[ Page 9571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Financial dishonesty in government. Mr. Clark –– 9571

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Canada sea to sea - the past, the present and beyond. Mr. Serwa –– 9573

Mr. Guno

The promotion of women's programs in B.C. Ms. Cull –– 9575

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Interest rates. Mr. Peterson –– 9578

Mr. Clark

Royal assent to bill –– 9579

Motions on Notice

Korean volunteer service medal. Mr. Loenen –– 9580

Mr. Sihota

International Year of Literacy. Mr. Jones –– 9582

Hon. Mr. Strachan

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 9584

Ms. Cull

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a special privilege to make this introduction today. Joining us in the gallery — to attend a discussion which we will be having in the House a little bit later on — are members of the Korea Veterans' Association of Canada, Unit 27, which is situated in Victoria. In attendance in the gallery are John Carson, who is currently the president of Unit 27; Cliff Ludtke, who has served as president of our Legion in Esquimalt between 1984 and 1987 — if I'm wrong, I'm sure Mr. Ludtke will remind me; Don Worsfold; Walter Holisko; and Gerry Ratchford. Would members please join me in giving these veterans a warm welcome.

MR. BARNES: On behalf of the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), I would like to ask the House to make welcome 40 junior secondary high school students from Prince George. It's Blackburn Junior Secondary School. They are here on a tour. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed into the regular orders of the day, the Chair has been advised His Honour will be attending the Chamber at 11 o'clock to deal with the proclamation of a bill. It would be nice if as many members as possible could attend when His Honour is here.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would seek leave for the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Social Services to sit at 10:30 this morning,

Leave granted.

Private Members' Statements

FINANCIAL DISHONESTY IN GOVERNMENT

MR. CLARK: The title of my talk is "Financial Dishonesty in Government." I note that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) was just being interviewed by the press, and he was asked if he felt personally responsible for the fact that we don't have an election this spring. It's a cruel business, Mr. Speaker. But I can tell you that the exposure of this government's fiscal dishonesty is probably one of the major reasons why there is no election this spring. So he can take comfort; he has saved the electors of British Columbia from that trek to the polls this spring.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: That's true, he wasn't alone, my friends remind me.

This government has been an incompetent economic and fiscal manager. They have been dishonest with the people of British Columbia. The dishonest budget of a few weeks ago pretended to be balanced; they said it was balanced. We said, on this side of the House, that it's not a balanced budget. When you take in $500 million less than you spend, that's a deficit budget.

Over the last few weeks we've been joined by other voices in this debate. Peat Marwick Thorne, the largest chartered accounting company in the province: what did they say? They said the budget's not balanced. They said the BS fund is not a fund at all, because it has no money in it, in the classic sense of the word. They said the government must be happy with the confusion created by the BS fund.

Then we had the president of the Certified General Accountants' Association, who said that the government's not being honest, that the budget is not balanced, that it's smoke and mirrors, that there's no money in the BS fund. He said that, Mr. Speaker — the largest body of the accounting profession in British Columbia.

Then we had the auditor-general, whose report documented the fact that the BS fund is an apt title. He said that it's fancy; it's used to artificially manipulate the bottom line. That's essentially what he said.

But worse than the fact that we have a deficit is the fact that they have been dishonest, and they tried to hide that from the public. That has been exposed in the last three weeks, and that's why this minister can take credit for discrediting the budget of the government of British Columbia.

Not only is the budget a deficit budget, and not only is there no money in the BS fund, but it is clear that the government can't manage the store. When we were first elected in this chamber, the Coquihalla Highway was the issue. Remember that? The government went $500 million over budget, but again they tried to conceal that fact from the taxpayers. They were dishonest about the Coquihalla Highway overruns at that time. Has the government improved in highways since the Coquihalla Highway fiasco?

The auditor-general says that we cannot accurately estimate highway costs in British Columbia. We're spending over a billion dollars in highway construction, and we do not have the capacity to adequately estimate the costs. Have they improved since the Coquihalla Highway? Could it happen again? Of course it could. Through early retirement and other reasons, the situation is worse now than it was during the overrun of the Coquihalla Highway.

Remember the Expo lands? I want to apologize to the people of British Columbia because I said — and I've been saying for a year — that the government lost $100 million on the Expo land sale. But I was wrong, and I want to apologize. The auditor-general has caught me — it's $140 million.

Can you imagine anybody over the last two years selling land in Vancouver and losing money? In the middle of the largest real estate boom in British Columbia's history in Vancouver, the government sells a quarter of downtown Vancouver and loses $140 million. It's not just fiscal incompetence; it's economic incompetence. They can't manage the store.

[ Page 9572 ]

They would never, ever cut it in the private sector. Maybe that's why they're in here, because that kind of bungling is unbelievable.

What else did the auditor-general say? He said we're losing millions of dollars giving away free gravel to privatized highway contractors. We don't know how much gravel is being used; we don't charge market rates; we rely on private contractors to tell us. Talk about the fox in the hen-house! Last year he said we weren't counting adequately the stumpage on trees. We were losing millions of dollars by not counting the trees. This year he says we're not counting the gravel.

Two years ago the auditor-general said we weren't collecting millions of dollars in natural gas revenues because we changed the system before we had the competence to adequately collect those revenues. Natural gas, trees, gravel — in almost every sector they're giving away millions of dollars because of their own incompetence. The auditor-general says we're subsidizing highway maintenance contracts to the tune of $12 million.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, I hate to interrupt private members' statements, but as you know, we do have rules in this House. Although the debate is very interesting, I would ask the Chair to make a ruling.

If you would look at Standing Orders on page 8, section 25A, under "Private Members' Statements, " and go to section (5)(a), we could start with it: "Statements and discussions under this standing order: (a) shall be confined to one matter; (b) shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session...."

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I've heard this member many times since we've sat in the last month, and this is a straight repeat of everything that has been discussed in this session. Private members' statements are meant for a reason, and I don't think it's the reason this member is using.

I would ask you to review this. I don't want to interrupt the member's statement right now. I would let him continue, because I don't think it makes any difference anyway. But I would ask the Speaker to review this section and give members some direction as to what they should be doing in private. members' statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's very nice to have this matter brought before the House. I would also ask that members take the opportunity to review page 18 of Standing Orders, which indicates the parameters for question period, especially because some of the members here in the House today have obviously failed to read that or comprehend what is written.

The minister has a valid point. We have allowed a little tolerance and a little scope in private members' statements. This is perhaps the first private member's statement that has strayed quite a long way beyond the normal realm. I would ask all members, especially those making private member statements today, to confine their remarks to the standing orders that guide us.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member to take a seat until the Speaker has finished, and then — only then — rise.

If we were to strictly enforce this particular rule, and if we were to strictly enforce the question period, we would have, in fact, almost no debate at all. However, we allow a little tolerance. But in this particular case, and in view of the fact that the matters have been canvassed before in this session, some of that is out of order. I would ask the member for Vancouver East to continue. We'll give him another minute, because he was cut off by the clock. If we can have the clock reset, we'll let him finish, and then others can have a chance to rebut, unless there are other points of order.

MR. CLARK: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The truth hurts. Their fiscal incompetence is unbelievable. When you list the performance, the incredible incompetence of this administration, I don't blame the minister for trying to stand up and not hear it. Let's forget about ideology; let's just look at. competence and honesty. The government is incompetent and has been dishonest about it and is trying pretend that they are better than they are. Mr. Speaker, they are incompetent and dishonest. It's time for an election, if they have the guts. When this record gets out as it is into the public domain, it will be very clear to people that it's time for a change. That's why the minister's concerned.

[10:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I find it astonishing that the member opposite should have the gall to talk about honesty, when they profess to have an ambition to be government, and in fact, if you look at the comments of the members opposite over the last three and a half years, as they've travelled the province, no one could portray a more dishonest application of policy. On the one hand, we have the leader — who I notice isn't here to hear my words this morning — who seems to have a carpetbag constantly in his hand as he travels the province, saying that he's not a socialist, when two years before, he was very proud to declare that he was a socialist. What's wrong with stating what you believe in? All of us in this government happen to think that we are free-enterprisers. We're proud to say it. We're talking about honesty, about the fact that this invisible person, who is supposed to occupy that empty chair over there and be a man of principle and one who is prepared to say what he believes in, when in fact he has consistently failed to do so, has run around this province....

Members opposite have stood up in this House during the budget debate and talked about what they would do if ever — God forgive the citizens — they were to assume the reins of office. They've talked

[ Page 9573 ]

about a $3 billion increased expenditure. Where would the money come from, my friends? Now we've had this textbook exercise portrayed by my critic from Vancouver East, and while he's a nice young chap and one who shows great promise, he nevertheless has clearly illustrated by his textbook approach that he needs a little bit more seasoning.

The member opposite talked about a variety of issues. He talked about a report of the auditing firm — the successors to Thorne Ernst — and he neglected to mention, of course, that there was a clarification the next day by the author of that letter. He also neglected to mention that the same letter writer — or report writer — wrote a letter to this now empty chair across the floor, in which he told him that his comments had been taken out of context — something which the member opposite has been doing consistently for the last two and a half weeks.

The member opposite talks about the Coquihalla and conveniently forgets to tell anybody that it was this government which said it wanted to look at that issue, wanted to examine how the process was conducted, and which has settled that matter and made the changes.

The member opposite said something about property transfers in Vancouver. He talked about a $140 million loss. The fact of the matter, as everyone knows, is that it was internationally bid, and the winning bidder won by a country mile over the second-best bidder — and that was conceded by the second-best bidder.

If you want to make things happen, Mr. Hon. Member, government must make decisions, and in the process of making those decisions it will continue to drive the economy. We have consistently done that You look at the economic progress in the last three and a half years, and there can be no question that our policies were appropriate.

The member opposite conveniently forgot to mention the judgment by the four international credit-rating agencies about our fiscal performance. He likes to suggest that we have been less than honest. The four principal international rating agencies have improved our bond rating since we've taken office, and no other government can make that statement. I contrast that with a report from 1988 dealing with the NDP government in Manitoba. I quote an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press: "This province's credit rating, which has been slipping slowly but steadily since the New Democrats came to power, will sink to a level at which the province and its utilities, such as Manitoba Hydro, will find it difficult to borrow money at any price." That's a fact, Mr. Speaker.

This province could not endure the fiscal mismanagement that would flow from any assumption of leadership by the fiscal incompetents opposite; more particularly, the textbook, junior, elementary economics propounded by the hon. member opposite. The fact is that he's talking about a tax increase of $400 million, and his leader is talking about an expenditure profile of $3 billion. Where is he going to get seven times more revenue to pay for the irresponsible suggestion that there's $3 billion more in the taxpayers' pockets?

The taxpayers are fed up with politicians who want to access their pockets. You would have not only both of your hands in their pockets; you would have everybody's hands in their pockets. They do not want to consider such an outrageous suggestion.

This government has reduced taxes. This government has reduced our debt. This government has balanced our budget.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, this rich province has endured the worst, most fiscally incompetent administration in the history of British Columbia, and that minister knows it. No one could be as incompetent as that administration. They have taxed people. They have taxed money out of the pockets of working people in this province to pay for their incompetence.

The minister said that this government has made decisions. Yes, this government has made decisions, and they're held accountable for them. Those decisions have been appalling. No other body could lose $140 million on a quarter of downtown Vancouver except this administration, except this Premier and this Minister of Finance.

This is a minister who is incapable of describing his own accounts. He's incapable of describing what is in the budget stabilization fund. He's incapable of describing how they arrive at a balanced budget.

The auditor-general has exposed this administration's incompetence. The auditor-general has said that the Expo lands, put on the books as a $5 million profit, should be a $140 million loss. The auditor-general has exposed the incompetence of this administration. When they get into trouble, the bombast flows. They get aggressive, they get bombastic and they try and attack, because they are vulnerable on this subject. Social Credit, for the first time perhaps in the history of British Columbia, is vulnerable because of their incompetent administration, their incompetent fiscal record and their incompetent economic record.

Nobody could be as bad as this administration. No one could tax more unfairly than this administration. It's time for a change. We're waiting on this side to have this debated in the public realm. We're waiting to have this debated during the election, and I can't wait to debate that Minister of Finance during the next election.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May the Chair assume that no improper motives were imputed by either side?

CANADA SEA TO SEA — THE PAST,

THE PRESENT AND BEYOND

MR. SERWA: Canada Sea to Sea — the Past, the Present and Beyond; the Sir Alexander Mackenzie and Captain George Vancouver Bicentennials. Two very important bicentennials will soon be celebrated in British Columbia, events which will mark important and historic beginnings in the history of our

[ Page 9574 ]

province and which mark our true beginnings as a member of both the British Empire and Commonwealth and the Confederation of Canada.

In the summers of 1792 to 1794, Capt. George Vancouver brought the first sustained presence of the Royal Navy to British Columbia's coastline. By mapping the Puget Sound and the Gulf of Georgia and by travelling north along the B.C. coastline as far as Alaska, he firmly established a British claim to all land north of the Columbia and south of Alaska, a claim which led to the first British settlement of our coastline and which later led to colonial status for Vancouver Island and later for the whole of our province.

Just a few weeks after Vancouver explored and mapped the Bella Coola inlets, Sir Alexander Mackenzie arrived at the same spot over land, thus completing the first land crossing of continental North America. He established our first link with the colonies, which were in 1867 to become the Dominion of Canada and which in 1871 we were able to join in federation with.

On a rock face near Ocean Falls, he painted these words in vermilion and grease: "Alexander Mackenzie, from Canada by land, 22nd July, 1793." In truth, 1992 and 1993 will mark the bicentennial of the beginning of western history in British Columbia, and I hope that we in this House will begin now to plan for a major celebration of those beginnings and of what we have become.

I see the Sir Alexander. Mackenzie bicentenary as an opportunity for all British Columbians to celebrate our history and to be proud of who we are. Our American neighbours to the south make much of the Lewis and Clark Trail, marking the important expedition of these two individuals and their 48-member army support team, who first crossed the continental United States from St. Louis to the Columbia River. American schoolchildren learn of their historic journey today as a symbol of the spirit that built the United States. Often forgotten, however, is that our Alexander Mackenzie Trail marks an earlier and longer crossing of the continent.

I see the Mackenzie expedition as a great symbol of the kind of spirit that built the nation of Canada. His expedition across the Great Lakes, through the northern Prairies and southern Arctic, across the Rocky Mountain Trench, down the Fraser River and across to the Bella Coola Valley is a remarkable achievement in Canadian history. This bicentenary will mark more than just the pioneering spirit which opened up this land. It will be a celebration of what we have done with our history and of what kind of a society we have become.

At least five nations, 200 years ago, explored our coastline and traded for sea otter pelts with an eye to building an empire. They were Russia and Spain, France and the United States, and Great Britain, whose traditions of parliament and common law had developed the most advanced constitutional democracy and the most peace-loving, free-trading nation in the world.

Into all of this came Capt. George Vancouver, who through his careful mapping and charting, his establishment of good and fair relations with the native Indian peoples and his courteous negotiations with the Spanish commander, Quadra, determined under what flag this province's future would develop.

We are proud to say that as a result of Captain Vancouver's wisdom, we live in British Columbia. Our name means we are proud of our history. It means we believe in a tolerant society, and we are proud of our ties to the Commonwealth as well as to Canada. It means we believe in parliamentary democracy, and we welcome the traditions and the functions of the Lieutenant-Governor and of the monarch he represents. It means we respect British common law, and we cherish law and order. At the same time, we strive to maximize individual liberties within a society that is free, just and accepting of diversity.

Our history means all of these things because of the diplomacy and the scientific and seafaring skill of Capt. George Vancouver. His arrival on this coast, some 200 years ago, is a matter to be appreciated by all and celebrated by our people and our government together.

Several British Columbia organizations, mostly volunteers, already have plans underway for these two coinciding bicentenaries. In a program led by boatbuilders on Galiano Island, 15 full-size replicas of Vancouver's and Quadra's survey boats are being built in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. Volunteers are making plans to use these boats, under sail and oars, to retrace Vancouver's exploration route. There will be community events wherever they visit en route.

In the central interior, the 200-member Alexander Mackenzie Trail Association is lobbying the government for recognition of a six-province, sea-to-sea heritage route to follow the path of Alexander Mackenzie from Quebec to its end at Sir Alexander Mackenzie Provincial Park, which was established some time ago near Bella Bella and Ocean Falls.

Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, has already agreed to be an honorary patron of the planned Mackenzie Bicentennial Expedition, which will involve volunteers from all provinces portaging and canoeing from the St. Lawrence to British Columbia.

Canadian Airlines International has agreed to donate $100,000 in airline travel for crews and organizers of this event. British Columbia's sponsorship and participation would be most appropriate in adding to the success of the event.

A considerable number of Vancouver-based community groups, sponsored by the Vancouver Museums and Planetarium Association, are planning several Captain Vancouver bicentennial events in the lower mainland. Again, government support of the bicentennial would provide a major boost to these activities.

[10:30]

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, I'll be the designated hitter for this second statement. I think it's appropriate that I respond to the member's statement on

[ Page 9575 ]

Canada's past, present and future. It's always an interesting guessing game what the Socred backbenchers will focus on. It's usually way out of touch with the title they present.

The thing I want to talk about in responding is that the history of Canada did not begin only after the Europeans came and discovered it. I think we have to realize that before European contact, Canada had a rich and vibrant history. Through the entire statement, not once did the member mention the tremendous role and contribution the aboriginal people had in developing this country in its early stages. Not once did the member mention that the so-called mapping of our coastline by Vancouver was facilitated by the aboriginal people, who knew intimately the vast coastlines here in British Columbia.

Not once did the member mention what Captain Vancouver found when he landed in Nootka Sound. He didn't mention that he found a vibrant society, rich in history and institutions. He did not mention the fact that, in a city bearing Vancouver's name, there is a court case 200 years after that event, still trying to deal with righting an ancient wrong. He talked about the fact that since that event, we now have a tolerant and just society. I don't think there is any way that we here in British Columbia can claim that we are a tolerant and just society until this unfinished business has been resolved.

To that end, I think that when the New Democrats form the government, they will commemorate that bicentennial by initiating the much-needed process of negotiating a fair settlement of aboriginal claims. Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are committed to the recognition of aboriginal title and aboriginal people's inherent right to self-government. Secondly, we recognize the provincial government's participation in modern-day treaty negotiations to achieve a just and honourable settlement of land claims.

I think it is fine to recognize the tremendous event of Vancouver's landing in Nootka Sound and what it means to British Columbia's history. I think we have a kind of myopia when we talk about aboriginal people. I would dare say that if aboriginal people knew what they know now, they would have been a little tougher with the immigration laws.

One thing we forget about when we talk about world history and the recent holocaust is something I read recently that most people don't realize: that the biggest holocaust in the history of man occurred in America, when 90 million aboriginal people were wiped out by the early European settlers. We don't remember that.

MR. ROSE: How many?

MR. GUNO: There were 90 million. We have to look at Canada's history in terms of how it has dealt with the aboriginal people since the time of discovery. In British Columbia, for instance, the treaty-making process has been abandoned.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Regretfully....

MR. SERWA: First I would like to thank the hon. member for Atlin. I think that he appreciates that I only had seven minutes to make this presentation, and I sincerely appreciate his comments about the native peoples.

I am certainly cognizant of the contribution and the richness and diversity of the native peoples, not only of British Columbia but of all of Canada. I've had the honour of chairing the Premier's Committee on Native Heritage, Culture and Language. We met in a number of areas in British Columbia. An example of that richness and diversity is that of the 13 families of native languages in Canada, seven are unique to British Columbia and two in the northeast are shared with the rest of Canada. There is no question in my mind that the aboriginal people have made, are making and will continue to make a great contribution to this nation of Canada. It was an honour for me to serve with native elders and native professionals for some eight months. The recommendations, I might add for the knowledge of the member for Atlin, are being implemented by the government of British Columbia today.

Portages through the interior, tall ships sailing up and down the coast and festivals from Vancouver to Mackenzie, B.C., would bring out all the best things about our province for the summer of 1993. Major events like this, as we all know, are a great tourist attraction. This bicentennial offers an incredible tourism promise, especially in the central interior and the Peace River country. Aside from their tourism potential, important events like this offer a chance for volunteers to come together and organize events which would bring communities and individuals a greater purpose: to celebrate our collective cultures and heritage. It includes the first peoples and all the Europeans who came later.

Beyond this, great events give us a chance to examine ourselves, to celebrate our history and to look at our future with promise and unity. I hope that all members of this House will join with me in supporting the initiative and will begin now to plan for a major celebration of these events down the road, to make 1993 a year that British Columbians will ever remember as fondly and affectionately as they remember those important events which took place 200 years earlier.

THE PROMOTION OF

WOMEN'S PROGRAMS IN B.C.

MS. CULL: I want to talk this morning about the promotion of women's programs in British Columbia. I have a subtitle for this topic: "Women's Programs — Truth in Advertising." Unfortunately, that has been missing of late in this province.

Every night we see on television Socred propaganda thinly disguised as news reports. One of these ads deals with women's programs, and I'd like to read some of the text of that ad: "Women are now getting more help from the new B.C. budget. There's pay equity for women in government, expanded day care and a pension plan for homemakers." This is

[ Page 9576 ]

pretty effective advertising, because on Tuesday of this week I received a call from one of my constituents asking how she could go about applying for a homemaker's pension. Being a good MLA, I had to inform her not to hold her breath. I had to inform her that pensions for homemakers do not exist. They are not in the budget. They exist only as a promise in the budget speech for a White Paper.

My constituent didn't ask me about pay equity, but if she had, I would have had to tell her the same story. There is no pay equity program in place. There is none in the budget. There is only a promise in the budget speech. The ad is clearly misleading. It suggests that programs are in place, when in fact they are not.

There appears to be a pattern here. First we get a dishonest budget, allegedly balanced, which is exposed as a fraud by the auditor-general, by Peat Marwick and most recently by the president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. We see the shell games used to create the impression of increased funding for the environment, post-secondary education and housing, and now we get dishonest advertising. This government....

MR. SPEAKER: Following our standing orders, I must ask you to contain your remarks to the item which you talked about or which was enclosed in the title of your statement. You're well beyond that scope when you get involved in items which have already been discussed. I ask you to proceed but to do so within the parameters of the original statement, which is women's programs in British Columbia.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about advertising for women's programs, and the pattern that has been created in this government since the session began.

The government seems to believe, as it does with its advertising for women's programs, that if they repeat it often enough, the public is going to believe it. But this approach isn't going to do much to help the Social Credit government's credibility with respect to women's issues, because credibility is based on what you do, not what you promise.

Let's look at the record. Last year, with much fanfare, the government announced a minister for women's programs. Women's issues were of such high priority with this government that nine months passed before a minister was appointed. Now that's commitment.

Less than one year ago, the then minister for the women's secretariat asked about his government's commitment to pay equity legislation. That minister replied that he supported equal pay for the same — or substantially equal —  work. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the minister and others in cabinet are now better informed about the difference between equal-pay legislation, which has been on the books for some years now, and pay equity. Earlier this year, the current Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) showed her understanding of the pay equity issue by saying that if girls would only have the same attitudes as boys and stop choosing low-paying clerical jobs, they'd have pay equity.

Well, it's time this government got its act together on the matter of pay equity. It's time that they stop making promises and making boasts about what they've done, and actually start doing something. Instead of boasting about the jobs that have been created in the last year — most of them low-paying, minimum-wage jobs for women — it should be doing something about wage inequality. In the last three years, while this government has been in power, women have fallen behind.

In 1986, women working full-time earned 67 cents for every dollar men earned; in 1990, they earn only 64 cents. Those 64-cent dollars translate into 64-cent pensions, if they're lucky enough to have one. Fifty-two percent of working women don't have pensions. Of course, women who do not work outside the home have no pensions.

Low wages and lack of pensions cause poverty that can be prevented; 40 percent of female-headed families in B.C. are poor. That's 85, 000 children and 35, 000 single parents. Twenty-four percent of elderly single women are poor, and that doubles if you consider individual women.

But what about the government as an employer? The government is a very powerful symbol. How it treats women is reflected throughout society. In a presentation to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs on International Women's Day, I suggested that the province lead the way by starting with their own employees.

There's much to do here, because the position of women in the provincial service is nothing to be proud of. Women have only 10 percent of the management positions at level 7 or higher, and of the top 77 positions, only three are held by women. Within the BCGEU, in the 30 pay grades, 80 percent of women are in the bottom 15 steps and 60 percent are in the bottom four steps. If the government is really committed to pay equality for women, they should start at home with their own employees.

Once again, we're down to a fundamental issue of trust. We have a government that can't be trusted. It can't be trusted when it talks about a balanced budget. It can't be trusted when it talks about increased funding for the environment. It certainly can't be trusted when it advertises progress on women's equality.

[10:45]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, the issue of women's programs seems to be a very sensitive subject on the other side of the House. I would suggest that that party has thought for a long time that they had ownership of the issues surrounding women. In fact, the only people they had convinced of that were themselves.

I think it's important to point out to that side of the House that the issues surrounding women are not only sensitive, but they are not owned by anyone.

They are not owned by any political party. Women do not appreciate being used for your own political gain.

[ Page 9577 ]

The sensitivity on that side of the House has to do with the ownership and the votes that they felt they were going to get from women.

I want to respond to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and her comments about the advertising. It's interesting that the member, in her own community, is called ill-informed by an elected member well respected in her own community.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that? Who said she was ill-informed?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I believe it was Murray Coell who said that member was ill-informed.

Mr. Speaker, anyone watching the ad could read their own interpretation into it. The ad simply talks about the introduction of pay equity and a B.C. pension plan for homemakers; that's all it does.

The member suggests that there is no money in the budget for pay equity. She suggests that we are dishonest. Let me tell you who is dishonest: the NDP are the ones who are dishonest.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for me at this point to talk about a committee of women that I put together to help make recommendations on delivering programs for women in the communities. I can tell you that the women on that committee have been hassled by the NDP members who are in the women's movement. The women in the women's centres have been hassled, and there have been attempts to influence them by the NDP, who have not wanted them to accept funding from either the provincial or federal government. Don't tell me that you care about women. All you care about is your own political skin.

I want to talk about the chairman of that committee. Her name is Susan Brice, and she is the mayor of Oak Bay. She is a competent, well-informed, balanced, common-sense woman and is — I have no hesitation in saying — the next MLA for Oak Bay.

That committee is completely balanced, just as the Social Credit Party is. If anyone on that side of the House wants to say anything negative about that committee, let me tell you that you do it at your own political peril. You do it at your own peril, because those women are all involved in delivering programs in communities already. They are dedicated and committed to the advancement of women in this province.

The pay equity issue is one that I want to address in a much calmer, less political fashion. Pay equity will be introduced into the public service and will give the fairness that has been absent there. Let me tell you that part of the responsibility for the lack of pay equity and fairness in the public service lies squarely with the union that represents those women. I have had letters from.... Thank you. My time is up.

MS. CULL: I listened with great interest to the comments of the member opposite, and I think it's interesting that she should mention some of my old friends from the Oak Bay–Gordon Head by-election. Mr. Coell, the campaign manager of Susan Brice.... It is interesting that we now realize the appointments to this committee have been made for political reasons.

What's more important is to hear the member talk about this committee and say that we are being dishonest on this side. The B.C. and Yukon Association of Women's Centres and the B.C. transition house association have made it quite clear that when they were invited to sit on that committee, they were not invited to sit as representing their organizations.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: I have spoken to the individuals in those organizations. They said they were asked to speak as individuals, and then were represented by the minister as representing their organization. Once again we have false advertising.

It's also interesting to note one pattern that I've seen all too clearly in the last month in this House on the government side. When they are attacked, they attack another democratically elected or organized organization. They attack teachers, unions and municipalities. The pattern seems to be to go on the attack when they are being attacked themselves.

There is one place where the member opposite and I do agree, and that is on the fact that women do not want to be used for political gain. That is precisely my point. Over the last number of months the government obviously has been doing some polling. They have discovered women and are now using them for their political gain. My constituent believed the advertising. My constituent thought something was happening, and that constituent is being used by the government for their own political gain in this matter.

What has the government actually done directly for women? Has it raised the minimum wage? Now there's a direct line to pay equity. The answer is no. Has it increased affordable housing for women? It hasn't even dealt with the matter of discrimination against children so that women can find affordable housing in my community. Has it dealt with retraining? No. It hasn't even listened to its own report on the effect of free trade on women in this province.

What we get is false advertising, medals and lessons that we should pray more. It's insulting. I can tell you that the women of this province are not buying this false advertising. After the next election it'll be clear that they're not buying this government.

MR. SPEAKER: I will circulate for the members a copy of page 8 of Standing Orders. Section 25(5)(b) might be interesting reading for all members. Perhaps if members have the opportunity to do that this morning, they will be refreshed on it. It would assist members who are making private members' statements if they especially read the section which says: "Statements and discussions under this standing order...shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session."

[ Page 9578 ]

INTEREST RATES

MR. PETERSON: Many have risen in this chamber before to talk about interest rates, but I intend my statement to be the strongest ever. In doing so, I hope to keep the interest in this House up as high as the rate set by the Bank of Canada. Make no mistake, I'll be making some basic points about more than basis points.

Let me begin by describing the current policy of Mr. Crow and Mr. Wilson in setting high interest rates. They are trying to make money scarce. They want to keep credit out of the hands of working people and small business and keep it in the hands of government. By doing that, they can drive down demand for everything from retailing to retooling. When that happens, small business people suffer, young families have trouble buying a house and apartments go vacant in Vancouver.

Why are they doing this? They say that they have to fight inflation. What is inflation? Inflation is prices rising faster than the Bank of Canada thinks they ought to. When prices rise, so do salary expectations.

This begs the question: if the federal government is really worried about rising prices, why is it introducing the GST, which will simply add to the cost of goods and services in Canada? When you get to the bottom of the high interest rate policy, you find that the government in Ottawa has failed to meaningfully reduce what they spend. As a result, they have to resort to debt.

There are only three ways it can get the money. They can print it, such as many Latin American countries do. Then the problem is you really launch an inflationary spiral that goes up and up until it finally crashes, and it blows itself into oblivion. Of course, that's not acceptable.

The other way is to deplete traditional sources of money for consumers and productive small businesses. The way to do this is to make it too difficult for them to borrow it; hence the high interest rate policies.

The third way is to borrow it from other countries. To do that, you have to keep the interest on the bonds high by keeping the interest rates high. To attract foreign capital into essentially unproductive federal debt, the Bank of Canada now offers, essentially, junk bond rates at a full 6 percentage points above the rates in the United States. Junk bond rates mean usurious interest rates. These rates are destroying the Canadian economy, our great provincial economy and the economy in my own community of Langley.

What's the real solution to this mess? The real solution lies in Ottawa having the courage to tackle its spending problems. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that it should unilaterally cut critical-needs spending. I am saying that it must work out, in consultation with the provinces, ways to reduce its costs.

The Premier had an excellent suggestion when he said that a good place to start was the federal payroll. A lot of intelligent and highly motivated people work in the federal civil service. With help and guidance from the federal government, they can be just as employed and twice as productive in the private sector.

Another area where the federal government could cut costs is to stop the handouts to big business. Presumably companies such as Lavalin grew to the size they did because they could provide a quality product and not because they received handouts. Let them do what they do best in the competitive framework. They do not need the help of the Canadian taxpayer. If any business needs a hand, it should be small business.

It is with considerable pride that I can state that had the federal government taken the steps that the B.C. government had, Ottawa would not be driving up interest rates today. That's in the past, and hindsight is 20-20.

What is it the federal government should be doing now? Quite simply, it should reduce spending in consultation with the provinces and reduce interest rates now. No more junk rates for Canada. No more junk rates for British Columbia. Let's get back to a realistic economy.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll just interrupt the proceedings. The Minister of Highways asks leave to introduce a group. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House for granting leave. At this time I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of students who are visiting us today from Surrey. They are visiting us from Panorama Park Elementary School. They are in the grade 5 class. Would we please make them all welcome.

[11:00]

MR. CLARK: I'd like to begin by asking the member for Langley how he voted in the last federal election. I can tell you that all the members on that side of the House voted for this Conservative government. How did the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), a former Conservative Member of Parliament, vote in the last federal election? This group on the other side are Tories. They're Conservatives federally, even if they're Socreds provincially. They voted for this administration that they are now complaining about.

Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House agrees that high interest rates are a travesty for British Columbia. I always find it curious that the link between the deficit and interest rates is made in a curious way. If we cut interest rates one point, we reduce the federal deficit by a billion and a half dollars. The interest rates are the prime reason for the rising Canadian debt. They're the principal reason for the increase in the debt at the national level.

Yet the members on that side and the Premier say we should cut spending. That's the real enemy — cut spending. That's what we have to do: slash those civil servants and get rid of that. The Minister of Finance

[ Page 9579 ]

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) says we're not getting our share of Confederation. We're not spending enough money in British Columbia, they're saying. And then they say: "But we want you to cut that spending for British Columbia. Don't give us any more transfer payments; don't give us any more of those civil servants."

There's a contradiction, which is very difficult for the members on that side of the House. It's very difficult when they vote Conservative. They give money to the Conservative Party. They're Members of Parliament for the Conservative Party. Yet they come in here, and they have to attack their friends, the Tories, because of high interest rates.

Mr. Speaker, the high interest rate policy is a southern central Canadian policy to deal with a problem in Toronto, and it has dramatic negative impacts on British Columbia, the Maritimes and other regions of Canada. It's an ill-founded and misguided policy.

The member says we should cut spending nationally. I'm not going to say that there shouldn't be some spending cuts nationally; there probably is some inefficiency in certain areas. I don't think anybody is prepared to say that we should just spend money on services. For example, the member said — and I want to agree with him — that we should cut subsidies to big business.

There's an article in Vista magazine; they surveyed the six CEOs of the largest companies in Canada, and five of them said they should cut subsidies to business. We could save a billion dollars nationally — easily — by cutting subsidies to business. I invite this government to cut provincial subsidies to big business in British Columbia.

Do you know that we're still giving free electricity to pulp mills? They're making record profits, and they're getting a subsidized electricity deal in British Columbia. Surely that's an area where there could be some cuts, Mr. Speaker.

We could also shift the tax burden. In the 1950s, corporations paid 50 percent of all their revenue to the federal government, and now they pay 7 percent. So at the same time the government is complaining about the deficit and about not having enough money, they're taxing and taxing and taxing working people and cutting and cutting and cutting taxes to big business — exactly the same strategy followed by Social Credit.

If we had that great socialist Ronald Reagan's 20 percent flat corporate tax rate, we would have $10 billion more in revenue for Canada to deal with the deficit and deal with social programs.

We need tax reform, Mr. Speaker. We never hear of that from that side of the House, unless it's an excuse to cut taxes for business. The only tax reform we hear about from that side of the House is an excuse to cut social benefits, social programs and taxes on business, and to raise taxes on everyone else. Meaningful tax reform that shifts the burden equitably would mean tax cuts for the average person, some tax increases for big business and dealing with the deficit.

Bringing down interest rates would do more to deal with the deficit problem and to help the regions of Canada than any other single policy the federal government could pursue, It would be nice to have some leadership from this administration on meaningful tax reform and on reducing interest rates and the federal deficit.

MR. PETERSON: It was very interesting to listen to the second member for Vancouver East, who is supposed to be their finance critic. I thought his arguments were tremendously weak, such as they all have been throughout this session, in terms of the budget and in terms of the leadership that we've shown.

Let me just comment on a couple of things he brought up. First of all, how I voted in the last election is none of his damn business.

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about cutting spending, and he's saying: "But we don't have to do that." You can't have it both ways, and those members opposite don't seem to understand that. You've got to get off the fence one day. When are you going to do that?

He talks about free energy to industry. Where in this province do we give free energy to industry? Certainly there are bulk industrial rates; but that's based on the fact that transmission lines go to an industrial site, and the mills have their own substations. They provide their own distribution system, therefore there's less of a cost. It makes sense.

Most certainly in the past this government showed the leadership when we were in that deep recession, and with the help of our commissioner of critical industries we did negotiate some rates to keep people working in all parts of British Columbia. This government took a leadership role, because we're concerned about the working people.

He talks about social benefits. He's supposed to be the critic of our Finance minister. Has he not read the budget? Did he see where our increases in expenditures were: education, health care, advanced education, social services, housing? We care about British Columbians.

This morning's Colonist headline says: "Oops! Blame High Rates on Central Bank's Goof." That's simply not acceptable to Canadians and to British Columbians. Look at this. Let me quote from this article: "'It was a mistake in the sense that the economy did not turn out to be as weak as we thought it would.... That is a mistake....'"

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

I have rung the division bells in the hope that those members who are in their offices will attend the chamber thinking it's a division, so that His Honour doesn't have to approach an empty House.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

School Amendment Act, 1990.

[ Page 9580 ]

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Motions on Notice

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: According to agreement, Mr. Speaker, we are now going to go to motions on notice. We will have two motions this morning, one by the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), another by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones). The agreement is that both sides will have ten minutes each to put their case forward. At the end of those two motions we will go back to the Minister of Education's estimates.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could have the numbers of the motions.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Motions 5 and 28.

MR. ROSE: I would just like to confirm, and congratulate the government side and the government House Leader for allowing this to proceed. This is the first time in my memory in this parliament that we've ever gone to resolutions or private bills. There was a call for a private bill last Friday, and now we have a couple of resolutions. I hope that there will be more opportunities for people who are in back-bench positions to bring forward things of concern to them We debate these, we receive them — this morning I assume by unanimous consent — and pass them There will be no vote; we suspend the standing orders. By agreement it's ten and ten, and I look forward to the debate.

KOREAN VOLUNTEER SERVICE MEDAL

MR. LOENEN: I would like to move: be it resolved that in the opinion of this Legislative Assembly, the government of Canada should strike a distinctive Canadian volunteer Korean service medal to be awarded to those Canadians who served in the Korean War from June 25, 1950, to July 27, 1953.

In so doing, I'd like to make a few comments. First of all, I'd like to recognize the Korean veterans who are in the members' gallery today. They represent the very active Korea Veterans' Association of Canada, which has done a tremendous amount of work in bringing to our attention some of the events of the past and how those events continue to shape what happens in our country today and what will even happen in the future.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It is a proud moment for me to stand in my place and support a resolution that honours those who fought so that we might have freedom. I was born during World War II in a country occupied by foreign troops. My earliest memories are of stories of fear, terror, carnage and murder, and of how my parents and many others risked everything because they stood with the Jews. The people of Holland have never forgotten, and indeed never will forget, the Canadian spirit of generosity, self-sacrifice and love of freedom which brought them liberation.

[11:15]

That great Canadian tradition of love of freedom, valour and determination in the face of raw aggression is not limited to the two world wars. That same motivation towards freedom and democracy led 26,791 Canadians to volunteer for combat duty in the Korean War. Today I ask this House to join me in requesting that the government of Canada recognize those who served in the Korean War. They not only fought for world peace but also contributed significantly to our collective Canadian character and identity.

World opinion of Canada and our own sense of identity have been shaped in part because 516 Canadians voluntarily made the supreme sacrifice for freedom in Korea in a war that started 40 years ago this year. Today, as regional and linguistic interests threaten to tear our nation apart, it is fitting to recall their deeds of valour to fortify our determination that Canada as a nation is worth saving.

The Korean War is the forgotten war. The government of Canada has recognized the service of veterans of previous wars, but not of the Korean War. After that war, two medals were issued to each Canadian serviceman who served with the navy, army or air force in Korea between June 25, 1950, and July 27, 1953. The first medal was issued by the British Commonwealth and the second by the United Nations. Surely our veterans fought as Canadians, and therefore they deserve to be recognized as Canadians by the government of the people of Canada.

The Korean War veterans are Canada's last fighting veterans. They should be recognized, not to glorify war but to honour the generosity of spirit that sacrifices self to guard the dignity of others. Recognizing veterans is an occasion to affirm peace for all.

In 1986 the then Minister of Veteran Affairs, the Hon. George Hees, basically offered two reasons for his government's refusal to strike a Canadian Korean volunteer service medal: first, too much time had elapsed; and secondly, it was too costly. Mr. Speaker, neither argument is sound. Regarding the passage of time, it should be noted that such an argument has not prevented the Canadian government from providing redress to Japanese Canadians for injustices suffered during World War II. More importantly, the passage of time has strengthened the admiration for those individuals who placed their own lives between communism and freedom.

As we applaud the dismantling of communism today, we should remember that the chain of events leading to today includes the battle of Kapy'ong. There the second battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry distinguished itself by holding its position against formidable odds, thus pre-

[ Page 9581 ]

venting the North Koreans from overrunning the Allied forces. They are the only Canadian unit ever to receive a Presidential citation for bravery by the United States of America. They proudly wear that insignia on their uniforms to this day. Through them, all Canadians are honoured.

Mr. Speaker, would we today be celebrating the freeing of eastern Europe if there had not been Canadians to stand against communism 40 years ago? Deeds of bravery do not wear thin nor fade with the passage of time. Instead, they ignite our imagination and inspire our young people.

As for the second argument about money, it is too foolish to contemplate. Last year the Ontario Legislature unanimously approved this resolution, and last month New Brunswick did as well. It is fitting that British Columbia should support this initiative. It was from Esquimalt that the first Royal Canadian Navy destroyer sailed, while the army's special force assembled in British Columbia for transporting to Washington's Fort Lewis.

Moreover, army units were housed at Esquimalt's Work Point barracks. The Korea Veterans' Association of Canada, with 53 units across Canada — 11 of these in British Columbia — has requested our support. I ask the House to give it.

I wish to thank the Korea Veterans' Association of Canada for this initiative. I want to thank the veterans who visited this House about two weeks ago and those who are visiting with us today. In particular, I want to thank their national public information officer and my constituent, Bob Orrick.

MR. SIHOTA: To my knowledge, as both House Leaders have indicated, this is the first motion of this nature that's come up during this current Legislature. It is indeed fitting that this motion be the first that we deal with in keeping with this new practice.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, 27,000 Canadians served in Korea; 516 paid the supreme sacrifice; 1,255 were wounded; three are still, 40 years later, listed as missing in action.

This was not a police action, as some have called it. This was not a conflict, as others have described it. This was a war. The Canadian Korea volunteer —  it's important that we express it in that way, as the Canadian Korea volunteer, because there's some concern that often the group is described as the Korean Veterans of Canada — is in every way the champion of freedom and peace, as were those who served in the First and Second World Wars.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is no recognition of these Canadians by their own government. I think that is tragic. That lack of recognition has occurred despite the fact that in 1955 a motion was apparently passed by the House of Commons recognizing those who had served in Korea and requesting that consideration be given for the striking of a medal to honour those who served our nation in Korea.

To date, of course, nothing has been done. That is unfortunate, as I said. Nothing has been done despite the best efforts of the Korea veterans of Canada There are some 4,000 members of the association nationwide. There are several units established throughout Canada, four of which are located on Vancouver Island: in Courtenay, Port Alberni — I notice the member from Port Alberni is here today, reminding me of that — Nanaimo and here in the greater Victoria area.

I am pleased to say — because in my riding of Esquimalt we have quite a military heritage and tradition — that the unit here in the greater Victoria area is the largest in British Columbia with some 106 members.

Some of those who have served in Korea were recognized earlier on — two weeks ago — when my good friend the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) introduced them in the House, and this morning when they were introduced in the House today. There are, of course, other members who have served in Korea.

I think it would be fitting to note that some of them work with us here in the Legislature as members of the Sergeant-at-Arms staff. Let me name, for the record, those who have served with distinction in Korea and work with us daily in the Legislature here: Phil Leigh, John Crawford, Ben Theriault, Gary Miller, Al Zimmerman, Joe Mowatt and Ed Zwolak.

Two medals were issued to individuals who had served in the navy and air force in the twenty-fifth infantry brigade between June 25, 1950, and July 27, 1953 — first, a medal through the British Commonwealth; and secondly, a recognition through a medal established by the United Nations. Those who served in Korea after July 1953 were issued a United Nations medal.

Canada has not chosen to strike a Korean volunteer service medal. I'm sorry to see that in a letter dated May 7, 1990, the federal government still is not willing to change its position. In a letter that has just come to my attention this morning, the current Minister of Veterans' Affairs says:

"As you may be aware, the Ontario Legislature has passed a resolution asking the federal government to consider striking a Canadian volunteer service medal for Korea service similar to what was issued to our veterans of the Second World War. The problem with this is that the CVSM was struck for a specific purpose. It was designed to distinguish between those who volunteered for service during the Second World War and those who were conscripted for service. In the case of Korea, everyone who served volunteered to do so. All other medals awarded to First or Second World War veterans were and are Commonwealth medals, just as the Korea medal is a Commonwealth medal."

It is tragic that the federal government, through the Ministry of Veterans' Affairs, has not paid homage to the request for a medal recognizing the service of those veterans from Canada who served in Korea. It was originally supported by this very Minister of Veterans' Affairs when he was not serving in that capacity. He is a member of the House of Commons who has served in the Armed Forces and has quite a tradition in that his father is a retired brigadier.

His letter, of course, ignores that Canada was the only nation in the Commonwealth where individuals volunteered to serve in Korea due to the under-

[ Page 9582 ]

strength of our regular forces, as would be the case today. Yet today I would think the government would recognize the need for a medal if people were required to serve the country.

I have taken the liberty this morning of forwarding that letter to the Member of Parliament for Esquimalt, who will be raising it in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity, and a copy to Margaret Mitchell, who, I'm told, also served in Korea and served as a member of the House of Commons and is a Member of Parliament for the riding of Vancouver East.

Those who served in Korea as volunteers are now, of course, veterans. They have a slogan: "Though we are forgotten, we will not forget." In many ways that statement symbolizes the frustration that our veterans who volunteered in Korea feel today as a result of the failure of the federal government to recognize their contribution to the cause of freedom and peace.

I wasn't alive at the time the Korean War was on, but I have no doubt that I am the beneficiary of their generous contribution and their heroic efforts. It would seem to me that the striking of a medal would be in many ways an expression of gratitude from those of my generation to those who served in Korea Secondly, the striking of a medal, in my view, would also be a deserving statement on the part of the federal government and a final recognition on their part in honour of those who served as volunteers in Korea.

[11:30]

Accordingly, it is a pleasure that on my behalf and on behalf of our caucus, I join with the members of the government party to unanimously support this motion with the expectation that the federal government will now recognize the efforts of these honourable Canadians.

Motion approved.

MR. LOENEN: I wonder if you would send a copy of the resolution to the federal government, in particular to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs in Ottawa.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. I'll see that that's done, hon. member.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF LITERACY

MR. JONES: I first of all want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to debate this motion. I understand this is the first such opportunity on private members' days in this parliament to debate a motion from the opposition. I'm very pleased that we have chosen what I consider to be a very important motion. I'd like to begin by reading the motion:

"Be it resolved that the Legislature, recognizing that 1990 is the International Year of Literacy and also recognizing that the levels of adult illiteracy are unacceptably high in British Columbia, urge the government to adopt the recommendations of the draft report, 'Opening the Doors to Lifelong Learning — Empowering Undereducated Adults,' submitted to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training in September 1989 by the minister's Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee. The first recommendation is that 'the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training acknowledge responsibility for, and exercise a leadership role, and coordinate efforts in the development and provision of literacy programs and support services in the province.'"

I do believe it to be an important motion. I'd like to illustrate that with two reasons why it should be adopted by this Legislature. I hope that members opposite will appreciate both arguments; the first one, I'm sure they will. That is, that the cost to Canadian society that we all bear and all experience as a result of illiteracy is tremendous. The Business Task Force on Literacy calculated the cost to be something of the order of $10 billion annually, in terms of accidents, lost productivity, increased government services, lost taxes, reduced international competitiveness, increased crime and on and on — all resulting from the tremendously high rate of illiteracy that we have in this country. So it is a great cost that we all bear as Canadian citizens — something of the order of $10 billion annually.

More important than the financial cost is the personal cost. We live in a print-oriented society, where we enjoy the luxury of being able to read and write. But can members imagine how difficult it must be to operate in this society when one would experience extreme difficulty reading bus schedules, trying to get a driver's licence by passing tests that are based on print-oriented manuals, reading the classified ads, following correct dosages on medicine bottles, filling out a job application — such simple things — or even being able to understand government-printed advertising? It is an extreme struggle for many in our society. The emotional strain and frustration that those people experience is enormous. They also suffer a tremendous loss of self-esteem, and there is a tremendous loss of opportunity to contribute to our society. The $10 billion we can calculate, but the loss of human dignity as a result of this difficulty that many in our society have is incalculable.

The numbers who suffer this problem are staggering: one in six British Columbians; one in six men and women in our society. Some 360,000 British Columbians suffer as a result of problems with reading and writing. These are average Canadian citizens, not immigrants. Two-thirds of the illiterate population is born in Canada; almost half of them are under 45 years old. They are divided almost fifty-fifty between urban and rural. Almost all these individuals can learn to read and write, and nine out of ten are not getting help.

Mr. Speaker, zero percent is the only acceptable level of illiteracy in British Columbia. Training for these individuals should be readily available, and right now it is not. Clearly it is the responsibility of this provincial government to provide leadership in this area. The minister has said in estimates: "The work of the Literacy Advisory Committee really leads advanced education into some very exciting times and initiatives." I hope that is true. We have

[ Page 9583 ]

seen some small progress to date. We have seen the Adult Literacy Contact Centre in Vancouver and the provincial literacy coordinator being appointed, but other than that, there is very little evidence to date. We had a tremendous committee approved in September 1988.

We had a draft report from that committee in September 1989, reported in the Times-Colonist on October 14, 1989. It had some tremendous recommendations that could address this serious problem. It only took the current minister ten days to respond to the implementation planning group in Prince George, which he clearly has an intense interest in. We saw this report some nine months ago. The government has sat on it for nine months. We are almost halfway through the International Year of Literacy, and we have seen no response to the report.

Some time ago we all received a letter from the president of the Adult Basic Education Association of B.C. that lamented the lack of response and said: "We are now anxiously awaiting a government response." A response to the recommendations in this report is essential. The committee asked for leadership initiatives from the Ministry of Advanced Education.

We know that the costs of training and retraining are minimal compared to the costs to individuals and to society as a result of this serious problem. We would all benefit from the implementation of the recommendations of the advisory committee. In the words of the report, some 360,000 British Columbians deserve better.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would like to respond to what the member introduced by resolution this morning. There's no question that we have a long way to go. British Columbia has Canada's lowest illiteracy rate — 17 percent — but as the member indicated, the only number we must seek is zero.

There are a couple of things I would like to point out to the House, Mr. Speaker. The final report of the Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee came to this ministry on December 4, 1989, not in September, as the member indicated. He's not correct there.

In terms of our response, it is happening now. In many cases in community colleges throughout the province we are seeing more and more interest in literacy training. We're seeing more and more ABE teachers becoming involved with this. We are seeing some very good volunteer programs begin. I heard of a remarkable one just the other day at the Royal Columbian Hospital, where volunteers, with some assistance, are teaching some of the entry-level workers at that hospital and helping them to become literate. Many in entry-level jobs of that sort are not literate.

I'd like to close by briefly running through a summary of the recommendations contained in the Paul Gallagher report. As I say that, I must give our government's recognition — and, I'm sure, that of all members opposite — to the remarkable work done by Dr. Paul Gallagher, president of Vancouver Community College. He is truly one of Canada's leaders in community colleges and community education. To have his expertise in the chairing of this committee was of benefit to all of us who have such a sincere interest in this concern.

In summary, the report recommends that the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology show leadership for providing the development and provision of literacy programs and support services in the province; that the ministry declare adult literacy an area for immediate action and a priority program concern for the next five years; that there be literacy staff within the ministry — a start in this direction would be to convert the full-time interim position to a continuing one; that we allocate funds annually for each of the five priority years to promote public awareness; that we have an information and referral centre; that further recognition be given to the need to provide lower instructor-student ratios in literacy programs in colleges; that colleges make literacy a priority program area — I can tell the House that that is being done now; that Advanced Education, Training and Technology make provision for significant increases in the capacity of the post-secondary system, which is happening; and that we fund all colleges to serve as primary catalysts for the organization of community-based literacy services for adults in their communities.

There's one more recommendation — I don't have complete budget approval for this yet, but we're working it through: that all of these programs be tuition-free. We're working with our budget people now to assess that, but I would hope that I can make a positive comment with respect to that aspect of literacy training soon.

With that said, I'd like to thank the member for showing his concern and for his comments with respect to this issue. It is a serious one. I can tell you that throughout the province, a lot of very good educators in community colleges and volunteer situations — as I said, there's even a situation at the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster — are becoming quite concerned about this. They want to help out their neighbour who cannot read or who is not deemed to be literate. We're all seeing remarkable work done in this area. Critics could say that it's too little too late, but the best thing to do is to start now, which we have done, and to continue with the hope and help of all those who are taking this problem so seriously. One day we will achieve that zero illiteracy rate in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As in the previous resolution, I'm going to call the question on the motion put forward by the member for Burnaby North.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

[ Page 9584 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 17: minister's office, $308,497 (continued).

MS. CULL: I ask for some indulgence on this. This is my first time in taking a lead role in these discussions. What I want to talk about at this point is capital budget funds.

[11:45]

Over the last ten years, capital approvals for schools have been extremely volatile. If you go back to the beginning of the eighties, they started off at about $220 million for the fiscal year 1981-82; they dropped in 1983-84 to about $20 million, and they came back up in 1988-89 to $132 million.

During this time, while funds were being cut — during the period they were dropping from 1981 through to 1983 and then coming back up — and during the period of restraint, school districts throughout the province had to cut back on all kinds of capital programs. They certainly cut back on any expansion programs, but more importantly they cut back on the maintenance of the physical structure of the schools.

This had a very significant impact. As any homeowner knows, you can put off making various kinds of repairs or routine maintenance for only so long, and then eventually it does catch up with you, and you have to move to make those repairs; otherwise the structure becomes unsound and unusable for the purpose for which it was intended.

What happened, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, was that during the time that the funds were being cut, the enrolment was declining; that was fortunate. But the time when the enrolment turned around and began to increase again coincided with the end of this period that I've just described, in which many of the physical structures were long overdue for repair.

I want to talk a bit about some of the local schools in the Greater Victoria School District and some of the circumstances that we have here. Some of these examples may not seem to be particularly earth-shattering, but added up in any one school and in the experience of the students in that school, they can be quite difficult and have a very significant impact on learning conditions.

Lambrick Park Secondary School in my riding has ten portables right now that students are taking their classes in. We all know that portables are not the ideal situation. Lambrick has had a building program. I'm optimistic, every time I go out to that school, that I will hear that the plans have been signed off and the ground is going to be turned to start this program. But it has been a long wait, and during that wait, those students continue to take their instruction in inferior buildings.

View Royal, for example, is a building that has been built and added to over a number of years, and pieces have been tacked on to it. The last time I visited View Royal, they had finally gotten their expansion. But while they waited for that addition to be made, the sick room was on a staircase landing. A child who was ill had to lie on a cot on a landing, while other students were coming up and down the corridor.

Vic West is very crowded, and we all know about the Lampson Street School, which was closed during the height of restraint. Unfortunately, the funds that were available to the Greater Victoria School Board were such that that building was not even kept in operation. While many schools throughout this province were closed in the 1980s, it would have been prudent if funds had been available to those boards to keep those buildings in some kind of operation, with heat and light in them, so that they would not have fallen into further disrepair.

About 60 percent of the schools in the province are of an average age of 20 years. In greater Victoria, those schools are approximately 35 years old. That is part of the problem, because in some districts such as Surrey, where we have rapidly increasing enrolment, the difficulty is how to keep up with enough space for the students that are turning up on the doorsteps every September. But in districts like Vancouver and Victoria, the problem is that the physical structures are aging every year, and the ability to keep those structures in good repair has not been met over the last number of years.

Again, to use Greater Victoria School District as an example, in the three capital budgets that I had the opportunity to be involved with as a school trustee, the list of needed capital projects was put together very carefully every year. Only the highest-priority projects were placed on the list, because we knew the facts about the amount of funding that would be available, and it just wasn't considered practical or wise or worth the time and effort to request funds for projects that were nice to do but were not immediately necessary. So we dealt with those that were considered to be most urgent. During that time, approximately one-fifth to one-third of the capital requests in any given year received approval.

Because this is a very common pattern throughout the province, it places the school districts in a very difficult situation with maintaining the physical structure of the schools. The difficulty they face is that the pressure is constantly on school boards to provide programs. As we know, 85 percent of the operating budget goes to salaries, and there's very little flexibility in operating programs to make any adjustments to come up with any other funds. When school districts raised their own supplementary funds from residential taxpayers, again the pressure was to provide programs.

It's very difficult, when you're faced with so many pressures, to recognize also that a roof needs to be replaced and attention needs to be placed on things that do not grab the public interest with the same urgency as French immersion or Pacific Rim programs or what have you. So we've had a situation of deteriorating physical stock over the eighties. The royal commission addressed this — I think quite clearly — in talking about the volatility of capital funding and the lack of predictability. I go back to some of the comments that have been made by other speakers. What we are trying to achieve in education

[ Page 9585 ]

in British Columbia today, as a result of the work of the royal commission, is a more predictable and stable system. One of the recommendations that came from the royal commission was to provide multi-year capital approvals so that districts would have some idea as to what they would be getting over a period of years and could plan accordingly.

Another recommendation was for a special program to respond to the deteriorating condition of the large number of schools built in the immediate post-1945 period. I take that to mean an additional program, a special program; not part of the regular capital funding program, but some recognition that some districts are faced with a very serious building problem, the result not of growing enrolment but of aging schools.

I have some questions for the minister in this regard. I'd like to begin by asking what steps have been taken to improve the predictability of funds for capital projects. What is happening to ensure that over a period of time boards can plan not from year to year with capital projects, but with a thoughtful, rational, planned approach to maintaining their capital stock and improving it over time?

I would also be interested to hear the minister's comments on the royal commission recommendations for a special program for older schools.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the member made a point that the amount of money available for capital spending has varied considerably. I think the member is absolutely correct. When this province went into a recession, when government revenues went far down in 1982 and '83 and the enrolments in the province were dropping, yes, we did not put a lot of money into building new schools.

As far as repairs and maintenance were concerned, the money was still there in the budget, but it was the choice of the school boards to cut maintenance rather than, in some instances, cut back on staff to match the decreased enrolment, or to give 3 percent wage increases in a zero economy rather than do it in maintenance. So it was a school board choice to cut in that particular area, and maybe they saw it as the least damaging. But that was a matter of local choice When you have 50,000 fewer pupils in the province, you don't build new schools for 50,000.

The member asked what we have done in the interval. As the economy picked up, as the government revenues picked up and as the enrolments levelled out in 1986 — then have been increasing since then; not in every district but provincially as an average they have been increasing and certainly they have been increasing at an exacerbated rate in some of the areas — we have increased the amount of minor capital.

Since I've been minister there have been a lot of minor projects for maintenance and repair that used to be under the capital program. They had to seek our approval, so we added $21 million the first year into the budget and distributed those to the school districts and said: "There's $21 million that you didn't have last year to get on with these roof repairs and minor repairs and things of that nature." That amount has increased this year to $60 million for minor capital.

The member asked what we have done to rationalize this system. We have asked school boards to go back to five-year planning. We announced in January 1989 that the government would commit to a six-year program totalling $1.5 billion for capital and that it would work out at around $230 million per year. We went into that when we approved the planning money in one year because of construction money in the following year. I think the two-year planning has made a large difference to school districts.

That $1.5 billion six-year plan put excessive pressure on them. This year we were able to convince Treasury Board to up it by $100 million this year in the hope that we can still live within our $1.5 billion commitment over the years and get a lot of the new schools and additions and renovations done this year.

I might also point out that throughout all this period the Victoria school board chose to keep S.J. Willis school open when there was no need for it on the basis of enrolment. It was kept open because of the grandfather clause from the past that as long as it operates as a school, the school board may retain the property.

I can remember having meetings with the Victoria school board and the Victoria municipal council and saying: "Since you don't need that for a school, why don't you shut down the school, sell it, divide the money, and you'd both be better off?" But no, they kept it open by keeping a class or two in there to justify its continued existence as a school. A lot of maintenance and operating money went to run a token operation in that school. That was the school board's choice. They could have sold it by mutual agreement through cooperative effort, instead of a them-against-us attitude and both of them against me.

[12:00]

I think we have done much. We have fast-tracked projects. Last year we managed to add some money on top of the $200 million. We have done everything possible to deal with the minor renovation needs. When we had a budget of $110 million a year, the first year I was minister, we had some requests for high-priority new projects and renovations of about $270 million. When we went up and assured that we would come up with $250 million, the member can guess what happened. The high-priority requests went up to over $500 million.

When we deal with the capital projects this year, we've got $100 million more, but we still have to reprioritize the $544 million high-priority list to fit within the $350 million; and $350 million is nothing to sneeze at. In my opening comments on my estimates, I did make the observation that if some imagination and innovation was shown by school boards, a lot could happen without just extra dollars. Putting pressures on the building trades when all other things are booming, that means the tenders go far up. By levelling out — with a little bit of imagination and innovation — a great deal could happen.

[ Page 9586 ]

I have made suggestions to facilities' managers and to boards about things they could do. I have suggested things — like in the S.J. Willis situation, it could have been an easy solution and both would have benefited. But no way. I've suggested that we should look at combining — as happens in the rest of the world — commercial, educational and residential. I know it's a far-out idea, but with the capability of construction these days, it would be possible. We wouldn't have to have everything tax exempt.

In one of the suggestions, I said: "Theoretically, you could build some commercial space on the first floor, school space on the second floor and residential space on the third and fourth floor. Then there could be a freedom of movement from the job training, to the educational institutions, to the residential." Members will shake their heads and say: "You can't do that. Schools can't operate." If you did that in a complex and shared the recreational facilities, then a swimming pool, a playing field and tennis courts could be part of that operation, and everybody could use them.

For something like that to work, people would have to open their minds, instead of closing their minds and saying: "But it doesn't fit the system, because in our world we separate commercial, residential and institutional. They have to be in separate places so people have to travel from one to the other."

There are other advantages. People living there could probably assist in the school system. I could make other suggestions that way. I suggested a possibility of modular scheduling with the flexibility that's there. What's so sacred that learning can only take place between 9:00 and 3:30? There's nothing sacred about that. That's an organizational requirement. It's not attached to learning. I said: "Yes, it's the kind of thing you can't impose."

School trustees, somewhere along the line, should say: "On behalf of our taxpayers, we would like you to consider option A and option B, rather than saying that we will all combine our forces to fight for option A, because option A means we all gang up on the province for more money. Remember when you get more money from us, we get more money from those taxpayers."

There are so many things that could be done, if people would simply do that. A municipality and a school board could get together and say that because there are so many restrictions on zoning regulations for 600 new houses in a residential development, they should consider the statistics which said that 600 new houses generate enough pupils for an elementary school, that one of the conditions to get that permit, approval to build the 600 houses is that it's not just the roads, not just the playgrounds and not just some of these other facilities that the municipality requires in their zoning structure.... Suppose they turned around and said that with 600 houses, there must be a turn-key school operation paid for. It might increase the amount of the lots, but that same development could say that since the school is provided — it's open, it's right there and opens the same time as phase 1, 2 or 3 — that you will not then have to pay taxes. You will have lower taxes rather than capital costs.

But that would take a little imagination, wouldn't it? People will automatically say to me: "But the system doesn't allow it." I'll tell you, if people came to me and said, "We have worked out something among ourselves. Can you give us the authority to proceed?" I'm not going to tell them to take a run.

MR. ROSE: Why didn't you do that with Westwood?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Of course. I would like to have seen that done in Westwood. As the zoning permission is given by the municipality requiring a hundred other things, why don't they suggest that? And perhaps we can work on it.

MR. ROSE: You sold it all.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am not happy with that. It's just as hard and even harder to change the large provincial system if no imaginative ideas come to me from the local system. I would like to change that. I've been working at it.

MR. ROSE: Talk to the Minister of Lands.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am. I have talked to him. I haven't succeeded there yet. I haven't succeeded in getting one innovative thought into the school boards either.

HON. MR. DUECK: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: It is my pleasure today to introduce, on behalf of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself, some very special people to the House today: 55 grade 8 students from Yale Secondary School in my community in the Central Fraser Valley. As a matter of fact, the school is just a few blocks from where I live. They are accompanied by their band teacher, Ms. K. Volway; Mr. P. Lewis; and parents Mrs. Janzen, Mrs. Friesen and Mrs. Ross. Will the House please make them welcome.

MS. CULL: I am delighted to have listened to the last remarks of the minister, particularly with respect to school sites as part of the development process. I believe the minister knows very well why school boards and municipalities do not obtain school sites as part of the development process. It's precisely because the Municipal Act does not permit it. I'm sure the minister is also aware that the B.C. School Trustees' Association has been on record for a number of years with a motion requesting those amendments to the Municipal Act. The Vancouver Charter amendments that were before this House in the last

[ Page 9587 ]

session would have permitted such things. In fact, his own staff and myself, when I was a staff member of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, were actively working to have such proposals come before the government. Now nothing, I think, would please school districts more than the ability to obtain school sites and school facilities as part of the development process. I am looking forward to seeing that legislation come forward later in this session, and I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson) is equally as supportive of this as you are at this point.

Some of the things that you pointed out need some reply. I go back to the S.J. Willis example, because I think it is a good example of the point that I was making earlier. Schools have a life span which is certainly longer than the students who are within them. We know that in a district, particularly a built-up district like greater Victoria, the population is going to rise and fall when it comes to school enrolment; and it's going to move around the district. There's no question that areas that are populated in one year by young families with young children will put quite a demand on the elementary school system. And as those families grow, that pressure will move its way up through the system into the junior high schools and high schools.

What we've seen in Victoria is quite interesting. If we look over about a 15-year timespan, which would be approximately one cycle in this — we might have to take a little bit longer look, but the last 15 years is certainly enough to have a look at this— we find that schools that were packed to the rafters 15 years ago went through a period when they were underused or even closed in the early eighties, and they are now being reopened. The interesting thing about the point I'm making about capital funding is that these buildings are going to be there for a very long time, and if they are maintained and kept in good repair, they will be useful.

So S.J. Willis may not have been needed as a high school in the eighties, and the use of it as a high school was discontinued. But I would be absolutely appalled if what had happened to S.J. Willis was the same thing that happened to Lampson, where the building was just closed up and allowed to fall into disrepair. The last time I toured the Lampson building, the state of disrepair in the roof had led to serious interior damage. Far better to keep those schools in operation in some form, to rent them out or to have them used by community uses, as has been done in S.J. Willis. S.J. Willis has had a few educational programs in it over the years, but it has also been rented to the community for various uses — various organizations have been in there. As the need for space in the district has increased, it is being brought back into the system.

Perhaps one of the innovative ideas.... The minister talks about the need for imagination and innovation. Well, the Greater Victoria School District has probably got one of the most innovative ideas in their technology centre going into S.J. Willis. I think that, all in all, decisions to keep a building open are decisions that serve the district well — if you take a long-term view. I guess that's what I'm talking about: the whole question of planning. I know that in the last year the ministry has had a study prepared for it on the matter of planning for capital programs. Again, the minister.... I'm always surprised — I guess I'll get used to it as I sit in this House longer — to hear members from the other side attack the groups that I'd always assumed they were working with.

The call for innovation and imagination. School districts have been looking to working with municipalities and community groups to provide joint facilities for a number of years. It is the regulations of the ministry that hamper that.

As an example, the Greater Victoria School District, for the first time in 15 years, is building a new school on Rogers Avenue. The district is very pleased to be doing that. One of the things an elementary school could have — and I think should have — as part of its physical facility is a day care centre.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The school district in this case, when calling for the architectural plans to be developed, decided that that was a worthy goal and asked the architect to incorporate plans for day care facilities in the overall design of the school. They knew full well that the board would not be permitted through the capital budgeting program to build such a facility, but they did so in the hope that something could be worked out in the community. In fact, something may be worked out in the community with one of the developers in the neighbourhood, who may be interested in developing this site.

[12:15]

The problem is, though, that there has been very little direction or incentive from the Ministry of Education for such innovation and this kind of planning. It's all very well and good for the minister to get up and say: "Why aren't you more creative?" But this is a matter of provincial leadership. In the area of facilities planning, the minister will agree with me that there has been very little direction in the overall planning of facilities in a district — not on a school-by-school basis. I'm sure that is handled quite capably by your staff.

The question is of planning for facilities in a long-range term overall in a district and planning for the kinds of facilities that will have to be there not next year and not when we see the whites of their eyes, which is basically the kind of building program we've had in this province. As soon as those children appear on the horizon, then the go-ahead is given to build a school. A longer-range, more thoughtful planning process such as the kind of planning process that is practised in any well-managed municipality is needed.

What I'm speaking about is the ability of school districts to take a long-term assessment of their needs, to be able to make plans and provisions to meet those needs and to receive some kind of support from the ministry to do that. They need assurance

[ Page 9588 ]

from the ministry that there is some likelihood that their plans can be fulfilled.

During the time that I was on the board, I made a lot of comparisons with the way municipalities approached planning as opposed to school boards. Municipalities received considerable assistance from the government for preparing plans; I compliment the government on doing that. There is funding available. There is technical staff available to advise on what plans might look like for a municipality. There is no such counterpart for school districts.

In the study that was done over the last year.... I'm not certain whether this study has been completed yet, but I did have the opportunity to participate in it over a year ago, when the consultant you hired called together people from around the province to comment on capital facilities planning. One of the major recommendations coming out of the workshop that I attended was for such support for school planning; for the ministry to provide some guidance as to what a five-year plan for educational facilities might look like, to provide the necessary technical support and to ensure that such activities are included in part of the budget of the ministry so that those kinds of activities could be carried out.

In greater Victoria, part of the supplemental budget that was raised last year — 100 percent from residential taxpayers — was to pay for some of that kind of planning. That's the kind of thing that is needed if we are not to be going on in this ad hoc fashion. That is precisely the kind of planning that would have prevented the short-sighted closure of some buildings and would have ensured that building maintenance was meeting the long-term needs of the community.

You also mention the sharing of facilities among communities. I have not talked to a school district or a school trustee in this province who is not eager to get involved in that kind of community sharing. We on this side of the House — and the school districts — recognize that schools have got to become more than centres of learning for children between the ages of five and 17. They must be community facilities. They've been paid for by all the taxpayers in the community, whether or not their children attend that school.

Many districts have been embarking on programs of community education and throwing open the schools to all kinds of activities within the community. The difficulty comes, like the day care situation with the Rogers Avenue school, in that there is no leadership, no incentive and no direction. In many cases, there are obstacles in the way of school districts cooperating with community agencies, municipalities and all kinds of groups to provide these multi-purpose schools.

I have always thought an excellent way to tackle this problem would be for the government to have a look at the capital budgets of the Ministry of Education, of Social Services and perhaps of Health as well to see whether we could be building joint-use facilities, instead of three or four separate facilities throughout a community to provide the kinds of community-based services that families and people in communities really need.

To use another local example: when I was the mother of a baby, I would walk down the street past my local elementary school which was in a building that was one of the old annexes, which was at that time surplus to their classroom needs. Unfortunately, it is no longer surplus to their needs.

But at that time there was an annex which had a day care in it. There was the elementary school, but I went past that school, across the street, into the church and down into the basement to the well baby clinic. Every time I did that with my small child, I thought: "Wouldn't it have been a much better situation if that school had been a community school, had had within its walls the kind of public health services that I needed as a young mother?"

I could have been going in there with my baby. Perhaps I would have had a toddler in the day care, or children enrolled in the elementary school. Perhaps I might have been going there in the evening for adult education classes. It seemed to me to be a missed opportunity.

That missed opportunity is not there because school districts, as the minister has implied, lack the imagination to do so, because school districts — and particularly the Greater Victoria School District — have been working very hard to implement community education in this province. What I would like to see is some indication from the minister that the Ministry of Education supports these objectives, and has in place within its programs and plans the ways to support this.

I will sit down in a few minutes, but the main thing I would like to suggest to the minister is that the government has a number of capital budgets it can use to build facilities in communities. I would like to see some coordination. I'd like to know whether there are any discussions going on among the Ministries of Education, Social Services and Housing and Health to ensure that where new facilities are needed, we are doing them in this very imaginative and innovative way that the minister proposes.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member covers a wide range of activities or issues.

Let me deal again with S.J. Willis. Because the enrolments weren't sufficient to fill all of the schools, the board chose to shut down S.J. Willis and move the students elsewhere. With the commercial development and other things that have happened — the capacity downtown and the enrolments moving out — it is highly unlikely that there will be a need for S.J. Willis to be brought back on speed as a large school. I don't know whether you need S.J. Willis.

What you have there is $100 million worth of property which, shared, could benefit the taxpayers, the system and everybody else. But no, there is a sort of stubbornness or something there — we hang onto it, whether we need it or not. I know that the member asks where the encouragement is from the

[ Page 9589 ]

government and says that the Municipal Act doesn't allow these changes, and so on.

It's a standard approach that member uses: let's require cost development charges to keep doing the same stuff. I'm saying that what we need is an innovative idea, and if the only hindrance then is the cost development charge, maybe we can look at changing it. But all they keep coming back with is the standard stuff: let's hit them with cost development charges, so that we can just do the same thing over and over again. That makes absolutely no sense.

They talk about long-term planning. We've set the five-year plan that we've asked school boards to do, and I don't....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET. Asking school boards to do the five-year plan. Oh, I see what the member says: we can't come up with a new idea unless we add staff.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We can't come up with a five-year plan unless we double the people in our planning department. That is the kind of nonsense....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It seems to be implicit in the member's statement that we cannot come up with a new idea unless we increase staff. Why would we need to add staff to get new ideas? I think the member also said that we don't have any coordination capacity in our ministry, and that is not correct We have a registered planner. We have two architects. We have an engineer in our facilities branch. These people are available, and they work with the districts The member seems to indicate that the only way we can do more planning....

We're accused of nothing innovative on the Rogers Elementary School. It was the ministry that authorized the funding for an architectural competition to come up with some new ideas for schools that would fit the new directions in the next century and suggested that competition, or approved unique characteristics in that school so that it will meet and exceed some of the ministry guidelines. We were also asked about planning in a school in Surrey, where we say: "Let's do an innovative approach on that."

The member asks why we don't put day cares into the schools. Boards in many cases have had the space and haven't put day cares in. You're saying that we should be funding and operating day care. It's not in our mandate to fund it. We have no objection to its being incorporated if someone else will fit it in there. In many school districts they have provided the use of the schools for day care; in others they left the rooms empty rather than let somebody else into the place. Those are the kinds of things we are dealing with.

We've put up a lot of support for school district planning covered in the planning funds, also in the administration service levels, in the fiscal framework, in the operations budget and in many of these items. What I was trying to say to that member was that we need some innovative thinking by the school boards. If there is $100 million available, maybe there is another way to do it, so we could do it within the $100 million, and do more. The member comes back and says: "But you aren't adding money to do anything different." I'm saying that we should at least look at whether there is a different way to do it.

I know that we have spent several days here discussing politics, sometimes under the guise of an interest in education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BRUMMET: When you think of the repetitive statements that have been made by that side of the House, they have had very little to do with education. They are mostly trying to get on the record something that is to their political advantage, and to criticize the government. We're not putting up enough money — we increased it to $350 million, and it's not enough. We're suggesting ideas; it's not enough. I guess there aren't enough words in this House, so I move that the committee rise, report excellent progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we report to Mr. Speaker, the second member for Victoria has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the House to welcome two old family friends, Jim and Moray Hamilton. Jim used to live in Victoria up to a few years ago and moved back to Goderich, Ontario, and is visiting Victoria with Moray. They were married recently and are visiting Victoria and Canada. Would the House please make them both welcome.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Reynolds moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:30 p.m.