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)

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4431 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4431

Oral Questions

Robson ferry. Mr. Darcy –– 4431

Long-term-care user fees. Ms. A. Hagen 4432

Provincial Capital Commission. Mr. Blencoe –– 4432

BCTF high school course material. Mr. Long –– 4433

Mayors' program on silviculture. Mr. Miller –– 4433

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

On vote 23: minister's office –– 4433

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Mr. Loenen

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

In the gallery today is Mr. Dwight Mason, the deputy chief of staff of

the embassy of the United States of America in Ottawa; and he is

accompanied by Sam Fromowitz, the consul-general for the United States,

from Vancouver. Would all members please make them welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I would like to introduce to the House today a friend of mine, Mr. Ed

Hamaguchi, the administrator of watershed management of the Greater

Vancouver Water District. Would the House make him welcome, please.

MS. MARZARI :

In the precincts today are representatives of the Canadian Federation

of Students. They are here from across the country to join with our

B.C. students to talk about post-secondary education. Most notably,

Tony Macerollo, national chair of the Canadian Federation of Students,

and Robert Clift, chair of the Pacific region of the CFS, should be in

the House right now, if they are not out making speeches on the front

steps. I would like this House to welcome them — young people from

across Canada to look at the state of our post-secondary institutions

here in B.C.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : At the other end of

the spectrum, I would ask the House to please welcome the chairman of

the Surrey School Board, who is in the gallery this afternoon: Mrs.

Laurae McNally.

MS. EDWARDS : I don't often have the

opportunity to welcome a group of students into the Legislature, but 70

students from Laurie Junior Secondary School in Cranbrook were in the

precincts earlier. I would like the other members of the Legislature to

recognize that these students, with their director, Mr. Ken Ireson, and

the student council president, who is a member of the concert band,

Miss Laura Zeznik, were here. Earlier in the week they visited the

community of Gibsons for an exchange band trip and, as I say, I'm sure

we were all glad that they were able to visit the precincts.

MR. JANSEN :

In the gallery today are three students from Vedder Junior Secondary

School in Chilliwack: Dylan Cuff, Luke Zacharias and Danny Mitchell.

Would you please make them welcome.

MR. MILLER : In

the gallery today we have Mr. Hugh Robins and, if I'm not mistaken, his

wife. Mr. Robins is a former Social Credit candidate in the Prince

Rupert riding. I would ask the House to make him welcome today.

MR. CRANDALL :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a class from the Mount Arrowsmith

Adventist School in Parksville, accompanied by their teacher, Judy

Walper. On behalf of their MLA, the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), and myself, I would like to have the House welcome them.

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Speaker, this morning my good colleague the first

member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) introduced the first wave of 150 students and

eight schoolteachers visiting us from Brookswood Senior Secondary School in

Langley. It's my pleasure to introduce the second wave, seated in the gallery

at this time. Would the House please make them very welcome.

MR. JONES :

Education has played such an important

part in the debate in the House

this week. In honour of that, I too would like to welcome Laurae

McNally from the B.C. School Trustees' Association and Fred Herfst from

the Federation of Independent School Associations, who has sat

patiently through the entire debate of the estimates for Education.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, in the members' gallery today are two very nice people

from Saanichton, Mr. Gordon Howarth and Mrs. Marion Howarth. I would

ask everyone to make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

We have been fortunate to have in attendance today members from the

Insurance Agents' Association of British Columbia. Their purpose has

been to make the government aware and appreciative of the critical role

they play in our B.C. economy. I'm pleased to introduce to the House —

and confirm our abiding interest in their future successes — Mr.

William Brown, president; Mr. David Bakes, first vice-president; Mr.

Gordon Chambers, past president; Mr. Robert Minniss, second

vice-president; and Mr. Jack Hamilton, general manager.

Mr. Speaker tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library.

Oral Questions

ROBSON FERRY

MR. D'ARCY : I want to bid a welcome to anybody in the gallery it's remotely possible has not been introduced so far.

was going to make a comment about how empty the cabinet benches are

today, but maybe it's a good thing. We might have been another half

hour on introductions.

Anyway, to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Each year the Robson ferry carries, in

safety, over half a million vehicles and over 900,000 people across the

Columbia River. Of all the 18 inland freshwater ferries, only the

Albion–Fort Langley carries more vehicles and more people. Indeed, only

the two major crossings of Georgia Strait carry more vehicles and

people. The ferry has been found to be mechanically and structurally

sound, needing only some very minor repairs.

In view of

this and of the very high usership of this particular crossing, will

the minister reconsider his decision to unfairly and arbitrarily walk

away from this service for the people in the Kootenays, who have been

paying taxes for it?

[2:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS : Thank

you for that totally unexpected question. The report that was done by

Admiral Yanow and Dr. Kasianchuk on the inland ferry fleets of British

Columbia recommended the termination of this particular ferry. Cabinet

has agreed with that recommendation. I advised the mayor last week by

telephone — and more formally by letter — that if the municipality

and/or the regional district would like to take over the vessel and

operate it, we would be prepared to make it available for the princely

[ Page 4432 ]

sum

of $1. Failing that, if the private sector wishes to take it over and

operate it, we will also make it available to them. Failing that, the

vessel will remain out of service. It is a decision based on the fact

that there are two alternate routes which are acceptable from the point

of view of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

MR. D'ARCY :

I suppose it could be argued that all of the inland ferry routes have

alternate routes if the ministry wants to force inconvenience on enough

people. The fact is that bridges all have a cost, and so do ferries;

but the maintenance and capital costs of bridges amount to hundreds of

thousands of dollars a year. The cost of painting just the upper

girders on the Trail bridge would run the Castlegar ferry for four

years.

In view of all of this, will the minister please

agree to reconsider his decision simply to walk away from the ferry and

dump the operating charges on the local taxpayers? It's not happening

anywhere else in the province. This is the only one, and all the others

have some alternative.

HON. MR. ROGERS : I believe the decision of cabinet is final.

LONG-TERM-CARE USER FEES

MS. A. HAGEN :

To the Minister of Finance. As they have been forced to do on so many

occasions with the budget of this government this year, officials are

now taking a second look at the unfair 85 percent user fee for

long-term-care services. Has the Finance minister had discussions with

his colleagues about changing this unfair fee that he introduced in his

budget in March?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I am indebted

to the hon. member for the question and will attempt to answer it,

although as she appreciates it should more properly go to the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). She did adroitly incorporate financial

considerations into the question, so I don't feel too constrained in

trying to provide an answer.

The question was framed to

imply that the changes made to the pocket money of extended care

residents in British Columbia were somehow inaccurate compared to other

jurisdictions. I can tell the House categorically that in that respect

British Columbia is third best in Canada. That's another way of saying

that seven provinces take more money away than we do in British

Columbia for that service.

To the suggestion that the issue

is being examined by the Minister of Health, it is my understanding

that that is a proper assumption, and he is, I believe, involved with

his officials in examining the details of how the budgetary ruling

might be applied. I suspect that he will be in a position to provide

the hon. member with that kind of detail in the fullness of time.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The bafflegab of this minister can't hide the fact that this budget is

unfair to seniors. For two months, seniors have been telling him and

members of this government that. They have been waiting for this

government to conclude its announcements about the unfair measures that

they have announced and propose to announce. Could I ask the minister

if the hard-hearted views pronounced by his Premier yesterday on hungry

kids have permeated the Health ministry with respect to seniors in this

his government is proposing that these unfair measures be added to the

long-term-care fees of seniors, and when he will confirm that those

measures will be rolled back because the government has recognized its

unfairness?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I heard reference to "hungry kids." The

position of the minister in charge of that is clear.

It's

been repeated in this House constantly. The position of this government

in respect to feeding schoolchildren breakfast — which I understand is

the issue the hon. member inferred — is clear. We are saying that it is

not our policy to feed every child in the province breakfast before

they go to school.

May I infer that the opposition's policy

is to feed every student in British Columbia breakfast before they go

to school in the morning? Is that what the hon. members are implying?

This government is saying categorically that we will not do that. We

will make sure that identified students are adequately fed prior to

going to school. The problem always has been that local school boards

will not identify those students so that we can provide them the

service. That's the issue, and you've been told that almost daily

during estimates and question period.

To the issue of

dealing with the unfair measures as they relate to extended care

residents, we say categorically that they are not unfair. Indeed, if

they are unfair in this province, then they are even more unfair in

seven other provinces in this country. Furthermore, the line minister

charged with that responsibility is, as I said, discussing the matter

in some detail with his staff members. You will be informed, hon.

member, in due course. But we do take offence at the rather political

comments that you direct to us during question period.

PROVINCIAL CAPITAL COMMISSION

MR. BLENCOE :

I've got a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs responsible

for the Provincial Capital Commission. As the minister is aware, the

commission is deep in controversy, continues to close its meetings to

the public and makes decisions that are totally unknown to this

community. The minister continues to refuse to request that the

Provincial Capital Commission open its doors to the people of this

community, yet three of the four core municipalities have requested you

to do that very thing and make sure it is open to this community.

question to the minister is: will you announce today that the

Provincial Capital Commission will do its business in public and be

accountable to the people of this community and the province of British

Columbia?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : There appeared to be

two or three questions there, and I didn't really like any of them. In

response to the first one, the answer is no. In response to the second

question as to the responsibility of the members serving on the

commission, I believe that they act in a very responsible way. For your

information, Mr. Speaker and members of the House, I have not yet

received official notification of concern from any of the local

governments, although I understand through the research department of

the Times-Colonist that I will be receiving some mail.

MR. BLENCOE :

This government continues to attack the media in this province and

continues to shoot the messengers. Of course, it is a great shame that

the minister wants

[ Page

4433 ]

questions she is happy with. Unfortunately that's not our job. Our job

is to assure that the people's business is done in the open. This government

promised open government in the province of British Columbia.

The

Provincial Capital Commission has spent millions of dollars of

taxpayers' money. The St. Ann's Academy proposal has not had a public

hearing. Will the minister agree, in regard to St. Ann's Academy — at

least that site — to the council of Victoria's request for a full

hearing on the St. Ann's Academy development proposal?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

There were public meetings held with regard to the St. Ann's proposal,

and I understand that the negotiations are presently about to commence.

As they proceed, and in the fullness of time, everything will be made

available to the public.

BCTF HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MATERIAL

MR. LONG :

A question to the Minister of Education. Yesterday the minister

outlined a social studies research package from the B.C. Teachers'

Federation which was nothing short of pure propaganda for NDP politics.

It offends those who feel that the classroom teacher should not be

putting forth biased one-sided opinions on either side of the political

spectrum to their students.

Could I ask the minister to

table the letter from the Leader of the Opposition outlining his and

his party's rejection of this biased propaganda being circulated to

teachers through classroom distribution?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The answer to the member's question is no, I have certainly not

received any such letter of denial from the Leader of the Opposition or

from any other member, and I won't hold my breath either.

MAYORS' PROGRAM ON SILVICULTURE

MR. MILLER :

The Vancouver Island and Sunshine Coast mayors' program on

silviculture, with an expenditure of about $5.5 million dollars and a

net benefit of about $9.3 million, added — according to a Sterling Wood

report — about $26 million in value to the forest areas treated. Has

the minister decided to make funds available for that program to

continue the valuable work that is done?

HON. MR. PARKER : We have not made any decision to date; it's under consideration.

MR. MILLER :

A supplementary then. The current youth unemployment figures are about

15 percent. This program took young people off welfare and gave them

training, jobs and self respect. I would just urge that the minister

give serious consideration to that program being continued.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. VEITCH : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

MR. SIHOTA :

I have had the opportunity to go over the material and consider some of

the comments that the Minister of Education made before we recessed for

lunch. There seems to still be a fair bit of confusion over what

actually transpired with respect to the Sooke School District. The

tenor of the minister's comments would lead one to believe that the

school board should have received a surplus of funds,

whereas the

reality, as the school board explains it to me, is that they received a

deficient amount of funds.

[2:30]

Let's just go over the figures again in terms of the funding that

was provided to the district. It's my submission that the additional

funding which was forwarded to the district — let's call it a catch-up

funding to make up that year's loss — was supposed to equal, of course,

the previous year's deficit. Instead of dealing with the percentages,

let's just deal with the actual dollars. We know that the Sooke School

District got approximately $1.5 million from the provincial government.

Also, I'm told by the school district, they were $1.8 million in need.

In other words, they were short $300,000 when the cheque came in from

the provincial government. So it wasn't a situation of them starting

even-up with their deficiencies from the previous year; they were,

according to the school district, $300,000 behind the previous year.

Add to that inflation and salary increments and they ended up being

approximately $1 million behind the eight ball going into this year.

That

gets back to that compounding problem I was talking about. It wasn't as

though they were even-up with all of the school districts in the

province; they were $1 million behind, and they had to attend this year

to that shortfall from last year, when they had to then, through no

choice, effectively come up with a 19.23 percent increase. In other

words, the amount of money the province provided them with assisted to

the extent of $20 per taxpayer, but did not deal with the fundamental

problem of their leftover deficit, because they didn't get enough money

to catch up.

When you put in the $300,000.... The way I

arrive at that figure, for the minister's benefit, is: $1.8 million was

what they needed, $1.5 million was what they got, so they were short

$300,000, and then they have inflation, and then they have salaries on

top of that, and by their estimate they are about $1 million behind

just getting into this year. The increase they came up with, the 19.23

percent, dealt largely with the deficiency left over from the previous

year.

It's not a case, as the minister would argue, that

the $135 million that the government put in plus the supplementary

funding would bring everybody up to par. That certainly didn't happen

with the school district. I'm providing the minister with the figures

they have provided me with. That may explain the problem. I invite the

minister to comment on that before I move into some of the areas that

he addressed during his deliberation on this matter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

First of all, I should correct the member. I said that they received a

surplus, and he said that they received insufficient funds. I guess the

argument will always be that they get insufficient funds for all the

things they want to do. Our contention is that they get sufficient

funds in the shareable formula for what they need to do. Of course, the

problem will keep compounding itself. I tried to illustrate that this

morning.

They said last year that there was an inadequacy of $2.16 million. They were given — you know, for the fiscal year

[ Page 4434 ]

$1.5 million, the school year $1.8 million — into

their budget an additional $1.8 million. Some of that would cover

inflation; some of that would cover.... There would have been an

increase. I admitted that; I acknowledged that. There would have been a

slight increase. But their wants exceeded the needs as we see them and

went up to 11.1 percent of their budget this year as compared to 8.7

percent above what is considered the need to do a quality education.

The problem is being compounded because they added. They went up

from $2 million to $3 million for additional spending. It really boils

down to.... For instance, in the school year '86-87 they spent $759,000

over what the fiscal framework provided for a quality education. In

'87-88 they doubled that. They spent over and above the fiscal

framework $1.745 million. Then this year they've almost doubled that

again — or one and a half times that: $2.65 million over the budget.

I said this morning to allow inflation at 4 percent in round numbers. We gave

them 7.3 percent more. Some of that was to cover what they have already built

in, and some of it might have been for some of the increases. Lo and behold,

they have increased their budget by 9.7 percent — the total budget — of which

a good portion comes under the supplementary. You have a situation being compounded

by spending far above — and increasingly far above — the fiscal framework. It's

a case of what are the needs, and what are the wants? They can't repeatedly

say it's not enough; we're spending more.

They were a year behind on teachers' salaries, so we brought up the

amount of money we gave them so they are now being funded for teachers'

salaries this year. The teachers' salaries are being funded; that's a

major portion of the budget. A lot of other things are being funded.

All of those things are being funded. They say that's not enough. We've

got to spend $3 million more or 11.1 percent more than what is

considered necessary for a quality education.

said we would fund their teachers' salaries as of this year, so we

brought that up to date. We will allow 2.8 percent funding for

increases in instructional costs for next year. We've brought it up to

the teachers' salaries — what they are paying — and then we added 2.8

percent that we'll fund for the 1988-89 year. They said: "Thank you

kindly." Well, they didn’t even say that. I assumed that they accepted

that and then said: "Now we can spend more somewhere else." They

boosted up their supplementary spending. Naturally it will compound, as

long as they keep doing that. If they want to compound it, I have no

problem with that. But they must be accountable to their local

taxpayers. If you have spent more than your banker says you have in

your account, I'm not going to deal with it; but you have to deal with

your banker.

MR. SIHOTA : I started off my comments

with thanking the minister, so I think on behalf of the school board, I

have conveyed thanks at least for some of the stuff.

I want

to go over the minister's comments. What the minister said, in my view,

confirms what I am saying the problem is. We both acknowledge that the

problem is compounding itself — when the minister produced the figures

which show that each year the Sooke School District gets further and

further behind. It is my submission that they are getting further and

further behind, not because — as the minister would suggest — they are

chasing after luxuries, but because the fiscal formula, which the

province has come down with, doesn't meet their basic needs. In a

nutshell, that’s the whole problem.

It isn't as if we have

a school district out there that is chasing after opulence. We've got a

school district out there that is very efficient and that has one of

the lowest per-pupil costs in this province. I want the minister to

hear this; he can get the per-pupil costs later on. We've got a school

district out there which in 1981 — prior to the government's restraint

program — voluntarily instituted its own restraint program. They

started to cut back to the bone in 1981 and 1982. By the time the

government's restraint program came out in 1982-83, they were already

at the bone. We've got a school district out there that not only has

low per-pupil costs and engaged in voluntary restraint in the early

80s, but furthermore, the teachers gave up $2.2 million in concessions.

They reopened their three-year contract, gave up $2.2 million in

concessions, and the current Attorney-General — then Minister of

Education — applauded them for that.

We're not dealing with

a school board here that's chasing after opulence or trying to build

luxuries into the school district. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

It's an efficient school district: good per pupil costs; instituting

restraint before the government policies came in, and teachers

reopening their agreements in good faith. It's a school board that has

been prudent and responsible to the taxpayer.

In a funny

sort of way, that's beginning to backfire on it now, because all those

rich school districts which had padded their budgets and had a lot to

cut and did not get into voluntary restraint were not penalized in the

same way that the Sooke School District is now. We're not dealing with

a district that's chasing opulence.

That's why I want to

get back to the point. The problem, Mr. Minister, is with the fiscal

framework. The minister said: "But their wants exceeded their needs,

and that's the problem." That's not the problem. The problem is that

the fiscal formula doesn't meet their basic needs. That's what's

happening. Hence you have a situation this year where $70 of the $96 —

I hate to repeat myself — went into basic, fundamental needs. If they

did not satisfy those basic needs, and lived within what the ministry

had said, they would have to have cut their budget by $1.5 million out

of the basic bones. There's no fat there.

The minister says that the problem is compounding — I'm paraphrasing what he

said — because they spent above the fiscal framework. The reason why they had

to spend above the fiscal framework, as I see it, is that the fiscal framework

did not provide enough to meet their basic needs. It gets back to what I've

been saying all along: the formula of assistance by the provincial government

is not sensitive to the years of problems that exist in the Sooke School District.

I talked about some of those problems, and I want to demonstrate in a different

way now how those problems with the fiscal formula manifest themselves.

The

minister will recall that I talked about the differences in salary rates

in Sooke versus Victoria and Saanich, and I talked about the low

assessment base in Sooke versus Saanich and Victoria. I remind the

minister that the salaries are higher in Sooke because, of course,

we've got a better quality of teacher, a more experienced teacher.

Surely the minister is not saying that we should get rid of those

teachers and bring in inexperienced teachers, because that would of

course affect the quality of education. I don't think the school

districts should be penalized for that. The minister says that the

formula takes that into account. Well, I say that it doesn't adequately

take it into account if it does take it into account, nor does it take

into account adequately the low assessment ease.

[ Page 4435 ]

I said this morning, the cost to the taxpayer of raising $100,000 in

Sooke is $3,

whereas in Victoria it's 54 cents and in Saanich it's

$1.65. The reason I'm putting that out again is to demonstrate to the

minister the following problem. If you look at it from a global point

of view, in the Saanich School District their budget went up

approximately 7 to 7.5 percent; I think it's about 7.5 percent. Those

are the figures that have been provided to me. But the school taxes to

the average homeowner went up 10 percent. In Sooke this year the

overall global budget for the school district has gone up 7.75 percent.

There isn't much of a difference in how much the budget has gone up,

but the impact to the taxpayer in the Sooke district is closer to 20

percent; it's 19.23 percent.

[2:45]

the formula took into account adequately the matter of teacher

salaries, and the discrepancies between the two areas.... The

minister said this morning that the average salary in Saanich is

$38,198, and in Sooke $40,658. If it took that into account adequately

and

if it took in the low assessment rate adequately, then the net effect

to the taxpayer in Sooke compared to Saanich would not have been the

differential that I just outlined. In other words, it would not have

been twice as much in Sooke as in Saanich to come up with the same

percentage increase.

I'll grant the minister, for the

purposes of this debate, that maybe there is a built-in mechanism in

the formula to try to deal with the salary problem and with the low

assessment base. But I'm taking two adjacent school districts — and

remember that Sooke has about a thousand more students — and

demonstrating that if it took into account salaries and the low

assessment rate, there's no way that people in Sooke should be paying

twice the rate in Saanich. Therein lies the problem: it's with your

fiscal formula.

I'll tell the minister what happened, and

he can look at the figures there, because he's got all of his officials

with him; I don't. In the Saanich end of it, they got more money for

salaries for the teachers' end of it than Sooke did, in real dollars.

Why? Because Saanich is below the average and Sooke is above the

average, and that 2.8 percent translated into 1.13 percent for Sooke

and obviously something greater than 2.8 percent for Saanich. The

overall increase to Sooke was 5.7 percent, not 8 percent;

whereas in

Saanich it was 10 percent, when the average was 8 percent.

You

have here the case of a richer school district — by richer I mean

having a better assessment base — getting more money from the province

in the case of Saanich because it has a lower salary base, and on the

opposite side, Sooke getting a decrease in funding, below the 8

percent, in part because they have a higher salary base. It doesn't

seem to recognize the fact that Sooke has a lower assessment rate. You

have a higher assessment rate in Saanich and more money; a lower

assessment base in Sooke and less money.

The program

obviously is not sensitive enough to the problems of these districts;

hence we get this problem in Sooke of 19.23 percent, and Saanich gets

the benefit of 10 percent. As I say, that's the problem. If the

minister has a comment on that, I will pause before I move into further

debate of these education matters as they relate to the Sooke School

District.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : First of all, I am going

to threaten that member with.... I am going to tell the other

school boards that you said we're padding their accounts. I am going to

tell on you.

MR. SIHOTA : I didn't say that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Didn't you? Okay, I may have missed that.

Secondly,

I imagine that it will always be a case of what people consider as

needs compared to what they consider as wants. It is true that in

bringing the salaries up to currency, we took the middle between the

provincial average salary and the district average salary. Some major

discrepancies had crept in because of increments. CSP settlements and

other factors, so we tried to do a little balancing there.

Sooke

salaries being high, our allotment in the fiscal framework would have

been lower than what they had. In Saanich, theirs being well below

that, it would have come up somewhat. It still added up to a 17.3

percent increase to the Sooke district.

I know it's

complex: it's fairly difficult. Sooke has a lower tax base than

Saanich, so to raise money for education they would have to tax higher.

That, I tried to say, is incorporated in the funding formula. In

Saanich they have to raise 39.7 percent of the costs for the fiscal

framework; in Sooke they have to raise only 19.8 percent. Because in

the fiscal framework, the provincial funding covers 80.2 percent in

Sooke and only 61.3 percent in Saanich.

That acknowledges

the different size in the tax base. Whenever in the fiscal framework

Sooke wants to raise money, it only has to raise 20 percent, and in

Saanich they have to raise 40 percent — let's round it off — of their

budget, because they have a greater residential tax base to raise it

from. Whether you consider it enough or not, I don't know. I can tell

you this: in the Saanich School District, with 6,414 pupils, if I can

find my little numbers here.... For September 1987. I don't know

what September 1988 will be, but we can probably project: the same

parallel would apply.

In Saanich, on the basis of 6,414

pupils, they found it necessary to spend $1.5 million above the fiscal

framework in their situation. In Sooke, with just a thousand more

pupils — 7,453 pupils, or rounded off to 7,454 — they found it

necessary, according to them, to spend almost $3 million more above the

fiscal framework, when the fiscal framework already pays 80 percent

provincial in Sooke and only 61 percent in Saanich. Proportionately,

the big reason is that on a much larger tax base Saanich chose to spend

less over and above the fiscal framework Sooke with a lower

tax base, and I wouldn't say they have an inadequate education system.

yes, because that supplementary is paid 100 percent by the local

taxpayers, the net effect on the taxpayers is a much higher taxation

increase than in Saanich. But the choice to go that high above the

fiscal framework was theirs. You say it's because we do not fund their

needs. I guess I'm trying to say that the needs in the Saanich district

surely are somewhat similar to what they are in the Sooke district or

the Victoria district. Some districts say, "Our needs are far in excess

of what you say a quality education can be provided for," yet in 61

districts out of the 75 they were able to spend less at supplementary

than Sooke. Either Sooke is right or the other 61 are wrong.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The thing is, if other districts can live at a lower supplementary and

meet their needs, then surely Sooke can also live within those

parameters. I don't

[ Page 4436 ]

know

how we're ever going to settle about whether we're funding needs or

wants, because people are never going to say they're spending a nickel

on what they want. It will always be: "We're only including what we

need." We're saying you can do it to provide a quality education. When

we — when I say we, it's together with them — fund the teachers'

salaries at what they are, we fund the other costs at what they are in

the fiscal framework at the 80 to 20 ratio. We fund all of those things

and say it can do the job. They say: "No, it can't." I guess that will

always be there.

I think you had one other question, but I'm sure you may have another one.

MR. SIHOTA :

We're finally getting to the point where the minister and I agree on

what the problem is. The minister agrees with me that the problem, as

he said at the outset, relates to the matter of the tax base and

salaries. He agrees with me now that the matter of salaries will allow

more money to be allocated to Saanich and less to Sooke, which is what

I've been saying all along. He agrees with me with respect to the tax

base being an issue — and a significant one — in terms of the formula.

So we're in agreement on those points, in the sense that the minister

now begins to see that what I've been saying all along is that until

you address those problems adequately — and I want to underline that

word adequately — you are going to have this continual compounding of

the problem in the Sooke district.

I'll just go through

each one of the minister's points. It's true that in many ways the

crux of the problem here is the difference of opinion between the

minister and the school board in terms of what are needs and what are

what I call luxuries, because what the school board considers vital

necessities is different from what the minister would consider vital

necessities. That's the debate; I'll come back to that in a minute in

terms of how I would suggest that that debate could be resolved. The

minister then went into the matter of salaries. He has now acknowledged

that Sooke will get less money for salaries and Saanich will get more,

which begs the obvious question of why we are penalizing a district

which has qualified teachers in it.

It seems to me that a

district ought not to receive less money simply because a greater

proportion of its teachers have masters' degrees, or are older or more

qualified. I just don't think it's appropriate to try to penalize the

district. Sooke gets a 1.13 percent increase for the salary component

when the average is 2.8 percent, when the minister knows — and I know —

that the salary increase is going to be greater this year than 1.13

percent. The ministry itself has implicitly recognized 2.8 percent. I

agree that you haven't committed yourself to that and it's open to

negotiation, but implicitly, by coming in with that 2.8 percent figure,

you've come out with that. So you know that the Sooke School District

is going to have to make up some money above that 1.13 percent to get

up to 2.8.

It's interesting that last year this district

had the very lowest of salary increases at 2.6 percent, while others

were at 3 percent and 3.2 percent. The trustees in the Sooke School

District held perfectly firm, and in the end they faced a work-to-rule

campaign, which finally resulted in a conclusion by way of a transition

clause.

I am saying that the effect of that formula is

twofold. One, it penalizes districts like Sooke which have a high

quality of teachers. I don't think that should be the case. Secondly,

the formula gives you less money to deal with incremental increases for

those teachers; hence you're always behind trying to catch up, or

you've got to make it up from the taxpayer base in order to recover

that money. Therein lies the problem with the component of the formula

that deals with teachers' salaries.

Then the minister talks

about tax bases. He says that in Saanich they have to recover twice as

much as Sooke did — using those round numbers again, 40 percent and 20

percent. That is true; I'll accept the minister's facts on that,

because I don't have any facts to the contrary to put forward to the

minister. Anyway, it doesn't really matter; let's take those figures as

they are.

But if the formula is to do what the minister

says the formula ought to do, which is to try to equalize this matter

of tax rates or low-assessment bases, then the formula obviously is not

sufficient. It doesn't go far enough. I think the minister effectively

conceded that. I think he said: "Well, fine, maybe the argument is

we're not going to put up enough money."

Saanich can pick

up twice as much money as Sooke through the 40 percent versus the 20

percent, but at the end of the day, the bottom line to the taxpayer is

that the increase in Saanich is 10 percent in round figures, and the

increase in Sooke is 20 percent in round figures. So the formula

obviously is not adequately sensitive to the matter of assessment

bases, if you follow what I mean.

I don't think the point

ends at whether or not Saanich has to pick up 40 percent and Sooke has

to pick up 20 percent, given the government allocation. I think the

argument ends and the buck stops with the taxpayer, who in Sooke is

faced with a 20 percent increase and in Saanich is faced with a 10

percent increase. That is why I say that the formula — we always get

back to the formula — is flawed in the sense that it is not sensitive

to problems of the sort they have in Sooke.

[3:00]

Therefore,

it is not surprising that Saanich has to come up with $1.5 million

extra and Sooke has to come up with $3 million extra, because it is

always behind. I've just demonstrated that in terms of what happened

last year. They got $1.5 million. They needed $1.8 million; they are

behind $300,000. Then you build in inflation and teachers' salaries,

and you're $1 million behind before you know it. Hence that's why you

have this $3 million versus $1.5 million problem in Saanich; they're

always behind.

The member from Vancouver South says: "Is

Sooke the universe?" No, it's not, but I indicated to the minister at

the outset that, because it is in my riding, I am going to confine my

comments to Sooke School District. I'm not saying that Sooke is better

or worse than 61 other districts in the province; I'm saying that the

formula is not adequately sensitive to that district. The minister has

to recognize that.

I suspect that probably terminates the

debate on the fiscal formula, because I don't want to keep on going

back in circles with the minister in terms of trying to explain the

problem. I think now we see the problem, in that with what the minister

said in his comments, which invited this response, we now tend to

finally overlap in our analysis of the issue.

The minister

says that the debate here is between wants and needs, or as I put it,

necessities versus luxuries. I've got trustees in my riding who are

telling me that $70 of that $96 is going to needs. That is just to

preserve the status quo. Therefore it seems to me that part of this

problem relates to what extent has the ministry's formula dealt with

the concept

[ Page 4437 ]

needs from the point of view of the trustees. To what extent is there

an overlap between what the trustees feel are our needs and what the

ministry feels are our needs? I think that discussion is best not had

here; I think that discussion is best had with the minister and the

school trustees. More importantly, we've quoted back and forth to each

other all sorts of numbers....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

The minister's right; it is complex. The minister knows I'm not our

critic in this area, and therefore I'm certainly more prone to making

an error than if we were to discuss the Attorney-General's estimates.

But again, because of the frustration felt by trustees in my riding in

Sooke over their feeling that they're not being adequately supported by

the fiscal framework, I think that it would be appropriate, instead of

us going on in this debate, for the minister to consider meeting with

the chairman of the school board and perhaps some of the trustees and a

couple of their officials, together with some of the minister's

officials, so they can go over some of these figures so there's a

better understanding of what the ministry is trying to do, what the

board is trying to achieve. What are the needs, what are the luxuries,

what are the numbers, and why is there a deficiency?

think perhaps an appropriate way to end this segment of what I wanted

to raise — because I want to deal with non-budgetary items in a second —

is to say to the minister: will he agree that he will meet with the

trustees in my riding? I don't think that's a major request. Since they

liked some of the things that you did, I don't think you're going to be

walking into a hostile board. Would the minister agree to meet with

those trustees to discuss some of these matters further?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I must say that with all of the boards I have met in the last year and

a half or more, I have yet to walk into a hostile board. I have always

walked into boards that are concerned. Certainly they want to put their

particular case forward, but I don't think I've run into a hostile

board. The impression sometimes comes when you read it in the paper,

but we generally have good discussions when we meet.

have

met with your board a couple of times and, of course, would meet in the

future. I'm somewhat limited in the number of times I can meet with any

board, but I can tell you this: every year there is a fiscal framework

advisory committee made up of superintendents, trustees,

secretary-treasurers, ministry people — primarily those people, the

main players

in the system. They look at the fiscal framework and the funding

formula as it operates, and they then send in a report and say what

they think should be the adjustments.

Last

year they said

we never did recognize in our grant system or our fiscal framework the

cost of substitutes. They pointed out that the average is five days per

teacher per school year — substitutes, who average around $100 per day

— so this year in the fiscal framework we've incorporated $500 per

teacher for substitutes. They said that there wasn't enough money for

clerical and for aides; some of that has been recognized, because

boards had to pay it. So in other words, that fiscal framework advisory

committee has made recommendations, and each year some of them have

been incorporated into the fiscal framework. So adjustments have been

made.

Certainly I will continue to meet with boards. I will

continue to seek their advice and their input. The only thing is that I

can't at any one time sort of say: "I know you're not getting as much

alimony as you want. I'm a good guy, so away we go. As much money as

you want is available to you. Just convince your local taxpayers" —

above the fiscal framework.

I'm just going to mention one more thing. You mentioned that I'm talking

about luxuries. I don't think they're talking about luxuries in any

district. There is a disagreement on what is necessary for a quality education

system. But I think that almost every board.... Many boards do this. They

say: "We think that we want to do this over and above what the fiscal framework

provides. We think it's important, and our people think it's important,

so we're going to increase the taxes, if necessary, to get that amount."

might just try to clarify one thing: you know, this business of less

and more that we give one district and another. Just using round

numbers, let me illustrate. Some discrepancies had built up about

whether increments or grid increases had affected districts, and they

had in some cases. Now the member mentioned that there were a lot of

concessions made. Well then, surely with the concessions made, there

shouldn't have been the need for the continual overexpenditures. I'm

not knocking the concessions; I think people have made some

concessions. But to try and average this up: we brought the salaries up

for the current year. Remember last year? Or remember this year? They

were in effect paying for, from the local taxpayers, the total increase

to teachers' salaries that was provided as of negotiations last year.

They were absorbing the total. We have said that this year we are

including that funding. We brought them up. Now the fiscal framework is

paying for the increases,

whereas it was always a year behind. They are

no longer a year behind. In the averaging process — and maybe this will

illustrate it — let us say that....

Oh, one other

point. The member makes the case that we have so many teachers at the

maximum, and well-qualified, and so on. Then he makes the case that the

increments aren't allowed. Well, the more teachers you have at maximum

now, the less you have in increments, and everything goes on the salary

increases, so it tends to average out.

To make the point.... If the Sooke School District, say, was paying $42,000 for

teachers and the provincial average is $40,000, we would say: "Okay,

for '87-88 we will fund the difference; we will fund at the $41,000

level." Another district might have a $38,000 average salary, and the

provincial average is still at $40,000, so we say: "We will fund at

$39,000." Then we say: "We will add 2.8 percent." So in the case of

the high district, say, we would now fund $41,000 per teacher — in the

fiscal framework, remember — plus 2.8 percent for the next year. In the

other district, it would be $39,000 plus the 2.8 percent. It does tend

to mean.... That 2.8 percent, I think, is more on $41,000 than it

is on $39,000. There is some effort to try and accommodate the actual

situation as well as this relationship to the provincial average.

Then

I point out that, staying within the fiscal framework — which we think

can provide a basic quality education — in Sooke if they need an extra

million dollars they have to go to their taxpayers for $200,000, or 20

percent. If in Saanich they need another million dollars for their

program, they have to go to their local taxpayers for $400,000,

because they're paying 40 percent as opposed to 20 percent. Where it

hits

[ Page 4438 ]

hard

is when they go above the fiscal framework into supplementary, and then

they pick up the whole million in Saanich, they pick up the whole

million in Sooke, and of course, it is twice the tax increase in Sooke

as it is here. That's the point I'm making. But the amount above....

Maybe I said it would be twice in Sooke what it would be in Saanich.

Did I say that wrong? If they spend a million extra within the fiscal

framework, they need to raise $200,000. If they spend a million extra

above the fiscal framework, they have to raise the whole million from

the local taxpayers. A million in each district can have a different

effect on the local taxation structure.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

The

point I'm trying to make is that they have chosen in the Sooke

district, with a lower tax base, to spend almost twice as much above

the fiscal framework as they have in the Saanich district. Some of that

is built in — things that they needed in the past — and so they say

they can't cut anything out. But at some point we have to talk

about.... You can't just keep saying: "Well, we started higher, so we

just

have to keep adding on." No, you have to rationalize it at some point.

The fiscal framework already recognizes a higher amount for the Sooke

district because of the higher instructional costs.

That

will always be the case, and the argument will always be: what are

needs? We try to meet needs. We try to get an average across the

province of what those needs are and what can be done. I don't know how

much more I can do. I guess it is fairly complex. I'd certainly be

delighted to sit down with the member and his school board, when the

opportunity presents itself, to actually try to maybe explain how the

fiscal framework works and how it does, I think, very fairly

accommodate the differences between districts through the sharing

formula, through the allowances for special programs, for all kinds of

things along that line.

MR. SIHOTA : My office will arrange for a meeting, and we will proceed at that meeting.

I just want to raise one other matter, which is the adult....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : This afternoon?

MR. SIHOTA :

Not this afternoon. I don't quarterback this debate, and I am well

beyond the amount of time I told our critic I'd be spending on this, so

I am going to be taken to the woodshed anyway after this.

[3:15]

I just want to make another comment to the minister on the adult literacy

program out in Sooke. The government provided $4,600 to that program a

year ago. The school district received $8,000 from the Vancouver

Foundation and a further $8,000 from the school board, for a total of

$20,000. The funding formula on this type of program is based on the

adult education program, which, as I understand it, is predicated upon

student enrolment.

This is a volunteer program where there

is no registration required, to maintain and respect privacy. Because

of the need to maintain and respect privacy for this type of adult

literacy program, there has been no ongoing registration process. The

Vancouver Foundation, when it first provided assistance, said that

there would be no ongoing funding, that it was a one-shot deal only.

The program includes volunteer tutors who teach adults how to read.

Recently,

it's my understanding, the Quebec and federal governments have entered

into a joint program of $240,000 to fund these types of programs. I

don't know whether or not British Columbia has entered into this type

of program, and I wonder if the minister can indicate to us whether it

has. The reason I raise this issue is that it is a very successful

program in my riding, and there are a lot of people, I am sure the

minister would agree, who require literacy upgrading or literacy skills.

What's

frustrating for people in my area is that their program was run on a

very low-cost volunteer basis and lost its funding,

whereas the program

in Saanich, which is computer-operated, received $300,000 from the

government. It was certainly felt, given what was available in the

Sooke School District, that there ought to have been some support for

the Sooke program as well, since it was at such a low level of funding.

Two

questions to the minister. Will the ministry reconsider its decision

with respect to funding for the Sooke adult literacy and provide

funding for it? Could he advise us as to the status of any joint

federal-provincial negotiations with respect to funding for these types

of programs, as per the Quebec program?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

On the computerized adult literacy program, a number of players came

into that one. Probably the best answer I can give the member is that

we periodically get a request for a pilot program. We always get

requests that people want to do a pilot program and would we put up the

money. Generally the answer is no, but we still try and keep the door

open somewhat.

In the Saanich case, they came in and said

the computer companies or something were willing to put up some money,

the federal government was willing to put up some money, and would the

provincial government put up some money? We looked at it and said

because it was a trial program and a pilot program, and we do like to

at least test these programs, the Ministry of Education would put up

$57,000; and then Social Services, because of the people that they

would get into the program — it would be available to adults beyond the

school system — put in some money. I think the upshot was that the

government put in $90,000 or $300,000. I am not quite sure, but I

know it was a joint Ministry of Labour, I believe.... From

government they came up with a third of the cost. The federal

government put up some costs.

That is a pilot project. It's

not something that we have budgeted for. If that pilot project works

out, I think it makes a case for expanding it. The federal government,

of course, came and said they were very concerned about the results of

the adult illiteracy survey and thought a great deal more should be

done about it. I said: "I agree. Please send money. We've already got

the idea." "No. We want a lot more done from a federal perspective on

this, but we don't have the money." "We don't have it either."

Needless

to say, there are several pilot projects that have been tried in

different places. This is one where there has been funding from the

computer companies wanting to prove that their program works, from the

federal government, which has a vested interest in trying to serve the

adults, and from ourselves if it can be used in the school system.

Hopefully it will live up to all those expectations. If it does, then

we've got a really good case for trying to expand it. At

[ Page 4439 ]

this

point any pilot projects would have to consider who the other

contributors were, what will it do, and whether we can scrounge up the

money in our budget to do it. If somebody comes up with a good idea, I

don't want to be in the position of rejecting it out of hand. Sometimes

it may be a proven idea; other times it may not.

I know

we're trying to clarify this jurisdiction, this grey area between

post-secondary and training adults. We're trying to fund the programs

that deal with K to 12. That includes people who come back for Grade 12

equivalency or who come in and in effect take the secondary school

courses. Beyond that, we're hoping to say we'll help, we'll cooperate,

we'll coordinate, but it should really be a post-secondary function.

That rationalization is in place now in many districts through support,

through fees, through other contributions from federal upgrading

programs and that sort of thing. Many good programs are running. We

have to concern ourselves with at what level and in what area do we

fund.

I think the member's question was, will I consider.... There may be one, but I don't have specific knowledge of an

application from the Sooke district. I do know that in Saanich it was a

one-time one. We said: "One time to get you going; after that, you

build it into your standard operations." That was the agreement.

MR. SIHOTA :

My allocated time for this has been quite surpassed, so I won't pursue

it any further. I'll probably take up later with the minister, outside

the House, the matter of the adult literacy program.

I just want to thank the minister and his staff for their candour during the course of this debate. It is much appreciated.

MS. EDWARDS :

I want to talk about arts in the school system. It has been said that

when our overcrowded curriculum eventually finds enough room for the

arts, B.C. may start producing educated people again. I agree with that

statement,...

MR. R. FRASER : Who said that?

MS. EDWARDS : ...which was made by Crawford Kilian, a broadly based and widely

respected provincial commentator on educational issues. And he is not

alone.

I want to put what I want to say to you against the

background of what happens in the arts in British Columbia. I will

begin with a statement that I'm not even going to bring up figures for,

because it has become broadly recognized that British Columbia's

governmental support of the arts is about the lowest in the country. If

we don't come tenth, we usually come ninth; that is a pretty abysmal

record as far as funding in the arts is concerned. But other figures

show that people in British Columbia spend an average amount of their

available cash on cultural activities and so on. In fact, B.C. comes

third highest in figures that have recently been compiled. They're at

the median number. In other words, there are five provinces in which

2.3 percent of the expenditures of its citizens are on cultural

activities. What that says is that the people of the province put a

higher priority on culture than does the government.

should take a look at what else has been said, and the kind of messages

that have been coming through. In their report, the Vancouver Symphony

Orchestra task force made a very strong recommendation that the

orchestra should be doing school concerts, and that comes with a

development of audience, as it says. That's a very nice way to put it

if you have to have an excuse for it, but what it says is that we are

not educating our students in the arts as they come up through the

system.

"Cultural Directions for Vancouver: A Policy Guide for the 1990s,"

came out in the last several months — the city of Vancouver again — and one

of its statements was that education is one of the most important determinants

of cultural attendance. If that's the case, what we're talking about

is a broad general education, and that should include the arts. The writer of

that report also said that although a great increase in youth programs and general

cultural training facilities had been made within the city of Vancouver, in

fact, the services that were put forward by those programs and those facilities

were not shared equally across the population. In other words, if you looked

at the Vancouver Academy of Music's 1,500 students, you'd find that

70 percent of them come from the west side or the North Shore. That tells us

that low-income families do not have access to some facilities that are available.

The report says that the schools, constrained by provincially determined curricula

and budgets, are not meeting the needs for the students in families of lower

income.

Mr.

Kilian also said that the creative and performing arts suffer from

greater requirements for academic courses for university entrance. I

think it's worth a look at this. Because of the changes in curriculum,

only about a quarter of British Columbia students take arts courses. In

fact, most of them are in junior high school. There are a number of

reasons for that, such as the requirements in the senior high schools.

Besides

that, he names the things other people have already mentioned — in

other words, inadequate resources for the teachers and inadequate

training for teachers.

Gary Rupert recently wrote a letter

to the Times-Colonist . As you know, Mr. Rupert is the community arts

coordinator for greater Victoria. He is also the producer for the B.C.

Festival of the Arts and a well-recognized person. He opens his letter

to the editor by saying:

"One of the most glaring deficiencies in B.C. education

is the failure of the system to provide...high-quality arts education for

all children. This failure means that generation after generation of our brightest

minds have had creative and perceptual abilities restricted."

That

deals with another of the reasons that arts education is so crucial

within the education system. We're probably all well aware....

MR. R. FRASER : What do you mean by that?

MS. EDWARDS :

I would think even the member for Vancouver South is probably well

aware that the testing of children's abilities by IQ tests has been

discredited. Teachers — measurers of abilities — have moved to try to

measure some degree of creativity. Where do you train and where do you

encourage creativity in children? Of course it's in the arts.

Mr. Rupert continues: "Tomorrow's children will need to be flexible,

creative, multidisciplined imagemakers and willing to take risks to invent."

How are we going to educate them to do that if we don't educate their creativity?

He concludes by saying: "Providing a high-quality sequential arts education

program for all children will both provide access to the richness of our cultural

heritage and prepare our youth for the challenges of tomorrow."

[ Page 4440 ]

Mr. Minister, that letter did not go unnoticed. There was a letter the following

week where a Mrs. Helen Andersen of Victoria said: "I am concerned for

my grandchildren, who require the best art education possible. Gary Rupert's

letter should be emblazoned on posters, on the desk of each teacher, each cultural

minister, each education minister." I think that means that she thinks

that poster should be pasted to your wall or right on your desk.

could go through a hundred things. In a recent publication of Arts

Victoria there is an

article that talks about the arts program in one

of the junior high schools. It talks about it because it's so unusual

in that school. It mentions that although not all students are active

participants, the emphasis on high achievement in theatre, art, dance

and music has an influence on the cultural background of all students

at the school and helps them appreciate and enjoy this enriching

contribution to their lives. That's a good comment on it.

[3:30]

Mr. Minister, probably the main thrust that made me decide to make

this presentation during your estimates was a recent study that came

through the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, where arts

councils throughout the province worked to find some input on a case

for community arts. This report very specifically says:

"The committee believes that the subject of arts in education

deserves maximum attention in the overall consideration of this report. The

treatment of arts programs in the schools" — is — "...the key to the

development of a creative and productive society. It was a consistent theme

throughout all of our discussions and meetings."

Mr.

Minister, I know you're going to hear from those people, but I want you

to be ready to have an answer when they come. The case is an extremely

good one. "Concepts Relating to Education Needs," according to the

Artreach report — and this is an earlier report: "Experience in the

arts fosters creativity in young people." We all know that. We need

creative young people. We need people who learn not just one particular

way but another way. As we all know, there are a number of programs in

schools, particularly in — or they used to operate in — alternative

schools, where the arts were used to involve young people in school

the way that they were never involved in an ordinary classroom.

"Our schools are not doing enough to educate students in the arts,"

says the Artreach report. There were a number of comments relating to the worsening

of the situation since 1982, when the education system was hit by financial

restraint. As I say, there are particular problems that have been noted in this

and other reports about what needs to be done.

need to educate our teachers because too few of them are trained well

enough to present arts in the schools in a way that would be most

creative, most accepted by the students. We need coordinators within

the schools in order to have that kind of program work best from one

school to another within districts throughout the province.

need improved professional development. Once we have the teachers

trained, they still need professional development, and those who have

moved around need to be able to continue to learn how to work and use

the arts best to delight and engage students in the elementary, junior

and senior secondary levels of the public education system.

The

Artreach report suggests the need — and it says need, Mr. Minister —

for the Premier and the three ministries of Education, Advanced

Education, and Tourism, Recreation and Culture to coordinate their

efforts to ensure the effective education of our young people in the

arts as well as in basic education. It suggests artists in the schools:

that could be touring artists, it could be artists in residence; it

could be any number of things. It suggests that there be particular

funding, not just for performing arts, which are easier to handle, but

that there be some particular attention paid to the visual and literary

arts which are not so immediately striking and cannot be absorbed or

become useful to a participant in such a quick time.

This,

I think, is an issue that needs to be addressed by the ministry. I

think it needs to be addressed by a broad group of people. I think, Mr.

Minister, that you're probably going to answer that, of course, we need

technical training, of course, we need all those things that we already

have in high school. I think we need arts and creative training in our

schools.

I would like to have you respond. I'd like to know

whether you have some commitment to including some larger component of

arts education in the school system.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I would like to use as my primary reference a gentleman who has been

going to administrators' meetings in this province, to public meetings,

to various schools, to the BCTF executive, to the BCSTA and to others,

and who has been saying that our arts and fine arts program in the

schools is inadequate, that we should be doing more, that it is

important and can be incorporated. The gentleman I refer to is the

current Minister of Education for the province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, he cannot be quoted when he says good things like that,

as Crawford Kilian does and others.

I am a strong advocate

of the arts, of improvement of arts in the system, the total education

of the students. I have to be realistic as well. Someone says we should

put more formal, structured art programs into the timetable. I get that

request from about, I guess, 16 different areas. There should be more

of this, there should be more of this. So I say I have some difficulty.

I'm always saying there must be another body in the school to teach it;

there must be another hour in the school day in order to provide it.

That

is where I have my difficulty, not with the concept that we should have

more art, drama, music in the school system. I try to use the examples

of what does happen in this same system where some people are saying

nothing can happen. I go around to schools, I see drama, I see

wonderful productions, I see primary choirs, I see bands. I see all of

that in the same structure.

I've used the example of the

Langley School District where they responded to the request there for a

school and they said: "Okay, we will focus on fine arts in this one

elementary school." Or I guess it was a secondary school. They have

focused on that and they have students from all over the district

trying to go to that school. They have now run out of space. They have

done it within the fiscal framework, within the structure, by simply

putting that focus on the arts program.

I use that as an

example because obviously there is an interest and a concern for it,

and it can be done. When people simply say to me that you've got to put

an hour a week of art into the timetable, then I have to realistically

say, and I might say to you, Madam Member: which subject would you want

out of there so as to move that in? I'm not asking you for an answer;

I'm asking you to give that thought. That's the problem that I face.

[ Page 4441 ]

For

instance, I'm interested in Langley School District. When I visited

there and talked to the superintendent and others in the school

district, I asked: "How are the kids holding up on their academic

performance?" The answer was: "Great." They're not losing on their

academic performance. They are getting a great deal of art, music and

drama. They are not losing out academically, so obviously something is

possible within the present structure.

When people say that

we don't have enough about art and music, I said that we constantly

have prescribed readers through the elementary grades. We have

supplementary readers that can be approved and are authorized material.

Suppose somebody said: "We will only buy a reader that has stories

about six or ten artists or musicians in it." I think it can be

incorporated. I maintain that it is incorporated. On Monday night I was

invited to the highlights performance of the music festival for the

Victoria district schoolchildren — from the little kindergartens right

on up.

was a terrific performance. They had dancers,

music, singing, choir, choral recitation and a combination of these — a

great performance. Last night, after my easy afternoon in the House, I

decided to accept an invitation by the international parents of

cooperative education at UVic. I went there and talked to people that

are in the school. South Park school had a grade 3 choir there that

sang. I asked if these were a select few students from the school.

"No," they tell me. In that school they have a choir in each grade, and

don't know that they're losing out academically.

I am using

a few examples along that line. Yes, I am a great proponent of more

fine arts. I think it is important, partly because it was neglected

when I went to school. I can't carry a tune in a water bucket, but I

did — would you believe — teach art, drama and music because no one

else would. I managed to incorporate it. The kids didn't get expertise,

but at least they got some fun and some music, and they learned

something about notes. I could do the mathematics of quarters, halves

and that sort of thing, so they got some of that.

I might

point out that we got students who played the piano — because I

couldn't play the piano, and we needed somebody to keep us in tune —

who had the opportunity to do that and move around. In my own

experience, these things can be done — recreational, fine arts, drama

and all of these things. At any school that I was principal of we had

Christmas concerts. People say it takes so much time away from the

studies, but somehow those kids measured up on the exams as well as

anybody else.

I could wax poetic on this for quite a while.

I can't argue with you at all, Madam Member. I think we need more arts

in the school system, but if the discussion always centres on getting

more art, music and drama in the school system, and we've got to kick

out academic subjects and spend more money for coordinators, then you

always run into a dead-end argument somewhere.

I think, for

instance, that if music, art and drama got incorporated and showed

their value, the money would come. People will put more emphasis on it.

It's happening; there are schools doing all sorts of things with it. As

I say, I have been promoting it for a year, sometimes even to the

chagrin of my officials. They say: "You keep making these suggestions

and promises, and somebody may ask us to live up to them."

am saying that it can be done. I think a start should be made, and we

should move in that direction. Yes, I would like to see it happen. I

would like to have far more discussion on those educational items in

our curriculum development and in our statement of philosophy about the

total educated person. We believe in that. That reflects some of my

views and certainly the views of many others. I know I can't meet with

every group that comes in and says: "If you would just give us an hour

on the timetable..." or "If you would just give us more money..." or "If you would just give us a coordinator...."

I have gone

as far as saying to the teacher-training institutes — when I can, in

informal or formal situations.... I will keep beating on them to say

that an educated teacher is an all-round teacher, not just one who is

an expert in science or biology or something of that nature. The

universities want to be pure, and I guess they say that the best way is

to have the person get his master's degree in science and then take a

little bit of training in teaching. My feeling would be that it should

be a combination. Yes, in grade 12 physics a person had better be very

good at physics. But at the elementary level, surely to goodness these

other factors, which will then feed up the system, are just as

important.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Chairman, I'd just like

to make a suggestion to the minister. I feel really sorry that he's

been making all of these suggestions all this time and it isn't

happening. I would suggest that there are ways a Minister of Education

could probably persuade — by funding and that kind of thing.

would like to ask the minister how he knows that these students are not

suffering academically. I rather suspect that maybe that's not quite

the way it is. I don't know if you have studies set up, but I would

suggest that it's quite possible students are suffering academically. I

know that as far as physical education is concerned.... In a

similar way, it's been found that students who take some time out of

the timetable.... And it's not the only way to deal with things; we

don't have inflexible blocks of time that have to go in....

Students who take physical education — if that time is taken out of the

day for physical education — do as well, we are told, reach the same

standards, as the students who don't have physical education, spend

that time in the classroom and do the same level of work.

You

said you didn't want answers on what might be replaced, but I'll

certainly tell you that I had 70 students today, and when somebody

said, "What do you like about the school system and what would you

change about it?" they said: "Take consumer ed out." So I can make that

suggestion. I don't know how broadly based that opinion is, but it

sounds pretty broadly based to me.

I would like to suggest

to you as minister that you're going to have to have some better

answers for the groups that are going to be pressing at your door, such

as the arts councils in this Artreach program, and the other groups

that are saying exactly the same thing: that they want some support for

getting the arts back in the schools. I'd like to put the minister on

notice that probably next year I'll be coming to talk about the phys ed

program in the same way, so I hope you'll have a year of persuading,

and next year maybe we'll have it, and you'll have an answer, and maybe

you'll have some good results. That's another area where a lot of

people are complaining. They feel that there should be more time set

aside for the students and that they should be getting their physical

education.

[3:45]

1 want to deal with one other issue, Mr. Minister: speech pathology and the availability of speech pathologists in the

[ Page 4442 ]

schools.

You recently received a letter from the chairperson of our school

board, in which she outlined a problem that the school board has in

getting a speech pathologist. What she is asking for is some

encouragement, some ways in which the government will see that there

are more speech pathologists available.

Along with that, I

have letters from a parent of a hearing impaired child. She speaks for

the whole group in my community and works with the same group, which is

provincewide, and brings up a problem that has been noted right across

the province. There is a shortage of trained speech pathologists, and

even if they are available, there has not been enough emphasis on

getting communication training to not only hearing-impaired children

but children who have other speech impediments and problems with

communication abilities; in other words, a physical disability related

to their speaking.

I would like to know whether the

minister has some specific answers to this. I'm sure that the minister

is going to say that he would like to have more speech pathologists in

the schools. Are there any actions that are being taken immediately?

Are there any plans for encouraging more training of speech

pathologists in British Columbia? Are there any plans for improving the

access to that kind of therapy for the children in the school system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I know that the member could very well anticipate

that I would say that I know there aren't enough speech pathologists in

British Columbia. I know also that as we get more specialists of that type,

they tend to gravitate to the metropolitan centres. So the problem is often

how to get them out into the rest of the province where they are needed.

don't have a pat answer as to how all of a sudden you are going to

generate more speech pathologists. You would think there would be an

incentive if they know there is a need, that people would train for

that. The jobs are there as soon as they graduate. I do know that we

and the Ministries of Health and Social Services, particularly in some

of the communities, have said that if we can't each hire one, perhaps

we could coordinate our efforts to try to hire one that is available to

Social Services, Health and the school system.

So we are

trying to get maximum mileage out of the speech pathologists. Last year

or the year before, we convinced government that, in order to get

people out into the northern communities, we would subsidize their

education in these specialty areas, if they would promise to stay in

those outlying areas for a couple of years. A few happened; not too

many.

I have had an ongoing difference of opinion — let's

put it that way — with UBC and others about physiotherapists. We are

very short of physiotherapists in this province. UBC has finally moved

from the 21 students that they would take per year to 42. There are

jobs for 100. They say they can't adjust. In the meantime, they are

turning out 1,600 lawyers a year, and we don't need any more lawyers.

Their staff is there, locked into a faculty, and they can't just move

over to where it makes better sense.

I don't have an answer

as to how to provide more of these people. But some of the measures

we've tried.... If you turned around and said, "Well, just double

the salaries, and you will get people," I don't know that you would,

because then they move out of the places where we need them, anyway. It

may be, but I don't know where you end that. Is it strictly money that

makes people want to help kids? Or are there other reasons? So it's a

problem. I don't have a good answer for you; but I can share your

concern.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I had a chat

with the Minister of Education a little over a week ago, and I

mentioned to him that I was going to be asking this question with

regard to off-site servicing costs — just to get it on the record. I

know the minister has done a lot of work on this issue, as has my

colleague the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). I also point out

that the school in question, Glen Elementary School, is actually in the

area represented by the MLA for Coquitlam-Moody.

The

situation, as I understand it, is that municipalities now have the

power under Bill 30 to charge developers, which includes school boards,

for the cost of off-site servicing. This includes sidewalks, ornamental

lighting and road reconstruction. It is my understanding that where

this involves a facility that is being expanded — such as Glen School,

which has been in the community for many years and where there was an

$800,000 extension to provide much needed space for a burgeoning

school population.... On February 9, the municipality issued an

order halting construction until a security bond could be made

available. I don't want to go into all the details about the very

intense situation that developed within our community between the

school trustees and members of the municipal council. As I understand

it, the request was for $274,000 as a security bond to cover these

costs, and given interest calculations, that amount has been calculated

to be as high as $351,000, which is a very significant addition to the

cost of an $800,000 project. As the minister knows, as a result of

some of the work that my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody and the

minister have done, a compromise was reached on April 25, and the two

parties settled for, I believe, a bond of $40,000 being posted.

The

situation continues to be a concern for School District 43. On the

other hand, it continues to be a concern for the entire province where

construction of additions to existing schools is contemplated.

These

are some of the points I'd like the minister to cover in his response.

Given the limitations on schools with regard to taxation of industrial

properties, etc., and given the fiscal restraints that school boards

are having to deal with, how can we expect school boards in district 43

and throughout the province to deal with the likelihood that this

situation will be cropping up more and more? To my understanding this

is the first instance in the province of this type of cost being

applied to a school where there was an expansion project such as this.

Given

that we all agree that the most important people in this entire

situation are the students, what we had here was a situation of delay

from February 9 until April 25. That was a hardship on all concerned,

but especially on the students who very desperately need that space. I

would like the minister to comment on whether we could be seeing in the

future examples of similar delays. Does the minister have some thoughts

on how this type of impasse can be avoided? I don't think our school

districts are able to afford these costs. It's a very dramatic increase

in the cost of a capital project.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Certainly I'm as pleased as anyone else is that the matter was resolved

in a reasonable fashion so that the school construction could go ahead.

Initially the issue came to me, and it seems that autonomy is always sought until a problem develops, and then I am

[ Page 4443 ]

asked

to deal with those other guys. Fair enough. The concern was that we had

approved the construction — I think it was around $900,000 — for an

addition to an existing service site, as we saw it, and all of a sudden

they were faced with an injunction to stop construction. I took the

position that it was a local matter between the two taxing authorities,

the school district and the municipality, that they should resolve this

and get on with it.

However, it grew and walls built up, I

guess. I was getting indirect requests, and finally I was asked if I

would meet with one side, so I did. Then I was asked to meet with the

other side, and I did. I learned that one of the situations was that it

might as well be because the province picks up 85 percent of capital

costs, so why should anybody worry about it?

What generated

this, of course, was Bill 30, the amendments to the Municipal Act. They

tried to entertain the municipality's concern that when a development

happens and generates necessary municipal infrastucture work, then as

much as possible the development should pay for this. I guess that's a

reasonable argument.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

clause was put in there that when an addition or development over

$50,000 was requested — and almost any school addition would be over

that;

I'm well aware of that — it was subject to off-site servicing costs.

For

new schools and new additions, when the ministry staff and the school

district budget, they generally budget for servicing and for

necessaries and there's always a reasonable tradeoff. It also leaves

the door open to all kinds of off-site servicing.

[4:00]

I suppose that in the act no one anticipated that one local body would

really put a bill on the other local body. Whoever paid the bill, it's

the same taxpayers. However, after the meeting with both parties, then

with the full board on Thursday night, on Monday they announced the

settlement. Yes, I guess I expressed some of my thoughts pretty freely,

such as: while this adult argument was going on, kids were not going to

get into school in September. There was absolutely no need for it. I

must say that they settled very reasonably, and probably could have.

But as you know, walls built up. Why should we give and why should they

give...? These things tend to happen. I didn't solve the problem

for them. It's still a local issue; they solved it. I guess I made

known the question of what the real objective is here.

the process, of course, I became well aware of the potential effects of

that clause in Bill 30, and so I have asked the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs to get together with our people. We've got to look at that,

because it could create a lot of problems. I would hope that we can

make some amendment to that, to prevent this sort of thing. We're

working on it. I must say that the school district was concerned also

about a precedent for itself and for the province. I finally had to

say: "Well, get the school built; do that. Don't worry about the

precedents; let me take the blame for that, and we'll go on from

there." Maybe that helped.

I'm not shorting them. Both

sides saw what was necessary there. But I'm glad that it was settled at

a reasonable cost to the taxpayers and that it perhaps brought forward

something not foreseen when the legislation was drafted. Now it's

there; it could be wide open. The short answer is: you bet, we're

asking to have that legislation reviewed as quickly as possible and

amended as necessary.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I

would like to say that I am very pleased to have that statement on the

record and to know it is the approach that the minister is taking. I

wish him every success in his negotiations to resolve this situation,

because school boards, given the constraints of their financing

situation, cannot afford that cost, and as the minister says, the

taxpayers end up paying for it. But under Bill 30, it certainly is a

situation that would create a further hardship for education throughout

the province.

With some trepidation, I move back to a topic

that has been quite contentious in this Legislature and during the

Education estimates. I would hope that we might be able to have a

little dialogue, the minister and I, around this issue, which doesn't

necessarily have to get into shedding more heat than light. I really do

think that there are a couple of topics I have to bring up that are

difficult ones. The first one has to do with the issue of hungry

schoolchildren.

First

of all, I would like to say — and

again this is for the record — that I think it's very unfortunate that

whatever the context in which the Premier made the statement yesterday

that was quoted in the Province regarding the parents of children....

Not having listened to that program, I would say that I didn't hear

the entire context. I think it's important for me to acknowledge that.

Nevertheless, the quote has gone out there: "They're lazing in bed when

they should be up making their kids' lunches."

I would hope

that the minister would in some way dissociate himself from that

comment, because we're dealing with a comment that, if not corrected,

could go a long way towards tarring an entire group of people with a

very unsightly brush and a very unsightly colour. Mr. Chairman, this is

simply inappropriate. Having recognized that possibly there's more to

the story about what was actually said, I think it's extremely

important at this time that it be clarified for the record that this is

not the understanding of this government with respect to the parents of

children who sometimes go to school hungry.

Before the

Chairman calls me out of order for talking about something that might

better be canvassed under the Ministry of Social Services and Housing,

I would point out that my remarks at this time are in response to a

discussion on the issue of hungry kids that has taken place in this

Legislature during these estimates. The remarks I will be making will

further tie the idea of nutrition to the idea of education. I say that

so the Chairman will know that the comments I'm making are being made

in the context of education and making the point that inadequate

nutrition is a factor in the stewardship of education. When I say that,

I mean that we have a resource in this province that this minister is

responsible for, and it is the education system. The point I wish to

make is that when children are able to learn because of the context,

not only the learning conditions in the classroom but the conditions in

their very bodies, the learning conditions that are affected by not

only the quantity but the quality of food within them.... It is a

factor in learning.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of starvation,

which is a worldwide issue and a matter that needs to be addressed by

education for our understanding starvation in the world, is one issue.

The issue of hunger is another. Hunger, as I understand it, is not

starvation in the sense of being life threatening; it threatens one's

ability to appropriate the quality of life that should be available to

a person in this society.

With regard to the issue of feeding hungry schoolchildren, I would like to point out that the point has been

[ Page 4444 ]

made

on many occasions by the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) and the Minister of Education that if authorities in the

schools know of children who are going to school hungry, that

information should be made available to people in the Ministry of

Social Services so they can make sure that proper counselling is taking

place, so that some implied irresponsibility with regard to the number

of dollars available to put food on the table.... Counselling will

take place so those dollars will stretch further. On that point, it is

clear that those children, given the amount of money available to them,

and given the most diligent of parents, are not able to enjoy the

nutritious meals they need to have through the month in order to avail

themselves of the best our education system has to offer. Therein lies

the rub.

MR. MERCIER : How do you know that?

MR. CASHORE :

I would refer that member to the Schauss report, and I would be glad to

make a copy of an

article about that report available to the member. It

was published in the B.C. School Trustees' Association newsletter. I

don't have it in my possession at present, but the report will be

coming into my possession very soon, and I would be glad to make the

information available.

One of the things Dr. Schauss has

found out in a pilot project that took place from 1980 to 1984,

involving all New York schoolchildren — that's 800,000 kids — in a

breakfast and lunch program.... This is the point where I feel there

is an answer to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. The children in this

program showed a 40 percent increase in performance on national

academic tests, a marked increase in attendance and fewer behavioral

problems.

The study was conducted in the context of the

education community. I'm not sure if the purpose of the study was to

provide support for the things we've been arguing with regard to the

feeding of hungry schoolchildren. I think the orientation of that study

was more toward the effects of nutrition on a child's ability to learn.

We have interministerial committees, where the Ministers of Social

Services and Housing, Health, Attorney-General and Education sit down

together to deal with some very difficult and contentious issues

involving our children. The existence of such committees is a tacit

awareness that all of these things are linked and connected; all of

these things are one and the same. Nutrition is education, and

education is nutrition.

This study points out that the 1.2

million children who received more nutritious breakfasts and lunches in

school cafeterias made the largest recorded jump in academic

improvements in the U.S. In California achievement tests, academic

achievement climbed from 39 percent below to 55 percent above the

national average. I'm sorry that I don't have more of the actual data

of this scientific study, and as I said, I will be getting that data

and making it available to the ministry.

The point I'm

trying to make as rationally as I possibly can.... I admit that

sometimes it's hard for me to curtail my emotion on this subject and be

rational, but I'm making it as rationally as I possibly can. I think

that a dispassionate look at such data would indicate that this

government, by looking at such data, could really save face and make

some very meaningful moves — not just gestures but concrete steps —

toward building some factors into the education system especially for

those children who are at risk because of poor nutrition.

I realize

that, as has been pointed out time and again, there is a desire

on the part of government to see parents counselled so they will do a

better job with the funds they have available. But even if you can make

the point that therein lies the problem, you can't entirely tie that

point.... Even if you can make that point successfully, and I don't

think you can — but for the sake of argument, let's assume that you can

— I don't think in good conscience you can tie that argument to the

continued deprivation of nutrition for children who need to be able to

avail themselves of the educational program.

One of the

reasons is this. If those children are not able to learn as well as

they need to learn — and I think Schauss and others have made the point

very effectively — then how can the government expect to achieve its

goal of getting people off welfare? We want these people to finish

their education and then to the best of their ability and potential go

out into the workforce and take their places as responsible and

responsive citizens. In so doing, they will become taxpayers, and they

will be able to contribute to the development of our society.

Unfortunately,

this type of common-sense reality does not show up in a one-year

financial statement. Unfortunately, given the vagaries that we

politicians have to address as we go about doing our thing, we become

subject to a political agenda which usually averages somewhere around

3.5 years. Because we are subject to that political agenda and because

we know the public wants to see immediate results, it's awfully hard

for us to involve ourselves in an educational exercise, for instance,

during an election campaign or even between elections, to try to make

the point that the long-term savings are perhaps a generation away in

some cases. Those savings really are a generation away if we can

anticipate that, instead of doubling the number of people on welfare,

as we have in the last 12 years.... As a result of good nutrition

being one factor in enabling our children to have a good education,

this could contribute to their employability and in the next ten years

would help us to cut in half the number of people on welfare.

It's

the penny wise and pound foolish concern that I am expressing here.

It's our need to be able to look at the long-range positive effects of

good policies that are put in place and followed consistently

throughout the time that they need in order to mature and develop and

be successful.

I see my time at this stage is up, and I will listen to what the minister has to say.

[4:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I listened attentively. It would appear that the member will use every

opportunity probably in every one of the estimates to make that speech.

He's sincere. I don't think anyone quarrels with the fact that children

who are not properly fed can't learn as well. No one quarrels with

those statistics.

I've met Dr. Schauss. I spent an evening

with him. I've got a whole book of his statistics. In scientific terms

there are some questions I would have about the studies. It seems to me

that in every case it was done, it was done at the local level to

establish something. It wasn't at the state or federal level. People

were sold by him on the thought that if we feed them, we will do those

things. I have looked at the studies, and in pure scientific terms I

don't know whether control groups or that were used sufficiently.

I was very impressed with the gentleman, nevertheless. He had some other ideas, too, that were great for helping

[ Page 4445 ]

people.

I asked him for those, because if they were so great, they would be

nice. Apparently they were for sale at a price — having found out some

of that research which was done at taxpayers' expense in various places

— and that turned me off a notch. If I had something that I had

discovered through a research project that the taxpayers had paid for,

and it could really help people and I really believed that it could, I

don't think I would say: "For a fee, I'll tell you my secret or my

formula." Anyway, maybe that's an unnecessary term, but since you put

so much emphasis on that report, I would go without the statistics on

that report with some of the questions that I have.

I will

accept that if the kids are better or adequately fed, they will learn

better and that they develop in terms of health and other things. I

fully accept that. The basic issue here is — and this is where I have

the problem — why has it become a political football that is being used

by the Vancouver School Board and the NDP, if the concern is the kids?

MR. BARNES : It's not a political football; it's reality.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I'm sorry, but I see it that way, because I have not had or I don't

know whether the government has had requests from any other school

districts for a program to feed the kids.

Let

me put it in

perspective. In the Vancouver School District they rejected the idea

that if people want help from a program that is in place, all they have

to do is identify those people. They rejected that: "We are not going

to tell who they are." The Social Services ministry deals with kinds of

cases and they only help them when they are identified and

there are programs in place. If people feel that they should not

identify anybody, that's their prerogative, but the only way they could

get help from the program that was in place was to say who they were.

There has been a lot of rhetoric built around that.

Let me

bring it down to the basic issue. In the Vancouver School District —

the only district that has come forward with this demand, to my

knowledge, at least in formal terms and through the media — the total

school budget is well over $200 million. I ask: what would the tax

effect be if they spent $300,000 on a program that they felt was

necessary? I understand that the amount would be just over one-tenth of

1 percent of their budget. That's 0.14 percent of their budget. The

effect on the local taxpayers would be $2 per taxpayer to make that

program work. If the major and primary concern — and I know there are a

lot of people who genuinely believe that — was to provide a meal

service for those students, they could have gone ahead with it with

nothing even noticeable in their total budget structure. I would say

that probably in various ways they spill more money than the $300,000

that we are talking about here. The program could go ahead.

trying to force the provincial government into doing a lunch or

breakfast program in the Vancouver school system, you generate a whole

Pandora's box, because you can't do it for one district without putting

in a formula, without doing all of the things that put in lunch

programs. Then you have to try and provide lunch programs with

certified people to cook and provide them and with the health

inspection in small schools as well, and you create an impossible

situation.

There was a lunch program in the British

Columbia school system many years ago. It was there when I was in the

school system, and it was dropped because it became so onerous that it

virtually killed itself. A lunch program is possible in any district

for a tiny percentage of the budget and for $1 or $2 per taxpayer to go

ahead and do it. It could have been done, in my opinion. It is

analogous to the situation in Coquitlam, about the Glen Elementary

School — a big furor. When it came right down to it, it was easily

resolved when people decided to concentrate on the problem that needed

dealing with, rather than trying to put the blame somewhere else,

forcing others into paying. So now we have the Vancouver city council

involved in a great emotional controversy. We supposedly have the

provincial government, the federal government and everybody being

blasted for not caring.

The

arguments are constantly made

that kids function better when they are fed. There is no question about

that. But a lot of things can be done that way. When I put that problem

in perspective, I really feel badly that so much heat has been

generated with something that could have been done. What do the

Vancouver taxpayers.... They increased the budget this year by $41, I

read in the paper; $41 to the average householder. For a $43 increase

they could have had the whole program, without all this furor.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, the minister makes the point that if an issue such as

this is going to be addressed effectively, it will be done with

quietness, to quote his words in the Hansard Blues yesterday. He said:

"Why would it not be done quietly, if people were really sincere?" He's

repeated that just now. I'll come back to that in a moment.

do appreciate the fact that the minister raised the example of the Glen

school, as perhaps being a model or a parallel situation, an example of

how something can be worked out. Yes, there was a furor. But given the

minister's own very commendable response a few moments ago, there are

two components lacking in a hungry-school issue, and those two

components are: (

a) that the minister, in the Glen school case, was

willing to bring his leadership into effect to help resolve this

situation; and (

b) that he has given his undertaking that through

interministerial consultation there will likely be some amendment, or

some kind of action by government to facilitate a better situation.

Having used that example, and the minister having brought that analogy

forth on this debate, I would then say: let's really then apply that

analogy to the situation we're now discussing with regard to the hungry

children. Let us say that what is required is for that type of wisdom,

the wisdom the minister applied in the Glen school situation, to be

applied here.

The minister makes his point about it only

being a small amount on the budget. What he needs to remember is that

it is the provincial government that holds the key, under the

federal-provincial agreement, to the Canada Assistance Plan. For the

benefits of that plan to come into effect, it requires the provincial

government to make it possible.

Mr.

Chairman, the minister

makes the point that the Vancouver School Board should take this

responsibility onto itself. I think the point can also be made that

they have taken a lot of responsibility onto themselves, and they have

tried to come up with a workable solution, even though the provincial

government has refused to participate. Let's remember that this is an

issue that I believe members of the Social Credit Party, I would

assume.... I do not assume that the majority of those people agree with

the government's action on this. We have an NPA school board; we have a

majority of NPA people on council; both of those bodies have voted to

support this program. Although on the Vancouver city council

[ Page 4446 ]

they

did not get the majority that they needed, it was still a majority of

the councillors who stated that they support the program and would have

favored the city of Vancouver's coming through with $200,000.

Clearly

this is a provincial matter, because it has to do with the welfare

system, and that is the system that functions under the Canada

Assistance Plan. That is the system under which single parents are

operating when they try to provide for their families.

Now

let's take a look at a family of one parent and two children in

Vancouver. We have calculated that that parent, on the basis of a 31-day month....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned about the effect it has on students,

but I don't want to go through the Social Services and Housing debate

in this ministry. If the member so wishes and the Chair so agrees, then

we can go on indefinitely. I can only respond from my perspective.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I don't believe there's a point of order there, but I would bring to

the.... The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has been very

careful in his debate up to this point, but it certainly would appear

to me that relevancy now has come into question when we're dealing

with.... I think the Canada Assistance Plan was the one mentioned. We

are, after all, dealing with the budget of the Minister of Education.

In that respect, I would think the debate has become less relevant

latterly. So perhaps the hon. member could bring his comments back in

line with the matter under debate at the moment.

[4:30]

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, the minister has stated the opinion that the Vancouver

School Board, as a board of school trustees that operates under the

School Act, for which the minister is responsible, should have taken

the responsibility themselves to come up with the funds. My point is

that the proper place for that responsibility to be taken — the

responsibility to which the minister referred — is under the Canada

Assistance Plan.

I'm pointing out that a mother with two

children has $4.70 per day per child to cover food, transportation and

other essentials after rent has been paid. I would submit to the

minister that if that mother is intent on providing the nutritious

meals that are needed — the minister and I both agree that nutrition is

a factor in enabling a person to appropriate educational opportunity —

somewhere around the end of the third week the mother who is sending

that child off to school is going to run out of sufficient food to feed

that child nutritiously. I'm responding to what the minister said here

when he made the point about counselling. No amount of counselling can

make up for the fact that....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the minister said that when these people are brought

to the attention of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, then

they can be counselled.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I didn't say that; check the Blues.

MR. CASHORE :

I'm sorry if I misunderstood what the minister was saying. I felt that

his comments had been in keeping with other comments from the Minister

of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), where the point has

been made that somehow these families were not managing their funds

adequately.

I would like to ask the minister: does he think

a mother who has to feed her children and provide for other necessities

on $4.70 a day per child has a good chance of providing the nutrition

needed for that child to go off to school and function well?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I hate to prolong this out-of-order discussion. The member says do I

think this, and I don't know how it relates to my educational estimates

or to the issue of this Vancouver school program. I know the member is

milking this emotionally for all the political mileage he can get out

of it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : That's what he's doing, because I have basically said....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Well, it's certainly out of order in this debate. I said the Vancouver

School Board — I didn't say they could do it quietly; I may amend that

— could just have gone ahead and done it without creating all the

political furor. They could easily have done that. So why they aren't

doing it is beyond me. I used the analogy of the Coquitlam situation,

and the member said why don't I.... I took an interest in that one

when I was asked to take an interest, and I was willing — as he said —

to lend my expertise and wisdom to the solution. I would gladly do

that. I think I suggested that I would gladly lend my wisdom and

expertise to the solution of this problem. It would cost you 0.14

percent of your budget in order to go ahead with the program, so why

are you making a political furor out of it? If you want to use that

analogy, I did not solve the problem for Coquitlam. I did not come in

for that Glen school. I simply said, "Here are the issues; you people

are capable of solving them," and they did. I said they were capable

of dealing with it, and they did.

Why we're having all of

this furor and then trying to translate it into how the province

doesn't care, or things of that nature.... I've tried to say to the

member that, forced into this in the Education ministry, you create a

massive problem to deal with. Dealt with where it matters, by the

people who can handle it, it can be easily resolved.

What

more I can say on that, I don't know. I think it's a tragedy that these

kids in the Vancouver school system have been used to give you as much

political mileage as you're trying to milk out of this.

MR. CASHORE :

I'd like to ask the minister if he thinks that a mother who has two

children and $4.70 a day to feed those children will be able to send

them to school for the entire month with the kind of nutrition in their

bodies that they need to be able to make the best use of the education

that is offered.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, I do

believe there is a real question of relevancy here. I think the matter

has been very well canvassed, and I would ask the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam to continue his debate on matters

[ Page 4447 ]

which relate more directly to the budget of the Ministry of Education.

MR. CASHORE :

The comments that I have been making are appropriate. They do relate to

education, and we have been discussing this in the context of studies

that have been linking nutrition to education. I am simply making the

point that children who are not properly fed cannot make use of the

educational opportunity that our minister provides through the system.

Therefore, the point I am making is connected, it is appropriate, and

the minister has not answered my question. He is not willing to answer

it. It is an appropriate question with regard to education because

mothers in this province are having to send their children off to

school each day, mothers who only have $4.70 a day to provide for those

children.

I would like to ask the minister, given that he

does recognize that there is a link between nutrition and the ability

to learn, whether, using the same approach that he's using in dealing

with the Glen school situation — consulting with other ministers and so

forth — he would agree to consider the possibility of conducting a

study in British Columbia, made for British Columbia, that would seek

to discover the facts on the linkage between education and nutrition.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I would not consider initiating a whole study because I think it would

find, simply statistically, what everybody already knows: that there is

a link.

MR. ROSE : I think it's sad that we can't

solve that problem, if it is a problem. I think it's a bit unfair to

accuse people who raise the problem of playing it for some political

gain. In a democracy you talk about public issues. This is certainly a

public issue.

The minister was very helpful, as my

colleague has said, when it came to solving a little problem we had in

our district 43 a few weeks ago, and I was very grateful that I went to

both him and also the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston), and they were quite willing to get involved.

I'm

not going to follow up the topic of my colleague as far as hungry

schoolchildren are concerned, but I do know that when I went to school,

and that's a long time ago, they had milk programs there for nutrition

and for hungry kids. That was in the thirties. We had all kinds of

services in school that weren't directly educational.

learning is impeded by the fact that somebody is hungry, I don't see

it's very different from the learning difficulty of near-sightedness,

or dyslexia, or any of these other things that we look after because

we're trying to enhance the learning process. I don't know where you

draw the line on these things and what's health and what's education.

Maybe we can compartmentalize too much stuff. I know we do that because

we're set up to have the minister from Kamloops look after some things,

and the Minister of Education says, "Well, it's not my fault; it's his.

You'd better talk about it to the Minister of Health, because that's

really his bag," while kids fall off the stools. There's no excuse for

that in this country, as far advanced as we are. My comments on that

one are finished, I hope.

I think that there are some lofty

and emotional and profound contributions to be made on education. I

doubt if mine will be one of them. I did that when I was critic, and

I've passed those grave responsibilities over to my colleague the

member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones). I'm going to get into more of the

sort of nuts and bolts and parish-pump politics — looking after my own

school district and that sort of thing.

I was intrigued

about some of the debate having to do with arts in the schools. I'd

just like to remind the minister that a Christmas concert, however

worthy, is not an art or music program.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

No, it's not. It's no substitute. It's something which is a performance

for the school, but it's no substitute for a real, serious program. You

can put on a Christmas concert; even the minister said he could put one

on. He admits he knows very little about music, although his brother

was a tuba player in my band one time. As far as I know, his attendance

was good. I don't remember how well he played. He always showed up.

Probably the minister has more music in him than ever came out of him.

When

you've got a school like Centennial Senior Secondary School in

Coquitlam, which employs half a music teacher and the school has 2.400 — and I don't know what they have in drama or art — you don't have a

very good program. Sure, it's possible to do that sort of thing in the

Langleys and some places like Esquimalt where there's pretty profound

support by the board and by your supervisors. In the main, it's

possible, but I don't think music and art are encouraged anymore. First

of all, you don't have enough electives to do it because you've got too

many required options, such as consumer ed, that crowd people out.

We've

been getting narrower and more academic the last few years because it's

cheaper. It's cheaper to teach those courses than some of the other

ones. The whole restraint program made our offerings in high school a

lot narrower and more academic, and less focused on the people who were

not particularly academic. School's for everybody's kids. It isn't a

screening device where you teach the best and shoot the rest, nor

should it be.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Well, maybe it is. My friend from Vancouver East probably doesn't think

it should be. I think we should be encouraging these music programs.

One of the things you do with that sort of thing is to provide

opportunities on the timetable to do it. Look at the numbers compared

to a few years ago, per school — not the total numbers. I started in

music teaching there were five high school bands in all of British

Columbia; I would say there must be 400 now. The total numbers have

increased, but since restraint in 1983, programs such as art and music

and drama have suffered, and they've suffered because they've been

crowded out of the timetable.

I want to talk a little bit

now about budget and restraint and the fact that school boards,

including 43, are having difficulty, keeping within their budgets. As a

result, more and more is piled on the local property owner. There are

some reasons for that, and it's not just that school boards wish to

solve their problems by throwing a lot of money at it. Sure, 43 hired

about 70 teachers last year, but that was just catching up. Now they're

trying to catch up on leaky roofs, because there's really been no

maintenance or capital improvement there for a great number of years.

That's been the problem. You can trot out all the figures you like to

prove me wrong, but I don't think I am. That, they say, is their

complaint.

[ Page 4448 ]

There's another major one that I'd like to deal with in a moment.

[4:45]

I'm

getting letters like this from grade 5 kids. You can say now: "The

teacher's put them up to it." Those unfair, bigoted, union-loving

people who infest the classrooms put the kids up to this. Here's one

from a little kid in grade 5 who says: "I wrote this letter to you

because we need lots of repairs to our school. We need equipment for

our gym." Here is another one that says: "I was wondering if we could

have some repairs and have some more equipment. We need a bigger

classroom for our displays and pin boards. Thank you for doing a great

job and keep up the good work." He is one of the brightest ones, I

imagine, in the class.

MR. REE : Is that your grandson?

MR. ROSE : No relative.

Here

is one that says: "I want to ask you to try and help us make more

money. We need more computers because every day at recess and lunch, we

always fight for it." They've got one computer, I guess. "We also need

new rugs, computer software, paper and a new vacuum." He wants a clean

sweep, 1 guess. "I want the school to be bigger and better." This is

in one of the better neighbourhoods in my riding. They are having

problems in their schools, and the kids see it.

You can say

it's just propaganda. They came over here on a school visit, and his

teacher probably asked him to write me. I just hope that all teachers

don't ask them to write me, because I might be in a fair amount of

difficulty and require a bit of help f