularly because it has turned our children's education into a political football. Our schoolchildren are suffering through this pilot project that we have watched unfold over the last few weeks, culminating in the nine referendums that took place on the weekend.

The project has failed; it has specifically failed the children of this province. We are urging this government to listen to the nine school boards, which are unanimously saying, "No more, " to this experiment. We don't want to have to go through this again: the expense and the start of a two-tiered education

[ Page 9472 ]

system throughout this province. Very simply, we are saying to the minister and to the government: "Withdraw Bill 11." Then let's talk about the education of the most important asset we have in this province, our children. The members of the nine school boards— seven of which had referendums defeated; two of which had successful votes — were unanimous: "Don't do this to us. Don't do this, more particularly, to the children in our district. Withdraw this legislation. Do not have us go through this exercise again."

Let's look at what some of the referendums involved, starting with the school districts where referendums were defeated — seven of them. Before we headed into this referendum, Abbotsford already received $662 per pupil less than the provincial average. In the referendum, they wanted $1.69 million for library books and to help integrate special-education students and upgrade old schools. Those aren't frills. Those aren't items that you put onto a discretionary list. Those are important. Like pencils and blackboards, books are an integral part of the education system. That is what this is about. It's about integrating special-education students into the system. It's a good goal to get the special-needs and disabled children of this province out of institutions and into ordinary schools with children from all over the community. But you have to have the resources to do that. That's what the Abbotsford school board was trying to do. But that $1.6 million request for books for students with disabilities and to upgrade old schools was voted down.

Another example. Coquitlam School District 43 wanted $4.5 million to maintain current levels of staffing, to purchase equipment and to renovate classrooms. Those are the normal operating expenses that any organization requires: replace old equipment to keep your plant in good shape, and to have current levels of staffing, which, as we know, have been substantially reduced over the last seven to eight years. And the Coquitlam voters said: "We've had enough of underfunding and of the overtaxing of the property taxpayers." They voted down that very modest request.

Prince George — to go to the north — School District 57 wanted $2.3 million to reduce some of the class sizes and to acquire portable classrooms — not to build new schools, but to acquire portable classrooms because of the growth of population back into Prince George after the depression. It was a no vote, three to one— again, for the same reasons.

[2:45]

The Queen Charlotte Islands, School District 50, wanted $32,500 to maintain the current continuing education program for adults to deal with some of the aboriginal people, the 60 or so loggers who haven't found employment since South Moresby was created. No steps were taken to help those loggers and their families find new economic opportunities Those are the kinds of people who would be included in that $32,500 for adult education programs. That was a no vote. Five hundred people turned out.

The Surrey School District No. 36 sought $4.8 million to develop a school lunch program for hungry schoolchildren, to expand the programs for learning-disabled students and gifted students, to integrate special-needs children into the regular classrooms, and to improve ESL programs — all of these important challenges in the modern school system which are being underfunded by this Social Credit government and are causing problems for teachers and for children.

Here are some other programs that were in that $4.8 million request in the referendum in Surrey: improved programs for the hearing impaired, expanded adult literacy programs, more library books and classroom equipment, upgrading of school and playground facilities, and improved health and safety standards. Those are the sorts of modest proposals that were contained in that referendum request, which was voted down 64.6 percent with a 15 percent turnout. And the Premier calls that a triumph of democracy? I call it a triumph of the minority.

That is not democracy in action, because Surrey receives the second-lowest per-pupil funding of any school district in B.C. And it is one of the fastest growing school districts. Even before Vancouver's successful referendum, Surrey students received $700 less per pupil to spend on education than the Vancouver school district. Those children do not deserve to get second-class funding.

Those children do not deserve the overcrowded conditions that I have seen, for example, in Ocean Park. Ocean Park, which was built down in the Crescent Beach area when I.... It used to be a place for summer vacations. It's now a very fine community. It was built for 300 students, Mr. Speaker, when we were going to school in south Vancouver. Three hundred students were supposed to be in this school. This school now has 300 students in the main building and 450 students in portables. There are more kids in portables on school grounds, on the playgrounds, without washroom facilities, without offices for the counsellors and the other special needs there, without proper gym facilities. That is not acceptable.

There are 108 portables — the equivalent of eight schools — in the Surrey School District, and you wonder why the citizens there are getting uptight about growth. This is an example of citizens saying: "No more. Unless the provincial government takes a leadership role in dealing with the effects of growth, the overcrowding in our schools, the traffic jams on our roads, the lack of recreational and cultural and park facilities, we're going to say no to more spending on our property tax."

What did that no vote amount to, Mr. Speaker? The news reports in today's Vancouver Sun make it very clear that what the school board in Surrey is going to have to do now is as follows: "Gifted and special-needs students were among the losers Monday as Surrey School Board chopped about $3.5 million from its 1990-91 budget after failing to win a weekend referendum." That's what happened in Surrey when they had the gun put to their heads by this government. They didn't have any choice. To say that they had a choice is an abuse of the words democracy and citizens' choice. There you have some examples

[ Page 9473 ]

of the school boards that had referendums turned down.

Let's look at the two school districts that had successful referendum votes, that had the majority of citizens voting for it. Let's look at Richmond. The Premier, after introducing this exercise in democracy, intervened and urged all his fellow citizens in Richmond to vote against the referendum. To show you the credibility that the Premier has in his own riding, 57 percent of those who turned out disagreed with the Premier and voted for it. That shows the credibility that the Premier has in his own riding— let alone the rest of the province. A voter turnout of 14 percent — that's the tyranny of the minority, not a victory for the majority and democracy. It isn't democracy at all, Mr. Speaker.

In Vancouver, School District 39 requested $7.7 million, divided equally into two parts: operating and capital budgets.

MR. WILLIAMS: How did they vote in the downtown east side?

MR. HARCOURT: The downtown east side, the poorer area, voted yes. I may say that I was disappointed in my own poll around the Point Grey mini school, that barely a majority of people came out and voted no for those children in the downtown east side. I may say that when I looked at the material on the plebiscite that people had to vote for, I was appalled and offended that matters such as earthquake-safe schools, emergency-exit lighting in the case of fires, and pesticide- and insecticide-free playgrounds were on there for a vote. Our children's health and safety were being voted on, when those things should be taken care of as a matter of course The health and safety of our children should not be on a plebiscite, a referendum. A government and a minister that tempt fate with the health and safety of our children are tempting their own fate in the next provincial election, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier called the results a great exercise in democracy — voter turnout of between 12.5 and 32 percent in nine districts across the province. Seven losing school districts now have to redirect money from education programs to pay for the cost of staging this referendum — over $500,000 in the city of Vancouver alone and $60,000 in Surrey. The opinion is in. An editorial in the Province, after the vote, was titled "What a Mess: A Bad Way to Run an Education System, " and: "Richmond kids now have access to programs that Surrey youngsters don't. Coquitlam teachers can only dream about Vancouver's new programs." The editorial concludes: "...referendums are not the way to finance school boards."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I think the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has had this referendum system foisted on him I may say that we on this side welcomed the tabling of the Sullivan commission recommendations that the minister carried through. We did have some disagreement with the tabling of the 2000 document. We felt that it was too hurried in terms of the grades 4 to 10, and 11 and 12. The School Act was brought in, and we thought it should have added provisions for citizenship, for our young people to become fully participating citizens.

We think the minister has tried to make up for some of the terrible neglect and demoralization in the education system, but bringing forward the referendum system has severely harmed those positive steps that he introduced— some of which we disagreed with, which we expressed in that spirit. It has severely harmed the relationships that were starting to develop between parents, children, educators, legislators and the people throughout this province.

We are urging the government. They've had their pilot project. They've had their political push at this question in the hopes of getting something going for a spring election. That's off now. The nine referendums are in: seven went down; two were approved. To anybody but some members of this government's caucus it's a failure. Listen to what the people of British Columbia are saying and withdraw Bill 11.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'd like to spend just a few minutes to talk about the School Amendment Act. First of all, it's probably worthwhile recognizing that the Leader of the Opposition must be improving. His speeches are good enough now that six members on his side stayed to hear him speak. At least, Mr. Speaker, you didn't have to ring the quorum bells this time. Some things do improve over time.

I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the effect of Bill 11 on my constituency and on School District 59 within the constituency. Block funding, referendums and supplemental homeowner grants have all been very well received in my constituency.

The reason for that became very obvious when my constituents received their property tax notices in 1989. School taxes had increased by 35 percent. Many homeowners in Dawson Creek, Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge faced increases in property taxes as a result of residential school taxes in excess of $400 a year. Some of the more expensive homes — and in that part of the world $150,000 to $200,000 is considered an expensive home — saw school tax increases as high as $700.

To make matters worse, the school district had advised residents at that time that they could expect an even larger increase in 1990. That would have meant that the owner of a house in Dawson Creek with an appraised value in the area of $150, 000 to $200,000 anticipated a $1,500 school tax increase in two years. There was some real concern in that part of the world about runaway spending by school districts.

With very short notice, a group called the South Peace Ratepayers' Association was formed and attracted in excess of 600 people with about two days' notice of a meeting in Dawson Creek. Local governments were concerned. Municipal governments and

[ Page 9474 ]

regional governments asked me and the local school board and representatives from the ministry to meet with them to talk about what they considered to be a crisis in residential taxation in that constituency.

[3:00]

The two regional districts hired a consulting firm called Peter Adams and Associates to investigate funding and taxation in School Districts 59, 60 and 81. Mr. Adams, in his report back to the regional districts, noted that supplementary budgets in School District 59 had increased by 284 percent in 1989. That was the cause of the substantial tax increases that we saw in 1989 and the reason for the predicted further increases In 1990.

The next significant happening was the visit by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, along with Mayor Marilyn Baker and a task group to look at the whole issue of property taxes. Constituent after constituent came to the microphone and asked for controls on school district spending. You might translate that to mean referenda. Again, speaker after speaker asked for the province to involve itself in funding all aspects of education within the school district. I guess you might translate that to mean block funding. Many, many people asked for some kind of relief from taxation. I suppose you could equate the supplemental homeowner grant to that request.

My constituents — from one end of the constituency to the other — were seriously worried and concerned about the issue of school taxes. They saw labour settlements — teachers' settlements in particular — within the school district as causing expenditures that were beyond their ability to fund. They questioned seriously whether we as a government were spending enough on education, whether we were funding enough of the cost of education in a school district like ours that has a limited ability to raise taxes. There was no question that people in South Peace, in School District 59, wanted action and wanted it quickly.

I'm pleased to be able to stand here today in support of Bill 11, School Amendment Act, 1990, which deals with the specific issues that my constituents brought to the Minister of Education, the municipal government, the regional government and their school districts; that they went to the regional districts and hired a consultant to investigate and recommend on; and issues that my constituents brought to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and that task group.

This legislation, regardless of what those folks across the way may say, is exactly what the people of South Peace River wanted in terms of relief from what they saw as burdensome taxation and runaway spending by their school district. These fellows across the way protest and protest. But I think, seriously, if the members across the way were to put partisan politics aside for a few moments and ask their constituents what they think of the amendments and changes that have been brought in to the School Act....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You will see quite well, Mr. Member, what they think of me next time round.

This is the kind of response that voters look for from government. When they go and speak to the various levels of government, the various ministries within the provincial government, and delineate a real need and a concern, they expect action from government. This bill is the kind of action that they were looking for and which was very well received, not only in South Peace River but all over the north and, I suspect, all over British Columbia. When tax notices come out, when homeowners and ratepayers see that there is more money being spent on education and less of the cost of education being applied to homeowners, this bill will receive the recognition that it should receive, that it should have received from the members across the way and has received from members on this side of the House.

MR. MILLER: Nobody likes it.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The member for Prince Rupert says nobody likes it. I think the member, if he were to check with his own constituents, would find that many of them like it.

Perhaps what I should do now is read a letter into the record. It's a letter from the South Peace Ratepayers' Association, dated May 4, 1990. It's addressed to the Premier, and it says:

"Sir:

"The South Peace Ratepayers' Association was formed in June of 1989 to control school expenses and runaway taxation. The taxpayers faced a potential 55 percent increase in school taxes alone for the 1990 taxation year. The association was represented at the task force meeting held in Dawson Creek that was chaired by the Hon. Mr. Couvelier and the Hon. Rita Johnston. We were also present at the disclosure of the Peter Adams and Associates review of taxation for School Districts 59, 60 and 81. The association gave unanimous support to this document when presented in Fort St. John.

"Our association fully supports you and your government in the introduction of block funding and referenda. It is without question that ratepayers in District 59 will receive taxation relief. We commend the stance and direction that you and your government have taken in addressing concerns of the taxpayers of British Columbia. On this issue you have our support and backing, as exhibited by the enclosed newspaper clipping.

"Sincerely yours,
Peter Englisch,
Secretary,
South Peace Ratepayers' Association"

I think it's worth noting, in conclusion, that Mr. Englisch is a former school trustee. I'm not certain of his politics, but he has certainly not been hesitant about criticizing this government on many issues in the past. He and the 600 members of the ratepayers' association — and I suspect the vast majority of ratepayers in South Peace River — support his statement, and in turn support the Minister of Education with the legislation that he has brought in with Bill 11.

[ Page 9475 ]

I'm very pleased and satisfied with the response from the Minister of Education, and I want him to know that he has my support and the support of my constituents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we continue, hon. members, the second member for Saanich and the Islands has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HUBERTS: In the House with us today we have a grade 10 class from St. Andrew's High School in Saanich with their teacher, Simon di Castri. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome. It's certainly an appropriate time for them to be here, as we're discussing Bill 11.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members have been admonished from time to time during this session about referring to other members by name. I didn't want to stop the hon. minister when he was in full flight with his speech, but I would like to bring to your attention that reading a name from a paper or a press release is in a sense circumventing the rule which applies and says that members will not be named in the House. So I would just ask members to remember that as they speak from now on.

MR. ROSE: My comments are that in some legislatures, Mr. Speaker, names are used all the time; so I guess it's just a matter of the customs and the traditions around this place.

I was very interested in the member from Dawson Creek's little peroration about how difficult things are for the poor burghers of Dawson Creek, and how the expenses have gone up. I wonder just how many $150,000 houses there are in Dawson Creek. Has he chosen just one particular extreme figure? I don't know.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It could be.

The figures I've got are that property taxes over the past eight or ten years have gone up approximately 75 to 79 percent, and school budgets have gone up 11 percent. I doubt whether you can blame the school districts for the property tax increase. I think it has more likely been confiscation. We've seen, through corporate taxations and everything else, that large segments of society escape taxation; you load it onto others.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, but I'm still alive, and you're dead. You're dead in the water, that's what you are. So what's happening here? You've suddenly found your voice again. You getting your confidence back?

What I wanted to emphasize is their systematic confiscation of the property taxes — commercial and industrial. There have been large loopholes and escapees there, whereas the school tax referendum was based on the 8 percent of the total school budget which comes from the property tax. That's all we've got to tax, and I think that whole thing is just nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I voted for the referendum. I held my nose and voted for the referendum, and unlike the members from Surrey, I stayed out of it. I did not interfere in Coquitlam — like some of the members of the Social Credit Party did.... They are just as loud in their ridings as they are in the House.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, it's very difficult, Mr. Speaker. I know that the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) is a bit upset and tense. How would you like to be an albatross and have that member hanging around your neck? I know how sensitive he is about certain things like that.

I was here from 1983 to 1986, and I know how the school districts were savaged during that period. I watched it. I watched how systematically this government, in spite of their decentralization plans, took over more and more of the functions of the schools. It used to be the functions of the local school districts. I was here. I know about those things; I watched all this. Ultimately we had a 1982 interim financing act that put a lid on spending. That's when the government stepped in. It was called restraint. Then 1983 came along, and this became permanent for three years. Then it was renewed in about 1985 or 1986, and now we've got it back again — the lid on school spending.

They've given the school districts the right under Bill 19 to collectively bargain with their workers the right to bargain. Surprise, surprise: these people all became unionized in every district. Now they've capped it, so what a meaningless charade for collective bargaining. I was here. I watched for a while.

We're talking about all this money that's spent on the schools. My figures indicate that in 1983 the percentage of the GNP spent on education in Ontario was 6 percent. The Canadian average was 5 percent, and British Columbia was 3.4 percent. Guess what it is today? In 1988-89, it's 4.2 percent in Ontario, down from 6 percent. Five percent of the GNP is the Canadian average. B.C. is 3.5 percent or virtually the same thing.

So in terms of what we're spending in terms of our total wealth, it hasn't increased that much. Yes, it did increase under the present minister; I don't deny that. According to my figures, it's now 5.9 percent, but that includes post-secondary. Post-secondary went up 33 percent, so that accounts for your figure. It's been relatively level in terms of the gross provincial product.

Where are we here? In 1982-83, British Columbia was second across Canada in all the jurisdictions in terms of its educational spending. It ranked second. You know what it did in 1985? It was down to sixth, and today it's fifth. So our kids are standing fifth or sixth....

[ Page 9476 ]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We know what happened to California: they had Proposition 13. People left the state, and they left teaching. Guess exactly what happened? The Californians came up here and recruited our teachers because we fired 3,000 of them, or early-retired them.

[3:15]

MR. REID: They're all back now.

MR. ROSE: They're not all back now. Unlike the Social Credit Party, they learned in California. My daughter was one of them that had to go down there. She went down there for three years, and in her district there were 15 Canadians.

Do you know that in the next ten years we're going to grow by approximately 600,000 or 700,000 people in British Columbia? Do you know how many teachers we're going to need? We're going to need about 6,000. And if loudmouths like the one across the hall have his way, we won't get them, because teachers are not going to go into a profession to be bashed right, left and centre.

That's not the most important point at all. The most important part is really what's happening to our youngsters. If you've got spending like that, then it's bound to trickle down and effect people sooner or later. You may be able to cut out your capital budgets and your fixing of the roofs and all these things for a while. But ultimately, it catches up to you. As a solid businessman who believes in capitalism and profit, you should know that. And because teachers, or any other group, want a decent income for their services, the member ought to be able to understand that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It didn’t. The ex-minister is as wrong about that, as he is about most things.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. ROSE: I'm very grateful to that member over there. Between '83 and '86 — he wasn't in the cabinet then — we sometimes had to get up and speak for 40 minutes, and without him I never would have been able to make it. So he was a great help to me.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I know that the minister over there hungers for statistics. I'll give you some that will probably be to his credit. I can show both sides of it. I'm fair and objective and gentlemanly and refined and all those good things.

In '85 there was no real increase in school budgets, but the inflation rate was 4 percent. In '86 we dropped 5.5 percent, and the inflation rate was 4.1. In '87, by gosh, we won the election and had a new minister. We were up 4 percent in educational spending in British Columbia. Guess what the inflation rate was? It was 4.4 percent, so we lost again.

It wasn't until 1988 that we got a 6.2 percent raise — or if you consider inflation at 4 percent, you got about a 2.1 percent raise. This year, '89, 4.3 over 5, which is a 4.3 raise because the budgets went up about 9 percent last year. I'm not talking about this year, I'm talking about last year.

We still rank eighth across Canada in terms of what we spend per pupil. Costs are higher here; everything's higher here. Certainly they are in the lower mainland than in other jurisdictions, except perhaps Toronto or the golden triangle, so I would think that maybe the figures would indicate that our children were being shortchanged.

I watched the teacher layoffs and early retirements and the flight to California and I predicted this teacher shortage, and I think we're going to have one. We're going to need 6,000 teachers in the next ten years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not if we get an NDP government.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased to see the hon. minister is interested in what we would do as an NDP government. I am sure that if he is no longer a minister we would be very pleased to give him a job teaching. We'll freeze his salary too and we'll take away all his power so he doesn't have the right to do anything else in society but maybe go to his little classroom and teach and when he goes home after a long day's work, his wife will have ready for him, as she usually does, some warm milk and some cookies. That will be his favourite time.

We're going to need 6,000 teachers at least in the next ten years....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I've got to do the cooking and have it ready for her.

MR. ROSE: Well, if you do the cooking like the Finance minister cooks the books, I feel sorry for you.

What we've got here is a return of the school wars. We go back to the conflicts that we had between '82 and '86. What has happened here? Cutbacks amounted to 23 percent in real terms between '83 and '86. That's about $350 million a year. Everybody's saying: "Oh my God, you've been so generous with school budgets." Well, if we've been so generous with school budgets — and we have been more generous, I don't deny that — look at the money you sucked out of the system for about four or five years. That was so we could develop again. But it's a spurious argument really. Everything else went up. Your budgets went up for highways and everything else. The only budget that really didn't go up during restraint was the education budgets.

The pupil-teacher ratio in 1986 was at 1972 levels. There were cuts in special education, English as a second language and learning assistance. Local boards were not free to set their own budgets. Why have local boards now? What's the purpose of them if

[ Page 9477 ]

they don't have any power? If you've destroyed local decision-making, what is the point of having a local board? They're going to be rubber stamps; that sounds like the Canadian Senate. They might as well be in the Canadian Senate.

Then we had all this pork-barrel stuff. Do you remember that? Do you remember all the special funds, the excellence funds? I was in here one day and there was something like $300 million to $500 million promised for excellence funds — little pork-barrel things for the minister to give to the various school districts. I don't think that money was ever spent. They're just nonsense! It's like the BS fund we have with the Minister of Finance.

Well, I'm quite sure that most of the members on the opposite side do not really want to hear me reel off statistics. I guess the statistics will show that when the minister in the last couple of years, on his "repair agenda" trying to get things back in shape after the mess that was left by his predecessors in terms of the cutbacks.... Yes, he looked pretty good, and he didn't even like referenda. Other people have quoted — I don't need to repeat it here, but I will — that he didn't like them, he didn't believe in them, he didn't think they worked. And he was right.

MR. MILLER: What did he say?

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't have the quote here. I could paraphrase....

MR. PETERSON: There's no logic behind your argument, no logic whatsoever.

MR. ROSE: Is that your final word on that subject? Good, then keep quiet! What we've got is a return to the school wars. It's not just about money. I don't think it is even mainly about money. It may be in certain districts. Of course, it's always been mainly about money in certain districts...if you happen to be in a high-growth district. The Coquitlams will pay $250 extra above the homeowner grant on their property taxes, where the Keremeoses and the Armstrongs will probably get $150 credit. It's always been unfair that way. I know the minister is going to say: "What are you going to do? Are you going to raise all the homeowners grants and make it even more discriminatory?" I haven't suggested that, but the minister suggested that I was suggesting that at one time. I'm not doing that at all.

What it really is about, as far as the teachers are concerned — and I will get to the pupils in a minute — is pride. It's about being valued for the work they do. When you do something like this and bash teachers and say that they are responsible — not inflation, not house prices by flippers, not things that have to do with the economy in general, but teachers only.... They have to face the same realities of the economy as everybody else. I know you don't get anywhere or score many political brownie points by defending teachers, but unless their pride is there, unless they feel that what they're doing is worthwhile, they're not going to perform as well as when they feel they have the support of the authorities and the pride of the community. You take that away from them, and you've taken everything. Certainly you've taken away the desire to go into teaching or to continue in it. That's what happened between '82 and '86.

The minister went a long way and made the right moves to restore that pride. But this is taking it away again.

I was speaking in Chilliwack, which is hardly a hotbed of socialism, and a teacher at the dinner said: "Once upon a time you would seldom ever see a teacher in Chilliwack who would take a political position." I don't know why — I was politicized in Kelowna. I don't know why they wouldn't take that position, but they wouldn't. But now he says they all will in the staff room.

So this government has politicized the teachers. You had a lot a friends among teachers. You know, some of your best friends were teachers, Mr. Minister.

MR. PETERSON: We still have a lot of friends among teachers.

MR. ROSE: Are you alive again? Oh, you're there. Are they all teaching in Langley?

MR. PETERSON: You bet.

MR. ROSE: The trustees. I'm not sure that it's about money so much as it's about autonomy. What is the purpose of being a trustee today? You're a paper shuffler. You don't have any choice of.... What you could do is scatter the peas around under the walnuts, but by and large that's all you can do. You don't have any control over the pea crop, not at all.

It's about local control. Our whole tradition of education in North America has been one of local community control. Where's the control if you take that away and everything is handled from the centre? It sounds to me like the Russian bureaucratic system where everything was controlled from the Kremlin. So here's the czar of Education controlling all the educational spending. It didn't work there, and it's not going to work here.

As my hon. friend from Vancouver East, the first member (Mr. Williams), said this morning, it's probably only a one- or two-stage thing anyway. What you've got to do on this spurious kind of bill is protect your big property owners, who've got all kinds of money, from higher taxes in Shaughnessy, while the poorer people down below will pay the bill. That's what's happened in education. So you are favouring your special-interest group.

Why not a tax on all those flippers in Vancouver? Why don't you tax them and pay some money for education or provide young people with housing? That would be more like it. Sure, it's a serious matter, a constant escalation of property taxation, but if you constantly keep dumping more and more on the property owners — up 72 percent since 1988 — sure you're going to have a tax concern and a tax revolt. But that's what I think you want. You just want to

[ Page 9478 ]

blame somebody, and that's the kind of vindictive approach this government has taken. Not this minister. It's about centralization; it's about local control; it's about an insult, I guess. When the Premier comes out in Richmond and says he's going to vote against the referendum, and urges everybody else to do it....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I didn't interfere in my riding. I went out and supported it. I held my nose and voted.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Talk about ratepayers! Who are those ratepayers?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Oh, did you hear what he said? The referendum's no good because only a few people voted.

MR. ROSE: We know the referendum is no good. Other people have gone through this exercise. Did you have a referendum, for instance, on the Coquihalla? Of course you didn't. You went ahead and spent the money. Rather than taking away the autonomy of the school boards, if they are autonomous — and they should be; it is part of our tradition — why don't you do it the same way as for the provincial government? If you don't like your local politician, as one of ours found out the other night, you get rid of him. You vote him out. If you don't like the increase that these profligate school trustees are involved in, then you get rid of them at the next election. You don't do a Big Brother over their heads; that's no way to run a railroad.

You don't do it in municipalities, do you? Oh sure, you have a little bylaw occasionally, but you don't do it this way. And you don't put a cap on municipal spending.

[3:30]

MR. LOENEN: You don't trust people.

MR. ROSE: You don't trust people. You want to control everybody. You are a centralist. I think you're a Stalinist even.

Do you know what you're accusing the school boards of doing? Frittering away our money on children.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, you're making so much noise you didn't even hear me.

Do you know what kinds of ads went in from so-called ratepayers in Coquitlam? A picture of the school board chairperson and a little girl and a bicycle. "This woman doesn't want me to have my new bike." Isn't it an obscenity that that kind of ad would be in there in opposition? I could have got involved in that, but I didn't. I thought it was their business, and I stayed out of it. But your party didn't. You were in there with both feet — with both snouts.

MR. LOENEN: That's leadership.

MR. ROSE: That's not leadership. Call the election. Come on, you guys!

They feel betrayed; the trustees, the teachers and the children have been betrayed by this kind of thing. I repeat, it's not just about money. It's about the ability of an autonomous group to run its own show. It has everything to do with the pride of a professional group, once they have been given certain responsibilities, as they were in Bill 19, and being able to proceed with their lives. They want to teach; they don't want to fight all the time.

If there are certain programs for children that are needed, earthquake-proofing, fixing roofs and all the rest of it, the local board should be in a position to determine that. It's not for the bureaucrats in Victoria to determine whether Coquitlam, with the third-largest district, should be $600 less than Vancouver per pupil. Why? We are a tremendously growing district, as is Surrey, and growing districts have special problems. The minister knows what they are. I don't need to tell him, but I will anyway. I hope he'll listen.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, I'm listening intently.

MR. ROSE: Are you writing any notes? Or have you heard all this before?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Everything new that you're saying I'm putting down.

MR. ROSE: And you haven't written anything, right? I think that's a bit sarcastic, and it shows contempt for parliament.

My district went in for restraint and had its fiscal house in order. Because of that, they feel they have been penalized. New schools are needed; new principals are needed. That can't be part of the pupil-teacher ratio anymore, because Bill 19 took them out of the union.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's not correct, and you know it.

MR. ROSE: A higher need for management.... I had a member of the Surrey School Board over here the other day, and he said that Surrey was forced into a lot of managerial positions because of Bill 19. That's an added cost. Portables, and the moving of portables, are an added cost. These are things that happen in high-growth districts. If you have to remove asbestos from old schools, that's an added cost. All of these things need to be recognized. The opening of new schools, new managers....

Here's the score in Coquitlam: "After subtracting the ministry's growth factor of 5 percent funding, an increase of only 5.2 percent is provided for inflation. That is 1 percent less than the ministry's own esti-

[ Page 9479 ]

mates of inflation for next year. The result is a funding shortfall for our district of $1,282,352." There is something wrong with your formula. It came from the framework. Until 1983 we didn't have a framework. Now we've taken the framework, we've rolled it all together, and we call that block funding. By some magic, determined only in the minds of the minister and his officials, it is somehow infallible. Well, if it's infallible, how come you were running around here just before the referendum giving extra money to certain boards? You didn't to Coquitlam. You know that this is a politically dangerous issue for you. After making all the progress you did as the new broom, I'm surprised you are doing it.

I wonder why you are doing it. I know you had several meetings of the advisory council. They suggested block funding; you went for that. They suggested a number of other things, such as the fiscal framework; you didn't go for that. Then all the groups favouring block funding had a meeting in January. Everybody agreed. Then you sprung the referendum on them.

What happened to you? There's lots of speculation about what happened to you. The consequences were told to you. They tried to have it dropped — all the stakeholders. The minister lamented on his first day here, when he opened this debate, that not one school district phoned him up and said: "My gosh, Mr. Minister, you've done a wonderful job with this referendum." Not one. Why should they? He's cut the legs out from under them and taken their power and their autonomy; why should they thank him?

If the WCB requires asbestos to be removed for the safety of the children, it's not in the formula. It should be.

Why did he do it? I don't know. I think he got caught in the crossfire between the Premier and the Minister of Finance. I think he got caught in a crossfire, and he lost.

In '86 to '89, a repair agenda, so things begin to look better. Then what happened? The four dissidents who left the sinking ship began to swim back to it, which is an unusual experience — rats swimming towards a sinking ship. The difference is, you've got the Premier and.... His dissidents, including the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, are back. Things have changed. You can go back to your old tough ways again. That's what I think happened. The repair agenda is over.

The other thing is that there's a lot of defence of a particular suggestion made by the department that we all have to look after ourselves and defend the decisions we've made. I think there are some things that are badly wrong in terms of how certain districts have been treated. The problem with it is that now there's really no means to fix it up; although I guess these things will be reviewed as our experience with this grows. But I don't think we'll have this again. I think this is a one-election wonder. Then maybe he'll just get rid of all school boards, or you'll let them continue to be autonomous groups and organizations and institutions, such as we have in the councils.

Nobody is ever going to be happy about school funding; it's impossible. Unless you had one teacher for every pupil, in some people's view there would never be enough money spent on it. Society has to make that judgment. You've done that, but we would have preferred you to have done it in a way which recognizes the traditional and valid rights and powers of local boards. You've taken that away and centralized it in the Kremlin. You know that hasn't worked in other institutions and other countries, and I don't think it's going to work here.

The best decisions are those that are made closest to the people affected. You've just done the opposite. You've just gone in the wrong direction. Wrong-way Brummet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are advised that under standing order 42 the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's been an interesting few days, where member after member on the socialist side has implied that if they were in power there would be no limit to the amount of money available to education, and at the same time they somehow say it would not affect the taxpayers of this province. I don't know where they would get all of this money for education. But I guess when you are not in a position to deliver or to have to take responsibility for your promises — as the socialists are not likely to be — then you can make all kinds of promises to anybody and suggest that everybody else is wrong.

In their knee-jerk reaction to try and politicize every single thing that goes on in this province, they have distorted the information, they have misused the information, they have been selective about what they have used in the information, and they have repeated it for several days, one after another. I suppose it's guerrilla warfare or socialist tactics that if you repeat it often enough, maybe somewhere along the line people will think that there must be something to it.

MR. ROSE: Would you say it was a big lie?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes.

MR. ROSE: Oh, that's unparliamentary.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, it was your idea.

It's the big-lie approach, where you keep saying the wrong thing repeatedly in the hopes that someone will believe that there must be some substance to it. As Marshall McLuhan said, enough mud gives the impression of depth. I guess that is one of the things they have been trying to do.

I could respond to many of the accusations that were made. The member for Surrey-Guildford Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) accused me of having done everything possible in my term as minister to scuttle education in this province. I could take personal affront at that, but I guess, when you consider the source, you let it go at that. The opposition critic, in

[ Page 9480 ]

leading off the debate, made a great point of how little notice was given that the bill would come before the House. They had been told right from day one that as soon as the throne speech and budget speech debate were finished — and they managed to prolong the latter unnecessarily for about two or three days — this bill would be the first before them. But absolutely no notice, they say.

That member said that I regret this legislation. What a bunch of nonsense! The member said that the public objects. What I gathered was that the teachers object because it affects the amount of money that might be available to them. The trustees object because it does not give them a blank credit card which they can then send to Victoria for payment; they now have to ask their taxpayers for it. The NDP objects, and many of their friends object to this. But wherever I have gone in this province, I have had so much response from the public saying they are glad that there's a curb on the 15, 20 and 30 percent spending increases each year, while the economy is running at 5 or 6 percent.

Who is this public? A great deal was made by the Leader of the Opposition about the small turnout on the referendums. What about the small turnouts for the election of school trustees or in by-elections for trustees? A small number of the populace turning out and electing the trustees is, to the opposition, paramount to giving them licence to spend any amount they want and apply it to the taxes. But if the taxpayers decide through a referendum vote with a small turnout.... Somehow or other that takes on a significance beyond parallel with anything else — it's a minority making the decision. I'll tell you, it's a lot bigger minority making that decision than trustees who, once elected by an even smaller majority, then feel they have the right to expand the budget to any lengths they wish.

[3:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There have been a lot of questions about why referendums have been applied to school board funding. I wonder if members on the opposite side of the House — and a lot of other people — are aware that when every other ministry in government gets its budget approved by this House, it has to be accountable for the amount that has been approved in their budget. Yes, there are special warrants, overdrafts and so on. But that ministry has to be accountable for the amount approved in the provincial budget. When it came to supplementary spending, when it came to the school boards' authority, this was the only ministry in government where, after the provincial budget had been set and approved — at a generous level compared to the rest of the country — the boards could expand that budget to any extent they wished and then blame the province for not coming up with 100 percent of it. That's the only ministry in government — through the locally elected school boards -that can expand its budget to any length.

I was even willing to accept that. For three years I said to them: "If you want to make those kinds of additional expenditures, then please take the responsibility for them. I think your position is defensible." Instead of that, one after another, every single one of them said: "The only reason your taxes are increasing is because Victoria is cutting spending on education."

We were cutting spending on education, according to those socialists over there, when we came up with about a 12-percent increase three years ago, in order to pick up some of that supplementary spending of $172 million that the school boards had put in place, over and above what had been approved by the province. And lo and behold, having picked that up into the budget and added an increase for inflation, by the time the smoke settled, the increase had gone up another $162 million in that one year. So what happened? We picked up that spending of $172 million and added to it, and they didn't even say thank you. They simply added another $162 million, put it on the local taxpayers and then blamed us for not funding education.

The next year we increased spending by about 10 percent, with an economy running at 4, and the opposition said: "That's not enough. You're cutting spending in education." The next year we increased it by over 8 percent — I'm not talking about just the operating budgets. And that wasn't enough. The economy was running at 4 or 5 percent, but it wasn't enough. This year we have increased it by 9.9 percent on the operating budget. It wasn't enough. The opposition would give more. There should be no cost controls on spending, according to them, absolutely none. Whereas the taxpayers, the public of this province, I think, were saying: "Hey, we can't keep going at this rate, "

You can pick any period you want. Over the last three years we have increased the operating budgets for education by 28.4 percent. The average increase in Canada was 16 percent. And it's not enough.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Because your statistics are old.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they're not.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, they are.

We have separated the school district operating budgets from the capital. The capital is above that. Computer funding is above that. The royal commission implementation money is above that. We have said that the amount in this province for the operating budget by itself is $5,259 per student on average. But when you add in those other items that we have put in, it is now over $5,900 per pupil, and that compares very favourably with any jurisdiction in this country.

You talk about playing politics, but this has been typical throughout. They pick one figure selectively from this, and then they make a big case around that, because their whole orientation has more to do with

[ Page 9481 ]

politics than it ever does with education or a concern for kids. The only time I hear that opposition concerned for kids is when they can score some political Brownie points out of it.

We've had a lot...and I'm just going to use a few examples. The new NDP member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull), who was chairman of the Victoria school board and then decided to go into the bigger field, made a big production of how responsible the Victoria school board was. Well, let me tell you about last year, the year before. They had put together a budget and gone to the people — and had done quite a responsible job in that — and said: "This is what we need, along with what the government is providing to us, to run a quality education system in this district. Unfortunately, it generates a 10.5 percent increase in your taxes, but we think it's necessary." And their people supported them.

When we came out with the provincial budget, we had changed the formula to try and do some more equalizing for the larger districts, such as Victoria and Vancouver. We had raised the base from 55 to 57 percent. That generated an extra $2 million or more for the Victoria school board. So what did they do? They did not go back and say: "We can now lower your tax increase to 8 percent, because we've got $2 million more." They said: "What the heck, we told them it was 10.5 percent. We'll find a way to spend the other $2 million." And, by golly, they did. Then they try and build it into their next base.

We've had accusations that they are forced to take money away from their schoolchildren, from their school programs, in order to deal with the asbestos program in the Victoria school system. They needed $75, 000 to remove asbestos from some of the schools. They had been given over $1.5 million in minor capital; they had plenty of money there to do it. But they didn't do a thing about it. Then when the Workers' Compensation Board came down on them, they said: "Well, the province won't give us emergency funding." Why the heck would I approve emergency funding of $75,000 when I had approved $1.5 million that year and $1.3 million the year before, which they had and they could have done the job with? That's the kind of political crap that we get, so we're not going to.... That is the sort of thing these series of referendums....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the minister to withdraw his unparliamentary language.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry. I don't recall what I said, but if it offends the Speaker, I certainly will withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: It offends the standing orders which indicate which language is permitted in the House and which isn't.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) to restrain himself at all times and especially during the time the Speaker is making a statement. Would the minister continue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You have some examples there of the type of thing we have been facing in this debate. I feel it's up to the people what they want to approve in a referendum or what they don't want to approve, but on the other hand I think boards should feel an obligation to give the correct and full information to their taxpayers.

Last Thursday and Friday we heard comments from the Vancouver and Surrey board people — and I guess some others — who said quite openly and candidly: "Of course we are approaching only those people — the teachers and some of the parents — that we know might vote for the referendum. We would be stupid to try and make everyone else aware of what's going on." I was under the impression that the elected trustees' main function was to represent their taxpayers as well as their school district and not to beat the taxpayers in some way by whatever method they could. Now I hear them saying, after the weekend is over and the referendum vote is over: "The only reason that we couldn't really inform all of the rest of the people is that the ministry didn't give us enough time. They only gave us a week." Mr. Speaker, I announced on January 31 that anything above the block allocation would have to go to referendum, and there was a great deal of publicity.

There are so many examples of what can be done. Let me deal fairly quickly with some of the things that were in referendum. The Leader of the Opposition made a point of talking about playing political football with the children. That is the member who last year sent out to the student councils in this province with his approval to please invite our NDP members into the schools, and we'll tell you how rotten Social Credit is. That is a member who says: "We wouldn't play political football. Withdraw Bill 11." That's his biggest contribution to the one day in a week that he has been in this House: he comes in here and says, "Withdraw." Because he hasn't had time to read it, I guess he would like us to withdraw it. What is he recommending? Open spending?

He touches on the Abbotsford referendum for library books and integration. Every district gets some money for supplies, library books and funding for integration in the block and in the programs above the block.

In Coquitlam — maintain staff. At least they're honest; they don't need to maintain staff. I think it means they want to increase staff, because to maintain staff they've got all of the funding that they got last year plus an inflation increase.

Purchase equipment. Once again there is an equipment account. They have a minor capital account. There's a shared capital; there's all of that.

Repair classrooms. They get $1 million a year for repairing classrooms. Prince George, portable classrooms. It has been made abundantly clear that portable classrooms will now be funded from the capital project above the block funding, and this year we

[ Page 9482 ]

move the minor capital from $50 million to $75 million, so all the money that's needed for portables Is above the block and available to school districts as needed for portables. Yet they are going to referendum to purchase portables. How do you believe that? At least Prince George was honest. They said: "We want some money to reduce class sizes."

Queen Charlottes, maintain adult education. It's in their budget. It's there, and we have in this ministry in the last few years said that any adult who takes a school program in the secondary school, as long as it's a school program, counts as that much of an equivalent. If they're taking two courses instead of eight, they get funded at two-eighths in the block. Then somebody over there — I guess it was the Leader of the Opposition — stood up to say: "There is no money for these people to take courses." Post-secondary has courses. We have courses. We fund them. There are all kinds of opportunities. It's not that the people are turning down these programs that they've gone to referendum for, but they are smart enough to know that that would be double funding because it's already available and there.

In Surrey we have the programs for special needs. That's in the block, and if they have more special needs pupils, they get more money for that.

ESL programs. They show us ESL students, they get funded at the ESL level.

Hearing impaired. These are special students and there is extra funding for those in the block.

Library books. Again, Surrey says they have to have money for portables. Did they tell their taxpayers that the money for portables is over and above the block, or that they don't need to go to a referendum for that? Did they tell their taxpayers that last year they had quite a bit of money for moving and setting up portables in their fiscal framework? We left that in there; we didn't even take it out. So they had that money left over, plus new money for portables, and they say they have to go to a referendum for portables, and then blame us.

The Leader of the Opposition says that the gifted and special-needs students are losers. More money has gone in each year for gifted and special-needs students. It's in the block and in the increase to the block.

[4:00]

I hardly need to repeat that the ballot from Vancouver.... The Leader of the Opposition said: "My goodness, they have to go to a referendum to put emergency exit lights in some of the schools!" Did they tell their taxpayers that they have almost $4 million of shareable capital in the block for those types of things? Did they tell their taxpayers that they already have — for minor capital, out of the $75 million — a couple of million dollars a year beyond the block to repair classrooms and to do those kinds of things? Did they tell their taxpayers that they were sitting on a $10 million capital reserve, while they couldn't find $500,000 to do an earthquake study? That's what bothers me.

I notice that the chairman of the Vancouver board is upset that I mentioned this information publicly. I also notice that in no way has he denied that it exists. When I said that they got $2.7 million for computers in two years, and they still had $2 million of it in the bank, and the kids were doing without computers, they said I shouldn't be releasing that information: "We'll get around to spending it." For two years those kids have done without the computers. I can understand, as the Leader of the Opposition says, that the people in the East End of Vancouver want their kids to have computers. They say: "We don't have any computers in our schools, so of course we'll approve it in the referendum." They didn't need to. The money was sitting there already, but they just didn't get around to buying the computers.

The elimination of pesticides on school grounds — there's plenty of money in their capital. What's that got to do with extra programs? I guess the main point is that everything that was on that referendum ballot in Vancouver is either in the block or provided for above the block. It is available, and the money is there to fund it. So I don't know why they are going for that.

Perhaps I can bring back to.... I don't know whether it's even worth trying to explain again, because the opposition members just can't seem to get it through their heads — like many other people. What is block funding? They say — and so do the boards — that they accept the concept of block funding, apparently without any comprehension of what it means. It means a block of money to be distributed in any way the school board sees fit, a block of money to fund the education program in that district.

MR. ROSE: We know that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, it doesn't show. If you know that, it certainly doesn't show. The impression I get from the opposition and particularly from partisan school boards is that block funding is a starting point on which to add. If you take the change to the block funding system which is recommended by Sullivan.... I guess that's what was bothering me. The opposition House Leader managed to distort that. He said that I said: "None of the boards thanked me for going to a referendum." I did not say that. I said: "None of the boards seemed to appreciate the fact that there was enough money there to fund the educational programs."

When we went to block funding, the concept was that there would be a block of money that would fund the educational program In the district. Then there was a discussion about adequacy: how big is the block? We agreed that if we were going to start it without creating any wars in education, we would acknowledge all of the spending we had approved, plus the $238 million that the boards had added last year, and we would say: "That's the starting block." In other words, all of the actual expenditures on education are in the block. That seems to be acceptable to everyone.

Then we said that we would increase it by a reasonable figure, in line with the economy — because it has to expand — and we would allow for

[ Page 9483 ]

increased enrolments. When we added that up, it came to a 9.9 percent increase over last year's spending — admittedly, about 3.6 or 3.7 percent of it was for enrolment increases. They say: "You have not allowed for growth." We have provided for all of the dollars spent last year, plus 6.2 percent, in round numbers, plus 3.7 percent for projected enrolment increases. I would say that is accounting for enrolment increases.

When you look at the comparison to other provinces, you have things like.... The highest increase of any province, including enrolment projections, is Ontario, at 6.4 percent. It is 3.5 in Alberta and 3.6 in Nova Scotia. An average of about a 4 percent increase, including enrolment increases, across Canada this year from all of the Education ministries and all of the governments, and in British Columbia 9.9 percent, and those people have the audacity to say: "But it's not enough." After two good years, then a really good year, and it's not enough.

Could I reiterate, please: block funding means that there is a bunch of money available — a total amount available; that's the block — and that that block is adequate, and therefore that should fund the education programs.

Then it was a case of okay, leave it at that — cap it. Because after all, if you got all the money that you've been spending plus the increase that you need, that should be it. But no, we said there may be other reasons, and if boards use them intelligently I think there could be places where both the board and the taxpayers do agree that some additional funding is necessary. So we opened the door and said: "Do you want to go above that? Convince your taxpayers and we will have a referendum."

All of the focus has been on referendum, and again the contradictory arguments that I hear from the opposition and many other people of the socialist stripe.... It seems to be: "Look, we have every evidence that the majority of the public in this province supports far more spending than you're willing to put up." Before even the referendum they were saying: "The people of this province support far more spending than the government has allotted." And then they turn around in the next breath and say: "That's why it's so unfortunate we're having referenda, because the people will never vote for more spending than what is being provided." How ludicrous! They kill and defeat their own argument.

Education is and has been a priority of this government. It's interesting to note that with all of the changes that I've made.... I've even been accused by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms Smallwood) of doing change for the sake of change and creating confrontation for the sake of confrontation. I have tried for three years, but the BCTF executive's political agenda would not allow peace in this province. They kept attacking me. Even when I refused to argue with them they still kept attacking and attacking this government publicly. When you are continually attacked.... Their agenda was to attack, attack, attack, and of course the opposition certainly goes along with that, because when you've got $1 million or $1.5 million that the BCTF spends in your election campaign and you don't even have to show it as election expenses, it's not bad. And they talk about us, accusing our friends....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. The time has expired. I must now ask you to move the motion.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I move second reading of Bill 11.

[4:15]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

NAYS - 17

Bill 11, School Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, it's good to be in committee where we can get at the nuts and "block" of the referendum.

Because this is a very significant bill, it's rather good that the very first section we're going to be dealing with is a section on definitions. I am sure that if anyone was reading the bill for the first time and read about annual capital allowances, annual capital projects, capital plan expenses, capital plan projects, local capital expenses, and so on, they would throw up their hands and say: "This is somewhat confusing."

I want to zero in particularly on the block. The minister has said a number of times that big capital spending is outside the block. To put that to rest, we

[ Page 9484 ]

know that if you're going to build a school, it's not a part of block funding. There will be the same method we've had in the past where big projects will come over to the ministry to get approval and have to be passed by a bylaw of the board, and those will be shared through debt services. I want to put that to one side so we don't get into that debate. I'll try to stay with what is within that block.

I find as I look at these terms — they sort of resonate in my head; I probably don't always keep them as clear as the minister might — that there are two aspects of this new set of definitions that I want to take a look at.

One of them is an annual capital allowance. It's my understanding that this annual capital allowance is now in the block in the amount of money, on a per pupil basis, that the minister says will be available to school boards. What determines this annual capital allowance under the block?

I'd like to propose a thesis, and the minister can perhaps clarify it for me. It appears to me that the amount of this annual capital allowance that is in the block is based on past expenditures. In other words, if the board had a certain amount of money that it paid for a lot of what we normally think of as capital expenses that has been rolled into the block — I believe this may be what we used to call non-shareable capital.... The actual amount that's available to school boards at this time is in fact an amount that is based on what they have been spending in the past, rather than any kind of objective criterion about what might be needed in that block.

Mr. Chairman, one of the tasks that we're going to have at this stage of the game — just to give some indication of the line of questioning that I want to follow — is how we get at a block that's going to be a block that works, that's credible, that's fair, that's equitable, because the block is what we're building on for this whole system. If we build, as we so often say, on a foundation that's rocky and hasn't been cemented together, then we're going to have problems.

What we'd like to deal with here is getting some understanding of how that block has been developed so that the principles of the block — which the minister has said will be stable, predictable, accountable and fair — can be demonstrated as being in the block funding.

If the minister could give me some indication of that annual capital allowance and how that amount of money was determined in terms of what goes into the block, then I want to pursue a little line of questioning, once I get some confirmation that this annual capital allowance in the block of any school district right now is likely to be pretty close in the amount that might have got rolled in to what they spent last year in non-shareable capital and in, perhaps, one function of the fiscal framework. I don't know which one it is. What's in the annual capital allowance, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: There are two ways that the school board can deal with capital projects. One of them is by capital approval: major and minor capital approvals are provided from the ministry on the basis of need and the submissions that districts put in. Also in the block is an amount of money that is available to boards to spend as they need to for minor projects: that is the annual capital allowance, as it says in the definition, which is not included in a board's capital plan bylaw. That money is determined by a formula which takes into account the value of the buildings in a district, the age of the buildings, the amount of space in effect per square metre.... So it is as much as possible an objective, fair formula for that portion.

MS. A. HAGEN: So there is, then, some kind of formula that determines the amount that goes into the block.

Mr. Chairman, might I ask the minister, given the history of the years of restraint that we've been through, and given the fact that I think the minister would acknowledge that during this period, one of the ways in which school districts managed to balance their budgets and to continue their programs was to cut back on much of the maintenance and repairs — the kind of long-term planning that keeps many of the old schools able to continue to be used for education.... Given that history, is it fair to say that in this block there may be still residuals of that restraint?

There has been a rolling average, as I understand it, of capital funding available to boards, based on a three-year average. If boards hadn't been spending on maintenance and ongoing upgrading — not big projects, but the kind of stuff we do to be sure that roofs don't leak, and that the carpets are replaced, and that furnaces and heating operations are kept in good repair, and that equipment is replaced.... Really, a lot of that stuff was not done, particularly in the period from 1982-83 to 1986. Is there some residual effect, in the minister's view, on the block, as a result of the budgeting practices of boards at that time, as they tried to manage with very limited amounts of money and cut back their capital spending?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would suppose that in any situation where something was neglected and then left neglected for a time, there would be a residual effect — if that is the question the member is asking. But during the restraint program, there was local autonomy; it was by choice that boards cut back on salary increases, maintenance or... That was a local choice.

The rolling average is for maintenance operations, not for capital. I think that whatever residual effect was there has been more than looked after. We have increased the minor capital funding considerably, as I said, from $25 million to $50 million to $75 million this year. At the same time, we also incorporated into the fiscal framework, before we moved to the block system, around $23 million or $24 million for those types of things that school boards can do. That's been apportioned according to the age of the building. So

[ Page 9485 ]

there has been an opportunity for people to catch up. If the member is trying to ask whether everybody has caught up equally, I don't know. Where did they put their money? Where did they put it last year?

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, we must not go back too far in history, but I can't resist a comment to the minister that during the period of restraint, wages were restrained as well as board budgets. The period of restraint, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) noted in his comments earlier, was such that in one year there was no increase in board budgets, and in another year there was an actual decrease in board budgets. The only way in which those boards were able to operate was to cut back on maintenance.

The thesis that I want to put forward, Mr. Chairman, without belabouring this point — we'll come back to it — is that what is in the block, in the snapshot for each district, is the basis on which that district is going to be budgeting for a number of years. We have been told that there is a variation in the per-pupil average cost per district, and we recognize that has ever been thus. But within that range, there are questions that we really need to get answered. I think that one of the theses that we'll be bringing forward is that the minister should in fact be prepared to demonstrate that the block that he has delivered to school districts does provide a level of equity for districts in this area for capital costs. We'll be looking at it in the broader sense when we come to look at actual block funding.

It's probably very fair to say at this point that the block that the minister has delivered to school districts this year is more reflective of past expenditures for capital projects than it is reflective of the costs that they might quite legitimately need to undertake to keep their buildings in reasonable shape. I know there are districts, for instance, that have been trying to move from a 20-year equipment replacement to a 10-year equipment replacement. There isn't enough in their budget this year for them to do that; yet that's a reasonable kind of aspiration for boards to have, especially when you're looking at shop equipment computer equipment or any of the kinds of equipment that most of us know is obsolete probably in five years, let alone 10 or 20.

[4:30]

We know, too, that districts have been facing very major costs for keeping their schools up to snuff. I know that the minister has been looking at the issue of minor repairs that do that job. I would contend that this block probably institutionalizes some of those inequities. The point that we will be making is that that block should not be frozen so that those inequities are enshrined from now until — dear knows when — we get to be government and can look at this in a little more rational way.

Let me turn to another definition — that is, the definition of local capital expense, which is something that comes out of totally local decisions. It's not a part of the block; it has to come from the board's reserves if it has reserves, or it has to come from referendum. The board's allocation can come from that. It may also come from other allowances designated by the minister. I have two questions. What are the other allowances that may be designated by the minister that would provide resources for a local capital expense? Are these from some of the special projects, such as funding for the Royal Commission on Education, where there may need to be modifications to school buildings or classrooms in order to deliver the kind of education system that is anticipated under the royal commission? Or are there some other allowances that the minister is talking about? Is this something that comes from capital funds but doesn't require a bylaw? I'd like to have the minister explain what that might refer to.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess we're going to play yo-yo, point by point by bitty point here. I would hope that the member might put her questions together so that we don't have to play yo-yo all afternoon.

The other thing is that I'm somewhat enthralled by the member reading to me what it says and then saying: "Now tell me what it says." If we're going to play that game — word by word, clause by clause — it says: "'Local capital expense' means a capital expense with respect to a project that is (a) financed from the board's local capital reserve...." They had some money of their own, if you like. So if it comes out of that reserve, that is a local capital expense, because they're spending it from their local money.

It says that if it's "included in the annual budget of a board and financed from local revenue" — where they might have some sources of revenue at the local level, it doesn't cut into the provincial budget, or if they had gone to referendum, for instance, to say: "We want to build a new school-bus garage, and it's going to cost $60,000; we've gone to referendum, and the taxpayers have approved it" — the whole $60,000 is paid for that bus garage this year. It's probably more like $600,000 at the rate garages cost nowadays. The point remains that in the board's allocation, the provincial block, other than its annual capital allowance or other allowances designated by the minister.... So in the block, the money that they have had in place at the local level was added to their block and is part of their block and theirs to do with as they see fit. So it's local money.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'll just leave the question with the minister, and perhaps he would care to answer it when he yo-yos again. This is, I might note, a particular clause made up of little bits and pieces, and it seems to me that the easiest way to deal with it is to ask specific questions and to get quick answers.

I still would like to know the source of other allowances designated by the minister, which was my question. If he is able to answer that, fine. If not, we'll simply consider it to be another special fund that the minister has discretion to use where no one knows what it might be or where it might be coming from.

The other point I want to make around this issue is that local capital expenses may be raised through

[ Page 9486 ]

school referendum taxes. The minister just used an example of a school garage, presumably for buses. Referendums are for annual expenditures. In fact, they are for expenditures within the calendar year in which those taxes are raised — not for a school year.

One of the problems that boards are going to face around going to referendum for capital expenses is that they either have to raise all the cost of a particular project within a single calendar year even though the tax isn't collected until July of that year — or else they are going to risk not having a referendum pass the second time around, because we can't have multi-year funding. We can only — through the referendum system that exists — ask the taxpayers for money that is coming for that one year.

I recognize the boards could ask for that money; let's say it was $100,000 for a particular project. They have the discretion of phasing that project in over a couple of years and putting the money that has been raised through referendum into a surplus account for that purpose. But from the point of view of referendum being the means by which that money is raised, it means that all that money has to be raised up front.

That's not the way the minister builds schools. When the minister builds schools, he amortizes the cost of those schools over 20 years. I think a problem for boards trying to deal with the referendum system — an annual budget item — is the fact that they cannot get approval for multi-year funding out of two tax years. I think it's a real problem for boards who are looking for ways to make local decisions that are taken out of consideration for the needs of their district — and having that work.

I would like the minister to comment on the rationale here for there not being more discretion with the referendum system — which, as he knows, we don't like — that would allow boards to plan for capital projects over a reasonable lifespan, in the same way as we plan for the building of schools and paying for them over a longer span than a single year.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think it's a problem for boards. It seems to be a comprehension problem for the member, in that this is no change from the past. Boards have never been able to — on their own, out of local capital — commit the taxpayers to ten years of expenditures. They're not going to be able to in the future. That kind of project is in our major capital, and that project...

As I have indicated, we have moved from $110 million to $200 million to $275 million of major capital in three years, and those are the projects they put in that are prioritized and are handled through the other plan.

The referendum is not to build schools; the major capital program is to build schools. The referendum is if they want to build — and I use the example of a garage — and their local taxpayers say: "Yes, we will put up $600,000 to build a garage." And we say: "You can't commit the taxpayers for next year and the next year and the next year in a referendum. You commit them for this year." So the taxpayers have to be taxed to raise the whole $600,000 this year.

I'm not concerned — because it's a local matter — whether they finish the garage before December 31 or by next spring. But the money for that garage — for that particular item — has to come in. Surely the member is not somehow suggesting that a board should be able to go to a referendum — to its taxpayers — and say: "We're going for $200,000; that's what we want you to fund this year. We forgot to mention that would generate additional taxes of $400,000 a year for the next ten years."

No, they've got to put it up front. It's up front. It's funded this year. It is intended for the minor projects or special projects that the districts want. The other projects — the long-term projects — are still in the major capital, so they're not in this at all.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think the minister has made the case: $600,000 in lots of districts is a fairly significant amount of money. In Kitimat, for example, which was going to referendum for $650,000 until the minister found some money for that district that it should have had, that amount of money up front may be an impossible thing to get through referendum.

The point that I'm making is that the referendum basically means boards cannot plan for long-term local capital expenses, because they are at the mercy, if you like, of taxpayers who each year are going to be asked to deal with these issues.

If the board, as a locally elected board of responsible trustees, decided that it was going to deal with a project that needed to be a multi-year project, then it could do some of that decision-making. That's the kind of thing we feel is reasonable for a more flexible and responsive system to have in place. The referendum, in fact, precludes that kind of planning, because if anything is multi-year, we have to go back again. I think it will become more obvious when we're dealing with programs and with capital costs, because capital costs tend to be one-shot items, whereas program costs are, of course, ongoing ones.

I wanted to raise some of those issues around the first section, and that concludes the questions I want to ask on section 1 — unless there are some other members in the chamber who may wish to raise a question.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing In my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. A. HAGEN: The reason I'm standing is that I thought I had checked amendments.... That's fine. I just wanted to be sure this was the amendment I was expecting. This is the one that deals with the fact that Vancouver, under the special charter, had been excluded on the technical amendment.

[ Page 9487 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe this is the only amendment in the bill.

Amendment approved.

On section 5 as amended.

MS. A. HAGEN: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'm just wanting your direction here. We're now beginning to deal with part 8, right? Sometimes, with all of the different numbers we have with amending bills, it takes.... Sections 1 to 5 of part 8 are repealed and the following are substituted. What I want to address now is section 124. With your assistance, I'll know when I'm on track there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That should be dealt with right now, hon. member.

MS. A. HAGEN: That's what I thought.

This and the following two or three sections are key to the bill, because these sections establish the basis for the block funding. I think perhaps what I'll do is begin by asking the minister if he would not give us his standard speech on what's in the block — because I've heard that on many different occasions — but elaborate a little bit and give some information on the basis of what criteria the minister will use to determine the average per pupil amount.

[4:45]

I'm aware that this year the minister has stated that that amount has been arrived at by taking the sum of all of the operating budgets of school boards, dividing it by the number of children who are in the system and arriving at the block. That was the basis.

I want the minister to elaborate a little bit on the criteria that he is using for this block, because that's simply what I call a snapshot. That block has been determined by taking something that exists, and the number of students in the system, and arriving at a figure. It means that built into the calculation — into that block — could very well be inequities or deficiencies within a system that are going to be replicated and magnified over time.

If the minister could not just tell us how he got to the block, but the criteria that are to be used in the block, I have some questions that I want to go with once I've heard his discussion.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the Section is fairly clear. The block of funds will be the amount per pupil. We went that route by breaking down last year's expenditure into an amount per pupil so that we automatically build in enrolment increases. It would be the amount per pupil times the number of full-time-equivalent students. We have committed that the announcement will be made by February 1, so the boards will be informed what the amount is. As to determining the amount, that will carry on in the same way it always has in the past, by the funding available.

By going to block funding, the government has accepted the principle of, the block plus an economic adjustment factor each year. This year we have a block of $2,660 million which was derived by coming up with all of last year's expenditures plus an increase of 6.17 percent. That's from the operating block. We have said that next year's block will be this year's block plus the economic adjustment factor. That will be determined by the economy, and it becomes a budget matter.

Each year the government has announced to the school boards what the fiscal framework funding would provide. In future, each year the government will announce by February 1 — which is quite early, considering when the budget generally comes down — the amount of the block and the amount of the increase that the economic adjustment factor provides that year. That is how it will be determined; that's the basis of block funding. You can go to a block and just increase the block. We have chosen to convert it to an amount per pupil and then multiply it by the number of pupils. If you get 3 percent more pupils, you automatically have that plus whatever economic adjustment factor.

It makes good sense, and that's what I mean: it's stable, it's predictable and it allows for long-term planning. School boards can next year look at what they have in their block this year, and when they can tell long before we announce it on February 1 what the economic indicators are, they can get a pretty good idea what to do, and by February 1 we'll tell them what decision has been made.

MS. A. HAGEN: Two issues here, Mr. Chairman. First, is the block on which this new system is going to be built fair? Secondly, do we have some good indication of a fair means of increasing it?

I want to talk about the first matter now. Is this block fair? I understand the basis the minister has used in establishing the block, but a snapshot of any board budget in any particular period of time is almost certain to provide some problems and some difficulties — again, some principles that we would all agree should be reflected in that block. Certainly you've heard and I've heard of concerns that boards have about matters that were not reflected in the block. In fact, the minister has rectified about $4.8 million in the block that should have been there and was not. That's just a first indication that the block is something that wasn't perfect when it was devised, and probably isn't close to perfect at the present time.

Let me just ask some very specific questions about whether the block acknowledges some of these very real costs of districts. I don't anticipate that this list will be in any way comprehensive. It just gives us some indication of what I think is not reflected in the block but needs to be if the block is to be fair for each district.

Quite a number of boards last year stretched their salary increments so that there were increments which were accorded in January 1990. Other boards had all of their increments in their salaries earlier on. Are those increments reflected in the blocks of boards that had later increases as a result of their contracts?

[ Page 9488 ]

I'm not clear that increments that go to the many young teachers — which the minister keeps saying cost boards quite a bit less — throughout the year are going to be reflected in the block that boards have been accorded. If teachers increase their certifications or if their anniversaries of service come up, then their increments don't all occur in September; they occur throughout the year.

There are boards that have very significant expenses as a result of their rapid growth: boards like Coquitlam, Abbotsford, Langley, Surrey and Kelowna. Are those costs of development, which are not just the straight capital costs of building a new school or renovating an old school, reflected in the block?

Boards that have identified but not acted on some of the special services for children, which we would all agree should be in a comprehensive program for children, especially given some of the initiatives of the royal commission, which said that schools should be the locus where those services are.... Are those reflected in the block? Or the fact that perhaps a school district has been behind and has not had child-abuse resources or programs to meet inner-city school needs or special needs of native children or others — is there any opportunity for their programs to bring their districts up to a better standard? Are those reflected in the block?

Does the block in fact deal... ? We're back to some of the capital costs, to that three-year average of maintenance, which is one of the fiscal framework ways of arriving at the amount for maintenance. Is that included in the block? Are the costs of early retirement reflected in the block? These are ongoing cost for boards over several years, when teachers have chosen early retirement and there has been a financial arrangement.

I believe that if we look at a number of these issues, we will find that this block is in fact based on last year's expenditures, which may or may not be consistent with this year's costs or with some sort of equity within the system.

The minister has defended quite passionately the fact that the difference in lower mainland per-pupil costs is justified because of genuine differences within those school districts. Yet if I look at a couple of districts — Surrey and Vancouver — and go back to another snapshot about ten years ago, the average per-pupil cost in those districts was very much the same. Now between Vancouver and Surrey we have a difference of $700 per pupil. We have differences ranging from a bit more than that to a bit less than that, and that's before referendum. Quite honestly, it is not possible for me to calculate why that difference is so great.

The minister has made a big thing of the fact that the cost of a teacher in Surrey is significantly lower, but by the minister's own figures and figures I have seen, the average teacher cost in Surrey is only about $2,000 less than that in Vancouver. In a small classroom of 20 — if there were such classroom sizes — that's $100 per pupil, a long way from $700 per pupil. Yet the cost of a teacher has got to be one of the biggest costs of educating that child.

Is the minister able to provide us with an actual quantitative accounting of the differences that add up to $600, $700 and $800 per pupil in districts that are very similar in the sense that they are large and dense and have a high number of students in urban areas?

In this block funding system, I believe we do not have a base that has been sufficiently defined, organized or made clear to us, for us to believe that the base, the block we're building on, is in good shape. This is one of our concerns, because this is the basis of future funding. The minister just said that. This block, this year, this snapshot that we have for Surrey — or Langley, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Vancouver, Prince George, Kitimat, Castlegar or whatever — is the basis on which our future funding is going to be built. If there are elements of costs not included in that block, then clearly we are building a funding basis that is not going to be fair and equitable, and those are the first principles that have to be assured by this minister, that he must defend. He has to be prepared to provide us with information that is more than just a snapshot of board expenditures.

I have named some of the elements that I don't believe are included in the block, that are legitimate expenditures. They are factors that have reduced the increase that boards have received from an amount that exceeds the 6.17 percent, which the minister has said is the economic indicator and the inflation factor, to amounts — ones that I have seen, and it's not that comprehensive — ranging. to 4 or 5 percent. That means that boards are going to have difficulty maintaining a level of service with the block that they have. If that block is wrong to start with, then the flawed referendum system becomes even more of a problem for us.

So whatever the minister can do to provide us with some information about that, and whatever he is prepared to commit in giving that information about what is in the block, why the discrepancies and how he can account for them, will be helpful in our feeling that the principle of block funding is in fact being carried out in its practice and implementation.

[5:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, we have a few questions put together here, but I think they all sort of flow together into one major question: are we funding expenditures or are we funding costs? If you base your budget on your expenditures, I suppose it can be said that we're not taking into account whatever costs might be added. There's no end to what costs, if you want to make that distinction.

The member asked: what about increments, since we are dealing with the actual expenditures of boards from last year? If they paid increments last year in their budget, then that would have been included in their total costs; therefore it's in the block and the block has been increased.

If the differential of pay, whether they gave the pay increase at one time or at two different periods in the year.... I have to assume that what the fiscal framework provided and what the supplementary

[ Page 9489 ]

provided in the district included the salaries for teachers for the whole year. Therefore that's in their total expenditures, if I have to use that term rather than "costs," which you seem to object to. But if it was included in their total expenditures for the '89-90 year, then obviously, when we've taken their total expenditures and increased it, we have it included in the block.

I know some districts have even said: "Yes, but last year we didn't pay the pensions. The government paid the pensions, and this year they're making us pay the pensions." What they seem to forget to tell is that the government has taken all of the expenditures, and if we've been putting $5 million for that district into the block, we've added the $5 million in. So we talk about equivalent block last year and this year.

As for enrolment growth, you say we can't take a snapshot. Well, I don't think we can come up with a new budget each month either, and so we do the best job with the school districts to estimate funding the enrolment of students as based on the numbers at a certain time. We take a projected enrolment now and calculate the funding on that. Then, at September 30 — as in the past — we take the actual enrolment, and that is the funding for the year. The next September, if we're wrong, some of that gets corrected. Admittedly, we don't add for every pupil that comes in during the year, but neither do we subtract from the budget all those students, the, 30 to 35 percent, that people keep telling us drop out during the year. We don't take that money away. I think it does tend to equalize itself.

I even said to some of the boards: "Okay, do you want me to take a snapshot in January and adjust your funding? But remember, it will cut two ways: it will take increases and also the dropouts." You know — the absences that turn into dropouts after September 30.

MR. ROSE: Yes, but are they equal?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know. In one case they may be higher, and in another case they may be lower.

Boards were not quite as receptive to taking another snapshot. What would you like us to do? Readjust the budget in January, readjust it in March, readjust it all the time? We've adjusted it each time based on the actual enrolments on September 30; no change.

I'm trying to think of some of the other things that were included in the member's questions. The basis of equity, the cost per district, isn't the same percentage increase. Last year when we increased the provincial budget on education by 10 percent, we then applied the fiscal framework, and that wasn't 10 percent in each district. It was determined by the type of students. When I say type of students, were they all regular students? Were they ESL students? It was determined by the average salaries of teachers. It was determined by the heating bills — differences between districts. It was determined by a whole number of factors. So when we increased the education budget by 10 percent under the previous system, not every district got an equal 10 percent, because it wouldn't make sense when growth varies so much from one district to another. If in one district the enrolment went down by 15 percent, would you give them a 10 percent increase? You know, it would have been ridiculous under the old system.

Similarly, when we take the block and then we use the fiscal framework which is based on costs, on teachers' salaries, on all of the variables — and there are many variables — then the fiscal framework provides an equitable amount to each district. Not an equal amount, but an equitable amount.

You say: "Well, what about the differences: only $2,000 difference between teachers' salaries in Surrey and Vancouver?" But Surrey had about 3 or 4 percent ESL; Vancouver had 26 percent. The ESL students are funded at a different level than the others, so it generates higher expenditures or higher costs in the Vancouver district for the number of students.

The enrolment increases: what are they? In Vancouver, they were heavily ESL. In Surrey and some other places they were not heavily ESL; they were heavily primary. In another place, there might have been heavy secondary increases, which is different. The fiscal framework picks up all those variables. Surely it shouldn't be a contest: if they can spend $5,000 per pupil, then the only fair thing is — regardless of what it costs us to run the system — that we should spend $5,000 per pupil as well.

Under the old system, if you worked it out per pupil, there were some districts near the average, some districts well above the average and some well below the average. With a new funding formula in place, some of the districts that were relatively below the average because their costs were lower than the next district are suddenly moving up to the average. That's what some of them are saying. They say anything less than that means you don't care as much about our kids as you care about those kids over there, and it isn't true. It depends on the number of special-ed kids, ESL kids, teachers' salaries, the age of the school buildings as the maintenance cost varies with that, the number of students who come in who fit into the existing school program and ones that are added and so on.

All those variables have to be taken into account, and it is formula driven. So it is equitable, it is fair and it takes into account the different costs per pupil on which we base next year's expenditures. To reverse what the member is saying: that we should not consider basing the funding on our expenditures as a realistic way of looking at whatever the costs might be next year.... If you just said, "We're not a bit concerned about what it cost you to run the district this year, we're just going to say tell us what your costs are and we'll fund whatever you say," you can imagine the chaos that would create. So we stick with the formula. Each year we have a fiscal framework advisory committee that looks at whether or not there are some inequities.

[ Page 9490 ]

I should maybe take the one point that keeps coming up: that the minister suddenly found more money for some districts after he had said the fiscal framework and the block funding was fair. When we took a look at the funding for the districts — the block allocation — what we looked at were the total expenditures. It seemed logical, and I still think it's logical, to say that what the fiscal framework provided — the shared grant, plus your supplementary — was your total expenditure. That seemed like a reasonable amount. This part plus this part, the two expenditures, are the total amount that that district expended. Despite the sudden political cry, some of the districts didn't say a thing about it; they benefited from it. When we make an adjustment, we try to make it as fair as possible.

We discovered that the total supplementary plus the total government grant was the total the district spent. But it was bent somewhat by whether they had carried forward a surplus and kept it in the bank, and supplementary taxes therefore were kept higher. Another district took that money and put it into the expenditures and therefore brought down the supplementary. So in fairness, when we looked at that we said, yes, that makes it a different ball game for those districts that spent their surplus compared to those who hung onto it. The total was still basically the same. So we made that adjustment in fairness, and we looked at how many districts were involved, in every one of the districts where that applied, and the amount. That's what we calculated into the framework.

Yes, I wish no errors were ever made and that nothing was ever forgotten. We just had to have an amendment on this, because when we said that we go to referendum, it shall be conducted according to the Municipal Act, somebody somewhere, I guess, missed that Vancouver is a separate animal; it does not go by the Municipal Act. They run their system under the Vancouver Charter, which parallels the Municipal Act but has some variations. So we've tried to correct that. We have notified them that certainly our intent was not to eliminate Vancouver or to force them to change their whole structure over to the Municipal Act. We said we acknowledged that, and so we made that correction.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I certainly think that the minister has come up with some very rational solutions to some very complex problems. I just wanted to enter the debate and compliment him on the very difficult job, indeed, that he has in coming up with something that is equitable that can be applied throughout the province.

More than that, I'm interested in some statistics that have been provided me. In looking at the statistics of the pupil-teacher ratio in B.C. at the present time, it would appear that we're down to the level of about 16.7. I know the minister doesn't have these figures at his fingertips to verify, so perhaps he could give, them to me at a later time., My figures show that the last year the NDP were in power in Manitoba, the pupil-teacher ratio was 23.35 which, if you look at it from a classroom point of view, would be 40 percent more children in a classroom for every teacher, as compared to the situation here in British Columbia.

Just for the record, perhaps the minister could have his staff verify that figure, because it seems to contradict a lot of what we hear from the members opposite in some of the debates in this assembly over the last few years. I think it's interesting sometimes to have a look at other jurisdictions and see exactly what the facts are. Perhaps the minister could check it out for me.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, we will have that kind of detail here during my estimates. We'll be able to answer that.

I know that we are at about 16.51 pupil-teacher ratio in British Columbia, at least for the 1988-89 year. That is quite a bit lower than the 19 target the NDP had in 1972 and didn't make.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not sure of the relevance of other provinces to us in trying to sort out the business of a new system of funding. I want to make it clear that the purpose of this line of questioning is that we want to be sure that the basis for block funding is a good one, that it's fair and defensible, that people can understand what's there and that if there are deficiencies and questions, the minister can deal with them.

I'm not satisfied that he has indicated whether there aren't boards caught in that snapshot who are going to — from now on — have a base of funding that is like having a minimum wage, instead of a $10 wage, onto which you're adding 5 percent. If you're adding 5 percent onto a minimum wage, it's not very much. If you're adding 5 percent onto a $10 or $15 wage, then the dollars you are going to have to spend are better. What's in this block? The fundamental elements that are in this block are pretty critical.

[5:15]

I would agree with the minister that in many instances it has worked out quite well for boards. I believe there are boards who are caught, at this time, with expenditures that may have been held back last year, because boards decided they were going to be very cautious and conservative about their spending. Those boards are now locked into that position of perhaps not having taken initiatives that needed to be taken. Now they are going to be constrained around taking those initiatives for years to come. It will be, if you like, a cumulative problem that will get worse.

There is nothing in the legislation to determine what the criteria are for the block. The block is set by the minister, and in fact, the review, of that block is not guaranteed.

I would like the minister to give us three assurances: first, that he will be prepared to provide information that explains — in terms that parents and citizens in communities can understand — the very great disparity that exists between some of the lower mainland districts. For most people, that disparity seems too large to be explained by the reasons the

[ Page 9491 ]

minister has given. I want to make clear that this is not a pitch for the same average per-pupil cost. It's a pitch for the minister to make clear to the public why that difference exists. I think that's a reasonable request. If there is a great deal of difference within the lower mainland, then we should know why that difference exists.

The second thing I want to ask the minister to agree to is that around the issue of significant elements that are excluded — elements related particularly to salaries and increments or to ongoing maintenance and capital costs — the minister will be prepared to look at those issues and inequities that may be built in and to define those in some sort of a process. A legislative committee might be challenged to look at that, so we can make certain that the block on which this whole system is going to be built starts out being a reasonable and fair block that is seen to be fair and reasonable.

If that doesn't happen, I would contend that we are going to continue to not have predictability, stability or a sense of accountability by this minister, which are the three hallmarks of this particular piece of legislation.

Thirdly, I would like to ask the minister to consider that there be some kind of commitment to the increase in the block that is going to occur. Now the minister has used the term "economic indicators" to say that this will be the basis for increase, along with the number of pupils within a system. When it comes time for us to deal with some difficult times economically, we are all prepared to look at the constraints that places on a government in establishing its budgets. But I believe that in those times people are really prepared to make extraordinary commitments to some of the services that are provided by government and to cut back more significantly in others.

I don't believe, for example, that people want to go through what we went through in the eighties when schools were very severely restrained. It took a long time for them to recover. I don't believe we'd want to do that with schools or with health. I think the minister needs to have somewhere in this legislation — or somewhere in a policy statement — some commitment to maintaining the health of the system of education and the resources for our kids, even during those times when the total provincial resources may be cut back. And I believe that the public is committed to those important areas being serviced

Let me just give you an example. Recently the independent business people —who do a fair amount of surveying of their very large number of members — asked them about taxation. The commitment of that group of people — small business people, entrepreneurial people, many of them working hard to make their business succeed — to us sustaining the level of funding for health and education or increasing it was in the 90 percent range. About half of them felt that the levels were adequate at the moment; another half of them wanted to see some increases. So those people know where the important issues are. Those people know what government should do in times of difficulty. This legislation does not provide any commitment, other than a vague statement that depending on the economic indicators the block will be increased each year.

Sorry, Mr. Minister, there's a little bit of angst out there over that. We've been through all of that in the last ten years, and it's still a memory that is painful and very significant for parents, for teachers, for trustees and for support staff in the system. We'd like to have some commitment that schools are going to be treated perhaps not as they are in California, where after Proposition 13 a new proposition in California commits a minimum of 39 percent of the state budget to education.... If, in fact, there are additional incomes that come to that state, then education is a top priority.

I'm not suggesting that we move into that area, but we have cut back in this province over the last ten years in the amount of our budget commitment to education, from about 25 percent of our budget to about 18 percent of our budget. It hasn't been that low since the fifties, when it was around 16 percent. It's been as high as 28 or 29 percent in the early seventies. We have the resources to be sure that education has secure funding, based on a defensible and accountable block that the minister is prepared to open the books on; fair funding by school district, so that discrepancies are in fact open and accounted for; and indexed in a way that's going to ensure that the system is able to survive. Those are the principles that people are looking for. They will be supportive of that block when the minister is able to give those assurances, and I offer him the opportunity to do that at this time.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know whether the member is not aware of what she's asking for, or just completely unaware of what happens. There is about a 50-page document that goes out to every secretary-treasurer and every school board, and my staff meet with them each year to say: "Here is the fiscal framework, and these are all of the notches that determine them. That's substitute days and busing mileages in kilometres and all kinds of things that are factored in. This is the basis on which the fiscal framework and the allotment for your district is determined." That was under the old system; it's under the new system. It is a fair system, and it has been explained.

I guess the member is saying that what I need to do now is take the 172 boxes or variables and do a chart of these 172 variables for every district and put them side by side to satisfy the member that it is fair. You take nothing on faith, I guess. Fair enough, but the districts have accepted that basis for the fiscal framework. They have input every year into what should be done to make it even fairer. Adjustments have been made each year.

For instance, this year elementary counselling was put in as another box, an allotment for that, because districts could not seem to, on their own.... Some districts added elementary counsellors out of the same budget, because that was a priority with them.

[ Page 9492 ]

With other districts, the elementary counsellors were only a priority if you could get an extra bucketful of money from Victoria. Otherwise it was not a priority in the scheme of things. Some districts were doing it, so we said okay, there's an allotment for it, but school boards still can adjust whether they want to put it to elementary counsellors or not. There are many ways that you can, if it's a priority to deal with elementary counsellors.

The basis for the funding is fair and logical. I don't know if we can ever explain the complexities of every one of those variables to everybody in the system. We'll certainly make an attempt, but I don't think we can take 75 school districts and run these 172 variables or something like that, side by side.... When people look at this mass of figures, I doubt that they would say, "Oh yes, now I know it's fair." The information is there and is available to anyone who wants it.

We have also said that if there are any mandate changes — for instance, if we require a school district to integrate students and we didn't before — that has to be provided for in additional funding into or above the block. So for any mandate changes — the royal commission money — that is it.

Of course, some of it starts blending in. Some districts got dual-entry funding from the royal commission funding last year for students that they took in in January. They say: "What are you going to do about them this year? Aren't you going to give them some extra funding?" Not for those students, because those students now count as FTEs and are funded over here. Within the block, they add as increased enrolments. So we don't turn around and say: "Fund them as increased enrolment, and we'll also fund them as dual-entry students." It's one or the other, though we have said that the first time you take them in from the royal commission implementation is that....

So you can see that over a period of a year or two, more and more of this will be into the block. And they'll say, "Oh. but you're not funding it from royal commission implementation money; you're now counting it in the block, " forgetting altogether that if you add ten students, you get ten times the per-pupil student allotment for those students, so you don't need the extra money. For goodness' sake, those are the things you try to explain.

The member says I have not put in the legislation the amount of the block or the amount of the increase. Perhaps you can predict. I guess that member is saying we should put in that we are going to increase the block by 6 percent each year, regardless of what the economy is doing. Sullivan very carefully and clearly said that, by and large.... Implicit in your statement is that you're not saying how much you're going to increase it each year, and I'm saying we have said it will be increased in line with the economic indicators.

It means that if the economy is running at 10 percent, we're committed to increasing it 10 percent; if the economy is running at 2 percent, we're committed at 2 percent. If it's running at zero percent.... If it's running at a negative amount, which it can do, that's the difficult one, because then to back off these.... On the other hand, when our economy was going down, between '78 and the mid-eighties, pupil enrolment went down by some 50, 000 students in this province. The opposition was saying: "But you must not fund less teachers. There are no students for them, but keep the teachers in place." How ridiculous! Yes, during the recession the number of teachers went down and the number of pupils went down. I'll tell you, the number of pupils went down at a far greater rate than the number of teachers. So I think we've maintained that.

[5:30]

I don't know how we build in advance without some sort of crystal ball-and even that you can't trust. The amount the block is going to increase.... In the legislation it says the amount per student times the number of students will constitute the block.

The opposition is very notorious for saying: "But the education budget isn't the same percentage of the total provincial budget that it used to be." Neither were all of the things that have been added to the total provincial budget in place many years ago. So you can see that we have been increasing the funding for education at a dramatic rate. But there are other programs, such as health and social services, that have increased the total. So even though our share has gone up, it hasn't increased as a part of the total pie.

I don't know whether I could ever explain that to someone who doesn't want to hear, doesn't want to understand, or has some other objective. How do you explain to someone that when the total increases... ?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry. I thought I was talking to open minds. I can see why it's not working.

MR. SIHOTA: To tie it in with economic indicators obviously doesn't make.... I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think it's as simple as you're trying to say it is. I would hope that when you said it, you were oversimplifying the situation. I think we both realize that if the economic indicators go up 10 percent, it doesn't mean that school costs are going to go up only 10 percent. There's a whole set of other variables that drive up school costs and may drive them way beyond the 10 percent figure. I think the minister understands that. If he doesn't, I guess we can have that discussion.

Experience has shown that, particularly in areas like health and education, it's rather artificial to measure against the standard of economic indicators. If the cost of living goes up 10 percent, it doesn't mean the 10 percent figure applies automatically to education or'to health care. I'm sure he understands that point.

I've been listening to the debate around this whole question of the formula, and the minister is right. It's not an easy situation to follow, because there may be 172 variables that are at play. I'd sure like to know

[ Page 9493 ]

what those variables are. I can tell you, the trustees in Sooke - in my riding - would sure like to know exactly what those variables are. You may say: "They know it, because you share it with them." I can tell you what they come back with: they don't understand why we have these major discrepancies between -and I know you've heard the argument -Sooke and Saanich. I'd like the minister to explain that type of situation, where you've got $275 more per student being spent in one district than the other.

I know the minister heard my comments this morning, so I don't have to go into all the details of the differences between the two. I'll frame this as a question. Am I correct in assuming that one of the reasons why you've got discrepancy is that the formula somehow takes into account the larger tax base that Saanich has in comparison to Sooke in a fashion to assist boards like Saanich, who have a greater capacity to raise money with that large tax base, to actually get more money from the government through the block funding? That's the first one.

The second one is, of course, that my trustees in Sooke will say to me that they had implemented their own restraint program somewhat before the govern_ ment's introduction of the restraint program in 1982. In 1981 they had cut back to the tune, I believe, of $800, 000. 1 can be exact on that; I've got the numbers here, if the minister wants them. So they started with a smaller pool, if I can put it that way, right at the outset. The formula doesn't recognize that they started with that smaller pool at the outset, and no consideration has been given to that fact. And that tends to heighten the discrepancies between the two districts. Again, I want to know if that is correct in terms of the way in which the formula takes these matters into account.

Third -and it is somewhat tangential, but the best I can make of it.... In my area the budget has gone up, I think, about 10.4 percent, if I'm not mistaken. Some of that is due to the enrolment factor, and another percentage, around 6 percent, is due to increases in the block funding. They argue -going back to my opening comment about indicators - that it's not as if the budget in that district has gone up 10.4 percent in real terms. The real number to measure it against is the number you arrive at when you factor out the enrolment component in the equation. Therefore, they say, the increase they've got from the ministry Is really well below what seems to be a figure that's well in excess of inflation.

So for my own information, I'd just like the minister to clarify those three points. Does the formula take into account the larger tax base Saanich would have versus Sooke? Does it take into account the $800, 000 in cutbacks that they implemented, hence the smaller pool they start off with? Is that why we get the discrepancies we see?

The third point, which the minister has already heard, is: is it not true that the real increase is the increase less the enrolment factor? I take it from the minister that there is a commitment from the ministry anyway to review the formula, as it has done in previous years, to try to take into account those variables. Have they been taken into account in the past? If not, why not?

I see the minister conferring with his officials, so I'll just keep on at the mike until he has had a chance to go over this. I would like an answer from the minister with respect to those questions.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I will try to answer as briefly as possible. As the member started out by saying, it's not that simple. Of course, the formula Is complex because of the number of variables.

No, the formula is not based on the different tax base; it's based on costs. If costs are less, then the spending is less. If the spending is less, then the funding is less. It's based on board spending.

You get into this .... Well, if this board cut back $800, 000, 1 don't know ... Was it that they actually reduced their budget by $800, 000? Or had they started out planning a $3 million increase and then only increased it by $2.2 million, and then said: "We have cut back our funding by $800, 000"? No, they just haven't increased it as much. So I don't know where those specific numbers come from. I'm sure they are available.

I do know that in the case of Sooke, we have a total increase of 10.4 percent over last year's equivalent budget, of which 3.8 percent is designated for enrolment increases. So, in effect, if you take 3.8 percent from 10.4 percent, you get 6.6 percent on their budget. So they have gained.

One of the reasons they may have gained is that we did try to do some levelling, some adjusting. Some school districts were away above the provincial average in supplementary spending last year; some were considered below that. The provincial average was about 113 percent of the fiscal framework -that was the spending when you included the supplementary. Some districts were running at around 120 or 124 percent of the fiscal framework range, some were running around 108 percent, and some were actually on target.

We took a look at an adjustment or a complete leveling, and a complete leveling would have taken away enough money from some of the districts that were up high to decimate their programs and would have put so much money in here that people would have had to invent ways to spend it. That's exaggerating the point, but it could happen.

Remember, some of these districts were spending quite a few million. Vancouver was spending almost $50 million supplementary over and above the arrangement. So if you took $6 million away from them, that's a small percentage. But if you spread that $6 million over six small school districts at a million each, it's a significant increase.

So we said: "We will try to do some leveling." So we took the high spenders - supplementary-wise -down somewhat, and we took the low spenders up somewhat. If a district was at 111 percent or 112 percent rather than the 113 percent average, there was no significant difference in that factor. But if they were considerably above or below, then the adjust-

[ Page 9494 ]

ment did cut in as one of the factors in determining the differences between districts.

The danger in this case is that the difference between what is projected for enrolment increase and the total percentage over last year's equivalent budget is 6.6 percent - well above the 6.17 percent.

MR. SIHOTA: Well above?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well above. I consider a few million dollars a considerable difference. You may not.

In this case it may seem like it, but it doesn't mean that a district is any richer because it got 6.6 percent rather than 6.2 percent. What might have happened in the interval is that the age of their teaching force has crept up a little bit. In other words, all of a sudden their average teacher's salary is up, so in effect they would be getting the equivalent of the payroll plus 6 percent.

I can give you one district as an example where the average teacher's salary, because it was a growing district, went down by 1.3 percent last year -or 1.5 percent. I forget which, but it's close enough to make the point. Their average teacher's salary, their teacher payroll, went down by 1.3 percent in a fairly large district. To give them that 6 percent, they would have 6 plus the 1.3 and would actually be getting a 7.3 percent increase on payroll. When you calculate in the teachers' salaries, it still works out to the 6 percent on payroll, except that on the paper it shows 4~7 percent. Those are the difficulties. It's there whenever you pick out any one of those categories and try and make the comparison.

To try and spread the whole thing out and say that every variable must be accounted for is very difficult At a 6.6 percent net increase on these two columns, Sooke may not have gained any more than somebody who got 4.5 on the column, because of the other factors that kick in. They all got enough for payroll plus 6 percent and supplies and equipment plus 4.84 percent, according to their actual figures.

If enrolment projections are wrong, on September 30 we take another look at it and deal with it.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll ask the minister a question, but I know that others want to get into the debate, so I'll pick it up with him again tomorrow. I appreciate the minister dealing with the issue, because in some ways it's tight as to whether this falls within this bill debate or whether we're really into estimates debate Since the provision is so broad, I guess we can talk about it.

[5:45]

You made two points that I don't quite follow First of all, you talked about Sooke. You said you didn't know what their particular situation was. Let me tell you this: in 1981, Sooke went into a voluntary restraint mode. In that year they actually cut $800, 000 from their operating budget. After that, the province instituted its own restraint program. Between 1981 and 1987, because of restraint, enrolment dropped by 1 percent, teaching staff was cut by 8 percent, the custodial staff was reduced by 20 percent, and district administration was reduced by 48 percent. I had this information; and I'll get it updated, because I want to pick this up tomorrow. But it seems to me that in 1981 they went into a voluntary restraint mode and actually did cut back. So it's not, as the minister was suggesting, the other route of just simply saying that their budget would be smaller.

To get to the minister's point, you said that you base it on costs. Of course, at that point they reduced significantly their costs, and that reduced that cost baseline. In some ways they're getting penalized now because that cost baseline you work from is smaller because of an action they took back in 1981. Really, in a perverted way, they're getting penalized for a decision they made in 1981 to be, from their point of view, prudent or responsible. It's somewhat unfair that they should still have to live today with that. If it gets down to costs, then I guess what you're really saying is that their cost base is smaller because of decisions they made earlier, and the net effect of that is that they never get caught up in terms of their real needs today, because the formula doesn't take into account actions taken then - actions which were either politically mandated or, in this case, caused by the board just running ahead of the government will.

You also said - and I found this interesting - that on supplies you build in an inflation factor of 4.8 percent. Maybe this is a question I should be asking the board, as opposed to the minister. On the supply side this year, their budget doesn't reflect inflation. It's not taking into account the cost-of-living factor. I don't know whether that 4.8 percent gets lost somewhere in your formula or gets applied somewhere by the district. It may be that the district has consumed it elsewhere; it may be that it got lost in your formula. Maybe that's something I should pick up with you tomorrow. But on the first one, it just seems to me - and tell me if I'm wrong on this - that they're getting penalized because they have a smaller cost base as a consequence of decisions they made at the beginning of the last decade.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I should apologize because the member accused me of saying I didn't know about the $800, 000 that they did in 1981. I guess I don’t feel too badly about not having that kind of stuff in my head for 75 school districts -what they did in 1981. I'm limited to about two million facts in my head at any one time. That takes me back to probably five years ago, but not ten years ago.

I will concede that I don't know about the $800, 000 that Sooke did in 1981. I do know that the fiscal framework and the funding system were changed in 1983. There may possibly have been some adjustment between '81 and '84, so they will say that this is the case. I have to assume, furthermore, that with supplementary spending available to the Sooke board, as to any other board for the last three years, that would have given them the opportunity to fund their needs as they saw them.

[ Page 9495 ]

I guess what the member is saying is that had they anticipated that we were going to move to a block formula based on their costs, they could easily have found ways to increase their costs so that they would get more in the block now.

I don't know if the member is following me now; I guess he's lost interest.

MR. SIHOTA: No. I'm listening to you.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay.

As I said, with supplementary funding rights for them to go to the taxpayer for whatever they decided to increase the budget by over the last three years one would assume that they would have and di~ meet the needs.

Now the member is saying that because they were more thrifty In 1981, they didn't take the opportunity to pick up and spend more in the last three years under the supplementary. I guess, in effect, what the member is saying is: "If we'd only known that you were going to base our next year's funding on what it costs us to run our system, we sure could have increased our costs last year." I guess there’s a lot of truth in that. If districts that were below the average last year, with the equitable increase, remain below the average this year, chances are they will remain below the average next year, unless they get more pupils or other factors kick in, such as their teaching force reaching the maximum or something of that nature. But they will maintain a somewhat relative position. I don't know of any formula that would beat that. We're funding the needs that have been established over three years of the board's adding to the budget any amount they chose to on the provincial amount. I think that's a relatively good basis for saying those were the actual expenditures necessary.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Let me ask a couple of direct questions to the minister, in the hope that I can at least clarify some of the answers I've heard over the last couple of hours. Is the minister saying that each school district next year will have the opportunity to negotiate their block up, if the current block does not cover the needs of running their school district?

I'm assuming the minister didn't hear the question. My question is: if a school district feels that the current block funding does not cover the needs of their school district, will they have the opportunity to negotiate in the coming year to change that block for the next budget term?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think that boards have ever asked for my permission to negotiate; they seem to be negotiating on a continuing basis. But because they negotiate or because they pressure me does not mean that we are going to abandon the fiscal framework, which is the objective basis on which the money is distributed to districts, or that we are going to ignore the costs and simply say: "You don't think you're getting enough? Just tell me about it, and I'll just keep adding more." No, I can't operate on that system. No government could.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We are trying to clarify a system that you have imposed on the school districts of this province. These questions are legitimate questions and I am sure that all of the school districts that are having to deal with this system right now are very curious about what your expectations are. There are school districts out there that say that there are inequities. Can the minister advise me now as to how this system will work to rectify those inequities?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I guess it boils down to the definition of "inequities." An inequity to me is something that by fact can be proven an unfair way. It's not an inequity to me because somebody says: "We're not getting as much as somebody else; that's an inequity." It has to be better than that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Then taking from what the minister has just said - assuming that a school district can prove that a cost has not been covered by the block - is there an avenue built into this bill whereby a school district can approach the ministry and have that fact remedied?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The school board can approach me at any time. But that member is trying to ask if I will agree that if a cost is not covered by the block, we will add money. And the answer is that I'd have to wonder what that cost was. It's easy to just keep adding costs. It's easy to increase costs - by board decisions, by various ways. All the board has to do is say: "We have decided this year to give our teachers an 8 percent raise." Now that's an 8 percent cost in a 6 percent allowance. And you say: "Will I cover that cost?" No. Their job is to function within the 6 percent that the economy dictates.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Let me talk about a specific, and maybe the minister can help me. Time and again the minister has said that the costs of running Surrey School District are cheaper because of, for example, staffing. A lot of the teachers in Surrey are more junior than the teachers in, say, Vancouver. But as the minister knows, as that group of teachers moves up in seniority, there are automatic increases to their income. I'm not talking about negotiations; I'm talking about automatic increases. With those automatic increases, will there be an avenue whereby the school board can approach you under this new system and have those increases added to the block?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't think my job or my role should be to answer questions about a particular point, and then have another member come in and go through the same ground all over again. I suggest the member read Hansard where we discuss how increments are covered.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am really disappointed, as I have been all afternoon, quite frankly, at the minister's responses. The minister either doesn't know the answers to the question or feels that the answers themselves will be too revealing. We'll continue this

[ Page 9496 ]

debate and the questioning, and hopefully, with a good night's sleep, the minister can resolve some of these problems.

I'd like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

The Hon. A. J. Brummet to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 11) intituled School Amendment Act, 1990 to amend as follows:

SECTION 5,

(a) by deleting the proposed section 128 (12) and substituting the following:

(12) Subject to this Act and the regulations

(a) sections 88 to 91, 113, 115 to 164, 166 to 170 and 193 to 207 of the Municipal Act apply to the holding of and voting in a referendum in a school district other than School District No. 39 (Vancouver) and

(i) a reference to a municipal council shall be deemed to be a reference to the board,

(ii) a reference to the clerk of a municipality shall be deemed to be a reference to the secretary treasurer of the board unless the board designates a different person with respect to any of those sections, and

(iii) the board may appoint or designate the presiding officer for the purposes of applying those sections to a referendum held under this Act, and

(b) sections 43, 55 to 57, 59 to 62, 65, 68 to 129 and 131 to 136 of the Vancouver Charter apply to the holding of and voting in a referendum in School District No. 39 (Vancouver) and

(i) a reference to the Council shall be deemed to be a reference to the board,

(ii) a reference to the City Clerk shall be deemed to be a reference to the secretary treasurer of the board unless the board designates a different person with respect to any of those sections, and

(iii) the board may appoint or designate the presiding officer for the purposes of applying those sections to a referendum held under this Act., and

(b) in the proposed section 151 (1) (d) by adding "and Vancouver Charter" after "Municipal Act".