1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4393 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Resignation of member for Alberni –– 4393

Oral Questions

Business immigration. Mr. Clark –– 4393

Privatization of highways maintenance. Mr. Lovick –– 4394

B.C. Hydro food services. Mr. Davidson –– 4394

Neighbourhood pub referendum. Ms. A. Hagen –– 4395

Provision of AZT to AIDS victims. Mrs. Boone –– 4395

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

On vote 23: minister's office –– 4395

Mr. Jones

Mr. R. Fraser

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Mercier

Ms. Smallwood

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LONG :

In the House today I have some of my family: my mother-in-law Mrs.

Doxsee, my wife Beverly, my daughter Brenda, and my brand-new grandson

Brandon, who came here to see what goes on. I would like you to all

make them welcome today.

MR. BLENCOE : Would the House please welcome a former MLA, a former cabinet minister, a former colleague and I believe...

MR. CLARK : A former New Democrat?

MR. BLENCOE : I wasn't going to get into that.

...still a constituent of mine. Would the House please welcome Graham Lea.

MS. CAMPBELL :

I'm sure all members of the House agree that the presence of

legislative interns livens up our life on both sides of the House. The

members of our legislative intern contingent were in Ontario in the

first week of this month, where they visited the legislatures at

Queen's Park and in Ottawa. This week they are entertaining and

returning the hospitality to a group of legislative interns from

Ontario. I'd like to ask the House to welcome Bohdana Dutka, Doug

Greenwood, Victor Nishi, Jerald Owczar, Laurie Stone and Kimberly

Weslak from the Ontario Legislature.

MR. BARNES : I

too would like to extend my welcome to the former member for Prince

Rupert, and just ask him: are you enjoying your ferry pass?

the gallery as well is a past president of Vancouver Centre

constituency, and now vice-president of the New Democratic Party of

British Columbia, Mr. Ian Aikenhead. I'd like the House to make him

welcome.

MR. STUPICH : In the gallery today are a

couple of friends of mine. Herb said to my secretary just moments ago

that on convention day he was wearing a blue ribbon. My colour was

orange. They are still friends, and we're on the same side in the

coming election fight. I'd like the House to welcome Naomi and Herb

Bibbs.

MS. CAMPBELL : In the precincts today are a

group of students visiting from Lord Byng Secondary School in Vancouver

and their teacher, Mr. Robbins. Would the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK :

In the House today we have a lovely young woman. She happens to be the

wife of my son. She thought she would take some time off from her three

children and her husband to spend some time in Victoria and later on

visit her mother: Carole Dueck.

MR. R. FRASER : On behalf of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

and myself, I'd like to introduce two school groups from the riding of Vancouver

South, the first being John Oliver Secondary School with teachers Frank Barazzuol,

Anne Deitch and the department head, John Meyerhoff: and secondly, a group from

David Thompson Secondary School with teachers Mr. Sandhu and Mrs. Parker. Included

in this latter group is a student by the name of Laurie Shong, who last week

competed in the world fencing championship and won that championship for people

under 17. Would everybody please make these young students welcome.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR ALBERNI

MR. STUPICH :

There is a desk beside me with the blotter removed. It is where the

hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has been a member for the past 16

years. He has served his constituents and this House well, and

certainly on behalf of the opposition we want to wish him all the best

in whatever lies ahead. [Applause.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I certainly have had the opportunity of getting to know the member from

Alberni over the last several years better perhaps than most. I

appreciate what he stood for and certainly the way he has applied

himself throughout his constituency, the province and in the

Legislature, and we regret seeing a fine member go.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I neglected to introduce another group which is visiting the

legislative buildings today. They're somewhere in the precinct, and

they are students from the Clearbrook Elementary School French

immersion class. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

BUSINESS IMMIGRATION

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier said that the

provincial government was not lobbying the federal government to relax

the rules on business immigration, and further, that the province "did

not lobby the federal government to change in order to bring about a

means by which these investments could be guaranteed."

The

facts are now clear: the province did lobby the federal government on

this matter, and a member of the Premier's own staff lobbied the

federal government to specifically provide financial guarantees for

prospective business immigrants. In light of these facts, is the

Premier prepared to reconsider his remarks of yesterday and set the

record straight?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, it's encouraging to see that the research is still coming from the source in the Vancouver Sun or some like source, because I was certainly aware that this could come up as the first question during question period today.

For

that reason, just to double-check, I again looked at Webster's

dictionary just to see what lobbying really means. It means "to address

or solicit members of a legislative assembly." I know this may be

hair-splitting to some, but it seems as though others would like to go

at whatever it is in order to drag on this particular issue in whatever

way they must or would like to see it done. The negotiations and the

bargaining between the staff of the government of B.C. and the federal

government of B.C. is something that takes place almost daily on a wide

range of issues. That does not constitute lobbying. That is taking

place on a wide range of

[ Page 4394 ]

issues

all the time, where there are ongoing communications. Certainly

ministers or the Premier may not be, or need not be, aware of such

discussions on an ongoing basis.

The government of B.C. has

positions on a whole range of issues involving federal-provincial

relations, and staff in every ministry aggressively and regularly argue

B.C.'s case on issues with their federal counterparts. Such is the

case, I am now informed, regarding the issue of business immigration,

and discussions did take place at the staff level with the federal

government.

If the opposition, as I said, wishes to split

hairs and characterize such discussions as lobbying, in order to

somehow score debating points, that's their business. But I want you to

be aware that as a government we will not hesitate to continue to make

our views known forcefully to Ottawa on any or every issue of

importance to the well-being of British Columbians.

Again,

on this particular issue, there was no request to have lobbying made by

the advisory council or have lobbying done, nor was there any attempt

to lobby by myself or others to politicians in the federal government.

I discussed it with the Premier of Quebec, at his request, when I

visited there last November, I believe it was. But as I said, that's

not lobbying. If you wish to see the meaning of lobbying changed, you'd

better start rewriting the dictionary.

[2:15]

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's credibility in this chamber wears thinner

every day. To seek refuge in a technicality is extremely....

Mr.

Speaker, a second question. Yesterday the Premier said that he first

learned of Mr. Toigo's involvement in Tang Peacock Investments Ltd. on

Monday of this week. The facts are that members of the media

interviewed the Premier on this matter last Thursday. In light of this,

will the Premier set the record straight and reconsider his answers of

yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, again,

obviously things must be wonderful in this province when the opposition

has nothing better to do than refer to a columnist in the newspaper and

get their questions from there. It speaks well for what's happening in

this province. I first recalled the hearing of the name or any

involvement two days prior. I was reminded again by the columnist, as

you were, that I had been questioned by the media a few days prior, but

I get questioned about a lot of issues by the media. So big deal! What

does that do? What kind of a case are you wanting to see built, because

it isn't there, no matter how hard you try. Unless your sources become

a little more informed than that of columnists in a newspaper, the NDP

is in big trouble.

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. LOVICK :

I have a question for the Premier that I think is a big deal. This

question concerns the privatization of highway maintenance and the

treatment of Highways department employees. The district manager in

Kelowna was summarily fired because of specific actions and comments

that demonstrate — and I quote — "a lack of commitment and respect

for this ministry and its programs." It's very clear that the cause of

the firing was the voicing of apprehensions about the privatization

program.

My question to the Premier is just this: is there

now another gag order on Highways department employees, that any

disagreement with the privatization policies will constitute grounds

for dismissal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Again, Mr.

Speaker, it's the same research department that the member is referring

to. Obviously this didn't come from a columnist; this was from a

commentary made on the television news. If you can't do better than to

get your research from what you see in the media, I'm afraid you're

certainly, as I think most people would suggest, a very ineffective

opposition — and lazy at that.

Mr. Redman was

terminated justifiably, but as with all other internal personnel

matters, no discussion of the circumstances will take place publicly.

Mr. Redman is entitled to appeal or to seek redress as he deems

appropriate.

MR. LOVICK : It's fascinating, isn't it,

that the Premier has decided to use a classic red herring response,

namely to challenge the research rather than the question.

supplementary question. The district Highways manager who has been

dismissed — without statement of cause, I emphasize —

expressed his reservations in camera, did so privately and also did so

to two Social Credit MLAs in private. A man with 24 years of experience

and expertise meets with two Social Credit MLAs and gets fired. Is this

the new means of treating criticisms of privatization?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, it's grossly unfair to Mr. Redman to have this discussed

publicly. This will need to be dealt with in the normal fashion, as all

personnel matters should be.

B.C. HYDRO FOOD SERVICES

MR. DAVIDSON :

My question is to the Minister of Energy in his capacity as minister

responsible for B.C. Hydro. Can the minister confirm that, despite

allegations to the contrary, the Office and Technical Employees' Union

at B.C. Hydro personally made the decision without any management

representation whatsoever to select ICL — a Peter Toigo company — to provide the cafeteria service?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Regarding B.C. Hydro food services, a public tender was invited, and a

short list of four was selected on a low-bid basis. An employee

committee of four. unionized employees, one engineer and one supervisor

evaluated the bids, and ICL — a division of White Spot — was

their unanimous choice. No management representation was involved in

the selection process. Since March 31, under new management, there has

been a marked improvement in the quality of the cafeteria service.

Patronage has more than doubled, and costs have dropped by half.

MR. DAVIDSON :

A supplementary question to the Premier. Can the Premier tell this

House how he was able to influence the Office and Technical Employees'

Union to select a Peter Toigo company for the B.C. Hydro cafeteria? Or

could merit have played some small

part in their consideration and

determination?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I appreciate

the question, but I can really only answer in this way: I think a good

free enterprise company doesn't need lobbying with a union or anyone

else. They can show for themselves that they can

[ Page

4395 ]

perform efficiently and do a more effective job than government.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB REFERENDUM

MS. A. HAGEN :

To the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Yesterday the minister

indicated that the plebiscite on the 57th Street pub was fair. In later

public comment, the minister said that plebiscites are not like

elections, implying that not everyone should have a chance to vote.

Each day the minister gets additional information on this faulty

plebiscite, and yet is refusing action. Will the minister order a new

plebiscite for the 57th Street pub, a plebiscite in which the residents

and taxpayers in the area all get a fair chance to express their view

and record their vote?

HON. L. HANSON : First of all,

the answer to the member's question is no. Second, the investigation

done by the Ministry of Labour as it relates to the referendum has at

this point determined that the referendum was done in a fair and

reasonable manner. We have always asked — and I have always said —

that those people who are concerned with the quality of the referendum

should come forward with their specific concerns, which were delivered

to me yesterday in a news conference. We are in the process now of

investigating those specific allegations. What we determine from that

investigation will be revealed as time goes on.

MS. A. HAGEN :

To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General is looking

into the question of the 57th Street pub and the faulty plebiscite.

Would the Attorney General inform the House as to the status of his

investigation of this issue?

HON. B.R. SMITH : That's

news to me. I'm looking into it only in the sense that a lawyer in my

ministry has been advising my colleague the Minister of Labour, who is

in charge of liquor licensing. I have had a briefing also from that

lawyer, so I'm aware of the remedies that the gentleman who objects to

the pub process has. That gentleman's remedies include bringing

information to the police, appealing to the commercial appeals

tribunal — which he could do as an aggrieved person within the half-mile radius —

and going to the ombudsman. I'm not conducting any investigation. It's

in the capable hands of my colleague the Minister of Labour and

Consumer Services.

PROVISION OF AZT TO AIDS VICTIMS

MRS. BOONE :

A question to the Minister of Health. The minister recently met with

his AIDS advisory group, and I understand that this group has

recommended that the ministry fully fund the drug AZT. Can the minister

confirm this?

HON. MR. DUECK : I have not met recently with the advisory group.

MRS. BOONE : A question to the Minister of Finance. The minister should

be aware that AIDS patients taking AZT are likely saving taxpayers money. Doctors

providing AIDS treatment and research at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver

say that patients on AZT are spending less time in costly hospital care. Given

the link between access to AZT and reduced hospital care, is the minister prepared

to recommend that full public funding of AZT for AIDS patients be introduced

as a sound and effective financial measure?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I have enough difficulty handling my own portfolio. I am an ambitious

man, it's true. I can safely advise this House that my ambition does

not reach as high as to attain the status of the Minister of Health in

this question.

HON. MR. VEITCH : The Select Standing

Committee on Tourism and Environment wishes to sit while the House is

in session at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, May 16, 1988, and I would ask leave

on behalf of the Chairman.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 23: minister's office, $211,618.

MR. JONES :

I'd like to pick up where we left off yesterday afternoon when we were

discussing the ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on

Education, the Sullivan commission. There were a few important

questions raised at that time, and I questioned the minister on whether

he had decided to in any way extend the royal commission timetable,

whether he had a response timetable, and if there was any legislative

timetable for the product of the commission on education. The minister

indicated that he did not have one; he did not know, because he had not

seen the report of the royal commission. It seems to me that that

response indicates some lack of planning of educational change for the

future of this province.

The minister described the

ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education as one that

determines the philosophical directions that education will take. He

described it as "an image of the schools of the future." In pursuing my

questions yesterday, I wanted, on behalf of the educational community

and the people of the province, to try and get a view of the minister's

philosophical directions on education and what he has in mind as an

image for the future of education in this province.

[2:30]

The first question with respect to that submission was with respect

to the school year. I inquired of the minister if he had a view in mind

as to changes in the school year, and the minister indicated that we

may do that. It may be used by pupils for different portions of the

year.

Whereas the minister says "may," the submission, in fact, did say

"will." So I assume that we can expect legislation governing the school

year which will be changed to make it different from that which it is

now. I hope that any such changes will take place with the consultation

of the public and the education community. I hope that if there are any

changes to that legislation it will be permissive legislation.

The second question I asked the minister with respect to the ministry's submission to the royal commission had to do

[ Page 4396 ]

with

a statement in that submission with respect to the utilization of

contracted learning services and private tutors. At that time the

minister gave an example of contracted learning services, and the

example related to the work experience program. I'm curious as to what

the minister meant by that. I'm wondering how that would work in the

instance of work experience programs, and I wonder if the minister has

any other examples that might clarify what was meant by the ministry's

submission to the royal commission.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I found the member's opening remarks consistent with his negative

cynicism, and, I guess, misinterpretation of anything that is said

here. For that member to stand up and say that even though I have not

received the royal commission report, which is not completed, that it's

a lack of planning on my part not to have planned the legislation that

might flow from that when I have no idea at this point in time what the

royal commission may recommend.... From that, he attributes to me a

lack of planning. If, on my part, it is considered a lack of planning

to respond, react and plan implementation of items in a report which

has not been completed or delivered, then 1 must confess that I am

guilty.

Unlike that member, I like to have the information

before me before I plan on it. I would guess that it's a continuation

of this political interest that somehow or other my ministry and I are

guilty of not planning how to implement the recommendations of the

report long before we get it. I think maybe the member should read his

comments sometime in the Blues and see what he actually does say.

far as the extension of the school year, I said that I am not proposing

that, I am not planning it, but I am not precluding any options for the

future, including the school year change. I've got no formula up my

sleeve that I plan to do, but neither am I going to say if someone

comes forth with a good idea I'll say: "No, I promised my opposition

critic that I will never consider a new idea. It may be good, but I

made my promise to the opposition critic that I cannot possibly

consider anything that you might suggest that may improve the

effectiveness of the education system." I guess we go around that.

He says that I said we may consider the extension of the school year. The report

submission says that it will. Our image of the school is that there will be

changes in the school day, week and year. That's what we anticipate will

happen in the future.

think I've answered the member's questions. I guess you could call them

questions — or accusations, whichever the member prefers. As far

as other examples are concerned, I was trying to help the member.

said: "What do you envisage there?" I had not envisaged anything in

particular along those lines. There was a series of items stated there:

work experience, tutoring, all of the things that should be considered

in the future and probably will be considered. Many of them are being

considered right now.

The member picks one and says: "Give me an example."

try to give him an example; it might apply in the case of work

experience. Then Sherlock Holmes says, "Aha, I have discovered a plot,"

and away we go. There is no plot. I hesitate to give any examples off

the cuff to try to educate that member when all he is interested in is

trying — through semantics — to twist it and make something out of it that is not there at all.

MR. JONES :

A comment made by a government member last evening was that the

minister must have been down to Seattle and eaten at Ivar's Acres of

Clams because we certainly do not get much information from him.

The

simple question that was posed to the minister with respect to

timetable would have required a simple answer. The simple answer may

have been something like, "Yes, the report is expected June 1, and

therefore perhaps we will have legislation next fall or next spring or

the following fall" — some indication that there is some planning or timetable there.

But

no, the minister was evasive again and did not answer the question.

What other conclusion can I come to than there is no planning? The

minister does not answer a question, so there is no timetable, and I

come to the obvious conclusion that the planning is not there. We get

that kind of answer from the minister — blaming his critic. I am

not your critic. I am the spokesperson for education on this side of

the House, just as you are the spokesperson on education for the

government. It's not personal; don't take everything so personally.

asked the minister, and I will try again. The minister said yesterday

in this Legislature that some contracted learning services may be in

addition to it, or it may be a replacement of the work experience

program. Perhaps the minister can educate me. That statement is a

confusing one to me. I would like the minister to explain what that

example meant, and if I can't understand that explanation, perhaps

there are some other examples that will help me understand the minister

in terms of how contracted learning services are going to operate in

the future. In other words, what did you mean by the statement in the

submission to the royal commission?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I would like to respond to that. What did I mean by the statement in

the submission? Exactly what it said. I hate to keep repeating myself,

but that's what it said in the example that I gave. I picked an example

to try to help the member, and I have not planned it in detail or

designed it or anything of that nature. I said it might apply here.

That's what I said. You're not prepared to take anything at face value,

I gather.

The

member says: "There is no evidence of

planning." Perhaps some of the time, instead of working on your next

criticism or your research from the newspapers, what you might do is

listen to what I tell you. At one point in this House, Mr.

Member — not just on Monday — you said your job is opposition

critic. Now you say you're not the critic; suddenly you're the

spokesperson for education.

MR. JONES : Not your critic. Don't take it so personally.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : As far as evidence of planning is concerned, I said in my opening comments — and I have said it since —

that in the budget this year we have allocated $1 million dollars to

fund a response to the royal commission report when it is brought

forward. We have set up in the ministry an executive committee to try

and be prepared to respond, to look at it, analyze it, decide on the

implications, and decide what the report recommends, as soon as we get

it. I have said that. I have said it in the House; I said it in my

comments. The member says: "Absolutely no indication of any planning."

When you commit $1 million and the ministry is discussing how we are

going to take a look at that report, how we're going to analyze it, how

we're going to

[ Page 4397 ]

look at what the recommendations mean and how they can be implemented, 1 think that is good planning —

and there's plenty of evidence of that. But if the member persists in

saying that I haven't prepared the legislation that goes with the royal

commission report, he's absolutely right; I'm going to wait until I get

it.

MR. R. FRASER : I want to add a little positive

note here. Mr. Chairman. I want the minister to answer a number of

specific questions so that we'll get some idea of how well the minister

is doing with respect to his portfolio in the province of British

Columbia.

Question number one. How are students doing compared with other students across the country?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I have said it repeatedly in public and in this House — I even commented on it yesterday —

that on math tests, on science tests, on any tests where we are

measured and compared against other provinces and other jurisdictions

in North America, we come in at the top.

MR. R. FRASER :

Question number two to the minister. We have heard from time to time

that teachers in British Columbia are unhappy, although I happen to

disagree with that. What kind of word do you get from the teachers with

respect to their longevity in the teaching system, their ability to

return to the teaching system? How many of our teachers are we keeping

on an annualized basis?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm sorry,

Mr. Chairman. I don't have the numbers ready for how many teachers have

been teaching on an annualized basis. But I can say that most of the

teachers in this province are continuing teaching. Many newcomers are

coming into the teaching force, and we have people under the early

retirement program that are retiring after 25 or 35 years. As minister,

I've had the opportunity in the last year and a half to write letters

of commendation for many teachers who have received excellent reports

from their supervisors. I've also had the privilege of writing

congratulatory letters to people who have been teaching for many years,

and their communities have had a celebration in recognition of the many

years of service. I'm always delighted to do that, because it is

indicative of the appreciation of the community for the job that the

teachers do. They do a good job in the schools.

MR. R. FRASER :

Question number three to the minister. Can you tell this House in a

general way. if not in a specific way, how the equipment in schools in

British Columbia compares with that in other provinces?

[2:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

In general terms. we are very proud of the equipment level in our

schools. There are always changes coming, and it's a matter of keeping

up to the changes. With textbooks and curriculum programs we're trying

to institute a five- to six-year cycle for revision of courses. When we

put in a new arithmetic program in the primary schools, we put money

for the new equipment that was needed with it. Any new school that is

built gets an allotment for supplies, furniture and equipment. That is

always well used. I guess the funds-for-excellence program has provided

much in the way of computer equipment. and as I indicated yesterday, in

this province we have committed a five-year program with $15 million

per year towards computer equipment in our schools, as compared with,

say, Ontario. with three and a half times the population, who have

committed something like $13 million per year for three years.

Once

again, I think we in this province can hold our heads up with pride in

what we are trying to do. We will never be there. because of the

changing of technology. We will never be to where we would like to be

or where the schools would like to be. But I don't think we need to be

at all ashamed of what we are doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

In order to keep an orderly flow, I'll recognize the member for Burnaby

North, and in due course, I'll recognize the member for Vancouver South.

MR. REE :

Mr. Chairman. on a point of order, I always thought that in this House

all members would take their seat when a member was on his feet, and

then the Chair would recognize the first person who would rise to his

feet after a member had sat down. and that it was not appropriate for a

member to stand before his mike while another member was speaking on

his feet. I would suggest that possibly the Chair should recognize that

the member for Vancouver South was on his feet first after the minister

sat down. The other member had been standing during the whole discourse

by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I thank the hon. member for his remarks, and would the member for Burnaby North please proceed.

MR. JONES :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to return to the

ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education. In response

to a question that I asked yesterday with respect to contracted

learning services and private tutors, in which I asked the minister if

those would be in addition to or in place of teachers in the school

system, the minister said: "The answer is yes." Or what the minister

called an answer was Yes to an either/or question. Then I asked which,

and the minister said: "Both."

Later on the minister

indicated that there may be some private tutors who will work with an

individual student instead of a teacher. I'd like to ask the Minister

of Education: will those tutors be paid tutors or volunteer tutors?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Again. I don't know. It would depend on the situation. I said they may.

Also it is a part of a long list of items there. That member asked:

"Are they going to be in addition to or in place of?" I said yes,

because they could be part and parcel of either approach. There are no

definitive plans in place. There were not intended to be any definitive

plans in place for any one of these items. They were suggestions —

which the member can't seem to grasp — of the type of things that

may happen, and not a plan, a fully developed program.

suppose I could now expect him to say: "Why did you even mention the

word when you didn't have a fully developed program in place?" Because

there are suggestions that you make as the type of things that may

happen, without having fully explored them. We expect that the

commission will look at our suggestions and may or may not incorporate

them into their report.

MR. JONES : The minister again switches into volume overdrive when he doesn't get enough mileage out of the

[ Page 4398 ]

facts.

The Ministry of Education made a submission to the Royal Commission on

Education, the first commission in this province since 1960. I made a

submission to that royal commission, and I will defend definitively and

explain fully any statement that I made to the royal commission. I'm

asking the minister to do the same in this House.

The ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education said:

"The school will recognize...private tutors...." The school of the

future — that is, the minister's vision of the school of the

future — will recognize private tutors. To my knowledge there is

very little organized structure in terms of legislation and school

organization and private tutors. I'm asking the Minister of Education

what he means in this statement in his submission to the Royal

Commission on Education? What does he mean by: "The school will

recognize... private tutors...."? Are these to be part of the school

system? Are these to be paid private tutors? Are these to be volunteer

private tutors?

the Minister of Education will just say that we really didn't mean what

we said, that this is just a general idea and we were throwing out

general ideas to the Royal Commission on Education, and that we had no

clear-cut image in our mind when we made that submission, fine. But if

the minister meant what he said, that in his vision the school of the

future will recognize private tutors, I'd like to know what these

private tutors are? Are they part of the school? Are they paid?

Are they volunteer? Will the minister either answer the question or refuse to answer the question, instead of playing games? I

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I have answered the question several times. I have not said what the

member wants me to say, so he again says I have not answered it. I've

answered it quite clearly several times.

MR. JONES : The school of the future will recognize private tutors and

contracted learning services. The minister says that there may be some private

tutors who will work with an individual student instead of a teacher. It seems

logical to me to ask whether those are paid or volunteer. The minister has not

answered that question; he has not been willing to elaborate to any degree on

any of the statements in his submission to the Royal Commission on Education.

I wonder if that minister was serious in his submission to the Royal Commission

on Education, and I wonder why he made such a submission.

The

minister confirmed yesterday with respect to contracted learning

services — which were also mentioned in the submission —

that "the contracted learning services were not going to replace

teachers with machines or whatever." Will the minister confirm that

contracted learning services or private tutors will not impact on the

school system by increasing the ratio of pupils to professionally

certified teachers in British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 23 pass?

MR. JONES : I'll ask the question again, Mr. Chairman.

The

minister confirmed yesterday with respect to contracted learning

services, that those services were not going to replace teachers. I

would like him to confirm whether contracted learning services or

private tutors will impact negatively on the pupil-teacher ratio in the

future. Will it increase the ratio of the number of pupils to

professionally certified teachers in this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The member repeatedly asks whether I will confirm what I said

yesterday. I said in very general terms: we do not see these measures

as replacing teachers. I cannot say that five years hence there may not

be something that can be attributed to a change in class size or

something of that nature. I can't predict that kind of thing, so that's

why I can't give you that.

can tell you this: since you are zeroing in on one or two phrases in

this report, I am almost inclined — and certainly tempted —

to read the whole report into the record, so that you see it all in

perspective, rather than trying to dissect it and pick out a phrase

here or there that you want to make a big issue out of. The total

report is the important thing and some of the things we have suggested

may happen.

I have said to the member: we don't see this as

replacing the importance of teachers in the system. As a matter of

fact, in our budgeting process and all our planning processes, we are

looking at more teachers being needed in the system. I don't know

exactly how many more. Some of that will depend on how many students

there are and a lot of other factors, but I can tell the member that in

general terms, we expect that the teaching force in place now will

continue to be needed. There will be more teachers needed in the

future, and exactly where, I'm sorry, I can't tell the member.

MR. JONES :

In a plea to the minister not to read the whole report, I will concede

that there are many excellent parts to the submission on behalf of the

Ministry of Education to the royal commission.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Can you say that louder? I want to hear something positive from you.

MR. JONES :

I'll even elaborate, unlike the minister. I would say that maybe over

90 percent of it was excellent work, and I would suggest that that

stuff came from the Ministry of Education. The parts that I'm

questioning probably came from the Premier's office, and I would like

to get answers to some of those questions in that 10 percent.

The

minister suggested, as I said, that there will not be a replacement of

teachers, that he is looking to increase the number of teachers in the

system. My question was a little different and the minister skated

around this very simple question. Very clearly the minister understands

my motives in asking these questions, motives which are to understand

whether or not the things that you suggested in your submission to the

royal commission are really going to change the teacher-pupil ratio. In

my view, they are really going to have a negative impact on the future

education of this province. Are we looking for cheaper ways to deliver

the kind of service that I think will be an inferior service? Are we

going to impact on the pupil-teacher ratio, with these tutors and

contracted learning services, in such a way as to decrease the ratio of

pupils to professionally certified staff in the schools? Will the

minister respond to this question on the pupil-teacher ratio?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

We have no plans for this to affect negatively pupil-teacher ratios.

The member very carefully phrases it: "Can the minister guarantee that

there will not be an effect on pupil-teacher ratios?" I tried to say

the at time I stood up that there are a number of factors that affect

it. Whether you can pick next year, one example of something where

there was a change in pupil-teacher ratio.... If that is your intent,

then I can't guarantee that

[ Page 4399 ]

that

won't happen. I guess I try to guarantee only the things that I can

deliver as guarantees. The rest of them, I have to tell you.... I

assume that that will be the case. I've said to the member that we do

not have any plans for this to be a way of affecting the pupil-teacher

ratio; that is not our plan.

I can also tell the member —

and I don't imagine he'll believe me — that we did not consult with the

Premier's office in preparing this statement to the royal commission.

As a matter of fact, I went over several drafts with the ministry. It

was done primarily by the ministry staff, and I think they did a good

job.

The member says over 90 percent of this report is good

stuff, but he's going to concentrate on 1 percent where he thinks he

can find a flaw. That's what disturbed me. If you spent your energy,

Mr. Member, on trying to give me some positive suggestions about what

we could do, and something of that nature, then I could start believing

in your interest in education rather than your commitment to partisan

politics.

[3:00]

MR. JONES :

I had a very good feeling there for a moment, because I think the

minister answered my question. He gave me the answer I was hoping for,

and I was very pleased with that. Unfortunately, he finished his

remarks by again being very negative to this side of the House, not

understanding the role of the Legislature and the importance and

purpose of the opposition.

I told the minister the other

day: if he wants to have a love-in, go to St. George's, go talk to

Michael Walker, go to the corporations of this province. This isn't the

place for a love-in. It's my job to focus on that 10 percent. I think

10 percent of the minister's vision of the future of education is a

disaster, and I'm trying to find out in this Legislature whether or not

that's the truth.

If it is the truth — as the minister

suggested a minute ago, and I accept fully that it is — that contracted

learning services and private tutors, as the minister suggests in his

submission to the royal commission, that the school will recognize and

access and encourage those things.... If that will not impact in a

negative way, as the minister says — and by that I hope he means that

we will at least have in the future the same ratio of pupils to

professional certified staff — then I'm very happy. I think that's what

the minister said. Before I came in I had a shower and washed my ears,

and I think I heard the answer I was hoping for. I'm very pleased about

that. If the minister can give straight answers like that, things are

going to move a lot more quickly.

The very next statement

in the minister's submission to the Royal Commission on Education has a

similar focus. It suggests that the school recognize home schooling as

part of the future vision of education in this province; it's the

direction in which education should go, according to the minister. I

would like to ask the minister, with respect to home schooling, if he

feels it prudent for parents to provide this kind of education; if he

feels that parents can provide the full range of experiences that the

children of this province need.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I

know the member tends to get up and ask a question, but prior to the

question, there's a shot at.... "Well, we know that the minister

doesn't know what he's doing: that was prepared by the Premier's

office." You started out in this debate on my estimates by getting up

and blaming me for everything that had happened five and ten years ago.

You started out with a political diatribe, as did your leader, and you

are continuing that throughout. When you start asking questions without

the snide comments and without the misinterpretations, then I'm most

delighted to have an educational discussion with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Burnaby North, on a fresh start.

MR. JONES :

I withdraw any snide comments that I made. I wasn't aware that I had

made any, but if the minister has interpreted any as being snide, I

certainly withdraw them.

I would like the minister to

respond to the question that I did ask. Does the minister see it

prudent for parents to engage in home schooling? Does he believe that

parents can provide the full range of experience in the home rather

than sending their children to the schools of the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Personally, I do not believe that parents can provide the full range of

experiences that a student can get at school. I happen to believe in

the public school system, but there are people in our society who

believe that they can.... I suppose that as that member sees it, my

job is that if I don't necessarily agree with everybody, it should be

my will over theirs. I don't accept that. There are a few people in our

society that are now providing home schooling. Our requirement

generally is that the pupils are to come to school between the ages of

6 and 15.

There's also a proviso in the public schools act that says

somewhere — I don't know it by heart. but I do know that it exists —

"except in circumstances where they can convince the board or the

authorities that they can provide the proper education." That is in

there. In some cases, in remote communities, people have no other

alternatives. Other people have chosen to do that. There are some

people who are strong advocates of home schooling. I am not one of

them, but neither am I going to say that there is nobody that knows

what they're doing unless I approve it. Therefore it can be part of the

system. It is today, and it can be in the future. There are some people

who are doing the home schooling. I might again put the phrase that the

member refers to in context: "The school will recognize and access the

resources available in the community that will contribute to the

development of an educated person." I think the member will recognize

that somewhere earlier in there we said that you can get some education

even without being in the school. The years that you spend at school

are not necessarily your total and complete educational experience. A

lot of education takes place outside of the school. That's why I say

you have to look at the report in total.

It says:

"The

school will recognize and access the resources available in the

community that will contribute to the development of an educated

person: service organizations, work experience, contracted learning

services, private tutors and home-schooling are examples of supports

and alternative learning avenues which will exist and be recognized as

providing the choice necessary to develop a society of learners." —

We've defined "learners" as continuing learners — "All will be

recognized as contributors to the development of the individual."

In that perspective, I see nothing sinister about any one of them by themselves.

[ Page 4400 ]

MR. JONES :

I was very pleased at the minister's response, and I don't disagree

with anything he said. I hope I can interpret from his remarks that the

School Act will not change with respect to the regulations governing

school attendance of children in this province, that the minister

supports the existing legislation, and that change will not occur with

respect to compulsory attendance laws.

While I was very

pleased with the minister' response, I still find it very strange to

see in a document that is the ministry's position on the future of

education — that is, the philosophical direction in which education

should go — a statement including home schooling. Of the thousands and

thousands of aspects of education to mention in a submission to the

royal commission, a statement on home schooling I find very strange.

fact, I find the term "home schooling" a total contradiction in terms.

The home is not where the social and intellectual aspects of the

education system take place. The home is where other kinds of learning

experiences take place. The school has its role and the home has its

role, and we do have compulsory attendance laws. I was pleased with the

minister's response, but very surprised to see a statement on home

schooling in the minister's submission to the Royal Commission on

Education.

I'd like to mention two letters I have which, to

me.... Again, I'm concerned about the words "home schooling" being

in the submission. I'd like to raise this matter in connection with two

letters that I think reflect totally different views, although I was

very pleased with the view the minister just mentioned. The two letters

are from Ministers of Education. The first was from the Minister of

Education in 1982 with respect to the home-schooling question, in which

the minister says to parents: "I would encourage you to consider the

whole matter very carefully, as there is much that is offered to the

full educational and social development of children in the school

setting." The minister was very seriously cautioning parents who were

advocates of home schooling and wanted to teach their children at home

to look very carefully at the opportunities their children were missing

by not participating fully in the school system in this province.

am sure the minister will accuse me of selectively reading sections of

letters, and I suppose I am open to that accusation, but that's

certainly not my intent.

I think there is a difference in attitude between 1982 and 1987. In 1987 this

minister said: "It would appear that local authorities are currently much

more accepting and supportive of home schooling than heretofore was the case.

Where boards do take action, there have been serious concerns related to the

adequacy of the education being provided to the children involved." The

minister says he is an advocate for the system, that he is proud of the system;

and yet, in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, he points out that boards

are increasingly more supportive of the concept of home schooling, and that

where those cases have arisen, the school boards responsible for education in

that community have produced an inadequate service for those people.

The minister then says in this letter of June 26, 1987: "I expect that

the topic of home schooling will receive attention during the current hearings

of the royal commission, and as a result, there may be recommendations to government

in this regard." The minister made sure that that came true, that the topic

of home schooling was part of the royal commission hearings, that it did receive

attention. The royal commission may well make recommendations with respect to

home schooling because the minister says in his submission that the schools

will recognize home schooling.

would like to know what evidence the minister has that suggests school

boards of this province are more supportive of the concept of home

schooling. I am sure the B.C. School Trustees' Association would be

very interested in this information, that they are, as a body and as

individual school boards, more accepting and supportive of home

schooling in this province. It seems to me that the initiation of this

concept is in the minister's submission to the royal commission and in

his letters to the Leader of the Opposition, and not from the public of

this province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Again the member

takes two letters — one from 1982 and one from.... I didn't quite

get the date. He continually accuses me of volume overdrive. He comes

in with some pretty vicious attacks, but he does it in a soft voice,

and of course, that makes it that much nicer.

However, in

this instance I don't think there is much difference in the

philosophical content of those letters. I think my letter of whatever

date you quoted recognizes a reality that exists in the world today.

There are parents who have made the case very strongly that they can

adequately home school their students. When that student doesn't show

up at school, a school board has the alternative of taking them to

court and fining the parents for non-attendance of students in the

school. Boards have taken those measures in the past. Some have taken

them pretty recently. In reality, in many cases they were pushed into a

situation of having the authorities drag the kids to school or fining

the parents each day, neither of which would accomplish anything.

With

the cautions that the minister put out in '82, with the cautions that I

have expressed — that I don't think they can do the total program — we

recognize that people have some individual rights. That may be contrary

to the socialist philosophy, but according to my views and to the

philosophy that I guess is on this side of the House, we may say this

is the best route to take, but we still believe that individual

families have some rights as to what they do with their children.

[3:15]

MR. JONES :

As I indicated earlier, I was very pleased with the minister's response

to my question with regard to home schooling. It sounded a lot like the

minister's response in 1982; however, I was trying to point out with the

minister's own words and not twisting them.... I read the last

eight lines of the letter, so if the minister is upset, then he's upset

with his own words. What I was pointing out — and I don't see it as

vicious — was the statement about the inadequacy of he school system;

that boards are much more accepting of his concept. There may have been

more incidents of people pursuing this option, and they have that right

under the law. The minister laughed when I said the legislation was not

going to be changed. I hope he meant it seriously when he aid earlier

he supported those sections of the School Act.

concern

is that we have a statement in the submission o the royal commission,

we have the statement in the minister's letter to the Leader of the

Opposition, and we have he words in the House, and there seems to be

some disparity between those. Rather than putting the concept of home

schooling in the submission to the Royal Commission on Education....

The minister must agree that putting that statement in there, even if

the minister didn't intend it,

[ Page 4401 ]

certainly

gives the appearance of advocacy. By putting that statement in there,

it appears that the minister is an advocate of home schooling, not just

as an option. Certainly with the legacy and the record that the

ministry doesn't like me mentioning — the obsession with cost-cutting —

people in this province of all political persuasions and all interests

are going to interpret that as a cost-saving measure.

Surely

the minister can see that putting that in there gives the appearance of

advocacy, and that the reason for that advocacy is cost-saving. In his

role as an advocate for the school system, and in particular the public

school system — that system that is universal, that is publicly funded,

and that provides equal access for all students — I would hope that the

minister, as in his response to the member for Vancouver South, would

express pride in our school system and not be pointing out that people

are complaining about the inadequacy of the system. I'm very supportive

of the minister when he expresses pride in the school system. I have

that same pride; we share that. Although we may have some differences

in terms of the philosophical direction in which we should go, there is

a lot in common.

This is not the forum for that. I am

telling the minister, even if he's not an advocate, not to give the

appearance of being an advocate of home schooling in this province. I

don't think that's the philosophical direction we want to go in British

Columbia. I think we want to be proud of our accomplishments in the

school system, in particular the public school system. But the minister

can't have it both ways. He cannot be an advocate for home schooling

and an advocate for the public school system. I suggest that the

minister's role is to be an advocate for the public school system and

to emphasize his pride in that system and the accomplishments of that

system, and not be an advocate for home schooling, and not include that

kind of concept in a submission to the royal commission.

MR. R. FRASER : Oh, you can.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : You're wrong.

MR. JONES :

The minister has agreed — if members opposite were listening — that,

very clearly, individual parents cannot provide the full range of

learning opportunities that the school can. I don't think that's in

dispute. If members opposite want to rise in their place and debate

that....

MR. R. FRASER : Last time you took my place.

MR. JONES :

The member for Vancouver South — I think his tan is fading. Maybe he's

been building some of the bridges that he burned earlier.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : That is corny.

MR. JONES : Are we tired of that one?

Interjection.

MR. JONES :

If the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) had said the line, he

would have done it with much more aplomb and there would have been a

much more positive response opposite.

I know the minister

will be pleased; we'll leave the paragraph that dealt with contracted

learning services, private tutors and home schooling, and go on to the

next paragraph in the minister's submission to the Royal Commission on

Education. I will leave a few words out of the paragraph, not for the

purpose of distorting but to make it a little more succinct and to make

it read better.

That paragraph suggests that the school of

the future will make extensive use of parents and volunteers as well as

of private agencies. So we're emphasizing parents, volunteers and

private agencies. And the word is "will" make use of in the future. And

I must add the last part, with which I think the minister would

certainly agree: "...who may specialize in providing quality

support services to select groups of children." Perhaps the minister

could clarify the particular groups of children which are referred to

in this paragraph.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Again, Mr.

Chairman, we seem to run around in the same circles, with slightly

different

interpretations of what I said and what I didn't say.

Going

back to the letter, the member says that I was advocating home

schooling by the comment that I made in the letter. He has the

advantage: he has the exact wording of the letter that I wrote over a

year ago. But I know the intent and the gist of the letter. When I said

in that letter that I expect that some submissions on home schooling

will go forward to the royal commission, I think the member should know

that I had been approached by a group in this province that said they

believed that home schooling should be promoted. I said: "Don't tell me

about it: go to the royal commission." I will listen to people. I've

heard many groups advocating many things to me. I knew that they

planned to go to the royal commission with that.

I point

out that in the home schooling, it says: ....and home schooling are

examples of supports and alternative learning avenues which will exist

and be recognized as providing the choice necessary to develop a

society of learners. " I'm including a number of options and of

possibilities.

Then the member said something about, I

believe, changing the School Act, or something of that nature. I didn't

say I wasn't going to change the School Act. I said I was not going to

change the School Act until I got some direction from the royal

commission — until I had the report — and that I wasn't going to

include some of these things in the School Act.

I guess the

best way I can answer the member's comments about the last sinister

plot that he sees somewhere in there is by the last paragraph. The last

paragraph says: "The school will involve parents in the learning

experience of their children. Through their better understanding of the

purposes of schooling, parents will be active in the entire range of

their children's learning needs." In the previous paragraph it says

that volunteers and other agencies are all going to be taking

part in

the school of the future, which — if you read the report — we see as a

school of the future, not confined to the four walls. The school of the

future is a life-long learning experience.

MR. R. FRASER :

I wish to pursue my line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, but prior to

that I want to express a few opinions on the comments from our friend

from Burnaby and I think there are about three schoolteachers here in

the chamber.

One of the key things in education, as far as

I'm concerned — and I stress it to all the young engineering students

when I visit them at universities and schools in my riding —

[ Page 4402 ]

flexibility, and the key to education is ongoing. The boundaries of the

mind should not be contained by the walls of the school. If it talks

about tutoring at home, learning at home, learning with computers,

learning through distance education, television or satellites, it

shouldn't matter one whit to us as long as they learn. The constant

lesson that we have to provide to the children or the students in the

school system — whatever age they might happen to be; they might be

adults — is that those of you in school today will probably have five

careers in your lifetime. The days of working for one employer forever

are probably gone forever. You have to learn in your school years how

to learn and with any luck, develop a will to reason, and then you are

going to be okay.

The key is flexibility. We are talking

about the mind. We are not talking about employing teachers or building

schools and making contractors and engineers happy. We are talking

about the filling of students' minds with information so that they can

do something useful. That's education; bricks and mortar are not.

When we talk about things like pupil-teacher ratios, I know that they don't

mean a lot to a lot of people. As far as I'm concerned, in many ways they

are totally meaningless, because in the riding of Vancouver South, we have classes

of 37 students and classes of 10 students, depending on the capacity of the

students and the teachers and other combinations.

Would the minister please go into some detail in this chamber to describe how flexible the school system really is? Talk

about learning assistance and learning enrichment programs and just

how flexible it is, because we are trying to address the needs of the

students on as much of an individual basis as we can. This is one of

the ways that we do it. I think this chamber would like to hear more

about those programs.

MR. JONES : The question that

the minister referred to with respect to my comment regarding a change

in legislation on the attendance laws was perhaps mistakenly made in

response to the minister's support for that current legislation, as he

described the legislation and indicated his support for it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

To the member for Vancouver South, very clearly, part of that legislation indicates

that the parents who choose that method must be able to demonstrate to the courts

that the children are being educated in a satisfactory manner. We already have

taken care of — in the current legislation — the concerns of the member for

Vancouver South.

I was referring to the next paragraph. I had asked as many questions as possible

to try to get a clarification of the minister's position on home schooling,

and he was very helpful in that. I was moving on to the next paragraph on page

9 of the ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education, which

talked about the school making use of parents, volunteers and private agencies

in providing service to select groups of children. The question to the minister

was to have him clarify that. The first question was: what groups of children

is the minister referring to in this particular section?

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I don't know how to keep repeating answers in different ways, because I

find it boring to say the same things. Maybe I will make a tape, and

then I can sit back and relax, because I know the member will ask the

same question at least a dozen times. I could make the tape and carry

on like a broken record. Let me use an example to see how we interpret

things differently. The letter that the member was so kind to send over

to me.... Am I correct? Was the member saying that in that letter I

was expressing my concern about the adequacy of the public school

system? I'd like to be clear on that.

MR. JONES : The

minister has the letter now. My understanding is that in that letter,

where there had been cases where parents had gone to the courts in

order to defend the right to home-school, the minister suggested in

those cases that the parents complained that the reason they wanted to

home-school was that there was inadequate education in those

jurisdictions. That is my understanding of the letter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

That's why I wanted to get that point clear, because I thought that was

what I heard when I read the letter of June 26, 1987. It says: "Where

boards do take action" — and I am only aware of three incidents in the

past 18 months — "there have been serious concerns related to the

adequacy of the education being provided to the children involved."

Where boards do take action, that means that they are not satisfied

that the student is getting the correct home schooling. So the

inference very clearly is that when the boards do not take action, they

are satisfied that the home schooling is providing adequate education.

Where boards to do take action to get the student back to school, it's

because they are concerned about the adequacy of the education being

provided.

If I take it from the member's

interpretation,

obviously they feel that the school can provide a much more adequate

education than the parent can at home, so you can see how carelessly or

carefully to your purposes you interpret the remarks when I read that.

I'm going to send the letter back to the member to point out that if

anything, I was saying that I'm concerned. I have said in this House I

do not think they can cover the whole range of educational experience

that children need. However, I went one step further than that member

would ever be prepared to go and I said that I have to acknowledge that

sometimes parents' rights supersede my views — and should, and I'll

defend that. So I'll send the letter back to the member.

Now

how to get back to this question, because I'm not quite sure what the

member is asking. All throughout here, in a sense we've set the stage.

Here is the educated person. This is what education is all about. This

is what learning is. Then we said that we see an image of the school of

the future. In this age, this school will be this; it will be this; it

will be this. In his image, we see that.

I can tell you

that I have had, during all my experience in the education system,

dreams of what might be. Some of them were, I guess, way-out dreams. I

guess I sort of went by he philosophy of not necessarily following

where the paths may lead, but striking out into a new direction and

creating a path. I couldn't always do it because I wasn't smart enough,

but I certainly like to think of it because it hadn't been done his

way; because the timetable had never been done this way; because an

approach had never been done this way in a course, that that shouldn't

preclude me, if I wanted to get the best education for the students in

my school, surely I was allowed to use some imagination — even if I

couldn't implement it, to dream.

[ Page 4403 ]

I think you could check with my ministry senior staff in some of the

meetings that we have about some of the dreams and visions that I have

of what the education system could be and how it could be perfected and

meet the needs of individual students — some of the dreams that I

express out there about how it might be done, in exploration; I'm not

afraid to dream. Sometimes I'm sure they wonder what I'm smoking

because anybody would say: "You can't do all that." I bristle when

people say: "You can't." Thank goodness that when they said, "You can't

fly more than so far above this earth," somebody didn't believe them.

"You can't go to the moon. It's too far away." Somebody didn't believe

them.

I think in education we've got to do a bit more of

that. Why not dream? I know we have to take it in steps and I know

there have to be changes, but what is so wrong with saying that we see

a lot of things happening in the school system? You can be very glad,

Mr. Member, that I didn't write this report, because I'd have put some

wild dreams there and then defied anyone to say it couldn't be done. I

still have some of those wild dreams, but I also have a practical

streak, and I also know that certain things can and can't be done

today, or that sort of thing, and to accept that it can't ever be done.

The

school in the future will use community resources — public and private;

it will ensure that individual students receive the attention and

support they need; that they may involve extensive use of parents —

"may" involve; and it may involve volunteers as well as private

agencies who may specialize in providing quality support services to

select groups of children — all of those things may well be possible.

Quite frankly, I hope a lot of them will and that they'll come together

in the best interests of the children rather than to say: "No, we've

structured a system and that system must be followed. Anybody else's

ideas have to be expurgated right now." I just don't believe that. I

think that if anybody has an idea and says that they can do something,

okay. Show me. Try it. Give me an example.

I don't know how

long you want to spend on this, saying: "What did you really mean when

you said that?" You are advocating that the commission.... "Do

this; you are directing the commission." I'll tell you, I have a lot

more faith, Mr. Chairman, in the integrity of the people on that

commission than perhaps the member has. I believe they got something

over 2,000 submissions. This was one of them. I don't think that the

commission for one minute is prepared, at the price of its integrity,

to take directions from this minister. And I hope they don't.

think we have a right; I have a right as minister. We have a right as a

ministry to say: "These are our views of how we see education in the

future. " You said, Mr. Member, that you would accept over 90 percent

of this report as good, but it's your duty to pick holes in a few

portions of it, so pick away.

MR. JONES : I

appreciate the minister's remarks. With respect to the letter, I can

see that there are two possible

interpretations, and since the minister

was the author of that letter, I accept his

interpretation and stand

corrected on mine.

I also appreciated the remarks of the

minister on his dreams as Minister of Education. The minister has

described himself as a possibilitarian, and I think it's an admirable

trait for a Minister of Education to have. That's the purpose of my

questions here today: to understand those dreams somewhat, and in

particular, those dreams put down on paper and submitted to the Royal

Commission on Education.

To me, the ministry's submission

is an eminent one among the 2,000 submitted to the commission. It is

the product of the expertise of the ministry and it has, if not the

total authorship, the direction and the stamp of approval of the

Minister of Education, so this is a very important document. My purpose

in asking questions is to better understand the philosophical

directions that the minister suggests education is going to be taking —

perhaps for the next 50 years. This is the document we have at present,

and I expect, when it comes to legislation that's flowing out of the

royal commission, we'll be doing exactly the same thing.

have asked the minister twice to clarify the second last paragraph on

page 9. The minister does not respond to the questions of which select

group of children the minister is referring to in that second to last

paragraph. The minister reads the

section again. I would ask the

minister: is he not willing to elaborate to any extent? Is he just

going to reiterate the exact words in the submission, or is he willing

to discuss his submission to the Royal Commission on Education?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I think if I detected one question in there, the member is asking which

selective group of children I was referring to. Am I correct in that?

In general terms, that selective group of children could be a different

group in September and in February, a group that might need extra help,

a different group from year to year or from district to district. As

much as you would like me to say which group I had in mind when that

was written, I can’t answer that.

I had no specific group

in mind. There will always be — there have been in any classroom — a

child or a student who needed some specific or special attention.

You're asking me in effect to tell before I get my class in September

which kid in the room is going to need specific attention in reading,

extra help in arithmetic or things of that nature. I can't do those

things. Maybe with my analogy, my irritation is showing, because I've

tried to say that that's what it says.

I've tried to say

that it can be read in the total context, and you get a pretty good

idea that I didn't have a specific group of students in mind. Neither

did the ministry when that was written. Since I was involved, I went

over the drafts with the ministry; there were several drafts. There

were lengthier ones; there were abbreviated ones; there were all kinds

of them. We tried to make sure that we did not try and give a specific

direction to the commission. That was very important to us, not because

I'm afraid to give a direction when I believe in it, but I think it was

very important for us not to say to the commission: "You should come up

with this conclusion." I have to be conscious that should they think

it was the best conclusion. we'd be accused of writing the script for

the royal commission. Even if they got it from 17 other sources, we'd

be accused of having inappropriately influenced the commission. A lot

of this report was very carefully edited to try and stay away from:

"This is what you should do."

We've said that we still

think there are things that are going to happen in the future. A much

more comprehensive group of people will be involved in the educational

experiences of children. Here are a few examples. Now we've been

several hours. and which example did I have in mind when I did that?

I've tried to say right from the beginning "not, " and so I've been

accused of going into overdrive and of not knowing what I had in mind.

You've accused me, on the record, by saying: "Obviously the minister

didn't know what he was doing when he did this." And you wonder why I

get irritated with some of this discussion. For two hours we haven't

gotten anywhere nearer. At this point in time, after two days, I

really don't detect from that member any concerns about education or

about children in the school system.

[ Page 4404 ]

MR. JONES :

What we're talking about is the future of education in this province,

the Royal Commission on Education, which certainly will be the

blueprint for the future of education, and the ministry's submission, a

very important document.

I disagree with the last point

that the minister made with respect to specifics. It seems to me that

in the sections that I am quoting, there are specifics. I think home

schooling, contracted learning services and more days of the year are

very specific concepts. I'm trying to clarify with the minister the

intent of his submission.

[3:45]

1 chose the second-to-last paragraph, and we did spend a good deal

of time on the paragraph before that. The major difference between the

two paragraphs was the question that I asked the minister. There is a

lot of repetition between the previous paragraph and the one that we're

discussing now. The major difference is that it talks about select

groups of children. What the minister is really saying.... I don't

mean to twist his words; let me try this on and see how you disagree.

There

is a lot of similarity between the two paragraphs. The major difference

is that the second paragraph talks about a select group of children.

The minister accuses me of repetition. If there isn't a difference

between the two paragraphs, then what is meant by select groups of

children? What is the difference between the previous paragraph and the

one we're discussing?

With these private agencies that are

referred to, does the minister have any suggestion at this time whether

these agencies would be licensed? What accountability mechanisms would

we have for contracted learning services, private tutors, parents,

volunteers and private agencies? Would we have any licensing? Would we

have any regulations governing these organizations? What accountability

mechanisms would we have to ensure that the children of this province

are getting the kind of quality education that both the minister and I

want for the children?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Comprehensive and the very best.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Burnaby North.

The first member for Vancouver South on a point of order.

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, I understand you're trying to be fair, but everybody in

this chamber should have a chance to ask the minister some questions,

and I don't believe that it's the prerogative of the official critic to

take the whole time. I would ask your indulgence.

MR. ROSE :

I think the member for Vancouver South is probably casting reflections

on the Chair. I'm certainly rising here to defend the Chair, because

the hon. member for Vancouver South was not on his feet at the same

time the member for Burnaby North was. I stand and defend the Chair on

this account.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I thank both the hon. members. I'm flattered indeed, and I'll now recognize the member for Burnaby North.

MR. JONES : The member who was first on his feet on both occasions.

seems to me that what we have is two sections of the minister's

submission to the Royal Commission on Education dealing with contracted

learning services, private tutors, home schooling, parents and

volunteers and private agencies, and the minister does not distinguish

between the two. He says the opposition is being repetitious in asking

questions about these two different sections when in fact they were put

into his submission as two separate paragraphs with different focuses.

The opposition was trying to clarify the difference between them. I

think the minister has really refused to answer any questions with

respect to the difference between those two paragraphs.

Let

me try a different paragraph. The second paragraph on the next page:

"The school will determine the most appropriate way of assigning its

available educational resources to best serve its learners." The

emphasis is: "The school will determine." As we have it right now, the

Minister of Education is duly elected and appointed by the government,

and his responsibility is for education. We have duly elected school

boards in this province who have a similar role at the local level. It

is their responsibility at this point to determine the most appropriate

way of assigning its available educational resources. In his submission

to the only royal commission since 1960 in this province....

would very much appreciate an answer from the Minister of Education to

clarify how he sees that responsibility being shifted to the school

from the elected representatives at the district level and the

provincial level, as it exists now. In the second paragraph we have a

shift from the province, from the district, to the school level.

Clearly, what we're talking about in this paragraph is school-based

budgeting. I would like the minister to clarify his rationale for that

kind of shift.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : We seem to have

only one document, and I'm not about to take the member's

interpretation unless he quotes directly. So I do want to read the

document myself. But it seems to say that the school will determine how

to make the best uses of its available resources. I believe the member

has been a schoolteacher, has been involved in the system, and to find

something ominous about that statement is beyond my comprehension. Any

school will use its available resources in the best possible way. That

used to be part of my job as principal.

MR. JONES :

The minister suggests that the statement in the submission to the royal

commission is exactly what's happening now. I suggest to the minister

that that is not what's happening now. The most appropriate way to

assign resources is determined by the province and by the school

boards. It is not determined by the schools. If it was, why would the

minister, in his submission to the Royal Commission on Education, which

is looking at educational change, at pursuing future directions in this

province, submit something that already exists? Obviously, this is a

recommendation for change. Does the minister not recognize that his

submission is a recommendation for change in direction of education in

this province? Did he just feel that something had to go in from the

ministry, or does it have serious intent? Is the minister's own view of

school-based budgeting not what is being referred to in the second

paragraph on page 10?

I would very much appreciate a

response from the Minister of Education. We can spend a lot of time in

this chamber, or we can have some straight answers from the minister

and move on to other estimates. We're having interjections from

[ Page 4405 ]

all

over the place, and certainly it's every member's right. But there is a

flow of business to this House, and this is an important process, an

important document. As far as I'm concerned, we're dealing with the

second paragraph on page 10, and I would like some response from the

Minister of Education.

MR. R. FRASER : I in no way

meant to be critical of the Chair, but I do want to take my turn from

time to time and talk about this document referred to by our hon.

friend from Burnaby. I in no way intend to be critical of the ministry

for making a submission; indeed, the ministry, from my point of view,

should take a leadership role in education. If they don't, who will?

It's not a novel idea that the minister should understand what's going

on and should guide the whole school system in the province of British

Columbia — why not? — with the help of everybody in the province, with

the submissions from the BCTF, from the teachers, and indeed even from

the members of the House. Maybe a few parents would like to help.

There

are such amazing things in the document from the Ministry, saying:

"...we are witnessing a re-establishment of the cultural identity of

the North American Indian population." We should be sensitive to their

cultural values. That's not a bad idea, recognizing the ethnic mix of

our province. I didn't hear the member complaining about that, but he

probably would have if he'd read it.

Then we go on to the

topic of literacy skills. That's a novel idea from the Minister of

Education, that we should talk about literacy skills in our young

people and indeed our old people in the province of British Columbia.

Good idea. It's of fundamental importance, obviously. I've said to

every student group I've talked to: "For heaven's sake, learn how to

communicate, because if you have a great idea in science that you can't

tell some other person, you don't have an idea." I didn't hear the

member opposite complaining about that.

The minister's

submission talked about intellectual development, social development,

vocational development, human development. Of course the minister

should take a leadership role. But education is not just the royal

commission, or whether we've had one or two or a dozen royal

commissions. Education is the stretching of the mind. It's like

learning a second language; it's another opportunity. That's what we're

talking about. Of course, we need literacy skills.

To go to this famous page 9, the second-last paragraph: "select

groups of children." Maybe the minister should have said, "as the need

arises," in order to help the member opposite, who can't seem to figure

out that the select group would probably be the group that needed the

help the most. But he should know; he was in the classroom. Maybe it's

a good thing that he's here, not there. Maybe we need to help him.

That's probably what we need to do.

"The school will determine the most appropriate way of assigning its available

educational resources...." Policies set by the ministry, policies

set by the school boards, funding set by the administrations — that's not

too surprising; that's easy to figure out. The schools have a job to do,

and they should do it.

Nor

did I hear the member complain about this little item in the document:

"Effective teachers should be well paid." I didn't hear him complain

about that; that sounds okay; he liked that.

"They should be held accountable for student achievement." You know,

we should talk about student achievement more. How well did you do? What was

the measure of your success? What did you learn? Are you having difficulty learning

this subject or that subject?

MR. JONES : What's the measure of your success?

MR. R. FRASER : How much time have you got? I've got lots of time for you, because you need a lot of help, and I'm here to help you.

should get the students a measuring device, something to say, "Yes, I

understand how to speak French, or I understand science, or I

understand physics." and not this mealy-mouthed: "Let's go all the way

through, and graduate illiterate." That's not fair to those kids. The

minister has to be in a leadership capacity, and he has done that.

I've

made a submission to the royal commission which you ought to read. You

know, really, it’s amazing. It's very short, very simple: learn how to

think, develop a will to reason, go somewhere in your life in this

great province. Because if you can't think and you can't reason, you

can't go anywhere. Distance education. Satellite education. Thinking

education. Stretching of the mind.

Minister, I compliment

you for putting in a submission. For heaven's sake, I think you would

have been castigated if you hadn't done that. There's not a member

here, including the man who wanted to hog all the time, who would say:

"Minister, you shouldn't have done it."

Yes, we should be

part of it. I'm not even sure we needed a royal commission, in fact.

There are artificial boundaries all the time. It's not a problem. But

it never hurts to do something innovative once in a while. What is so

mysterious about education, anyway? It's not mysterious. When did we

start learning? Little groups sitting around with an instructor

thinking about things — philosophical discussions began hundreds of

years ago, and so did science. It's not amazing, Mr. Chairman, that we

would have a submission from the Minister of Education to the royal

commission. It's necessary to demonstrate the commitment of this

government to the children of British Columbia.

[4:00]

MR. JONES : Question: on page 10, paragraph 2, is the Minister referring to school-based budgeting?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

That could be one of the things included. But let me give you a

definition perhaps of the resources. Resources include the people in

the school, the physical facilities, the books, the learning materials,

the students, time, temperature and space — all of those things. I have

some difficulty with the member standing up in this House and asking

what the minister means by a statement such as: "The school will

determine the most appropriate way of assigning its available

educational resources to best serve its learners." In some cases it's

school-based budgeting, where the school and the staff are dealing with

that. That may be the case. It may or may not be expanded, but it will

come as it makes sense. I don't see how you can possibly interpret that

simple statement to mean I've got some intention, some motive to do

some particular thing that occurs to you.

MR. JONES :

Clearly the intent of the submission to the royal commission was to

promote educational change. The minister describes what currently

exists. I'm suggesting

[ Page 4406 ]

there

is a suggestion of change here, and I would like to ask the minister:

does he have a view on school-based budgeting? And would he elaborate

on that view?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Yes, I do.

MR. JONES :

Perhaps the minister is suggesting in his submission to the Royal

Commission on Education that we had legislation last year that changed

the role of principals, who are responsible for the school, and made

them administrative officers. I suggest that the minister is promoting

the concept of school-based budgeting, and if he is, then I would like

him to stand up in the House and agree that that's what is being

suggested in the second paragraph here. Clearly there are some serious

problems with that concept, and I think the minister is aware of them.

He is aware that we want to see the principals in the schools, and not

as franchise managers for the school system. I don't think we want to

supplant their role as educators. We want to keep the kind of role that

principals have in the school now, and we want the democratically

elected people in this province — the school trustees and the

Legislature — responsible for the kinds of resources.

There

are some serious problems with the concept of school-based budgeting.

It's clearly a scheme aimed at promoting cost-cutting and not enhancing

the education system of our province. It's a management system, not an

education system. What we see through the back door, in this suggestion

of school-based budgeting in the second paragraph on page 10 — just as

on page 9 — is a ploy to bring more private contractors into the school

system. This is the area where we contract out the custodial and

maintenance services of the school districts of this province.

What

we want is an assurance that this is not what is intended in the second

paragraph here; that in fact the goal of the ministry is to maintain

the standards and programs of maintenance and service that we have. We

want those controlled by democratically elected trustees who are

accountable to the public of this province. We don't want to leave it

up to the school to determine the services and standards we have at the

school level. I don't think that school-based budgeting is the

philosophical direction of the future of this province. I hope it's

not. I was hoping that the minister would give assurance that that was

not his intention in this paragraph.

The third paragraph on

that page has some statements that I would like to inquire of the

minister. It relates to my previous comments. It says in that

paragraph: "The school will provide tangible rewards for effective

management...." I wonder if the minister could clarify what he

means by "tangible rewards for effective management" that the school

will provide.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Well, I'm not sure

what the member wants. Does he want a dictionary definition of

"tangible," or whatever it could mean in anyone's mind, or....

MR. JONES : In your mind, I guess.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

It could mean many different things in many different places. Tangible

is something very real: that can be praise; it can be support; it can

be extra equipment; it can be money; it can be any one of those things;

it can be many different things. I guess I go back to the second

paragraph, which the member wasn't about to leave alone. I had to make

a concluding comment on it. I suppose all I can do is apologize for

stirring up the thought that we should do some imaginative thinking.

How someone can say this it is a back-door approach to advocate

something, a statement that says: "The school will determine the most

appropriate way of assigning its available educational resources to

best serve its learners." And from that, somehow or other, that's a

back-door approach to whatever the member conjures up in his mind.

guess we're going on clause after clause in this way. And then he says

that we say there shall be tangible rewards for effective management

and for provision of quality education services to all professionals

working there. More entrepreneurial processes will be used to develop

resources and provide such rewards. I'd like to go on with the

statement: these are not unrealistic goals. Indeed, there are many

schools in the province whose teachers would recognize a number of

these practices and principles as guiding forces in their schools.

MR. JONES :

The minister suggests that the schools will provide tangible rewards

for effective management — and that could mean anything. We have a

submission to the royal commission, and that commission has the

responsibility of interpreting the intent of the Ministry of Education.

And if it can mean anything, then I'm sure the royal commission is

going to have a very difficult task in determining the direction in

which the Minister of Education would like to see education take in the

future. I have concern about the statement, and the minister has done

nothing to allay my concern.

I think one of the things that

it could well mean in terms of tangible rewards is that we're going to

financially reward the managers — what are now the principals in

education — based on their ability to cut costs. I think it's a

reasonable conclusion that resources would be made available. If there

could be cost-cutting in schools, if we have managers in schools, and

if they do save cost, then some of that cost could go to the manager. I

think that's a reasonable

interpretation of this kind of statement. I

believe the minister is saying that it could mean that. Is that what

the minister is saying: that it could mean that effective management

means cost-cutting; and if those costs are cut, then a portion of those

cut costs could go to the principal or to the manager of the school?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I would think that effective management does concern itself about

cost-effectiveness any time. But what the member is trying to seek out

of this, I don't know.

MR. JONES : I'd like the

minister to clarify the part he read; it's the second part of that same

paragraph, which refers to entrepreneurial processes: "More

entrepreneurial processes will be used to develop resources and provide

such rewards." Rather than what I suggested a moment ago, perhaps the

plan in the minister's submission to the royal commission is

fund-raising kinds of things; perhaps work days; perhaps an increase in

volunteer services. And through those cost-saving measures, then we

would have financial, monetary rewards which we could provide for

effective management. Is that what's meant by "entrepreneurial

processes"?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : No, Mr. Chairman — certainly not his cynical description of entrepreneurism.

[ Page 4407 ]

MR. JONES :

I appreciate that. The minister doesn't clarify what it means, but he

does help with what it doesn't mean, and I am very pleased with that

answer.

The member for Vancouver South raised the question

of merit pay, and I was probably being very unfair to the member by

suggesting that his pay had been cut through a merit pay system, having

been changed from minister of the Crown to back-bench MLA.

I'm

looking at the paragraph I just referred to as well as a paragraph on

page 8. The part on page 10 that I am interested in receiving

information on from the Minister of Education is that we are going to

provide "tangible rewards for...the provision of quality education

services to all professionals working there." And there is the

paragraph on page 8 which suggests that effective teachers should be

well paid and, secondly, held accountable for student achievement. I

think that when we tie pay to accountability for student achievement

and talk about tangible rewards for the provision of services to all

professionals, we're talking about the concept of merit pay. I don't

see any other possible

interpretation of these paragraphs and parts of

paragraphs. Is that what the minister intended in his submission?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I must admit I am enjoying this snakes-and-ladders game. We went to

page 10 and back here, and then, by some mysterious juxtaposition, you

say: "That's the only thing the minister could have meant." I'll read

the paragraph on page 8: "Effective teachers should be well paid. They

should be held accountable for student achievement." In my opinion,

all teachers should be effective; and being effective, they should be

well paid. Teachers should be held accountable for the achievement of

their students, with all of the factors that go in there — the nature

of the student, the subject and all of those other sorts of things.

think we can expect that teachers, as professionals — properly trained,

which more and more they are — should be effective, well paid and

accountable for what they do in the classroom, in the achievement of

their students. The ministry — all of us, 1 think — have to be

accountable. Even the auditor-general said we should be accountable for

the product that comes out of our schools — the learning product, not

the mechanical product; the learner that comes out of our schools, the

educated person.

[4:15]

We defined

what we think the educated person should be. We have stated intended

learning outcomes. More and more we are moving in the direction of

saying: "This is the direction in which at this point in time we're

heading, and this is where we think more people should arrive." We try

to measure to what extent our program has been successful, and

effective teachers are part of that. They should be well paid.

suppose the argument will go on forever: what do you mean by "well"? It

does go on in society. What is a well-paid hockey player, baseball

player, lawyer, doctor or teacher? I can't seem to detect that

everybody agrees on a certain figure. But I think that people

philosophically accept that teachers should be well paid. We've said we

accept and agree with that. And they should be accountable for student

achievement.

I guess we weren't playing the same sort of

snakes-and-ladders game as that member, saying: "We had better take a

careful look at a word we use three pages hence, because that may

affect the meaning someone could read out of this back here." That's

what I'm suggesting, Mr. Member. I welcome you analyzing the document,

questioning it and so on. However, I'm having some difficulty with some

of the most vivid and imaginative

interpretations you've managed to

attribute to it.

MR. JONES : I certainly agree with

the two ideas when they're separated, and I think all members of the

House agree that effective teachers should be well paid and also

accountable for student achievement. But when those two things are

linked in almost the same sentence — only four words separate them in

the paragraph — then very clearly we're linking the concepts of pay and

student achievement.

I'm not trying to play word games with

the minister. We can interpret it, Mr. Minister, that the Sullivan

royal commission should not interpret this

section in any way as the

Ministry of Education and the minister promoting the concept of merit

pay. These are just two separate concepts that happen to be in the same

paragraph; there's no connection between them. The

interpretation that

the Sullivan royal commission should put on this paragraph is that

there's no intention here of the minister promoting the concept of

merit pay.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I have not directed the

royal commission, or whoever reads this, as to what they may or may not

link or interpret. I can imagine that if I had said to that member, the

opposition education critic, that you should not link these things

because they weren't intended that way.... I didn't give an

instruction sheet on which paragraph and which word you might link with

each one of these.

We tried to develop here a comprehensive

philosophical statement of where we see education going, where we think

a variety of approaches may be used, what it should achieve and how it

should achieve it, in philosophical terms. That's what we've put

together here: a comprehensive statement, after much time and effort,

putting together all our views in the ministry of the future of

education. We did not direct the royal commission. I've tried to say

that. I give them a lot more credit than you do. We did not tell them

that because this is from the ministry, somehow or other it is

superlative to anything else submitted to them and they must take

direction from us. I would not be so presumptuous as to give that kind

of direction to the royal commission, nor would I be so presumptuous as

to say to them: "Please link these with this and them with those, but

never these with that, because that was not intended."

cannot tell people how to interpret something I say or something I do.

I can only tell you that I say what I believe. I'm trying to convey my

thoughts, perhaps not excellently at times. I know the member has spent

quite a bit of time here saying: "This is what the minister really

said." Take a chance, Mr. Member. that when I say something, that is

what I said, not what you or the media or somebody else has attributed

to me. Take a chance that I put in words the thoughts I have. Other

people may see that as completely different from what I intended, but

that's the risk you take. The only alternative would be to say: "Read

it. Read it. It says it all." We could have spent a lot less time on

this, but I'm sure the member would repeat the same question and say:

"Would you like me to make a tape to go back over it?"

MR. JONES : It's really the Minister of Education who is not willing to take a chance. He's not willing to comment on

[ Page 4408 ]

school-based

budgeting, when clearly that's been mentioned in his submission. He's

not willing to comment on the concept of merit pay, when clearly that

was in the submission. He's not really willing to comment on the

deprofessionalizing and deunionizing that are clearly part of his

submission to the Royal Commission on Education, a commission that has

been systematically undermined since its inception by this minister.

have had major legislation from this government on bargaining and the

College of Teachers. We've had action teams running around the

province, suggesting more cost efficient ways of running our schools.

We've had suggestions from ministers of the Crown on such concepts as

year-round schools, voucher systems and the county system. We've

included the concept of decentralization and privatization in our

school system since the inception of the royal commission. We've had

such major initiatives as the Pacific Rim initiatives fund. We've seen

the death of the fund for excellence in education. We've seen the

introduction of Passport to Education, multi-year computer plans, and

an index as a method of controlling teachers' salaries — all since the

inception of the Royal Commission on Education, while that commission

was trying to determine public opinion on the future directions of

education in this province. These are not minor items that the minister

has initiated; many of these are major.

I certainly don't

expect the government to stand still while we have a royal commission,

but some of these things were very major changes in our education

system. It seems to me that the government has a responsibility, at

least to hold off on major changes to the system while a commission has

been appointed and has the very important responsibility that royal

commissions have.

Clearly, the minister does not understand

the purpose of a royal commission. That purpose is to secure

information as a basis for legislation; or to educate the public or the

Legislature — that is, even to pressure for legislation; or to sample

public opinion; or to investigate the judicial or administrative

function of government; or to permit the voicing of grievances on the

part of the public; or, in some instances, to enable the government to

postpone action on a politically embarrassing question.

Those

are the six purposes for a royal commission. I suggest to the members

opposite and to the minister that it was not appropriate. I have a real

concern that we have not seen an arm's length relationship between the

Sullivan royal commission and this government. We had the Ministry of

Education make the submission to that commission in camera. First of

all, it made that submission, and I think that is inappropriate. The

minister has said several times that he feels it's a government's

right. If we look at the purpose of the royal commission, which is a

public process and to sample public opinion, I think it's totally

inappropriate for the government to establish a royal commission and

then have input to that commission that comes back to government. As

the member for Vancouver South said, why have a commission? He doesn't

see any need for a royal commission, and I think we have a constitution

in this country that gives the responsibility for education to the

government of the province. It's not the place of the government of the

province to set up a commission and then try to influence that

commission along very clear lines.

In the past few hours, I

have suggested in this some very specific recommendations to that royal

commission. Even the deputy minister — with all due respect to the

deputy minister — has suggested that: "We believe it would be

inappropriate for a government agency to advise the royal commission on

specifics." I suggest, in fact, that is what happened — to advise the

royal commission on specifics "that could then be included in

recommendations back to government." That was the Deputy Minister of

Education on October 29, 1987.

1 suggest that this

submission was made. It did contain specific recommendations, and it

was made in camera. It was made in camera for a specific purpose: so

the kind of cross-examination in public that we've seen in the past few

hours in this Legislature would not take place in an in camera

submission to the royal commission.

Clearly, we have a

problem with the government intervening in the public royal commission

process — an honoured tradition that has specific purposes that I think

the government has both undermined and intervened with.

With

respect to the process as we proceed from here, I also have serious

concerns about the $1 million the government has set aside as a

response to the royal commission. I don't know what "respond to" means.

I've asked the minister to clarify the timetable, the process and how

he sees that. I've given him a great opportunity to clarify and to

allay the concerns of the opposition with respect to the process after

the royal commission submits its report. The minister has not taken

advantage of that opportunity.

So if the opposition sees a

nefarious motive here, it's quite understandable. The minister has not

taken advantage of an opportunity to clarify what this $1 million is

for and how we are going to respond as a province to the Sullivan royal

commission. There's been no clarification on the part of the minister

at all, as far as the follow-up process goes. How will that $1 million

be broken down? What is the process? Is it really a process? The

minister laughs.

I don't know, in the lack of such

information, how the minister could.... The minister called me

"Tricky Dick" yesterday. It seems to me that, if we've seen

stonewalling and the siege mentality in operation, then we've seen it

in this Legislature on the part of that minister. Certainly, if anybody

has been a "Tricky Dick, " it's been that minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that.

MR. JONES :

I withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I was commenting on the minister's response

in the Legislature on behalf of the government; it was not intended as

a personal comment. I have no personal views about the minister

whatsoever. It's his response as a minister of the Crown, in not

responding to my attempts to clarify the important submission on the

part of the Ministry of Education to the Sullivan royal commission.

Again

I give that minister an opportunity to clarify the follow-up process.

How was that $1 million to be used? Is that $1 million going to be used

to manipulate the information that's presented in the royal commission?

What is the follow-up to the public process that the government has

both intervened with and subverted?

[4:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Once again, in a very soft-spoken way, the member has gotten quite

vicious. I'm now accused of stonewalling, manipulating and all of these

things. Would you believe, Mr. Chairman, that I'm accused of

[ Page 4409 ]

stonewalling my response to a report that hasn't been completed yet? And 1 don't know what it contains.

MR. JONES : Not specifics — the process. What's the $1 million for?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

If the member would remember what I said when I mentioned that $1

million, I said it was to analyze the report, to study it, to see its

implications and to prepare whatever recommendations and legislation

that might be done. We don't know exactly what we're going to do on day

one, when the report comes out. We know that we've got people prepared

to look at it, read it and study it.

MR. JONES : A million dollars' worth of legislation coming in.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I have no idea. Maybe the report is not even recommending any

legislation. You want me to specify what legislation, because your

leader here — who made a fool of himself, when he was in here, with

inaccuracies — stated that I have already prepared the legislation. He

accused me of that and then walked out.

MR. JONES :

On a point of order. Very clearly the Minister of Education has made a

disparaging remark about the Leader of the Opposition, who is not here

to defend himself. Id like him to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the minister withdraw that comment, please.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Okay, Mr. Chairman. I guess when a person comes in here and makes all

kinds of inaccurate statements, you're not allowed to comment on that.

The Leader of the Opposition was performing up to standard, in the

inaccuracies that he presented to this House, the accusations — the

false accusations. He was performing to his usual standard.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Withdraw what?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'll withdraw that the Leader of the Opposition made a fool of himself; I withdraw that.

Since

that member has opened up some new territory and talked about

inappropriateness, unionism and professionalism and accused the

government and brought into the debate privatization and

decentralization and all of these items, then it may be time to ask the

member if he stands by his principles regularly. It's something that I

hoped I would never have to do, but I think the public is entitled to

know what has gone on here. I'm saddened by it, but I think it's very

important that we do this. I'm going to start with the standard

research format that you and your leader use.

First of all,

the Blues. I go back to the reference to the letters that the Premier

of this province sent out to all teachers and to others saying: "You

should be in a position to understand this view of privatization." We

had the following response from the second member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Lovick):

"Everybody is aware now about the

letter and the package of materials on privatization sent to teachers

in the province. My first question to the Minister of Education is

whether his ministry was approached directly by the Premier and asked

if it was acceptable to send out that propagandic piece of information.

My response was: "No, Mr. Speaker, although I was made aware

of the letter going out." The second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Clark) said: "Supplementary to the Minister of Education. Does the

minister support this use of teacher mailing lists for this kind of

effort?"

My answer was: "I...support the concept of disseminating information."

Later, the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) asked:

"I'd like to ask the minister a question regarding the

use of these materials. Could the minister please advise this House how he sees

these materials being used? Are they to form part of the curriculum? Are they

to be used as the basis of discussion in classrooms in this province?"

My response was that the member was misinterpreting and that there was nothing

in that letter that said it was to be used in the classroom. It was for the

information of teachers. This was from the Blues of March 10. I said:

"Is there anything wrong with teachers and others knowing

both sides of an issue? Should they just be subject to what someone interprets

for them?"

It goes on.

There was a response in the encyclopedia for

the Leader of the Opposition — that is, in the newspaper. There were

statements by Ron Warder, president of the Sooke Teachers' Association.

He said he found the letter incredible, incongruous. He said teachers

had been getting unfair criticism about taking politics into the

classroom, and here the Premier was recommending teachers do just that,

even though he had not told them to take it into the classroom. "It's

unethical for a teacher to take anything from a politician into the

classroom," he said.

Charles Hingston, president of the

B.C. School Trustees' Association, said: "Putting out one party's

policies as a preferred approach in classroom teaching strikes me as a

very, very dangerous precedent." I agree. Elsie McMurphy, president of

the B.C. Teachers' Federation, said: "The Premier's action just sounds

really weird." I guess some of the reason for the brevity of those

remarks may come out.

The New Democratic Party said the

letters were an attempt to pressure teachers to disseminate government

propaganda into the classroom. "In a particularly noisy exchange in the

Legislature, Brummet said the material on privatization sent to the

teachers says nothing about using the materials in the classroom."

John

Shields, the president of the B.C. Government Employees' Union, said he

was offended by the letter. "It's an insult to government workers and a

terrible waste of taxpayers' moneys." And so it goes on.

Let

me tell you what has come to my attention recently, first of all, by

people who said: "Has material of this nature been approved for use in

the classroom?" I said: "What material? Not to my knowledge." "Well,

it's very one-sided material." I said: "I don't believe it, because

people are generally fair."

[ Page 4410 ]

What

I found was that at that time a decision had been made, and on March 24

a directive went out from the BCTF to district resource centre

co-ordinators, to social studies PSA executives, to local association

presidents, to association profession development chairpersons, to

Elsie McMurphy, Alan Crawford, Al Comes, George North, labour education

committee, and labour affairs advisory committee from Lynne Macdonald,

labour affairs program co-ordinator for the B.C. Teachers' Federation,

on BCTF letterhead. It says: "Social studies resource package."

might add that when this came to my attention about two weeks ago, I

asked the BCTF, since this material was being suggested for use in the

schools, if I could have a copy of it, in that my ministry and I had

not been apprised of this. I have not heard a response. The letter of

instruction to these teachers says:

"Please

find enclosed a binder of resource materials designed for the social

studies 11 curriculum section, 'Contemporary Canadian Society.' These

materials were developed by a joint labour-education committee composed

of BCTF members, social studies teachers, B.C. Federation of Labour

education committee members and educational staff from the Canadian

Labour Congress. Social studies teachers have piloted this resource

package, and the results have been very positive.

"Please

do whatever you can to promote this package. It provides badly needed

material and lesson plans for the government curriculum....

"Enclosed with the binder is a copy of the video, 'Blankety-blank

Unions,' which is an important feature of the resource package, and a class

set, approximately 30, of some of the materials used in the unit. "

There are clear instructions for this to be taken by the social studies teachers

and resource people into the classroom.

The

part that concerns me is that there is a standard process in this

province of approval of material for any curriculum. One of them is

that it is to be approved by the ministry, by the government. The other

one is that it may be approved by local boards. In this case I know it

was not approved by the ministry — it was not even provided to the

ministry — and to my knowledge it was not sent to school boards for

approval. Anyone in the profession who gets a document that says, "This

has been prepared by social studies teachers in this province; it is

being sent to the resource centres in each district to be provided to

the social studies course; it was designed for the grade 11 social

studies curriculum; it has been piloted by teachers; it has been proven

very positive," would certainly believe that it was authorized

material. Quite frankly, I think it's an insult and a disservice to the

professionalism of the teachers in this province. It's important to let

the public know about the type of material that has been sent out,

aside from the bargaining bulletins of the BCTF, the local labour

council contacts in the province.

Let me read to you from

the brochure that was put out with this material —

and I'm quoting just

in part here. "Education about labour has been provided by a joint B.C.

Fed committee with BCTF and Canadian Labour Congress support." That's

who has put it out, and in it it says: "It is our goal to continue to

encourage and support the development and use of these and similar

curriculum materials for teachers. Training will be available through

professional specialists, association conferences and other district

professional days. Teachers are urged to participate in the workshops."

It goes on: "Training for union resource people will be done through

local labour councils in conjunction with the Canadian Labour

Congress." It says: "The unit ends in a role play of the organizing

process."

It says: "A suggested format for a union member to visit the classroom

after completion of the role play is included in this unit to allow for

a question and-answer period with a person who has firsthand experience

with organizing drives." It says: "This is the use of current Canadian

materials." It goes on to mention how they encourage students to

attend the B.C. Federation of Labour convention. We know about that,

and I guess if it's on a voluntary basis I have no problem with that.

It's

important, because of the implicit dangers of this type of approach,

that the public, this House and this Legislature be fully aware of what

has happened in this case. If this kind of thing can be allowed to

happen without challenge, then the implications are horrendous. "To the

teacher: this miniunit on trade unionism was developed by a joint

committee of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the B.C. Federation of

Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress."

I'm going to read

you a few samples of this. It should "involve a trade unionist from the

community in their social studies classrooms...." And: "The new

grade 11 social studies curriculum covers contemporary Canadian

society; this would be an appropriate area to introduce this unit on

the labour movement."

One of the ironies of this whole

thing is that the package contains a great deal of objective material

that could have been approved, would have been acceptable and is

probably included in the grade 11 social studies curriculum, among

others, as valid material, but the approach and the process leaves

some