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 19, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5707 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation (Bill PR404). Mr. Reid

Introduction and first reading –– 5707

An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College (Bill PR403). Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5707

An Act To Amend The Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR406). Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 5707

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR 402). Mr. Parks

Introduction and first reading –– 5707

Oral Questions

B.C. trade missions. Mr. Williams –– 5707

Funding for Kelowna sewers. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5708

Expo 86. Mr. Barnes –– 5709

Mr. Williams

Private Members' Statements

Island Jetfoil Corp. Mr. Reynolds –– 5710

Mr. MacWilliam

Okanagan lakes pollution. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5711

Hon. Mr. Pelton

World peace and disarmament. Mrs. Wallace –– 5713

Ms. Sanford

Pension funds. Mr. Cocke –– 5714

Mr. Williams

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5716

Mr. Davis

Ms. Sanford

FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1985

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE

CHILLIWACK FOUNDATION

On a motion by Mr. Reid, Bill PR404,

An Act to Incorporate Chilliwack Foundation, introduced and read a first time.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the objects of this foundation are all

charitable. They are to provide care for needy men, women and children,

and in particular to the sick, aged, destitute and helpless; to promote

education and advancement and scientific or medical research for the

increase of human knowledge and the alleviation of human suffering to

better underprivileged and delinquent persons; to promote recreational

activities and the conservation of such human, natural and heritage

resources as are not political in nature; and to provide for such other

charitable purposes as may in the discretion of the board appear to

contribute to the cultural, recreational, religious or physical

well-being of the inhabitants of the regional district of Fraser-Cheam.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

AN ACT RESPECTING PACIFIC BIBLE COLLEGE

On a motion by Mrs. Johnston, Bill PR403,

An Act Respecting Pacific

Bible College, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred

to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and

Members' Services.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

On a motion by Mrs. Johnston, Bill PR406,

An Act to Amend the

Trinity Western College Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders,

Private Bills and Members' Services.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

On a motion by Mr. Parks, Bill PR402,

An Act to Amend the Vancouver

Charter, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to

the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and

Members' Services.

Oral Questions

B.C. TRADE MISSIONS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's now two months since the Premier

usurped prime-time television to give a speech on the state of the economy.

In that speech he said: "We'll expand our exports and investments by establishing a number of

B.C. trade offices within Canadian embassies and consulates." Could he

advise us how many desks are now in place in consulates and embassies

in the Pacific Rim and around the world?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the federal

government makes accommodation for those desks within their ministries

of trade.... Ten are slated to be established. However, if they can't

accommodate us, we may have to go with what wouldn't be our first

choice, or necessarily a choice at all, and that is to put in separate

B.C. desks. So it'll be sometime within this year — at one level or the

other.

[10:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier is confirming then that what he said on television is incorrect.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's not true. What I said was that we

would be attempting to establish these desks. Within the estimates of

the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

are amounts for the establishment of those desks. Obviously our first

choice is to be part of a Canadian presence. Knowing that there is a

move within the federal government to get stronger Canadian trade

offices, and perhaps to separate the trade offices from External

Affairs embassies.... That has created some delay in their making a

decision, or a way in which British Columbia can be part of a Canadian

presence. I would think that member would support a Canadian presence

and would understand the desire of the federal government to strengthen

our trade in a Canadian way. As I understand it, they feel we would

have stronger trade representation with that separation.

Having visited a number of Canadian embassies and trade offices

abroad, I have always been very impressed, with the limited numbers of

people that we have, by what a good job they do. I want our British

Columbia desks to be part of it. As I say, money for it is contained

within the estimates of the Minister of International Trade and

Investment, and one way or the other — but preferably in the Canadian

context — they will be developed very shortly.

MR. WILLIAMS: I quote from page 11 of the speech, Mr.

Speaker, to refresh the Premier's memory: "We'll expand our exports and

investments by establishing a number of B.C. trade offices within

Canadian embassies and consulates" — full statement, full stop,

incorrect on television, prime time.

A further question. In the same prime-time exercise some two months

ago, the Premier said: "We have reason to be optimistic, too, that

Ottawa will move forward with special enterprise zones on the east

coast and in our province." I would note that the senior civil servant

responsible for that area said in the Toronto Star yesterday:

"It isn't clear what the province wants." This is Martin Abrams,

director-general of framework policies for Sinclair Stevens. Then he

said: "Only a few municipalities want the zone. There is no pressure

from private companies. We want to be sure that it's new investment,

not a displacement of existing investment." Can the Premier advise what

great progress he's made here, as in desks around the world?

[ Page 5708 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the Minister of

International Trade and Investment had good discussions with his

counterpart minister. Obviously ministers deal with ministers on the

political context, not with bureaucrats. I have no knowledge of the

statement that you're quoting, but I do say that our agreements are

with ministers; our agreements are with governments. Our agreements are

trying to do something better. And if it is not unfolding as quickly as

we had hoped it would, given that our budget was introduced some months

in advance of when the federal budget will be coming down and given

that the federal government is still coping on a broad front with a

large number of inherited economic problems, as well as dealing with

new solutions, I would not criticize them for any delay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, I know you would criticize them, as do

your federal MPs. But we want to be part of the building team in this

country. There are always those, even when they are elected to

represent British Columbia in opposition, who do not support British

Columbian projects or things that are good for Canada. Thank goodness,

our party and our members do not think and operate in negative terms.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the same prime-time speech, the Premier

indicated that we would be proceeding with the forestry agreement. Mr.

Sinclair Stevens has now indicated that Ottawa is prepared to proceed

with the forestry agreement intact — at the $300 million level — and

argue about the other details later. In view of the fact that the

planting season for trees is on hand with us right now, and the fact

that we need jobs in the forest sector more than ever, is the Premier

prepared to quit playing politics and create jobs now? Is he prepared

to get workers in the forests of British Columbia now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member from Coquitlam is

inconsistent, as always, in his approach to the way in which we'll deal

with the federal government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, no. That's where you have your business. You're the member for Vancouver East.

The ERDA agreement covers negotiations that took place at the

ministerial level between our Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) and their Minister of Agriculture, Forests and Forestry,

Tourism and Tourism, Industry minister and Industry minister, and part

of the total economic package. It was not developed in isolation. The

federal government has as its responsibility — and it's the

responsibility of those who fight for the interests of British Columbia

— to provide the federal share of the money for those programs, not to

come to the government of B.C. This is in response to the thousands of

little people that work in the tourist industry and would be assisted

by the tourism program, and our farmers in agriculture, who....

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you remember the question?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes. Do you remember why you asked it?

The thousands of people that work and have invested in agriculture

who are waiting to see an agricultural agreement and whether our

members in Ottawa can get a proportionate share of federal funding to

go into a program that serves them and their part of the economy, as

well as those in forestry.

What has happened is that the original ERDA negotiations, as

developed by the ministries, added up to a $325 million provincial

contribution and a $325 million federal contribution. We have put up

our share because we consider all parts to be important. So far, as I

understand from a letter received by our Industry minister, the Hon.

Mr. McClelland, the federal government has only been able to provide

$250 million for their share. Therefore, there is a shortfall of $15

million a year.

As I understand it our caucus members in the federal government

caucus are fighting to have the share increased for all of those. They

know that tourism's important, as are agriculture, forestry and others.

And I hope they can get it. If they can't, I'll be waiting to see in

what areas they propose to cut their contribution — whether it's in

agriculture, tourism, industrial jobs, small business or forestry, or

whether we can get a balanced package. For this government, we feel

that all elements are important and therefore have provided the full

funding for all agreements. We want to have the same type of signing

that Quebec had, in which the allocation for all the money for the

programs was done in one announcement, rather than piecemeal.

FUNDING FOR KELOWNA SEWERS

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Premier again. On March 9

the Premier announced that the province would be paying three-quarters

of the cost of new sewers in the Rutland area of Kelowna. Could the

Premier advise the House why a municipality in his riding is receiving

75 percent funding, while virtually every other municipality throughout

the province is eligible for only 25 percent provincial funding for

sewer construction?

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a good question. I had noticed that

that member had shown a great interest in Okanagan South. I had

expected him to have been informed on this and perhaps not have had to

ask the question. The city of Kelowna had an agreement in place for 75

percent funding for a number of projects. We were able to reallocate

within that to help the citizens of Rutland, who would have been

adversely affected on their taxes. It wasn't a new agreement or a break

from the new formula, but a reallocation. That has been well reported

in the Kelowna press and understood by the Kelowna people. If your

research hasn't been able to develop that, I'll send you copies.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Premier. I appreciate the

answer. A total of $300 million is in fact outstanding in sewer

projects around the province that was pending when the formula funding

was changed from 75 to 25. Does the decision of the Premier to revert

to the old formula in the case of Kelowna mean that other

municipalities that had applied for that funding previous to the change

in the formula are still eligible for such funding?

[ Page

5709 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: That will depend on the nature of the project, the

priority and the quality of representation given by their local MLA.

EXPO 86

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Tourism. Would the

minister advise the House whether the cabinet has met with officials of

Casino, Australia, in connection with a proposal to establish one or

more gambling casinos on the site of Expo 86?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker

MR. BARNES: Is the minister indicating there was no meeting?

Mr. Minister, is the government considering, now or in the future,

granting licences or any facilities for gambling on the Expo site?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, hon.

members. You are aware that future action cannot be determined in

question period, but the first

part is in order.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the second part of the question is out of order. The answer to the first part of the question is no.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker. With

respect to the preview centre, the $24 million silver golf ball at the

east end of False Creek, which leaks so badly it could be the most

expensive shower bath in British Columbia, could the Minister of

Tourism confirm that because they have not repaired the leaks the

preview centre will be closed down in the coming winter so that they

can deal with the leakage question further, at a time when they should

be previewing Expo?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the member is making

assumptions that I think are clearly beyond his expertise and mine. The

problem is either a design or a construction problem, and the dispute

over that is between the person who designed the dome and those

building it. It will be corrected; it's not an insurmountable problem.

But yes, there is a problem, and it's being worked on at this

moment. It's going to be done in two stages. The first part will be to

repair it temporarily to get us through the summer months; and then it

will be repaired further on a permanent basis. But the costs incurred

are clearly a matter to be cleared up between the person who designed

the dome and those who built it, Cana Construction.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I rise on a point of order. Standing order 8

says every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless

leave of absence has been given by the House. There are only eight

members of the opposition in attendance at the question period today.

I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether they have permission of the House

to be absent.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, our members have been given leave. Beyond that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By whom?

MR. COCKE: By me.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we're

trying to emulate the cabinet, who are so tardy in this place. As early

as last Thursday....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes. Therefore we felt that we needed a cup of coffee during part of this session.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

for New Westminster suggests that he has given his members leave of

absence from the House today. I'm wondering if he considers himself to

be "the House" in conjunction with standing order 8. Do you deem

yourself to be the House or something? What's the matter with you?

Can't you read the rules?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[10:30]

MR. COCKE: On a further point of order, I'm acting Whip

today, Mr. Speaker, and can give leave on behalf of a caucus, as has

been the precedent set in this House long before that elderly member

came here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon. members, on numerous occasions members have attempted to use

standing order 8 to bring to the attention of person or persons unknown

to the Chair obvious conclusions that certain seats are empty. On

numerous occasions the Chair has ruled that that is not a matter of a

point of order. It is the member's individual conscience that guides

him, plus what responsibilities he may have. To use an opportunity to

bring forward under standing order 8 is not an appropriate method to

discuss that particular standing order.

HON. MR. McGEER: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, as an assistance to

you, it would clarify matters if the member opposite would table with

the Clerks the list of permissions granted by the NDP on behalf of the

Legislature as a whole, so that they would be able to keep the official

attendance records for the purposes of pay.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we will if they will. Imagine that flight-happy minister...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: ...the one who hops back and forward to the university, being the one to promote that proposition!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could assist the

opposition in clarifying that while the government members are eligible

to be away on government business on behalf of the people. the

opposition has a different function and therefore less reason to be out

of the Legislature. Perhaps at the conclusion of today's sitting you

might remind all members of the difference in the responsibilities

between the

[ Page 5710 ]

executive branch working for the people and those from the opposition, who are absent only to play politics.

MR. WILLIAMS: We're all partners in enterprise, Mr. Speaker.

Private Members' Statements

ISLAND JETFOIL CORP.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to get up in

private members' statements today and talk about the Island jetfoil.

We've heard some comments from the opposition, especially the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Vancouver

Centre, who have been asking questions about the Island jetfoil in the

past couple of weeks and putting inaccuracies out there in the public

mind and also, I think, scaring away investment in British Columbia.

I would like today to read some notes from the Island Jetfoil Corp.

on the type of company it is and where their money came from. There

have also been some inaccuracies in this House as to the type of money

that was used to put the jetfoil into operation.

Island Jetfoil, Mr. Speaker, is privately financed. Sixty-eight

shareholders from Seattle, Victoria, Vancouver and across Canada have

contributed approximately $5 million in equity, which has been matched

by approximately $10 million in long-term debenture financing.

A sister company, Island Research and Development Corp., has been

financed by equity contributions, long-term debenture financing and

SRTC transfers under the federal R and D enhancement program. It should

be noted that the Island Research and Development Corp. can only get

off the ground and do its marine research and oceanographic program if

Island Jetfoil is up and running and can provide the crews and

maintenance facilities for the advanced research jetfoil that IRDC has

acquired.

It should be made clear, Mr. Speaker, that Island Research and

Development Corp. is one of the best things to come out of the federal

SRTC program, for the following reasons.

IRDC has created approximately 100 jobs in the Victoria, Vancouver

and Edmonton areas. Its long-term research contracts will mean

permanent jobs and cash flow coming into British Columbia for years to

come.

The R and D projects that IRDC has taken on have already started to

generate production-phase planning which will mean new manufacturing

opportunities in British Columbia and in Canada as the prototype

systems which IRDC is developing go beyond the prototype stage and are

built for sale around the world. When the federal government extends

the SRTC program, there will be a further incentive for R and D

companies such as Island Research to become competitive in the world

markets.

The Boeing Co., headquartered in Seattle, sells billions of dollars

of aerospace technology every year but spends very little money in

British Columbia in manufacturing, R and D and other direct costs. What

has been accomplished with Island Jetfoil and with Island Research is

that a significant portion of Boeing's manufacturing, R and D and other

costs will now start to be spent in British Columbia, which after all

is only 90 miles from Boeing plants.

Up to now, Boeing has not had an incentive to work in British

Columbia because of our labour costs, uncertain union situations, and

little direct incentive from government. Perhaps Island Jetfoil will be

the catalyst to create thousands of jobs in British Columbia directly

related to Boeing in Seattle. Every time there's a negative comment in

the press or the opposition, British Columbia's potential large

customer, Boeing, reacts negatively. Every time there's a positive

statement or a business starting, as Island Jetfoil did, Boeing reacts

in a very positive way. There is no recession in Seattle. Perhaps it's

about time that we worked together in British Columbia to obtain some

of the spinoff from the Boeing boom.

Island Jetfoil has been swamped with reservations on the flights

from Seattle to Victoria, and Victoria to Vancouver. Several flights

have been sold out. Island Jetfoil is asking everyone to bear with them

as the reservations centre is expanded and more people are trained in

Victoria to handle the overload. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) has asked Island Jetfoil to fly the Expo 86 logo. And it

should be noted that Island Jetfoil's arrival in Vancouver is the first

symbol of the positive economic effect of holding a world

transportation fair in 1986.

Island Jetfoil has not cost the taxpayers a penny. In fact, rents

received by provincial Crown corporations and federal departments are

already going back into the economy, to reduce taxes for everyone else.

We heard the concern of the second member for Vancouver East about

where it's landing. The government is making revenues off a private

company providing a good service to the citizens of British Columbia.

Island Jetfoil needs everyone in British Columbia to ride and enjoy

the trip between Victoria and Vancouver, and therefore encourage

further private investment in our transportation infrastructure. I

might ask the second member for Vancouver East why he doesn't try a

ride this afternoon at 2:30 to Vancouver and go back to his

constituency on the Island jetfoil. He'll find it's a comfortable ride.

He'll find hundreds of other British Columbians and tourists from the

Seattle area riding the Island jetfoil this afternoon. Why doesn't he

talk about the positive aspects of linking Seattle, Victoria and

Vancouver again? In 1903 that link was there; it's been stopped for a

few years.

If he had met those people from Seattle yesterday.... Where was that

member? Thousands were lined up on the dock in Victoria and on the dock

in Vancouver to welcome that brand-new high-tech ship to British

Columbia. Where were they? Sitting with their negative comments —

negative about British Columbia, the saddest thing of all; sitting

right here, and he's proud of it — Mr. Negative. That's what he wants

for British Columbia; he wants to knock it down. He doesn't want Boeing

to think about moving to British Columbia, putting in a major research

facility and providing thousands of good union jobs in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: "More Americans, " he says. He's afraid of that

American technology that might assist Canadians with jobs. He wants to

do everything else.... Knock the Americans; it's their fault for

everything. Well, Mr. Speaker, the last time he was in a government

they booted him out. That's why they'll never be government in this

province again. That's why people like the Island Jetfoil people risked

their $5 million and signed their names to notes for $10 million. They

could go broke. Maybe it won't be successful. I'm sure he'd be happy if

it weren't.

[ Page 5711 ]

But we should take the opposite approach. We should encourage them.

We want people to travel that jetfoil. Wouldn't it be terrible, Mr.

Speaker, if it was successful, even so successful that maybe we didn't

have to put any more B.C. ferries on? Maybe the people would like the

jetfoil instead. Maybe they'd like the way private enterprise runs that

system better than the government. Wouldn't that be terrible?

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't know whether the previous member was

giving a speech on Island Jetfoil or just taking another opportunity to

kick shins again. In the confrontational nature that he approached the

whole thing with, the issue does seem to be rather confusing, to say

the least. I would remind him that this side of the House has

approached this legislative session in the true spirit of cooperation.

Hopefully the member will learn that developing a more positive

environment through positive comments, rather than kicking at shins

again, would provide a higher intellectual atmosphere in this House, as

well as some positive suggestions.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't think it is in his nature; it

certainly isn't. It's too bad that the whole thing was soiled with that

confrontational attack on my honourable colleague from Vancouver East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: I would be remiss if I didn't comment on that.

On the topic, I and my colleagues certainly welcome the initiation

of Island Jetfoil to the Island. We welcome any project that's going to

develop our tourism potential and trade potential. We certainly look

forward to the benefits that the Island Jetfoil service will provide. I

think the citizens of Victoria will themselves have direct benefit from

the initiation of the jetfoil service. I certainly can see direct

tourism benefits accruing both to the province and to the Island from

that service.

I might add, by the way, that the islands face some serious problems

in terms of getting people over here. With its present service I think

that Island Jetfoil provides just one further link that will alleviate

those communication and transportation problems. Beyond that, perhaps

it will alleviate some of the problems that the Islands 86 group faces

in preparing to get some of the spinoff benefits from Expo. One of the

concerns, of course, is that transportation links may be inadequate. I

know that the state of the Island Highway is of some concern to the

Islands 86 group, and certainly it poses some considerable problems in

the transportation of tourists throughout Vancouver Island.

But as to Island Jetfoil, my congratulations to the company for

their initiative and for their.... I know they had some problems in

starting up, and I believe those problems have been solved. I look

forward to the benefits of that service.

MR. SPEAKER: There are two minutes left. Do any other members wish to speak on this? If not, the proponent in reply.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to thank the member for Okanagan

North for his comments. I think his comments were very good. If his

attitude prevailed in this House, we wouldn't have the problems we

sometimes do. I would like to congratulate that member for the way in

which he has conducted himself since his election, because he does

approach things in a more positive manner than the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) certainly does. He talks about me kicking

shins in confrontation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Now there you go again.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a very hard time not to. I'm sitting so

close to him. I can't help but think that the questions the second

member for Vancouver East asks on this issue are confrontational. They

have to be answered. The fact that he made statements that weren't

accurate....

MR. MITCHELL: Keep it above board.

[10:45]

MR. REYNOLDS: I did keep it above board. The Island Jetfoil rides right above the water.

I think the second member for Vancouver East should take a ride on

that jetfoil back to his constituency. It leaves at 2:30 every day. It

travels at 50 miles an hour over the water. It's just a beautiful boat,

Mr. Speaker. I think it's a positive thing for British Columbia. I

think the people of British Columbia would be encouraged if the second

member for Vancouver East were to ride that back to Vancouver one

afternoon. It doesn't cost him anything. Like the rest of us, he's got

a pass on the airplanes and the ferries, and this charge is one that he

can charge to the Legislature — to go home on. I hope that he will take

the time to do that, and show that maybe he's going to change his ways.

If he wants to stop kicking shins, I promise that I'll stop kicking

his, and we could all get along much better in this Legislature. But

somebody has to present the facts on issues that this member brings up

in the Legislature. I intend to continue doing that.

I certainly will give credit to the member for Okanagan North for

his comments about cooperation and his welcome of the addition of the

Island jetfoil to British Columbia. I agree with him: it's a positive

thing for British Columbia. I know that the thousands of people who are

going to use it and arrive in Victoria and Vancouver over the next few

months are going to bring millions of dollars to British Columbia that

may not have come here if it weren't for the Island jetfoil. I know all

members of this House appreciate that and will welcome those tourists

when they come to British Columbia.

OKANAGAN LAKES POLLUTION

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to spend some time

outlining some concerns I have in terms of sewerage assistance and the

environmental impact in certain areas of this province. The Okanagan

drainage basin, probably well known to members of this House, includes

a chain of lakes that stretches virtually from the border at Osoyoos up

as far as Armstrong. It's a very large geographical area — an isolated

geographical unit, if you like. The largest body of water, of course,

is Okanagan Lake, which serves the cities of Penticton, Kelowna and

Vernon, as well as other urban centres in the valley.

[ Page 5712 ]

Some background information. The total population of the Okanagan

basin grew from about 110,000 in 1971 to almost 200,000 people in 1981.

The population prediction for 1991 is an estimate in excess of 261,000.

We've got a significant increase in population in the valley. We also

have increasing agricultural production, and more intensive

agricultural methods have placed a growing burden, as has the

increasing population, on our water resources. In addition, the number

of tourists visiting the Okanagan lakes basin has more than doubled in

the past decade to well over one million visits annually. I might point

out that these tourists bring in quite a bit of revenue to that area.

The majority of these tourists make extensive use of our water

resources, our lakes, as a prime recreational resource. Because it's

not only a prime environmental resource, but also has an economic

function, the significant environmental decline that has been evident

in our Okanagan lakes basin is of great concern, I'm sure, to all

British Columbians. I might point out that because of climate,

topography and an exceedingly slow water cycle, it takes approximately

70 years for Okanagan Lake to drain. The lakes are in danger of being

lost, to be quite blunt about it. One of the problems is excess

nutrient-loading from agricultural runoff, septic groundwater leakage,

and inappropriate sewage disposal methods that are endangering our

prime resource.

A

summary report on the Okanagan basin implementation agreement,

dated September 1982, is highly critical of the failure of the

government — this is no reflection on the present Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton), because this is past policy — to

establish a single management jurisdiction for water resources in the

Okanagan basin. It's time that the government realized it must act now

to save those resources from further environmental damage. Milfoil

growth and accelerated eutrophication are a direct result of excess

nutrient-loading and inadequate waste management programs.

If I could just very quickly read a quote from the Vernon Daily News ,

dated April of this year, it says: "The provincial Ministry of

Municipal Affairs has refused to allow the Okanagan Basin Water Board

to increase the tax levy raising funds for sewage facilities assistance

programs. This decision makes it difficult for communities in the

Okanagan Valley to make long-term plans when they're not sure of what

financial assistance is available. It really comes down to dollars and

cents." The chairman of the water board has said that communities in

the Okanagan Valley are doing their utmost — and I concur in that — to

improve the quality of the lakes by installing improved systems for

treating and disposing sewage. Cutbacks in funding make it difficult to

try to help these communities. The chairman has said that improved

sewage disposal is a preventative approach to the problem. He said the

board can carry out harvesting programs for weeds in lakes, but it must

also look at the reasons the lakes are having the problems they're now

incurring.

This is the

summary report which outlines many of the documents. The

government has not acted on that report, and I think it's time we took

a detailed look at the recommendations and proceeded with them

immediately.

I might cite a specific example, Mr. Speaker, one that the Minister of Environment

is fast becoming acquainted with. The city of Vernon was a leader in how it

handled its effluent. From 1972 to 1975 the NDP government assisted in the development

of a land-based spray irrigation program. The process of effluent disposal on

grassland crops which is the essence of the program, however, is now overloaded,

and the city has to dump excess effluent into Okanagan Lake. That's happening

throughout the Okanagan Basin. The city is working hard. They're exploring

a number of options: expanded spray irrigation, application of effluent on forest

crops, rapid infiltration, advanced waste-water treatment. They've been

working very diligently to pursue those options.

The critical issue that I want to raise — I wish the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) were here — is the funding. The

technology is not a problem; the funding is the crisis here. We have a

lack of funding. The city must receive help from the government to

expand the system. Vernon is caught in the grips of having to

front-load 75 percent of its cost of sewage. As was pointed out

earlier, the city of Rutland, the suburb of Kelowna, has just received

75 percent funding. The community of Ganges in the islands group has

received virtually 100 percent funding for its sewage development

programs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over 100 percent.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Over 100 percent. There is a vast inequality

here, Mr. Speaker, that must be addressed. I want to say very plainly

that the citizens in the north Okanagan are most distressed at the fact

that they are limited to 25 percent dollars,

whereas other communities,

whether through political preference or whatever, are being given from

75 percent dollars up to 105 percent dollars.

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank the hon. member for Okanagan North.

He and I have discussed this subject privately on a number of

occasions, and I certainly believe and hope that our discussions will

prove fruitful in the long run.

I won't comment on the funding formula, hon. members, because that

does not fall within my purview, but I would like to make a couple of

comments about the disposition of the sewage and its treatment.

The amount of treatment that municipal sewage must receive depends

to a large degree on the location of the discharge. It must be

understood that sewage treatment is intended to do in a few hours what

nature would normally take a long time to do. As most hon. members

would know, Mr. Speaker, in the treatment of sewage there can be three

levels: primary, secondary and tertiary. I won't go into what these

involve, but needless to say, the degree of treatment applied must be

directly related to the protection of the environment receiving the

effluent. In some parts of the province the receiving environment has

the capability to assimilate wastes without any treatment at all, while

in other areas which are very sensitive it is necessary to require the

best possible technological way of waste treatment. There may even be

some situations in which no discharge of waste at all is the only

feasible solution to environmental protection. Some of the factors

which determine this position are volumes of waste water, the

characteristics of the waste and the use of receiving waters — for

example, relating to fisheries, recreation and public water supplies,

etc.

The Okanagan area of the province has been recognized for some time

as requiring a high level of environmental protection. This is

reflected in the degree of treatment provided to the various sewage

discharges that presently exist. As the hon. member mentioned, Vernon,

which is having a problem — and a bad problem at the moment — was a

leader in the development of a plant and facilities whereby

[ Page 5713 ]

some of the effluent was deposited on land and used

for irrigation purposes. I understand that Oliver and Osoyoos are also

irrigating with treated sewage. The problem at Vernon now, as I

understand it, is not that the system doesn't work; it works very well.

The problem relates to the amount of effluent that there is to dispose

of and the lack of an area in which to dispose of it. That, I think, is

the main problem right now.

The city of Kelowna, which as I recall might have been mentioned

during question period today, has one of the most efficient and

complete sewage treatment plants in the world, I'm given to understand.

The Ministry of Environment has been involved in that right from the

very outset. There are problems, however, and these must be recognized.

Of course, as the population grows, so does the need for more land.

Land is not always available, therefore municipalities within the

boundaries of the land do not wish to accept effluent from their

neighbours. We run into that all the time. We find it with landfill

sites and many other things, like disposal of toxic wastes. This is

something else which we must address. It's a difficult problem to go to

someone and say they have to accept effluent from someplace else, but

it's certainly a problem that we have to address.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to say that insofar as I'm

concerned, the Ministry of Environment is willing to do everything it

can to find solutions to the problems that exist. The Okanagan Basin

study identified phosphorus, I believe, as the pollutant of major

concern, and recommended that the amount entering the lake system be

reduced by 90 percent. It is a sizeable amount, but I believe we can

achieve this goal. At the moment I don't think we have any one method

that can do it alone, although the coal-filtration method that we have

discussed might just possibly be the solution. I would say that

certainly there is no doubt, hon. member, that an overall plan is

required. You have my assurance that the Ministry of Environment is

actively working on a plan. I can't give you a time-frame, but I would

hope that it would come about as soon as possible.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I must say that I'm extremely happy with the

dialogue. I think we do have a spirit of cooperation here, and I think

we are seeing the issue on a very logical and objective basis. I

compliment the minister on that. Many of the points that he has made

are quite accurate. He also made the point that he's not responsible

for the funding. I might point out again that that is the critical

issue — and one that has to be addressed.

[11:00]

May I take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to outline a proposal that

I will be seeking leave to table with the House: "Sewerage Assistance

For Environmentally Sensitive Terrain" — otherwise known as the SAFEST

program. It's a proposal that I would like to put before the House for

the consideration of all. Funding is to be provided above and beyond

current levels, as established under the present Sewerage Assistance

Act, for innovative approaches to sewage disposal in problem areas.

Such a fund could be established through the Ministry of Environment or

the Municipal Affairs ministry, with costs shared according to the

original 75-25 formula. Money would be used for capital expenditures,

systems design, construction, research and development. Normal

operating costs of the completed system would be covered under the

present sewerage assistance plan.

To qualify for SAFEST funding, a community must prove a need based

upon the following criteria: (1) inadequacy of the existing system;

(2) environmental impact of present disposal methods; and (3) the negative

economic impact of the present disposal system. Approval for funding

should be based upon the following criteria: a detailed cost benefit

analysis, a demonstrated positive environmental impact, proven economic

benefits to the community, and an innovative systems design

implementing proven alternative methods of sewage disposal such as land

application, irrigation of effluent upon forest crops, the

implementation of rapid ground infiltration, the coal sorption process,

and biological or chemical treatment processes.

I think such a program would provide the initiative, the incentive

and the opportunity that is presently lacking throughout British

Columbia to resolve many of the increasing concerns as to the

environmental impact of our present inadequate sewage disposal methods.

I think it's most important that we take a long-term look at where this

province is going in terms of environmental stability. That water

resource in the Okanagan lakes basin is an invaluable resource; you

cannot put dollars and cents on it. But if it's lost, it will have a

major economic impact on the community.

I see my time is up. I will table this at the conclusion of this session.

WORLD PEACE AND DISARMAMENT

MRS. WALLACE: "Peace is not just the absence of war. It is

more than that." Those were the opening remarks at a conference I

attended last February in Vancouver dealing with human rights and the

peace of nations. They were made by the chancellor of the University of

Toronto. Another speaker at that conference, Professor John Humphrey of

the faculty of law at McGill, said: "Arms are symptoms of political

malaise."

What we are experiencing around the greater part of the world, in

Canada and in British Columbia is not only political malaise, it is

economic and social malaise. We know that the unemployment figures in

British Columbia alone stand at nearly half a million. In the age group

15 to 24, there are 74,000 unemployed young people in B.C. alone. That

compares to the 1,800 single unemployed who, 50 years ago, mounted the

freights to join other young Canadians in their trek to Ottawa.

In this year dedicated to youth, the front-page story in last weekend's Sun

recalled those Depression years, when there were across the whole of

Canada 70,000 unemployed youth. Here in B.C. today we have 74,000.

There was not even social assistance in those days — or "relief, " as

it was called — for single unemployeds. If they were lucky, the only

thing they could get was to be accepted into a work camp run by the

Department of National Defence at 20 cents a day.

In Vancouver, as in other cities across Canada, young people were

marching in the streets, were forbidden to tin-can, were read the riot

act, and were clubbed, tear-gassed and driven out of city after city as

they trekked across the country to Ottawa.

Canada was not able to mobilize the economy for peace. Yet in a few

short months after the war was declared that same economy was mobilized

and the derelicts of the Depression became the heroes of the Second

World War. It is a harsh, cruel and untenable fact that in both the

First and Second World Wars Canada resolved its unemployment problem

[ Page 5714 ]

through those rows and rows of crosses in Flanders

fields and those thousands of names engraved on the cenotaphs across

this nation.

Important as it is, it is not enough to pray for peace or to march

for peace. War is a side-effect of the international economic and

social structure. Where you have affluence and poverty existing side by

side, you invite conflict. Murray Thompson, a co-founder of Project

Ploughshares, tells us that there is a growing realization that

violence does not provide security. Killing revolutionaries does not

stop revolution.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There is an increasing recognition of the links between

militarization and economic deprivation. A current example is Canada's

apparent willingness to participate in Reagan's Star Wars proposals. In

Canada we've seen our government sign a memorandum of understanding to

participate in U.S. space stations. There's grave concern, and with

real good reason, that that's very closely connected to the Star Wars

proposals. These proposals fall on fertile soil because they create

jobs. Like the youth of the Hungry Thirties, today's youth are finding

that the only employment possibilities are in the main in the field of

war and preparation for war.

Production and sale of arms results in huge profits, and that

production and sale simply sets the stage for war. Production and sale

of arms results in huge profits, and that production and sale simply

sets the stage for war. During the last decade Canadian military

exports to the United States increased tenfold. During that same decade

Canada's sales to Third World countries increased threefold.

Any major war today means nuclear war and total annihilation. Annual

military spending, including NATO, the Warsaw Pact and China, amounts

to $558 billion a year. We have in stock 51,500 nuclear weapons in the

hands of those nations. It's time to call a halt. The arms race must

stop now before a new technology, such as the cruise, undermines our

ability to verify arms control agreements. The time to stop the arms

race is now, not 20 or 30 years down the road, as would appear to be

the thinking of the Trudeaus, the Mulroneys and even the Bennetts of

this world. There is a virtual volcano of public opinion demanding that

it stop now. Yet governments ignore that here in North America and in

Europe.

How long can the public sustain the fight? Fear alone is not enough.

A poll taken in Ontario just recently shows that 52 percent of young

people between 18 and 24 expect there will be nuclear war in their

lifetime. And yet of those young people, 88 percent believe that Canada

has a role to play. We should play that stronger role, and B.C. should

lead the way.

I see my time is up.

MS. SANFORD: It's very difficult for me to understand why the

world continues on this mad escalation of the arms race. We've had

reports, articles and stories written over the years indicating that if

the world would only discontinue the expenditure on arms that it's

currently embarked upon, we could ensure that every person in this

world had a house in which to live, some kind of accommodation that

would be suitable; we could ensure that not one single person in this

world would need to go hungry; we could ensure that everyone had

adequate clothing; we could ensure that everyone had an opportunity to

education; and we could ensure that everyone had an opportunity to have

basic health care. That's astounding, Mr. Speaker. When you look at the

problems that exist in the world — the kind of deprivation that exists

in so many parts of the world, the starvation in places like Ethiopia

and many other places in the world, the fact that in the United States

alone there are thousands and thousands of people who do not have an

adequate diet, and in many cases not even enough food, let alone a

nutritional diet.... It's happening here in British Columbia. It's

happening in Canada.

Over the years we in Canada have been respected brokers in

international affairs. Countries have looked to us for some leadership,

for some sense of rationality in this whole madness. Unfortunately what

I see happening is that we're moving closer and closer to becoming a

part of the problem — getting involved in the Star Wars development,

testing the cruise. All of this will ensure that the countries of the

world will not be able to turn to us for some sort of rational way out

of this madness. We have served on international commissions, as we did

prior to the Vietnam War. We did some good work at that time. We have

served well on United Nations forces in various parts of the world. We

have always been respected.

It is my hope that this government, as a result of the statement

made today by my colleague from the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace), will indeed take the initiative to ensure not only that

the problems of this province can be solved if we reverse the mad

escalation of arms but that the problems of the world could be solved.

Let's do it.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm disheartened that there is not even a response from the government on a statement as critical as this.

I want to just follow along the lines that my colleague has and give

you a few more specifics. I indicated when I spoke before that the

world — the NATO countries, the Warsaw Pact countries and China —

spends $558 billion annually on arms. There are two billion people in

this world who drink contaminated water. Six months of that expenditure

on arms would provide a permanent supply of pure drinking water for all

of them. Around the world the number of children who die of measles is

equivalent to half of the children who live in British Columbia. If we

stopped spending on arms for five hours and used that money to clear up

measles, we could wipe it out.

[11:15]

Here in Canada 65 percent of our citizens oppose the cruise missile

testing, yet we're testing. Peace and disarmament are at the centre of

the world's agenda, yet in Canada we are increasing our military

spending and involving ourselves with Star Wars. It is time we realized

that in the nuclear age we can no longer afford to use armaments and

war as an answer to economic security and job creation. We must put

human good before corporate good. We must mobilize our economy for

peace, and we must do it now.

Without a fair and just economic and social system, peace will

escape us and war will annihilate us. That's why my bumper sticker

reads: "Risk peace, not war."

PENSION FUNDS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the statements made,

particularly the last statement, I would like to talk about capital

formation for our country, and specifically capital formation with

pension funding. Pension trusts are

[ Page 5715 ]

becoming one of the major centres of power in our

social system. We don't think about it too often, but it's true. I'm

going to bring you some figures shortly that I'm sure will astound you.

These trusts are the product of the moulding influences of our major

institutions, corporations, governments and labour unions. The assets

of pension trusts are the most important weapon in the economic arsenal

of our country. If we're serious about controlling the financial and

economic destiny of this country, we should be participating in the

planning of the use of the huge assets of our pension funds.

I want to take you through a few figures. These are astounding. The

book value in our trusteed pension funds in the third quarter of 1984

was $90.7 billion. This was an increase — and listen to this — of $2.4

billion over the previous quarter in 1984. It was a massive $10.6

billion increase over the year earlier.

Let's put that into perspective. That increase in growth is

absolutely dramatic, but let's compare it to 1975. In 1975 there were

roughly $20 billion in assets in all our trusteed pensions. Nine years

later, in 1984, there was $90.7 billion. These figures don't include an

estimated $21 billion in reserves in insurance companies for the future

benefits to active pension plan members in their ambit. So let's add

them together. We're looking at $112 billion as of the last quarter of

1984, and it's growing. We saw an 11.69 percent increase last year in

the trusteed pension plans. Project this for another ten years and we

arrive at $274 billion. And if we include the insured plans at a modest

increase of 10 percent per year, add another $54 billion, making that,

ten years down the road, $328 billion in assets of our pension plans in

this country. Private and public — I'm taking them all into account

here.

Now I suggest that as long as we in the legislative assemblies

across the country and in parliament give no leadership these

accumulated sums will do nothing more than they have heretofore.

They've been helpful, but let me tell you how they've been helpful.

They finance debt — this is mainly government debt — to the tune of

45.9 percent. They call it bonds; that's a euphemism. It's debt. Some

25.9 percent of those funds are in equity investments — not

well-directed, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion. It's the blue-chip syndrome

with no thought of getting back the title to our own economy. And

mortgages at 7.3 percent. That's the way those sums are invested.

I'm here to tell you that I believe we should be starting a

cooperative effort to buy back our economy, and we can. We can and we

must if we presume to mature as an independent world economic leader.

In spite of our recession, depression or however you want to describe

it, we are sitting on the threshold of great economic potential in this

country. We can build our economy to scale to compete in world markets.

We can provide a legacy of wealth for generations to come, but to do so

requires the courage to direct the utilization of the immense assets of

our pension funds.

We are now thinking about our direction, but we must remember our

neighbour to the south, the U.S.A., which now has $1,105.6 billion in

pension assets. Those assets have grown from $267 billion in 1975. Look

how they're growing. They will surely use their tremendous assets to

strengthen their economy. We must defend ours. In British Columbia we

don't even have

an act governing pensions; we defer to the federal act.

We first need

an act here before we can be taken seriously in our

direction in pension planning.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's intriguing that government members have not chosen to respond on either the last statement or this one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got the floor.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there were no anxious faces on the other side.

This government goes flying the world seeking for others to solve

our problems. Right today, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

has flown to Europe, to London, to Japan seeking to borrow funds for

projects and debt in British Columbia, among other things. The hon.

member for New Westminster has pointed out that the funds are right

here in Canada. They are right here in British Columbia in the form of

savings through pensions of the citizens of this province and the

nation. There are the means to create wealth within British Columbia,

internally. We don't have to have new ministers of international trade

and investment scouring the world, accepting terms that are not really

acceptable to us, when we could do better with our own funds. We have

an incredible opportunity here.

We have a forest industry in this province that is frequently 35

years behind the times in terms of industrial technology. In newsprint

alone, to give you an example, 58 percent of the machinery in newsprint

operations in British Columbia is pre-1950. Let's compare it with our

social democratic friends in Scandinavia: 7 percent of the newsprint

machinery operations in Sweden are pre-1950. They use the savings of

the people in Sweden to create wealth for the Swedes, to create benefit

and jobs for the Swedes. We don't even attempt that. Here in British

Columbia we don't even have a statute dealing with the question of

pension funds in this province. That's nothing short of incredible.

Let's took at a sister province like Quebec. What has Quebec wrought

with its pension funds? They have one of the most extensive operations

in North America in terms of developing their commercial structure and

their economy in that province. They are truly becoming "maitre chez

nous" in Quebec, and they're using the pension funds to do it. If these

scatter-brained fly-abouts on the other side in the cabinet had any

marbles at all, they'd realize that the solutions are right here at

home. There's pension money and savings right here in British Columbia.

You don't need to take the first-class jet to Tokyo. The solutions are

right here under our feet in British Columbia, if you only had the

sense to realize it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right.

Incidentally, the figures that I raised here do not include the Canada

Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. They're over and above those

other pension plans. The plans I'm speaking of are pension plans that

are trusteed, pension plans that are governmental, and pension plans

that are insured pension plans in the life insurance companies.

One of the reasons I left the life insurance business in the first

place is that I saw that we in this country, great savers that we are,

utilize our savings through our financial institutions — unfortunately,

we don't make those decisions — and just reinforce the multinationals,

because they're blue chip. We reinforce foreign ownership in our

country; that's our problem. We have not directed our pension plans. We

have not directed any of our financial institutions to take charge of

the equity position that Canadians must hold in order to direct our own

future. Our problem is that we are amassing these

[ Page 5716 ]

fantastic sums and then putting them to work for

GE, GM, Ford, you name it. That's where it goes, but not for Canadian

development.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to be a competitor in a world market, we must

first own our economy. Once owning our economy, we can direct that

economy to do the things that we can best do: harness our own resources

to be brought up to where they should be, and be as labour-intensive as

possible. We have a potential in this country to be one of the greatest

economic powers on earth, and because small people like that over

there, who say no and are wrong, are not listening....We have an

opportunity to be a great economic power on this earth, and we're

ignoring that opportunity by ignoring our own savings and our own

investments.

MR. MacWILLIAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

seek leave at this time, as I had mentioned before, at the close of

this session to table the proposed sewerage assistance program outlined

in the previous discussion.

[11:30]

Leave granted.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 17: minister's office: $179,543.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise with the minister

several specific questions having to do with financing, planning and

other problems in North Vancouver School District and then revert to a

topic which I was discussing earlier on in these estimates; namely, the

overall financing formula for education in this province and how it

impacts unfairly on the North Shore in Vancouver.

First, and specifically with regard to School District 44, restraint

— a ceiling on budgets — is creating some problems, as elsewhere. There

have been some layoffs. There have been some layoffs in support

services; roughly half of the janitorial and custodial staff has been

laid off in School District 44 over the last 18 months. Approaching a

third of the teachers' aides have also been dismissed in the interests

of economy.

I'm sure this kind of thing is happening variously around the

province and that School District 44 in North Vancouver is not alone in

this respect, but there is a special consideration — and one which I

would hope the minister would comment on — and that is in relation to

the children with special needs. In School District 44 some 6 percent —

six children out of every 100 attending primary and secondary schools —

have special needs, physical and mental. They constitute, as I

understand it, a larger proportion of the total school attendance than

in any other school district in the province currently.

When we talk about teacher-pupil ratios or pupil-teacher ratios,

that is a new consideration — at least it's new in recent years. One

can't make a comparison back to the bad old days of the early 1970s

when there were no provisions for the mainstreaming of the disabled. In

North Vancouver the pupil-teacher ratio in the mid-1970s was of the

order of 19 to 1. Currently it's of the order of 18 to 1. It will be

rising to 19 to 1 or more. But within that global ratio which is used

for comparative purposes, there are now the children with special needs.

There are an exceptional number of children with special needs on

the North Shore. I wonder whether, in their various calculations,

officials of the ministry could recommend to the minister some

alleviation of the restraint or some additional allowance to School

District 44 on account of the disabled children who are attending North

Van schools in unusual numbers.

Capilano College is located on the North Shore. Capilano College

differs from other community colleges around the province in that it

has always emphasized mathematics and scientific subjects. It has in

some measure specialized in the lower mainland and attracted people who

are interested in chemistry, physics and other courses leading on to

professions like engineering. Those endeavours are certainly more

expensive than the teaching of language, literature, history and so on

— disciplines that involve little more than classrooms and libraries.

Capilano College, having expensive laboratories, etc., has costs.... It

offers courses which are out of the ordinary, more expensive to deliver

than those of other colleges around the province. Can some

consideration be given to the fact that Capilano College is offering

more in the nature of instruction which leads to jobs in this province

than other colleges? Can some favourable financial consideration be

given to that college on that account?

More specifically, Okanagan College — and the minister has already

mentioned this — has been given some relief because it has two

satellite campuses, as I understand it, one in Penticton and one in

Salmon Arm. Why the discrimination? Capilano College has two satellite

colleges, one in Squamish and one at Sechelt. It is not getting any

consideration. Okanagan College is obviously regarded as a special

case, but it's not a special case. Capilano College has, if anything, a

greater problem of delivery, if you like, of services to these two

satellite campuses outside the lower mainland, one at Squamish and one

at Sechelt. So I would ask whether some relief can be given to a

college which has been operating with a budget in the order of $12

million a year, is currently facing a 10 percent cut in its budget, is

delivering courses which lead more directly to jobs than do those of

most other colleges, and has two satellite campuses which I would argue

merit at least the same treatment as Okanagan College.

Switching in my remaining few minutes to the matter of overall

finance — the financial formulas which make up the financial plan for

the delivery of funds by the provincial ministry to the school

districts — on average we're talking about $4,000, in round figures,

per student in our primary and secondary schools. Most of those dollars

are supplied by the province in one way or another to the great

majority of school districts. In other cases only 60 percent, or

something like $2,400 of the $4,000, is supplied to school districts,

and the remainder is raised locally.

On average, $3,000 of the $4,000 is supplied by the province and

$1,000 is raised locally. But 56 out of the 76 school districts receive

on balance, net, all of the $4,000 from senior levels of government; 20

do not. A few, like North Vancouver, receive as little as $2,400 out of

the $4,000. Others lie in between. For example, Windermere School

District pays on its own, out of the local property tax, $10 per

residence. So it's not receiving the full amount from the province;

it's putting up something. Central Okanagan is putting up in the order

of $20 per residence. It's not receiving

[ Page 5717 ]

the full amount of $4,000; it's receiving something

less from the central government. In New Westminster the homeowner is

putting up $96 per residence to make up the total $4,000 per student.

In Burnaby it's $203 per residence.

North Vancouver is putting up the most — $285 per home on a per

student basis. I'll repeat, North Vancouver receives $2,400 from the

province and has to put up the remaining $1,600 out of residential

taxation, hence the $285 per home which is levied there, So some

districts pay a great deal more than others, and North Vancouver pays

the most per home. North Vancouver doesn't have the most expensive

homes. We've got a kinky formula which allows districts like West

Vancouver, Howe Sound and Squamish to pay no more than is paid by North

Vancouver; indeed they pay less per home simply because the formula has

been shaped in such a way that they are not penalized as they may have

been had an older formula continued.

I'll repeat: in West Vancouver the tax going into schools per home

is considerably less than that in North Vancouver — $181 per home in

West Vancouver compared to $285 per home in North Vancouver. Yet the

average assessed value in West Vancouver is 50 percent higher than in

North Vancouver. So that formula has to be changed. To put it another

way, North Vancouver gets no part of the shareable 35 percent school

finance fund.

I'll repeat: 56 school districts get all of the 35 percent. Some 20

only get a part of it; North Vancouver gets none of it. That is

inequitable. I would argue that the selling value of a person's home is

not a reliable indication of ability to pay. There are a considerable

number of elderly retired people who are continuing to live under the

same roof, to live in a home which they built years ago, but which is

now assessed at a high price. It's only when they sell that home that

they'd realize that value, and yet they're having to pay $285

additional taxes a year,

whereas people in similar, even identical,

homes in other parts of the province pay nothing. I think that's wrong.

So that has to be changed.

[11:45]

1 want to make one further point before I sit down, Mr. Chairman.

Costs in North Vancouver are reasonable. The cost of the school

educational system is not the highest in the lower mainland. It's of

the order of tenth. So the minister can't say: "Your local taxes are

high because your costs per pupil are high." He can only say: "We've

got a kinky formula which happens to penalize your school district on

the North Shore." It's one that the government, in all conscience, must

change, and one that I hope the government will change for the next

school year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would just like to refer to the member's

last comment with respect to the cost per student. I presume the

comparatives which the member has referred to are within the regional

area. In 1984 the average total cost for School District 44 was $3,917

per student. The regional means is $3,547, and the provincial average

is $3,758. So if we want to look around at costs on a per student

basis, I think we can put to rest the fact that North Vancouver

operates one of the leaner systems. I'll just confine that to the

regional area. There's a difference of $370. They are $370 per student

higher than the other districts within the immediate confines.

With respect to special needs, I cannot advise the member of the

number of special-needs children within the district. But I do know

that under Bill 6, if you will recall, we specifically made provision

that special needs would be handled by the government so that the claim

could not be made by anybody, particularly board members, that we were

underfunding and using the disabled people as a political football.

Interestingly enough, I remember speaking on the North Shore to a

number of.... It was quite a large crowd in a school gymnasium. One of

the major concerns that the people in that area advanced during that

meeting was that they felt that the special-needs children were not the

recipients of the full amount of the funding advanced by the provincial

government. For some time I have been concerned about the total amount

of money put out in special needs. It exceeds the sum of $200 million,

on a provincial basis.

When school districts were complaining about insufficient funding, I

offered to put a team from the ministry in every school district that

was concerned. I want you to know that of the 28 or 29 school districts

that complained about being underfunded in special needs, I had the

grand number of two districts say: "Yes, we would be prepared to have

you come in." The only conclusion that I can draw is that they were a

little nervous about our getting too close to the manner in which those

funds were being distributed within the system. Interestingly enough,

one particular school district said: "No, you can come on in and have a

look." It was in the lower mainland: I won’t tell you the name of the

district, because I don't to make special education a football for

political purposes. Interestingly enough, though, we found the sum in

that district.... Of all the money that was put in, there was about

$300,000 which was not going to special needs but which was being

pushed into general instruction. So I repeat: in the area of special

needs the provincial government will do everything within its power to

ensure that those areas will be properly addressed.

In the North Shore we found a school district which, over the years,

has dropped down from something like 24,000 to 17,000 in student

numbers. There has been a significant drop. If we want to look at the

budget in the area, and the way the budgets were traveling, you'll find

out why something had to be done. I recognized one serious problem in

the North Shore, with respect to the funding of the district, and I'll

tell you what it involved. They had entered into an agreement involving

retirement of senior teachers. There was quite a bit of money; as I

recall, it was something around $700,000 or $800,000. They were unsure

as to how they were going to address it. That was funding that they had

committed. We have made a policy decision to assist all school

districts in this regard: that is, to allow boards to amortize the cost

of future severance, as well as severance costs incurred in the past,

over a period of three years. When I made that policy change, it gave a

considerable amount of relief. I suspect that the North Van school

board will take advantage of it.

On the issue of assessment, I understand what the member is saying.

The member raised this yesterday, I believe. I had a personal

conversation with the member as well. I told you that it was being

looked at, and in fact it is being looked at. We know that there is an

anomaly in the North Shore district. We're having some difficulty with

respect to the difference between the level of taxes paid in West

Vancouver and in North Vancouver. I concede that the member has a

point. As recently as 20 minutes ago I was talking to one of the

officials in the ministry and again raising the point that the member

had raised with respect to it. I believe that some of that may be

corrected this year. My object for the next year will be to resolve

that problem, because the whole object of

[ Page 5718 ]

this exercise is to bring equity. As for the

ability to pay, I think that in West Vancouver it would certainly equal

that of North Vancouver.

On the concept of assessment, that's the system which has been in

place for years and years. I recognize that assessments are promoting

inequity to a degree. Obviously the value of one's property reflects

the amount of taxation paid. That is a very important issue. The

question we have to ask ourselves is: do we eliminate that concept in

total and use perhaps a flat-rate tax, or any tax at all, with respect

to school purposes, or do we use the residential tax base? As I recall,

the member yesterday felt that no, the residential tax base should be

used and should make a contribution. The question really is a matter of

equity and the relationship of funding.

I suppose we live in an imperfect world. I am really at a loss as to

how that could be changed totally when we get into the area of

assessment. I do know that two-thirds of the school districts — that

is, the residents within the school districts in British Columbia — on

average pay no school tax at all. Obviously there are properties within

each school district which are more valuable and do in fact make a net

positive contribution. North Vancouver is a problem in this area.

With respect to the PTR to which the member referred, according to

my calculations it will be 18.8 for '85-86. The big argument which is

always advanced is that in '75-76 the PTR did not include the

accommodation of certificated staff to service special-needs students

who have been mainstreamed within the school. If you were to take out

the special-needs students in North Vancouver, the PTR for '85-86 would

be about 19.7. Including the special-needs students, it's 18.8.

On Capilano College, the cost of the campus to accommodate the

multi-campus concept was about $1.4 million in this year's budget. I

have not received from the college any really major concern with

respect to the campuses that the member has referred to. I believe one

is at Squamish and the other is at Sechelt. Correct? There was some

concern overall, and I mentioned in the House yesterday as well that

there is some nervousness about the multi-campus concept because it is

draining from the core campus.

The amount of money we have put into the college system — and it

seemed to be generally supportive.... I might make reference to the

fact that the former principal of Capilano College, Paul Gallagher, is

also one of the authors of this system — a very competent man who is

now the new principal of Vancouver Community College. He'll probably be

having more to say about this because I believe he is on the joint

committee with respect to it.

In the areas of math and science, the member advises that Capilano

College is heavy in these areas. If they are leading to people whose

employment opportunities are much better, I then leave to Capilano

College exactly the same offer that was made to all others: that is,

there is a $5.8 million fund. I would think Capilano College will be

coming in with a proposal as to how to use a part of that fund. Here's

the offer; you come back. That's been made to them, and I believe they

are probably addressing that area.

[12:00]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the Legislature,

during the debates on these estimated expenditures on education, my

colleague from Okanagan North made what I thought was a sincere,

genuine appeal to the Minister of Education to try to assure us that he

had some concept of what the policies of this government in the field

of education are doing to the schools in the province.

The MLA for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) has recently been in the

system. He has been in the classroom, he has communicated with

students, he knows what the situation is. He tried to point out

yesterday that while the minister is attempting to show that things are

really okay in education in this province, the measurement is within

that classroom. If you look at what is happening in the classrooms of

the province — and it may be difficult for the Minister of Education to

understand this, because he has probably not spent time in front of a

classroom — and you measure what is happening there, then you see very

clearly that there is a crisis in education in the province today.

That's the point that the MLA for Okanagan North was attempting to make

today, and that's the point that I hope I, too, can impress on the

Minister of Education.

Mr. Chairman, it's now at the stage where the quality of education

in British Columbia has deteriorated so much that it's going to be

years and years before we're going to be able to recoup and recover

from the blow that has been dealt education in British Columbia by this

government. It's not just in the public education system — kindergarten

to 12 — but also in colleges and universities. I know the universities

are not under the jurisdiction of this minister, but I can assure this

House that we do have a crisis. It stems from a government that is so

short-sighted that it is prepared to expend moneys on major

megaprojects while at the same time putting our education system in

crisis. It's tragic, because it's the children of the province — the

young people who are attempting to obtain an education, who are

attempting to be people in and of this society who make a significant

contribution in the future — who are being denied the right to develop

to their full potential. It is because of the attitude of this

government to education and the priority it sets for education.

I cannot understand how any government could be as short-sighted as

this one is in a field as important as education. They have taken a

very centralist approach. They've taken away the right of locally

elected officials to make decisions about education that affect the

areas in which they were elected. They have become very dictatorial:

laying down programs; interfering and ensuring that moneys that might

otherwise be made available to keep campuses, such as the one at

Parksville, open are not made available to keep them open. I'll have a

lot more to say about that in a few minutes.

I have never seen a teaching force as demoralized as B.C.'s is right

now. That means only one thing, Mr. Chairman: that the children of this

province are not being given the opportunity to have the education that

I think they deserve and that the people on this side of the House

think they deserve. There is no way that teachers can impart to

students a love of learning and an understanding of the issues that are

before them when they feel as demoralized as they do at this time.

School boards. I can never remember them, even back in 1971 and

1972, when education was a major issue in this province, being as

united in their opposition to what is happening to education. The

minister talks about his confidence that the school boards will toe the

line, that they will submit the proper budget at the right time, that

there won't be a problem. I'm not as convinced of that, Mr. Chairman. I

know the extent of some of the anger that exists on those

[ Page

5719 ]

boards as they try to do the best they can for education in the face of a government that does not put a priority on education.

The whole issue of education, and the debates that have been taking

place in this Legislature over the past week on this particular

subject, has not received the attention of the public or the press —

and it's because of the press that the public is not realizing what is

being said here and the concerns that are being expressed. I think it's

partly because the cuts have now gone on for so long that it's no

longer newsworthy that education is being dealt such a blow by this

government. It was more newsworthy about 18 months ago, when boards and

parents and teachers were realizing what this government was up to. But

because the cuts have been happening time and time again, it no longer

receives the attention that it should, because the damage that's being

done is going to take years and years to repair. I don't know that

we're ever going to recoup in many respects.

Unfortunately again, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that it's the young

people in the classrooms who are being dealt the severest blow, because

it's their future, as well as the future of this province, this country

and indeed this globe that depends on the education, understanding and

skills that we can give young people. We're depriving them. I don't

know how we can get this across to the people on the government benches

who are in charge of making the decisions that have been made in this

area — what the impact is. They're very short-sighted over there. We

have seen that time and time again. They don't look down the road. They

look only towards the next election, towards improving their image, and

towards the glamour and glitter of megaprojects, and it's at the

expense of young people in our classrooms.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, as I say, it's very difficult to impart

what's really happening to people who don't understand the situation,

who refuse to see what's happening, and who refuse to recognize the

damage that is being done in terms of the future of those children, of

the province, of the country and of the globe.

I'd like to spend some time talking about the colleges in my

constituency. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) just

brought to the attention of the minister that he felt there was some

injustice in the funding formula as it exists, because his particular

college has a number of campuses and he felt that the funding formula

was not being applied equitably and that his campuses were being denied

moneys which seemed to be going to other campuses. I can only echo what

he's saying. This government has been fiddling around with that funding

formula for colleges, and it's often to meet a political rather than an

educational need. I know that Malaspina College, which serves the

southern part of my constituency, and North Island College, which

serves the northern part, both have complaints about the funding

formula, the way it's applied. They wonder why there seems to be so

much decision-making based on a political rather than an educational

need.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let me elaborate on that. In the spring of 1984 they fiddled with the formula

again and brought in something known as the remoteness formula, which ensured

that X number of dollars would be available to colleges that had a central campus

and outlying campuses. Because there was a remoteness from the central campus,

there would be X number of extra dollars available. But lo and behold, North

Island College wasn't entitled to a penny, because they don't have a

central campus as such.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're going to change that.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I hope you change the formula to benefit

the campuses and the colleges within my constituency. That will be a

nice change, Mr. Minister, because at the moment they're at the short

end of the stick.

It was only when North Island College complained about the

remoteness formula and the fact that they weren't entitled to a single

penny that the minister did come up with some additional money. They

got an additional 2 percent, while colleges like Selkirk, for instance,

got an additional 15 percent under that formula. That's what happened.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, that's the case. The minister may not like

that, but that's what happened. They wouldn't have received a penny,

Mr. Chairman, if they had not asked for that additional money.

More recently they've had another change in the formula, with talk

about a multi-campus factor, which ensures that colleges like Okanagan

College get a significant amount of money, while Malaspina College,

although it has a multi-campus setup, was forced to close the campus at

Parksville. Malaspina College received additional money for the campus

over in Powell River, but the multi-campus factor provided no money for

the campus at Parksville. As a result, that campus has had to close.

I understand that I'm on my last two minutes on this. I have a

number of questions that I wish to pose, but I would like the minister

to give me information about that multi-campus formula that's now in

place and tell me why it does not apply to the Parksville campus. If

the minister would give me that information, then I have a number of

questions on campuses that I'd like to pose.

[12:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Before I get into the matter of the

multi-campus, I would like to make reference to North Island College.

It is a fact that the cost to operate North Island College is the

lowest cost of all of the colleges in the province. The reason it is

the lowest cost is because of the nature of the delivery of the service

which they are encouraging. Interestingly enough, North Island College

does not have a core campus.

The member might be interested in knowing that what I want to do is

try to establish a campus, hopefully in the Courtenay area. I'd like to

get started on that, because what bothers me is that I found in my

travels in that part of British Columbia that many students enrolled in

Courtenay and Campbell River for first-year programs were not

comfortable with the nature of the service offered, and the dropout

rate was very significant, particularly in first-year core programs,

primarily academic.

What I have met with is resistance from the board and administration. I want you to know that I disagree with the

[ Page 5720 ]

board and the administration, and I think the

member probably knows that. So what we're going to do, as time

progresses, is try to address that issue so that when somebody wants to

have first-year university, they'll have an opportunity to attend. We

can open, when it comes to pass, with seven or eight subjects — just

like the old grade 13 — in a college in a core area so there's onsite

delivery. That's what I would like to do, and that's what I have in

mind.

That's going to cost some money, but I think the member should be

aware that I have met some resistance to doing that. I have already had

two papers prepared. The board for North Island College knows how I

feel about it, and I have made that point to them very clearly.

On the multi-campus concept, we did provide Powell River with

funding for a campus. We did not for Parksville because.... There are

communities all over British Columbia that have in fact closed some of

these small satellite campuses which have really been a drain. The

Kootenays is a good example. There were three small campuses, and the

board decided: "Look, we just can't continue to afford to operate

these." In particular, although they may be desirable, it's a matter of

cost and where we are going to get the most value for the dollars which

are being spent.

The member has made reference to the government allegedly being

short-sighted. Well, you know, there's just a fundamental disagreement,

whether it's philosophical or not, between the members opposite and the

government. I think that on the long-range basis what we have done —

well, I know it — has been the right thing.

There may have been some pain as we have gone through this

three-year program; that I don't dispute. Nor do I dispute that the

school board in Courtenay has canvassed many options in order to try to

resolve the problem which they have meeting a compliance budget. I

recognize that.

But all I need to do is point out what was happening and I've said

this repeatedly.... When we found what the cost was and how it was

going up so rapidly.... And I don't put the blame for that on school

boards particularly. I don't put the blame on anybody. It was the

system, and I think the government over the years has been part of

allowing those costs to get out of control. It just so happened that

the time had come when we had to address the spiralling costs. Many of

them were built into the system, and in the good times the just kept

climbing and climbing, even with declining enrolments.

I point out again that as the enrolments declined, it just seemed

that we became very heavy with administration in many areas. Now it

seems that if we are to protect the system from exploding within, then

there have to be built in some control factors and accountability

factors. That's really what the new method of funding did.

The government did this over a period of three years with the

support of the School Trustees' Association on Bill 6, knowing full

well their budgets would be capped. As far as the allegation of

centralization is concerned, it is true when I comes to capping

budgets. That's not a question. I can see that right off the bat. As

far as allocations are concerned, I was always.... If you recall, Bill

6 was appropriately and properly amended to ensure that the boards had

control to allocate their budgets in the manner they deemed fit.

I have made over 20 amendments to the framework as a result of good advice which came from school officials.

MRS. WALLACE: Changing goalposts.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, the goalposts were not changed. Those

changes which were made were the result of requests, dialogue and

consultation which was carried on extensively, not just with the

ministry and within the ministry but with the people who were

responsible for delivery of the service in the field. This was done in

the fall of 1983. Budgets were then predicted for three years. The only

difference with the budgets is there's something like $30 million to

$35 million more.

So I can't accept the allegation that we were not looking at the

system from a long-range point of view. The object of the entire

exercise was to ensure that the moneys which were available — at least

the largest portion of them — would be in the classroom. I think that

point has been made often.

I recognize that the member has some other questions to ask, but the

last question raised is the one I close on now, and that is with

respect to the satellite campuses. Look, the whole concept of the

formula was not just generated within the ministry. It was generated

with all of the guidance and instruction of those people who were

involved in the colleges. You know, I can state without equivocation

that that concept was generated and supported publicly by college

administrators who felt that the way funding was going it was not

working well.

You remember when we had the Academic Council, the Occupational

Training Council and the Management Advisory Council — three levels of

bureaucracy. Now all of that is gone. What they in fact were doing,

that particular group of three, was acting as a buffer between

government and the colleges. They became nothing but recipients of

major lobbies — who is going to get in to cut up the pie. It's just not

necessary. The removal of those three bodies was advocated by the

college instructors' association, the association of colleges and the

administrators. What really surprised them was that they never thought

we would really bite the bullet and get rid of all three. That was told

to me by the college instructors. They didn't like what was happening.

I agreed with them. We eliminated it. It seems to me that there was

some degree of support from the opposition for that concept.

The concept of multi-campus is going to be subject to review again by the college

administrators and the ministry. I think we have to keep in mind, with the limited

number of dollars which are available for allocation to colleges, that we've

got to get the best value we can. I cannot attach every particular campus, because

some are really very small. I think they were taking away from what our true

objective ought to be: that is, a regional college. You can't have a small

campus.... In my riding, for example, there are areas where they want campuses.

There is no funding available under the multi-campus for a town of 6,500

people in my riding. They would like it. The college at New Caledonia had some

arguments with respect to funding not being made available, but I can see the

reasons for it. If I'm going to be responsible for putting out these particular

rules and regulattions, then it's going to affect everybody, you can rest

assured, including my own riding.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has said that a number of these

smaller satellite campuses were closed because they were a drain on the

system. I'd like to point out something to the minister at this time.

The campus at Parksville indeed is small — comparatively. The total

amount of money made available from Malaspina to keep that campus going

was $91,000. The

[ Page

5721 ]

campus itself had negotiated $106,000 worth of

income from the federal government for one program alone for

Parksville. Now where is the drain that he's talking about? There

certainly is not a drain on his budget....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The college board. You people have interfered

with that college board. You have not given them the opportunity to

keep that campus open in spite of the fact that people have attempted

time and time again to appeal to this ministry, to appeal through the

board itself to the officials in the Ministry of Education. They have

been told time and time again there will be no money for Parksville.

This money was for a specific program. This money was not for the

administration and for the other costs of that college. Mr. Chairman,

he talks about a drain on the system. Has he any idea of the impact of

the closure of a campus on a community like Parksville? I don't think

he does. What happens to those highly qualified people who were

teaching at that campus? They are not going to be able to get a job

within the community of Parksville. They are an asset to that

community. They are going to leave that community because they cannot

work.

Has he any idea of the impact that it has on a group of 30 mentally

retarded adults who were able to receive courses at the Parksville

campus and who were able to take their place in society and make some

contribution to the economy of the province through what they learned

through the campus programs? Those people are not going to be traveling

to Nanaimo in order to continue the education that they were embarked

upon. The courses aren't offered at Malaspina, for one thing.

We had a program developed through the college in conjunction with

the school board which ensured that counselling was made available and

an alternative program was made available for students who could not

fit in with the regular school system in School District 69. Those

people were given an opportunity to learn to perform, to fit in with

society. They were kept off the streets, and they finally had an

opportunity where they felt that they could play a part as well.

[12:30]

Programs like that ensure that those young people who are not

otherwise able to fit in are kept out of the jails of the province.

They are kept off the street and out of the jails. You're talking about

being a drain; there again, I'm pointing out how short-sighted this

government is. If you look at the impact on a community like

Parksville, on the people who were benefiting from the programs there,

if you look at the contribution made by the educators within that

system, then you can't talk about a drain. Then you recognize that the

only thing that the government understands is $91,000 out of a $9.2

billion budget, while it spends millions and millions of dollars on the

megaprojects they have undertaken.

I've written to the minister. I don't know if he has read the letter.

I've not heard back from him. I have written a special appeal to have the

minister interfere in the other direction this time. He's good at interfering.

I want him to interfere the other way, under this $12.6 million extra funding

that has been made available to colleges. I'm asking, on the basis of the

few points that I outlined just now, that the minister direct funds to ensure

that the Parksville campus is reopened. It was closed on March 31. There is

absolutely no reason why those programs cannot be reinstated, why that college

campus cannot be opened.

I've appealed to the minister to use some of this additional funding

to ensure that the impact that that closure has had on Parksville is

reversed. There are enough people lining up at the food banks in

Parksville, there's enough hardship there, without this kind of action

by government, which the minister terms a drain. He's looking at only

one thing. He's not looking at the service provided, the jobs provided,

and the benefits that flow from a campus like the campus at Parksville.

I hope he can give me a response to that. I have written to him, I have

appealed to him, and I hope he can consider this morning, even on the

basis of those few points, an assurance that that college campus is

reopened.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise some other things as well. Our

school district in the northern part of the constituency of Comox,

School District 71, was singled out for the SWAT team. They sent in,

with a lot of fanfare and publicity — cameras following them around and

a show of force from the provincial government....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Who brought the cameras?

MS. SANFORD: I have no idea who brought the cameras. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the people....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I did not, I have no idea who brought those

cameras in. I do know that a visit was made to the two school districts

involved on one day; it seems to me that if they were not interested in

getting any publicity that day, they would have gone into one of the

districts, done their job there and then moved on to the next district.

But that was not to be the case.

The report which resulted from the so-called studies that were made

in School District 71 has now been made available to the minister. But

I understand that the minister is not prepared to make it available to

the school trustees of School District 71. Is that correct?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's not correct. The reports will be made public, in other words. Thank you very much.

School board members were asked to appear, within four days, before

the people who were sent in on this SWAT team to make recommendations

about changes in the whole formula, the whole structure of the

district. As a result of that request, one of the school board trustees

wrote an extensive

article in the paper, explaining to the people of

School District 71 the impossibility of that particular request from

the provincial government. There is no way that a person who works full

time and has community responsibilities aside from the work that he

does on the school board can possibly come up with the kind of changes

and extensive analysis that was requested of the board at that time.

He poses within this

article a number of questions for the minister

and for the team itself, and I would like to read some of these into

the record. Referring to the team that was just sent in, he asks:

[ Page 5722 ]

" Have you thoroughly analyzed the energy conservation

program which our district proposed in February of 1982, which was

subsequently emasculated by the beginning of restraint? Can you tell

the minister how many more teachers the board would now be employing if

the original energy conservation program had been approved?"

Is that included within the report? Again, we're referring to the

short-sightedness and the adverse impact of the direction the

government has taken on education.

"Can you tell the taxpayers of this district how many

teachers' jobs have been lost because the Education minister decided

that it made more sense to cut out expenditure for energy conservation

than it did to take a scientific approach to managing the system?

"Can you make a rational judgment on the cost effectiveness of the administrative system used at Highland High School?"

Now there's a more local problem and a more local issue, but

nonetheless my guess is that that team did not undertake to analyze the

administrative systems that were used within the various schools in

order to report back to the minister.

"Have you gathered enough information to acquaint the

minister with all of the cost implications of having several hundred

thousand square feet of flat tar and gravel school roofs, years past

the life expectancy of that type of roof?"

Is that included in the report? What is that going to cost because those roofs are not repaired?

"I hope you have a footnote about the cost of repair

to structural damage caused by leaks which cannot be properly repaired

because the roofs should have been replaced long ago."

Is that included in the report on the cost-effectiveness of the way in which school boards operate?

"Why was School District 71 singled out in this

particular case? Is it because they embarrassed the minister with the

common-sensical approach that they took in introducing the Burns plan

formula, which eventually the minister rejected without really

understanding what it was all about?"

That became clear a few weeks ago during debates in this

Legislature. He did not understand. He didn't know whether it was an

unfunded liability or a contingent liability he was talking about, and

I doubt if he does now. He didn't understand, and he was surprised that

the unfunded liability that is presented to school boards every day of

the week is much greater through the system of sick leave for teachers.

That too is an unfunded liability, the same as the Burns plan would

have represented. In other words, there was no unfunded liability at

all, because that's been the accepted way of operating in this province

for years and years. Why was School District 71 singled out?

Within the school districts in the Comox constituency, we have the same problems

that a number of others have referred to: overcrowding, students sitting on

the floors because they cannot jam any more desks into a given classroom and

students who have to sit on the windowsills in lab facilities because there's

no more room in the lab for any more students to participate in the particular

lab experiments that are going on. We have very dangerous situations in the

various workshops within the school district because of the overcrowding and

the type of machinery and equipment that's being used. The Workers'

Compensation Board must have their hair standing up on end, when they look at

the situations in the schools in terms of any safety procedures. Of course, when

you cut back on the custodial services, you only make the problem worse.

But a particular situation exists with respect to split classes. I

don't know if the minister recognizes the problems that a split class

presents to a teacher. Within School District 71, for instance, there

are 28 classes with grade 2 students in them; of these, 17 of them are

split classes. That's a terrible situation in terms of a satisfactory

educational experience for those kids. I hope the minister can comment

on some of the issues I've raised.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the member would probably like to continue speaking.

The only thing that I would like to point out is on the PTR. The

1985-86 PTR is projected to be 17.9, which is well beneath the

provincial average. So I would take her comments with some degree of

reservation.

I can assure the member that the comments made with respect to why

any particular board was singled out.... We knew in advance that the

Courtenay School Board had done a considerable amount of work and had

considered a number of options. Why that particular board was selected

will, I think, be clear in time. I can assure you that there was no

particular reaction on my part to the fact that it emanated out of the

Burns plan; I'll tell you that now. The significance of that particular

plan, if you want to translate that provincially....

You and I had better agree to disagree right now, because you will

not accept what I'm going to say, so I won't even take the time to go

over it. I will tell you that the provincewide implication was in

excess of $90 million if all school districts took it, and you're doing

nothing more than deferring an obligation until the following year, and

then repeating it all the way down the line. You will disagree with

that, but I will tell you that the calculations proved conclusively

exactly what was going to happen.

[12:45]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report inestimable progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House Mr.

Dave Abbott. Mr. Dave Abbott is well-known as a broadcaster in British

Columbia. He has been in South Africa in recent years and has returned

to station CJOR. He will be starting on Monday doing live broadcasts in

Victoria back to our city of Vancouver. I ask the House to join me in

welcoming Dave Abbott.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I haven't seen him in years, Mr. Speaker. He looks younger than ever. Welcome home.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada