1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5593 ]

CONTENTS

Groundwater Regulation Act (Bill M203). Mrs. Wallace

Introduction and first reading –– 5593

Oral Questions

Legal contracts. Mr. Macdonald –– 5593

Mr. Reynolds

Expo 86 advertising budget. Mr. Cocke –– 5594

Pemberton flood. Mrs. Wallace –– 5594

Commissioner of critical industries. Mr. Stupich –– 5594

Safety of prostitutes. Ms. Brown –– 5595

Ministerial statement

Funding for Canadian Commercial Bank. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5595

Mr. Stupich

Private Members' Statements

Soil erosion and agricultural crisis. Ms. Sanford –– 5597

Hon. Mr. Schroeder

Mrs. Wallace

Licensing of taxis. Mr. Davis –– 5598

Hon. A. Fraser

Discovery parks. Mr. Parks –– 5600

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms. Brown –– 5602

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Reynolds

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5604

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Barnes

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 5609

The House met at 10:06 a.m. Prayers.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: In the gallery today is Mr.

Chuck Emery, chairman of the B.C. Marketing Board, some times called the superboard. Please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GROUNDWATER REGULATION ACT

Mrs. Wallace presented a bill intituled Groundwater Regulation Act.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have

introduced this bill in this Legislature, but it is a continuing

concern to me. As I'm certain the members will realize, I have a

concern about water in strata underneath the earth's surface, which has

no regulations covering it under the Water Act.

We have had many instances when one well or one source of supply has

been depleted by the drilling of a well adjacent to it. We are getting

more and more need to rely on this underwater supply, as more and more

of our surface water becomes polluted or destroyed in other ways.

Bill M203, Groundwater Regulation Act, introduced and read a first time.

MRS. WALLACE: I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

[10:15]

Oral Questions

LEGAL CONTRACTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the acting

Attorney-General about the privatization of the services of the

Attorney-General's department — although some seem to enjoy the joys of

privatization more than others. In March of 1984 when Bud Smith,

principal secretary to the Premier, was making his decision to come

down and serve in the government in Victoria, did the department

suddenly take two legal contracts away from lawyers in Kamloops —

Jensen and Kaser — and give them to one Daphne Smith of the firm of

Mair Janowsky Blair? That's my question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member

makes reference to a matter that happened in 1984, and I was wondering

whether the question was urgent and important.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if the rules were strictly applied

to every question, we would have very few. I think in the spirit of

question period…. The Minister of Education was going to respond for

the Attorney?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the

Attorney-General, I'd be quite prepared to make the question as notice,

as you would expect me to do. I will advise the Attorney-General of

your inquiry and I'm sure that there will be a response brought to the

House in due course.

MR. MACDONALD: Another question to the acting

Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker: in October, now, of 1984, when the new

woman lawyer comes to town in Victoria — Daphne….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's '84?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, '84 — very current.

Did the Attorney-General's department then, having issued temporary

contracts to that point, take legal work worth about $4,000 a month

away from three Victoria firms and give it to the firm that Daphne

Smith joined, which was the Hutchison and Gow firm? Do you know whether

that happened too?

Additional to that, does the acting Attorney-General know, however,

that the Attorney-General managed in that shuffle of the work to keep a

third of the work for Loretta Chaperon, who is his active and faithful

campaign worker in Oak Bay?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Again, I have no knowledge of what the

member is asking, and I will take that question on notice as well, on

behalf of the Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question. Is the acting

Attorney-General aware that a senior official of the Attorney-General's

ministry said that there was political interference involved…?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've

listened carefully to the previous question and again the framework for

this question. It appears to me that in he revamping of the rules which

took place in the previous session, we must have changed the rules for

question period. Is that true? Apparently the member opposite is

seeking to bring information to the House, rather than to ask the

question. I ask you to rule on it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: While that may be the case, hon. members, it is

hardly anything new in the rules. Nonetheless, in light of the fact

that the member is aware that the minister to whom he is directing his

remarks is not here, I would ask that the rules of question period,

which state "urgent, important, brief, precise and stated without

argument or opinion" be adhered to at least in some fashion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, so that you will be relieved on

this point, the contracts are still going on, although they were let in

1984. So the matter is current.

This senior official in the department said there was political

interference involved. This is the case of Smith v. Smith, Bud v.

Brian, and Brian managed to keep some of the work for his campaign

workers. My question is this: is the acting Attorney-General not

concerned that Bud Smith might fire the Attorney-General when he is out

of town, the way he fired Maury Gwynne?

[ Page 5594 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the acting

Attorney-General. When he's checking on this information for the member

for Vancouver East, can he ask the Attorney-General to report to the

House how much work Mr. John Brewin is getting in the Victoria area,

also?

EXPO 86 ADVERTISING BUDGET

MR. COCKE: I have a question to that skeleton cabinet. I'll

direct my question to the Provincial Secretary, because he gets so

excited every time anybody directs a question.

Can the minister confirm that Michael Powell — I think this is

somebody he might know, Mr. Speaker — has been appointed to supervise

the spending of a $25 million advertising budget for Expo 86?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. Michael Powell is not known to the Provincial Secretary.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise whether this Mr. Michael

Powell is a recent senior partner in the advertising firm of Vrlak

Robinson? I think we've talked about that firm before — the advertising

agent of record for the Social Credit party.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Like I said a little earlier, I'm not

familiar with Michael Powell. And never having met the man, never

having dealt with the man, never having had any correspondence with the

man, needless to say it would be very difficult for me to say whether

he had been working with Vrlak Robinson or any other communications

firm in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: I will probably direct similar questions to the

minister in charge of tourism and Expo 86, but would the minister,

perhaps on my behalf, ask the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

whether Mr. Powell's Trojan effort on behalf of the Social Credit Party

in the past has been the prime consideration in placing him in charge

of this $25 million budget?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, you know that the rules of the

House do not permit a member to ask a minister a question wherein he

should attempt to influence a colleague in the cabinet. So that's

highly out of order, and needs no response.

PEMBERTON FLOOD

MRS. WALLACE: I know that the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Pelton) is going to be very happy that I am finally going to ask

him a question. The questions relate to the Pemberton flooding which

took place in October, 1984. As the minister is aware, both he and I

have received innumerable letters from flood victims in Pemberton who

were hopeful that this new minister might be more responsive to their

problems. Can the minister tell me why he has not contacted those flood

victims to this point in time?

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank the hon. member for the question. As

a matter of fact, for many days, dreading the first question that might

come my way, I carried into this House a great deal of information

about the Pemberton flood. You obviously know what has happened. I

haven't got it with me today. However, I do recall that in that

particular list of information I had, it seemed to me that.... I got

the impression from that list that everyone had been dealt with and

that all of the claims had been dealt with, with the exception of 21.

Now I received that information some time ago, so quite possibly it has

changed. On that basis, perhaps I should take the question as notice

and bring back more detailed information as soon as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not sure whether I outwaited him or

outsmarted him. The minister says that as far as he knows, there are 21

claims unsettled. To the best of my knowledge, he has not been in

contact with any one of those 21 people. I am not disputing the number;

I take his word for it. It's now six months since the flood, and the

residents there have expended any reserves they had. They're close to

dire straits. I'm getting letters all the time — copies of letters to

the minister.

My question is: has the minister decided to review the guidelines

and the compensation offered to these people who have suffered such

severe losses?

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, the member has my assurance that we

will do that. I'm not just sure of the geographical location of dire

straits, but I will endeavour to find them.

COMMISSIONER OF CRITICAL INDUSTRIES

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday I started a line of questioning with

the Minister of Finance as the minister responsible for the critical

industries commission. I questioned the appointment of the commissioner

in view of his thoughts on government getting involved with industry as

he presented them at a debate sponsored by the MacDonald royal

commission into the economy in June 1984. Apart from what he said about

government helping, he also said that he considered the forest industry

to be a sunset industry in the province. Yet forests is one of the two

main industries that this commissioner is supposed to be helping.

I ask again. The minister said he would respond during debate on the

bill. I wonder if that's the correct and proper time to be discussing

the personnel. But the minister may want to leave it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was expressing a view

yesterday with which the Chair may not agree, that the actual appointee

in a bill which is before the House may not be appropriate to discuss

in question period. But if the Chair has no difficulty with that, I

would answer the question.

On the basis of my lengthy conversation yesterday — it started in

the morning, Mr. Member — with Mr. Phillips, quite clearly he has very

strong views with respect to the continued growth of the forest

industry and the mining industry. He has a good grasp of that which the

bill seeks him to do. I'm satisfied that Mr. Phillips — the member may

want to make a supplementary question — will bring to this new office,

breaking new ground in fact, considerable experience in a variety of

activities and endeavours, and certainly I would like to examine the

precise context in which he described an industry as a sunset industry.

I don't doubt the member's quotation, but I'd like to see the full

context. I don't have that available to me.

[ Page 5595 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think we'll go into this in

estimates, perhaps at greater length. But I wonder whether at this time

the minister can tell us whether or not any other applicants were

interviewed in connection with this appointment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Several individuals were considered for this appointment.

SAFETY OF PROSTITUTES

MS. BROWN: My question is to the acting Attorney-General,

too. I was actually hoping to give it to the Attorney-General himself.

The Alliance for the Safety of Prostitutes issues from time to time

something they call a bad trick sheet, which is really a list of

experiences that they've had with consumers of their services who have

been violent or threatening in some way. I'm wondering whether the

Attorney-General's ministry is advising the Vancouver police or whether

the ministry itself is following up on this sheet and finding out

whether these people are being dealt with in any way.

[10:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the sincerity

with which the member advances the question. I don't know anything

about the issue other than what I've read in the newspaper. I'm sure

the Attorney-General will be quite prepared to give a full answer when

he returns. Again, I will take that question as notice.

FUNDING FOR CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial

statement. On March 27 of this year I made a preliminary statement to

the House on the actions being undertaken by the governments of Canada,

Alberta and British Columbia, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation

and the six largest Canadian chartered banks to provide an infusion of

capital to strengthen the Canadian Commercial Bank headquartered in

Edmonton but carrying on business in western Canada, particularly in

B.C. and Alberta. At that time I assured the House that a further

statement regarding the circumstances which led to the province's

participation would be made, and I do so now.

A little bit of background: the Canadian Commercial Bank is Canada's

tenth largest bank and, more importantly, it is the second-largest

western Canada based bank. At yearend, October 31, 1984, the bank had

assets of $3 –– I billion, of which $340 million represented loans to

businesses and individuals resident in B.C.

For a number of reasons the bank recently experienced a sharp

deterioration in its U.S. loan portfolio. This in turn significantly

depressed the value of the bank's total loan portfolio. It became

apparent to the management of the bank, given the magnitude of the

problem, that the bank could no longer remain a viable operation

without some financial restructuring.

On or about March 14 of this year, the management of the bank

advised the office of the inspector-general of banks in Ottawa of the

bank's financial difficulties. The inspector-general and staff

performed a detailed analysis of the situation, including an on-site

re-evaluation of the loan portfolio, and concluded that a support

package of $255 million would be required. This support package would,

under that plan, be provided by the governments of Canada and Alberta,

six major chartered banks and CDIC. the deposit insurance corporation.

The key to a stable and growing economy, and the financial security

of our citizens is a strong and responsible financial services sector.

It was my concern with respect to the financial security of a large

number of our citizens, as well as the recognition of the need to

maintain confidence in our economy in related institutions, that this

CCB with the basis of carrying on business. The problem was twofold. It

is important, because I think, frankly, Mr. Speaker, not members of

this House but some observers have permitted the two problems to merge

into one.

There were two distinct problems. First, there were debentures of

$49 million, the holders of which were being asked to accept lesser

security and to defer interest payments in order to secure loans from

the major chartered banks to provide cash to continue day-to-day

operations. This condition required all debenture holders to agree.

After some days of negotiations, i.e., following March 14, no agreement

was in sight.

On the late afternoon or early evening of March 24, the negotiations

for this support package had reached an impasse because the support

participants insisted the holders of the bank's $49 million of

subordinated debentures postpone receipt of interest and principal

until the support group had been paid out. The majority of subordinated

debenture holders were trust companies, and unanimous consent could not

be obtained from that group. At this juncture it became apparent that

no agreement was going to be reached which could provide financial

assistance to this troubled bank. Given no agreement, the CCB would not

have had an opportunity for an orderly workout of its problems. This

placed in jeopardy both the debenture holders, of which there was only

one significant holder in B.C. other than the government of B.C., and

the deposit holders.

This represented the second and far more significant problem for a

much larger number of B.C. citizens and institutions. In a very fragile

period of renewal, I suggest that we cannot afford a major shock to

investors' confidence. The so-called flight to quality that accompanies

such events is usually, in those circumstances, to government

securities and not loans to investors who want to and who can

contribute to the renewal of our economy.

Well, it was an interesting afternoon and evening — and overnight

period — Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House. It continued until the very

small hours of the morning. In fact, in the early hours of March 25, it

was proposed to the governments of Alberta and Canada that those two

governments, along with the government of British Columbia, provide a

separate arrangement to purchase from the trust companies and various

other institutions $39 million of the bank's subordinated debentures.

I'm sure that members of this House will agree — I trust that they will

agree — that the Canadian Commercial Bank had to be maintained as a

viable banking institution in order not to cause grave concern in the

financial community should the bank not open its doors for business on

the morning of March 25, 1985. That really was the problem which was

before all the participants.

This financial support is a vote of confidence by the governments of

British Columbia, Alberta and Canada, and by the six major banks and

the CDIC in this vital western-

[ Page 5596 ]

based Canadian bank and in the economic development of western Canada and British Columbia in particular.

I want to elaborate just a little more on the economic viability of

this bank and its importance to the province of B.C. The Canadian

Commercial Bank has a regional office in Vancouver which, as of last

note, employs some 38 British Columbians. The bank has total B.C. loans

authorized at $382 million, of which $340 million is currently

outstanding to local British Columbia institutions and individuals. By

business category, 37 percent of these loans are with transportation

and financial services institutions, 31 percent are real

estate–related, 18 percent rest with manufacturers and 14 percent are

spread among wholesalers, energy-related institutions and local

residents of B.C. Further, British Columbia clients of the Canadian

Commercial Bank employ approximately 10,200 British Columbians, and

they have annual sales in excess of $2.1 billion.

But these statistics, as cold as they may seem, represent only the

borrowing exposure that British Columbians have with the Canadian

Commercial Bank. On the deposit side of the bank's balance sheet, there

are 1,184 retail deposits totalling $30 million of British Columbians'

savings. Of these deposits, 99 were in excess of the $60,000 limit

insurable by CDIC and represented at that time a potential loss of $6.8

million of B.C. savings.

There were 243 wholesale deposits with a total value of $135

million. Only $14.6 million of these deposits would have been insured

had the bank become insolvent. These wholesale deposits were spread

across British Columbia institutions. They ranged from municipalities

and credit unions — including B.C. Central Credit Union to a

significant extent — hospitals, school boards and pension plans.

Mr. Speaker, the governments of B.C., Alberta and Canada are jointly

preparing the final details of the agreement to purchase equally the

$39 million of subordinated debentures. That is the extent of the

province of B.C.'s involvement in part two of the support package.

The agreement has not been finally signed, Mr. Speaker; I expect it

will be in a very few days. I therefore would prefer not to comment on

all of the details, but certainly I've given the general outline of

what the agreement will contain.

The members of this Legislature and the people of B.C. can be

assured that through that weekend I acted only in what I considered to

be the best interests of British Columbians, whether they were

depositors or creditors of the bank, or British Columbians in general

who could have been severely harmed by the spillover effect of the

insolvency of a major western Canada institution. All of this will be

taken into account in the final agreement which I referred to a few

moments ago, and in the control and security of the $13 million of

subordinated debenture to which the province of B.C. has committed

itself.

The action, Mr. Speaker, with the passage of time will be seen, I

trust, by members of the House on both sides as the appropriate action

taken in what was a very worrisome time, particularly with respect to

individual depositors in British Columbia. I did not move to save a

bank. I moved to the best of my ability to save people who had directly

or indirectly placed their money in that particular bank.

Mr. Speaker, I have a document to table which members may want to

see, which is the security of the subordinated debentures and deposits

with respect to CCB.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the opposition does

endorse the actions taken by the Minister of Finance. But may I say

also that we're not very happy about it.

The minister said that he moved to save the depositors and to save

the business concerns that had money invested in the bank. There were a

number of people that he moved to save — the interests of western

Canadians generally, in particular a large number of British Columbians

— if the bank would have collapsed.

Mr. Speaker, the concern was not with the Continental Bank or any of

its shareholders — they were numerous — or with the depositors. The

consideration was only whether or not we would continue to have faith

in our monetary system. That was the real concern. When you look at the

number and stature of the people who are involved in Ottawa, and when

you look at the stature of the people who were summoned to a meeting on

Friday and told to be there.... One newspaper story has it that they

were summoned, and then they were asked to participate. The heads of

the six largest commercial banks were summoned to a meeting, and the

Deputy Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance, other ministers,

other deputies.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Only federal government.

MR. STUPICH: Oh yes, federal.

The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that it was not concern about

a bank, even the tenth largest bank in B.C. It was concern about the

monetary system itself, and faith or lack of faith in that monetary

system, and what damage that might do to our economy in the event that

that kind of faith was shaken. That's why it had to be done, and done

quietly, without knowledge of it getting out until the deal was made.

And we support all that.

But we cannot help but feel some shame, as people involved in

politics — some of us for quite a long time — that over the course of

generations we have developed a monetary system that is supposed to be

serving us, and instead of serving us it is our master. It rules us. We

are able to do nothing with that monetary system.

The fellow calling the meeting, Gerald Bouey, was the one who led us

into the depths of depression, who told us that we couldn't possibly

let our dollar sink lower than the American dollar or we might — and he

said "might" — risk the danger of inflation. So instead of that we

embarked upon a policy of very high interest rates, knowing for certain

that the answer led to high inflation. So we abandoned a policy that

might lead to high inflation in favor of one that was bound to lead to

inflation. And look what's happened to, us. A depression at least as

bad as that of the thirties — from following a monetary system that was

supposed to be established to serve us, which is now our master.

It's our master to the extent that we don't dare let a major bank in

Canada fail — and I agree with that. The minister had to participate in

the way he did. We don't dare let it fail, because we can't. Until we

can come up with some better solution, some better way of handling our

affairs, we can't risk the failure of a major bank in Canada. It's just

that simple. Our creation has become our master, and that's a pretty

sorry state of affairs, Mr. Speaker. Now I'm not blaming the minister

for this, because I don't have the answer any more than the minister

does today.

[10:45]

[ Page

5597 ]

But I do say that the action that we've been forced to take in this

instance was not out of concern for depositors and investors and people

who borrow. We have not shown that kind of concern, Mr. Speaker, in

dealing with the problems of individuals in B.C. who have gone bankrupt

— a greater number each year than the depositors in the Continental

Bank — or with the businesses that have gone bankrupt and are going out

of business every day in B.C. We're not showing our concern in helping

them. We're simply saving faith in the monetary system, because we

don't have anything better to replace it with right now. We know it has

failed us. Yet until we do come up with an answer, we have to agree

that the minister acted properly in doing what he could by playing his

part in saving Canadian faith in the monetary system.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no

intention of rebutting at this point; that can happen at another time.

But the member inadvertently said Continental Bank a couple of times.

I'm sure he meant Canadian Commercial Bank. I'm also sure he would want

Hansard to be corrected. We're not speaking about Continental Bank today.

MR. STUPICH: I thank the minister for that correction. He put

one word in my mouth when he said "today." Let's hope we're not

speaking about it tomorrow.

Private Members' Statements

SOIL EROSION AND AGRICULTURAL CRISIS

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, issues that relate to agriculture

generally do not receive more than a passing nod from the general

public. They are not issues that grab the attention of the public, but

they are of vital importance both in economic terms and, of course, in

terms of the very food that we eat. The statement I make today will, I

hope, evoke more than a passing nod from the provincial government and

result in some attention and some action on the issue as it relates to

agriculture and the production of food in Canada.

This is an issue which deserves serious attention not only

provincially but federally and, indeed, internationally. The issue that

I wish to bring to the attention of the House today is soil degradation

and soil erosion, which, if it continues to go unchecked or unattended

to, as it does now, will result in very serious loss of agricultural

capability in Canada. It's an issue that can be addressed, and it's an

issue that must be addressed soon.

On the international level, a book has been written recently entitled Soil

Erosion: Quiet Crisis in the World Economy . I'd like to make reference to

that very briefly during the seven minutes that I have at my disposal. This

book, written by Lester Brown and Edward Wolff, points out that as population

pressures drive up the world's demand for food, intensive farming methods

are beginning to convert earth into a non-renewable resource. The dimensions

of the problem span the globe, report Lester Brown and Edward Wolff in this

book. The soil loss during spring ploughing in northern China, for example,

moves airborne across the Pacific Ocean, where it will eventually be observed

and measured in Hawaii. That's the nature of the problem on an international

level. The two authors of this book point out that food, like oil, has become

a global commodity in an economically interdependent world. The loss of soil

here today becomes the loss of food elsewhere tomorrow.

In Canada a book has been prepared on the same topic as a result of

a Senate study headed by Senator Sparrow, who traveled the country with

his committee looking at the same problem as it applies in Canada. They

have reached much the same conclusion. It applies in British Columbia

as much as it does in other parts of Canada. The first statement made

by Senator Sparrow in the report that they produced as a result of the

study they did on soil erosion and soil degradation in Canada is as

follows. Mr. Speaker, I think it's startling, and I think it's very

revealing. Senator Sparrow states: "Canada is facing the most serious

agricultural crisis in its history. Unless action is taken quickly,

this country will lose a major portion of its agricultural capability."

This report came out in July of last year, but it has received very

little attention. It has received no mention that I can ascertain from

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), the Ministry of

Agriculture, or from anyone else in government.

Senator Sparrow also says that farmers who realize the necessity of

taking conservation precautions find their implementation costs costly

in the startup stage. They may not be able to afford the expense of a

new piece of conservation tillage equipment, or the loss of income

caused by replacing a cash crop with a nitrogen-fixing rotation crop.

In these days of high costs and low commodity prices, the least

expensive way to operate is often the only way a farmer can survive.

That means that the farmers cannot afford at this stage to take the

necessary steps that are required to ensure that soil is conserved in

this province for the production of food in the future.

The other thing that Senator Sparrow says is that dust storms have

yet to occur with any frequency in Abbotsford and Chilliwack, but he

points out that they were not expected in Ontario's lush Niagara

Peninsula either. He saw dust blowing so badly near London, Ontario

last year that it reminded him of the Depression years, when he was a

boy in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, what is needed? We need a government that is prepared

to make a commitment towards resolving this problem. We need something

far more than the current ARDSA program is providing. I recognize that

there may be some additional funding this year, or some special

designation of funding for the problem, but it's not nearly enough. We

need a provincial start on the problem; we need a national policy on

the problem; we need research; we need education; and we need an

insurance that this problem is not just a farmer's problem but a

problem of society and one that society must take responsibility for —

and that means, Mr. Speaker, through government.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, a brief response to the member's statement, which I welcome, by the way.

We in British Columbia have

an act. Although in recent years and

months it has been determined that the enforcement of the act and the

functions under the act could best be handled under the Land

Commission, we do have a Soil Conservation Act. Fortunately in British

Columbia in the primary areas of our land reserve we have sufficient

moisture content so that the kind of thing the member has described,

which takes place in other areas across Canada, does not normally take

place.

I can remember living in Regina when I was going to college. My

grandfather's ranch was some 120 miles west of Regina, and there was a

dust storm. It was the kind of storm

[ Page 5598 ]

where you cannot keep the dust out of your living

accommodation. It seeps underneath the sills; it's on your furniture.

In jocular fashion, I remember calling my grandfather one day and

saying: "Grandpa, your farm is just going over top of Regina now. Is

there anything you would like me to save for you?"

The problem to that degree does not exist in our area, fortunately,

because of our weather conditions. However, we have soil degradation of

a different kind. Since my coming to this office, we have expressed our

concern in this regard and have, indeed, sought to bring proposals to

government which could be considered, perhaps, even during a time when

funds for new programs are simply not available.

For instance, in the Peace River country the kind of soil

degradation that is taking place there is the failure to reclaim from

the after-effect of fertilizer, failure to reclaim sour soils, which

can only be done by liming. We are instituting this year for the first

time a pilot project of a lime program for the Peace River country. It

is not a large program, but it is an indication that we are concerned

over this kind of degradation as far as being able to retain the

capacity of production in soil.

I'm also concerned that in construction and road-building sites, we

have so many times simply taken soil which is productive and used it as

part of a mound to create an approach to a highway or fill for an

overpass or an underpass. I'm concerned that when we need an area

because of some other social requirement for an area of land, we should

at least, in my opinion, keep the topsoil. After all, the topsoil is

what is productive. It's not only productive in its location where it

is found now; it could be transported yards, miles or a distance to

some other area where it could be productive. However, if we do not

lift it from its present location and take it where it can be used,

then we have suffered soil degradation of another kind, and I'm

concerned about it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I welcome the statement. I want

you to know that I'm concerned about it; and I want you to know that

I've already made some recommendations to government about them. I am

not at all satisfied with the kind of progress that we've already made,

but I think that as soon as we can convince the economy to take a major

upturn, and when revenues can become recognizably increased, then at

that time we can take larger steps toward what, I agree, needs to be

done.

MR. SPEAKER: There would be about one minute, hon. member, on this portion.

MRS. WALLACE: Very briefly then, I want to compliment my

colleague for bringing this position to the House and raising this

issue here. Certainly there are a great many concerns in B.C. that

don't relate to those prairie concerns the overuse of fertilizer,

particularly chemical fertilizer, as the member has mentioned; leaching

and the quality of on soil — because we have so much rain here the

trace elements disappear. We have real problems. We have one piece o

legislation that protects the agricultural land reserve, and am very

pleased that is there. I hope that minister makes sure it is maintained.

MS. SANFORD: I'm really not convinced that the minister at this

stage recognizes the seriousness of the problem know we don't have the dust

blowing the same as in Alberta; the major problem here is one related to the

degradation of soil in various ways. Because we have a heavy rainfall at the

moment, we do have a loss of very productive land on a very rapid basis in all

parts of British Columbia where this productive capability exists.

Mr. Speaker, the Soil Conservation Act obviously is not doing the

job. Senator Sparrow says in his book that the problems in British

Columbia are at least as serious as those in any other part of Canada,

including the dusty Prairies. It's a different kind of problem, but the

problem exists. We had a lime subsidy in this province not long ago;

that has now been eliminated except for some being made available in

the Peace River area at the moment, as I understand. That should be

made available everywhere. We also have the problem of compaction.

Because farmers are finding it very difficult to make ends meet, they

are attempting to get into the fields earlier than ever, attempting to

have a larger production. They get larger equipment. They get out there

very early in the spring, the soil compacts, and that too results in

erosion and degradation of the soil.

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that I will continue to pursue, and

one which I hope the government will take more seriously than has been

indicated this morning.

[11:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the next speaker, I'll

just remind all members that during the members' statements, through

the good offices of the Hansard booth, we have automatic timing, and in all cases the green light signifies two minutes at every stage.

LICENSING OF TAXIS

MR. DAVIS: I'm addressing these remarks to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), because the licensing of

taxis is governed by the Motor Carrier Act, and the Motor Carrier Act

is administered by that ministry. The main thrust of my comments this

morning is in the direction of deregulation on the one hand and greater

competition on the other — greater competition leading to lower taxi

fares and greater use, certainly to the more efficient use of our taxis.

The result of my recommendations, if they are followed, would be the

licensing of taxis on a broad regional basis, rather than by individual

municipalities. In other words, in the lower mainland the

responsibility for licensing would be turned over or directed to the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, rather than to the numerous

individual municipalities that make up the GVRD.

Our lower mainland area particularly — but this applies in some

measure to the Greater Victoria area as well — has a large number of

municipalities. Each of these municipalities has the power to license

taxis, giving them the authority to pick up passengers in that

municipality. They don't have the power to grant them the authority to

pick up passengers in adjoining municipalities, at least within the

region. As a result, many taxis return empty. They deadhead back to the

municipality in which they are licensed. This is obviously inefficient,

and if it were more generally possible for taxis to pick up business on

the way back, they would be better occupied. They would run fewer trips

in total; they would use less energy — certainly they would waste less

energy; there

[ Page

5599 ]

would be less pollution; there would be fewer taxis on the streets, conserving space.

The Economic Council of Canada looked at the deregulation of taxis

across Canada and pointed the finger at Vancouver in particular,

suggesting that if regulation was on a broad regional basis, as opposed

to regulation by the individual component municipalities, taxi fares

could drop at least 20 percent. This is an indication of the economies

of being able to pick up in other areas outside the originating

municipality — the better use of the total taxi fleet. They said there

would be perhaps a one-third saving in energy and at least a 20 percent

drop in overall costs, and therefore the consumer would be better off

to the extent of 20 percent.

I think those arguments in themselves are compelling. If I can focus

on 1986, our Expo year, I hope that by next year we're licensing taxis

on a regional basis because otherwise — at least it has been the

pattern — only Vancouver-licensed taxis can pick up at the Expo site

and take people to their destinations, possibly on the North Shore or

Burnaby, New Westminster or south of the Fraser River. Conversely, of

course, people coming in from outside the city of Vancouver can ride a

taxi originating in, say, Burnaby or the North Shore, but that taxi,

having arrived at the Expo site, will have to return to its source

municipality empty. So there is an obvious diseconomy there, an obvious

waste of resources.

The Vancouver Board of Trade looked at this situation and

recommended that the government proceed in a measured way toward

regional licensing as opposed to municipal licensing. Most

municipalities agree with this. I was surprised that even the city of

Vancouver, which derives some significant amount of revenue from

licensing, last year as a result of work done by a Vancouver city

council group headed by Alderman Don Bellamy, said regional....

[Interruption.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With your permission, hon. members, I'll call

a brief recess. I'll ring the bells. I understand the problem can be

rectified in four or five minutes.

The House took recess at 11:07 a.m.

The House resumed at 11: 11 a.m.

MR. DAVIS: Opposition to this idea of regional licensing as

opposed to local or municipal licensing understandably comes from the

majority of taxi owners in the city of Vancouver area. There is a

limited number of licences available. As a result, taxis have taken on

an artificial value. The cost of entry, in other words, is higher than

the simple cost of buying the vehicle by itself. Entry is purchased in

part, at least, from the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver, I

gather, is prepared to give up that revenue, but the taxi-owners

operating there currently have a higher investment than one would

expect by merely pricing the vehicle; it's an investment in a licence.

I would advocate for the GVRD or broad-area licensing that there also be a

limit to the total number of licences issued for the broader GVRD area. I wouldn't

recommend the situation which now exists in Seattle, where it's wide open

and anyone can operate a taxi. There should be a limited number. Montreal, by

comparison with Vancouver, has its licensing over a broader area, but in Montreal

there are four times as many taxis per capita than there are in Vancouver. So

I suggest that Vancouver city has been holding a tight rein on the number of

licences issued. Perhaps the overall policy for the broader area should be for

a somewhat larger number, but a somewhat larger number over time so that the

investment that the existing taxi owners have in the Vancouver area is written

off over a reasonable period of time. There would be some transition phase.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think the regulation, other than the

limitation of total numbers for the broad area, should focus

essentially on the quality of the vehicle, safety, cleanliness and the

operators of the taxis — the drivers — knowing a good deal about

streets, locations and so on, so the customer is well served.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a few

comments in reply to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour,

specifically on the taxi licensing and more specifically in the lower

mainland. As you know, the Motor Carrier Commission licences all taxis

throughout the province, but where we have the difficulties is in the

lower mainland. The hon. member has said that he's in favour of

regional licensing. I believe that I am as well, but one thing that

wasn't mentioned is that there's a lot of opposition to regional

licensing of taxis. If my information is correct — and it comes from

the cartel that the city of Vancouver operators have now — they don't

want to see regional licensing.

I would say that the Motor Carrier Commission has had hearings to

discuss regional licensing. I expect to get a report shortly from the

chairman of the commission on it, but there is lots of opposition to

regional licensing in the lower mainland. Maybe we shouldn't be too

concerned about that. I think what we have to be concerned about is the

service to the public. I'm inclined to agree that we move to a regional

basis.

I'd like to remark regarding the city of Vancouver. It's my opinion

that the city of Vancouver has got a ripoff going on regarding taxi

licences. Only recently they had an auction of taxi licences. It is my

information that the cheapest price for a licence — nothing to do with

the vehicle or anything, but for the privilege of new licences.... At

the auction they went for $25,000 each. This is the price that the city

gets and puts in their coffers. But I also understand that right after

the auction sale they were in turn sold again for a fee of $50,000. Now

I haven't got documentation on this, but I wanted to deal with the city

of Vancouver.

When I said ripoff.... I'm not aware that that happens anywhere else

in our province. When we're talking about costs of taxis and that, I'd

suggest that's the contributor to the cost of taxi fares with the

system they have for the restriction of licences and by the way they

dispense their licences.

That, of course, is not within the jurisdiction of the Motor Carrier

Commission. That's over and above that. They have, I want to emphasize,

the authority — I assume they have — under the city charter to do what

they're doing. I'm not suggesting in any way that they are doing

something illegal. But I don't think that they're giving much thought

to the people who pay the taxi fares, because that's who are going to

pay for this additional licensing, over and above the licensing that we

charge — the Motor Carrier Commission. It's the end user, which is the

general public. Maybe if we could find a way to get rid of that, we

would be able to drop fares as well. But the general concept of

regional taxis has been looked at now.

[ Page 5600 ]

1 wanted to conclude my remarks that we started on last year.

Hopefully something will be resolved prior to Expo 86, as the member

mentioned. I'd like to say also that — I know the member didn't mention

it — we have further complications with licensing of taxis in the lower

mainland. I refer to the Vancouver airport. Why, there are fights there

20 times a day. And a new player in the game, Transport Canada.... They

want their pound of flesh off the taxi operator as well as the city and

the province. The Minister of Transport for Canada and I set up a

hearing process on that. The hearings have taken place, and we're

waiting for their recommendations. The Motor Carrier Commission was on

the committee that conducted the hearings. The Minister of Transport

for Canada and I want to handle that situation and get the report

shortly. So those are just a few of my opinions regarding taxis.

[11:15]

MR. DAVIS: If the city of Vancouver has special powers

through its charter to license taxis which other municipalities don't

have under the municipal act, then I think it's time that we changed

the Vancouver charter to make the powers of Vancouver conform with

those of other municipalities so we're able to move to this broader

regional licensing concept.

As the minister says, our concern primarily should be concern for

the user of taxi services. Much of our transport legislation in this

province was written in the 1930s and earlier when the concern was

addressed primarily to the operator — protecting the operator, making

sure that the operator could cover his or her costs. Modem regulation,

to the extent that it's defensible, really looks at the public

convenience, necessity and the interest of the consumer, primarily or

totally. Regional licensing certainly moves us in that direction. So

change the Vancouver Charter if necessary; but otherwise these are

matters within the reach or jurisdiction of the provincial government,

and I hope those steps are taken.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Last July the Motor Carrier Commission issued a report, and one of

its recommendations was qualified. "While the licensing of taxicabs on

a metropolitan basis appears to be a desirable objective, it is

premature." There were qualifications. Again, these relate primarily to

the transition period, allowing the purchasers of expensive licences in

the city of Vancouver to somehow get part or all of their money back

while this regionalization takes place.

To again emphasize my point, I can do no better, I think, than read

the conclusions of the Economic Council. In 1981 the Economic Council

of Canada recommended to municipalities that they give serious

consideration to the advantages of assigning the responsibility for

licensing of taxicabs to an authority that can assume regulatory

control over the entire urban area. They mention airport taxis. The

council recommended that when existing contracts granting exclusive

privileges to service federal airports expire, the right to carry

passengers to and from such airports be extended to all licensed cab

owners. In other words, make the service at the airport generally part

of the broader regional licensing.

I know I should address these remarks at another time to the

minister responsible for municipal affairs, and I hope I will have that

ministry's cooperation as well.

HON. A. FRASER: This is fairly new to all of us. I don't know whether I can say a couple of words.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you had your opportunity.

HON. A. FRASER: That rule is not very fair. One member gets two shots at the bag, and the other one only gets one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, when the rules were debated,

these rules were set in place by all members of the House. You had your

opportunity to object in debate at that time.

DISCOVERY PARKS

MR. PARKS: Over the past couple of years I've had the

opportunity of visiting discovery parks, at least the discovery park in

Burnaby. I consider it one of the most exciting opportunities that

British Columbians have in the field of advanced technology. So I was

somewhat shocked when I heard the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) make statements on March 12 in this House that in effect

stated that there was no research being carried out anywhere at that

discovery park — not a square foot. Even when I, perhaps in too much of

a pejorative context, tried to bring to the hon. member's attention

that that was not an accurate statement of facts, he insisted that

there is no research being carried on there, rather that it is just a

typical commercial lease facility. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that that

hon. member is about as accurate with respect to discovery parks as he

was with respect to the future of the Canadian Imperial Bank of

Commerce. As we, I'm sure, are very well aware, just within the last

month the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce opened their new $25

million regional centre in Vancouver, It's certainly a very healthy

future for a bank that that particular member suggested was looking at

imminent bankruptcy.

As someone once put it, probably the worst time to try to understand

a revolution is right in the middle of it. I think it's fair to say

that we are in the midst of a technology revolution. Maybe everyone in

this House is not aware of some of the very fine companies and fine

research developments that are taking place at discovery parks.

Discovery Parks is what's called an incubation research concept. Very

simply, that means that we're trying to get scientists together in one

facility to brainstorm, think-tank and liaise with research facilities

at our three universities and technical schools. It has been

tremendously successful. It hasn't been just a so-so success; it has

been tremendous.

I'd like to apprise the House of a few instances that I'm familiar

with. I think that it will assist all members of this House, on both

sides of the floor, to very proudly speak of the success of Discovery

Parks. It's not the role of government to create jobs — we've

established that. But when we have something that we as government have

encouraged, and that has had the tremendous success that Discovery

Parks has, I would suggest that we all should be encouraging that.

The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) was concerned about the

future of agriculture — a very real concern. There's a company at

Discovery Parks called Northwest Digital Research. All of their

research is dealing with very sophisticated software packages. They're

working with Hewlett-Packard on resource management. They now have

programs developed for agricultural crop yield enhancement and for

[ Page

5601 ]

aquaculture. It's that type of research that is already addressing the concerns that the hon. member was raising.

I think one of the most exciting opportunities known to the public

in British Columbia is the success of Mobile Data International.

Coincidentally, coming across my desk this morning in this month's

edition of B.C. Business was

a feature story on MDL as it's called. I think most of us have heard of

the mobile computer-based terminals that are being used by the

Vancouver city police and police, fire departments and other emergency

services around the world. It is a facility that has enhanced

communications in the law enforcement and fire protection fields, and

it's a B.C. technology. It's a B.C. technology that is being exported

around the world, creating jobs here, bringing back surplus trade

balances to British Columbia. The research was done at discovery park.

The commercialization, the manufacturing and the marketing is not done

at discovery park. That's not the context of discovery park. You have

the research done in the incubation centre in relatively small

facilities, research-intensive, but then you have manufacturing,

marketing and commercialization elsewhere, in this case in Richmond.

Another very excellent example of what has being going on at

Discovery park is Newtec Industries. It's clearly showing leading-edge

technology with respect to electronic sensors and pressure transducers.

Now that might sound a bit complicated to most of us in the House, but

it's really very basic. If you own a boat or a recreational vehicle or

work in a mine or anywhere where there are potentially foreign gaseous

substances, British Columbia leads the world in the ability to detect

those gases.

Seven years ago this company had two scientists who spent some time

away from their research at SFU and had a concept. Two years ago they

had five employees. This year they've got 26 employees at discovery

park and 40 in their manufacturing facility elsewhere in Burnaby. Over

80 percent of this company's product is being sold outside of Canada.

We're talking $4 million this year. Next year they're probably looking

at sales in excess of $15 million. What are we doing? We are seeing

soon, they expect, most recreational vehicles and boats having one of

these pressure-sensitive transducers — they're too technical for me —

and they are going to save lives. Not only are we going to get the

benefit of job creation and the influx of dollars to our economy, but

it's also going to decrease the likelihood of accidents in recreational

vehicles and boats.

I trust I will be able to conclude the tenor of my remarks in my rebuttal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked that the

minister of science and technology, who no doubt had warning of the

fact that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was going to speak on

this subject.... The minister of science and technology, being the

mother, father, and all the other kinds of relations to Discovery

Parks, isn't even here to reply. Now, I recognize the minister is busy

flying back and forth to Vancouver, but it strikes me that he is giving

the back of his hand to a very important subject that the member gave

notice of last Tuesday.

[11:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Member. You are replying to the subject matter of the person....

MR. COCKE: The subject matter is Discovery Parks. The father

of Discovery Parks, Mr. Speaker, is not here. The minister responsible

for Discovery Parks is not here, and that minister was notified as of

at least Wednesday, because the draw was last Tuesday for the subject.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't preach to the House, Ask your question.

MR. COCKE: I have no questions to ask, Mr. Minister.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I understand

the rules, the intervening five-minute period is to rebut or add

comments to the comments made by the member. Adding comments in the

nature that they're being added is not adding a scintilla of content. I

would suggest that the remarks were not made in any way contradictory

to the program of the hon. minister of science and technology, and as

such, there of course is no need for him to defend anything because

there was no accusations being made towards that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, I think your remarks are well

taken. However, you of all members in the present debate have a

privileged position in that you have an opportunity to reply and

comment on that later. The member for New Westminster is going to

comment or reply to the....

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I did in

part indicate that

the minister of science and technology obviously does not take this

question as seriously as his colleague in the back bench. I suggest

that he doesn't take it seriously because it's an embarrassing

situation. That member gave us one or two examples of something that's

happening in Discovery Parks. He alluded to the fact that my colleague

the member for Vancouver Centre indicated that not nearly enough was

going on at Discovery Parks. I allude now to the discovery park that

was set up over here on the Island, where zilch is happening. The only

discovery park that is having any success whatsoever is the Discovery

Park in Burnaby, and that is partially going bankrupt. So I believe

that if the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) were really serious about.... I'm sorry to see the member

for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) leaving. If the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications would take the question

seriously and spend more time working on his Discovery Parks, which

were an expensive creation of his, instead of running backwards and

forwards....

I'll yield to the member for Nanaimo for the balance of my five-minute period.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The total time for any member other than the

proponent is five minutes. It is provided that that five minutes may be

made up by more than one member. I would suggest that there are two

more minutes left in the five-minute period. The member for Nanaimo

will have two minutes.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately — and I'm not sure

that's the right word to use — the facts of the matter are that

Discovery Parks in B.C. are not the record of success that the member

would have us believe. The facility near BCIT is fully rented,

according to my information, with

[ Page 5602 ]

some 44 small B.C. firms in it. These are generally

new companies, which is a plus. They have been developed on a small

scale during the past three years and located at discovery park.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In the SFU park, according to information I have, there is only one occupant.

MR. PARKS: It's huge, for crying out loud.

MR. STUPICH: It may be huge, but it has one occupant, Mr.

Speaker, Microtel, a subsidiary of B.C. Tel, which does employ 250

people. It's not a newly created R&D company in the province of

British Columbia. It simply relocated there.

There is one occupant planned for UBC discovery park — the federally

funded Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada, which will employ

100 people when operating in 1985. I don't know how long that one is.

There is no activity in the discovery park in Victoria, according to

the latest information I have — and the member may have some other

information.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, they were presented to us some time ago by

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications as the answer

to the problems in British Columbia. At the time we wondered what sort

of subsidies and grants might be offered to try to get new investment

locating in the discovery park — not simply the relocation of existing

industries, but new investment.

Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there just hasn't been

anything new to come from this particular endeavour on the part of that

minister and that government. If the member making the presentation

today has any information to convince us that it is new investment, I'd

like to hear it.

MR. PARKS: It's truly unfortunate that I only have two

minutes to reply because, as I said earlier, what is happening at

Discovery Parks is unbelievably exciting and, even more so, successful.

We're talking about 48 corporate tenants at the Burnaby discovery park

at this time, some 350 persons employed, purely in a research mode —

not the commercial mode, not the marketing mode, but the research mode.

As soon as they develop something they then have a subsidiary outside

the Discovery Park context to market, to commercialize and to make

money — create jobs — okay? But within discovery park there are

literally a myriad of successes in the last three to five years that

were created at discovery park — not elsewhere, but at Discovery Park.

Yes, the SFU facility is Microtel's. It is a very sophisticated

single-purpose building and in the future it's hoped that further

telecommunications research will be tied in to the SFU discovery park

complex. At the moment its 250 employees are the only use of that

particular facility. That nodule was built for that purpose.

The incubation facility at Burnaby was built for that particular

purpose: small — very small — 550 square foot complexes. You've

literally got father and son working on forestry technology at Cetec.

These are the people who have come up with how you reduce the cut

through a log in the sawmills. It might not sound very important, but

when you can reduce your waste by 30 percent — and that's what they're

doing — that is potential profit. The sawmill of the nineties is being

worked on at discovery parks.

As I mentioned earlier, we have this MDI situation, where last year

they had $27 million in sales. That's technology created at a discovery

park, jobs then created outside the park, and sales going

internationally.

I'm not that familiar with UBC or the Victoria comments. My problem,

Mr. Member, was that I was replying to the hon. member for Vancouver

Centre, who said that at Burnaby's discovery park there was not one

square foot of research. I felt that this House should get the record

straight and that each and every one of us should be proudly preaching

the story of advanced technology in this province. We are going in the

right direction. It is creating hundreds upon hundreds of jobs and,

even more importantly, it's creating the types of jobs that are what

this province needs.

We've heard about the necessity for diversification from the

opposite side of the House time and again. This is the type of

diversification that we should have, so I can't appreciate any negative

comments with respect to those two facilities in particular. If the

Victoria experience hasn't come along quite as rapidly, let's be

positive and hope that we can develop that, but let's not criticize.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member

indicated he had much more to tell us if time would permit. I ask that

leave be given for his time to be extended.

MS. BROWN: No, we can't do that.

MR. STUPICH: If everybody agrees, why not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have standing orders here that are quite specific. All members are aware of that, and I will not ask for leave.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

MS. BROWN: My statement pertains to the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, part of the Constitution Act of 1982, which in exactly five

days from today, on April 17, will become law. There are many statutes,

both provincially and federally — but certainly provincially — which we

know are going to be affected once the Charter becomes law. We know

that the courts will gain much greater power and that the balance

between the judiciary and the legislative branches of our political

system is going to be altered in very major ways.

The courts will now be interpreting, reviewing and changing the

contents of laws passed by this Legislature. As a result of this,

several groups, such as women's groups, trade unions, the disabled,

senior citizens, and ethnic, racial and cultural groups are very

concerned about how the courts are going to be dealing with them and

what kind of rulings they are going to be bringing down on the

legislation which will be tested under the Charter. Because of the

seriousness of this, Mr. Speaker, we had anticipated and indeed we had

hoped that the Attorney-General would have given some indication to

this House as to precisely what pieces of legislation were being looked

at by his ministry in terms of being brought into line with the Charter.

We need to know. We need to have a dialogue with the

Attorney-General. We need to be prepared prior to April 17 so that we

can best benefit from the Charter. In addition, these groups would like

to have known whether the government was anticipating any financial or

other assistance to them in

[ Page 5603 ]

those instances where they decided to test the legislation against the Charter.

In five days, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 17, sections 15 and

28 will come into effect. As of now we still have not heard from the

Attorney-General of this province, nor indeed from any member, as to

just what pieces of legislation are going to be changed to bring them

into line. I think that it would have been forgivable if in fact the

government had had three months or six months or a year in which to get

its act in order. But that's not been the case. The government was

given three years. Since 1982 the government knew that it had three

years to bring its legislation into line with the Charter.

Mr. Speaker, the government also knew that the affected groups in

our society wanted to have some input into this process. We wanted to

be part of the dialogue, to make suggestions to the government and to

have some feedback from the government on this issue. Indeed, a number

of groups have sent briefs to the government on this matter, and as far

as one can tell there has been no response from the Attorney-General,

from the Premier or from any member of the government.

While all sections of the Charter affect women insofar as we are

Canadian citizens, there are indeed certain special sections which

affect us particularly.

Section 28, for example, states:

"Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms

referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female." This

section, if the government does not use its override, puts us ahead of

women in any other jurisdiction in North America and possibly in the

world. It is the equivalent of the equal rights amendment in the United

States, which was defeated.

[11:45]

But as I said before, Mr. Speaker, it has to be tested in the

courts. When women's groups decide to test some of this legislation

through the courts, we have no indication whether any financial or

other assistance will be forthcoming, either from the Attorney-General

or from the government. We have no idea to what extent the government

intends to use its override section. The Attorney-General has not

indicated whether in fact he's going to be supportive or whether the

government is going to be opposed when issues such as those dealing

with mandatory retirement, for example, which the Advisory Council on

Aging has spoken out in opposition to, are being tested through the

courts. When trade unionists and disabled groups try to test the

legislation through the courts, we have no idea just what the position

of this government is going to be, and whether they will be aided or

opposed by the Attorney-General.

I raise this issue today because there are only five days left. When

I raised this during the Attorney-General's estimates he indicated that

in fact an omnibus bill would be introduced shortly. Of the five days

remaining, two of those are holidays — Saturday and Sunday — so in

effect we have three days and still no indication from the

Attorney-General as to just what's going to happen on April 17 when

sections 28 and 15 of the Charter become law. I'm hoping that the

acting Attorney-General, who is sitting on the floor of the House at

this time, will give us some indication as to what his government is

doing in terms of this very important piece of legislation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I regret to advise you that

I'm not prepared to make comments on this. I'm the second acting

Attorney-General. I've had no notice that comments were expected from

the Attorney-General.

MS. BROWN: It's on the order paper.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I understand I'm being prepared for

estimates that are coming up, so you know where my mind is. I apologize

to the member on behalf of the Attorney-General, but will ensure that

he gets a copy of the material from Hansard .

MR. GABELMANN: The response from the Minister of Education is

so typical of the general response of the government to the whole issue

of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds pointed out in her comments, we've now had five days

short of three years to prepare for these monumental changes to the

laws of our country, the implications of which are far beyond the ken

of most of our society, and certainly probably beyond the ken of most

of us in this House. We don't know what the implications are going to

be. It was essential that the government proceed in a public way to

hold discussions not only among members of this House, but among all

citizens of this province as to the potential implications of sections

15 and 28 on the laws of this province.

We have had, I understand, internal discussions in the Ministry of

the Attorney-General as to what laws, if any, should be amended prior

to the April 17 date, but no discussion at all with those people in our

society who will be affected by these changes. Yet when we have an

opportunity, if only five days before, to have a discussion, however

briefly, in the House, the government isn't prepared. That's been their

record on the entire question of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It's quite despicable that the government shows this kind of attitude

to the most fundamental law in our society.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would just like to say that the minister did

say during his estimates that he would be presenting an omnibus bill,

and I'm sure we'll see that bill before that date of the 17th. Some of

the members have mentioned there's been no discussion. I know for a

fact the minister has been discussing with those groups that the

members have been talking about the changes to the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. I think this government has a good record in that area.

This government was one of the governments that sat down and negotiated

this legislation.

The only comment I would have as a private member, Mr. Speaker, is

that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds talks about the women's groups,

trade unions and other groups getting assistance from this government

to take cases to court. Certainly trade unions don't need any financial

assistance to go to court to test cases. I think most of us would love

to have the funds that they've got sitting in their bank accounts now.

I get a little upset when they want all the money from the government

side. Let these groups get their own money if they want to challenge

things in the courts, as everyone else has to do. This government has a

good record in that area. The minister will be presenting an omnibus

bill, and there will be a chance to debate that bill on the floor of

this Legislature. There will be a chance for groups across this

province to comment on it. I think it's rather unfair to accuse the

minister of not having had discussions, because I know he has.

[ Page 5604 ]

MS. BROWN: In the three minutes left to me, Mr. Speaker, I

want to say, first of all, that the Charter of Rights Coalition of

B.C., who prepared a very extensive brief and submitted it to the

Attorney-General and a number of other groups, have not had a response

from him. The Attorney-General indicated during his estimates that in

fact he had not responded to these. In addition, as my colleague from

North Island said, notice of this statement has been on the order paper

for a number of days, so the Attorney-General knew that it would be

coming up at this time.

In addition, when I spoke about financial assistance, I very clearly

indicated that groups such as the disabled, who are not wealthy and do

not have large bank accounts; senior citizens groups, who are not

wealthy and do not have large bank accounts; women's groups, who are

not wealthy and do not have large bank accounts; and a number of other

groups would be forced, directly as a result of the fact that

legislation hasn't been dealt with, to test laws through the courts.

All the government has to do is to give some indication that they are

aware of this and state whether they would be willing to assist them

either with legal counsel or financially, or whether they would not.

In addition, the Charter applies to laws, not to individuals. That

is the reason why the dialogue is necessary prior to April 17. As I

also pointed out, really there are only three working days left, and

for the minister to bring in an omnibus bill, even if he does so on

Monday, does not give us enough time for dialogue to take place before

Wednesday, the date when the act becomes law.

One of the bills which is going to be affected is the Workers

Compensation Act, which discriminates very clearly against widowers but

not against widows. The pension and insurance legislation clearly

discriminates against widows, along with the Property Law Act, the

Homestead Act, the Married Woman's Property Act, the Land Act, the

Expropriation Act, the Estate Administration Act, the Residence and

Responsibility Act, the Name Act, the Human Rights Act, the Employment

Standards Act, and a number of other pieces of legislation. If in fact

the minister is dealing with these, he should have had some dialogue

and some input from the people who are directly affected by those

pieces of legislation.

It's all well and good for a parliamentary secretary to say that he

knows that the minister is thinking about these pieces of legislation,

and he knows that that work is being done. I hope that he is correct.

But for it to happen in secret and in privacy, and for us to find

ourselves three days before it becomes law still not aware of that is

just not good enough.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to go into Committee of Supply.

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 17: minister's office, $179,543.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make introductions?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, just entering the gallery behind me

are 23 young ladies from the Canyon Heights area of my constituency.

They are all Girl Guides, and they come from three different schools in

the constituency. They've come over on the ferry this morning. With

them as guiders are Jenny Hunter, Diane Meacher, Jasna Mullen and Pam

Such. I would ask the House to welcome them to this Legislature today

and to Victoria.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I will make a few comments

on the events of the past year. I regret very much that my critic is

not present today. I understood there was an arrangement between the

Whips that these estimates would be called today at 11:30 or so, and

that he would be present. Is he going to be here?

MRS. WALLACE: Don't worry, we've got lots of critics.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Lots of critics. Okay — outwaited or outsmarted.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to cover perhaps 10 or 12 points.

The first item is with respect to the ministry itself. As the members

have known for some time, we have gone through expenditure controls in

the public sector, and of course the Ministry of Education has not been

immune from any of these controls. I think it's important to note that

we have been able to reduce the size of the ministry by something in

excess of 30 percent, and I think I can say with all the confidence in

the world that the ministry is operating very smoothly and morale is

good. Everybody has been quite busy.

[12:00]

1 think probably the biggest item.... Commendation should go to the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) for addressing the major issue

involving non-residential taxation. For a long time we have noticed the

drive towards increased taxation, particularly in the non-residential

sector and on machinery and equipment. As you know, the statement out

of the budget was that the financing of education through machinery and

equipment taxation will be phased out over a period of three years. The

first year is going to be worth something in the order of $80 million

and, of course, that will be picked up by consolidated revenue.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There has been a most encouraging response from the colleges and

institutes with respect to the budget which came down, and when the

allocations were made. I informed the press early one morning last

week, and then met with all of the college principals and the chairman

of each of the college and institute boards at the Airport Inn in

Vancouver. What I am particularly pleased about is that the amount of

funding going to colleges will be 100 percent of the funding made

available to them in the fiscal year 1984-85.

As you will note, in the budget there was an adjustment fund,

something in excess of $12 million. Since the bringing in of the

budget, and up until last week, a great deal of effort has been made by

officials within the ministry as to the allocation of those funds on a

fair and equitable basis, primarily predicated on a formula which all

the colleges, with one exception, have endorsed and felt to be a

considerable

[ Page

5605 ]

improvement in the funding of post-secondary

education in the area for which the Ministry of Education is

responsible. They were pleased with the amount we have put in as a

result of productivity increases within the colleges. The actual amount

for their operating was increased by I percent or $2.4 million. We

added another $1.4 million to assist in satellite campuses throughout

the province. We also added a $3 million institutional renewal fund.

All of that money, I might add, has been turned over to the colleges.

There are no strings attached to it. It's up to the college boards and

their administrations to allocate the funds in the way they think best.

The balance of the funds, in the amount of $5.8 million, was put out

to the colleges for them to come back to us with innovative ideas which

would reflect the needs of their community, and as long as those funds

can be used for the creation of courses which will lead to productive

employment. There were a number of positive comments, but I think

probably the best comment that was made came from the principal of

Malaspina College in Nanaimo when he said he felt that for the first

time in some time the colleges are going to be permitted to come up

with some innovative scheme which will assist them.

The big issue, Mr. Chairman, has been with the public schools and

the new method of funding. We are now into the third fiscal year of a

three-year program. The third fiscal year commences July 1, 1985.

Remember that the object of the new method of funding was to attempt —

and it has succeeded to a considerable degree — to bring equity as

between school districts. It became patently obvious to most school

districts in British Columbia, and particularly those whose enrolment

had either plateaued or was growing, that a number of school districts

were in receipt of funds far in excess of their requirements because of

the precipitous decline in enrolments. I'll always remember that the

first push that came in to me when I was assigned the portfolio was to

introduce a funding scheme which would be more equitable.

As you know, I toured the province extensively. I met with well over

50 boards in British Columbia, and they were not token attendances

either. The discussion periods went anywhere from two to four hours. I

believe a great deal was gained, certainly by me. I was primarily

concerned about their ability at that time to achieve a balanced budget

for the transitional or short fiscal year, being January to June 1985.

1 do not deny that there are some reluctant school boards at this

time. We are doing what we can to assist, but I have to repeat that

it's most important that boards do submit their compliance budgets so

that they are able to pass the validating bylaws on May 1. Why that is

so important is that it must be remembered that the mill rates must be

struck; the information must be passed to the municipalities so that

the appropriate mill rates can be reflected on the tax notices, keeping

in mind that it is municipalities who collect the funds and then

advance a good portion of the funds for public education from their

coffers after they have collected them on behalf of school districts.

The recent Treasury Board directive, in my view and the view of government,

was something that had to be done. Our objective is to preserve, as much as

possible, employment in the teaching force. School districts which were submitting

non-complying budgets were primarily doing so because of the uncertainty with

respect to any potential awards that may be made by the CSP office. The CSP

commissioner had issued two judgments, neither of which was an award. They were

primarily directives. When we looked into the contents of those documents, both

said that the CSP office would not be making any statements or decisions before

April 20 and probably not until after May 1. The reason for that was that those

who were advocating increases and arguing before the CSP office and the arbitration

awards kept raising the point that the government is going to put more money

into the public school system. They then went and looked historically and found

that there may have been evidence in the past that this had occurred. The CSP

commissioner had made it very clear: "Until I have all the evidence before

me I'm not in the position to do so." If those school districts wish

to voluntarily enter into an agreement, that's fine. If they do not, we

will attempt to mediate a settlement. One voluntary agreement occurred in Fort

Nelson; the other, a mediated settlement, occurred in Alberni.

I met with the superintendents at their invitation in Vancouver last

week. At that time I told them three or four things which we have

agreed to do to assist districts which are incurring financial

difficulties. Despite the comments made in the press, I think I have to

point out that all the information which was passed on to them was

really quite well received. One of the items was that we have agreed to

maintain the average floor or keep the average district teacher's

salary in the district. In other words, if some particular school

district were prepared to negotiate zero or in fact something less than

zero, at least the floor was established as far as the average district

teacher's salary is concerned. The objection which school districts had

is this: if they in fact were to take reductions, that would indicate

that they would receive less funding the following year if the average

district teachers' salaries in that district declined. Our agreement

with them was that we would maintain that floor. We also made a

provision for severance or early retirement, which would allow school

boards to amortize the cost of severance over a period — we suggested

three years. Already there has been advantage taken of that, and the

result has been the preservation of jobs. That is the information which

has been communicated to me second-hand, after I had authorized it to

occur.

I might mention as well that the examinations in January, which were

conducted and are now supervised by a board of examiners.... I don't

believe the political arena or politicians should be making comments on

examinations, one way or the other. A board of examiners consisting of

educators in British Columbia handle that particular aspect. What is

important is this, though: the information which I am now receiving

first-hand is that the result of those examinations has caused a most

encouraging and positive influence within the school system.

I'd like to identify and welcome two of my senior officials, my

deputy minister, Mr. Jim Carter, and my assistant deputy minister in

charge of schools, Mr. Jack Fleming, who have been around for a long

time, and who, I might say, are of immeasurable help.

The last item I'd like to make reference to is the school review. My

position, and that of government, has always been that we do not accept

the great old Canadian way of doing things: "Let's appoint royal

commissions." If in fact we as elected people wish to make changes and

respond to the concerns of the community, then I think the answers

which we want to find ought to be found by talking directly to the

people who are involved. That's the reason for "Let's Talk About

Schools," which was widely circulated. Despite what you have read in

the press, the responses that have come in now, we know, exceed 17,000.

That's just the count as of last

[ Page 5606 ]

week. I am told it will probably be considerably

higher. You also recognize that I am keeping at arm's length from this

entire debate. We set up the Provincial School Review Committee. We've

had an advisory committee. They were the authors of the paper; there

has been absolutely no comment made by government on it. Accept my word

for this thing: I have kept at arm's length distance from it.

We now are in the process, I am told, of coding all of the material

which came in. There will be a report prepared, and that report will be

made public upon completion. Together with that report, something else

will be made public: that is, the polls conducted by Gallup, involving

hundreds of British Columbians, both lay and professional. I think it

is going to provide us with a great deal of information in the

preparation of a new school act.

One other item which I shall mention — and then I'll sit down —

involves a particular committee of three individuals whom I appointed

to examine school boards. Two boards were under examination. I've

received an interim report which, I can tell the House, did not really

contain any significant information at all, other than that they had

visited the boards, and that the content of the report which they are

going to make will cover five or six particular areas. Today is April

12, and it is my understanding that that report is to be submitted to

me today; whether it's ready and will be submitted, I can't tell you.

As far as opening comments are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I think it's

fair to say that it has been a difficult year, but for the most part,

although all school districts have had some difficulties, many of them

have coped very well — at least, reasonably well — and some are still

having some difficulty. But I expect that they will all submit

compliance budgets within the due time so that they can pass the

validating bylaw on May 1.

I'd be quite prepared to attempt to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman, which the members opposite may care to advance.

[12:15]

MR. BARNES: I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate

on the Ministry of Education. However, I'm not speaking as the critic,

who is not with us this morning but will be speaking about the nuts and

bolts of the ministry in due course, perhaps the first of the week. But

I would like to just reflect a bit on some of the directions that the

ministry seems to be taking as far as the public school system is

concerned.

In all of the years that I have been a member here, I cannot recall

any period when the public school system was so much in the news. It's

difficult to get press on mundane things like education issues and

social welfare and the humanities, culture, and all of those usual

unproductive, non-dollar generating activities that are so important in

society. But this is one of those periods in our history when a lot of

things are changing. We're not sure what the changes are leading to. It

just seems as though a lot of what we have known in the past, a lot of

the traditions and styles of life that we have been used to, seem to be

eroding, are under attack or under some kind of threat. So we're

learning a lot. Even in this place, which I sometimes call the crazy

house, I think we're beginning to realize that we're going to have to

start talking a little straighter, even those of us who are of

different political stripes. The reason is that we're all in the same

boat — Social Credit, the NDP, the United Party. All of us have

children and families in this province, and all of us pay taxes,

directly or indirectly, in this province. No one escapes. Even the

newborn will find that in some way there is a tax burden on his head.

That is really the issue.

The issue is society. The issue is that nearly three million people

in the province of British Columbia are finding themselves concerned

about the future of one of their major institutions: the public school

system. Where do we begin? What are our concerns? How do we address

them? Is there any way in which we really can satisfactorily resolve

the concerns? These are the things that I've been hearing for months:

these kinds of abstractions of problems that we simply can't get a

handle on.

When the politician has to stay in office, in the case of the

government, it has to find ways of maintaining its majority. We call

that power in the parliamentary system. To maintain that, the

government has to use the skills and techniques that its members know

best, the political techniques of survival. The view of those serious

social problems from a political perspective, and a political

perspective only, is the way these practitioners can operate.

Notwithstanding their good will, notwithstanding their ties in the

community, notwithstanding any of their concerns about these problems,

they are bound by the nature of the system to do their duty politically

to their party.

Education has become a big issue in this province, and it's in the

hands of those of us who have been elected to make decisions. The

minister just made reference to a new public schools act that will be

coming down. He's made reference to "Let's Talk About Schools," which

is a program currently being participated in by citizens of the

province to express their concerns and their desires about the public

school system.

As I say, the time has come for us to get down to the bottom line.

The bottom line, quite contrary to what we may think, is not dollars

and cents. It is not whether the public can afford to pay, Mr.

Chairman. It is not really the issue. It is, of course, a factor.

Obviously we have to consider the costs of just about everything we do,

as legislators. But that is not the issue. The issue is the public

school system, singularly, separately, by itself, without any

consideration for anything else. The public school system has to be

viewed as an organism on which we all rely as fundamental in a

democratic society, for the benefit of all the people. That is the

issue. That is the thing that people are concerned about in this

province.

As I say, never before have so many column-inches been written, so

many programs on radio and television, so many delegations, so many

students and parents and teachers and clergy — organizations banding

together, forming, demonstrating, trying to resolve this problem,

trying to find out what the government's objective is. Many of these

people are cynical, but I suggest that it is confusion. There are

certain realities involved in this whole issue that have to be

understood, Mr. Minister of Education and Mr. Chairman, before we can

seriously address the problem of the public school system,

I recognize the difficulty of a politician in a political party

trying to resolve this matter objectively without considering the

electoral implications. They are very real, and sometimes we get so

carried away with ourselves, we begin to beat the drums on the

political implications and forget the fact that the public school

system is a right and that it should be enshrined constitutionally as

the right of every single citizen to have a

[ Page

5607 ]

full education in those primary and secondary years of their lives in a democratic society.

It is a right. If it's a right, how much of a right is it, and to

what extent? And what about quality? How much quality? Who determines

what that quality should be? Is it going to depend on how much we can

afford? It is, as you can see, Mr. Chairman, not a matter that can be

taken lightly if we are to maintain the integrity of the system. If we

are to maintain this tradition that we've had where, regardless of

whether you can afford it or not, you are going to, at least in this

society — one of the world's leading countries, one of the free

democracies of the world, unique in its mosaic and proud of its culture

and heritage and all of those great things that we have in this

country.... We are leaders; we are not a Third World country.

We have the resources, not only in natural minerals; we have it in

human beings. Let's not condemn each other, because I think that

everyone realizes and knows that, but why are we not dealing with that?

Why don't we have any passion about it? How can we listen to these

protests from young children who are coming, who don't understand the

politics and are wondering why they have to pay for certain fundamental

basic courses in education? Why are they having to do this? Why are

they being told that there's going to be a charge for your lab

equipment or your extra books or to take music or to take the arts or

to have an excursion trip or to do any number of things that we know

are good for our citizens?

We know it's necessary for them to have a full life, for them to

fully appreciate what it's like to be a Canadian and to be living in a

democratic society, to feel good and to be part of and participating in

the society. We know that's important. Why do we tell them that we

cannot afford it? Why do we tell them we can only afford to send them

through some kind of mainstream of education which involves some kind

of trade where you will go in.... Perhaps it is even sterile in terms

of your sensitivity to the humanities, to a cultural society and to

those kinds of things that we should be able to afford. These are the

qualities and the values that we are forgetting, when we are talking

about dollars and cents, that are so vital to health, to imagination,

to creativity, to diversity and to what it is really like to be a free

Canadian living in a democratic society.

We had better be careful when we play with this public school

system. This is what I hoped the minister would have been addressing.

Understandably, Mr. Chairman, the minister is addressing fiscal

concerns. But it just isn't credible; it simply is not credible.

There's more to it than that.

Philosophically this government preached from one end of the

province to the other that it did not — and I repeat, did not — believe

in deficit spending. It did not believe in over-expending beyond the

expected revenues. That's why it brought in restraint: to resist

expending funds where they needed it. Mr. Chairman, as you know, in the

last few budgets the government has abandoned that position. I

understand it. We've been telling you to recognize the need to spend

money that you do not have in the coffers when times are tough, and

when things get better you can begin to stockpile and to pay off some

of those debts. It only makes sense. You don't starve your family

because you do not have the means; you find the means even if you have

to borrow — perhaps beg, stopping short of stealing.

We now have a change in philosophy on the part of this government.

We now have, believe it or not, a budget before us that will require

nearly $1 billion of extra funds that the government doesn't have. My

point is that I understand we need to spend the money. We have to carry

on with our services — they cost — but we also have to pitch in and

ensure that we begin to generate revenue. We have to manage our

resources a lot better than we're doing; we have to be more

imaginative; we have to rationalize the school system so that it is

compatible with our industrial development and our economy. We have to

connect the two, and we are failing to do this. The provincial and

federal governments are not sitting down and talking together with

respect to education. We're not sitting down and discussing it with the

people whose future is involved — the young people of this province.

We're failing on those fronts but we are succeeding, because we have

convinced the public that education is, in some ways, a frill. In some

ways education, although we know we need it, is a matter of whether we

can afford it or not. It's a matter of degree, and I think that is the

problem; we have to debate educate and the quality of education

separately from dollars. Let's first of all determine what a good

education is, not "can we afford something," and see what is wrong.

[12:30]

Obviously, it's always a matter of government priorities. The

government has money for government priorities. It always has had, and

it always will. I think the new Prime Minister is proving that in

Ottawa. The government always has had and always will have money for

its — and I emphasize "its" — own priorities, and not necessarily the

priorities that the public may perceive to be the case. For instance,

it has money for its advertising campaigns. Something like $18 million

is being spent to tell the people that things are all right: "Hey, it's

good in British Columbia." What is the objective of that when you're

cutting back on basic education, on fundamental requirements such as

the class? You're cutting back on programs for people who have special

needs, who require remedial education, training and so forth in order

to be able to compete. But these things we know. These things we've

already talked about time and time again. So, Mr. Chairman, the

debate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Are you the designated speaker on the opening?

MR. BARNES: No, I'm not the designated speaker. So do I have to sit down and have someone intervene?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will have to be an intervening speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I've been very interested in what my colleague is saying and would like him to have the opportunity to continue.

MR. BARNES: Unless the minister wishes to speak right now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I only want to make a couple of comments with respect to those ideas advanced by the last speaker.

[ Page 5608 ]

You know, we're not talking about restraint in public education;

we're talking about control of public expenditures. What we ought to do

is examine those public expenditures which have occurred over a lengthy

period of time. I've said before that between 1976 and 1982 the

expenditure in public education almost doubled. It was just short — by

$98 million — of $2 billion. It had gone from $1 billion to almost $2

billion in seven fiscal years. I'll tell you what I was concerned

about. I'm the greatest advocate there is of the public education

system. I'm a product of it. I recognize the value and I want to

preserve that value. But what I was concerned about, and what our

government was concerned about, is that its expenditures were getting

out of control. Nobody, I don't think, is really disputing that. The

question then is to ensure, with the resources available, that they're

spread equitably throughout the province among all school districts.

That's all we're doing.

Now when we established the funding program which we have, you will

find a considerable spread between various districts throughout the

province on the cost per student. Why? Because we recognize it costs

more to serve students in Stikine, Nishga, Prince Rupert and Terrace

than it does in Delta, Langley or Surrey by virtue of the size of the

school district, the climate, and the spread between those in

elementary school and a smaller number in the senior levels.

There was something else that we had to recognize, and that was a

most significant decline in student population. Student population has

declined in British Columbia from 525,000 students in 1976 or so to....

We are projecting, for September 1985, something in the order of

468,500 students. What we were finding is that the budgets were going

up at a 45-degree angle, student population was declining, and of

course the number of people involved in servicing that declining

student population was also increasing. In addition, we found more and

more people involved in the public education system, but not in the

classroom. Now it seems to me that my job is to preserve the system,

preserve the classroom and make sure the dollars are in front of the

students. That's exactly what we have done. I can prove absolutely

conclusively that some school districts in British Columbia which had

experienced major declines in students were having the biggest

increases in costs. Is that fair to the growing districts in British

Columbia? Is that fair to the taxpayers in British Columbia? It's not,

and so somebody had to take control of it and do it.

I recognize what the member is saying. Education shouldn't be a

political issue. I didn't make it a political issue. It became a

political issue because, as you know, in everything in life there are

vested interests, and of course the vested interests are concerned

about a number of things: how is it going to affect them? I recognize

that that's just part of human nature, and that's where the conflict

arises. That's all I didn't want to have happen in British Columbia

what happened in California. We in British Columbia don't need

proposition 13. We don't need it at all. Do you know what would happen

if we were to continue taxing industry and commerce particularly, at

the rate that we were? We would just drive more and more away. It's

those economic generators which give us the revenue to provide what I

think is very fine public school system, which I want to preserve

That's exactly what we've been doing.

We're getting a lot of press right now. I notice these bulletins

coming out from the BCTF, drawing comparative across Canada and going

into the U.S. I can bring in an present before you in spades evidence

from the United States, and from many states within that nation, of

what is going on in education. All we need to do is look in today's

press, the day before yesterday, and the week before last week in the

state of Washington immediately to the south. The same issue is going

on. I'm now told that the same topic is being discussed in Manitoba. I

haven't got the information, but it's coming to me. But what happens is

this: if taxation gets out of control, politicians cannot resist what

the majority of the people say. Suddenly, we're going to end up having

budgets like they did and have the results that they did in that state.

We don't want that in British Columbia, and we don't need it. There's

no reason for it. So all we had to do was to take what we had, spread

it evenly around, and ask everyone to help a little bit. And do you

know something? Every school district that I attended — every one of

them — said: "Yes, look, something had to be done. Now we don't know if

we agree with your methods. We would like you to do it a little bit

differently." Mr. Chairman, there is no easy way to do something when

you're taking away from somebody something which they've been used to

having. I concede boards lost some degree of autonomy. There isn't any

question about it. That was clear when Bill 6 came in, but I want you

to know — and I'll remind the House again and again and again — that

B.C. school trustees told me: "It is is not inappropriate at this time

to do what you have to do." They were looking for some help as well.

What's really happened is that we're in the third year of a

three-year program, and right now it's getting into the short strokes.

In some districts there are some difficulties. In some districts they

have been recalcitrant, and they've refused to address the issue. One

of those school districts — first member for Vancouver Centre — is

Vancouver. Now I have always attempted to take the high road with every

school district. I have always turned my cheek the other way, but

sometimes you have to speak up and say: "Enough is enough." There was

no reason whatsoever for the Vancouver School Board, in my view, to put

King George School on the block, downtown. You agree with that: there

was no reason for them to put that on the block. That was done because

it was thought it was politically astute to do.

I'm waiting for a report to come in; it's supposed to be in today. I

made reference to it earlier. What we're trying to do with the three

people who are involved is to seek alternatives, to find resolutions,

and to use the money which we have in the best possible way. I don't

want education to be public issue No. 1. It's not necessary that it be.

But I'll tell you, I'll do what I have to do and seek the support of my

colleagues which I have — to preserve what we do for the future.

MR. BARNES: I don't think that education should be an

"issue," but it certainly should be concern number one. It certainly is

that now, although it's tied in with politics and everything else.

As far as your singling out the school district in Vancouver is

concerned, and what you call the political posturing and politicking of

the school board there, with the threat of having to close down King

George and other schools, Mr. Minister, those schools could have been

closed down. It just depends on priorities. I think politics was

started here. You didn't consult with them in advance. You did not come

out with your "Let's Talk About Schools" a year ago or two years ago,

so that you could have avoided this confrontation. You I shake people

up when you tell them: "We're going to do

[ Page

5609 ]

this." You even had the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) making announcements on your behalf about pupil-teacher

ratios — the number of teachers there could be.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's government policy.

MR. BARNES: That's fine. That's what you were doing, but let's not confuse things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, would you direct your comments to the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to give you an example of

how this game is played. Take the school district of Burnaby. Burnaby

is one of those school districts that did comply with your directives

and did in fact manage everything very well. They worked it out very

well. It turns out that because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. The Chair did not make any directives. Would you direct your comments to the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, in Burnaby they are going to be

faced with devastating problems as a result of the minister's

directives with respect to the number of teachers allowed. Although

they have worked within his budget and are efficient, they're going to

have to do something about his new directive.

My point is: where is the consultation? They are providing a quality

system — a system that works, that's efficient and that's within the

budget. But they're not going to be left.... They're going to have a

problem as a result of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman.

However, I'm going to leave that to the critic. As I say, I'm here

to make a contribution as one of the members who is concerned about

fundamental education in the public school system. I'm not pretending

to be an expert, but I am a parent. I did have four children educated

in this province, and I'm proud of how they are managing. However, I

must say, although they've had their education, they still have

difficulty getting into the workforce, getting into careers and having

options and opportunities, It's not all because of a lack of will or a

lack of ability or whatever; it's circumstance; it's the system. We

have to take a look at the options and the opportunities.

When you have this user fee, this fee for extra activities in

certain special courses, and even in core courses.... Even core courses

you're having to pay for. Mr. Chairman, if the student doesn't have the

money for a basic course, what does the student do? We don't have a

system where we allow youngsters to earn a few dollars each week while

they're going through school; we should, to give them some sense of

involvement, some sense of achievement. We should have some way in

which we can give a youngster a chance to be productive, to test

themselves. There are a few skills, a few programs that are available,

cost-shared with the federal government, but these are entrepreneurial

kinds of things, where a youngster needs to have far too much ability

to be able to include very many. Probably only 5 percent of those

students have that type of ability and imagination and skill to be able

to apply, even make out the application forms for some of these jobs.

In the free enterprise system we say you've got to pay for everything.

If that's the case, give people some opportunity to have some money. Sure,

if you've got money, then we can charge a fee for everything. We can learn

how to participate in a free enterprise system. Sure, if you've got enough

money, enough coupons, funny money, whatever you call it…but some cash.

But if you have no money, and you're going ahead as though everybody has

access to jobs and opportunities, then we have a small number of people, and

the numbers are growing all the time, who cannot get involved in the system.

[12:45]

It's not just the youngsters now; we're talking about the

unemployed, the underemployed, or the people who are needing

retraining, and all kinds of problems in this system. The education

system has to be viewed separately from cost. I think, in fact, if you

started to seriously address education in terms of cost, you would find

that it is quite cost-efficient; that it does return a great deal of

value for the dollars spent. It's like the myth. It's a good analogy

too. The school system is the myth about culture and the artsy programs

that we can't afford. We cut back and tell people they have to scrounge

on lottery funds and do a number of desperation campaigns to try to

raise money to survive, when in fact the multiplier effect for every

dollar spent on culture is something like five to one in terms of value

to the economy. It's the same thing in education. It's just hidden; the

cost is not direct. We don't see the dollars, we only see spending

them. But what's the difference between spending money on a youngster's

life, a youngster's future, and investing money in industrial

development? For instance, it's like giving certain benefits to the

people you're going to have in your new economic zones — allowing them

to dodge in order to save money. You're forgoing tax revenue to do that

because you believe that in the long run it'll be better for the

economy. It's the same thing with education. We can't afford to

deficit-finance when it comes to the lives of young people. This is the

point I'm trying to make. We're deficit-financing to the tune of almost

$1 billion in this budget that we're talking about right now.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to save the remainder of my remarks for another sitting of the House.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, these are relatively minor

amendments to the bill. I therefore will not take the time of the House

to explain them in detail, and look forward to the discussion when the

bill is called for debate.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada