1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 5611 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Coquihalla Highway construction hiring practices. Mr.

Gabelmann –– 5611

Ocean Falls. Mr. Williams –– 5611

Forestry budget cuts. Mr. Howard –– 5612

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms. Brown –– 5612

Overseas trip by Minister of Finance. Mr. MacWilliam ––

Rural electrification subsidies. Mr. Nicolson –– 5613

Presence of cabinet ministers. Mr. Cocke –– 5613

Foreign ownership of land. Ms. Sanford –– 5613

Report on PNE. Mr. Macdonald –– 5613

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5613

Mr. Rose

Mr. Davis

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Appendix –– 5636

MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on this lovely Monday afternoon

I have great pleasure in introducing to hon. members of the House Mr.

Barry Henderson, MP for Northeast Fife, and his wife Janet. I'd like to

bid them a most cordial welcome, both from the government side and I

know from the opposition side, and certainly my colleague the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) joins me in these

sentiments.

MR. BLENCOE: In the House this afternoon are a number of

visitors from the Gulf Islands. John Rich and Kira Rich, his daughter,

are here from Bowen Island. Also in the gallery are Mr. Nick Gilbert,

who is the trustee for Saltspring and the vice-chairman of the Islands

Trust. He has two members of his family with him: Mary Gilbert and

Alura Gilbert. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries this afternoon is Mrs. Helen

Lindholm, one of Victoria's great tennis players, and with her is her

sister visiting from England, Mrs. Pauline Sadler. I wish the House

would make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon

are two representatives from a group in Campbell River, the Campbell

River transition house feasibility study: Sally Bodnar and Sharon

MacDonald. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have a number

of visitors from Vancouver–Little Mountain and Vancouver–Point Grey:

Monica Simonsen, Joy Roantree, Barbara Annandale, Maureen Zuccole,

Warren Hale, Jean Green, Frances Warledge and Susan Davis. I'd ask the

House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, April 15 is the natal day of

one of our better friends in this assembly, whose horoscope says he has

a great sense of drama, is diplomatic, and that his spice of life is

romance. A very happy birthday to our Law Clerk.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer

questions put to me, Nos. 4 and 5 on the order paper. I like keeping

the members informed.

Oral Questions

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

CONSTRUCTION HIRING PRACTICES

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Premier and the Minister

of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) have promised that the construction of

the Coquihalla Highway will mean work for unemployed workers in the

Hope, Merritt and Kamloops areas. Is the minister aware that one

successful bidder, Ledcor, actively recruited workers for its $6.2

million contract from Alberta, thus denying B.C. workers jobs on that

B.C. project?

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, I'm aware that Ledcor was the

low bidder on the contract. I believe they're based in Alberta. When

the contract was awarded to them, they said they would hire all B.C.

people except their supervisory people. They didn't do that, and that

has since been corrected.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that it

"has since been corrected" refers to the fact that the Alberta workers

have been encouraged by Ledcor to switch their Alberta plates to B.C.

licence plates?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of what the

member is talking about — about switching plates.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would confirm for me

that in fact four non-supervisory jobs on that particular project have

gone to British Columbia workers and that every other job on that site

has gone to an Alberta or non-British Columbia worker who was actively

recruited for that job, particularly because they were not resident in

British Columbia and had no previous connection with trade unions.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, if there was a question

there.... But I won't confirm anything that was said there.

OCEAN FALLS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Forests. In view of the statement of the earlier Minister of Forests,

Mr. Williston, with respect to Ocean Falls, and the opportunity that is

perceived in terms of underutilization of resources in that region, the

fact that there is an existing community and power plant available

there and the fact that there has been non-performance by some of the

licensees in the region already, in terms of their timber licences, is

the minister actively considering making use of these resources,

getting the licensees to conform, or activating Ocean Falls again?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member should be advised

that the Ocean Falls Corporation is the responsibility of the Ministry

of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. WILLIAMS: One of the licensees in the region is Doman

Industries, who have been exporting raw logs from the Kimsquit valley

of that region, which could have been supporting industry in that

region and jobs in British Columbia. They have not performed in terms

of the pulp mill they promised many years ago. The jobs are not here in

British Columbia. Is the minister prepared to reconsider that licence

question, in view of the job opportunities that are needed in the

province?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister saying that any company can

export logs to Japan and not provide jobs in British Columbia — and

indeed not perform on firm contracts?

[ Page 5612 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are contracts with this minister unimportant?

Must they not perform, Mr. Speaker? That's the question. We need jobs

in British Columbia. There has been non-performance in terms of pulp

mill construction.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that last question is

obviously yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair recognized

the member for a question.

FORESTRY BUDGET CUTS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Forests. In his absence — while he was in China — I posed a question to

his substitute minister here — this was on March 27 — asking what

effect the curtailment in the budget to his ministry would mean in

terms of reduced services in the forest regions in the province. I

wonder if the minister is prepared to answer that.

[2:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be

ample opportunity to discuss my estimates when they're brought before

the House.

MR. HOWARD: Such arrogance we haven't seen for a long time.

No siree, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is question

period.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, and it should be answer period too, Mr.

Speaker. It should not be permitted for the Minister of Forests....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. This is question

period, and members are familiar with the rules that guide us in

question period regarding what is and is not admissible as a question.

The Chair has no power to insist on an answer. The member may pose

questions.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Why won't the minister be honest with the House

and answer the questions that were put to him?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Another word would be

appropriate, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: That's a question.

MR. SPEAKER: But it's not a question that's in order, hon.

member.

MR. HOWARD: I think those words are quite appropriate to this

minister.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, because of his refusal to

answer questions in the House earlier, whether he would reconsider and

relate to the House the information that the employees within his

ministry who are being fired as a result of cutbacks in his ministry

budget are scalers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not

inferring that I have been anything but honest in my dealings with the

Legislature, pertinent to the

preamble to his question.

Mr. Speaker, no one is being fired in the Ministry of Forests.

MR. HOWARD: Will the minister confirm that scalers will be

laid off, that the employment of government scalers will be reduced?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that, no.

MR. HOWARD: Does the minister know anything about what is

going on in his department?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: Not very damned much.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the elusive

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Scarlet Pimpernel of the

cabinet. We know he's out there somewhere, because we keep reading

comments that he makes, but we never see him. Is he in heaven? Where is

he? Mr. Speaker, is the acting Attorney-General willing to deal with a

question?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Good.

One of the statements which we understand was made by the

Attorney-General over the weekend was that after a three year gestation

period there are going to be something in the neighbourhood of forty

provincial acts adjusted to bring them in line with sections 15 and 25

of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Can the acting Attorney-General

tell the House whether a similar comprehensive review of provincial

regulations is also going to take place?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would be more than delighted to take that

question as notice and relay it to my colleague, the hon.

Attorney-General.

MS. BROWN: Another question to the acting Attorney-General.

The policy in the Ministry of Human Resources which discriminates

against recipients under the age of 25 is a matter of policy and not

legislation. Nonetheless, this contravenes the Charter. Will this be

looked at by the Attorney-General?

[ Page 5613 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again, Madam Member, I'd have to take that

question as notice, but it seems to me that you're reaching a

conclusion that may indeed be erroneous.

OVERSEAS TRIP BY MINISTER OF FINANCE

MR. MacWILLIAM: In the Premier's absence, I'll direct my

question to the deputy Premier. The Minister of Finance and an

assistant have departed on a junket to Japan via Toronto, London, and

numerous stops in between. I wonder if the deputy Premier could inform

the House as to the purpose of the first-class round-the-world trip for

which the air fare alone is near the $7,000 range.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier I'll

take the question as notice.

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION SUBSIDIES

MR. NICOLSON: To the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. I

would like to ask the minister if the discontinuance of rural

electrification subsidies through B.C. Hydro was cleared with him

before it went into effect at the beginning of this month.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as

notice.

MR. NICOLSON: At the same time as he takes it as notice, I

have a new question. I ask the minister if he would find out if it's

also been cleared with the B.C. Utilities Commission.

PRESENCE OF CABINET MINISTERS

MR. COCKE: I'd like to direct a question to the House Leader

on the government side. My question is: where are they? Where are your

colleagues, who are to be here during question period? As the person

responsible for discipline on the government side, can you tell us that

in the future we won't prepare a number of questions for all those

empty chairs.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a very interesting responsibility.

MR. COCKE: This is a very serious question. The opposition

has the right to question. Certainly there are times and situations

where a few cabinet ministers are away on business and so on, but this

is ridiculous. This has been going on every day. So would the House

Leader tell us whether or not there's going to be discipline in the

future with respect to cabinet ministers being here during this time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, while the concern

may be a legitimate one, unfortunately it has been canvassed many times

— the absence of members from the House. I must again bring back the

same reference that has been brought back on previous occasions.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to that point of

order, I agree that we've canvassed it with the Speaker, but now we're

canvassing it with the person whose authority it should be to see to it

— the House Leader.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Think for yourself instead of reading the

questions that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Agriculture and Food. B.C. is one of the few provinces in Canada with

no restriction on the foreign ownership of agricultural land. In view

of this situation and the possibility that nervous speculators looking

for a safe place to invest will purchase land in British Columbia, has

the minister decided to take steps to limit foreign land holdings in

British Columbia?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The answer is: not yet.

MS. SANFORD: I would just like to know. Could I ask when?

MR. SPEAKER: That's future action, hon. member.

REPORT ON PNE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary. In

view of the fact that the city council's discussion paper on the PNE

will be discussed at a public meeting very soon, will that minister

finally release the report that has been in his hands for a very long

period of time and make it public?

HON. MR. CHABOT: In due course.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to just fill in

here. I would like to ask a question about question period, as I was

supposed to be chairing it this morning. I find it very upsetting that

our questions cannot be asked. I therefore want to ask the House Leader

if he will make arrangements to meet with our House Leader to see if

this kind of situation can be avoided. Otherwise question period in

this Legislature will become a farce.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Judging by the questions we've received, I

agree with you.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted that my critic

is here today. I understand that there was some particular problem last

week. I have heard one member speak, and I have responded. I am quite

prepared to sit down and listen to the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his courtesy and also for

the fact that he was so pleasant about bringing in the education

estimates on Friday, which were a surprise to the

[ Page 5614 ]

minister and a surprise to me as well. So while

we're here I guess we might as well proceed with them.

I think that probably never before in the history of the province

has there been so much controversy surrounding education. I think there

have been times when there have been areas where it was controversial.

I was thinking of Coquitlam in the fifties — the business of the

independent schools and the threat to send youngsters to the public

schools, and what a difference that might have made to the enrolment,

and to the problems and the solutions in Coquitlam. But the minister,

to his credit — or to his debt, or whatever — certainly has elevated

education to the highest level of consciousness in the province. I

don't know whether he would have chosen that role for himself. I don't

know whether he enjoys the kind of controversy and conflict surrounding

the role. All I know is that he has stubbornly — and I say that not too

unkindly — adhered to the fiscal framework, to the plan he laid out two

years ago, and now we are approaching the beginning of the third year.

This is really the beginning of four years of vast changes in

education which have sought to both downsize it in terms of budget and

staff, but also to remove the powers enjoyed locally. Once we had a

shared power between the central authority in Victoria and the local

districts; we no longer have that. We have seen more and more power and

finance and autonomy stripped from those local districts and winding up

in the hands of the bureaucracy — the chief bureaucrat is sitting right

opposite us — and we hope that they are in wise hands. However, it

really doesn't make any difference if you have a monopoly on power,

because whatever happens, there is really no check on that power other

than that which rests with the people.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, just a quick review of this. First of all, the interim

financing act of 1982 had a sunset provision in it, and that was to end

at the end of 1982. However, we had Bill 6 introduced in 1983, which

extended the powers to determine local budgets for another three years.

We've had all kinds of other little interesting wrinkles such as

referenda that were to be established right away in Bill 48 just a few

weeks ago and then found that that was also...removed the sunset

provision. So it is my view that as things go the way they're heading,

what we can expect over the next few years is a continued

centralization of authority in Victoria. So first of all we have the

centralization of financing and a limit put on what was normally a

shared decision in terms of fund-raising. The reins were put on the

autonomous bodies such as school boards. This is not news to the

minister; he knows that and he admits it. He says: "We had to do it."

Then we see that that has been extended for another three years. In

addition to that, we have more centralization of curriculum, fewer

opportunities for the locals to meet local needs. Then recently even

the power to arbitrate settlements with the boards and their staffs and

their teaching staff has been removed, courtesy of the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). So here we have a total centralization, a

total loss and power-grab from the boards, including the commercial and

industrial tax base resting in the hands of the central authority.

You fellows better make a good job of it. I don't think you are, but

you're going to bear the entire responsibility, because you've had to

fight just about every district in this province.

Now it's all very well to say: "Well now, some districts applauded

this." I don't wonder. There are certain districts in the province that

provided so meagre an educational fare for their students — for

sometimes reasonably good reasons, like they couldn't afford any more.

But some — about two-thirds of them — provided so meagre a fare that

the minister's framework brought them up in terms of their budget,

relative to the other districts. But those very districts that were

doing what I regard as a job that people wanted for their children,

looking after the handicapped, a wide variety of special courses for

varying interests, high retention rates, special needs personnel, ESL

people, student aid people, classroom aids — all kinds of fine

maintenance and fine programs in the arts and various cultural

agencies.... Those districts were largely — not totally, but largely —

in the lower mainland. Over the past three years, if you count

inflation, $200 million has been stolen from those boards. Two hundred

million bucks, downsized by at least 13 percent in the three years by

inflation, and another 6 percent by the admitted plan of the minister.

No institution or group of institutions or one-third of a total

provincial institution can stand that kind of a systematic attack

without showing signs of strain.

Those are the general kinds of background I bring to the debate.

Others will be elaborating on various other aspects. There's no limit

to the number of things we could talk about here. There is absolutely

no limit. We could talk about how we tax for schools. We could talk

about how inflation has exceeded the decline in enrolment, conveniently

ignored by the minister in all his speeches; how the public schools

have high achievement standards and should not be attacked and

discredited by way of insults or imposition of external exams. What's

happened to the ESL picture in Vancouver, where over 40 percent and

as maybe a fifth language? What do they need? What are they getting? We

could talk about Mr. Curtis's recent freeze and how that was announced:

by the media without any consultation with the boards, who didn't even

have the directive until a week later. We could talk about "Let's Talk

About Schools." Nobody else seems to be, so we could talk about it

here. Those meetings have been terribly poorly attended, in my view. If

you look at the research design I think you're going to have to be

really smoking a lot of something or other to expect that you're going

to get a great deal of real solid research from that kind of a survey.

I don't know how you could draw any kind of reasonable conclusions from

it other than the way Mr. Gallup does, in which the blind lead the

blind, and we have a pooling of ignorance. We could talk about class

size. We could talk about all the matters of the economics of

education. We could talk about education and jobs. We could talk about

the independent schools, colleges, or the NDP policy.

I hope that during this debate.... That's a tall order, and it's by

no means limited to these topics. We could talk here for weeks. I don't

threaten that; that has no more appeal to me than I'm sure it does to

the minister and his staff.

Some people think that the government doesn't know what its doing. I

disagree with them. I think that's an unkind cut. I think the

government is deliberate and knows exactly what it's doing, and it's

doing exactly what it intended to do: to downsize not only the number

of people involved in the education industry but also public education

in terms of the finance available to it. What is the percentage spent?

In 1978-79 it was 14.8 percent of the provincial budget. This year it

is 11.9.

Actually, we have everything here for a trial. Now the minister is a

lawyer. It seems to me that education isn't on

[ Page 5615 ]

trial. I think public education has no need to go

on trial. Sure, there are some things to be fixed up. A lot of people

say: "All you're doing, Mr. Rose, is defending the status quo." Look,

if we can't get progress, then you have to defend what you've got.

Certainly we're not going ahead, and I'll try to make that case. The

minister is a lawyer. The Crown is on trial, in my view, because the

public is going to be the jury, and ultimately it will decide whether

or not what has been done to education — the attack on education — has

been good for education, has been good for the province and has been

good for the children. I think that that decision won't be too long in

coming.

I don't know, maybe the minister has got the number crunchers

working; maybe he's got all those people out there sticking their wet

finger up in the wind. They know what's happening out there. Bashing

teachers may be good politics. It may be that if you can prove that

they're greedy, incompetent and goof off all the time, that translates

into a hell of a lot of votes, because they're making too much money

while everybody else is unemployed.

What is the Crown's case for its attack on education? Well, I would

think that one of the things that it's going to say is that by slashing

educational funding — or fat, as it likes to call it — it can provide

education without sacrificing quality. Isn't that really the issue? The

Crown says: "What we're spending is too much and has been too much;

therefore we can cut education. Sure, we're going to cut a few teachers

out. We're going to increase jobs, but we're going to cut a few

teachers out of work. Put them on the street; that helps create jobs."

The Crown's case is: "Yes, we have to do that, because times are tough.

So we're going to do that, but we're not going to sacrifice quality.

Don't talk about quality. Don't talk about the kids. Don't talk about

opportunity. Don't talk about jobs. We can get the same quality for

less money, because education is fat." Well, I have an idea where the

fat lies, and I don't think it's in the school system.

"Enrolment has declined," they said, "so therefore if it's gone down

10 percent, let's cut the school budgets by 20 percent." That's what

you've done. Enrolment in the past, say, four years.... I see a

number-cruncher over there listening to me very intently. For the years

you described in your original framework, the argument was used that

enrolment in the public system had declined. And I think it's going to

decline further, too — not because of the birth rate, though, but

because once you have a poor-quality public education and you tell

everybody that the quality is not satisfactory, then of course people

are going to seek other alternatives. And that's what's happened right

now: independent schools are up 16 percent. All right, that's one case.

Teachers' demands are excessive, the second-highest in Canada. So

what? Would you want them the lowest? I mean, the lot prices are higher

here too. The average teacher's salary is $36,000. The average family

income — I'm not talking about fringes — in 1983 was $36,000. So the

average teacher in British Columbia makes an average family salary.

Anyway, there's no money in defending teachers. Teachers have poor

images, so we'll whack them around a little bit, and that will increase

our political advantage. So teachers are excessively greedy.

The next point the minister wants to make for his case is that

trustees are not acceptable guardians of the public purse. The Minister

of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) said here, not more than two or three

weeks ago, that the reason that school board budgets have gone up

astonishingly in the past five years.... I forget; he always chooses

his own years for his own convenience, but I think 1979-84, 1979-83 or

1976-83 — it really doesn't make any difference. The point is that he

said trustees were spending like drunken sailors. He forgets to mention

that those were all arbitrated settlements. He forgets to mention as

well that those were years when in one of the years at least — 1981-82

— there was 17 percent inflation. Well, you're way below that now.

If your enrolment is down 10 percent, with your $200 million out

you've taken out 20 percent of your billion dollar budget. It's still a

fantastic amount. It's still far more than the Third World will pay for

its education. But why shouldn't we? Why should we not have as good or

better a kind of educational system than everywhere else in Canada?

What are we spending? It's 11.9 percent of our provincial budget

estimated this year, while Ontario is around 20. That's terrible. What

does the Minister of Universities say? He says: "Well, we don't need to

worry about skills; we'll import them." So when we get to this

high-tech heaven.... I don't think that, anyway. I think we're going to

need more janitors and sales clerks than we're going to need engineers,

or whatever those certain technologies use. They're job-displacing, not

job-creating, in the main. Don't tell me any more about how the

agricultural worker went to the cities. The whole ball game has changed.

Let's get back to the Minister of Universities — if you'd like to; I

don't really care about it, but I think it's typical of the attitude on

the other side.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Did you say it makes me belch, thinking of the

Minister of Universities? Well, you're reasonably accurate.

What did he say? He said that university budgets went up massively

during those years merely because school boards were spending like

drunken sailors. The reason they were spending like drunken sailors was

due to the fact that a lot of school teachers were on school boards.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Pursuant to

schedule 5,

Committee of Supply, I must ask the member if he is the designated

speaker thereof.

MR. ROSE: Ask him what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you the designated speaker during these

estimates?

MR. ROSE: Why? Have I gone a half an hour already?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fifteen minutes.

MR. ROSE: Oh. Yes, I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. ROSE: I thought you were going to call me out of order.

Anyway, I put the case for the Crown. I put the case for the

minister. We can cut the educational fat out because enrolment has

declined and teachers' salaries are excessive, and if we whip them into

line then they'll bear the same kind of responsibility for the recovery

— whatever that is — that

[ Page 5616 ]

everybody else has to. Trustees are not acceptable

guardians of the public purse, and education should bear its full

responsibility. All right?

Now the case for the defence. I think what we have to do is put the

issues here in a way that is understandable to the general public. This

is the view, I take it, that the provincial government has assumed. I

don't think I've been unfair to the minister when I say that.

What is the case for the defence? I'm arguing for the plaintiff. Who

are the plaintiff? First of all, they're the students who are either

going to get a reasonable level of service that they have the right to

expect of their school system, or they're not. Then there are their

parents, who throughout their lifetime have come to expect from the

schools an increasingly heavy load of responsibilities. When once it

was the three Rs, it's too late for that. Society has changed too

rapidly for that. So the schools have been asked to take on all kinds

of vocational things which are not necessarily educative — they're

training, but they're not necessarily educative — all the socializing

things, all the substitutes in terms of parenting and counselling and

all the adjustments to a new society embodied in such things as ESL and

other things like that. All right?

[2:45]

So this is why the parents are interested in the future for their

own children, because we've come to expect upward social mobility in

North America. Every kid who was born in the log cabin can become

president. We felt over the years that through education that was an

attainable goal, that if somebody had the smarts, if somebody had the

wherewithal, the mental capacity, the energy and the dedication they

could be sitting over there in the chairs with the minister, with a

nice, professional background, a sense of achievement, or in business

or whatever their chosen field happened to be.

The parents expect that from the schools. I doubt that we can expect

that in such large numbers, for a lot of reasons, and not just the

schools. It's quite different. But once upon a time, about 20 years

ago, we could expect that 25 percent of North Americans would probably

have better jobs, a better income and a better education than their

parents. Those were the days of high immigration. That generation goes

back perhaps 50 years ago. Today it's not that high, and I don't think

it's going to be that high. As a matter of fact, this is the first

generation that doesn't even think it might get a job. There are many,

many young people, about 23 percent of those under 24 right now in this

province, who don't have a job, and probably little prospect of getting

one. What does that have to say about education? So anyway, they are

the plaintiff.

The trustees. I don't know why anybody would want to be a trustee.

They must be a masochist to be a trustee. What have they got to do?

They don't decide on curriculum. They can only decide on so many leaky

roofs — and I'm not trying to belittle their efforts. They can no

longer negotiate with their teachers; there's no collective bargaining.

They don't determine their own global budgets anymore. So what do they

do? What is their real role, other than being local punching bags? I

don't understand why anybody would want to go through that.

They're not even told.... Overnight, in the dead of night, in comes

Mr. Curtis making an announcement. A week later Nanaimo still hadn't

had the directive of which Mr. Curtis spoke. Is that cooperation? Is

that consultation? What kind of a performance is that? After taking

$200 million out of the school system — the school systems that were

providing the best in enriched fare.... You took $200 million out of

one-third of the districts and gave it to the others. Even those that

got a 13 percent increase on paper really didn't, because they lost it

all in inflation anyway. So the whole thing is flimflam. It's a game to

hammer education, because I don't think that party over there believes

in it. I don't think they really believe in public education. The

important — as a matter of fact, I think the vital — ingredient to

democracy is an enriched public system.

Anyway, what's the other case that the defence counsel might put

forward on the part of the plaintiff? First of all, oh, we forgot about

the teachers. Well, that doesn't matter, because they're not very

popular anyway. But you let one teacher go in Qualicum and you lose 0.7

of another job in the community. Just on straight economics the policy

is a dumb one. We're trying to increase our prosperity. You say you

can't spend your way into prosperity. That's a cliché, eh? Well, you

can't restrain your way into prosperity either. I'll go over the list

of the various communities where these casualties of the teaching staff

are looking for other work, and we find that we lose 0.7 of another

job. Is that the aim? How would we feel if we somehow fired 2,000

millworkers? There would be a lot of questions in this House. But 2,000

teachers doesn't make any.... They are expendable. All they did was

spend five or six years going to school to get there.

So there we have the plaintiffs. What is the plaintiffs' case?

Inflation has been far more extreme in terms of increased costs of

education than is overcome by any decline in enrolment. So inflation is

the thing that forced those budgets up — that's all. Well, I shouldn't

say all; it's because of arbitrated settlements that recognized

inflation.

"Teachers perform better under larger classes and with job

insecurity." That is what the ministry would like us to believe. I

don't think that's true. I think that teachers' morale.... I've got

surveys here as long as, my father would say, a cow's conscience to

prove just the opposite or to indicate just the opposite.

Teachers are insecure, and they have very poor morale. Kids are

being shuttled from one class to the other because of changes,

especially in the six-month adjustment period. So the morale is bad,

and I don't think quality education comes from a staff of whom some are

assigned in fields for which they have had little or no training. I

don't see how that kind of thing.... If they're constantly reminded

that their efforts are really not very well regarded, I don't see how

they can perform with any kind of encouragement, enlightenment, high

morale or enthusiasm.

Another thing: what happens under Bill 3, because of the seniority

provisions? Those people remaining in the school system are going to

become increasingly more senior or older. I was going to say "senile,"

but I thought that I might include myself under that definition. That's

what is going to happen. Your young and enthusiastic teachers, your

energetic teachers, your innovative teachers, are often found among the

more junior teachers. I could never see much point in an 11-year

increment pattern anyway. It used to be 18 in Vancouver; all that is is

really a delay in wages. That's all it is. I don't think it has any

professional justification whatsoever. But certainly those teachers who

are up to five years.... I found that I had far more zeal and

enthusiasm in those days of my teaching career than I would, say,

today, and I think that that happens to a lot of people.

[ Page 5617 ]

The senior teachers, the highly paid teachers, are being kept on.

They are not the ones you can necessarily expect the highest degree of

energy from, or the ones who are going to take the kids on the field

trips, the bus trips, the basketball trips or the band trips. You're

going to find that those are more junior people. But your average cost

of teachers is going to go up, because the senior people are at the

higher parts of the salary scale. Then we're going to hear from the

minister or his staff: "See what's happened here. Education costs have

continued to rise." Sure, if you fire all the inexpensive ones and you

only keep the expensive ones, of course the average salary is going to

increase.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Special services have been withdrawn. "It's not going to hurt the

quality of education if you take out learning assistance teachers." If

you take out counsellors, that's not going to hurt the quality of

education?

Centralization is another one — all power in the hands of Victoria.

Our case is that it has failed. To be colloquial, you've got the

natives extremely restless. I've never seen so many people concerned

about schools. Sure, they say that they like the minister personally.

They think he's very genial, congenial. I don't know whether they

consider him — what, a sort of smiling Jack the Ripper? Nevertheless,

they like him. They put his picture on the front of the paper, throwing

his dog a bone. As a matter of fact, when he was little he had to hang

a bone around his neck so the dogs would play with him. But I want to

remind anybody who saw the picture that the one with the Indian sweater

on was the minister.

Anyway, his dog likes him. I think most people do like him. They

just don't like what he's doing. They don't like what he's doing. I

think most people don't like what he's doing, except those people who

have the same kind of prejudices against education as I think the

Social Credit government has.

Mr. Chairman, that is a general overview of the case. The case is

that the minister says: "I can maintain educational quality for the

children of British Columbia without sacrificing quality and cut about

20 percent out of the budgets, totally, for the province." The defence

says: "No, you can't." Already the evidence is that those slashes have

gone through and hit the quality of education like an invasion by

Attila the Hun.

So the case really rests with the public, and I hope that they

understand that it was a political decision that got us into this, and

that a similar political decision — either by the government or another

government — is going to get us out. I don't see any other alternative.

I see little tendency to change their mind. I think they are doggedly

determined that they are on the right track. I'm not saying that

there's anything immoral about that. That's what government is all

about — ordering priorities. Some people don't like the government's

priorities. They don't like the fact that the educational budgets have

slipped from 14.8 percent of the total provincial expenditures in

1978-79 — that's before the years of the biggest inflation — to 11.9

percent now. They don't like the idea that education has been downsized

and put at a far lower priority than it once enjoyed.

Mr. Chairman, 1985, as well as ending the international s Decade for

Women, is the International Year of Youth. I'm not convinced that what

we're offering our youth in 1985 is as I good as it was in 1980. I

think that....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, no, I'm the designated hitter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand, Mr. Member, that designated

speakers have 30 minutes, and this will be the end of your 30 minutes.

You have another moment or two.

MR. ROSE: I have five minutes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you have another minute or two. The green

light usually indicates two minutes, Mr. Member.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I am pleased. Thank you. I am grateful to you,

Mr. Chairman.

What I would like to do, in the final minutes left to me, is to

indicate some of the other things that I intend to go on with. I want

to talk in more and greater detail about what I regard as the sins of

the Social Credit education policies. I understand also that once

there's an intervening speaker of 15 minutes or whatever duration, I am

entitled to proceed. I don't know who the next speaker is, but whomever

that person is I think they're entitled to go as long as they like; I

think we'll be around here for a few days.

I'll sit down now, and thank you very much for allowing me this

introduction to my speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For clarification, Mr. Member, the standing

orders do provide that you may continue for up to 15 minutes when there

has been an intervening speaker. But the designated speaker may speak

initially for 30 minutes without an intervening speaker.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I won't take too long, and

allow my critic to get on his feet again, but I would like to remind

the members that it wasn't so very long ago that we were getting

headlines in British Columbia, which I have brought to the House

before, and I quote one from the Province

of February 1982: "School System a Ravenous Monster." Now I don't think

the Province or any other newspaper is speaking out against public

education as a result of putting a byline like that in the newspaper. I

think what they are doing is reporting what in fact was occurring. We

saw expenditures in public education almost double in seven fiscal

years. I have said repeatedly that I am the advocate for he public

education system, and that my job is to preserve it, not allow it to

destroy itself or to be consumed by the demands it is placing upon the

economic generators in our province.

Interestingly enough,

article after

article in 1982 really reflected

the concerns of the public, screaming out for a solution. I concede

that in 1982 it was very difficult. That was the time when arbitrated

settlements, which presumably reflected inflation at the time, were

making tremendous demands. These concerns were being expressed not just

by the public, but by trustees, administrators, school officials. The

first thing brought to my attention when I was assigned the portfolio

was: "Can you do something to bring in some degree or measure of

control in public education?" We did introduce a system, and it wasn't

foreign. Most people outside involved in public education were aware of

it. The question really came: "Do you have the courage to bring it in?"

[3:00]

[ Page 5618 ]

1 don't deny that the system we introduced for funding public

education had some problems with it, but it was the first time ever

that some degree of control was entered. I recognized in 1982 and 1983

that there were two programs: restraint one and restraint two. I

recognized also that they were inequitable, because all we did as a

government was to take a proportionate reduction from each of the 75

school districts and their respective budgets. That's all. But it

wasn't fair, because many districts in British Columbia were

experiencing a significant decline in enrolment — as a matter of fact,

most school districts. There were other districts where the school

population was levelling, others where they were on the incline; but

for the most part they were on the decline.

What did we find out? We found out that it was in inverse

proportion: as student enrolment declined, for some unknown reason

there were more people brought into the system. But where were those

people? They weren't in front of the classroom. More and more became

specialists in certain areas, and it seemed that their claim to fame

was: "Let's get out of the classroom and get into some job in the

district office." How much can the system absorb?

On Friday I again made reference to what happened in the state of

California. They had proposition 13. What did it do? It came in and put

a cap on expenditure in public education. What really happened was

this: it became so appealing to the politicians in California that they

could not resist what the electorate was saying. The electorate was

saying: "You put a cap on those costs." And they put a terrible cap on

them. I am sure our job was to preserve the system that we had, prevent

it from consuming itself and prevent an explosion. That's what we did.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has made reference to a

few items. Bill 6, I conceded — and I got this right from the initial

movements made by government — would in fact cap budgets. But remember

what the school trustees said. They said at the time that it was not

inappropriate for government to do this at that point in time. They've

never denied it. They recognized that some degree of control was

required. When you implement some form of control, you obviously are

going to erode autonomy. I concede that autonomy was eroded. I don't

apologize for it. What we did was try to help each other get out of a

very difficult set of circumstances.

Collective bargaining. Reference was made to that — autonomy is

lost, so what's the point of collective bargaining? When I first came

into the portfolio I wondered about collective bargaining. But do you

know, there was no such thing as collective bargaining. Automatic

conciliation was a joke. Voluntary settlements were a joke. Everybody

just waited for the day to go to arbitration, which was compulsory

under the act if they hadn't achieved a settlement by a certain date.

So they went. The opposition can take issue with the compensation

stabilization program, and I understand why they do. But as part of

government I'm one of its strongest advocates, because I believe that

the CSP system has been of immeasurable assistance. I never forgot my

experience with the Labour portfolio, which taught me one thing.

Instead of trade union leaders taking their rank and file out on

strike, they had an opportunity to get off the pin as a result of this

particular program. That's exactly what happened. There is a certain

psychology, a certain momentum which occurs over a period of time. A

trade union leader can say with justification and with knowledge of

what's down the road that there really isn't very much point in

withdrawing services: "We know this is the law."

The job right now is to preserve as many jobs as we can. It's all

very well to make comments about the treasury board directive. I can

assure the opposition that that was a cabinet decision. It seems to me

that instead of school districts being placed in the position where

they have to give untold numbers of layoff notices, at least they now

know, because there are two areas that will be brought into issue for

the purpose of establishing wages: one is the ability to pay and the

second is the level of service. That level of service is reflected in

the

schedule which is appended to the directive and which points out

the actual number of full-time equivalent teachers the funding formula

will generate. It seems to me that that makes eminent sense in the

times in which we live.

I think I should also note that the decline in enrolment was quite

significant. When we look at it overall, the decline is something in

the order of about 6 or 7 percent. That's an awful lot of students. In

fact, it's worth something in the order of about 50,000 students in

British Columbia. That many students in British Columbia is something,

when you want to look. You can compare 50,000 students to the size of

the Vancouver school budget.

Mr. Chairman, my critic makes reference to teacher-bashing. I defy

the member for Coquitlam-Moody to ever find one statement made by me

with respect to that. Never have I made comments derogatory towards

teachers. The only time that I experienced something like this was in

Powell River, during one of the meetings, of which I attended over 50.

I'll never forget: it was an open meeting, and one of the teachers

there made reference to teacher-bashing. I said: "What do you mean?"

"Well," he said, "you said I couldn't have any more money." That was

his definition of teacher-bashing. You have never found that out. What

does happen, though, is that the concerns which are expressed by their

representatives in the BCTF.... I concede that in this area, when

you're talking sometimes government to executive, there are comments

passed back and forth. Never, never have I been responsible for that.

All the framework does.... I might mention as well that I didn't

come across one secretary-treasurer in all of the travels and in all of

the meetings that I have had with them — their executives, and as

individuals — who did not think that the system which we introduced was

far better than what was there before. Interestingly enough, even many

of of the trustees, who have had a difficult job in times gone by,

really for the first time have a thorough understanding of the funding

of public education by the way the system has been set up and the

exercises which they have gone through in order to understand it.

The member also made reference to some of the difficulties caused by

the six-month adjustment period. Converting over, so that the fiscal

year and the school year are one and the same, has been advocated by

the B.C. School Trustees' Association since time immemorial. Why it was

never done before this I do not know. But we did do it. Obviously, if

there is going to be some kind of change, there are going to be some

problems attached to it. But that was something that had to be done. It

has been done, and for the most

part I have yet to find a school

district which really has taken issue with that. In fact, they have all

been quite supportive.

In concluding my remarks at this time, I think I can say fairly that

the amount of money put into education in British Columbia per student

compares favourably with all other

[ Page 5619 ]

provinces across our country. The average teacher's

salary compares favourably with all other provinces across the country.

In 1984 we were sitting in number two position. I can tell you, as far

as class sizes are concerned, it compares favourably. Interestingly

enough, with all of the objections that seem to be raised right now, I

look at the PTR, and in September 1984, for the year that we are in

right now, the average PTR is 17.73 to 1. In 1975-76 it was 19.14 to 1.

Next year I believe we're projecting about 18.28 to 1.

While the member can make reference to a considerable number of

dollars involved, I can point this out: the amount of money that's gone

into public education is something in the order of $1.9 billion, and it

has been for the last three consecutive years.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his defence, but just as

he's heard all my words before, I've heard all his, and it hasn't

changed anything at all. The point is that he justifies this and says:

"Well, we're really not whacking at it very hard. We had to get some

order out of all this chaos." So his argument runs. "But we've still

got a pretty good system. We're still spending lots of money on it." In

some of the things he says, I think, there is not that much argument

between us. The point is that throughout that whole period there was a

tremendous amount of inflation. My gosh, if you look at just during

the.... I had it here a second ago; I'll see if I can find it again.

But in terms of cost, there was a high of 17 percent in 1982. Well, if

you have 17 percent inflation, it means that everything you're spending

your money on, not just teachers' salaries but your oil, your buses,

all your maintenance and all your materials and supplies are going to

be up at least that much — although it was beginning to come down in

'82, and when the minister arrived on the scene in '83 we'd already had

the 6-and-5 federal program, so that had a moderating affect. And also

it was lower in the States. So there's another reason. So he uses these

things, I think, as a power-grab. Again....

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, all right; I'm entitled to think that. You

say you had to do it, because you really couldn't trust the trustees to

look after the system. They couldn't cope. We had to cap these budgets.

All those budgets were a result of arbitrated awards because of

inflation. You'll say: "Well, after all, there was no negotiation, no

collective bargaining. It went from conciliation to arbitration." For

whose protection? It went, by and large, I think, for the protection of

the trustees. But I could be wrong there. The trustees knew that if

there was an arbitrated settlement they were off the hook. The teachers

knew that they couldn't be accused of ganging up on their own school

district if it was done by a third party. So that's my view of what

happened during those years.

The minister said: "Yes." And his predecessor said: "Yes, we'd like

to hang on to this power to control budgets for one year." But when

this minister assumed the mantle of that particular job he extended it

for three years. Since power is not loosely given once obtained, I

think there will be a great temptation for him to keep on with it.

"Volunteer settlement is a joke," he said. I've already explained the

reason I think that it happened. Then he goes on in his rebuttal to me

— and we'll probably end up rebutting one another all afternoon — that

the CSP system, or Ed Peck's.... He was one of the strongest advocates.

Why then did the Finance minister come in and say, in effect: "It

doesn't matter what Ed Peck says, we're going to freeze those wages"?

It seems to me that if the Compensation Stabilization Commission was

such a valuable instrument, then he wouldn't have gone over his head —

unless the Finance department went over the minister's head. I know it

was billed as a great job-saving scheme. We're going to protect

teachers from themselves, because if I am stubbornly going to insist

that I can cap budgets — even though I promised to do otherwise in

'83.... If I'm going to do the '85-'86 budget capping and Ed Peck

authorized a 2 percent wage, then that's going to mean 2 percent fewer

teachers in the district, because I control the total purse strings. So

if he liked Ed Peck's little commission so well, why didn't he let it

work? He didn't let it work. The cabinet didn't let it work. The

Minister of Finance marched into the airport last Thursday — or a week

ago Thursday — and announced that the rules had changed. So if the

minister likes collective bargaining and all that stuff so well, and

Mr. Peck's little office, then I think he should at least have let it

work.

"Secretaries like the framework." Of course they like the framework.

They're largely accountants. If they can pigeonhole something here and

here and here, they don't have to make any adjustments at all. I don't

think there's anything wrong with suggesting broad guidelines for the

framework in the various functions, but to demand that and to punish

school boards if they violate that is I think an unwarranted intrusion

into the ongoing affairs of previously autonomous elected bodies. How

would the minister like it if the feds came in here and said: "No, no,

no, you've got to stop diverting those millions of dollars you get for

public education, including half of grade 12, into something else —

into roads and sewers or holes in the ground up in the Peace River." Of

course they like it. Any group of people who are accountants like a

system. I don't think there's anything wrong, as I said, with having a

system that provides certain kinds of guidelines for boards.

Even the old referendum under W.A.C. Bennett only clicked into place

after the boards exceeded their budgets by 8 percent. So, no, this is a

real cutback in educational spending. It's a real cutback.

Anyway, over those years that I spoke of the average percentage of

inflation was roughly 1 percent per year, and enrolment has decreased

an average of 3 percent. So that's where that stands.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just talk about a few of the things that

have happened in this International Youth Year. I think we've reached a

point where it's kind of depressing and bleak if you're a young person

looking for a job these days. It can be soul-destroying to the extent

that it affects your whole life.

I'm of the age, a little older than the minister, whom I remember as

a little kid in the streets of Mission, in his Indian sweater — I don't

know if it's the same Indian sweater — hanging on to his father's pant

leg.... Those were the years....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Thirties.

The minister probably can't remember clearly into the thirties, but

I'm of an age where I can still remember the effects on me, although I

wasn't personally touched by it, of all the people who were unemployed

and all the sandwiches

[ Page 5620 ]

that were made by my mother for people knocking on

the door. We used to stop down at what we used to call Desbrisay's

store, where they had the railway track crossing over there, and see

hundreds of men in Mission going by on those freights. We'd also walk

down the tracks just a little bit south of the station and see all the

shanty towns that developed there as the so-called "bums" boiled their

kettles and took the sandwiches they got down there.

I know that the NDP — and the CCF before it — is accused of having a

depression mentality. However, the happiness boys are over here now.

The gloomy Gus's are over there saying: "My God, we can't do this,

because we can't afford it." Anyway, those people with the confidence

are right here.

Those scenes affected me all my life, although it didn't personally

touch me. If you're a kid and can't get a job, and you're unlikely to

get a job, then you're going to be affected in terms of your own

confidence all your life, unless something happens like what happened

then — and God forbid that it does — which was that there was a war and

everybody was suddenly completely employed and needed. I've heard lots

of people say: "Well, they didn't have shoes for them until they got

them in the army, and then there were lots of shoes for them." They

couldn't get any dentistry, but when they got in the army there were

lots of dentists around to fix their teeth.

But I'm digressing, Mr. Chairman, and before you call me to order

with your stem hand, I will move on to some of the things I'm concerned

about as far as the youth are concerned, because I think it does

destroy confidence and will affect a lot of these kids for their lives,

because they go knocking on the doors of colleges and they can't get in.

Student loans were changed two years ago, although you loosened up

on that one, and I congratulate you for it. It was two years late,

though. I don't know how many people you prevented from getting in the

system for that little failure. But I know I'm going to hear about

college enrolments going up now — not now, but in a little while.

I think that one of the problems is that Social Credit doesn't

recognize education as an investment. It looks upon it totally as a

cost. There are all kinds of studies to say that a highly educated

society really brings tremendous economic benefits as well. I've got a

very interesting paper — a monograph, actually — that I could read to

you on that subject, and probably put you fast asleep. But the essence

of it is that it is job-producing.

School services have been slashed 25 percent over three years. I

think that's a ballpark figure. But when you add your ministry's 6

percent, plus the 13 percent, plus inflation, that's not too far out —

20 to 25 percent.

In California's Silicon Valley they lead in educational spending.

Sure, they went through proposition 13. What did they find? They found

that people weren't willing to come to an area that didn't have a good

public education system. So in order to solve the problem they threw

money at it. I know, I hear all these clichés — you can't solve

problems by throwing money at them. Well, they threw a little money at

the school system. They now have the highest and best school system in

California in Silicon Valley. Why? Because they have to attract a lot

of very talented people, and that's one of the things they insist on.

Culture is another thing that this government has slashed, things

like music, drama, and grants to those things. In the schools it's the

same way: an attack on the cultural subjects and the humanities by

making it so restrictive in terms of their curriculum that those things

are going to languish, or maybe even vanish for kids who want to go on

and don't want to take any chances. They become so cautious and safe

that they can't enjoy the things that make them human — a kind of

obsessed-with-the-bottom-line mentality that denies that there's any

higher form of human endeavour than meeting a payroll. They obviously

haven't heard about Bach and his three-hundredth anniversary and how he

is revered. I don't think he ever met a payroll.

Anyway, universities are similar. Fees are skyrocketing up 30

percent last year and 10 percent again this year in some of them.

They'll be charging in our public schools. I gave you the little story

about Langley, about fees for everything under the sun. I'll go into

greater detail there. That's another thing that's happening.

There's not equal access for all students, certainly not at the

post-secondary level. There aren't certain courses in certain places.

It costs $2,500 extra each year if you live in Vernon to go to

university than it does if you live in North or West Vancouver, or West

Point Grey.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't think that people stay in the dorms if they

live in Coquitlam. My own kids drove. But maybe it costs you more to go

from Coquitlam.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I didn't say it did. I thought you said it

did. Anyway, we're getting involved in another kind of exchange. I

mustn't be distracted or else somebody will tell me my 15 minutes is

gone, and I won't have covered all the things that I wanted to.

The small schools, of course, can never offer the same range of

electives as large schools can, but if you rig the curriculum in such a

way, even the large schools won't be able to offer them, because there

won't be the demand for them. If you say you have to have a certain

number of people, as you're doing in the colleges now, to justify a

course, then those courses will disappear. Hundreds of programs have

disappeared from our colleges. It's bitter medicine. If everything is

so lovely, I don't see why the ministry and the minister are not

winning some kind of popularity contest. I don't hear many people

cheering them on, certainly not among the general public.

College instruction will be cut by 43 percent, 1988-89 over 1982.

This year the major cuts are Open Learning, down 8 percent; Pacific

Vocational Institute, 6.4 percent; BCIT, 6 percent; Selkirk and

Northern Lights, each down 6 percent. So what is it? Without inflation

the average cuts are probably 3 percent.

We have the worst student aid program in Canada. We're the only

jurisdiction I know that doesn't supply at least part of it with

grants. I don't think that that is a very good record, personally.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm only going to cover a couple of items.

I will repeat again that, in my view, the treasury board directive

removed considerable uncertainty as far as the managers were concerned.

Instead of massive layoffs creating unnecessary anxiety among parents,

children and teachers.... It seems to me that it was incumbent upon us

[ Page 5621 ]

as a responsible government to issue a directive,

incorporating policy, to remove the apparent uncertainty. It also seems

to me that it was in the interest of job preservation, and that we

ought to be commended.

I would like to make reference to one other comment. The member

opposite made a statement about punishing school boards. The fact is

that school boards have always had the opportunity to allocate all

funds which they receive, with one exception: special needs, function

3. That was an item incorporated within Bill 6. I again repeat that,

despite what the member says, support was given to government for Bill

[3:30]

As far as the colleges are concerned, the total amount of funding

given this year is exactly 100 percent of the funding which was given

last year. While the member may refer to declines with respect to

operating grants, the fact is that the amounts allocated to each of the

colleges and institutes resulted in an increase from 95 percent to 96

percent, that 1 percent being equivalent to $2.4 million. On top of

that, there was a sum in the order of about $1.4 million to look after

satellite campuses. Another $3 million was advanced to colleges, and it

was identified as a renewal fund. The final sum to make the 100 percent

total was $5.8 million, which was offered to colleges for colleges to

come back to government with programs for the expenditure of those

funds, and with the idea that those programs would reflect the needs of

their communities. I can say that when I met with all of the college

principals and the chairman of each college and institute boards, there

was a great deal of happiness that the amount of funding which

government had made available was equivalent to the total funding made

the previous year, when they were expecting a reduction of 5 percent.

With respect to the student aid item, it is my view that the

comments made by the three newspapers were in error. Each of their lead

editorials was wrong. We loosened the eligibility requirements. Instead

of the full program, or not less than 80 percent, it was reduced to 60

percent to blend with the federal program. The federal program base had

been increased from $1,200 up to something in the order of $2,300. That

loan was made available to the students. I think it was in 1983-84 we

made the grants available; in 1984-85 they all became loans. I am

advised as well, as far as the differential is concerned, that in

1982-83 some 18,900 students received approximately $31.3 million in

federal loans. In 1983-84 it was 18,500 students. In other words, the

difference was 400 students. In 1983-84 the amount was $47.7 million.

The whole object of tightening the eligibility requirement was to

ensure that those who were really in need would be the recipients of

financial assistance. It's absolutely true. I'll tell you again and

again — so I'm advised by officials in the ministry — that often

students who were receiving assistance from their parents were also the

recipients of loans and grants. In my view, if parents can afford to

assist their children to go to college or university, then I think they

should. The funds which we made available were available to those in

need.

I'd like to make one other comment before I sit down, to an earlier

comment which the member for Coquitlam-Moody raised: that is, "Let's

Talk About Schools." You weren't here on Friday, Mr. Member, and I

understand there were reasons for that. The response to that document

has been nothing short of incredible. To date there have been in excess

of 17,000 responses. It may very well be that those who had particular

vested interests didn't want to respond. But remember, the public

education system is owned by the public of British Columbia. Yes, there

are vested interests everywhere. But with the number of responses that

have come in, I'm advised by the people involved that they have never

in their experience — and I'm talking about dozens and dozens of years'

experience in the education community — been the recipients of such a

large response. What's really appealing to me about it is that we have

bypassed the great old Canadian way of doing everything: if we've got a

problem, let's have a royal commission. I think we have to make up our

minds: if we're elected, we're elected to do something. It seems to me

as well that if the public are prepared to respond, that's what's most

important. Well, they have responded, and they've responded in some

detail. I'm as anxious as you are to see what the response is going to

be, to see the contents of the report as well as all the polling that

has been done at their request. Not at my request; I've kept at arm's

length from this thing in every conceivable way.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes. Never mind "oh?" I have kept my

distance from this thing, and, Mr. Member, you are aware of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have short arms.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, it's you with the short arms and deep

pockets.

The strangest thing about it is, I'll never forget when the BCTF

came in and said.... If you'll remember, they published a document, and

the document was this: "All right, we will participate in the 'Let's

Talk About Schools.' However, there are a number of things which we

want done." Some of them I could agree with. But one of them was this:

"We don't want any polling to take place. We don't want to know what

the public is saying out there, and we don't want anything to be used

as a check or a balance against what the people are saying." In fact,

what they were really saying was "what we and the executive of the BCTF

are saying." While they were doing this, and making this request of me,

do you know what they were doing? They were out there polling like you

wouldn't believe. As a matter of fact, they're polling today with

respect to some other issues which are not for me to raise. While they

want to take certain tools away, not from government but from the

advisory committee and the provincial school review committee — there

were the two of them — they want to keep for themselves certain tools

which they think they will use to their advantage. Well, it doesn't

work that way. We're interested in what the public has to say. The

provincial schools review committee has said: "Not only do we want to

know what the public is saying — and we're going to have a pollster

look after that — we want to interview 600 educators in the province as

well, to see what they have to say."

I think the "Let's Talk About Schools" was the method to go.

Although I received the position taken by the local association of the

party of the members opposite.... They have all, of course, been taking

issue with the forum: there wasn't enough time, and we always want a

commission, de dum, de dum, de dum. Six, eight, ten weeks is more than

enough time to put material in, because once the material

[ Page 5622 ]

comes to us.... Once it comes to us — and then

preparation of a bill or a White Paper — then we've got something

really to discuss, which then can be circulated widely as well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Quit picking on Powell River.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not picking up Powell River. I want

you to know that I had a wonderful day. And, you know, you live in one

of the chosen parts of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, every time the minister speaks, he

provokes me. I'm interested in one of the quotes about "Let's Talk

About Schools." Research design, Dr. Todd Rogers.... He says: "A truism

of analyses in basic and applied research — evaluation, operations

research, policy analysis and other like activities — is garbage in,

garbage out." He also goes on to say: "If completed well, not only will

valid, usable data be obtained, but also the level of awareness about

schooling will potentially be increased...." So certainly I think

that's a fair quote from him. But it is also true that the minister has

certainly done his share to increase the awareness of education. When

something is attacked the way it has been, a lot of people are going to

be aware of it.

The restoration of college funding — the maintenance of funding is

more accurate — includes a $12.7 million item that is at the minister's

disposal....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No.

MR. ROSE: The minister answered me in the House that the

minister decides what that is to be used for.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Did you hear what I just said?

MR. ROSE: I heard what you said. You said you dangled $3

million in front of some of the colleges — or $5 million here just a

little while ago — so that they could provide you with some ideas for

innovative programs. My own view is that a lot of that budget will be

used for the termination pay of the college professors. I would like

the minister to tell me, as I have the records here, how many

terminations there have been in the colleges since 1983, since his

program started. There is no question about it that there have been a

lot of casualties not only among students but also among the staff of

the colleges.

Now I know that there are some people much closer to certain

institutes than I am. I notice that maybe he could be counted as one of

those people who is less in terms of strength on the staff than, say,

in '82, because he was elected here. But I'm talking about the fact

that budget cuts have caused the termination of, if not hundreds,

dozens of faculty members, and will continue to do so as the programs

fall.

However, that is not the point that I want to argue about today. The

minister is responsible to reward or punish, in terms of the colleges,

programs that he likes or disapproves of. The colleges are no longer

autonomous community bodies, because under Bills 19 and 20 — again, of

the infamous dirty dozen bills — the power to elect boards to those

colleges and make them community institutions was summarily removed.

There's no argument about that.

Again, to respond to some of the things the minister said about

reserving the loans for those students who really needed it. Now isn't

that wonderful? I'm almost prepared to give crocodile tears to that

one. In the previous year the budget for student grants in the province

of British Columbia was $15 million. Because of the demand, those

college grants were increased in 1982 to $22 million — I'm just doing

this from memory off the top of what some people would regard as my

head. If the government was really interested in giving money to those

students who really needed it, why is it that after spending $22

million in 1982, it completely removed the grant portion of that

student loan? And then what happens? Then it so tightened the criteria

that after the feds increased their sharing — increased the level of

loan guarantees — the province made its restrictions and criteria for

the acceptance of the loans so tough that it ruled out a lot of people

who really did need it. Now how can a single parent — a mother with

children — take an 80 percent course load and qualify for the grants?

The minister said: "Well, we've reduced it to make it consistent

with the federal guidelines." Two years later he gets consistent —

there must be an election coming up, or something like that — two years

after he has made it so restrictive that B.C. students had a terrible

time not only doing without their grants but even obtaining a loan. If

you lived at home, you couldn't qualify for a loan. If I lived at home

and was 19, and my dad or my mother were helping me to the tune of

providing me with room and board, maybe I would really rather not have

that extra drag on them. Does a person have to move out of his house in

order to qualify? If he owned a car, he couldn't qualify. And there are

all kinds of stupid things that ruled out a lot of working mothers, who

were supposed to be the people the community colleges were created for

— people who could go part time and in the evenings. People like that

were denied it.

First of all, the grants were all gone — $22 million out the window

— and then the minister has the audacity to say: "We did it because we

wanted to preserve the money for those students who really needed it."

I'll tell you how you can help those students who really need it.

Restore those grants. That's how you'll do it. It costs $15,000 more in

British Columbia if you go through your whole university program on

loans than it does in Ontario. Does somebody have to move to Ontario in

order to qualify for an education? Have you so downsized the

institutions that you're going to make them restrictive and only for

the wealthy?

[3:45]

MR. WILLIAMS: That's where they're going to go for a job.

MR. ROSE: Where?

MR. WILLIAMS: Ontario.

MR. ROSE: We're going to get our trained people from Ontario

too, because the Minister of Universities says that we don't need to

worry about skill, we'll import it. We will de-skill. A perfect example

of de-skilling can be found right in the far comer. We will so de-skill

our people that the Ontarians and the Manitobans and the others will

come in and take their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the participation rate in post-secondary education is

roughly 10 percent in British Columbia. About 10

[ Page 5623 ]

percent of the students go on to post-secondary

education. I know for some schools, like the Vancouver schools, it's

much higher than that. But the average is roughly that, according to

the last figures I saw. For Canada, it's roughly 17 percent. Now I've

seen so many figures on educational costs and student access that I

distrust nearly all of them. Nevertheless, the best figures that I have

show that it's about that. So if you live anywhere else in Canada,

you've probably got about twice the chance of going on to some form of

post-secondary education.

So what is happening then? What is happening is that we have a

situation where Social Credit has failed to educate our kids, and it

has failed to create jobs for our kids — not just because of the

cutbacks in the education system, but because they parallel the

cutbacks in the economy. If you haven't got a job, you'd probably like

to go to school, and you can't go to school if the fees keep jumping up

or you can't get loans or grants.

Young people over 15 make up 23 percent of B.C.'s population but

represent 40 percent of the unemployed. That's up; I didn't think it

was that high. I also know that those people who have some

post-secondary education have got twice the chance of getting a job. I

thought it was roughly 20 percent who were unemployed in that age

group, but I'm told the latest figures show that of the 15 percent

unemployed in British Columbia, 40 percent are young people between 15

and 24.

Those who are employed are concentrated in male blue-collar jobs and

female pink-collar jobs that are insecure and poorly paid. So while

we've been slashing our access programs, other provinces — notably

Ontario — are maintaining or increasing them, and I'm concerned about

it. Somebody asked me if I thought what they were doing was a smart

move or a dumb one. I said: "Well, they've won too many elections for

me to conclude that they're dumb, so there must be some reason they're

doing it beyond just basic teacher-bashing and downsizing of

education." It really worries me why they might be doing it. I think it

has nothing to do with the economy. As a matter of fact, I think it's

counterproductive in the economy.

Anyway, it certainly leads to a lot of uncertainty. I'll go into my

own sinister suspicions of why this is happening, and it has something

to do with that whole package of stuff like special industrial zones

and the Philippines of North America, and the idea that if you're not

going to need many skilled people anyway, why provide them with a

broad, quality, highly retentive educational system? So if we're

looking for sinister motives, I might be able to supply one with the

scenario that I think has been talked about — maybe not explicitly, but

I think there's a residual of it.

We have a situation of uncertainty, I think, and that's no good for

education. What is the alternative? What would the NDP do? What is our

policy regarding education? First of all, we feel that the ultimate

philosophical framework for the public education system is that people

should be able to have an education suitable to their interests and

needs, regardless of the ability to pay.

MR. REID: Yes, that sounds like your philosophy.

MR. ROSE: Is your philosophy then that the public education

system, paid for by every man's parent, should be restricted to those

with the ability to pay? I don't believe ability to pay has anything to

do with it. That's why I think it's an attack on the education

system....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm talking about the student's ability to pay for

his education system. Certainly the public school level should be open

and accessible to every man's child regardless of ability to pay.

Anybody who argues against that is absolutely undemocratic.

Now to say there aren't limits within which a particular province

can afford to invest, or is willing to invest, in public education is

quite a different question. Our expenditures are 11.9 percent of the

provincial budget; in Ontario it's about double that. The Canadian

average is double that as well. So to say that we're shovelling money

off the end of a truck is just not true.

MR. VEITCH: What about the homeowner's grant?

MR. ROSE: We're talking about the public expenditure on

education. If you want to talk about the property tax on education....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Please, Mr. Chairman, don't let these people

distract me and get me off course here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get you on the right track.

MR. ROSE: I would prefer to be on the left track. You're the

guys who are on the right track — the right-wing track.

Mr. Chairman, there was a little reference to taxation and ability

to pay. Again, we are the highest, certainly in the four western

provinces — five if you count Ontario — for dependency on property

taxation to pay for public education. The B.C. school trustees recently

put out a paper indicating that we're financing 65.4 percent of our

public education out of the property tax.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: You don't believe the B.C. school trustees? Would

you suggest that the B.C. School Trustees' Association would lie about

something as serious as that?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville (Mr.

Parks) is going to bash the B.C. School Trustees' Association a little

bit. The members may not believe this, but in terms of the information

that I have, that is precisely what is happening. In terms of property

taxation dependency, we are about 15 percent higher than any other

western province. The minister is now going to send out his advisers to

get his facts straight, but I have the paper; if anybody cares to see

the document I'd be very pleased to show it to them.

On the whole business of access to education, we know that

post-secondary education has traditionally had as its recipients, its

consumers, above-average income-earners, or the children of those

above-average income-earners. I think the directions indicate that that

will intensify, will magnify, because as you strip away grants you make

the loans more

[ Page 5624 ]

difficult to get, and you hike fees; consequently,

it's going to be more difficult for those students of modest means,

especially if they can't get jobs, to upgrade their education.

There, the minister's advisers are going to scribble. Oh, he's got

it in his head.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the member

for Coquitlam-Moody remembers, but it seems to me that about a year ago

we passed legislation in the House which eliminated three bodies: the

Management Advisory Council, the Academic Council and the Occupational

Training Council. As a matter of fact, those three bodies were the ones

which prescribed to the nth detail how colleges were to spend their

money. If I recall correctly, I felt that we didn't really need that

level of bureaucracy there. They had fulfilled their purpose, and it

was time to allow colleges to be more of an autonomous body. Do you

remember what we did? We eliminated those three. You supported us. You

and members opposite thought it was a great idea too. As a result of

that, we now have the moneys, which are advanced to colleges, under the

direction of their own administration and their own boards, and for

their own allocation.

When I made reference to the $12 million adjustment fund, I gave the

member a breakdown of the utilization of those moneys. All of those

moneys were assigned to the colleges and are incorporated within their

college budgets, with the exception of $5.8 million. Do you know what

the response was from the college chairmen and the principals? They

were pleased. The principal from Malaspina said: "It's the first time

we've got a chance to really do something with respect to the

utilization of those moneys."

Now I don't know where the member is getting his figures from, but I

will tell you that I asked one of my officials what the enrolment in

colleges is and what percentage is going in. This is what I'm told: the

percentage of high school graduates attending colleges now is higher

than it has ever been — that's today. I got this from officials in

response to a question, and I believe them. With respect to attendance

at colleges, the attendance has moved up in the last couple of years.

It has not declined; it has plateaued.

With respect to the autonomy of school boards.... You're telling us

that I have got all this power. The truth is, in the colleges branch of

the ministry we give direction on 34 percent of the courses offered,

while 66 percent is determined — and this is on average — by the

college boards and the college administration.

With respect to attendance at the programs, I asked: what programs

do we have that are not being filled up? Three were given to me from

BCIT. I'll give you the three. These apparently are half-full. One is

surveying; another is, I suspect, mining technology and engineering;

the third is forest products. The reason they're only half-full is that

there is a deficiency of applicants.

I repeat three items which I think are important. The boards have

autonomy; direction from government represents 34 percent. I thought,

frankly, it was a touch higher, but it's 34 percent, I'm advised.

Secondly, we abolished the Management Advisory Council and Occupational

Training Council. So the boards had autonomy, in order to handle their

funds, instead of each of the college boards coming down and pleading

with those three councils as to how funds were to be allocated. It's

worked out very well. As a matter of fact, the colleges were delighted

that we removed what they felt to be an impediment to their operation.

With respect to one last item, tuition, the average tuition paid by

college students is 11 percent of actual cost. The actual dollars which

are spent for tuition now are less in real dollar terms than they were

in 1971.

MR. ROSE: It almost sounds like the minister is about to

embark on a tremendous defence about how much money the B.C. government

is pouring into colleges and universities, when the fact is that the

provincial share has been shrinking. The last time I looked at the

universities — and I know this isn't under this particular minister,

but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the same in colleges — it was

about 80 percent from the feds — some say it's even more than that — 16

percent from the students, and about 3 percent from the province. The

Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will argue: "Well, it's all

provinces' money anyway; the feds just launder it for us and send it

back." But the fact is that the commitment on the part of this

government to post-secondary education is not great.

As far as the numbers are concerned, if people can't get jobs, yes,

they'll go back to college if they can afford it. But I wasn't arguing

that point. The point I was arguing was that tied to attaining a

position in a post-secondary institution is the ability to pay. Because

of the lack of decent access programs in British Columbia, such as

loans and grants, it favours those students who have the bucks and not

necessarily the brains.

[4:00]

You've rigged the loan requirements so that they were so extremely

restrictive that I think you were probably threatened by the feds, who

said: "Look, if you don't loosen those up and make them at least equal

to our standards, we're going to drag them back." If you continue to

divert federal funds away from education the way you've been doing for

the last five years, you're going to find the same thing happening to

educational EPF grants as you found happening to the medical grants,

because the new Canada Health Act said: "You spend that money on health

care, not roads, sewers, coal mines, ports or whatever, or else we're

going to hold it back on you." I think that's going to happen in

post-secondary education. Last year the $27 million increase that came

from the feds was diverted. This year there is a 40 percent increase

from the feds, and you're still cutting courses, downsizing programs,

raising fees and in general wreaking havoc in the educational system at

the post-secondary level.

College autonomy. What a laugh that is! Bills 19 and 20 removed the

elected college boards and put in college board members who were

appointed by the minister. I don't see how that's true autonomy. After

all, what's going to happen if one of these people, who are supposed to

be in there, I think, because they're compliant and will reflect the

interests of the government and the minister...? They're not autonomous

at all. They are at the behest of, they are the servants of, the

minister. They are not the servants of the college; they are first and

foremost servants of the minister. Why wouldn't they be?

Do you know any who really don't follow...? They probably all hold a

Social Credit card. Do you know any who have ever bucked at all? I've

yet to hear from an appointed college board that's complaining about

things that are happening in the colleges. But we certainly did before

we had appointed boards — lots of complaints. We have autonomous school

boards as well. We get lots of complaints from those school boards

because they are elected by the people. They

[ Page 5625 ]

are not appointed by the minister, and that's

exactly what the minister has done.

In addition to appointing the college boards under Bills 19 and 20,

he allowed the government — or the minister, at his pleasure — to add

or abolish courses. He's done that. Talk about 35 courses at the

direction of the minister.... He can do anything he likes: changing the

rules for the medical lab technicians overnight — no reference to the

college boards at all. The college boards weren't consulted on that

one. I don't know if they were consulted about the abolition of

hairdressing and barbering — business that went to the private schools

at five times the cost. That's a record he doesn't want to talk about.

He never mentions that.

How wonderful the colleges are, and how they're autonomous....

That's just plain nonsense. Only a child would believe that they have

autonomy when those board members are there only at the pleasure of the

minister. That's a big laugh, and nobody's going to buy that. They

don't believe it. They're not autonomous. They are, in fact.... I could

be really cutting here if I wanted to be, but I'll choose a euphemism:

they are the servants of the minister. That's what they're there for.

They don't raise any Cain out in public at all. I think there are

plenty of reasons that we need autonomous people, because it's not an

all-knowing, all-seeing bunch over there. There are, in fact,

legitimate criticisms of the way things are going on, and I think there

is every right to have those criticisms.

Let's get on with this business about.... I was reaching this

pinnacle in my speech, Mr. Chairman, where I was going to talk about

what we would like to do. We would like to see the 1984 levels of

service maintained, and then continue on with the costs that reflect

inflation. Yes, you can't shovel money into education right off the end

of the truck. I think everybody agrees with that. But if you knew in

advance what you were going to have, you could certainly limit the

uncertainty that's out there. We need to assess the damage that's

already been caused in terms of teacher morale, lack of opportunity for

students, support staff, dirtier schools and less safe schools. We need

to do that; we've got to do that.

We need a new School Act. The minister has promised one. Is he going

to get it out of "Let's Talk About Schools"? Is he going to send a

parliamentary committee around the province with a draft act? We'd do

that. Sure, it needs to be updated. As Dr. Rogers said, we haven't had

a real good look at education since the Chant commission about 20 years

ago. I know what the Chant commission did. It put all the arts and

culture in the third ring. It put math, science and engineering in the

centre ring. So it described — I don't think it was their term —

cultural imperatives and cultural electives.

Because the Russians had put a dog up in a satellite, we all of a

sudden got a highly academic school system that threatened to ruin all

the programs that were just developing at that time. So we had more

math and science. I'm one of those people who studied lots of math and

science. I was said to teach logic, but I suppose I would be a perfect

example of how that was a failure — to some people anyway. But I know

this much: I've been running around prepared to do a quadratic equation

at the drop of a hat for the last 40 years, and nobody ever asked me. I

know a little bit about angles inscribed in a circle. We're going to

have more time for that stuff.

There's something else I think we should look into: not just what

we're doing in schools, but what we're not doing; what courses should

be in there and what courses shouldn't be in there. I don't see that it

makes much sense to make your high schools much more academic while at

the same time at your colleges you are downplaying your university

transfer programs. Is that because you want more dropouts at the high

school level and fewer people knocking on the doors of university

transfer programs — fewer kids from Prince George, from your riding,

able to qualify to go on to post-secondary education? I'm wondering

about that. I would like to have a clear unfuzzified, unjargonized

reply to that.

Anyway, we need a new School Act. We believe that we should have a

mechanism that reflects a commitment to equal opportunity. We don't

have a funding mechanism like that. In spite of differing assessments,

we find that the cost for sending children to North Vancouver schools

is a lot more than to West Vancouver schools. We need to go into that

whole taxation thing. At present it's not equitable. The minister

claims he's got a framework that's going to make things equitable.

Things may be equal, but equality is not equity in many instances.

There are too many instances to the contrary. We want local

participation and autonomy in the school system. That's been stripped

away.

I'd like a clear commitment from the minister that he intends to let

the sunset law function at the end of 1986. Mr. Minister, can I have

that commitment from you, that you will be true to what is said in Bill

6? The trustees were so happy; they said they needed somebody to make

them sober up, and they were willing to accept the global budget as set

down by the minister. But all this would be over in 1986. "Just suffer

for three more years with me, and all that will end in 1986." Now there

was a little slip in Bill 48 which indicated that....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It sure was a mistake. It really frightened me, and

it frightened a lot of people that you were going to delete.... You

explained that. But can you give a clear commitment that the funding

caps that were imposed — the 2 percent per year reduction — will in

fact be removed by 1986? Because that's when they are due to sunset.

I think that the tax burden should be based on ability to pay, not

on some other formula, and it isn't right now. There's far too much of

our taxation for education based on property taxes. I know it has been

removed from commercial-industrial — a third of that. I just hope that

those grants to the school boards will be maintained in lieu of those

millions that were removed for tax incentives.

I will leave it at that. I can go on to university reconstruction

plans and all that stuff, and I will. But I want, first of all, to get

the minister to answer my question about whether or not he still

maintains his commitment to have this Bill 6 provision of global

funding sunset at the end of the 1985-86 school year.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make

reference to a few comments which have been raised. Twice the member

for Coquitlam-Moody has made reference to property taxation. We know

that the amount of money which has been paid by the commercial and

industrial sector is 34.5 percent of the total. It was roughly $662

million. I have said that a thousand times. Now that has been reduced

as a result of the first phase of the reduction on machinery and

equipment. The average amount paid towards public education by

residential taxpayers is in the order of 8.5 percent.

[ Page 5626 ]

Why the member continually throws out the figures from the BCSTA is

beyond me. I don't know how many ways we can say it, but the total

amount of money which is put out by the commercial-industrial sector —

non-residential — is 34.5 percent. Residential is about 8.5 percent. If

we start talking about the amount of money which is paid towards public

education by homeowners in the province of British Columbia, all we

have to do....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right. It's down. I think it

started four years ago, when it was $187 million. In 1984 it was $157

million — that I can remember from memory. But even when we look at the

revised lists.... I can tell you right now that the residential

taxpayers in 27 to 28 percent of school districts in British Columbia

end up paying school taxation. All of the rest throughout the province

of British Columbia don't pay after deduction of the homeowner grant.

What the BCSTA always does — and they have been pushing this jargon out

forever and ever — is forget about the homeowner grant. The fact is

that it comes out of consolidated revenue. Now there's no mystery. I

was the first one to say I didn't want to get into a fight about

property taxation and whose bill it is. The fact is that it's got to be

paid by taxpayers. We still know that 51.5 percent is coming from

consolidated revenue. In addition to that, more will be coming as a

result of the first phase of the reduction.

Another item raised by the member involved the appointed boards.

College boards were always appointed. Some were appointed by

government. Others came through school boards, but the school boards

appointed them. And the people who sat on those particular boards were

one of two types: either they were elected trustees, or they were

others appointed by the board; but they were always appointments to the

board.

The comment was made with respect to medical lab students. There was

a great deal of consultation between the ministry and the

administrators of colleges. Across Canada we were advised the program

had been reduced from three years to two years. All we did was follow

the pattern that was occurring across the country, but that didn't

occur without consultation.

Another item you raised is the sunset clause. The sunset clause is,

yes, 1986. It is my commitment — and this is what I wish to do — to

bring a new School Act into the House. The member is aware of that. All

I can do is tell you this is what I plan. I'm waiting for the report

before we prepare the legislation, either in the form of a bill to be

introduced or a White Paper. Whichever way it goes, it's going to

involve a great deal of dialogue. That is my plan and that's what I

intend to do. I can't give you any more assurances than that as an

individual member or minister.

[4:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

With respect to the EPF funding. This is a statement which I used

not so long ago in a speech I gave, and I quote from it: "You should

also know that provincial spending on the college system increased much

more rapidly than EPF revenues from 1977-78 to 1983-84. Although

provincial spending has decreased marginally this past year, and we

recognize that, our spending on the system, including debt services

over the six-year period, has increased by 162 percent while EPF has

grown by 131 percent."

These are the figures I have available to me, and this is the

information I passed out to the college boards and their administrators.

MR. ROSE: It's very interesting that the EPF figures are

really very difficult to get. You have them, but they're not

necessarily available to everybody. How much was received, for what

purpose and for what portion and what was spent is virtually impossible

to find that out.

I recall having an exchange with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) during his estimates just about a year ago. I maintained that

there was an extra $27 million diverted from education into general

revenues, because the total budget for universities went down by $54

million. He wrote me back and he said: "Oh, well, it's not true. It's

only $22 million." So I don't know. It's a mystery anyway.

Just one other thing. The minister suggested that we voted in favour

of the elimination of the three councils. Well, we voted against Bills

19 and 20 and they were embodied in those. I just wanted to set the

record straight on that one. I don't think it's a big deal anyway. I

think we probably had the same concerns about those three councils as

did the minister, but the vote was embodied in Bills 19 and 20, so it

was on that basis that we voted against those bills.

The minister, though, has a bit of a tendency to.... We all try to

make the best use of our statistics, but you know he sometimes — I

wouldn't say deliberately, Mr. Chairman — tends to mislead the public.

On Friday he said that the actual amount of the operation for colleges

was increased by 1 percent, or $2.4 million. It actually went down 4

percent, but how do you know that from the minister's speech? You see,

they thought that they were going to get a 5 percent cut, so a 4

percent cut becomes a 1 percent increase. I don't understand that, but

I do really.

We had a $3 million institutional renewal fund. He said that there

were no strings attached. Here's a list of the strings attached for the

renewal. String No. 1 is that funds as identified by management

services on April 2, 1985, "cannot be used for normal operating

expenditures." No strings attached. String No. 2: "...can be used for

development of new program curriculum," but implementation of any new

program will not be approved until you can pass a 21-point test by the

ministry. String No. 3: "...can be used for facility renovations to

improve productivity." What does that mean? Larger rooms so you can

pack more kids into the same classroom? Is knocking out walls what you

call a productivity renovation? Presumably it's okay to pull down a

wall so that one teacher can be heard by more students, but it's not

okay to keep extra faculty or counsellors with this money. String No.

4: "...can be used to purchase equipment to improve productivity or

enhance quality." All right, if it's going to be used to purchase

equipment, what does the capital equipment grant have to do with it, in

the college budgets? So there may be some questions there that will

bear a little bit of examination or exploration.

So there are the four strings to the minister's no-strings budget

allocation. I would be interested to hear his comments on that one. I

don't know if he's going to respond now — because I'm going to go on to

something else if he doesn't.

The minister is conferring. I'll wait until he's finished, and then

I'm going to sit down and let someone else have an opportunity to

cross-examine the minister and his officials,

[ Page 5627 ]

since they are here, reserving of course at all

times the right to return once more.

I said that the minister is attempting to make the case that by

slashing educational fat he can provide education without sacrificing

quality. Well, I don't believe that. I have here before me a number of

reports from some of the Vancouver schools, and I'll just read you some

excerpts from a couple of them. The minister is not able to do the

college response right now. I'd just like to show you what's happening

in terms of class size. We're not using PTR; we're talking about class

size.

In September 1983 in Begbie Elementary School they had the same

number of students for three years — '83, '84, '85. The average class

size in division 1 was 31 in 1983, 36 in 1984 and 37 in 1985. What

we're talking about is class size; we're not talking about PTR. I think

that Vancouver has a pretty good record at being lean on administration.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Could you repeat that?

MR. ROSE: I said Vancouver has a pretty good record about

being lean on administration.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The Vancouver School Board.

MR. ROSE: Yes, compared to others, in terms of the costs as

well.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Is that right?

MR. ROSE: Yes. It may not have that reputation with the

minister. It has all kinds of problems for the minister. I understand

that. They're not compliant; they're not a college board, you know.

They are an elected board. They represent the people.

Anyway, I could go right down the line, but the BCTF maximum, for

instance, for kindergarten is 20, and for the primary 25. Here we've

got a class in primary of 29 in 1985. It was 21 in 1983 — the same

class — and 25 in 1984; and 27 in another class by 1985. They are well

beyond the recommended minimum.

Numbers of teachers have dropped by one special-needs teacher. There

was one in 1983, now half-time; there was one ELC teacher, now 30

percent. Preparation time has been cut too. Secretarial staff has been

cut way down. So have counsellors, custodians, speech and hearing

psychologists, nurse. Okay, let's have a look at these things — the

assistance for the social problems. An area counsellor: five hours a

week in 1983, four hours a week now — a 20 percent cut. Speech and

hearing: three hours a week to 1.9, a cut of a third. Psychologist:

five hours a week to 4.7 — not as severe there. Nurse: six hours to

5.2. And the multicultural: down 25 percent.

I'd like to go on to another school which I think is probably

typical. What are the effects of the restraint programs on the people

who are working in these schools? The teacher has less time for

individual instruction. This comes from a report from Britannia

Elementary-Secondary School in my colleague's riding. The teacher has

less time for academic instruction. The increase in the number also

increases the noise level. Safety levels are compromised — busy

streets, urban setting, foggy days, sometimes rainy days. The teacher

has less time to attend to children's emotional needs — because the

teacher is a substitute parent in many of those homes. A considerable

amount of time is spent on class management — that means discipline

problems are more difficult, because the classes are larger. The

teacher finds it more difficult to involve herself with extracurricular

activities because of burnout. In order to get a group of children, the

teacher has to instruct to large groups rather than small groups.

Individualized instruction, as I think the minister's assistants

will agree, is probably the ultimate aim in education. The closer you

can come to individualizing instruction, the more likely you are to

have the maximum opportunities for learning. I think those are

tendencies and trends only, but these things are being defeated by

larger classes, because you can’t even handle smaller groups within the

class because of the other things I mentioned. It makes it difficult

for teachers to help individuals with difficulties, or difficult to

take a large group on trips or downtown or to the museum or anywhere

else. More split classes.

So there are all kinds of ways in which the restraint program has

made education more difficult and less effective and has reduced its

quality.

I'm going to leave it at that point, Mr. Chairman, and listen to the

response from the minister. I'm interested particularly in his response

to the no-strings-attached college stuff, because I just read four

strings, in terms of criteria, that must be satisfied before any money

can be used for the institutional renewal fund,

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the item on the $3 million

institutional renewal fund, this is something which was requested by

the colleges. One of the complaints which was always advanced to me was

this: we require funding to change the size of a particular classroom.

Why do we want it? So we can accommodate more students in the class

because we are capable of doing it. One for which they wanted it was

for funding equipment. Any adjustments which they want to make with

their program is up to them. Those are the three or four items which

are in there. I've given them carte blanche authority for the

administration of their own fund.

Never mind the strings attached. The only concern we had was this:

these funds which are available are for the improvement of the

institution and are not to be used for salary increases; that's all.

But what we did do, because of the increased productivity which

happened in the colleges, was to increase it from 95 to 96 percent, or

$2.4 million. I don't think that's really unacceptable. I can assure

you of one thing, Mr. Member: they were most pleased with that

particular program when we advanced it to them. I have not received any

criticism of it.

MR. ROSE: When a person is starving, he probably doesn't

remember he doesn't like parsnips.

It's too bad you didn't make that speech last year, because it just

sounds like Orwell. "No strings attached." It sounds like "war is

peace," and all those little contradictions that we have here. No

strings attached. Cannot be used for normal operating expenses. Can be

used for development of new program curriculum, but any new program

will not be approved until you can pass the 21-point test. That's a

string. Can be used for faculty renovations to produce productivity.

Can be used to purchase equipment to improve productivity. However, as

I pointed out, you've already got an item in your budget for that

anyway. So that seems to me a fairly large set of strings, if anybody

is interested in bowing on them.

[ Page 5628 ]

Mr. Chairman, I've going to leave that for a while, and ask if there

are other members of my group who would like to say anything.

[4:30]

MR. DAVIS: There's a truism or at least a statement which

goes unchallenged so far: that is, if more money is spent on education,

the future of the province or the nation is better assured; an

investment in education is an investment in the future, and so on. I

have two questions to the minister, and he may not want to answer them

right away. One, if we're spending more per student in the primary and

secondary schools than other provinces, why are fewer of our young

people going to college and university?

There are some here, I know, who will challenge my statement that

we're spending more per student on primary and secondary education. I

think if you take provincial budgets only, and look at the expenditure

of the Education ministry in each province and divide it by the primary

and secondary school populations, you do arrive at odd figures, figures

which show British Columbia well down the list. But in many provinces

the only source of funding for primary and secondary school is directly

from the Ministry of Education. In British Columbia, as you know, Mr.

Chairman, a good deal of the money is supplied from the local taxpayer,

and it may also come indirectly from the province through the homeowner

grant. The homeowner grant and the local taxation is generally ignored

by those who simply take expenditures of provincial ministries on

education and divide them by school populations. If you include the

other sources of revenue — property tax revenue, homeowner grants and

so on — British Columbia moves briskly to the top of the list.

Therefore I think it's statistically true that British Columbia does

spend more than most other provinces — perhaps Alberta spends more — on

primary and secondary education.

Clearly, as a province we spend a lot on education. If we spend a

lot on education, if education pays off, why are such a small

proportion of our students who leave grade 12 going on for further

education? They've received a greater investment out of the public

purse.

In passing I might comment on centralization. If other provinces are

spending almost exclusively at the provincial level for education,

perhaps British Columbia is moving in that direction by centralizing

more of the financial control at the provincial level. In provinces

where the funding is totally or largely from the provincial source,

surely the control has existed at the centre, in the ministry, for

literally decades.

However, I wonder if the minister could comment, first, on how much

we spend per student. Are we in fact at the top of the list or nearly

the top of the list? And secondly, has he any idea why a much smaller

proportion, at least in comparison with Ontario, for example, of our

high-school-leaving students actually go on to institutions of higher

learning?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, to the member, the total

amount paid per student in British Columbia, if you wish to incorporate

the cost of teachers' pensions, is just under $4,000 per student. I've

always maintained that instead of using all of the statistics when

we're starting to do provincial comparisons, because what we do is

compare apples to oranges and it doesn't work out, the real answer is

to go to the school district and find out what the true cost is per

student. You'll find that the true cost per student, if you incorporate

all of the benefits, both statutory and non-statutory, to the biggest

item, which is teachers and support staff, is pushing $4,000.

The other question, though, which gives me some concern, is why is

it that such a low number of people appear to be going on to

post-secondary education of one form or another, whether it's

vocational school, university or college and institute. We know,

according to the statistics which I have now, that the number of

students registered for the first time in academic or technical courses

at colleges in 1984-85 was 31.02 percent of high school graduates. We

can add to that those students who go to vocational school and those

students who go to university. So it seems to me that if we add all of

them together — and I'm guessing.... It's 5, 6 or 7 percent for

vocational — probably higher than that, probably 10 percent. And if we

add the university enrolment — I think something like 10 or 11 percent

go to universities — I would suspect that probably 50 percent would be

the combined total of high school graduates going to vocational

schools, universities and colleges.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I recognize that the opposition

seems to be giving us some other information. But according to the

information which I have — and all I can do is rely upon it, and it

would appear to me that those figures are quite precise as far as

colleges are concerned — on technical and academic it's quite high. Add

vocational and university, and it seems to me that we probably don't

have a bad average on a national basis.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't know where the minister gets his

figures, nor how he can stand there and say that our average of people

going on to post-secondary education is quite high when in fact it's

just the opposite. We have the lowest participation rate of any

province in Canada according to the statistics I have. One hundred and

one out of every thousand young British Columbians between 18 and 24 go

on to university. This is 25 percent below the Canadian average.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's universities you're talking about.

MRS. WALLACE: Okay, but let's listen to the next one. Just

listen a minute, Mr. Minister. Only 7 percent of B.C. grade 12

graduates outside the metropolitan area of Vancouver and Victoria

attend university, and only 16 percent of Victoria and Vancouver grade

12 graduates do. Do you know the reason, Mr. Chairman? The reason lies

right at the feet of that ministry. In the first place, tuition fees

have gone up and up for colleges and universities — for any

post-secondary. The other reason — and it's not entirely his fault, but

certainly the fault of that government over there — is that student

loans and the economic position of those students has gone down and

down. That's the situation that's facing young people in this province

today.

Certainly it's the situation facing the people in Cowichan-Malahat.

It's the situation facing the students who would like to attend courses

at the Duncan campus because they simply can't afford to stay in

Nanaimo, to attend Malaspina College. And the courses that are offered

in Duncan are now practically non-existent. That campus has not quite

suffered the fate of Parksville, but almost. It's been cut and chopped

and

[ Page 5629 ]

cut and chopped. If you want any credit courses you

have to go to Nanaimo.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I do a TV show every week on my local cable station, and during

Easter holidays I taped a show with a high school student, a Malaspina

College student and a university student. That Malaspina College

student, who happens to live in Chemainus, is hitch-hiking to Nanaimo

in order to get his credits so he can go on to UVic. How he's going to

manage that.... It's going to be difficult. Fortunately he has a

brother who is apparently going to come up with some funds for that.

But that's the kind of situation that's facing young people. These cuts

and chops at the colleges have certainly cut down at that level, and if

you cut at that level then you also cut at the university level. The

whole pattern is right there. Our young people are being given a

handicap in any possibility of entrance.... Their economic future is

being handicapped because of their lack of ability to get the access to

adequate education that's needed in today's highly technical society.

The minister talks a lot about figures, an