1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7357 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Access for the disabled. Mr. Mowat –– 7357

Ms. Smallwood

Recriminalization of abortion. Ms. Marzari –– 7358

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Labour-management cooperation. Mr. Peterson –– 7360

Mr. Sihota

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

On vote 16: minister's office –– 7362

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. G. Janssen

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT : In the precinct today we have a very old friend of mine.

He's a veteran from the Second World War, shot down when he was in the RCAR

He is a great individual. In spite of becoming a paraplegic, he went back to

school at Dalhousie and graduated in law, and is now chairman of the Human Rights

Commission in Nova Scotia. They are out having a meeting this week. I ask the

House to make Mr. Don Curren very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED

MR. MOWAT :

I'm here today to speak about a subject which is very important to me,

and that is access for the disabled. First off, I want to say that when

I say "access, " I'm not just talking about the ability to get through

a door or to be able to get to the second floor of a building. I'm also

talking about a state of mind.

Every citizen in Canada must

be made aware that they must give the disabled access to society in the

same way they do everyone else. They must accept the disabled as equal

members of the population. In fact, when you note that one of seven

Canadians — in the Vancouver lower mainland it's one of five — have a

permanent disability or are disabled associated with age, you realize

that the disabled are the population and not just a small fringe group.

This

is just one more reason why the disabled must have access to a normal

life. This week, starting June 4 and through to June 10, has been

declared National Access Awareness Week by both the federal and

provincial governments.

I am proud to say that British

Columbia leads the way in pioneering programs for the disabled. We have

the most stringent building code in Canada with regard to

Council for Persons with Disabilities to keep British Columbia at the

forefront of policy development for the disabled. The Premier's council

convened for the first time in January of this year and has made a

number of recommendations to the government.

While I know

this government is the most responsible of any province that we have

ever seen, we want to be sure that only the most appropriate actions

take place. I must still urge the ministers to give speedy

consideration to recommendations of the council. I can guarantee that

they act only in the best interests of us British Columbians.

One of the biggest problems uncovered by the council in their brief existence

concerns the disabled and GAIN benefits. I must say first off, though, that

one of the recommendations the government acted on when called upon was the

increase in GAIN payments for the disabled. I commend the minister for his quick

action. But a serious dilemma remains in this area: because of the strict regulations

as to who can receive GAIN, it is virtually impossible for the disabled to further

their goal of employment. Anyone who enters full-time employment is cut off

from GAIN and associated benefits. It is this last point that is most painful

for the disabled, of course, because they not only lose their income and rental

assistance but also benefits such as assistance for medical supplies and equipment

such as wheelchairs. Please take my word for it, Mr. Second Member for Richmond

(Mr. Loenen), that they are very expensive. As a result, there's an incentive

to continue receiving GAIN supplement. The council is currently investigating

this issue further, but I would hope the minister would also investigate this

question and be ready to act when the council makes a recommendation in this

area.

must say, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased at the interest that members, by

their careful attention to it all, are taking in my statement today.

There's

one other issue, somewhat on a lighter note, that I would like to raise

regarding the Premier's council. A contest is currently underway to

create a logo for the council. The contest is open to children and

adults across the province, with some great prizes. I ask all members

of the House to promote this contest in their ridings, not only to

develop a logo for the council but to increase awareness of the

activities of the council and the disabled in general. After all,

that's what National Access Awareness Week is all about.

This

is the second year for the celebration of activities, and it has been

an ongoing and busy week. The Premier and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) kicked it off on Monday by giving out the

Premier's awards of excellence for accessible designs to four winners.

Among the winners were design teams for SkyTrain and the SeaBus in

Vancouver. Also on Monday, I, together with Rick Hansen, presented

awards to committees, companies and individuals who have shown an

outstanding commitment to the disabled this past year. As well,

throughout the week Victoria has been the host of the seventeenth

annual conference of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights

Agencies at the Empress Hotel. As an interesting and perhaps telling

aside, it was found that the wheelchair access ramps in the newly

renovated Empress Hotel are too steep, and the management has agreed to

rectify the situation.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, it shows

that the government and we as legislators must ensure that the

legislation we draft takes into consideration all British Columbians,

particularly the seniors and the disabled.

MS. SMALLWOOD : As the designated respondent from our side, I'd like to join the member and the government in acknowledging National Access

[ Page 7358 ]

Awareness

Week. This is an important week for a couple of reasons. First of all,

it brings awareness, which in turn brings the power to be involved, not

only for the people seeking access but for the community, where

awareness of the plight of the less fortunate empowers communities to

be more inclusive and the stronger for it.

The point I

would like to stress is that not only is National Access Awareness Week

striving to break down barriers for people in our communities; it is

also making the statement that those who have disabilities want to

enjoy the same dignity, the same respect and, indeed, the same

independence that those of us without those disabilities may enjoy. I

stress independence, because I believe that most people dealing with a

disability have something to offer to strengthen the community and the

lives that touch theirs. It's a very important aspect, and I hope that

the government ministers who are making decisions and policies that

affect the lives of disabled people keep it as a fundamental principle.

I would hope that the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond),

for instance, would be listening right now. However, we unfortunately

haven't seen too much attention paid to this particular statement.

[10:15]

The importance, I believe, is the focus: whether you treat these

people as having a disability or whether you recognize the contribution

that they make. If the focus is a disability, then the treatment is

client-practitioner; it's doing for; it's charity. I believe that it is

the wrong way to go and has caused many of the problems that we are

facing today. If the focus is the asset, instead, the strength of

individuals, and the abilities and things that they can bring to make

our society richer, then the policies for social assistance and

financial support would be different. I believe that the focus would be

one of empowering rather than inhibiting. I would hope that the

minister, if nothing else, would read the statement and suggestions,

and take a second look at the focus this government brings to this

issue.

MR. MOWAT : In closing my member's statement,

one important point I must note is that even though this is National

Access Awareness Week, we should all realize that awareness of the

disabled is not something that we should have started last Sunday and

end tomorrow, only to be put back into the closet for another year. It

should be a year-round activity. This is a point that is not lost on

our government. Through programs such as Go B.C.'s "Growth and

Opportunities," our government is working to help many

disadvantaged British Columbians lead a much easier and more meaningful

life.

I've seen this program used to have elevators

installed in buildings such as community health centres and recreation

centres, to increase access, and to help build a new children's play

area at the Children's Hospital in Vancouver and provide access for

disabled children.

As well, the government has taken steps

to ensure that transit will be accessible. I'm pleased to report that

from now on the Greater Vancouver Regional District will be installing

wheelchair lifts on all of their new buses. This is a very impressive

undertaking by B.C. Transit on behalf of all of our disabled citizens

and visitors.

The government also announced this week that

more than 60 community agencies across British Columbia will receive

funding to provide specialized services to families and disabled

members. The funding was based on community need and included

everything from family support groups to respite services. Our

government also assists in funding innovative ideas like the apartment

complex near Granville Island in Vancouver which houses six high lesion

respiratory quads. But people are what make programs such as this work,

and I commend them for their courage in moving into the community.

want to close by re-emphasizing the importance of the awareness of the

problems the disabled face every day. We hold events such as National

Access Awareness Week in order to raise the profile of certain issues.

It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that the profile of the

disabled stays high in society's consciousness throughout the rest of

the year.

I urge each member of this House to go out and

promote among our communities the issues you heard about this week. If

you do, the battles that the disabled have fought throughout their

lives and continue to fight every day will have not been in vain.

RECRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION

MS. MARZARI :

A few weeks ago during the debates on the estimates with the

Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith), we were discussing with him what

his stance would be with the federal government around a new abortion

law — that is, a law that the Prime Minister of this country has

suggested might be coming forward in this session of the federal

Parliament.

During the course of that debate, my colleague

the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) put to the

Attorney-General a couple of questions basically about what position

this government would be taking to the federal government in the

formulation of a new law. The Attorney-General responded that his

personal opinions had nothing to do with the issue at all — which was

not the question being put, but that was his first stance.

His

second answer was that this whole subject was not suitable for

federal-provincial discussion. We debated that for a few minutes,

saying that it was strange that pipelines were debatable between

federal and provincial, as well as cost-sharing agreements where EPF

was and any number of coordinated activities between federal and

provincial levels. But he was adamant that this was not a suitable

subject for federal-provincial discussions. Then ensued 45 minutes of

altercation in the House around whether we were really dealing with a

Health issue, which

[ Page

7359 ]

was more appropriate for the Health minister, rather than the Attorney-General.

was not a very edifying debate, and it brought once again to the fore

the whole issue of women's ability to choose, especially since last

January 28 when the Supreme Court of Canada told women that they were

real, whole people. It has become a very emotional issue. This House

has, on two or three occasions now, reflected, developed and shown that

emotion around the issue.

Since last January 28, 1988, a

number of things have happened in this country that are worth referring

to today. For example, every single woman in the federal House last

summer stood up for choice for women and opposed the recriminalization

of abortion. That is every single woman — I think there were 38 women

in the House last year — across political streams, across political

stripes.

In this House, too, all the women on this side and

two of the women on your side have made statements and put themselves

on the record. The two who haven't, I dare say, have feelings they

haven't brought into the area of public discourse.

Second

point. Your government buried a report from a special committee

commissioned by your Health Ministry on abortion. That report, I

gather, stated that women in B.C. do not use abortion as a birth

control device, and that is simply not even on the table for discussion.

Third

point. The Premier has announced that he is setting up a ministry for

women in this province. Okay. That's just a third point in the context

I am developing.

Fourth. The statistics have shown that

there really has been no increase in the rate of late termination of

pregnancies in this province. In fact, talking to Dr. Patricia Baird at

UBC, who runs the genetics clinic, she is claiming that termination in

fact of defective pregnancies has been much, much earlier, especially

because of chorionic villus sampling, which is a technique of testing

the viability of the fetus early on in pregnancy. So late terminations

of pregnancy have, in fact, declined in this province.

Another

point. A federal royal commission has been announced, but not yet

appointed, to investigate and report on reproductive technology. This

is going to effectively look, we hope, at the point at which science is

really challenging traditional notions of what motherhood is and what

choice is and what childbirth is about.

The final point.

The Attorney-General has himself claimed that personal opinions have no

place in discussions with the federal government, and the provincial

government has no room or time to discuss these items with the federal

government, a point which I don't accept but which has been articulated

by your side of the House.

On top of all these facts, our Premier decided on May 25 that he is going on

his own, flying off on his own accord, to talk to Ottawa about finding new ways

to punish women by asking for special new laws to recriminalize abortion, stating

that without a law it is wide open — any age for any reason.

Let

me put a couple of ideas forward to you. It really does depend on what

assumptions you make about women, right at the very beginning, as to

what you ask for when you go to Ottawa to talk about this issue of

choice. If you make the assumption that women are basically children or

chattels or furniture, then you make assumptions that abortion at any

stage should be criminalized. You can't trust women to carry a child to

term; therefore criminalize it.

If you make the assumption,

on the other hand, that women are equal partners in society, are fully

viable citizens and human beings that have their autonomy and

integrity, then you do other things. For example, you do what the

Brooks decision just did a few weeks ago in the Supreme Court of

Canada, when Chief Justice Dickson said that it is discriminatory,

basically, for society to charge women the full costs of having

children, and that firing someone for being pregnant is not a fair

thing to do. In fact, both men and women have to share the costs of our

common goal, which is having children in our society. It's a slightly

different point of view, is it not?

Taking abortion to

Ottawa and asking for it to be recriminalized — put back into the

Criminal Code — is a little like overkill, is it not? I mean, if you're

out to punish women, fine, do it. But if you don't want to punish

women.... Let's put it in the context, perhaps, of red light, green

light — of traffic control, of coming to a stop sign and stopping —

where there's mutual...

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the member that the red light has gone off, and her time is up under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI : Okay.

...consensus. This is the kind of attitude and assumption I would prefer this government to take on abortion.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Parliament of Canada will deal with this issue during this term. The

fulfil that commitment.

MS. MARZARI : I was actually

looking forward to a debate. In fact, I thought that, since the Premier

was staying in the House for this statement period, we could enjoy a

debate together. Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that I have extra time?

It means I still have three minutes left.

The regulatory

regimes which we presently have basically involve MSP and cost-sharing

arrangements around our medical services, basically revolve around

doctors observing their oaths and ethical practices and women having

the right to choose. This regime, which now basically leaves the

control — if you want to call it that — and the choice to the woman and

her doctor, seems to be working quite well in this country. Nobody

seems to have complained, except people who have a religious motivation

that basically rests on the notion that women

[ Page 7360 ]

should be controlled and that they shouldn't be trusted; they should be treated like children.

I'd

suggest that recriminalizing abortion does a number of things. It puts

doctors' behaviour under the Criminal Code, and it reintroduces the

notion that their practice could be criminal in one way or another. If

you follow the assumption I talked about earlier, about women needing

control, it takes us towards the following questions. At what point in

a pregnancy should a woman be incarcerated because she's smoking or

drinking? When do you put young girls in homes, to make sure they're

eating right during their pregnancy, so that they'll produce healthy

babies? At what point do you introduce handmaids' jails into our

society, so that women are guaranteed to carry to healthy term, and

won't have choice and won't be choosing to exercise it? These are

absurd extensions of the assumption that you so fervently make.

What

we really have to look at once again are the words of Madam Justice

Bertha Wilson, when she said: "The fact that the decision whether a

woman will be allowed to terminate her pregnancy is in the hands of a

committee is just as great a violation of the woman's right to personal

autonomy in decisions of an intimate and private nature, as it would be

if a committee were established to decide whether a woman should be

allowed to continue her pregnancy." That is the issue, gentlemen; it's

choice.

[10:30]

LABOUR-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION

MR. PETERSON :

A week ago Thursday, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the

expansion of the Captin wheel-manufacturing plant in Delta.

Just to give you a bit of background, the plant manufactures

wheels for Toyota cars. Recently it opened an expansion, whereby their

employees will increase by 60.

During this opening session,

there were some very important people sitting up on the stage. There

was the Premier of our province, the mayor of Delta, a cabinet minister

from the federal government, Hon. Charles Mayer, the chief executive

officer of Toyota and one other person — a production plant worker. His

name was Sam Wright, and he worked on the assembly line. He was a

younger man, and he was extremely proud as he stood up there. I

listened to his speech with great interest, and I would like — I'm sure

he wouldn't mind — to quote some of the words in his speech, when he

addressed the crowd at that opening.

First he talked about

when he was looking for the job, and he said: "I was prepared to work

hard in a job that would challenge me on a daily basis and give me the

opportunity to learn new skills." He carries on later and says: "I

realized that my fellow employees at Captin had the same career goals

as myself." As he carried on, he said: "But most important, I could see

the individualism being formed into a team, and it was soon obvious

that teamwork made all our jobs easier. Now, instead of an individual

having a problem to solve, we all shared in solving it. What's

important, though, is that as each day passed, the obstacles became

easier and easier to overcome."

Remember, this is a young

man — I would say maybe 25 or 26 years old — and he's relating his

feelings to all these important people at the opening of this big

plant. In closing, he said:

"I would like to

say that by Toyota establishing the Captin plant here in B.C., it has

given me what I was looking for — a job for a lifetime...a job that

recognizes hard work, gives its employees a chance for advancement, and

challenges me on a new daily basis and has taught me new skills.

"On behalf of the team at Captin, we thank you, Toyota,

and the federal and provincial government for their assistance in bringing Captin

to B.C."

These words come from a production-line worker.

The

topic of my statement today is cooperation between labour and

management. I couldn't help but wonder, if we had that cooperation

through our whole industrial base in British Columbia and through our

public sector, how much better an effect there would be on our economy

and our quality of life, and how in fact this would enable us to carry

on in the manner that we are right now.

On reflection, and

by looking at some of the stats, I realize that that indeed is

happening in British Columbia. Let me read some of the stats. I don't

care if you're talking about the union sector, the non-union sector,

industry or the public service, we are indeed doing very well in

British Columbia. British Columbians should be proud of themselves.

Let's

look at work stoppages. Let me give you some statistics. In 1986 the

number of workers directly involved in work stoppages was 114,830, and

the worker-days lost was 2,965,949, for a simple stoppage duration

ratio of time workers to paid workers of 1. Now let's look at 1987. The

number of workers involved was 328,607. I'll get back to that statistic

in a moment, but the worker-days lost was only 567,741, and the ratio

was 0.2 –– 1 might add that the reason for the large number of workers

directly involved was that unfortunate day on June 1, when there was a

one-day work stoppage throughout B.C., condoned by the Leader of the

Opposition and the opposition. I believe it was an illegal walkout, and

it was condoned by those people sitting over there. That's the reason

for the blip.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, in 1988 we carried

on; this is an amazing statistic. Workers directly involved in a work

stoppage was only 49,133; worker-days lost, 40,067. The ratio I talked

about comes out to 0.1. So we have made dramatic, amazing progress in

this province in the last three years, just excellent progress. Why?

Because of the cooperation between management and labour.

What is government's role in this? My feeling is that government should be a facilitator.

MR. SPEAKER : Under the standing orders, the hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIHOTA : It's very interesting to listen to the member talk about labour-management cooperation,

[ Page 7361 ]

because

the record of the government in this regard is very clear. It's evident

that this is a government that has chosen a course of confrontation as

opposed to a course of cooperation. It takes two to cooperate.

When

the government was elected in October 1986, the Minister of Labour

(Hon. L. Hanson) tasked a group of people to go around this province

and draft new labour legislation. That was a cooperative model which

was applauded by all. Silently working in the Premier's office, there

was another group that was drafting the provisions of Bill 19. When it

became evident that the public process the Minister of Labour had

started was just a sham, and that the real methodology of the

government was to build in-house labour legislation, there was a

violation of process. There was indeed confrontation throughout this

province, caused by the destructive and controversial legislation this

government brought in.

It compounded the fact by

introducing, on June 1, seditious writs in the courts as another way of

heightening the level of confrontation. One would have thought they

would have learned from their experiences surrounding Bill 19, but

instead the Premier instructed the Attorney-General of the day to

proceed with the seditious writs.

The Minister of Labour,

in his report to the Premier on Bill 19.... I don't have the actual

quote here, but just to paraphrase it, he said something to the effect

that if the legislation didn't have the support and the acquiescence of

the majority, then the greater objective would not be achieved. That

was the essence of what he said. You know, the Minister of Labour is

correct. We now have in this province a schism between labour and

management and particularly against the government. But the

understanding of the violation of process that was triggered by the

government has brought — in a funny sort of way — management and labour

together, frustrated with the government.

Much has been

said in the past few weeks by the members opposite with respect to

where our party stands on the matter of new labour legislation in

British Columbia. I want to take a minute or two to talk about it,

because I think that the approach we're taking represents a different

process, which serves as a striking example of the difference between

what the Socreds have done and what the New Democrats are prepared to

do.

Last September, shortly after I was appointed labour

critic of our party, I commenced a series of dialogues with management

and labour across this province. We've talked to all major employer

groups and many trade unions in British Columbia. As a consequence, we

commenced a process of consultation.

We will be introducing

later on this year, around December, our principles as they attach to

new labour legislation that we would introduce. It's based upon a

consultative process that is underway now. We're not prepared to move

in the back rooms and in the confrontational fashion that this

government has.

We are prepared to respect process and try

to draft equal, fair-handed legislation that attends to the interests

of both management and labour. By proceeding in the fashion that we

have, we are confident that going into the next election, we'll be able

to put before the electorate a striking example of legislation and of

principles which guide legislation that can work. That's when people in

this province will recognize that indeed there is a new generation of

New Democrats: people who believe in fairness, people who have worked

consultatively with management and labour, people who will put together

a package of labour legislation that can truly work as a catalyst to

bring an end to the inevitable conflicts that happen between labour and

management.

We're proud of the process that we've

commenced. We'll be deeply proud to introduce what we have coming down

towards the end of this year, and it will again demonstrate that if

there is one party in this province that is interested in

labour-management cooperation, it is ours. I know, from the Premier's

comments this weekend, that that concerns him.

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the member that under the standing orders his time is up.

MR. PETERSON :

I'd like to reply to that member. There is one party in this province

that is interested in labour-management cooperation and it's the Social

Credit Party. He talks about the record being clear. Mr. Speaker, I'm

astounded at some of his statements.

Let me quote the

record of the last three years resulting from this government, with

some assistance from Bill 19: "The labour record over the last three

years was the best, and as well, more people are working in B.C. than

ever before. Worker-days lost due to work stoppages fell from nearly

three million worker-days lost in 1986 to only 400,000 in 1988." That

doesn't just happen: that's cooperation and that's work from this

government. "In 1988, only one-tenth of 1 percent of total worker-days

lost was due to work stoppages — that is, strikes, walkouts, lockouts,

etc." That's progress; that's cooperation. "The year 1988 witnessed an

86 percent drop in the number of work stoppages over 1986, despite the

fact that '88 was one of the heaviest bargaining years in recent

memory, involving 385 collective agreements and nearly 212,000

employees." That's progress; that's cooperation, Mr. Member.

"Legislation was introduced also to increase the participation of

workers and employers in developing Workers' Compensation Board

policies, programs and procedures."

The Industrial

Relations Act, Bill 19, has served the province very well since

proclaimed in July 1987. Despite the controversy surrounding this piece

of legislation — we know who was pulling your strings during that

controversy — the act has been successful in its aim to create a

stable, long-term labour relations climate which will attract

investment to British Columbia and create more jobs. The proof is

there; the proof is in the pudding.

The member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew stood up in this House and said he was going to

come up with some miracle legislation. We still haven't seen it. He

talks about it like he talks about everything else, but

[ Page 7362 ]

it's

simply talk and not action. You like to create controversy to get

yourself a headline, but you're not interested in getting the job done;

you're not interested in British Columbia. It's time that members of

this House brought you to bear, Mr. Member, because enough is enough. I

would suggest that you contribute to some good solid substance in this

House and not the malarkey you've been handing us.

[10:45]

MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MRS. GRAN :

Seated in the House today is a grade 7 class from Alice Brown

Elementary School, with their teacher, Peter Luongo, who is one of the

most hard-working, dedicated teachers that I know. Would the House

please make them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 16: minister's office, $224,490.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I welcome the opportunity to discuss my estimates and would like to

make a few introductory remarks before we get to the rest of the

process.

I think everyone will agree that these are

exciting times in education in this province. There is a spirit of

enthusiasm and cooperation, and of looking forward to change through an

evolutionary process, the promise of a better and more relevant

education system, which will produce students better equipped to

survive and flourish in a rapidly changing world.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This

government believes very strongly in the importance of education, and

recognizes that our children are the future of our province. The

government sees very clearly the link between education and the social

and economic health of our province. From a personal perspective, I

would certainly like to thank the Premier and all of my colleagues in

cabinet and caucus for the excellent support that they have given to

the initiatives that have been put forward by the Ministry of Education

as a result of much consultation with people in the field.

Education

is an investment, not only in the individual personal development of

students but also in the economic development and the future prosperity

of the province. The government of British Columbia is committed to

developing an education system capable of preparing the youth of today

for full participation in the dynamic economy of tomorrow.

can be very proud of our education system. There are many fine examples

of the current success of the school system. Just one example is the

latest results of the international test of science and mathematics,

which was reported in January 1989, where B.C. students placed first in

science and a close third in mathematics in an international

competition involving 12 jurisdictions around the world. Our students

excelled in problem solving, and it's a credit to the thinking and

problem-solving skills that are being taught in our school system.

we have a very good system now, but the enhancement of the education

system must be an ongoing process if B.C. students are to maintain and

even improve on current achievements, or if they are to hold such

international stature.

Mr. Chairman, we know well that even

in very difficult times we tried very hard to be fair, to support a

sound basic education system and to bring as much equity to this system

as possible throughout the school districts of the province. Even

during the restraint period, funding for education fared better than in

virtually all other ministries of government, and certainly much better

than for people in the private sector.

Over the last few

years, we have continued to bring about significant improvements in the

funding provided to the 75 school boards, and we have introduced

special initiatives in support of education excellence, such thrusts as

moving into the international education area, and support for rapidly

changing technologies with our funding for computer programs and other

technologies in the school system, as they affect the curriculum and

the needs of the students in preparation for the twenty-first century.

Every year since 1984 there have been improvements and fine-tuning in

the system, in line with the resources made available to education, and

these resources have been substantial and increasing at a dramatic rate.

would like to give credit to the fiscal framework advisory committee,

who have each year, and on a continuing basis, looked at the funding

for different sections of the education system. Many of their very well

considered and thought out recommendations to us have been implemented

since I've been minister.

I would also like to commend the

College of Teachers, which has come up with a very expeditious start

and has taken a very professional role in looking at the professional

side of teaching. The people in the executive are certainly very

dedicated and committed to making sure that the teaching profession

remains highly regarded.

With respect to funding for

education, our system is already among the best in Canada. It is being

given new focus and direction. Funding is being significantly increased

in 1989-90 again, with a number of new initiatives being undertaken.

Overall, the budget for the Ministry of Education for the 1989-90

fiscal year provides for an additional $253 million, bringing the total

to $2.2 billion — a 12.8 percent increase.

We have set the path for new initiatives with respect to the Sullivan royal commission recommen-

[ Page 7363 ]

dations,

and we have given ourselves a realistic ten-year time-frame in which to

bring about those changes. But we think that we must get started, and

so we are starting now. I guess it's pretty hard to pin down when the

process actually started, but many of the initiatives are ongoing.

There is a lot of consultation going on with the teachers as the

details of the content of the implementation are being developed. We've

recognized that there has to be money for that, and we have committed

ourselves as a government to $1.4 billion over the next ten years, over

and above the standard operating budget, in order to implement the

recommendations of the report.

We are at present focusing

more attention on the progress of individual students, with a provision

for dual entry in the first year; the initial development of a new

provincial curriculum structure for grades 4 to 10 to be phased into

schools over the next several years, thus placing greater emphasis on

problem solving and creative thinking as well as literacy; and the

development of new differentiated grade 11 and 12 programs, providing a

choice of pathways leading to graduation, and a choice of equitable

pathways so that they all have credibility.

In addition,

funding will provide for expanded teacher education programs, support

for special programs for rural teacher education, the establishment of

an Education Advisory Council for the enhancement of native Indian

language and culture programs, the further improvement and development

of assessment and performance evaluation procedures, and programs and

increased funding for independent schools.

The Royal

Commission on Education also recommended.... We had suggested it over

the last couple of years and have been getting increased funding for

capital programs. Now we have committed ourselves to a six-year program

of $1.5 billion, and for this year one-sixth of that — $250 million in

capital expenditures — is more than double what we spent last year,

which was probably more than double what we spent the year before.

Ironically,

the economic good times in the province are generating a great demand

for schools, and we are trying our very best to keep up with it.

Obviously we can't meet every expectation out there, but we are giving

priorities to the situations where students don't have classrooms or

where it makes no sense to put props under the props. In that system of

priorities, we have done a fair amount of fast-tracking in addition to

the rational system that we set up over a year ago where when we give

planning money it's because we are assured of the construction money.

That has helped school boards to plan. It's a much more rational system

and is moving much more quickly. We are still looking at other

improvements in that regard.

The budget provided for major

improvements to the education funding system, and the 1989-90 grants to

school districts have been improved. The grant allocations again far

outdistanced those in the other provinces. School boards are now

notified early about the general grant increase and the maintenance of

the provincial sharing ratio to allow them to engage in sound planning

for their budgets.

The increase in grants to the school

districts is two and a half times the cost of inflation as measured by

the consumer price index. Funding has been substantially improved to

provide for inflation, fixed costs, enrolment increases, operations and

maintenance costs, student transportation, teacher salaries and

benefits, other support personnel salaries and benefits, curriculum

resources, special education, educational supplies and materials, and

extra funding for smaller dispersed schools and school districts.

might point out that we have already moved and will probably be moving

further to allowing school districts to spend 30 percent of their

educational materials — which used to be textbook funds — rather than

just the 5 percent on local choice, so it's 70 percent on prescribed. I

suppose we will gradually move even further as boards are ready to

accept that responsibility and as the system changes so that it

requires a greater variety of materials.

The province has

taken steps to ensure that the funding system recognizes current costs,

as far as possible, relative to provincially established levels of

service. Increases in funding for '89-90 give the fiscal framework a

high level of integrity and support a sound basic education program.

The province has significantly increased the size of the basic

education program in which it shares costs with school boards.

Approximately 81 percent of school board budgets are offset by

provincial grants, including the homeowner's grant. About 5 percent of

school board budgets are offset by what we call miscellaneous revenue,

which includes such things as federal French grants and surpluses and

other local revenue from fees and rentals. Approximately 14 percent of

school board budgets are paid out of local residential taxes.

some districts, homeowners pay significantly more than 14 percent

because their local school board has chosen to offer services above the

provincially shared basic education program or to exceed the

provincially determined costs. School boards have the authority to

increase local residential taxes to pay for supplementary budget

amounts, but they are responsible to the local taxpayers for those

decisions. As the province continues to increase its grants and the

size and cost of the basic education program in which it shares, it is

also encouraging school boards to reduce their supplementary budgets

and keep residential tax increases to a minimum.

This year

the province has taken the additional step of alleviating the increase

in local taxes by increasing the homeowner grant to seniors by $50 or

by $70.

[11:00]

School districts across the province will receive $1.6 billion for

operating and debt service costs, an increase of 10.5 percent, or $149

million more than last year. The homeowner grant, I mentioned, will be

increased, and that increase to the provincial taxpayer cost $44.5

million.

[ Page 7364 ]

Contributions

to the Teachers' Pension Fund will rise by $13.3 million to a total of

$134.8 million. Grants to independent schools, by the formula based on

the cost of the public schools, will increase by $8.4 million for a

total of $57.1 million.

Besides these major initiatives,

the Ministry of Education budget also supports other very important

priorities, including third-year funding of $5.3 million for the

Pacific Rim education initiatives, which includes scholarships to

student-teacher exchanges, curriculum development and language programs.

includes second-year funding for the five-year computers-in-education

program. Last year I'm told that 8,400 computers were purchased, and

the target is to place more than 40,000 computers in schools across the

province. I might add that this year we carried on with the funding we

had last year in our five-year plan.

This year we're going

to be requiring school boards to install a computer in each school for

the assessment and monitoring process. In that regard we put in an

additional almost $6 million for those computers. I say that and

emphasize it because I have read somewhere that we took that out of the

computer money that was put into schools. We put in the same money we

put in last year, which was our plan, and we added the extra money for

the computers.

A third special initiative is the

continuation of the $8.4 million Passport to Education program, which

allows students to build up credits for paying for later education

based on their school and community performance. I might say that the

take-up on that has been very good.

Further regionalization

of the correspondence education program, with implementation of two

more centres, brings the total to six regional centres. All of the

evaluations of those regional centres show that students are performing

better on correspondence courses because they have closer access to

checking of tests and to the people who are administering the program.

Mr.

Chairman, it's important to point out that the province has worked hard

to ensure that tax increases are minimal, but these tax patterns can

only be achieved if school boards keep their budget at reasonable

levels. The province has again provided generous funding increases to

allow boards to provide quality education programs. We have indulged in

a lot of consultation. Speaking for myself, right from the time I

became minister I've promoted that in the first talk I gave I suggested

that if all of us devote our energies towards pointing out the good

things in our education system and cooperatively working to fix up the

weak spots, we would all gain a great deal more. That has produced

considerable results. It's not necessarily a total commitment to that

consultation process. Some people like to carry on the confrontation.

I'd even like to dream of the day when the opposition and my opposition

critic will cooperate to try to improve the education system and to fix

the flaws rather than to dwell on them.

I enlist the

cooperation of the boards and the teachers in working together to

achieve our mission in the public interest. I had an opportunity over

the last few years to visit most of the school districts in this

province. I talked to students, teachers, parents, community groups,

and I must say that it confirms my belief in the enthusiasm and the

fine achievements of our students and the obvious dedication and

professionalism of their teachers. I never cease to be impressed with

the great things happening every day in our schools and with how

extensively schools are reaching out to their communities and involving

them in the educational process. On that basis, I'm very optimistic

about the changes that are being planned, because teachers will be

involved. I have every faith that the teachers are both interested and

very capable of implementing the changes for a better learning process

for the students of our schools. Many of the citizens out there share

the enthusiasm for a better education system and what it can achieve in

meeting the needs of students and in preparing them for the future.

The

Royal Commission on Education has focused a great deal of attention on

education in our province. I would like to commend the late Barry

Sullivan for his dedication and his work in bringing about the

recommendations, in effect giving us the future direction for education

in this province. Not only will this keep us in the game of change and

preparation for the future, but I think he has given us the guidelines

to be one of the leading educational organizations in Canada and

elsewhere. Teachers, administrators, parents and the public have worked

very hard to prepare excellent, well-thought-out presentations both to

the commission and to myself. I would sincerely like to thank all of

those people who have contributed and participated and who take an

ongoing interest.

The provincial advisory committee has to

be very highly commended. These people put in a lot of time, not just

at the meetings but in studying a mass of material in a short time and

making many good recommendations. I think they are to be commended, in

that they recognized it would be impossible to achieve a 100 percent

consensus at all points because of philosophy and other points of view,

but they always kept before them the ultimate good of the education

system.

Lastly, I would certainly like to thank the

dedicated staff in my ministry. I guess no one will ever know the extra

hours that were put in, and not only by senior staff who are committed

to taking these programs forward and putting them together time and

time again. We have to recognize that when these people are putting in

that kind of time and reports have to be put together, it spins off to

everybody in the ministry. Every typist was expected to get something

ready on a fast-track basis. So to everyone in the ministry, directly

or indirectly involved, I would like to extend my commendations and the

gratitude of the people of this province. At the district level, many

extra hours were put in by superintendents, administrators, school

boards, teachers and parents in feeding input into the advisory

planning committee and to myself in order to bring about what we

[ Page 7365 ]

hope will be a very improved education system that we can be proud of.

With

me today are my assistant deputy ministers, Mr. Jack Fleming and Mr.

Wayne Desharnais. With all of the positive things that are going on in

education in this province, I certainly welcome the few questions that

the opposition may have on my estimates.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue with the minister on the

matters that I know have taken a tremendous amount of his time and

effort over the last year. I will begin my comments by picking up on

the theme with which the minister concluded his remarks when he

acknowledged and thanked the staff of the ministry, and the many people

throughout the province who are involved in the education of our young

people, for their endeavours.

I want to thank the minister

on behalf of the people of the province. He has been, in this past year

especially, a minister who has been seen to be, and who has been, an

advocate for education. I think that's recognized in the province. I've

certainly heard people speak about it, Mr. Minister, and it's something

that should be acknowledged in the House. The minister has worked

extremely hard during probably one of the most interesting and dynamic

years that education has had in the province in a number of years.

has been a year characterized by, I think for the first time, optimism,

considerable renewed energy and a refocusing. The minister and I will

agree, I think, that the source of that kind of spirit within the

province came largely from the royal commission and the excellent work

done by Mr. Barry Sullivan and the members of his commission staff —

and indeed by the public of the province — on behalf of education. I

would certainly agree with him that the reflection this document

provides about the province's people and their feeling about education,

the strong statement it makes committing us to the very best education

we can possibly provide for the children of our province, for their

future and for the future of this place in which we live, and

committing us to the parents and the teachers who are the direct

workers and the people looking after our children. All of that, I

think, came out of that commission.

Out of it too came not

necessarily all of the answers, but a very clear sense of direction,

which has helped to guide the work of the ministry and the work of

people throughout the province. There has indeed, as the minister has

noted, been consultation. Out of that consultation the ministry has

developed a mandate statement and policy directions. The minister is

moving towards the introduction of

an act late in June. I think that

process has been one that we commend.

I want to note that

the minister and I might have a little difference of view around some

of the dynamics associated with that process. When one consults, there

is bound to be an expression of different viewpoints. That's part of

examining very important and fundamental questions, and I think that

when we look at the outcome of some of that consultation, we will

inevitably have differences of opinions. You and I, I think, may have

some as we discuss this part of the government's work and the part of

the enterprise in our province over the next few days. But I think that

all of those concerns come forward from a genuine commitment to our

children and to the education of our children.

I think

that's the fundamental principle that guides our work in this House,

and I believe it guides the work of the people we call the stakeholders

in education: the parents; the people the parents and communities

elect, the trustees; the teachers, through the B.C. Teachers'

Federation and the College of Teachers; the various PSAs; and the

groups of senior officials who work together. All of those people are

guided by common goals. I think that if we keep that in mind, we can

use some of the disparate views as a means of arriving at the very best

decisions we might take.

We are entering into these

estimates on a late Friday morning, with not very much notice, which is

not uncommon with estimates. I think the minister and I both know that

we're not quite sure when we might resume the estimates process. To my

knowledge, it hasn't been officially scheduled as yet.

But

I am very happy that we are beginning the discussion. One of the

reasons I'm especially pleased is that this week the government

provided us with a timetable of its legislative agenda still to be

introduced into this House. There is a list of 57 statutes — I don't

know whether that's the Heinz variety or not — including the School Act

and the Independent School Act, and a date for the introduction of

those acts. According to that schedule, those two acts will be first

introduced in this House on June 26.

[11:15]

I'm

sorry they won't be in the House earlier than that time, because in

fact our debate will inevitably occur when students and parents, and to

a considerable extent trustees and teachers, are taking a well-earned

rest. I know that on June 30, after a year of the kind of activity that

normally goes on in school — and which has gone on even more

extensively because of people's involvement in the implementation of

the royal commission — most people will be taking a well-earned rest.

It would have been a fine thing if we had been able to have had that

debate on the School Act when the people who are most directly

concerned were still within the framework of schools and the education

system, instead of on holiday. These estimates, if they continue over

the next couple of days and next week, if that's the government's wish

— and they set the time — in fact will provide us with an opportunity

for some discussion of the issues during the time that school is in

session.

With those remarks, with a very special

commendation to those various organizations and individuals who have

worked so hard this year... I want to mention a couple of groups I

didn't hear the minister mention specifically, although he mentioned

their membership generically: the School Trustees' Association and the

Teachers' Federation. I want to share in

[ Page 7366 ]

my introductory

remarks the sense that things are moving in the system, which the

minister has spoken about, and to conclude with the recognition of the

work that he and his ministry have done in that regard.

Let

me move more specifically to the first topic that I would like to

examine with the minister. The royal commission brought down

recommendations in a number of areas. It dealt with the mandate of

schools and with the curriculum that children are taught in schools. It

described the children themselves: who they are and some of the variety

of living circumstances that they have in the province. In particular,

it focused on their needs for the future. It talked about the people

who teach those children. It spent time looking at the special needs of

the system and the support systems that need to be in place, and it

talked about financing provincial schools.

It would be fair

to say that in the past year, the minister has moved on every one of

these issues in some way or other. Again, that is commendable However,

there is one area that I want to deal with over the next few minutes.

his policy directions of January 27, the minister provided everybody

concerned with education with a blueprint of those policies — very

often with some timetables — that would guide the system, particularly

for the coming year and with projections into a longer-range future

that he spoke about a moment ago, when he talked about a ten-year

timetable.

In those policy directions, the minister

referred to the funding system. That's what I call: how much do we pay

for education? He referred to the taxation system. That's what I call:

who pays and how much? That's really what we're talking about when

we're talking about education finance. It has those two components: the

elements of the dollars that are available, and where we get those

dollars. We always say we get those dollars from each of us. They come

in different ways, and the impact of how those dollars come has very

significant effects on the people affected by those taxation measures.

the policy directions, the minister made commitments to a timetable

where he indicated that the funding system would be in place to the

1990-91 fiscal year, and between now and then there would be an

examination of the funding system to ensure that it is fair and

equitable. It is also stated that there would be a review by the

Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance and Corporate

Relations into the taxation system so that any improvements to the

system would be ready for the 1990-91 fiscal year.

I'd like

to ask the minister what the current state of affairs is. What is the

current timetable for the review of education funding and taxation

systems in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The funding that we announced for the 1989-90 school

year is in place. Of course, that's what will be discussed in the budget,

so there are not too many changes to that, other than the homeowner grant, the

base grant from 55 percent to 57 percent and all of the improvements that we

have tried to make within the existing funding formula.

must admit that there is work going on. The Ministry of Finance and

Corporate Relations is looking at all of the numbers. I don't know

whether they've gotten to other alternatives. They'll be trying to lay

the base within the Ministry of Education and the Finance ministry, and

there are some other discussions going on. We have been getting some

input from school boards about funding.

We've concentrated

our efforts in trying to get the act and this implementation process

underway. We're still committed for the next year to come up with a

more equitable system if we possibly can. I say "if we possibly can,"

because everybody who has studied it has said that there should be

local taxation to provide local autonomy, and that property taxation

provides a base. Whether we continue that or not, I don't know.

We'll

be taking a very comprehensive look at it. I would imagine it will

require legislation in the next session, which we'll be looking at next

spring. The budget implications, to the extent possible, would be

incorporated in next year's budget. We'll be doing a lot of consulting

as we get.... The advisory planning commission has at this point worked

on implementation strategies and discussing the legislation. As soon as

we get that put together, then we'll move on that. I will agree with

the member; I, too, wish that the act had been in the House earlier. We

would have liked to have had it out there early, but I guess my

enthusiasm was somewhat dampened by the realization of how much time

the legislative people have to put in to develop a whole new

comprehensive act. Again, I should include them with my staff in

commendation of.... They pulled out all the stops to try to put it

together as quickly as possible. The process is quite onerous. Yes, I

welcome the debate on it. But I might point out to the member,

regarding her opening remarks, that there has been a great deal of

debate and probably more input into what the legislation should contain

than there has ever been before.

MS. A. HAGEN : In

the policy directions of the funding and taxation issue, the minister

announced that his ministry and, as he just noted, the Ministry of

Finance would be involved in the review. Could he advise the House what

other formal structures there are for this review process of funding

and taxation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : We haven't pulled

together the other structures, as I say, because of other priorities,

but at the staff level and with myself, we have had meetings with the

BCSTA. The BCTF has made some suggestions in their ongoing staff

meetings, where everybody is trying to come up with the answer. If

someone can come up with it, we'd certainly welcome it — the perfect

taxation system. Before that is done, I expect that when Finance has a

lot of the alternatives for what it means if you drop this taxation,

when they have those numbers and our ministry can put them together,

then we can bring together what the school districts are talking about.

[ Page 7367 ]

To have suggestions like, "Well, you pay it all and don't bother us, " isn't very productive in that sense.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Yes, who pays? The taxpayers pay. It is a case of equitable distribution or collection of the funds.

So there are no formal meetings set for this yet, but I expect that there will be as soon as we move on to that phase.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Perhaps the minister would confirm some information that I understood

had been given about the whole review process — that is, that there

would be some structure, some formal group, in place by September of

this year, and that the minister had requested them to report back to

him by January 1991. Could the minister advise us whether there has

been any move at all to indicate — if not who will be involved — that

there will be some formal process outside of the two ministries that he

has said are working on some of the technical aspects of preparing for

this review?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm sorry, I don't

have the dates that the member seems to have. But the Education

Advisory Council, as they finish the legislation, will be moving on and

are committed to discussing the financing, and they represent a broad

group of people. Municipal Affairs is discussing this. And UBCM, I

know, is putting together their suggestions, as is the BCSTA. I just

don't know when we'll be able to pull the meetings together of all

these groups. But the important thing, I think, is that these people

are inputting right now with their suggestions. Then we'll have to put

it all together and see how it ties together.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Has the minister, in his own mind, or has his staff advised him of an

appropriate date by which this review with recommendations might be

concluded? Is there some sense of how much time it may take? Because as

he has noted, there is technical work to be done, and there are a very

significant number of people within the province, in the various

organizations concerned especially about taxation — which is, I think,

what he's talking about now particularly — a very significant number of

groups that are interested and concerned. Is there some time-frame

within which the minister and his staff and the staff of the Ministry

of Finance are working?

[11:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The time-frame really is already our commitment to bring it into next

year's taxation structure. Working back from that, the budget material

has to be there for January, so a lot of work has to be done. The

technical work is what I was referring to. We're not waiting for one

final proposal before we work it out. The technical work that's being

done now is: "If this, what is the cost; if this, what is the effect?"

That will be all the information that can be brought to the table when

the alternatives are considered. But working back, if we're going to

get it into next year's budget, which we're committed to, then it will

have to be ready in January.

MS. A. HAGEN : Could the

minister advise us if those groups that are examining this issue have

been given any kind of a mandate, if you like, or any terms of

reference by the Minister of Education or the Minister of Finance? What

are the goals of this review of taxation and funding? What is it that

the minister is seeking to achieve? What are we about in this

enterprise? Could the minister please define this for us so that we

understand what he wants to have come out of this study which so far is

going on behind the scenes but presumably is going to go forward in a

more public and consultative way sometime within the very near future?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I thought it was already public and self-evident, from the royal

commission report and what we have said, that the whole purpose is to

come up with a more equitable and easier-to-operate taxation structure

to finance education. We know that education is costing money; we

expect it will cost more in the future, and we have committed more

money. So it would be: how do you collect that money in a more

equitable way — from what sources and in what ways — and how do you

distribute it?

That's the major underlying objective of it,

but we haven't set up a mandate. For instance, we're not about to tell

the UBCM: "You have a mandate to fill in these blanks on this form." We

have said to them, "We know this is of great interest to you, so will

you make your suggestions for the taxation system: to what extent

should it be property taxation, what should it include, " that sort of

thing. The other organizations — the BCSTA, BCTF, other people — have

been invited to put in their proposals. As I've said, as we get the

time, as we get through the legislation, then we'll pull these groups

together and say: "Okay, now let's look at it. Your proposal may be

wonderful from your perspective, but it just doesn't work. So what

about putting together enough of the proposals?"

We are

very optimistic that we can come up with a better and more equitable

system. As I said earlier, I don't think there is a perfect system,

because the perfect system, as nearly as I can get it, is that more

money should be spent and less taxes collected, and that we can't do. I

can tell you that now.

MS. A. HAGEN : So far I think

our comments have probably been mostly directed to the "who pays?" side

of this ledger, the taxation side of it. Just one more question there.

The royal commission provided some recommendations around financing of

education. The Education Policy Advisory Committee also dealt with this

matter, and in its report to the minister in December provided some

initial input

[ Page 7368 ]

around

some principles, if you like, or some directions that might be taken.

Has the minister taken any stand on any of those directions? Are those

recommendations, the recommendations of the royal commission, the

discussions on those recommendations and the recommendations from EPAC

a part of the framework for the discussions that are going on now,

particularly in the taxation area?

What I'm trying to get

at with these questions, Mr. Chairman, is whether there has been any

kind of direction from the ministry around areas that it particularly

wants to explore. Or is it really quite an open process at this time,

where royal commission recommendations are simply a part of a number of

ideas that might be in place or generated through the work that the

various groups are doing?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I guess

if I've taken any position on these, it's that I would like to see a

simpler system that everybody can understand. I would like to see, as

is recommended by others, an equitable system: equity of tax burden on

people, a fairness and evenness of taxes paid.

The royal

commission, for instance, recommended block funding. Even the school

boards, the BCSTA, the BCTF and others have some reservations about

whether block funding is the answer because of the geographic diversity

in this province. If you give an equal amount per student, it might be

very fair in one place and absolutely inadequate in another part of the

province. In other words, there are some questions about block funding,

the base funding and those sorts of things. I am very open-minded on

the answer to a simpler, more equitable system to fund education.

One

of the recommendations in the Sullivan report was that the tax rate

should be the same across the province. If by that he means the mill

rate, it may not be quite equitable between the person who has no

children and a $200,000 house and the person who has six children and a

$50,000 house. I am just using a few examples to say that if he means

the tax rate — the amount that people pay — it presents another

connotation.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I am

very committed to a simpler and more equitable tax rate, but I am very

open-minded about how, and I am willing to listen to anybody who has a

better mousetrap.

MS. A. HAGEN : The minister notes

that the issue is not simple, and on that I think we would have

absolute agreement, no matter who we happen to be talking with on this

particular issue.

Let me just turn for a moment to ask some

questions of the minister about the funding. It's how much we pay, not

who pays it. At the present time, as we all know, there are

fundamentally three sources, if you like. We all contribute through

what we call general revenue — the money that comes to the province

through our income tax, sales tax and all of those things. There is the

money paid by business and industry through the non-residential tax,

where the tax rate is set by the province for various sectors within

that non-residential area. It is collected at the local level and comes

into the province to be — we presume — simply turned over to become a

part of the grant that goes to school districts.

Then there

is the amount that the residential taxpayer pays based on the school

district budgets, mill rates and a whole bunch of other complicated

things that include elements that most people, even those of us who

work with the system, have a job keeping up with — like what is

shareable of the school district's budget over and above the provincial

government's grant, and what is supplementary that is presumably at the

discretion of the local school district.

In a general way,

I want to ask the minister if the review of the funding formula — which

I presume is going on in a little different way from the annual review

of which he spoke in his remarks earlier — had some direction from the

minister as to how some fundamental principles should be addressed. I

think it would be really important to give some direction around what

the government's intent is, in policy terms.

The minister

noted in his statement, for example — and I am not sure I can quote it

exactly; it's difficult to do when one is listening intently to a

number of matters that the minister is addressing — something about the

funding system recognizing current costs. I think he mentioned that he

felt the fiscal framework had a good deal of integrity.

Are

there some principles with which your ministry is working? I presume

this is in your ministry's hands, Mr. Minister. Are there some

principles that your ministry is using as guidelines as they look at

the funding formula, the promised review of that toward 1990-91 and the

funding that will come from the province for school districts which,

let's remember, is a very fundamental part of what happens at the local

level?

The minister is wont at various times, I think, to

suggest that what happens at the local level is 100 percent the

responsibility of decisions taken by school districts. Certainly the

decisions taken by school districts affect the tax level in their local

districts, but what the provincial government decides to do about its

grants affects it too. That's just a matter of fact and not stated in a

contentious way, but simply to say that both parties have an impact on

what the local taxpayer contributes to education through residential

taxes.

So, Mr. Minister, please give us some idea about

what kind of principles, guidelines or policies there are to give

direction to a review of the fiscal framework, which is the current

method for arriving at a formula, but more broadly just to deal with

funding for school districts coming from the province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I guess the guiding principles for the fiscal framework,

in my mind, are simplicity, fairness, equity and adequacy. I wish that

[ Page 7369 ]

were

as easy to accomplish as it is to say, because we have a fiscal year,

school year and calendar year, and all three of them kick in to the

process here. The local taxes are collected in the calendar year, the

provincial government works on the fiscal year and the school district

works on the September to June school year, so it is very complex.

When

we say that we have moved to current funding, up until last year we

funded any increases — for example, increases to teachers' salaries

were totally borne by the district for one year, and in the following

year we picked it up in the fiscal framework. Last year we moved to

putting an allowance for current levels of funding into the fiscal

framework.

[11:45]

We're trying to do it current.

"Current cost" doesn't mean whatever any district wants to spend. In my

opening comments I said, "the current costs as determined in the fiscal

framework." In the fiscal framework we have maintained the 75-25

sharing ratio, which was put into effect when the financing formula

changed. We have maintained that, give or take, 74.87, 75.32 — whatever

these numbers are — but basically we stay with that.

actual fact, we put up about 81 percent of the money because of little

extras that are tossed in and so on. In the shareable we might say that

everything considered, the cost for this district according to the

fiscal framework should be $20 million — I just picked a number. On

that basis, if they're at the provincial average, from consolidated

revenue, from all of the taxes that we collect, the province would put

up $15 million — three-quarters of that — and the local taxpayers would

put up the other 25 percent.

Recognizing that whenever we

increase the fiscal framework that automatically generates an increase

of the local 25 percent portion as well as the 75 percent, we have

tried to make accommodations by additions to the budget, by including

more things For instance, last year we included an allotment for

substitute teachers which hadn't been included before. We increased a

number of allotments last year to try and pick that up. This year,

recognizing that the increase that we generated would create an

increase in the taxes just on the shareable portion, we then, for

instance, increased the homeowner grant by $50. 1 think that more than

picks up what we put into the shareable.

I might point out

that we have increased the fiscal framework amount — what we consider

the shareables, 75-25 — trying to pick up some of the deficiencies that

have crept into the system, trying to pick up the increased enrolments

and so on. We have put in an increase of 10 percent plus, which is more

than double the consumer price index. We felt that was an amount not

only to maintain the status quo but to provide for a better and

improved educational system. We recognize that.

Over and

above that, the school boards have the right to go above that

amount. From district to district it seems to vary as to how much they

decide that the fiscal framework won't cover. They decide on a certain

amount, and that is called the supplementary budget, and the amount is

100 percent collectable from the local taxpayers because it's over and

above what we share on the 75-25 ratio.

So yes, we do allow

for both parties. I don't know whether that helps, because I know that

the fiscal framework is fairly difficult to explain. If you want to

call it the provincial grants, we've gone up. If you want to say the

shareable, we moved that up. We have no control over how much the local

school boards, accountable to their taxpayers, want to go above all of

that fiscal structure.

MS. A. HAGEN : I thank the

minister for his discussion of this matter. It's certainly my

understanding that although there had been moves, as the minister has

noted, the current costs are still not reflected in the fiscal

framework. The majority of costs within school districts are salary

costs. Something like 56 percent of budgets are teacher salaries, and

another 20 percent or 23 percent are for other staffing purposes. The

royal commission recommended that the government remove all references

to teacher salaries from the funding formula, and that it not use the

fiscal framework to counteract bargaining outcomes. I know the minister

has given some indication of this issue.

As I talk to

trustees and to people who work closely with the formula, it's

certainly clear to me that one of the major problems is that the real

cost of education is not covered. That's where we are at this stage of

the game. What we've been talking about this morning is reform, so I

don't want to get sidetracked too much into what is; what we're really

talking about is the kind of direction that the minister is giving

about what will be.

The royal commission stated as one of

its goals for funding and taxation that it be predictable and that it

be stable. Maybe we could add those to the minister's goals. I don't

think he has talked about either of those things. What we've had,

really, over the past number of years is a roller-coaster, where,

although there have been some improvements, we still don't have that

system in place where people know well in advance the rules by which

they are playing.

I've had it explained to me that the

price we pay for education.... Let me put it this way: the cost of

education has to do with what price we pay. When I am dealing with my

grocery bill, I want to know the cost of my grocery bill. It has to do

with the prices I pay and all those items that are on the cashier's

tape, and we add all of those up. That really tells us what the cost

is. The cost of education is — very largely because it's a human

enterprise — the cost of the people who work in the system plus the

costs of textbooks and supplies and running the schools, operating the

schools. Those are the fundamental costs.

It seems to me

that when Sullivan and the royal commission were dealing with this

whole issue of funding and were dealing very strongly with a

perspective, a point of view, that said that we were

[ Page 7370 ]

not

funding adequately, that there were deficiencies in the funding for

education, and that we had to look at those prices in order to get at

the cost of education.... I don't believe that at the present time the

fiscal framework is dealing with the price of the main component, for

one thing, and there may be other elements where it's not dealing with

the price. In that reform that we're talking about, in that change,

we've got to address those issues.

I recognize and I agree

with the minister that there's a tension here, an appropriate tension,

between what the province is prepared to commit and what districts are

prepared to pay over and above that. In the middle of that is that

ability to pay, if you like, that comes from the differing tax bases

that deal with the shareable amount.

I want to ask the

minister this. In the review of the funding formula, is one of the

principles that he is prepared to look at the principle that says that

we will acknowledge, as a starting point, the real price that is out

there in the system, and move from there to deal with the tension

between how much comes from the province and how much comes from the

local taxpayers, whether it's the non-residential taxpayers or the

residential taxpayers? Is he prepared to acknowledge the real price

that is out there? Or is he setting some arbitrary figure of what he

thinks the price should be?

I might go to the grocery store

tomorrow, and I might want some tomatoes. The only tomatoes that might

be available — as my husband noted to me last night — are very

expensive. Those are the only tomatoes that I can buy. I have a choice

there of buying those tomatoes or not. But in the case of education, we

don't always have that choice in terms of looking at that base amount.

want to see in that formula we're looking at, whether we can

acknowledge that here today in 1989 or maybe next year in 1990, that

that's the price. We'll work a funding formula that acknowledges that,

where we all agree that that's the price. Then we'll work out something

about the sharing. Is the minister prepared to make that fundamental

commitment to acknowledge that this is the price? That price is

teachers' salaries, support-staff salaries, transportation, supplies

and operating the schools — times, presumably, the number of kids in

the district.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I think we've gone a

long way to trying to recognize the real price. Let me illustrate. Last

year school districts said, through their supplementary budgets, that

the real price is $162 million more than you're putting into the fiscal

framework — that's what we meant by bringing it to currency — so we

added $172 million. We said we recognized that the price that we put

was too low. We increased it. They said, "Thank you very much, " and

bumped it another $152 million to the local taxpayers, because it in

effect created that tax room. This year we moved up 10.5 percent on

what we determined was the real price last year. School boards said,

"Thank you very much, " and now they bumped it another $240 million,

over and above. So I guess when we're trying to recognize the real

price, I have to ask what the real price is.

We have tried

to be as realistic as possible in funding education and in sharing it

and maintaining the 75-25 ratio. Whatever we have done since '86, when

we allowed school boards to go above that.... I'm not saying that it's

bad. I'm simply saying that it's their accountability to the local

taxpayers if they say we want to go above the real price because we

think our kids deserve more. Fine and dandy. But if they decide to go

that way, then I think it has to be local accountability. If they

simply say, "We'd like to say the real price is twice what it is now,

and you fund the real price, " that's the credit card approach, with

open credit. We can't do that, because we have to be accountable to our

taxpayers.

Let me point out something else. Last year the

average homeowner in this province, after homeowner grant, paid $137

towards a quality education system. I don't know whether you can

consider that horrendous or not. I do admit that when you're talking

about averages, the person who has the average, say $60,000, home may

pay $137, because the mill rate is the same; the person who has the

$200,000 home is certainly paying a lot more and may not have any kids

at school. So I can understand the objection to taxes.

With

all of the increases, including what we put up — the 10.5 percent that

we increased in the fiscal framework this year, plus all of the

supplementary amounts that the school districts have done — would you

believe that when we apply the $50 homeowner grant to the taxes, the

average tax paid by a homeowner in this province to a quality education

has gone down this year by $10 from an average of $137 last year to an

average of $127 this year? So we think that we have contributed to the

real cost.

Last year the real price was $152 million above

what we allowed in the fiscal framework. We increased the fiscal

framework by 10 percent, and the school boards have now increased the

additional by I don't know what percentage, from $152 million to

$238-something million. If you can give me what the real price is — not

the demand, not the desire — then I think we will do our very best to

accommodate the real price. So yes, we're incorporating that.

[12:00]

When I look at those figures, I sometimes wonder. You know, 85

percent to 90 percent of the people on polls say: "We think more money

should be spent on education." I agree; I'm very partial to education.

"We think that it is warranted, that it is a good investment." But is

$127 per homeowner on average in this province exorbitant? Certainly

the province could pick up that $127, and all it works out to, I guess,

is $792 million extra that we would have to collect in sales tax. If we

bump the sales tax to 8 percent or something of that nature, do we

drive out the industries that fund us in the first place? Do we reduce

the jobs that are lost because of those industries, and that sort of

thing? As well as our educational concerns, we do have to look at the

goose that lays the golden egg. Many of the programs that the

[ Page 7371 ]

government

has taken in the economic measures have benefited us in education,

because we've got more money to spend. We have spent more money, last

year and this year, in increasing amounts — 12 percent, 10 percent

more. So I don't know what the real cost is. The credit-card approach

or the realistic approach?

What if I said, okay, I happen

to be rich. Here's the extra $240 million. That's what you have said is

necessary for the real cost this year. Would that generate a 10 percent

wage increase next year because we've now got tax room? These are the

kinds of things that we have to concern ourselves with, Madam Member. I

hope that you can appreciate that any increases we put in through

provincial grants come from the same taxpayers out there, just the

other pocket. If we put that in, does it generate less tax at the

residential level or does it generate more tax room in the minds of the

people out there, who say: "Yippee! We've always wanted to...." Heavens

to Betsy, in my personal life, in education and in everything I've ever

done I've always wanted to spend more money than I had.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I have to limit myself to what I get.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The minister insists on going back over previous years, and I'm really

trying to stick to principles here. I understand some of the

difficulties he's talking about in respect to identifying costs, but

let me quote a couple of figures for the record that perhaps are more

real than percentages.

This comes from the latest annual

report we have of the minister. It only takes us to '88, and there may

be some changes since then that make some difference, but I doubt it.

If we look over a five-year period, in the actual dollars that come out

of residential taxpayers' pockets.... This is after the homeowner

grant, because that's what you're talking about, Mr. Minister; you're

talking about the net cost of school taxes when you say that the

average cost to a taxpayer is a certain amount. In 1983 the residential

taxpayers of British Columbia paid about $166 million in residential

school taxes. In 1987-88 they paid a little bit more than $313 million,

and by my calculations that's about an 89 percent increase. Coming out

of consolidated revenue — that's what we all share in — in '83 the

amount was $989 million, and in 1987 it's up to $1,226,000,000, a 23

percent increase. It's interesting that in that period of time the

non-residential taxes went down significantly, by about a third. I know

there have been some changes in the last couple of years in those

amounts.

There is no question, no matter how the minister

slices it, that there is a shift of taxation to residential taxpayers,

and there's a concern out there. There is a need for us to get to a

stable and predictable funding formula that is based on certain

principles that the ministry defines as the principles that will guide

that reform. I haven't really heard the minister say today that those

principles are in place. There's some move toward them, but I'd like to

hear them much more specifically and clearly defined.

However,

I want to move on a little bit in this discussion, because the intent

here was to examine the review and reform process into 1990-91. Would

the minister please advise us whether he needs any legislative change

to significantly alter the method by which funding flows to school

boards? For example, should the group — as yet undefined, unnamed and

unorganized, but we understand working — recommend and the minister

agree that the method we should go to, hypothetically, is block

funding, which is different from the fiscal framework or might involve

some major changes from the fiscal framework, can the minister

implement that kind of change for the 1990-91 school district budget

year, and then for all the processes that flow from that, without a

legislative change?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we proceed, the second member for Dewdney requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN :

Today we have two schools from Mission visiting the Legislature. They

are Mission Central and Hillside Elementary. There are about 29 grade 6

and grade 7 students in each group. I'd like the House to give a warm

welcome to the students, their teachers and their escorts.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall the vote pass?

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, I asked a question prior to the introduction, and I want

to ask if the minister is prepared to respond to that question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm sorry, I thought the member had just left the question hanging and was ready to allow my estimates to go through.

The

member can do anything she likes with figures, but I think we also need

to consider the facts. You can point out that non-residential taxation

went down. At that time the government committed itself to — and has

more than lived up to — the decreases in non-residential tax which come

into the province being more than compensated for by the increase from

consolidated revenue.

The shift onto the residential

taxpayers.... I notice the member very carefully uses the '87-88

figures. If you used the 1985 figures, you would find out that the

residential taxes — when we said the fiscal framework and that's it; no

spending above that — stayed pretty constant and stayed in line with

increases in the consumer price index, which was probably low during

the restraint period and all that, but they pretty well stayed in line.

'86 we removed the cap and allowed school boards.... As a result of the

survey, "Let's Talk About Schools, " where parents said, "We think that

the local trustees, elected by us, should have the right

[ Page 7372 ]

spend over and above what you say they should be able to spend...."

Other surveys also indicated that. People were demanding, "How dare you

tell our people they can't spend an extra dollar when we're willing to

put it up?" That's from '85. Then in '86 and '87, the supplementary

started kicking in. The first year it was something like $25 million;

the next year it went up to $125 million, plus the small increase in

the shareable. That's what drove it up on the local taxpayers. So the

net taxes to the residential taxpayers have not gone up a great deal.

can give you all kinds of figures, if you like. You used '83, didn't

you? Okay, in 1983, non-residential taxation, according to my figures,

was $663 million, in round numbers; in 1987-88, it was $447 million, in

round numbers. It went down — a deliberate attempt by the government to

stimulate industry and development. That has happened. I guess you'd

have to call it a success.

In the process, the grants from

consolidated revenue in the general fund went from $955 million to

$1,227,000,000. 1 would say that we more than compensated for the

decrease, and then looked after that policy decision by government to

stimulate business and industry. And it has worked, because more money

has come in, and we've got more money to spend on education. So we've

looked after that part of it.

There will always be the

argument: "Well, the reason we have to raise local taxes is that you

don't give us enough provincially." I tried to make the point earlier

that the more we have given provincially in the last two years — more

than double; almost triple the consumer price increase, which seems to

be a base that people want to go by when it's convenient.... We've

provided in our grants two or three times the consumer price index, and

it has been absorbed and added onto. I don't know where the limit is.

I'm certainly receptive to any ideas about how to handle taxation, but

I'll tell you one thing: if people want spending autonomy, then I think

they have to have accountability for raising money, at whatever level.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Langley requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON :

Mr. Chairman, in the members' gallery are two very good friends with

their family: Ib and Linda Moller from Langley. On behalf of the first

member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I'd like to ask the House to

join me in welcoming them here today.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr. Chairman, no matter how the minister slices it, more

of the education cost is going onto the local taxpayers. I don't want to

recanvass the whole issue of the restraint program or Mr. Sullivan's very

careful analysis and comments about lack of funding and the increased responsibilities

that school districts are bearing as a result of ministry policy — all issues

that have an impact on this complex matter. At this stage of the game I'm

trying to get at some fundamental answers to the process of trying to make it

better.

final question to the minister before we had a couple of other items of

House business was this: if the minister acted on a recommendation that

required a significant change in the way in which schools are funded —

how much we're paying through a process — if he acted on a significant

change, such as the introduction of block funding, to name one example,

would he require legislative authority to implement that change for the

1990-91 school year? Is legislative authority required to implement any

significant change in the way in which funds are allocated to school

districts in the annual process that begins with the 1990 school year?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought I had answered that question

earlier. If we changed to block funding, or if we changed the sharing

ratio, or if we changed the homeowner grant — well, the homeowner grant

requires legislation; sorry, that's the wrong one — or how we share the

funding and what method we use to do it, we would not need that

legislation. We can go to block funding, for instance, without

legislation. However, I think the member should be well aware that if

there is a basic structure change in how taxes are collected.... Right

now, taxes are collected on property assessments. If you're going to

change that system, then yes, it requires legislation. It would have to

come in in the next session of the Legislature, whenever that is. I

think that should answer the question quite clearly. Tax structure

changes require legislation; funding formula changes, no.

[12:15]

MS. A. HAGEN :

The minister has indicated that it is his intent to be in a position to

implement change in the 1990-91 school year in respect to taxation. As

I think about the timetable the school districts and the ministry

follow, the minister gives some indication of the commitment of the

province, through grants and shareable amounts, around the middle of

February. The school districts will be doing their final determinations

of budgets and passing tax bylaws from April 15 to May 1, depending on

the School Act legislation we're going to be debating later on.

Can

the minister explain, if there were to be changes in taxation, what

kind of timetable would need to be followed in order for those changes

to take place for the 1990 taxation year, certainly at the local level?

That's where the legislative change would need to take effect.

MR. R. FRASER :

I think what we want to do, apart from listening to some rather bland

presentations from the opposition, is to point out the difference in

philosophy that comes down here. I'll just remind the members opposite

that one of their people who sits on the front counter here said to us

and to all of British Columbia: "We should be ashamed of our

[ Page 7373 ]

public school system." That's what that member said.

Now we're having little chit-chats about Mr. Sullivan and the taxation rate.

What

are we talking about here? We've got an education system that's blowing

the brains out of every other province in Canada. Our kids are coming

on so strong, it's just beautiful. That's what's happening in British

Columbia, and the Sullivan report — which I think had some

shortcomings, incidentally.... It is not as good as Radwanski's in

Ontario. What did he say? He said: "Let's use some high-tech teaching

methods." Not a bad idea. Little things like "Sesame Street, " which

cost about 7 cents a viewer, compared to $3,500 a student.... Maybe we

should upgrade the way we deliver these programs and make it a little

more exciting for the students, give a little variety.

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER :

You know the Hawthorne theory, Mr. Member for Nanaimo — Mr. Second

Member, dragged in here on the coat-tails of one of the nicest people

who ever sat in the House. Chat, chat, chat. But it was you who said we

should be ashamed, and I say we've got a great system here. Our

minister is doing a great job, and this government has given more money

to education than we can probably spend. And what do we get? Where is

Ms. McMurphy now? She is working for the B.C. Teachers' Federation. One

might think she had a motive — a little stepping-stone, dragging

teachers into trade unionism so that she herself could get a job with

the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

I want to tell you that our

teachers in B.C. are wonderful, they are doing a great job, and I want

everybody to know that the philosophical difference is that we

appreciate them and you don't.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Following that very relevant introduction, the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I take it to heart. I'd like to thank the member for Vancouver South

for his suggestions. I know we are considering many innovative

approaches in education — distance education, etc There is a lot of

that happening. I thank him for his enthusiasm, and I assure you that

I'll vote for him if I ever reside there.

With respect to

my critic's last question about the legislation.... I know she is

dwelling on this particularly, and I've tried to answer it several

times. Some of these changes would require legislation in the spring

session. There are things that we can do without in the legislation.

think the question was: what about the timetable? Okay. This year, as

an example, the government announced that it intended to increase the

homeowner grant by $50. That was announced, I believe, at the end of

January. No, I'm sorry; it was announced in the legislation. In January

we said: "This is how much money can go into education; the exact

sources of it and that sort of thing can then be done by legislation."

The homeowner grant presented the tax relief when the budget was

brought down. Then it took legislation after that.

It is

possible to do quite a bit to accommodate the budget demands, and then

get the revenue and all that sorted out in the legislation. There may

be some things that aren't possible. I can't guess at every possible

eventuality and say: "This will be covered, and this won't."

We're

saying that for the next year we intend to come up with a simpler, more

equitable system. We can do a lot of that just by the way we disburse

the funds. Education can do that without legislation. Then Finance and

others may have to restructure some legislation as to where the money

comes from and the way it is distributed.

For instance, a

school board could say this year's budget plus 5 percent, and that will

be funded on the present sharing formula. Should we improve on that? I

don't think they would object too strongly if the legislation came in

later, because the taxes come in June, and of course, there are the

next school year cuts in September. They've already pretty well

budgeted for the school year to the end of June, so the fiscal year

ends up as the balance at the end of the year. That is the real

difference for school districts.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr.

Chairman, I have one last question on this theme for the minister. Then

I'm going to leave this debate, and one of my colleagues will be

picking it up.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : You mean I have to answer the same questions again?

MS. A. HAGEN :

No, this is a different question, Mr. Minister. If you'll just bear

with me, I'll make it very brief and to the point. I want to complete

this

section of our discussions today.

One of the problems

we have with the residential tax base is that the ability-to-pay issue

has surfaced more and more. We're not going to get into that in great

detail. If there were to be a new taxing mechanism — hypothetically, a

tax credit to ensure that some index balanced the actual taxes that

people paid based on their income — would it be possible to introduce

that change in the 1990 spring session, so that it would take effect

that year?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The member asked me if

it would be possible to base taxation on income. I believe that system

is already known as the income tax system. I don't know how it could be

applied, but it's a way of raising revenue. If the government decided

it would scrap all taxes and raise everything by income tax, that might

please some people. It also might send all the workers over to other

provinces where they have less income tax to pay, because somewhere

you've got to pick up the extra millions. If you ask if it's possible

to attach it to income, of course it is; it's the system already in

place. Is it applicable to education? I guess those are the decisions

that have to be made.

[ Page 7374 ]

Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, I note that in the gallery is a very important

constituent, Mayor Fred Jarvis from Taylor. I would like the House to

make him very welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN : I would just

like to continue pursuing the question of school board taxes as it

relates particularly to one-industry communities that have seen a

decrease in population. They are still faced with maintaining an

infrastructure, such as the education system. As the minister is aware,

the machinery tax has been removed; the assessments have been lowered

on many of the forestry mills, particularly those in my riding of

Alberni and in other ridings. That has reduced the tax base that

communities can rely on to fund the various infrastructures, such as

the schools, which fall under his ministry. Consequently, the amount of

tax that has to be collected from the fewer people who live in those

communities has to be raised.

In the community of Alberni,

the largest centre in my riding, the major one-industry employer there,

MacMillan Bloedel, used to employ 6,000 employees and is now employing

some 4,000 employees. They will, in fact, be employing fewer and fewer

people as they continue to modernize their processing plants and their

harvesting methods in the forest. Also, the supporting industries that

used to rely on supporting a larger community....

Alberni

is the only centre on Vancouver Island that is experiencing a

decreasing population. The rest are growing — some by leaps and bounds.

That fact initiates the closing of some schools. That has happened in

the riding, particularly in the Alberni area, and it does reduce costs

to some extent. However, as the minister is aware, with our lower

population and the assessments being lowered on the industry there, we

are asked to come up with more and more money from the fewer and fewer

people living there, who are making the good dollars that were paid by

the forest industry.

Therefore, I think that the taxation

question as it pertains to schooling is very important, and that

something must be put into place, other than the property assessment

taxation we now have to rely on for school funding. As the member for

New Westminster has pointed out, we are searching for new avenues to

raise that revenue to ensure that our children and our schools operate

under a system, and that we maintain the high standards that the

ministry has set. As the member mentioned, other avenues might be

income tax or perhaps re-implementing the machinery tax and other taxes

that may give us a better tax base in order to keep in place the

infrastructures of those one-industry communities that are suffering so

much.

I would like the minister to respond to this

question. Is this ministry considering the particular circumstances

that are faced by small one-industry communities? I recognize that

Vancouver and Victoria, with the diversification of the larger centres,

have some avenues that they can move into, to continue to raise those

dollars and keep the system at the high level where it is today. The

situation is much different in the small communities. Would the

minister care to elaborate or respond? Is there some avenue that his

ministry might be considering to ensure that we maintain the high

standards?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Consideration for some

of the problems that the member points out is already built into our

formula. I'm working on the assumption that if the population goes down

from 6,000 to 4,000, there would be fewer students. The cost is based

on the number of pupils, which generates the number of teachers. If the

building is half empty.... The capital costs themselves are a very

small portion of the budget, so it wouldn't be a significant factor.

It's the operating costs we're talking about, and they go down or up in

conjunction with the number of pupils in the system.

[12:30]

Built into the fiscal framework, of course, is the fact that if the

tax base, the total assessment value, goes down, then the provincial

share goes up, because our provincial share is based on the local tax

value. The formula already accounts for some of that. It doesn't

account for it almost immediately, like the next day or something,

because we have to fund for the year. Many of these things are already

built into the formula to accommodate those needs.

The

other thing is: am I not aware of the needs of small communities? You

bet I am. We have special funding formulas for small secondary schools,

for dispersed schools; they get more money and that sort of thing. All

of that is already built into the formula. If there's a policy decision

to reinstate the machinery and equipment tax, then at some point....

But the districts aren't going to get the high share provincially and

the high share locally. They seem to want all of the tax base locally

as long as they get all the money from the province, to put it in

extreme terms.

I don't want to keep repeating myself over

and over again. The non-residential tax went down by deliberate policy

of the government to reduce the industrial tax to encourage industries

to keep going or to create new industries. Therefore we have improved

and greatly increased the amount from consolidated revenue. If you want

the machinery tax, we take back the consolidated — you don't gain

anything.

Sullivan looked at this issue of non-residential

taxation, and he said that because industries don't necessarily have

the decency to distribute themselves according to school district

boundaries, therefore the non-residential tax collected by the

government into consolidated revenue and used for the equalization of

school district budgets is a fair and good system and should be

continued. You'll have to argue with the royal commission report, which

we aren't going to rewrite; we'll just do it.

[ Page 7375 ]

can see the clock, and I would like to point out that I have 37 1/2

seconds left before I've been asked to move that the committee rise,

report wonderful progress, allow that member to do his homework over

the weekend, and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I would like to wish everyone a very pleasant weekend, and we'll see you back here for an extended sitting on Monday.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:34 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1989, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada