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)

MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5723 ]

CONTENTS

Applied Science Technology Act (Bill PR401). Mr. Reynolds

Introduction and first reading –– 5723

Oral Questions

Federal-provincial forestry agreement. Mr. Williams –– 5724

Trade and convention centre. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5724

Location of O'Keefe ranch. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5724

Resignation of Dr. Chad Gaffield. Mr. Nicolson –– 5724

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Blencoe

Okanagan tree-fruit industry. Ms. Sanford –– 5725

Commissioner of critical industries. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 5726

Pemberton flood. Hon. Mr. Pelton replies –– 5726

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5726

Mr. Lea

Mr. Rose

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Sanford

MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the

House today the British Columbia Social Credit Women's Auxiliary. They

have been attending a seminar this weekend and touring our building

this morning. Their president Donny Redding is with 35 other ladies. I

would ask the House to make them welcome to our Legislative Assembly.

MR. GABELMANN: In the gallery this afternoon are some

visitors from northern Vancouver Island representing teachers, trustees

and parents, here to visit some of us on education issues. From the

Vancouver Island North School District, Mr. Phil Imrie, Mrs. Lynn

Skrlac; from the Campbell River district, Richard Franklin, Coke

Pedersen and Ken Pedersen. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: One of our number has this to say about him

on this twenty-second day of April: check possessions, tighten

security, and don't forget to count your change. And I would like to

say, Mr. Speaker, buon compleanno al migliore amico membro per Atlin,

il piu giovane della Casa. Happy Birthday.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sitting in the members' gallery today is Mr.

Huang, the newly appointed consul-general for the People's Republic of

China in Vancouver, and Mr. Mah, consul for the People's Republic of

China in Vancouver. I would like the members to join me in welcoming

them here today.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a number of my friends in your gallery

today. Nan and Dianne Hartwick from West Vancouver are here with Martin

Kernahan and Michael Witt from Calgary. Also in your gallery are John

Leech, John Paterson and Ron Green, all of the Society of Engineering

Technologists, and one of their associates, Jim Bennett. I wish the

House would make them welcome.

On behalf of my colleague for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) I

would ask the House to make welcome people from his constituency, Bill

and Sue Grant and their children Douglas, Brian and Cheryl. Bill was a

Conservative candidate in the last federal election and also is a

director of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that in this

morning's paper I read that the Vancouver School Board is going to

cancel French immersion. With the same breath, I would like to say that

at the school they're talking about, Winston Churchill.... We are

hosting today from Winston Churchill a group of exchange students from

Quebec, in fact from the College of St. Bernard in Drummondville,

Quebec. Would the House please make them welcome?

Introduction of Bills

APPLIED SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY ACT

MR. REYNOLDS: I move that a bill intituled the Applied Science Technology

Act be introduced and now read a first time.

Mr. Speaker, the Society of Engineering Technologists of British

Columbia have been petitioning the government since 1975 for

legislation covering the registration of those practising in the

province as technologists and technicians. Registered under the

Societies Act since 1958, they have within the Iimits of that act

provided an invaluable service covering such areas as examination,

certification and accreditation.

Through the Applied Science Technology Act it is proposed to

establish a governing body to regulate standards of practice, establish

and maintain standards of professional ethics, regulate the right to

title and provide protection for the public. The applied science

technologist and technician is to be found today in every major and

emerging industry, in universities and research facilities, in health

care and in government services at all levels.

Our government has been funding the academic training of these

individuals in a wide variety of disciplines for many years through the

B.C. Institute of Technology and the community colleges. Employers

throughout the province have come to recognize the unique contribution

of these individuals in the fields of applied science.

I would point out to this House, Mr. Speaker, that similar

legislation has been recently enacted into law by the governments of

Ontario and Quebec, and indeed other jurisdictions are in the process

of doing so.

Over the last few years, the Society of Engineering Technologists

has spent a great deal of time with the Attorney-General's staff, with

various ministers and their staff, with representatives of industry and

education and with members of both sides of this House, to reach a

consensus. Having done that and published the required legal notices,

it is with great pleasure that I now table the Applied Science

Technology Act for first reading by this House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 42

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Michael

R. Fraser

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Schroeder

Davis

Mowat

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

Passarell

Reynolds

Veitch

Strachan

NAYS — 1

Lea

Bill PR401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing

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

[2:15]

[ Page 5724 ]

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FORESTRY AGREEMENT

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

Two federal Members of Parliament from British Columbia, Mr. McCuish

and Mr. Oberle, have confirmed that the federal-provincial agreement

with respect to funding the forestry agreement in terms of $300

million, $60 million a year, is ready for signature. In view of the

short season for tree planting, will the minister advise the House what

he thinks may be achieved by holding back on signing the agreement at

this stage?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's rather an open-ended question. The member asked me to advise what I think. It could be a very short answer, couldn't it?

Mr. Speaker, the matter of total ERDA funding must be resolved before any subsidiary agreements are signed. That's what I think.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise us whether he is proceeding with $60 million in expenditures in this fiscal year regardless?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Under the proposed forest management

agreement, which is to be signed with Ottawa when the time is

appropriate, the first year's expenditure amounts to $22 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a further question to the Minister of

International Trade and Investment. The two aforementioned MPs

indicated that $50 million in federal funding was available under these

programs last year but that the government of British Columbia simply

blew it and wasn't prepared or ready to proceed with agreements. Can

the minister confirm that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll take the member's question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Along with many others.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In due course.

TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTRE

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question to the Minister of Tourism.

Has the minister been made aware of the situation in Vancouver where

valuable convention business is being lost to the economy of the lower

mainland because of a squabble, involving the provincial government,

over who is going to pay the operating costs of the convention centre?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the

question was really a statement, and more a matter of opinion.

Secondly, the responsibility for the convention centre in Vancouver

clearly lies with the federal government.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the

responsibility is also federal. However, in view of the fact that

convention business creates jobs and incomes for the residents of this

province, what steps has the minister taken to help settle this matter?

It's both a federal and a provincial concern.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, we're very much aware of what

the convention business means to this province. We have a full-time

convention manager in my ministry doing nothing but looking after

conventions for the entire province. Secondly, we have yet to be

approached by the federal government, who are the people in authority

on the convention centre.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, the recently published Gladstone

report prepared for Canada Harbour Place shows — and I'm sure the

minister is aware of it — that $1.5 million a year will accrue to the

province from increased hotel room and liquor sales taxes if the

convention centre goes into full operation. Has the minister decided,

in light of these facts, to balance this review against operating funds

which may be required from the province to attract the convention

business to the lower mainland?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are very much

aware of the value of the convention business to the province. I'm sure

that in due course we and the federal government will be sitting down

and talking about it.

LOCATION OF O'KEEFE RANCH

MR. MacWILLIAM: I do hope it's soon, Mr. Minister.

Another question to the Minister of Tourism: on April 15, 1985, Maclean's

magazine carries an advertisement signed by the minister for visitors to the

O'Keefe ranch in the Okanagan. The location of the ranch is identified in

the ad as "just north of Kelowna." Has the minister decided to consult

a map of British Columbia, which shows plainly that the O'Keefe ranch is

slightly north of the town of Vernon, rather than the town of Kelowna?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the particular

ad in question, but I'm sure that the member would agree that the ad is

not incorrect, but it could be just a little more precise. I'm sure

that I will be bringing that to the attention of those who prepared the

ad. I happen to know very well where the O'Keefe ranch is.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Will the minister please advise the House whether this ad was placed by the firm of McKim Advertising Ltd.?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I haven't seen the

particular ad, but I would imagine that it was, as they are the agency

of record for the Ministry of Tourism.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In light of the information which the

minister has just received, I wonder if the minister would decide to

place a further ad clarifying the actual location of the O'Keefe ranch.

Or has the minister decided that the town of Vernon no longer exists?

RESIGNATION OF DR. CHAD GAFFIELD

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. On Wednesday

[ Page 5725 ]

last Dr. Chad Gaffield, head of the Vancouver

Island Project, resigned his position at the University of Victoria and

cited official distrust, misconceptions and confusion created by the

government of British Columbia. When is the government going to

recognize and acknowledge the message which is being delivered by a

growing number of top-notch academics who are resigning and leaving

this province in protest?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I know of no resignations in

protest. The only ones I'm familiar with are those where academics have

left either for a promotion or for a raise in salary. We should always

be disappointed when our better academics are being recruited, but I

have suggested to the universities that one of the moves they could

make is to match the salary offers of the other institutions, because

of course the universities are free to use their government grant in

any fashion which they choose. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the

academic community is an international one. We recruit people into

British Columbia, frequently by offering the individuals concerned

promotions and improvement in salary over their current positions, and

we should anticipate that a certain amount of that will work in reverse.

MR. NICOLSON: Apparently last Wednesday the minister told Bob

Gillingham that the matter was too trivial for him to comment on. I'd

like the minister to answer a question. It's a quotation: "It is in the

past four years, after so many top educators departed the province,

that British Columbia has slumped to bottom place in the nation." I

would ask the minister if he could answer this question: who was the

author of that not-so-trivial question?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea.

Perhaps the member could help me out. But certainly whoever it was could not

have been referring to British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll answer the question. That was from page 37 of Politics in Paradise.

HON. MR. McGEER: We had a minister that would have made all the difference.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary to the minister. While all these

things were going on in the minister's ministry last week, we

understand he was in Texas. Could the minister tell the House what

government business he was doing in Texas, in relation to his portfolio?

HON. MR. McGEER: One of our ministry's major activities is to

attempt to recruit into British Columbia high technology industries.

There are industries around the world that are growing extremely

rapidly. If British Columbia can get its share of that growth, it will

do more than almost anything we could achieve to alleviate our

unemployment problem and to build a more secure industrial future for

our province. I visited four high-technology companies, all of which

are growing in the Dallas area. One of them will be coming to British

Columbia, and I hope others as well.

MR. BLENCOE: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, following

up the resignation of Dr. Gaffield. The Vancouver Island Project, the

minister may be aware, is a research project funded through the Canada

Council which carries the support of municipalities up and down the

Island. Many of them have indicated incredible support for the project.

Has the minister indicated his concern about the loss of the

co-director of the Vancouver Island Project?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, I haven't expressed my concern on that particular issue up to this moment.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary. The municipalities have praised

the work of Dr. Gaffield and his colleagues in cataloguing and

organizing municipal records, which are extremely useful for new

industries and new opportunities for jobs and employment. Many

businesses are utilizing them when they move to Vancouver Island. What

steps has the minister taken to recover or replace the federal funding

that has financed this important project up to this point?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, no steps to do so have been taken as of this moment.

OKANAGAN TREE-FRUIT INDUSTRY

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Agriculture and Food. The minister surely is aware that among B.C.'s

financially troubled farmers, fruit growers in the Okanagan area are

perhaps the most desperate. Approximately one-half of their income is

derived from provincial and federal stabilization programs, and at

least 60 orchards in the Okanagan are up for sale. Can the minister

assure the House that under the long-awaited ERDA agreement a

significant increase in funds for the construction of more

controlled-atmosphere storage plants in the Okanagan will be made

available?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm awaiting with great

expectancy the signing of the ERDA agreement. The province's share of

that agreement is $325 million. We're expecting a matching number of

dollars, for a total of $650 million under the ERDA umbrella agreement.

The amounts that have been designated are clearly visible in the budget

for the province. I wish it was as clearly visible in the federal

budget as well, and then I could announce today the signing of the

entire agreement.

[2:30]

MS. SANFORD: Can the minister assure the House that

negotiations, at least during the negotiations with the federal people

under the agricultural sector of the ERDA agreement, have taken place

with respect to additional funding for those much-needed storage plants

in the Okanagan?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The industry itself has been anticipating the completion

of these agreements. Applications, as I understand it — I don't have them

on my desk, but as I understand it — are being entertained and considered as

they arrive.

MS. SANFORD: I still didn't get an answer to my question, but I'll try again.

The age and quality of many of the orchards in the Okanagan prohibit the production of premium-grade apples.

Since the elimination of the long-term planting loans under the ALDA

program, the amount of orchard replanting has dropped off sharply. Has

the minister decided to address a

[ Page 5726 ]

serious structural problem in the tree-fruit industry by restoring long-term, fixed-interest orchard replanting loans?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The ALDA program is still in place, and

applications are being received under the ALDA program. Sufficient

applications have already been received for this year, so that no

further applications can be entertained. However, the ALDA program is

in place.

COMMISSIONER OF CRITICAL INDUSTRIES

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wish to respond to a question taken

earlier on notice in the oral question period. On Thursday, April 11,

and Friday, April 12, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) posed

questions with respect to the newly appointed commissioner of critical

industries, Mr. Art Phillips. On page 5594 of the printed Hansard the member for Nanaimo is quoted as saying:

also said he considered the forest industry to be a sunset industry in

the province. Yet forests is one of the two main industries that this

commissioner is supposed to be helping.

Mr. Speaker, in effect I took the question on notice. I've obtained

a transcript of Mr. Phillips' full statement before the MacDonald royal

commission on June 12, 1984. He did not make such a comment about the

forest industry. In fact Mr. Phillips, in that statement, did not

mention the forest industry.

PEMBERTON FLOOD

HON. MR. PELTON: I would also like to respond to a question

taken on notice earlier. A question was asked by the hon. member for

Cowichan–Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) concerning the Pemberton flood. I would

just like to respond that 400 claims have been filed; these claims

totalled $3,643,829.89, and 277 claims have been paid. The total amount

claimed on these 277 claims was $3,203,829.89, and the amount paid was

$2,622,834.77.

Orders of the Day

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. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I met with the Prince Rupert School Board yesterday, and I took along with me a copy of Hansard,

which outlined the minister's responses to the questions I asked on

behalf of the school board. When I arrived, the trustees looked

frustrated and, in fact, indicated to me that they were frustrated and

that their morale is at an all-time low. When I gave them the copy of Hansard,

I can tell you that that feeling of frustration took on a higher

degree, because now they don't have any idea how they're going to

budget in the future.

There is one other question that I'd like to ask the minister. The Prince

Rupert School District has had its foot in the door with the ministry for some

time in terms of money for a new high school. If I am not mistaken, the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) indicated earlier that there would be some freeing

up of moneys available for school construction in the province. As the Prince

Rupert School District has been at the top of that list for some time, I'd

like to ask the minister some questions.

Firstly, is there going to be capital made available for a new high

school in Prince Rupert? If so, when? How can the Prince Rupert School

District go about getting that capital? They've asked your ministry a

number of times, and all they're told is that they're high up on the

list, but there's nothing available. If my understanding of the

Minister of Finance's statement is correct, there is money available

now. Prince Rupert has been on the top of the list for some time. I

wonder if the minister could tell me what that situation is all about

at the moment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the capital budget has not

been concluded yet. There is money in the capital budget for both major

and minor projects, and I have not yet concluded the allocation for

this year. When I visited the Prince Rupert School Board, there were

two projects, as I recall. One involved the high school, for which they

have already expended — I'm going from memory — around $1.4 million

with respect to planning. This was some time ago.

The second school is an elementary school that is being serviced by

some portables. I believe the school is called Pineridge Elementary

School. I am aware of the concerns which they have expressed. I repeat,

the allocations have not yet been determined, but I am aware of the

concerns which have been expressed, both by the board and also by the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

Maybe when this has been concluded.... I may have more to say later

on, but I can't do it right now because it's not yet concluded.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if the minister

would pay some personal attention to this matter and not just leave it

up to the ministry. I think there are some circumstances there that

need to be addressed.

If this money isn't available for a new high school, the Prince

Rupert School Board has no other choice but to start spending money on

some existing schools, which in their opinion and in my opinion would

be throwing good money after bad. Probably the new high school would be

somewhere in the order — and this is a ballpark figure — of about $10

million. They have spent a little over $1 million in property

acquisition and other matters already. But if that money is not

available for a new high school, they are left with no other choice but

to start spending money on some of the old school buildings that are

presently there. I know they don't want to do that. They're talking of

close to $4.5 million that they would have to spend. Then after having

spent it, they would be paying for the maintenance costs of an old

building. Over a period of amortization, that obviously wouldn't be the

most sensible way to go.

The ministry has recognized that Prince Rupert should be high on the

priority list in terms of a new high school. If it is not forthcoming,

after the budget is put together, your ministry is going to have to

spend a lot of money to bring those old schools up to a point where

they can continue to be used. I believe it would just be an absolute

waste of money. You're better to go the extra mile and to spend that

money on a new high school, because over a period of time, it will be

the most economic way you can go; it will be the best solution for the

[ Page

5727 ]

students and the best solution for the community.

So if the decision is not to build the high school, the decision will

still have to be to spend money, and it will be money ill-spent. I'd

like to ask the minister what advice he's getting at the moment in that

regard.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't receiving any counsel on this. The question which I asked....

I want to be clear on whether or not I heard you correctly. You made

reference to an amount of $10 million. Then you made reference to an

amount of $4.5 million. The figure which I recall the school board

advancing to me for the high school portion alone was something in the

order of $4.5 million. But if you are suggesting that a new high

school.... Maybe I didn't hear you correctly, but if you're suggesting

that there should be a $10 million expenditure in Prince Rupert, that

would probably eat up more than 50 percent of the available money for

major capital projects. So I would have some difficulty, if that was

the correct figure. If the amount to which you refer is $4.5 million,

is that the amount which is going to be required for renovations only

of the existing high school?

MR. LEA: I'd have to go back over my files to get the exact

figures. I believe what I said is correct, and you understood it

correctly. But I'll go back over my files and get that information to

you so that we know absolutely what we're talking about.

You've just thrown a bombshell. If Prince Rupert were to take $10

million of the total provincial budget, and that $10 million were half

of the capital that's going to be available for school construction,

we're in real rough shape.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I said "major capital

projects." There are a number of projects available in the schools

budget. Some involve renovations; others are of a minor nature; others,

the way they're classified, are expenditures involving $1 million or

under. Many schools can be constructed for that amount of money. When

I'm referring to major capital, I'm talking about items where the price

tag per project is over $1 million, and all the way up.

MR. LEA: I wonder if we could leave it this way, Mr.

Chairman: that the minister would undertake to have his staff get in

touch with the secretary-treasurer, Mr. Lien, of the Prince Rupert

School District, and nail those figures down. Their problem is that if

they don't know soon what choices they have.... They have to make a

choice. If they're going with the new high school, then they're not

going to do some renovations. But if they don't know.... My question to

them was, " You'd almost rather have a 'no' than not know, " and they

said: "Yeah, because we can't do any planning whatsoever." Every time

they go to the ministry they get no answer, and they don't know where

they stand.

The time is coming shortly that if they don't know about the capital for

the new school, they're going to have to go ahead with renovations. I think

that would be a pity, because the renovations would just be throwing money down

the tube in terms both of what you're left with after the money's been

spent and the ongoing maintenance costs, which are going to be very high compared

to what a new building would be.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I can advise the member that

it probably won't be necessary to contact the secretary-treasurer, Mr.

Lien, although I'm quite prepared to ask them to. You see, the

correspondence which we have — and I have looked at parts of it for the

new high school in Prince Rupert — is that deep. They're well aware of

all of the figures. We recognize that. We can't turn around and point

fingers at the ministry, saying that they don't know; the ministry

requires money for going either particular route, whether it's new

capital construction to complete a $10 million project or a renovation

job for $4.5 million. The ministry will follow the direction of

government. The question that then comes up is the availability of

funding, and that's it. But I recognize your concern, and we'll have a

look at it. That's all I will mention to you at this time.

[2:45]

MR. LEA: Okay. There are some other matters, but they're smaller and I'll get in touch with the minister by letter.

I would just like to share with the minister the feeling I got from

that meeting with the school board. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman,

that for all intents and purposes it is a non-partisan school board.

There are people on that school board who provincially have their own

politics, both Social Credit and NDP, but for all intent and purposes

it is in its deliberations a non-partisan school board, at the school

board level.

I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, that they are a very frustrated group

of school trustees. I have never seen anything like it. I wonder to

myself why they stick it out. I admire them for sticking it out.

They've had all of the decision-making processes taken away from them.

They are there only to administer dictums coming from the ministry, the

minister's office and the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Victims.

MR. LEA: It's worse than being victims. At least a victim can

understand who's victimizing him. They are frustrated. They feel a

sense of uselessness. They don't have any information to make

decisions. They can't put their budgets together. It is a very serious

situation. When the whole world is talking about decentralizing the

decision-making process, about local decisions being made at the local

level and about local decision-making groups having the authority to

meet the desires and the needs of their neighbours at the local level,

and it's being taking away, it is a frustrating emotional experience

for those school trustees,

I know it's easy for the minister to point at a school board and

say: "Well, it's all political, because they're all NDPers on that

school board. It's a political reaction I'm getting out there." It is

not a political reaction that the minister is getting out there. They

are dedicated school trustees dedicated to bettering education in this

province, and the tools for them to do their job have been taken away

from them. They've been told: "We can't trust you" — not in those

words, but the actions say that. They've been told that they're

irresponsible.

For instance, in Prince Rupert, where you have probably the most

inexperienced teaching staff in the province, the per capita cost of

teachers is the lowest in the province because of the turnover. At the

same time that they are faced with that, they have to face the costs of

professional development because of the newness of the teachers in the

system, and it's not there.

[ Page 5728 ]

1 think the minister would be well advised if he, even at this

point, were to go into a system of consultation with the school

trustees that is meaningful, were to at this time start giving them

back some of the powers that they had, and in fact were to give them

powers at the local level that they've never had before. It's needed.

I think that this government is going to be surprised when they find

out how deep-rooted the desire in this province is for decentralization

of government. I don't think they have any idea, but I think it's going

to come back to haunt them as we go down the political road.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't planned on speaking at this

juncture, but something that the member for Prince Rupert mentioned

sort of provoked and stimulated me, because he asked the question of

the school boards: why do they stick it out? I've asked that question

myself. As a matter of fact I've even offered some gratuitous advice

that they shouldn't — that they should just give it all back to the

ministry. All they're acting as right now is sort of local punching

bags for all the ills, failures, controversy and dissent around a

declining school system, one that's falling apart because of morale

problems, class size problems and the rest of it.

But, while I've never said it publicly before, I think my advice

would be wrong. I think they've got to stick it out, because I think

they're the only board of any public body left in the province that's

capable of supplying any kind of dissent. Dissent has been

systematically removed from hospital boards. Dissent has been

systematically removed from college boards. And now the local school

boards are the only ones left that can speak up against some of the

misguided invasions by this juggernaut of a government. So I think we

owe them a great deal of gratitude for standing in there, for being

scapegoated and browbeaten for all these months and years. And yes, if

they can stand it till the sunset laws.... If they don't sunset before

this sunset law, then I would think that they should be congratulated.

They're the only ones left.

Do you hear any dissent out of the college boards? They're all

appointed. Now the minister is going to get up and say: "Well, they

were appointed before." At least half of their members were elected

indirectly through the school boards. College cuts over the last three

years, counting this year, will amount to roughly 43 percent. I'm not

going to go into the college problem at this point, because I can speak

long and perhaps loudly, and I think I am reasonably well informed

about it, but that's not the point. The point is that throughout all

this I have never heard from one college board. I've had school board

delegations from all over the province — not necessarily, as the member

for Prince Rupert mentioned, just members of my party. But I think

they're as entitled to be on school boards and municipal councils as

any other group of citizens. That's not the point.

It isn't a dark kind of plot, except to get rid of dissent. There's

where your conspiracy is. It's nowhere else but there. Directive after

directive after directive to people — they don't know where they are.

Budget after budget after budget — they don't know where they are.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) also asked a question — I

believe it was last Monday or Tuesday — about what he should tell his

board when he went to see them. My board is meeting tonight. They're

meeting in a public meeting, because people are interested. They are

coming out to school board meetings in droves all over — something like

150 or 200 in Nanaimo two weeks ago. I'd like to

ask the minister what I should tell my board in terms of advice on how

they should proceed, because we are in a virtual tanglefoot of

misleading and contradictory legislation and directives.

Here's the problem. I know the Social Credit government wants larger

classes, and I know they want to downsize education. They want teachers

to be fired: that's their aim. They've got to cut it down to the 1976

levels. I think they're going to get the class size to 1972 levels, but

that's only an estimate. Will the minister please tell the boards how

they get around if a school board has to lay off teachers? They can't

do it under the School Act, because there's no provision under the act

for laying off teachers.

I want the minister to listen carefully to this. He may have heard

this song before. You know the song; you also know the answer. You know

it in every key, I suppose. They can't fire teachers, because there's

no provision under the School Act. They can't do it under

section 2 of

the Public Sector Restraint Act or Bill 3, because the layoff has to be

in accordance with the regulations, and after two years the government

has failed to draft any regulations. So the school boards are in a

little spot there. But the boards may have to fire teachers to meet the

Education minister's budget target under the Education (Interim)

Finance Act, but they may not have enough teachers on staff to comply

with the Finance minister's directive.

I know this may sound somewhat confusing to the gallery — not only

to the gallery; it sounds confusing to the boards. There is a Finance

minister's directive of '86, so they may get hit with a fine with the

government in a combined role of judge and jury and prosecution and

executioner, and there is no provision for defence counsel under the

Socred system. They may not be able to pay salary increments. If they

do pay salary increments it could put them over budget, and if they

don't then they are in violation of a contract with their own teachers.

Here we have it: a symphony of ad hockeries. It really is — a silly

symphony. So what do you tell the boards? Here they've got a contract

with their teachers. It's been approved, a raise has been approved by

the Compensation Stabilization Commission, the celebrated Ed Peck.

After going through all this stuff, spending a million and a half on

arbitrations, we're told overnight, in the dead of night almost, that

that no longer counts, and they have to come under some other kind of

formula. It's all at public expense: SWAT teams, BRAT teams,

arbitration board chairmen. If this were a work of fiction, it would be

rejected by the publishers as being too farfetched, unrealistic.

Anyway, my board meets tonight. I know they have been one of the

dissenting boards, but it wasn't just the New Democrats on those boards

who were dissenting, everybody was — everybody, of all political

stripes, from the right to the left; I might even say from the far

right to the far left. I know that the minister has his views on this,

but what are we going to tell them about this? What should we tell them

to do tonight so they're not going to be in defiance of some particular

provision, some kind of law? It seems to me an impenetrable jungle of

laws, and the school boards have got to grapple with this at the same

time they have to deal with a declining budget and, in some cases —

notably Surrey's — an increasing enrolment.

If the minister can convince me and can clarify the matter for me, then I'll be able to phone the school board and tell

[ Page

5729 ]

them that the minister has given his word that this

and this is the action that they should take to solve this particular

problem. They know what actions they should take to solve their local

problems, but they're forbidden by law to carry out those functions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the one item the member has

raised with which I agree involves the matter of termination or layoff.

I'm very much aware of that, and I have been in discussions with the

B.C. School Trustees' Association executive. Some boards, as a matter

of fact, have outlined in detail what they believe the difficulty to

be. I have already advised the BCSTA that the appropriate measures will

be introduced into the House, and I've so advised the superintendents

at a meeting ten days or so ago. It's something which boards and their

managers require, and I recognize it. What's really happening, from

what I can understand, at least from the point of view of the managers,

is that they are having some difficulty securing an exemption

agreement. If they're not going to be able to enter into an exemption

agreement under Bill 3, then they've got a problem because there's no

provision under the School Act. So that matter has got to be addressed;

and I want to advise you, Mr. Chairman, that it will be addressed, and

soon.

MR. ROSE: Is the minister's reply to my next question likely to be "in due course, " if I ask for any details here?

[3:00]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not a matter of "in due course." Why

it has to be brought in is that for a school board that does not have

an exemption agreement under Bill 3, there is now no provision to

effect terminations if they are necessary. There's the additional

problem that so many days' notice is required under the agreement;

therefore it's incumbent upon government to bring in a correction as

soon as possible — and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that that is the

case — so that we can assist the board to manage that particular item.

MR. ROSE: Is it the minister's view that that will solve the

problem? You can arrange it here by legislative termination, all right.

It still fulfils the government's aims; it lets the school boards off

the hook; but does it go beyond that? What about the situation where

the school board, through controlling a budget and effectively

terminating, falls below the particular formula for that district in

terms of numbers of teachers and their per-teacher costs? If they

don't, they could go under budget, break a contract; if they do the

reverse, they go over budget and incur a deficit and risk the kind of

punishment that was meted out to Delta.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The fundamental thrust of the Treasury

Board directive was to preserve jobs for teachers at the low end of the

scale. I felt that it was wrong that compensation increases should be

made by boards if they did not have the ability to pay and then would

end up laying off the young teachers, when in fact there's no need to

cause that type of anxiety, particularly when government has been

saying for months and months that there is not any money for wage

increases for '85-86.

1 think it makes eminent sense to introduce to the compensation

stabilization office two levels for the purposes of determining whether

or not a board has the ability to pay increases. Number one is the

ability to pay, and number two is the level of service which was

determined, being the numbers which were appended to the schedule. If

in fact the existing numbers are beneath that particular number, then I

think that they ought to be comfortable; there are presumably no

increases to be paid for the year. We know exactly where the

compensation guidelines, which were amended some time ago, lay: that

the ability to pay is paramount, and it takes into consideration both

increments and wage increases.

MR. ROSE: The minister knows full well that he controls the ability to pay, because he puts the cap on salaries.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On the budget.

MR. ROSE: It amounts to the same thing. He still begs the

question. Why did the government allow the public to spend a million

and a half bucks on arbitration, and why was the directive done through

the Minister of Finance when the House wasn't even in session? It came

through a directive rather than regulations, which could have been

debated right here. It's the same kind of furtive behaviour that we've

seen for two years.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know, I like to see the member get

exercised about the fact of arbitration. You know as well as I do that

arbitrations have been going on ad infinitum — for years and years.

Arbitrations are voluntary, yet tell me.... I can never forget that

when I first came into the ministry, there were so many agreements that

could have been entered into voluntarily, but, no, they weren't

prepared to do so. It was: "Go to arbitration; we might be able to get

more by arbitration." Knowing full well that the CSP office is in place

to review the arbitrated awards and knowing full well what the averages

were, everybody was told to go to arbitration. Even the local teachers'

associations that were prepared to enter into an agreement.... What

happened to them? The directive comes from the BCTF. The executive

says: "Go to arbitration." I read their whole campaign to you the other

day — the unbargaining issues, the unbargaining year.

MR. ROSE: My final question is.... I've said that three times to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

I wonder if the Minister of Education might enlighten the House on

why the settlements on teachers are bound to 1 percent and 2 percent

and the decisions take six months to come from Mr. Peck, when the CUPE

settlements are around 3 percent to 5 percent and decisions are made on

them in two weeks. If that has been the pattern, is that something that

suggests that Mr. Peck and his commission are beyond arm's length of

the government? Quite frankly, I don't believe it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I honestly cannot respond to

the comment with respect to if, in fact, it occurs with respect to the

variation on CUPE contracts. I suspect there may have been a contract

which was for perhaps two or three years, and that contract was put to

bed. With respect to teachers, the CSP officer, Mr. Peck, told us in

the two decisions that came from Howe Sound and Surrey.... They were

decisions, not awards. He said: "I have to wait until after April 20 or

up to May 1 so that I know the exact amount of money within school

board budgets. It's then that I will know, not before." Do you know why

he said that?

MR. ROSE: Ability to pay.

[ Page 5730 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No. Ability to pay is part of it, but I'll

tell you why I think he really said it. We thought that we would

monitor some of the arbitration hearings, and it's done as a matter of

course to hear the arguments which are being advanced from both sides.

Items that constantly came up were the positions taken by the advocates

on behalf of the teachers, which were: "Just a minute, don't...."

They'll put in evidence indicating that there's more money coming: "You

see what happened last year or the year before. They've made a change

to the framework."

In accepting the recommendations coming from school districts, we

made a number of changes over a period of a year and a half. They were

good changes, something that they wanted. I agreed with them, and made

the changes to make it a better system.

Some of those changes involved funding, so the CSP commissioner was really

in a position to either accept or reject the argument advanced on the ability

to pay. There were times when he said: "Just a minute now. The advocates

before the arbitration panel are saying that more and more is coming. I'm

going to wait until May 1" And that's his own decision.

MR. LEA: I guess when another question is asked in this discussion, it leads to more.

I'd just like to share something with the minister. He possibly

already knows. The Prince Rupert School District put in a compliance

budget. They were able to do that because they decided that in order to

put in a compliance budget there were certain things that they wouldn't

do this year. For instance, they're not going to replace any inventory

in supplies; they're going to let their inventories run down, and

they're not going to purchase any new books for the library system.

They're going to make a compliance budget work by cutting down in those

kinds of areas. They say: "I guess for a year we can get away with it.

But next year what happens?" The percentage increases that are going to

have to be there to bring it back to standard are going to be

incredible. Then the finger is going to be pointed at them. But the

only way that they're able to reach a compliance budget is to make

those kinds of shifts and those kinds of cuts.

Following up on what the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said,

when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) issued his directive in

terms of education, he said: "There will be no pay raise for teachers

in 1985-86 because we are not going to allow the system to deteriorate"

— if the teachers take no raise, the implication being that the same

amount of teachers could be in the system next year as were in the

system last year or this year. What I'd like to ask the minister is:

now that the teachers' wages have been frozen — the implication being

in the directive from the Minister of Finance that if that were done

there wouldn't have to be any terminations — why does the minister have

to bring in an amendment to this House to make it possible to fire

teachers? It doesn't make sense.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The statement which I believe the member for Prince

Rupert refers to, I don't think, is quite accurate, because the Minister

of Finance said in his press release, as well as at the press conference when

he announced the Treasury Board directive, that this does not mean to say that

there will not be some layoffs. I can remember reading that in the press release.

The reason that there has to be an amendment brought in to

accommodate layoffs, certainly for some school districts, is that there

is no vehicle now. Now it may very well be that they are going to be

okay in Prince Rupert. I noticed when I was there that they were the

envy of all the school districts across the northern line because they

had so much money in their surplus account that they could roll over

and push in.

MR. LEA: I guess they wish they hadn't now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Why? They've taken it to full advantage.

As a matter of fact they were pleased and ought to be complimented for

being able to build up that kind of reserve, and they were pleased that

we as a government agreed to allow school districts to roll surpluses

forward from year to year to reward good management. It involved

provincewide, depending on the year, anywhere between $10 million and

$25 million a year. That's a fair amount of money.

It certainly became very evident during the fiscal year 1984, and it

also became quite evident in helping the school boards during the

transition period of January to June 1985. As a result of allowing the

surpluses to roll, it eliminated in almost all cases disruption over

Christmas. It seems to me that there are some advantages in that area.

So it may not, as far as any right to require termination is

concerned, be required in your school district, but it certainly is

required in a number of others. I am responding in this case to a

request being made by the BCSTA, the Association of British Columbia

School Superintendents and the British Columbia School District

Secretary-Treasurers' Association. It seems to me that when I receive a

message like that from three bodies, all involved with school boards

one way or another, I've got to listen to what they are saying and

provide them with the vehicle which they need.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

MR. LEA: I read an editorial not long ago talking about

restraint. It said there are two ways to deal with restraint: the

correct way and the incorrect way. The correct way is to go out and

consult and talk with all the user groups, and to find out what their

priorities are; you put teams in the field and you do it in a

consultative way. That's the proper way. It said the improper way is to

take 5 percent across the board from everybody. The editorial ended up

saying: "...and I'm in favour of the improper way."

[3:15]

Having watched this government's experience with the way they've

tried to do it, I think maybe the government would go along with the

editorialist at this point. Probably everybody and every budget could

have found 5 percent of fat that could have been cut out of the system

with no problem. Probably everybody could have done that, and it could

have been done that way if the government hadn't wanted to make brownie

points with the restraint program. If they had just wanted to achieve a

purpose, it could have been done.

There are people's reputations that I believe have been ruined over

this government's ineptitude in dealing with restraint. I think you

would hardly find anyone in the province who doesn't believe that there

had to be some restraint measures put into government. With less

revenues coming into the province it's obvious that you have to

reassess your spending. But the way the government has done it has

created nothing but havoc in this province. I would say

[ Page

5731 ]

that this minister's reputation as a Minister of

Education has been thoroughly ruined. Any respect that he may have

enjoyed from school trustees or teachers has been lost forever, and I

strong suspect that the minister himself knows it has been a

disastrous, stupid way to deal with the educational system. I believe

that no one can go through this kind of exercise and come out of it

thinking it was done the proper way. It has been unthinking, unfeeling

and detrimental to education.

You see, the government first felt that as long as they kept the

attack on the teachers, everything would be all right. We have to be

honest. We know that the feeling out there against teachers isn't

great. It's very difficult for people who have lost their jobs to run

into somebody who is making $40,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year and not

have a very human thing happen to them: they resent it, especially when

it's taxpayers' money. That's a fact. But to take advantage of that

resentment is immoral, and that's what this government has tried to do.

The fact is that in this budget the major grants from the provincial

government to school districts have decreased by $25 million, not

including inflation. If you take a look at those cute little accountant

entries in vote 19, you can be led to believe otherwise, but I've had

professional accountants look at it. It's cute, but it's bull; the $10

off one and added to another to make the totals look different is cute,

but nothing more. There's $25 million less — not including inflation —

going into the school system this year. Do you agree with that?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right. Mind you, the casual observer reading

vote 19, without knowing the cute little accountant's trick, would

actually have thought there was an increase, and it was sent out all

over the province. It's a cute little accountant's trick employed by

the people's representatives to fool the people who pay the bills.

That's the immorality of it.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one driving fuel that will take us into a

better economy, it is education. I believe that small business is the

engine that will take us into a better economy, but the fuel in that

engine will be education. This government has shown a wanton disregard

for that fact. They have played nothing but politics with education,

taking advantage of bigotry and prejudice, always present in any

society, and they've taken advantage of it politically. They have not

led us in practical terms, economically or in education, and they have

let us down morally in terms of political leadership. That is the

heritage.

I don't know what a cabinet minister makes these days over and above

a private member's wages, but I'd like to know what amount is worth

sticking it out in a cabinet that has done what this government has

done to education. What is, as they say, the bottom line? When do you

pull your morality together? When do you look in the mirror and say: "I

will not preside over this kind of destruction. I will not preside over

a system that's going to leave children in a disadvantaged position in

terms of making a living in the future and being good citizens and

taking

part in the decision-making of a democracy. I will not preside

over it"?

Everybody who took

part in the decisions to use bigotry and prejudice to make

political points over education should hang their heads in shame. That's

what this government has done, and the people who are resigning from education

because of it should be held up as models of citizenry in this province. It

goes beyond whether you're left, right, centre. We're talking about

the future of our province and the future of our children, and to preside over

the destruction of it for political brownie points is a little bit more than

you should have to do for the kind of bucks you get paid to hold the job.

Mr. Chairman, I know that another cabinet minister who is involved

with education has already gone to the Premier and offered his

resignation over what this government is doing, and he was talked out

of it. We know that. I know it's true. Members on the other side of the

House know it's true, but they'll deny it. I can't prove it, but it's

true. And I believe that this minister, if he cared about the duties

that he's taken on on behalf of the citizens of this province, would be

the one person in education who should say: "I object. I will not take

part in it. I resign. It's not that important to me personally that I

be a cabinet minister."

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose it would be

nice to let go with remarks of equal force from this side. Perhaps I

ought to point out to the member exactly what happened in 1982 and 1983

— just a pro rata reduction of school budgets. It didn't hurt the

people that had huge declining enrolments at all.

We found that some boards in the lower mainland.... What did we

find? Precipitous drops in enrolment. They could turn around and take 5

percent off, and it wouldn't hurt them. But what about all the other

school districts in the province whose enrolment had reached a plateau?

What about those that had an increase in enrolment? Perhaps the member

conveniently forgets the clarion call that was made to me when I first

came into the portfolio, a call to bring some equity into financing of

school districts. That's exactly what they told me. I tell you, that

probably came from Prince Rupert. What's the PTR in Prince Rupert —

16.22? I wonder if the member's had a look at....

MR. LEA: That's because you're taking in the Indian villages. That's a false statistic.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You had your chance. You just sit down and shut up.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, the Indians

are part of the school system. The funding which comes in — journal

entry — goes to the district. Let me tell you, you're talking about $25

million down. You're correct when you say $25 million. But you talk

about morality. How about you conveniently forgetting about the decline

in enrolment in the province?

MR. LEA: Why did you try to cover it up in vote 19?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not covered up. I'll tell you.... Mr. Chairman, I listened to the member, and I don't recall interjecting once.

Do you know why the revenues are up and the Education vote is up?

It's because we as a government decided to take away, over a two-year

period, the impost on property taxation with respect to industry and

commerce — in particular, machinery and equipment tax. That's the

lion's share of the increase. I don't know whether or not.... You know,

the member's spots have changed. When he was sitting right over here as

a member of the opposition party, I remember the

[ Page 5732 ]

comments that he made with respect to the government paying more towards public education.

MR. LEA: That's not true.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Do you agree that we shouldn't be paying more?

MR. LEA: You don't even know what I said.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You support....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the members please refrain from commenting while the minister is speaking.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: So here we are, Mr. Chairman, taking off

the backs of industry and commerce something which the school trustees

have been advocating for years and years — that is, the machinery and

equipment tax, which is an inequitable tax. It's an immoral tax. It

should be paid, and it is going to be paid, by the provincial

government. That's the reason the budgets are up.

I want to go back to the point about arbitrary decreases. What

happened? If you recall, in 1982 there was restraint. In 1983 there was

another pro rata reduction. You ought to have heard the squealing from

the boards, and rightfully so, because many of those boards didn't

suffer the pain of it at all. In addition to that, there were the

surpluses we permitted to be rolled forward to reward good management.

We introduced a system for funding which would bring equity throughout

the districts. You can't do it overnight. It takes some time. It's

taken three fiscal years, albeit one of those fiscal years is a short

one.

I have one concluding comment. It is never easy to bring changes

into a system which is as large and as complex as that of funding

public schools. It's never easy, and there will obviously be some

resistance. But I was encouraged by the responses I had from those

people who were charged with the administration — and, I might add,

management, because there's a great deal of difference between the two.

The only concluding comment I would make now is with respect to

Prince Rupert. I think the member made reference to a reduction in

budget with inflation not taken into consideration. I can tell you that

for the school years starting after 1981 — and that was in those days

of a fiscal year being a calendar year — the increase on a per student

basis in the Prince Rupert School District is 25.1 percent. So it seems

to me that we have taken into consideration the inflationary spiral

which was occurring. We certainly took it into consideration with the

average teacher's salary in the district, and we certainly took it into

consideration with maintenance and operation, because there's an

inflation index built right in. So when we take a three-year rolling

average, we go to the.... We take years one and two, which are by this

time audited. The third year is budgeted. We increase the audited by

the inflation index for years one and two, and then take the average.

Those are two components looking after inflation; hence it was 25.1

percent over that period of time.

[3:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Due to the fact that I did have a few

questions remaining from, I guess, last Thursday, when I last was on

the floor discussing the debates on education, I wanted to bring to

light a few of what I consider very important points.

But before I get to that, I found the previous discussion most

stimulating and most interesting, and I think the discussion

highlighted a number of very critical facts. Mr. Chairman, the minister

talks about collective bargaining, about freedom of arbitration, about

ability to pay and about establishing educational priorities. And yet

what we've seen here is that the minister has all the control. He

controls all the purse strings. He controls all the power. He

emasculated the power of the school board. You've taken away, through

the confiscation of the industrial and commercial tax base, the ability

to control finances. You've got all the control, and yet you're asking

the boards — both college boards and school boards — to do your dirty

work on the front line. I think it's unfair, and of course it's totally

unreasonable. It just demonstrates the further centralization and

further confiscation of power that has been a guiding principle this

government has demonstrated time after time. Certainly in terms of

education those principles are well highlighted.

Mr. Minister, the critical matter here is not a numbers-juggling

game at all. It's the fact that your program is squeezing the lifeblood

out of education in this province, both at the secondary school level

and at the post-secondary and college levels. You've got all the power,

you've got all the control, and you're asking somebody else to do your

dirty work for you.

I do want to go on to some specifics — because I didn't get a chance

to talk on it the other day — in terms of the college issue. The

minister and I were talking the other day, and we both recognized the

fact that Okanagan College, as a decentralized campus, does incur extra

costs above and beyond what some of the other colleges incur. We

recognized the fact that there has been some solution in terms of the

funding shortage. Last fall it was $2 million short. There has been

some money reallocated. I think they're about $1.3 million or $1.4

million short.

In relative terms of what's happened in post-secondary education,

Okanagan College is not badly off, when you look at the figures for

some of the others. It's not bad off, and I'll concede that fact. But I

want to highlight just what the effects have been in Okanagan College,

which is an institution that is not badly off in those terms. Let me

show you what is happening in terms of what the budget reduction will

cause. This is out of a recent

article in the Vernon Daily News. It highlights the exact effect of cuts.

"Kalamalka Centre" — which is, of course, the Vernon centre of Okanagan

College — "is facing a reduction of four instructional staff and the elimination

of four courses in the coming year. In the second draft of Okanagan College's

1985-86 budget, to help cope with a $1.4 million shortfall, a total of 11 positions

college-wide have been eliminated, with four jobs in Kelowna, two in Salmon

Arm and one in Penticton also chopped. The job cuts in Vernon include one biology

instructor, one sociology instructor, one music instructor and one German instructor.

The sociology, German and music programs will be eliminated...while the

biology program will continue in a diminished capacity, with second-year course

offerings going by the wayside."

Reduced educational opportunity is the only consequence of those cuts.

[ Page

5733 ]

"The elimination of the biology instructor will also mean the centre's second-year chemistry offering will be discontinued."

Second-year courses in the sciences are down the

tube, Mr. Minister. In Salmon Arm, a psychology instructor and one

counsellor are eliminated. In Kelowna, staff members will be cut from

the audio-visual department, from the library and from early childhood

education, and also in the area of geography.

Okanagan College students in the coming year face a further 15

percent increase in their tuition fees. May I remind the minister that

last year they had a 30 percent to 35 percent increase, and this is an

extra 15 percent tacked on.

What is happening to the cost of education in this province? It's

going sky-high, while the minister and the rest of the cabinet are

saying: "We have to toe the line on costs. We have to toe the line on

the budget." Yet they don't give a darn about what the student has to

face in terms of getting himself an educational opportunity in the

province of British Columbia. It's absolutely disgraceful. University

transfer students will be paying about $800 for a two-semester year,

which, according to the college vice-principal, may be a major factor

in students attending other post-secondary institutions elsewhere,

namely Alberta. They're going elsewhere.

In the concluding remarks here it says: "'We have cut almost $4

million out of our budget over the last two years. Another reduction,

and we'll be in very difficult waters.' If the college is forced by

provincial government restraint edicts to cut any more from the 1985

operating budget...it is unlikely all campuses can be kept open."

Again, there's the portent of the closure of campuses throughout the

province. If we close those campuses, we're going to compromise — in

fact deny — the essence of the community college concept, which is to

get those programs out and into the communities throughout British

Columbia. And we're going to deny the students in the interior of this

province, who already face only a 40 percent opportunity, compared to a

student on the coast, for a post-secondary education.... We're going to

further deny those students the right to and the privilege of a

post-secondary education.

I want to point to some very specific questions again for the

minister, and then I'll conclude and sit down and let him respond. The

other day the minister confirmed that he was going to reappoint those

members of the college board. If I can refresh the minister's memory on

that, the commitment he gave in terms of a time-line was "soon." I

believe he said "very soon." However, I took these statements back to

members of the college community, and they're rather disappointed that

a definite date has not been set, so I've been asked to request of you

again: do you have a date, a time-line? Give me a day when those

vacancies will be refilled. I want to point out, Mr. Minister, that the

vacancies in the North Okanagan community — Vernon and Lumby — have

been sitting there since last fall. The college has critical decisions

to make and wishes to have proper representation from those

communities. When will those decisions be made?

Secondly — and this is not in terms of Okanagan College, but is a

concern with colleges in general — it's my understanding that the

Minister of Education's plans for the coalition or the amalgamation of

the British Columbia Institute of Technology and PVI.... I might remind

the House that they are two of the largest institutes in British

Columbia. I think there are some questions that remain to be answered

with regard to this proposed possible amalgamation. One question is:

have the boards of either of these institutes in fact been consulted?

Another question: have the students in these institutes been consulted?

Have the instructors of these institutes been consulted? What, Mr.

Minister, are the reasons behind the amalgamation? Perhaps you could

expand on those questions for me.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the comment with respect to tuition....

It's always a sensitive one. But it seems to me that last week — and I

don't have them with me.... The dollar equivalent which is being paid

for tuition in post-secondary, in constant dollars, is less than it was

in 1971. I recognize that there are increases and that boards have

budgets to meet; I do recognize it. And I recognize in some cases that

it may cause, and probably has caused, some hardship in some areas; I'm

not disputing that. But I think we've got to be realistic as well and

have a look at what the real dollar cost is. It seems to me that $400

per semester, or $800 for the full year.... For some it may be an

unreasonable amount; for others, and I think probably for the vast

majority, it's an acceptable sum.

Everybody would like to pay less. I don't know about you, but I

remember when I was going to post-secondary that the amount of my

tuition was roughly 25 percent of the total cost of going to school.

Now, from my own experience, as a matter of fact, with my own family,

and of course with all of their friends who are in post-secondary as

well, I have an idea of what it does cost. So while the tuition issue

is a sensitive one — and I accept the comments you've made — I don't

think it's totally unrealistic.

You were kind enough to mention that Okanagan College is not doing

too badly. One of the reasons why the budget is the way it is is to

accommodate the satellite campuses which you so eloquently advance. I

also recall that the administration of Okanagan College took a position

— it seems to me it was a while ago — with respect to productivity and

insisted they wanted more hours of instruction from their staff. I

think they increased the number of hours. I don't know if it was by

very much — perhaps an hour or an hour and a half per week. It was

available.

As for the courses, I don't have any immediate knowledge, other than

what you have advanced, of the courses in that particular college that

have been eliminated. But I do know from my experience in my riding

that the courses which the college decided to drop were primarily the

result of decreasing demand, even while enrolment is either plateauing

or could be going up. The fact is that there was a decrease in demand

for some of those courses.

With respect to BCIT and PVI, those matters are under consideration,

and I'm really not in a position now other than to be candid with you

and say we do look at any number of possibilities.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Whom will you consult?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It would be safe to draw a conclusion that

with the numbers involved we must take into consideration the interests

of all of those who participate. I think that would be fair comment. It

would be only natural that we would.

[ Page 5734 ]

1 cannot give the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) a date

as to when the board appointments will be made, but I assure you that I

will be making those appointments, the sooner the better, and put it to

rest.

With respect to your opening comments involving the erosion of

autonomy, I recognize what you're saying. Part of what you're saying is

true. But I conceded that with my opening comments. I concede that

capping budgets eroded autonomy. I think the only defence which I have

is to tell you that it was done with a very good reason in mind. I am

as hopeful as everyone else that when we come out of the school year

1985-86 these problems will all have been put to rest.

[3:45]

It's fine to get wound up about the non-residential tax base. While

it may affect the sensitivities of some members on both sides of the

House because of the tax bases which they have in their ridings, not

all ridings in British Columbia are so blessed. The object of the game

was to spread some degree of equity.

I'm sure the member must agree with the reduction and the ultimate

removal of machinery and equipment tax for the purposes of raising

school taxes, and that those funds be paid out of consolidated revenue.

MR. STUPICH: There have been some expressions of confidence

in the minister, both inside the House and out, that he's really trying

to do a good job with the material that he has to work with. I wish I

could share that confidence. I can recall one government minister,

going back a long time — I wasn't in the House at the time — who felt

his capacity as Minister of Labour.... He was the member representing

Nanaimo at that time, George S. Pearson. He was so concerned about

legislation that was being brought in that he refused to bring it in.

Someone else had to bring it in.

I get no feeling that the minister is doing anything other than

completely supporting everything he is doing to education, Mr.

Chairman; no feeling that he is in the least concerned about the fact

that he isn't able to do much more. In every case, when he's asked a

question, there's no suggestion that he would like to be able to do

something better; he's only doing what he believes to be the right

thing to do under the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, we're in a year when the estimated expenditure for

government in total exceeds those for the previous year by 14 percent.

That's restraint.

I'll just read from the estimates — and it takes a little bit of

explanation, Mr. Minister. The total expenditures estimated for the

year 1984-85 in the estimates that were tabled in the House just a few

weeks ago were actually $8.39 billion. But included in that was an item

of $470 million that was not there when the estimates were presented in

the House a year ago. It's not money that was spent; it was a shuffle

of paper. It did not affect, in any way at all, the government's

ability to finance services of any kind.

So the total estimated expenditure — going back to last year's estimates,

and there may have been some minor changes — is really $7.92 billion. The figure

this year is $9.056 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion, which works out to

14 percent. That $470 million was a one-shot deal; it was simply a paper shuffle.

As I say, it didn't affect the government's ability to finance anything.

If you relate the government ministry expenditures from one year to the next,

we find an increase of 14 percent. Yet if we look at the Ministry of Education,

Mr. Chairman, we find that it has decreased by 1 percent. Total government expenditures

went up 14 percent; total Ministry of Education expenditures went down 1 percent.

That also requires a little bit of explanation.

If we look at the estimates for the year 1984-85 in this same book —

we're now on page 65 — we see that they add up to $1,355,930,889. But

that's a net figure, after having deducted recoveries, of some $663

million. So in fact the gross expenditures by the Education ministry —

the gross dollars that the minister had to work with — were

$2,018,600,000.

Using the same figures for this year, we see that the minister is

spending the figure that's in the book, $1.428 billion, which has been

reduced by $576 million of recoveries, so in fact he's spending $2.004

billion. In total that is the gross expenditure that the minister has

control of in Education. The total has gone down by $18 million, which

is approximately 1 percent of the total expenditure. So it's less money

than he had to work with a year ago.

If there were that much less need for education in the province,

then I suppose the minister would justify it. He may even try to

justify it. He may even try to argue with my figures. If he does, I

would welcome that.

But I'd like to take it from another point of view. The minister

said in his remarks a few days ago that his real objective was to

return authority to the school boards. That certainly ties in with what

his party was saying some nine years ago.

I have an ad I can show him. I'm sure he'll remember it: "Bill

Bennett's Way." We're now talking about education. "Better education

for our children through policies set by local school boards" — Mr.

Chairman, that was the message.

This is from a leaflet entitled: "Get B.C. Moving Again." It says:

"Restore control of education to local school boards, teachers and the

family. The centralist trend in education should be turned around and

the classroom teacher should be assured security" — Mr. Chairman, what

security do they have now? — "and freedom to develop a learning climate

in the schools, and the government should give financial support to

alternative systems of education" — they've done that — "which can be

developed in cooperation with local school trustees under the

leadership of the Department of Education."

Mr. Chairman, not just this minister but every minister preceding

him since the Social Credit government was elected in December 1975 has

systematically been reducing the authority of local school boards. So

at the present time the only authority they have is to say yes to the

minister, or to resign, or to invite him to fire them. Those are really

the only initiatives they have left. The minister has complete control

of everything that is being done at the local school board level —

complete control of what they're teaching, complete control of what

they're paying.

If they go through the process — and the lengthy process of

arbitration has been talked about before — then go through everything

else and get to the point where finally an award comes down and

teachers are awarded an increase of 1.2 percent or 2.1 percent —

whatever.... Then the government refers it to the Peck commission, and

the Peck commission says no increase. No, I think the Peck commission

awarded an increase in some areas. That being done, the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) then says.... I'm not sure whether he

consulted the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education did say

that he saw a copy of the

[ Page 5735 ]

release, which some of the school boards waited

quite some time to see. But the Minister of Finance says, "Even if

after all that process there still is something in there for a salary

increase, you're not going to get it unless you're prepared to pay the

price," and it's a pretty high price for the school boards to pay.

When is this process of restoring going to start? I think I told the

story previously — it's an old one — about the person in the insane

asylum knocking his head against the wall. When he was asked why, he

said: "Because it feels so good when I stop." The minister is

determined to take away every vestige of authority that school boards

have so that he can give a little bit back and say he's restoring their

authority. Is that what he means? Is his long-term objective to return

authority to the school boards? He's taken away a significant part —

perhaps the larger part — of their authority to raise money at the

local level. That has been done; I'm not sure whether he did it or his

predecessor did it, but the government has certainly done it. He's

taken control of everything they're doing, telling them how many people

they may hire, how many they may fire, and how they are to go about

doing it. Legislation is introduced so that they can fire them.

What authority do they now have left, other than the three options

that I mentioned? When does the minister intend to start on the road

back to restoring authority to the local school boards? What authority

does he want them to have, what options? Does he want them to listen to

the local teachers, the local parents? What about the college councils?

Mr. Chairman, I took

part in the very first campaign in Nanaimo,

before Malaspina College was ever launched. The first campaign was a

plebiscite, simply asking people in the area whether they wanted one.

The college system was very new in British Columbia at that time. We

had to send delegations out to other areas to find out what it was all

about. B.C. did not get involved in the construction of colleges such

as Malaspina College until we got precious near the time when federal

government grants for that purpose were running out. It was only

because we stood in danger of losing that federal money coming back to

B.C. that the government, led by W.A.C. Bennett, started constructing

colleges all around the province. We were the last to get going at it,

but at least we did get started; that's true. I campaigned in favour of

that plebiscite. It wasn't a hard thing to do. The ratepayers weren't

being asked to spend any money. They were simply saying: "What do you

think of the idea? Would you like to have one?"

Nanaimo took it seriously, and committees were established to travel

to other provinces, in particular Ontario, and to the United States, in

particular California. Every report that came back included the same

message: the importance of the college relating to the needs and the

desires of the community that it was serving. That was the message. We

had to be sure that every college was distinctive to that particular

area; that it was designed to meet the needs of the people in that

area. That's the way the college system in British Columbia did

develop. It's certainly the way the college system developed in

Malaspina College, and it's still trying awfully hard to maintain that,

in spite of the difficulties imposed upon it by this Social Credit

administration and by this minister. I've not heard him dissociate

himself in the slightest from what's happening with respect to the

complete control of colleges, and in particular, in my instance,

Malaspina College.

We talked before about the members of the college councils. I'd like

to talk about it from another point of view. There's this argument as

to whether they were all elected or all appointed, and it was a halfway

thing. Some were appointed and some were selected by school boards from

among elected members; so it was a mishmash, but at least there was

that local involvement. At the local level people had an opportunity to

vote for members, some of whom became members of the college council.

That opportunity is gone completely. The government chose to name every

member of college councils.

I can recall when the Hon. Pat McGeer was the minister responsible

for college councils. One of the first things he did on assuming office

was to make sure that every member of every college board throughout

the province.... Every member who couldn't produce a current paid-up

membership card in the Social Credit Party was out. It happened in

Nanaimo. When I asked the minister about it....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I'm talking about appointed members.

I asked the Minister of Education at that time, the Hon. Pat McGeer,

about this policy. Instead of defending it or denying that it was going

on, as somebody is doing down there, he admitted it. He said: "But you

did the same thing." Even if we had done the same thing, that would not

have been good enough. Besides, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't true. The

others can speak for their own areas. From the day we first formed the

government until the day we left, Malaspina College kept the same

members except for two people who resigned, one for health reasons and

another who moved away from the area. We did replace them with

appointments, and we did pick people from the community, and we did

check with the local college council to see what they thought about

these appointees. I kept in touch with that college council. They were

satisfied with the people who were on the board, and asked me not to

make any changes. We made no changes, Mr. Chairman — none at all.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the minister would stand up and give this kind

of speech in favour of the ministry that he's heading, and say that he

would like to do better and that it's simply because of the bad times

we're in that he isn't able to do it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to quarrel

with the figures which have been advanced out of the blue book, because

I haven't really had an opportunity to go back and look at '84-85.

However, I think it would suffice to say that there has been a drop in

enrolment of about 6,000 last year and probably another 1,500 or so

this year, and that translates into something in the order of about $25

million.

[4:00]

Now the other point is this. With respect to the comment that school

boards allegedly have nothing left to do, my comment is this. I think

that we have gone through a very difficult period in British Columbia's

economic history. I will tell you that it has been difficult, very

difficult. The comment was made: "Well, certainly you could at least

say you're going to do more." I'm not going to make statements like

this which are going to perhaps put false expectations in the hearts of

many. I'm going to level with them and tell them exactly how I see it.

[ Page 5736 ]

Now we've gone through.... And the member for Nanaimo, being the

former Minister of Finance, knows as well as anyone about the ravages

of a recession and the impact that it has had upon the revenues coming

to the provincial government, particularly in the resource area and

particularly with respect to the export market.

Now as far as colleges are concerned, I checked last week, and asked

if somebody could give me the exact numbers involved with respect to

direction from the provincial government and how much of it is really

locally inspired as far as courses are concerned. I'm told — and was

given these figures — that on average about 34 percent from the

provincial government.... I thought it was higher; I thought it was

somewhere around 40 percent. But they tell me that around 34 percent is

what is directed to each of the colleges on certain programs which it

is mandatory to deliver, and the others are the result of programs

which the colleges themselves sponsor.

Now you made reference to the previous councils. I don't know, Mr.

Chairman, if the member meant to say "boards." But I want to be clear

on this. No reference was being made to the management, academic or

occupational councils which we eliminated. With respect to the college

boards and the composition of the boards, it is now — and it is no

secret — by government appointment. I would think that all the people

who are on those boards are people who have demonstrated a commitment

to their community. Now if the member is suggesting to me that they are

to be members of the opposition who are to be appointed to the boards,

then I want him to say that.

One item which came up, and has come up often, is whether or not

people ought to be elected to college boards. I could find no precedent

for that. I requested....

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know, sometimes we can rely,

surely.... The member for Nanaimo makes reference to the fact that

before Malaspina got off the ground there were groups of people who

went to Ontario. Why did they go to Ontario? They wanted to find out, I

guess, how a particular college got started and how it was operated.

Did they find out whether or not in that province...? I can't say for

sure, but I suspect that all members on those boards are appointed and

don't come from school boards. I have yet to find anybody coming to me

with evidence that would refute the statement which I just made that

the appointments to college boards, both in our country and in the

U.S., are appointed — other than student representation.

I think the amount of money which has gone into education, after you

take into consideration the reduction in school enrolment, is pretty

well the same as it has been for the last three years. I think that's

about all I can say on that.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister defends the reduction in spending by relating it to a drop in enrolment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will come to order. Order!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister himself would

agree that the policies that he and his predecessors have imposed have

cut the enrolment in colleges; certainly not in the public school

system, other than for the transfer to the private school system, which

again is deliberate government policy, there's no question about that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Are you against independent schools?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I was asked that question 36 years

ago, I guess almost before the minister was born, and I gave the same

answer then as I'm going to give now: I'm not against independent

schools; I am against public money going into independent schools. But

it's not my estimates that are being considered right now, Mr.

Chairman; it's supposed to be those of the Minister of Education.

He has brought about some of the drop in enrolment, but he also

helped bring about — and it's evolved over the last two years — an

increase in enrolment; not a net increase, but an increase by the

transfer from other institutions into the school system. Children with

learning disabilities, mental or physical, are now part of the school

system. They require special attention.

I've been saying this for many years as well, Mr. Chairman, and I

said it during the last campaign when I talked about the importance of

maintaining the level of education in this province. It's not good

enough to say that the pupil-teacher ratio — and I think the minister

said this — is much the same now as it was in 1976. While the

pupil-teacher ratio may be the same as it was in 1976, it's more

difficult now because of the inclusion in the system of students who

need special attention. They're not getting it, unfortunately. It may

be that they're particularly gifted and are not getting the special

attention — we'll all pay for that ultimately — or that they need some

special assistance to maintain any level of education, and they're not

getting that; that, too, is a cost that we'll be bearing for decades to

come. The harm that has been done over the last three years is going to

be with us for generations, Mr. Chairman.

So to say that the money is being reduced as the pupil population is

reduced — knowing all the time that he's part of the reason that that

is being reduced, and knowing also that while the total number may be

going down there are added problems in there because of these extra

students that are part of the system now — is really not an answer to

the question of why the minister accepted.... Maybe he did fight; maybe

he's just not willing to tell us. He wasn't here when the NDP were in

administration. It was nothing new for NDP ministers to be talking

about what other ministers were doing, even on the floor of the House.

If we felt something we said it. Certainly there were things we didn't

say, but there were things that we were quite prepared to say publicly,

either here or outside. But that hasn't happened since 1975.

The minister says that we're obliged to follow this course of action

because of the poor economy. Well, who brought about the poor economy?

Remember, the first deficit budget in the history of British Columbia

since 1951 was brought in by this government on July 7, 1983. After

they were re-elected in May 1983, they brought to B.C. the first

deficit budget in 34 years. That's a real accomplishment for a party

that campaigned and said they would not borrow to buy groceries. They

then proceeded to make sure that the economy would get worse.

[ Page 5737 ]

But even if that was completely beyond their control, may I submit

to the minister that one of the most important services to maintain

when the economy is down is education. The minister himself.... I have

quotations from many sources, trying to impress upon people that if the

economy is ever to grow, whether it's a poor economy or a good economy,

then we must have quality education in this province. We don't have

cheap labour to sell, but we could have qualified people who would be

available to do research and development work. The high-tech industries

that might be attracted to the Philippines because they have cheap

labour aren't going to come to B.C. for that reason. But they could

come here if we had quality education available in the quantity

necessary to train our people to work in that kind of industry. We're

not going to get it if we destroy our educational system.

But even beyond that, when I was talking about the college system I

said that it was intended to serve the needs of communities — not just

to suit the economic activities that were going on in those areas but

also to serve the needs of the people in those areas, including the

need that some people have to further their education. It may not be

for economic reasons. It may simply be that mentally they need some

exercise, and the college system did provide that through campuses like

Malaspina College and the satellite campuses that Malaspina had and is

struggling to maintain. Those kinds of opportunities are more important

in times when so many people are unemployed or on social assistance and

are losing hope. If they had opportunities to take more and more

courses at places like colleges, then that would at least give them

some confidence in the future and would give them something to think

about other than their dire straits, the circumstances in which they

find themselves at that time.

Mr. Chairman, the college system was a tremendous development. The

minister didn't understand why we sent delegations to Ontario. It was

because their college system had been developed much earlier than ours,

and we were able to learn something by what was happening in another

jurisdiction. It was the same with California: we went to learn. I

don't know whether the college boards were appointed or elected in

those areas, or how they were done.

The minister said he could find no precedent for the kind of college

boards we had here, where they were made up in part of elected members.

Well, we had the precedent right here in B.C. Until they changed that,

the system was here. The school board members were elected and from

among them members were selected to go to the colleges. The system was

working and I heard no criticism of it, and yet it was changed. One

effect of that change was completely to remove from the local people

that level of authority. They had no authority after that. The

authority is completely in the hands of the Social Credit members who

happen to be on these college councils. Mr. Chairman, I don't see that

that's any improvement, and I ask the minister why it was changed. He

didn't have to go outside B.C. to see a precedent. He could see it

right here.

The economy is poor in British Columbia. We are able to spend a

total of 14 percent more for other activities; we are spending 1

percent less for education. That isn't good enough in British Columbia.

I've tried to give some of the reasons why I think it's important to

spend more. I appreciate that you don't solve a problem simply by

throwing dollars at it, but I wish the minister would set about....

This is something he didn't mention: just when he intends to start

giving back to the local school boards some of the authority they have.

And how far does he see this going? How far would he like it to go?

He didn't have to take away from the boards all of the authority

they had. He and his treasury board and the government have the

authority to limit the amount of money that they are offering to the

school board. They could cut back on that, as they have done. They've

cut back on the grants going to the local school boards. They might

well have gone further with that had they really wanted to. But did

they have to tell the school boards how to spend it? Could they not

leave it up to the school boards?

Certainly when this was happening two years ago the plea from the

school boards was: let us spend the money that you're prepared to give

us to deliver education. If we feel that within the limits of the money

you're making available to us we can do any innovation, continue the

Steps to Maturity program that was developed in Nanaimo, for example;

if we believe it's important to maintain library services in our area

at a higher level than we are able to maintain them; if we feel it’s

important to do things like that and let other things go by the way, as

long as we are able to maintain certain standards in certain areas....

I admit the minister's responsibility to make sure that they do. It's

not just his authority, but he has a responsibility. But as long as

they were prepared to live within those limits, why could he not have

let the school boards continue running their own business and even have

given them the authority to spend more money if they were prepared to

raise the mill rate for school purposes in their districts and then

face their electors come election time?

This government raises taxes every year. It never goes to a

referendum to ask whether or not it should do that. It determines what

the needs are and then votes in this House. Mr. Chairman, why do we

have to interfere so much with school boards? They are elected members

as well. Why not let them run their business, as long as they are

prepared to maintain certain standards in certain areas, and as long as

the government has the authority — and certainly it has — to limit the

amount of money that it's going to provide for those purposes in those

areas?

[4:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like to answer briefly half a

dozen questions which have been raised by the member. First of all, I

think we must go back and look at the history of the development of

regional colleges in British Columbia.

The first point is that school districts were used as a vehicle for

the purposes of raising operating capital. Then they were used also to

provide facilities. We know those two events came to pass. So school

boards at one time were intimately involved in the development of

colleges — one, operating capital; two, facilities. I think it was only

right and proper because of that that they ought to have some

representation on a college board.

With the passage of time something happened. Funding for colleges

became a senior government responsibility — that is, the provincial

government. Yes, funding is advanced by the federal government under

post-secondary education. It comes within the envelope, and under

agreement is allocated by the recipient province. Coupled with that, I

was of the view that school trustees — and I think everyone will admit

this in view of the new funding system which was introduced — had a

great deal of work to do. In addition, if

[ Page 5738 ]

there is to be a liaison of one kind or another between a school

district and a college board, there's ample opportunity for that

liaison to exist. It doesn't have to come from an elected school

trustee or someone appointed by a school board to sit on a college

board. Both were being done.

I think the resolution to that issue was something which I found

existed in the lower mainland, and does now, with Pacific Vocational

Institute and the liaison agreements which it has with a number of the

neighbouring school districts. I think there are seven or eight in

existence, but nobody on those school boards sits on the board of PVI.

Government made a decision. It was a policy decision which came in

when we eliminated those famous buffers which had served a purpose at

one time: the Academic Council, the Occupational Training Council and

the Management Advisory Council. While they were important at one time,

what they really grew into, to be very candid, were recipients of the

lobbies from the various colleges throughout the province. The whole

thing was resolved by the endorsement of the principals, the

administrators, to fund on an equitable basis using a particular

formula, which they all supported and said was a great improvement. Not

only that, but the college instructors were nonplussed, to be honest

with you, Mr. Chairman, when they found out that not only were we going

to eliminate two but we were going to eliminate all of those councils.

To be very candid, I think it has worked much better. Forgetting my

comment, if the same views hold which were given to me by college

principals and college board chairmen, it would appear that we did the

right thing.

Another item that the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) raised was this: when

are we going to restore that autonomy? I will repeat, my objective is to have

either a bill or White Paper prepared for a new School Act which will incorporate

those views expressed by the public when they had the recent opportunity during

late winter and early spring of this year. There must have been a lot of material

sent into the committee involved. I can't give you any particulars of it,

because I am waiting for the report, but I am sure that the new School Act —

or at least the White Paper — will incorporate many of the concerns which are

now being expressed.

I've heard the argument before to allow the school boards to

increase the mill rate. You know, the message the government received,

and in spades, was to please exercise control of expenditures used for

public purposes. I know that was very clear in my riding. I think those

expenditures involved not only commercial interests, which we are

advocating control of or even reduction in, but they were coming from

ordinary members of the public — the homeowners who had a great deal of

concern. I think we have to keep in mind, as well, that the percentage

paid by the homeowner toward the Education budget is proportionately

relatively small. About 81/2 percent provincewide comes from

residential taxpayers. Last year it was about $157 million. This year,

I can't tell you what it will be, but I suspect it will probably be in

the same area. So here we have a significant sum, and remember that you

can say that we removed — and this happened, I believe, in 1981 or 1982

— the non-residential base. That was done; I'm just repeating myself on

that. You all know the reasons why it did occur, and I think they're

supportive.

Opportunity was given to take advantage of the referendum, but nobody was prepared

to do it. Some concerns were expressed to me that there wasn't enough time.

Well, they had six or seven weeks, and you can run a provincial election in

one month, so I think there was adequate time. I think the truth is that the

school boards were really not prepared to take the risk, knowing full well what

the majority of people were feeling. So what they really wanted was government

to do what they were not prepared to.

Now another item that came up here involved the alleged directives

coming from government as to how to spend the money. The member made

reference to two years ago, and I think he was probably referring to

Bill 6. But I think it would only be fair to point out that there were

two amendments to Bill 6, and one of those was the removal of an

expression, as I recall, "or a portion thereof, " which was really the

authority for government to step in within a budget and determine

allocations. Now there was a particular reason for that. It would

involve the administrative portion, often referred to as function 4. We

amended the bill and deleted that language, "or a portion thereof, " so

the boards were, without any question, free to allocate. As a matter of

fact, that was the sum and substance of the BCSTA submission, and there

was a great deal of lobbying going around on both sides of the House at

the time. So boards are free to make the allocation of all the dollars

which they get now.

MR. ROSE: Within the function.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, they can take the money in and out of

any function they want. The only reservation involves special needs,

and when you come to special needs, we can put a provision within Bill

6 to look after it.

You know, the most interesting thing happened not too long ago.

Boards were concerned about the money they were getting for special

education. Now we didn't want any board making a political football out

of children that require special assistance. So the boards that were

complaining.... And we had 20-odd boards that said: "No, you're

underfunding us." So we offered to go to the school board, and the

specialist in the special education division was to go out and we would

have a look, and we would, you know, count noses and really do it —

sort of a gentle audit. Do you know how many responded when we offered

to do that? Two boards. I wonder why.

So my point is, the bill was amended and there's freedom to

allocate; as far as giving back authority, a new school act. I've said

many times that it's a three-year program. By May 1, final budgets for

the 1985-86 — and then we're out of this part of it. Then get into

things which are.... Get away from the finances — although we've

always got to keep them in our mind, because it's a fairly expensive

item. Liaison committees often exist around the province, and as far as

the amount of money is concerned, I think that we are carrying through

the mandate which we received from the electorate, and the electorate

certainly consists of more than the nonresidential tax base.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment first on the minister's concern for local taxpayers.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I'm just wondering. I suppose I could talk

a little bit more about R and D for a moment by quoting from a paper on

B.C.'s high-tech policy, on page 3: "High technology is associated with

highly skilled, well-

[ Page

5739 ]

paying jobs in the research and development of new technologies, and

technological innovation is commonly accepted as a determinant of

economic growth."

I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, that one thing we need in British

Columbia right now is economic growth. It would seem to me that every

reference we can read on the subject or every spokesman that we listen

to tells us about the need for higher-quality education. There are some

conclusions here that say the same thing really. B.C. does not have a

comparative advantage in low-wage unskilled labour.

Mr. Chairman, as much as the Minister of Universities, Science and

Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) might want to make B.C. a Philippines of

the north, we just can't compete in that kind of area. We don't have

those advantages — if that can be considered an advantage. The author

of the paper suggests that it is the research and development component

of high-technology industry which should be encouraged here.

[4:30]

For the Social Credit government to profess an interest in

encouraging high tech in the province while at the same time it's

effecting higher cuts, greater cuts, larger cuts in education funding

and engendering a demoralized atmosphere in the school system, the

college system, the university system, is, as I say, contradictory.

Most of this is oriented towards the university level, which this

minister is not responsible for. Unfortunately, to have students for

university we also may have to make sure they're coming through the

system, unless we're going to import them to the province from other

areas.

Research and development thrives in areas with active and innovative

universities, and employs skilled technicians and scientists. The

different ministers of the government are fond of talking about

California, but what they never bother to mention is that Silicon

Valley is located close to Stanford University. It's the university

atmosphere, not the climate of California, that attracts that kind of

research and development, that kind of work, to that particular area.

I want to talk about the minister's concern about looking after

local taxpayers. He doesn't dare let school boards levy money for

education purposes, because the taxpayers don't want to pay more taxes.

Certainly they don't. Certainly we don't. I think every one of us would

agree that the only proper tax to collect is the one that somebody else

is paying. The provincial budget certainly hasn't had that kind of

consideration for taxpayers when setting its budgets in the last three

years. We have increased, over 1982.... In three budgets we have

increased our total spending by 25 percent — from $7.2 billion to $9.06

billion. There isn't a school district in the province that wouldn't

like to have had the money to increase its programs by 25 percent in

the last three years.

So while the minister may have some concern about local taxpayers when it's

locally elected school board members that may be making some change, he seems

to have little concern for local taxpayers when he's a member of a government

that is levying taxes provincially. In every budget there have been increases

in taxes. There have been some decreases as well, but in every one of those

three budgets there have been increases in taxes. The total increase in estimated

revenue over that period is 25 percent. The minister said that locally residents

are paying, on average, 8.5 percent of the cost of education in the public school

system. He's not prepared to take the risk that school boards might simply

increase those taxes to continue the kinds of programs that they would want

to continue.

What I'd like the minister to comment on is if the base is that

small, if we can collect only 8.5 percent on average of the cost of

maintaining the public school system from local taxpayers; if that is

the only base that local school districts can go to when they are

asking for a referendum to approve higher expenditures.... It's

going to be very difficult to get any meaningful amount of money if

that small taxation base has to cover the cost of whatever the school

boards want to do. Maybe I'm missing something in the formula, but

that's the way it appears to me. A referendum is almost doomed to fail;

to raise any meaningful amount of money the mill rate increase is going

to have to be relatively high, since the base, as the minister told us,

is very small.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The cost per student varies considerably

provincewide. What is plugged into the funding are the true costs which

have been experienced by boards, and they are historical. Remember that

approximately 92 percent of the funding comes from consolidated

revenue, non-residential property taxation, grants in lieu of taxes,

and some miscellaneous funds — which do add up — from the Department of

Indian Affairs and the Department of National Defence. So we know there

is a variation, and that is plugged in. We just have to look at the

costs of some of the rural districts, and we soon find out where

there's a huge differential; also the economies of scale. Other factors

come into consideration: the split between elementary school children,

the number enrolled, and the number in secondary. I could go on and

give a number of examples of why there are these variations, but that's

plugged in, and I think it has been reasonably equitable.

When it comes down to the actual amount of money, remember that as

far as the residential taxpayer is concerned, there is a homeowner

grant involved. That comes to — I'm guessing — but probably something

in the order of $216 million. So add that to the actual amount of money

paid by the residential property tax payer. I did the calculations once

on raising a school board's budget by 2 percent. We did a run, and it

seems to me the average increase was about $30 provincewide. It varied,

of course, from district to district, with a low of $18 or $19 up to a

high in Stikine, where we have some concerns. The member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) raised that.

I recognize that there are certain limitations which are going to be

placed upon school boards to raise funds from residential property

taxes. But when this is out, they are in no different position than

anywhere else. A great deal of the funding, as we can know just by

percentages which have existed for years and years, has not come from

the residential property base but from consolidated revenue, including

the homeowner grant, and non-residential taxation, all of which are

distributed on an equitable basis by the provincial government. That's

the way the legislation is now. I don't think there's any question that

school boards in the future are going to have to depend on the

provincial government to a considerable degree for their funding. They

have to by virtue of the percentages which exist now and the

percentages which have existed for some time.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

As far as scooping the non-residential base, the biggest concern

that we had — and I think this was recognized by everyone — was that

the increase in taxation in that area was

[ Page 5740 ]

getting totally out of hand. We know in British Columbia the

commercial and industrial assessment is probably as large or larger

than any other province. We're trying to reverse the shift in that

direction. That became evident with the ultimate removal, over two

years, of machinery and equipment tax. So school districts are still

going to be very dependent upon the provincial government for their

funding. That's why it's so important that we go back to first

principles: determination of the cost per student and the recognition

of the true costs, found within the school district. We have to go back

to those. The whole funding formula was established on that basis —

that is, try as much as possible to bring equity between school

districts.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think it's the first time I've

actually heard someone say that the commercial and industrial base was

taken away from the local school boards and brought into the hands of

the government to protect them from the ravages of the local school

boards. Perhaps that was one reason, but I don't think I've ever heard

anybody stand up and say: "We brought them into our fold to protect

them."

Mr. Chairman, it wasn't this minister who did it, but when the water

licence fees were increased by some 500 percent, were they still trying

to protect those same people who were being hit by that increase? Or

were they thinking: "If anybody else is going to gouge them, we'll

protect them; if we're going to gouge them ourselves, then it's okay,

but we're going to take them away from anybody else who might have any

kind of a way of getting at them ?

I'm still worried about this.... The minister didn't really

answer — I think he gave me some figures, but I'm not sure. I want to

look those up in the Blues and also in the documents. My concern is

that it's going to be almost impossible to get a referendum passed. He

said that 92 percent of the funding for local school districts comes

from consolidated revenue.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe you said consolidated revenue and the

other sources — 8 percent local and 92 percent from other sources,

mostly consolidated revenue.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'd better let you say.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The breakdown is fairly close to the

following figures: consolidated revenue in the last fiscal year

represented 51.5 percent; commercial industrial, also called

non-residential, represented about 34.5 percent; grants in lieu of

taxes, shall we say, represented between 4 and 5 percent; and

residential tax base provincewide represented about 8.5 percent. The

figures were, as I recall: $662 million for non-residential; and about

$157 million residential — net of homeowner grant.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister did say 92 percent before for

something, but it doesn't matter. The point is that the total base was producing

43 percent when the local school boards had access to commercial, industrial

and residential. Just by adding these figures, it comes up to 43 percent. It

is conceivable that with that kind of tax base a local school district could

get more funds to do something in its local area. But with a tax base as small

as 8.5 percent, it's going to be awfully difficult for any school district,

I would think, to get a referendum passed.

And this business of averages — well, the minister points out that

it is just an average. I'm reminded of the old story about the person

with his feet on a block of ice and his head in an oven, and the

average temperature is okay. Perhaps there are a few school districts

on the right end of that scale who could get away with doing something;

for the others it's hopeless.

What the minister has done, really, is to deny school boards any

authority to raise funds from any source other than what the government

is prepared to give to them. The practicality of getting any funds from

this source is very remote.

[4:45]

MR. PASSARELL: Seeing that it's my birthday today, I'm going to be soft on the minister.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Why? Look what it's done for you. We'll get onto that another time. On to Education.

It's good to see the minister's able staff behind him. It's always a

pleasure to talk with Mr. Jimmy Carter. He's always been helpful up in

the north. I certainly hope that the minister doesn't pay him peanuts.

He's a good man to have in the ministry.

On the constituency issues, first the Dease Lake school. It was a

pleasure that this minister acted so quickly in bringing about a

positive response for the community of Dease Lake in bringing in a new

school. It should be completed, if I'm not mistaken, in September of

this year It was a long time coming. The minister acted quickly on it.

I think the residents of Dease Lake appreciate — I know I do — the

minister's response to their plea to get a new school in there, because

the previous school was in pretty poor shape.

Second is an issue that I have discussed privately with the

minister, regarding a full-time superintendent and secretary treasurer

for 87. At last year's BCSTA conference they passed a resolution

concerning a full-time superintendent and secretary-treasurer for the

Stikine. If I'm not mistaken right now it's 0.5, and I have received

numerous requests.

In School District 87 there's one school that will have to have some

major work done on it in the near future. That's Lower Post, right on

the B.C.-Yukon border. It is in drastic need of some kind of work. I'm

sure, seeing the quick response of the minister on Dease Lake, that

there will be something positive coming for Lower Post that the people

can count on.

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That I'm not sure of, in regard to Lower Post.

They used to have the residential school there. They moved into

supposedly temporary quarters at the time.

In regard to School District 92, I certainly hope there are no

cutbacks in the Nishga program, particular