1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7949 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Chairmanship of public accounts committee. Mr. Cocke — 7949

Allocation of forest licences. Mr. Nicolson — 7949

Log export licences. Mr. Lockstead — 7949

Gasoline and oil prices. Mr. Parks — 7950

Ms. Sanford

Mr. D'Arcy

Tabling Petition — 7951

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 59: minister's office — 7951

Mr. Blencoe

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

On vote 16: minister's office — 7952

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Rose

Mr. D'Arcy

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p. m.

MR. NICOLSON: It's my honour today, Mr. Speaker, to introduce

Kevin Murphy, who has with him nine students from the Arrow Lakes

School District near Nakusp. I wish the members would bid them welcome.

They've come a long way.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome Chris

and Nigel Maund from Ontario, relatives of one of our fine researchers

in the NDP quarters.

Oral Questions

CHAIRMANSHIP OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. It has

been a tradition in the Legislative Assembly for almost 15 years that

the official opposition has the right to name the chairman of the

Public Accounts Committee. It was always a Socred when we were

government. This tradition draws on a much larger tradition of

parliamentary practice in other jurisdictions, including the Mother of

Parliaments at Westminster. Why have the Premier and his government

decided to break this parliamentary tradition and to withdraw this

right from the official opposition?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier doesn't interfere

in workings of the committee, nor do I give them direction, so I can't

comment on what goes on in the committees of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: As the member for New Westminster knows, the

area he is presently canvassing.… There is a very thin line between

what he can address in this House and what must be addressed in

committee. I'm sure the member appreciates the very fine line that

exists.

MR. COCKE: I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. As the leader of

the government, as the Premier of the province — and when we saw a very

organized situation this morning with our own eyes — I just asked the

Premier.... After they've destroyed the Crown corporations reporting

committee, etc., etc., now they're trying to destroy the Public

Accounts Committee. What are you trying to hide?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, again the Chair

must decline the question, in that again this is a matter that should

best be handled in committee. The member has, I believe, made his point

in that regard.

ALLOCATION OF FOREST LICENCES

MR. NICOLSON: A question to the late-arriving Minister of

Forests. There has been notice of tender for the sale of Smallwood

Lumber Ltd. by agents for the receivers, the Bank of British Columbia.

They advertised a sale of land, and on checking into it further, I find

that they are even including the forest licence within the prospectus.

Who has the responsibility for allocating this forest licence, the

Crown or the corporate receiver?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not too sure which receivership the

member is referring to, but if you would provide me with particulars

I'll take that question as notice and get back as soon as possible.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll let him take it as notice. On his request for particulars, I'll inform him that it's Smallwood Lumber Ltd. In Salmo....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not afraid to answer questions, hon. member.

On a new question, while he's taking this on notice, could the

forest licences have been granted in the past few years, and whether or

not it has been the practice of the ministry to require that they not

be resold within 20 years?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the matter of whether or

not a licence can be transferred within a 20-year period, I'll have to

find out some particulars about that and bring an answer back. With

respect to the first part of the question, I understand there are a

number of considerations. All of those factors are assessed before any

particular timber licence is awarded, as recommended by the chief

forester. The Forestry Act sets out a number of provisions upon which a

licence is awarded, reflecting also the benefit to the community — one

only.

MR. NICOLSON: I would ask if the minister is aware of the

granting of a forest licence to Smallwood in June 1984. I would ask the

minister if the deputy minister's recommendation bore any weight, and

whether that would have been followed. He has just indicated that they

would follow the recommendation of the chief forester. I'm not sure if

there was one at that time. But would they then just automatically

follow the recommendation of the deputy minister?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question

as notice. I have no idea what happened. I think you mentioned June of

'84. If you would provide me with particulars, I'd be quite prepared to

look into the matter. But I can't do other than take the question as

notice.

LOG EXPORT LICENCES

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

Minister of Forests. The ministry recently approved log export permits

to L&K Lumber of Gibsons for 50,000 cubic metres of raw logs. In

view of the fact that L&K is presently in receivership, can the

minister confirm that the prime beneficiary of this decision is the

Bank of Nova Scotia?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would think that if there

is a particular operation in receivership and being administered

accordingly, the benefit of any particular production or sale would

obviously be to a number of creditors. Perhaps the bank is one.

With respect to the export permit, or the standing green

order-in-council, I can't recall exactly how many cubic metres were

involved, but it was 50,000 for L&K — there were a group of them.

Each of those orders came as a result of a recommendation made by the

Timber Export Advisory

[ Page 7950 ]

Committee, and there is wide representation on that particular panel.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I might remind the minister that the Bank of Nova Scotia is the sole creditor in this particular action.

In any event, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Local sawmill operators

and small independent loggers are finding it impossible to obtain a

timber supply for their operations. What investigation does the

minister make of local processing needs before he signs logs into the

export market?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the preface to his second

question the member made reference to only one creditor. My

understanding with respect to L&K is that there were a number of

dollars outstanding in wages, and it was a term and condition with

respect to the receiver that those back wages be paid. I further

understand that the revenue generated from any particular sale was to

be applied to that account first.

With respect to the second part of the question, all of those logs,

to the best of my understanding, were placed on the market and

advertised for sale, and there were no takers. Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of supply and

demand. I have not yet had anybody come to me stating that they were

not able to get logs for their operation. I have had nobody come in

yet. I was sure I would have heard by now.

[2:15]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, hopefully this will be a final

supplementary, but perhaps not. In any event, one local sawmill

operator, Suncoast, the local sawmill that supplies value-added

products to a Japanese company, has not obtained promised financing for

their operation because of the lack of timber supply in this very area

where you're selling raw standing timber. Will the minister review that

particular situation? They have written to you and your ministry.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will. I would like to get the name.... Is this the sawmill at Gibsons?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Suncoast, thank you.

GASOLINE AND OIL PRICES

MR. PARKS: Following question period, I intend to table a

petition from the residents of my constituency, expressing their

concern with regard to the price of gasoline in this province. As we're

very much aware, in the last several months energy prices have declined

in many countries. However, in some jurisdictions, one in particular,

the price level of that energy has remained exorbitant. I have noted,

and I trust other members of this Legislature will take note, that

although the price of oil has decreased in excess of $10 per barrel,

the price of gasoline in Australia has risen in excess of 12 cents per

litre. My question — believe it or not, it's directed to the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — is: can the minister assure

this House, Mr. Speaker, that gasoline prices for British Columbia

consumers will continue to reflect the decreasing prices in the world

energy market?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The word "assure" may be a little bit

strong, but I can tell the member. I think he realizes that there is

about a 60-day lag from when the crude oil goes in until it shows up at

the pump. Since the Western Accord, the world crude oil prices have

been deregulated, so now the price at the pump is gradually reflecting

the declining world oil prices. I have every reason to believe that

they will continue to decline. At this point, since February I to about

mid-April, I believe the average decline in the United States was 9.7

cents per litre. The average in Canada was about 9 cents per litre, and

the average in British Columbia was between 11 and 13 cents per litre.

So we've actually been ahead of the rest of the country on that.

As I think the member also knows, our Finance minister did cap the

provincial tax so that it can now decline with the price at the pumps,

but it cannot exceed the 8.64 cents per litre provincial tax. In

discussions with the federal government, we have no reason to believe

that they're going to manipulate the price of gasoline at the pumps.

MS. SANFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

know from the same minister why the home heating oils haven't come down

within that two-month period. We're talking about a two-month delay.

They haven't come down. Why not? What is the government doing about it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I don't have the actual figures

for the home heating oil, but I know about two weeks ago I was told by

some people that the price of diesel hadn't come down. I checked and

the price of diesel has come down, so I'm assuming the price of home

heating oil will also be reflected in due course.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to thank the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) and the minister for his answers on

the gasoline price question. However, in the minister's answer he

indicated that there was about a 60-day time-lag. It's now April 23; 60

days ago was February 23. The price of petroleum at that time was about

$14 U.S. a barrel. And by using the industry's and the government's own

figures, that indicates that the price at the pumps in British Columbia

should be about 38 cents a litre. It's presently 44 cents a litre out

there. I'd like to ask the minister if he has decided to do anything

about that six-cent discrepancy in what consumers and industry are

paying for gasoline in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I think the member knows, since the

Western Accord we have tried to get out of government's setting the

prices. It's now following the market. It is moving down. I did

indicate that I expected it will go down further. And the 60 days is a

continuing thing. They did not buy all the oil 60 days ago and then

nothing since. They've been buying all along.

If the member is following the news reports, he realizes that the

world crude prices have fluctuated anywhere between $9 and $16 a

barrel. So at what day do you want your 60-day limit?

[ Page 7951 ]

MR. D'ARCY: I only quoted 60 days ago. In fact, in the

intervening 60 days the average price of petroleum has been less than

$14 a barrel. I did not ask that the government set the price. I asked

what the minister was doing to persuade the industry to lower the price

at the pumps on behalf of the consumers of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As indicated in the averages that I

suggested, 11 cents to 13 cents average decline, as compared to 9

percent in Canada, we have been talking to industry. We have urged them

to move as quickly as possible to pass those prices on to the consumer,

and we will keep talking to them in hopes that it will go down to the

world prices.

MR. PARKS: Although I notice that you don't have the big

green pouch by your chair, Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition —

would you believe it, on oil prices.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 59: minister's office, $189,745.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, before we broke for lunch the

member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) was asking the minister some

very important questions about sewerage facilities and sewerage support

mechanisms and financial resources.

I want to finish on an issue that I asked the minister some

questions about yesterday, but which unfortunately he did not answer,

which is not unusual. It's an issue that comes up continually from both

municipal governments and school boards. It's the question of municipal

elections not being held when school board elections are being held. I

know the minister has expressed some concern, as have we on this side

of the House, that when there are no municipal elections being held we

have some real problems in terms of school board elections: visibility

— very few people know the elections are on; and incredibly low

turnouts. There is, I think, a feeling....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman — and

this has been going on now since Monday — the member is on the wrong

estimates. He's talking about education and school boards now, and

elections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears to be a relevant point of order.

School board elections would be covered under the School Act and the

Ministry of Education. We are on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: We are indeed, and the minister has

responsibility for municipal elections, and voting patterns, voting

procedures and voting irregularities. The point I'm trying to make, Mr.

Chairman, is that there needs to be some thought given by the minister

— and indeed, I agree, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) — to

trying to pull together the elections of municipal governments and

school boards. I know the minister has had some discussion about this

and has expressed some concerns publicly, as we have done on this side.

I also want to ask the minister whether he has done any further

research into some of the voting irregularities in municipal elections

that have been reported. I have written to him about some of those on a

number of occasions. We've found, for instance, people voting twice in

municipal elections or school board elections because of the property

vote. I don't have to go into the details, but people have actually

admitted that they have voted twice in certain elections. Clearly

that's an irregularity. The minister has come back to me and said that

that's the problem of local government. I would suggest that that is

also a problem for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I'd like to ask

him whether he has done any research, or his staff made any reports to

him, on correcting some of these irregularities, in terms of trying to

bring together elections for school boards and municipal governments —

and some of the irregularities that I have reported to him. I'd like to

hear some response on that this afternoon.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, if the member could identify

the irregularities that he's referring to and also the municipality,

then I could be more specific in my response.

MR. BLENCOE: I have sent a number of letters and reports to

the minister over the last year or so. One in particular comes from an

Oak Bay resident, if I recall. I don't have the letter in front of me,

but an Oak Bay resident had it reported to him by somebody who clearly

admitted voting twice in school board and therefore municipal

elections, because of holding property.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name names.

MR. BLENCOE: That's a favourite cry of yours these days. You want us to name all the people who've been evicted in Vancouver?

The names are there. The minister knows them, I think. I've written to him about that particular case.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member has made a serious

accusation here, and I would suggest that he table the name in this

House so that it can be pursued by the proper authorities.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has my letter on

record with the names, including the people reporting the incident.

Unfortunately I've had very little response or indication from this

minister that he's going to do something about this problem. Here in

this chamber is the public forum, I think, to express our concern to

the minister and to ask for some response from the minister. He knows

he has had other letters on this issue. I've sent him copies of letters

I have had from other parts of the province about reported

irregularities. I think it's a reasonable request. Is the minister

doing anything about it? Are we going to see some changes in voting

procedures or the things I brought up today?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I repeat, I'm not prepared to move in such

a way on iffy assumptions. If that member can back up the accusation he

has made that someone voted illegally, then I will be compelled to take

a look at it. But he must, now

[ Page 7952 ]

that he has made the accusation in the House, table the information, including

the name of the person he's accusing.

[12:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not making any accusations. All I'm trying

to do.... The minister is very well aware; there are reported incidents.

Councils have indicated their concerns and I've sent letters to the minister

on a number of specific issues of people having, because of the property tax

vote and other kinds of voting patterns....

How much discussion do we have

to have on this? How many times does this minister have to...? For three

days he has avoided answering questions in this House on some very critical

issues facing local government. He has my letters on file. I've sent him letters

from people who have voted, from residents in a number of municipalities. He

knows he's got them; he has even replied to me in some vague two- or three-liners

that he'll look into it. I am asking him if he has looked into some of these

problems, and is he prepared to state that we really need to take a look at

some of the issues I've raised this afternoon?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: All problems brought to the attention of

this minister are looked after. You've been shadowboxing here for about

three days now. I repeat, support your accusation with the name — with

a document.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's totally impossible to deal

with this minister. We have tried diligently for approximately three

days to get answers on some critical issues facing local government.

Consequently, I'm going to wrap up this part of the estimates debate.

It has been a frustrating two or three days. I know the minister has

not wanted to be here debating these estimates. He wanted to get out of

here as quickly as possible. If this minister would be candid and

forthright about municipal and local issues, issues that are of current

interest to local government, and answer the questions that the

official opposition puts to him through the Chair.... Our job on this

side is to learn the concerns and the problems that local governments

face and put them before the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't panic.

MR. BLENCOE: Now there's a reasonable minister — not like this one. You can deal with that minister.

I want to state on the record that local government really wants

some candid, forthright, respectful attention by this minister in terms

of dealing with their issues. When local government reads Hansard

and sees what a number of members on this side have tried to go through

in the last two or three days in terms of trying to get some straight

answers, some real answers, from this minister who constantly plays

petty politics with the important issue of local government.... Petty

politics.

Again, it's a sad year, a sad time, for local government in these

estimates. As I, on behalf of our party, travel this province in the

next few months attending various meetings, meeting with local mayors

and aldermen and trying to ascertain their concerns — we'll bring those

concerns before this Legislative in some form or manner — I know we're

going to continue to hear the complaints that they haven't got a

sympathetic ear in this minister. I've already indicated that mayors

and aldermen have a sympathetic ear in terms of the staff that work for

Municipal Affairs. I indicated this morning that they've had to put

away many of their academic degrees on planning because we have a

minister who won't realize we have an excellent staff that wants to

plan and prepare for the future in municipal growth and municipal

issues.

We have tried in this House over the last few days to raise, I

think, about 15 to 20 issues. There are many more that we could raise,

but my friend over here wants to get to his estimates. I want to leave

it by saying that I hope in the next few months this minister will

finally start to listen to the 1,400 or 1,500 elected officials who,

over the last two or three years in his tenure of office, have tried to

come to grips with some of the issues they face and have tried to put

them on the desk of the minister. They are waiting for some respect,

some candour and a forthright attempt at trying to resolve municipal

issues.

We are very frustrated; local government is very frustrated, and

they hope there will be some changes in these areas that we've brought

forward in the last few days.

Vote 59 approved.

Vote 60: ministry operations, $6,471,496 — approved.

Vote 61: municipal revenue-sharing, $227,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 16: minister's office, $211,280.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to stand for the

first time as Minister of Education to debate my estimates. I can

advise members of the House that since February 11 I have had many

briefings and have had many meetings with school trustees, teachers,

administrators and secretary treasurers to attempt to understand the

complexities of the ministry. I found that the major issue is funding,

always a concern at the school board level and the teaching level.

I've tried to impress upon those I've met that there is a global

funding problem not just in education but in government. This

government, dealing in the 1985-86 fiscal year, ended up the year with

an approximate $900 million deficit. In 1986-87, it anticipates a

deficit for the operation of government of some $875 million. We're

trying to indicate to those in education that we are not against

education and we are not embarking on a tax on the teaching profession,

but we just have a concern for the taxpayer of the province, who is

also a parent in many cases, that we have responsibility to the

province to ensure that we don't over spend to a point where we leave a

legacy of debt for our children.

Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Education budget this year is $1.185

billion, up from last year's estimate, which was $1.115 billion. Added

to that figure of $1.185 billion is an additional $15.5 million that we

applied for non-salary inflationary items, an additional $6.1 million

for textbooks and an additional $19 million for adjustment to teachers'

salaries last year which were not included in the fiscal framework for

the Education budget this year.

Those adjustments or additions to the original budget presented in

the estimates, Mr. Chairman, to a great extent came from consultation

with the school trustees, the teachers and the administrators in the

various visits I had with them. They attempted to show me and I

indicated to them I was

[ Page 7953 ]

willing to listen to those areas of concern, and

I'm pleased that we have made some adjustments to give them relief. As

members know, there is also the Excellence in Education fund, which is

also part of funding for education in the province.

A statistic that members might be interested in knowing is that

there is a reduction in student enrolment anticipated in the 1986-87

school year of some 2,500 students. Mr. Chairman, although the

reduction of students is there, there is still an increase in the

budget for education in the province. Although the main issue is

funding — and the question of whether it is adequate is put by both

sides, the ministry and by the school board or teacher level — I for

one think the approach to funding of education on the basis of a fiscal

framework or formula is a good one. It treats the province equitably,

as opposed to the old system where some communities had the benefit of

an industrial or commercial tax base and others did not.

Members will be interested in knowing, Mr. Chairman, that the tax

revenue for school purposes that comes in from commercial and

industrial properties is redistributed via the fiscal framework formula

back out to school districts throughout the province — equitably

funding all students. I stress the word "students," because the reason

we're here and the reason we're funding education is to give students

adequate funding so they can get educated in their communities, whether

it's a rural community or an urban community. The funding that we

provide, Mr. Chairman, from the provincial level — and I didn't say

from the provincial government; I said from the provincial level — is

just a redistribution of the taxpayers' money. Through the provincial

government we contribute approximately 88 percent of operating costs of

school districts across the province.

As I said earlier, I think the fiscal framework is a fair and

equitable formula to fund education. I can appreciate that there are

areas that need to be fine-tuned, looking at the costs that are

included in the formula. We have a committee that is structured to do

that each fall prior to the new budget figures going out.

We have also provided for local autonomy, for the ability for a

local school board to tax. That is under legislation, Mr. Chairman, so

I will not dwell on that other than to say that with that ability comes

accountability of the local school board to their taxpayer. I would

hope that school boards looking at that ability would not go to their

taxpayer, the residential property-owner taxpayer, without a lot of

serious consideration as to the impact on that taxpayer, and that they

would not be looking to increase taxes indiscriminately. I am confident

that the majority, if not all, would recognize their responsibility as

trustees and would attempt to live within the funding arrangement that

is provided to them by the fiscal framework and the ability as they

have had it in the past with regards to their portion of raising taxes

at the local level. I don't believe that the provincial budget figures

require any increase in residential property tax. However, if there are

some unique services, programs or situations at the local level, then

they could and should have the ability to raise the money locally while

at the same time also having the responsibility of explaining to their

constituents the reasons for the taxing of local property owners.

We also have the Fund for Excellence in Education, which is a fund

that will total some $600 million over the next three years and will

provide funding on request for those projects which will give the best

return in education on the investment of the dollars from this fund. It

is a challenge to educators and to school boards to come forward with

new innovative ideas, ones that I hope will help our young people

become better prepared for the workplace, the professions and the arts

in the twenty-first century. These funds are available to them. Instead

of waiting for Victoria to come up with new ideas and new concepts, the

main thrust behind the fund for excellence is for those people working

in the field to have the opportunity to say to Victoria: "Look, here is

a new concept, a new idea, a new thrust, and we think it will work not

just in our school district but in other school districts. We'd like to

apply for the funding." It could well happen that if there is a great

idea and it is funded for the local school board, other school boards

will look at it and request for funding for it also, which we may

approve. It may even go to a point where a concept in a local school

board area becomes so good that the provincial Ministry of Education

may look at including it in its fiscal framework for funding across the

province. So there is tremendous opportunity for educators to come

forward with new ideas.

[2:45]

In short, it is a three-tiered funding system that now is available

in the province for education: the fiscal framework provides money from

the province to all school boards, giving a base for education, and it

is adequately funded, in my opinion; secondly, there is the local

taxation ability of the school boards if they want to fund some unique

course within their area; finally, there is the Fund for Excellence

which they can look to for innovative ideas.

I hope to have continuing dialogue and consultation with the school

trustees, the school teachers, the secretary-treasurers and the

superintendents in this province to, quite frankly, take some of the

heat out of education in this province. l think we're off to a good

start, and I will continue to do my best to meet with every school

board in this province and with teachers' associations to make sure

that I understand their problems and, where the occasion requires, to

act as their advocate to ensure that my government is fully informed

and aware of some of the concerns at the local level.

Mr. Chairman, looking to the future, I have said publicly that I

have structured a committee to bring forward the materials, the

background information and the recommendations for a new School Act. We

are appointing an advisory committee on computer education in the

province, and we are looking to appoint an advisory committee on

teacher education and retraining to assist those who work in the

classroom in being updated on new technology. Those are three goals

that I have set.

Another is one that I feel strongly about, the viability of small

school districts in this province. There are many small school

districts serving small communities, greatly dispersed operations,

small schools. I think we have to have a close look at how we fund

those local schools. I have met with a number of small school district

representatives, and I am going to continue to investigate that area of

funding to see whether or not we can fine-tune the formula to ensure

that we aren't having an impact on small school districts. I'm hopeful

that by next fall we will have come up with some new methods or some

adjustments to the fiscal framework that will assist those who teach

our young people in further reaches of the province.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the last item I would like to comment on is

child abuse. I'm also going to be involved with my colleagues the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

[ Page 7954 ]

and the Minister of Health and Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) in looking at ways to attempt to lessen this problem

of child abuse — not just in schools but in our society, but in my case

particularly related to schools. I'd like to see achieved an early

warning system, if you will — a method of identifying and dealing

swiftly with those who have abused children. I think it's important to

the students and to the parents of those students, and other students,

that we do have some system to give parents the confidence that their

children are safe in our schools. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I

also feel equally strongly that I do not want to see a system develop

that will, in effect, end up by seeing possibly innocent teachers

accused and being victims of a witch-hunt; equally strongly, Mr.

Speaker, I must ensure that those people who are charged with that

tremendous responsibility of educating our young people are not caught

up in a net of false accusation, where they are being penalized because

somebody is upset with them because of whatever may have happened in

the classroom. Mr. Chairman, that is one area where I hope my

colleagues and I can come up with some conclusions that will put at

rest all the concerns of parents in this province concerning the

problems that have existed and have been made public in the recent past.

Mr. Chairman, with those remarks, I look forward to the debate on my

estimates, and will attempt to answer any questions that the opposition

may have.

MR. ROSE: I too look forward to the debate on the estimates.

I would like to tell the minister that I congratulate him on his

assumption of this high office, and hope he enjoys his time on the

hotseat. Certainly education is a controversial subject, and it has

become more controversial over the last three years, owing to the

policies of this government. It got so hot that they had to remove the

former minister and get a new one. They had to trade in the former

minister. The leopard couldn't change his spots, so they had to change

the leopard. After all, he had no credibility with trustees or teachers

by the time he was finished. I wouldn't want anybody to think that that

was a personal attack.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: You're on the fast track.

MR. ROSE: Yes, you're on the fast track. I hope from this

minister we'll get brilliance and even a polished performance. He

raised so many interesting subjects, it's almost impossible not to try

to hit those lobs all at once. I'm going to try not to do that. I'm

going to try to keep this reasonable in terms of tone. I'd like to ask

certain questions.

When he talks about a three-tiered educational system.... He already

admitted that the big controversy is educational funding. I want to

tell you something. They had a famine in Ethiopia a little while ago,

and the rock stars got together and put out a rock video or a record.

When you have a famine in education, instead of in Ethiopia, and he's

talking about a three-tiered educational system, tiers are not enough —

simply not enough. I wanted to tell the minister that if there's a

famine in educational funding, as there was in Ethiopia, tiers are not

enough. It doesn't matter whether you have three tiers or ten tiers.

The part that I think bothers me is that there's a lot of flimflam

in this; there's lots of propaganda in this business. I think I'm

candid enough to admit that it doesn't all come from one side. I'd be

willing to admit this.

The fund for excellence is a shell-game. I can tell you right now

where $60 million of it has gone. It hasn't gone to excellence projects

at all, except if you're counting the universities. The other $540

million that may come makes great headlines. God knows what it's going

to be spent on, but I know what it's been spent on up to now, and I'm

not going to deal with this at the moment, because I'm not interested

in going into this.

The provincial funds have steadily been reduced. The minister says

he's pouring enough money into education. I'd just like to tell him a

little bit about our analysis of the government's spending. Between

1983 and 1984 total government spending increased 11 percent,

whereas

total educational spending increased only 1.1 percent. In 1984-85, on

top of the 11 percent, total government spending increased 5.7 percent,

and education increased 1.8 percent. In 1985-86 total government

spending increased 3.9 percent; education spending — that's last year —

decreased 2.3 percent. In 1986-87, the year that we're looking at, the

projections are for government spending to increase 5.7 percent, and

God knows how much it has decreased depending upon how you count the

slush fund. I'm sorry, I didn't mean that; I meant the fund for

excellence.

AN HON. MEMBER: The pork-barrel.

MR. ROSE: Oink, oink — the pork-barrel aspect of it, so the

minister and his cohorts can go out and announce various kinds of

projects, smirk into the cameras, snip the ribbons and get a photo

opportunity. This is the sort of thing that they've done.

If the minister is going to consult, I think that would be a welcome

new experience for this government. I don't think there has been any

meaningful consultation. As a matter of fact, shortly after he was

appointed minister, what did he do? He announced the fund for

excellence. There was no consultation about that at all. He slashed the

funding for textbooks right in half, from $22 million to $11 million,

until he was caught at it. He was caught with his hand in the till.

Then he gave back.... Where did it come from? The fund for excellence.

It didn't come from the textbook budget at all, but it was stolen from

the textbook budget in the first place, which is a little bit like a

little kid getting caught at stealing $10 from his mother's purse to

buy her a birthday present. That's where it came from, no other place.

Up to now — and I give the minister full marks for trying to change

the tone and the style of the ministry, and the way it operates — the

government has played on the prejudices out there in the public, the

anti-education prejudices that exist out there. It has tried to stir up

a turmoil to justify decreasing and starving educational funds, and

send our teachers fleeing somewhere else to look for jobs. There are

200 in California right now. This is becoming one of B.C.'s leading

exports: teachers — and more to come. Each one of those cost at least

$30,000 to train. For 200 of them that's $6 million. If 300 or 400 more

go, then it'll be more millions, while we're strangling education on

the one hand.

There's no consultation on the School Act yet. Here's another thing

that we keep hearing about. We heard about it from McGeer. We heard

about it from Smith. We heard about it from Vander Zalm. We heard about

it from Heinrich.

[ Page 7955 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry. We heard about it from the current

Minister of…. What is he now? Oh, yes, trade and industry. We heard

about it from the former minister, who is now our Attorney-General. Is

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) pleased with this now? Is he

happy that...?Can I call Vander Zalm Vander Zalm, because he's no

longer a member of the House? I'll call him anything I like.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: You set the rules of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, please don't let that cheapshot

artist over there heckle me, because you know how nervous I get when I

get up to speak. I need your protection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the assistance of the Minister of Labour.

MR. ROSE: There's been no consultation. He may consult. The

minister may consult; I hope he does. But I don't think he's going to

get any more money for education, so what's the point in sweet talk?

He's going to go around and jawbone around the school districts.

Jawbone Hewitt — Hewitt blew it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, so far he has.

Look, here's the funding. Funding has gone up by $150 million, we

hear. The non-resident grant, according to this, for 1985-86 was $576

million and a few — $0.3 million. The provincial grants were $570.6

million. In 1986-87 the non-resident portion is $491 million and the

provincial grants will be $621 million. What's the difference? It's

$1.144 billion in this year; the next year which we are budgeting,

$1.112 billion — or nearly $1.113 billion. It's gone down — page 66. So

funding is not going up; it's going down.

Hopefully this kind of new spirit will help an era of cooperation to

return once more in the school districts. People talk about radical

teachers. It's the policies of the government that have radicalized the

teachers. If those teachers out there, including the minister's

daughter, are not radicalized by now, then they're completely inert,

and there will never be any hope for them.

[3:00]

The minister talked to the trustees about job creation — jobs, jobs,

jobs. That's what we need the money for. But 3,000 teachers' jobs have

gone. How many jobs has he created in the education industry? I can't

think of very many. So tiers are not enough. We need some action.

What I intend to do now, rather than make a long speech on a

particular topic, is examine some of the ideas that the minister may

have for his ministry, and perhaps ask the minister to explain to us a

few of his philosophical bents regarding education and some of his

attitudes to it. I'd like to do an exchange with him on a reasonably

prolonged basis. That doesn't mean that other people can't ask

questions, but I would like to be able to do that because I don't want

to make a long speech. Not that I couldn't. I think most politicians

are pregnant with at least three speeches at any one time. So it isn't

for that reason that I am not doing this. I would just like to have an

opportunity to get his views. Here's the first one. What is the

minister's government's philosophy of education? What do they see

education doing for the children of B.C.?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I guess I could make a

half-hour speech on this government's philosophy of education. But let

me just say briefly that the concern of this government — and, I think,

any government — would be to ensure that young people get the best

possible education to provide for them in their adult life.

MR. ROSE: What concerns me about this is whether the minister

views the philosophy of education.... Should each child have a

particular education suited to his talents? What does he mean by

suitable to "their adult life"? That's a pretty vague term. I don't

understand what he is talking about. Is the school education supposed

to be vocationally oriented? Or is it to bring out some of the talents

in the children? Just what, in his view, should the aim and the

philosophy of the school system be?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that

in K to 12, my ministry's responsibility, we should provide our young

people with a good grounding in education, regardless of where they go

beyond grade 12. Our system should provide instruction to our young

people, who may be tradesmen in their later life, who may wish to go on

and become artisans or artists, or who may wish to become professionals

and go on to post-secondary education.

We've got to start with the young child coming out of the home environment and take them through —

give them self-confidence, the ability to reason and the interest to

learn- to ensure that when they go through our system all the way to

grade 12 they are excited about the education system, so that when one

door is open for them in grade 2, they are excited about going through

the next door, which is grade 3, and finding out what is beyond that

door; that every time they come back to school in September they are

excited about coming back, that they are excited about going to school

in the morning, and involved with their teachers and their fellow

students, so that they get a well-rounded foundation on which they can

build, whether they become automobile mechanics, shopkeepers, lawyers,

doctors, engineers or artists. We've got the responsibility from K to

12 to give them that foundation on which they can build.

We could say that it all relates to funding, which is where I keep

hearing the problem lies. It goes far beyond that, Mr. Chairman. The

funding is there, and I think that if we got beyond that issue of

funding.... I have said before that the fiscal framework that develops

the funding for education in this province from kindergarten to grade

12 provides the dollars for facilities, courses and teachers. Maybe it

is not all that some would want. But as I said in my opening remarks,

there is also the global responsibility of government to ensure that we

don't leave a legacy of debt for our young people, whom I am trying to

have educated to give them the ability to reason and the foundation on

which to grow, so that they aren't faced with major social problems in

the community in which they will live and work because government has

been irresponsible in its administration in the global sense.

I don't doubt that the member opposite is as concerned about

education as I am. He certainly has had far more experience, because,

if I am not mistaken, his record shows that he was in education at one

time — he was an educator.

[ Page 7956 ]

But I feel I am equally well versed to carry out my role as Minister

of Education, because I have been a parent. I've seen my young children

go through the system and I have a great deal of respect for teachers.

I don't want to prolong the debate, but unfortunately....

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that the only qualification?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, that's not the only qualification, but I

won't bore you with the rest of my qualifications, just in case you

want to consider me a high school dropout, Mr. Member. I have enough

initials behind my name to qualify — going through the narrowing-up process, as you may call it.

The other thing in regard to the education system: we as a society

have put a lot of our parental responsibilities on the teaching

profession. Just think back 20 years, 30 years; a little more than 30

years maybe. When you were reprimanded in the classroom, I can assure

you, Mr. Chairman, you knew that when you went home you were going to

get reprimanded worse — tougher. The old man was a little upset if he

heard that the teacher had trouble with you in the classroom. That's

the way it used to be. The teachers had our children for a period of

time, and we respected the amount of time and effort they put into

teaching our young people. As parents we knew.... My parents knew that

the key was to get the young boy or girl educated, because the key to

success in business was to give them success in education.

Many parents went out of their way to ensure that their child

attended school, and the parents were behind the teaching profession

when concerns arose in the classroom. That's changed. In many cases the

teaching profession has become the parent, the coach, the counsellor,

the confessor, all to the young boy or girl in the classroom. I'm not

throwing stones at parents or anybody else. It's nobody's fault; it's

society. It's the way we've matured, if you will. Single-parent

families; both parents working; drug and alcohol abuse; you can name a

number of them that have caused the impact on the teaching profession.

Rather than prolong it, Mr. Chairman, I for one — and I say this as minister, as a parent, as a member of government —

am not against the teaching profession. I have a great deal of respect

for them. But I also identify with the fact that I have a global

responsibility, which is that 1, as do my colleagues, have to manage

the provincial affairs responsibly so that we don't leave a legacy of

debt for the young people of this province to clean up after we're gone.

MR. ROSE: I find this is a recurring theme: that if we starve

education it somehow is going to provide jobs or a better economy.

Those just are not the facts. The facts are, if you continue to starve

education, you ruin the economy. Who wants to come here and invest and

work and...? As a matter of fact, you're not getting any investment.

You're losing investments to Alberta, to Quebec, to wherever. You've

taken money out of education funding and squandered it somewhere else.

I've just gone through this. In the last four years you've cut

education funding by 25 percent.

All right, let's agree that you don't solve problems by throwing money at them all the time —

unless the problem happens to be poverty. If you throw a little money

at that, it helps some. You could throw money at the food banks — which

you've created through this government and its policies — and that might

solve the problem, but surely you don't starve yourself into affluence

either. That's absolute tommyrot. I'm surprised at the minister who

said he had all those initials behind his name. I can think of a couple

that I could put behind his name, but I'm not mean enough for that. I'm

sarcastic but I'm not mean. I think that's ridiculous.

Does the minister think the child in grade 3 in 1986 — this year —

is better served than was a grade 3 student in 1982, or in '75? And in

what way are these children served better, since you obviously are

going to improve the school system by starving it to death?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I see we have some students in

the galleries. Welcome. This is called debate. It just happens to be on

the Minister of Education's budget...

MR. ROSE: Don't grandstand.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You'll have your opportunity.

...which funds the education system of this province. The member

opposite is debating that it's not enough, and I'm trying to defend the

government.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're lucky they can't vote.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, I don't want to get into

the number of years we've been elected as opposed to your party, but I

think it shows in the record that the people support us more than they

do you.

However, getting back to education — and I'm looking at page 30 of the 1986 budget if the member wants to follow along —

just for the record, the estimates in the Education ministry for

'86-87, $1.185 billion; the revised forecast to be spent in '85-86,

$1.092 billion. I'm not sure how your arithmetic is, but I can tell you

that that's ninety some odd million dollars more being spent this year

than last year. Now add to that the $110 million for the Excellence in

Education fund, which I will share with my colleague. That increases

the funding even over the $90 million I mentioned. These are facts, Mr.

Member. I'm not making these up; they're in a document presented to you

some weeks ago by the Minister of Finance.

If you want to debate the issue about the Excellence in Education

fund, which you and your colleagues call a scam, Mr. Member, will you

not agree that the money that has come out of the Excellence in

Education fund for non-salary inflationary items of $15.5 million, $6.1

million for textbooks and $19 million in last year's salary adjustments

to teachers has gone to-the education system? Therefore we've increased

the funding even further.

I'll agree with the member that when I came into this ministry the

Excellence in Education fund had basically been determined. When I went

out and talked to school boards and talked to teachers, one and two of

the areas that I found were of concern were textbooks and the teachers'

salary adjustments for last year.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, that's excellence.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Regardless, Mr. Member, if you want to call

it excellence or not, what it did do was solve a problem which was of

concern to the people in the education community — not your party, but the people in the education community.

[ Page 7957 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Just give it an honest name.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Member, there's no sense debating with

this man, because you're the man I want to talk to. Mr. Member, can I

say in retrospect or hindsight that maybe we should have had an

Excellence in Education fund for this year of $50 million to $60

million and increased the fiscal framework for the $50 million to $60

million which I have had to get for textbooks, salaries and

non-inflationary items. I'll concede that point to you, for but

heaven's sake let's not get hung up on this terrible thing that we've

done. It has still gone to education; what is left can be used for the

Excellence in Education fund for this year.

[3:15]

There is still $490 million in that fund in the next two years,

stated in the Minister of Finance's budget, to be used in those years

for those projects and programs that will originate in the field, with

the educators coming to Victoria and saying: "Mr. Minister, I've got a

good idea; this is the type of education instruction I want to put in

the school classroom." If it is evaluated by professionals who have

come from the field.... By the way, the majority of my people in my

ministry, as you well know, are former teachers, former principals and

vice-principals and former superintendents, all bringing with them the

expertise of the field. They can evaluate and recommend to me how we

can best use the money in the fund.

Let's not get caught up about the fact that the fund isn't a fund,

and it's not for excellence and all those silly things that this member

brings up. You know as well as I do the money was there and is being

passed on to the school districts, and rightly so. What is left now can

be addressed to deal with those specific projects that can come in from

local school districts and teachers.

MR. ROSE: Well, I think the minister makes a very convincing

argument to, perhaps, other Social Crediters, but he doesn't make a

very convincing argument to me. Nor does he make a convincing argument

to those school professionals who are out there called the

superintendents.

I have a quote here from the Vancouver Sun . Their representative — and I won't name the person —

on February 19, 1986, said: "...association acting president told the

news conference that the association believes teachers' salaries,

benefits and increments previously negotiated and accepted should be

paid before any special projects are undertaken."

I object to the excellence fund on this ground. I believe that if

there is a need for innovative ideas out in the field, then why not

give the people in the field, on a base rate in terms of education

funding, the kind of money that they need or the kind of tax base they

need, to establish these? Who are you, anyway? Are you God or

something, that they're going to go out there, and you are going to

rule on whether or not this thing passes?

I think that is absolute.... If it's not madness, it's the height of

egotism. It's more centralization; it is more control. What have you

left them in their property taxes, which we haven't even passed? You

left them with 8 percent of the tax base to raise the difference, after

you stole all the rest and put it in the central pot. That's what you

did — not you, not the current minister. That's what happened.

New money. You talk about new money to aid education excellence — $110

million. Let's not talk about the other $540 million, because who knows where

that's going to be? That's pie in the sky. That's a commitment. We had a commitment

to sunset the interim finance legislation. You went back on that not a month

ago. Don't talk to us about commitments. Nobody trusts you anymore over there.

You go back on your word all the time.

Here's where the money went. The universities, colleges and

institutes adjustment fund, $27 million, cancelled. That's where you

got $27 million for your aid to excellence. Underfunding of the public

system over last year, some cool $65 million. You cut textbooks for

children, until you were caught at it, by $11 million. If courses

couldn't go ahead, new programs had to be cut. The same thing's

happening now in your new French program. You haven't sent your kits

out yet to the rural areas — kits and cassettes, things that are needed

for exams. Cutting special initiatives, vote 64, $1.8 million.

There's $105 million. What have you spent it on so far? It's a

shell-game. It's not new money. Some $24.5 million for non-salary

inflation — that's excellence? On university operating budgets, $5.6

million taken out. Excellence at the universities? Nonsense; absolute

tommyrot. College operating budgets, $4.4 million. That's what you gave

to it.

Student aid, $6.2 million. Do you know the last time you had student

aid how much you spent in a year- $23 million. You're going to give

back $6.2 million in some sort of grant or scholarship or something

like that and kid everybody that we're doing something for student aid?

We've got the lowest participation rate in post-secondary in Canada,

except for Newfoundland. It hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.

This is excellence!

Textbooks. Where are the innovative ideas? I can't think of one

here. Maybe this $3.3 million for programs at BCIT. That could be it.

But remember that this doesn't go to the public schools; this goes to

the colleges. It doesn't go to the schools at all. Think of that poor

little kid in grade 3 that I talked about that you didn't even bother

answering. What kind of excellence are they getting out of this?

Nothing, so far. You haven't approved a thing for the schools that I

know of. A $19 million big announcement the other day for salaries, for

increment. We even think, as a matter of fact we know, that those

people who gave salary increases last year benefited from that fund,

and those who didn't, like Prince George — where is the other minister?

He's disappeared into the forest, the ex-minister — they don't get any.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

You tell me where the excellence programs are. Let's cut out the

claptrap and get down to what really counts in education. I know you've

got a tough job selling these policies, Mr. Minister. I certainly

wouldn't want your job — well, not with your budget; I wouldn't mind

having your job, although I've seen very few winners come out of the

Ministry of Education. That's even tougher than Agriculture, Mr.

Minister.

I'd like to know what really happened to that poor little kid in

grade 3. Is that child better served than the grade 3 student in 1982

or in 1975? In what ways, because of the policies of this government,

is that child served better?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, it seems that we get on one

track, and the member opposite gets on that track and I could say

anything I want and he still won't be diverted, so I'm not sure that he

really wants to listen to my responses.

[ Page 7958 ]

Mr. Chairman, I think the member mentioned more centralization. If you look

at the Excellence in Education fund, beyond your political vision, you'll find

that we're attempting to have less centralization. Your party would say, "This

is how we're going to do it," and it goes out. What we've said in the Excellence

in Education fund is: let's hear the ideas from those people in the field —

the educators, the teachers in the classroom. Let's have their input.

Mr. Member, you'll be interested in knowing.... You're quite

correct, there's been no project funded to date. But I do have, my

deputy tells me, 30 applications as of today for that fund. Even with

all the political rhetoric over there, the educators out in the field

are looking at it and saying: "There's an opportunity here for us, and

we're going to take advantage of it." I'm quite prepared to look at it.

Then you talk about the cutback in textbooks. You know that's not

right. You know the leaked document that you got, Mr. Member. I have a

copy of it, and if you read it out in its entirety, you know that what

you say is not correct. You know that over the past several years

there's been $11 million to $12 million per year go into

textbook-funding, and it was this year as well. What you got in the

leaked document was a list that said we need some additional funds for

priority 1, priority 2 and priority 3, and the total of the three

priority items came out to $22 million. Correct?

MR. ROSE: No.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, I'm sorry. You'd better read it again, because I know it's correct.

What I did do, Mr. Member, because I heard the concern expressed by

the school districts and school boards, but primarily by the teachers

whom I met with, was go back to my staff and say: "Look, I understand

changes of curriculum." And you can appreciate, Mr. Member, that this

was probably a week or two after I was appointed, and I was getting

briefed, etc. There was a concern expressed by the school districts and

teachers that with changes in curriculum they needed these additional

textbooks. They said: "Yes, Mr. Minister, we feel very strongly that we

should have priority one and priority two primarily because of the

changes in curriculum." So we got enough — $6.1 million, I think it was —

which brought the figure up to a total of $17.25 million for textbooks

this year. That dealt with priority one and priority two on my staff's

briefing document to me, of which you obtained, in the dead of night, a

copy in a brown envelope. And you rushed to the press and had a big

press conference and said: "Isn't it terrible. There have been cutbacks

in education." Wrong — and you know it's wrong. You were fudging, or

fabricating — maybe that's a better word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Was that really close to saying that he was not telling the truth?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's close enough, yes. Just a withdrawal of

any imputation of wrongdoing on the part of the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody will suffice.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry. I withdraw. He was exaggerating.

The one thing we didn't cover-which is still short of the $22 million —

was priority three, which dealt with, I believe —and I could find the document

here — the textbooks for math. The changes in curriculum flowing through

will not take place until 1987, I believe, and the staff said: "No, that

isn't a high priority item. That one could be delayed." And that was the

decision that was made.

Mr. Member, you asked me a question that I must say I really can't

answer. Given time, I'll be able to answer it. You asked me whether or

not the little girl or boy in grade 3 is better served this year than

in 1975. In general terms I'll say yes, that child is better served.

She or he is better served, better educated, better prepared for

education as we approach the twenty-first century. There's no question

about it, because our teachers are being constantly upgraded — they

upgrade their education. And new teachers come on with new ideas. If

you address the question of funding, as you seem to always go back to,

Mr. Member, I can only say that that debate will never end. Regardless

of how much money I put into this budget, there will always be somebody

who finds a reason that there should be more. But to answer your

question, I'd say yes, that young person is better educated today than

he was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

AN HON. MEMBER : Be non-partisan.

MR. ROSE: Well, I certainly wouldn't want to raise any political questions in here.

What the ministry's document says about the various math programs

that were supposedly priority three.... Actually, if you go by the

list, things of lower priority, such as fine arts, were funded. The

fact that you're short of textbook money didn't start just this year. I

can give you a report of the Vancouver School District — not from the

board — which indicates an appalling situation regarding textbooks in other areas. It says in the ministry's synopsis —

I'm quoting from the document delivered to me in the dead of night in a

plain brown envelope: "Math 3, 4, 5 and 6 needed nearly $4 million.

Recent math assessments indicate serious concerns at elementary grades,

which will continue to be ignored; embarrassment to the major

publishers, who have rushed to meet the ministry's 1986 deadlines...."

Cancelling of this was something that wasn't considered before about

March, in my view. Otherwise why would the publishers rush to meet the

deadlines? Why was the textbook thing of $22 million cut by 50 percent

in March, shortly after the minister took office — and all of a sudden

the money turns up again in the Excellence in Education fund? That's

nonsense.

So short supply and some old math texts which are obsolete, "which

we really do not want to purchase or are under reorder — major

disappointment by districts whose elementary schools have been geared

up for the new, more effective instructional methods." A million

dollars for math 9 and 10 — same argument. Math 8: "Postponement of

alternative math 8 choice will have little consequence, as Nelson math

2 text satisfies the needs of the majority of students." So that's all

right — I think that I'm even-handed enough to admit that. Nevertheless,

it was done at the last minute. It wasn't something that was planned

for in any particular way at all.

[3:30]

So I would like to know what the minister feels, having to do with

this grade 3 child and grade 2 children, or whatever, about the fact

that funds for learning assistance have been cut

[ Page 7959 ]

in a mainstream classroom. Or if it is a

multi-grade classroom, such as many small school districts have, how is

that grade 3 child better served now than she was in '82, when ESL

people have been fired; when classes in the lower mainland areas — at least 50 percent of them —

exceed the class size that is required, or at least suggested, as

optimal? What I would like to know is: what does the minister intend to

do about increasing the aid in certain specialties so that we can

reduce class size, give those children that have learning difficulties

some assistance, and provide better kinds of education for many of

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, with regard to special

education, to a great extent, the member, I am sure, is aware that the

request for funding under special education, which is function 3 in the

fiscal framework — it gets very complicated — primarily is driven by the

local school board or school district. In other words, my ministry

responds to those who need additional assistance over and above the

there is funding in for those students. The numbers, as I understand

it, are also generated at the local level. Again, the member comes back

to funding. That funding for special education has not been reduced,

but has been protected in the Ministry of Education's budget, but

related to the numbers of students who require assistance through the

special education program.

With regard to the evaluation process, the member mentioned grade 3

students and asked whether they are being better educated. I'm told by

my deputy that the assessment program, which takes place in grade 4,

shows there's been an improvement in both arithmetic and reading. That

can only, I think, result....

MR. ROSE: Over what years?

HON. MR. HEWITT: From '75 to '86, so I'm trying to give you

that comparison. We start evaluation in grade 4, if you will. If it's

improved in grade 4, from '75 to '86, I think I can make the assumption

— and you can — that the grade 3 teacher, and the grade 2 and grade 1

teacher, had a part to play in that improvement when the grade 4

student was evaluated.

MR. ROSE: All I know is that the ministry is currently very

concerned about the increase in dropout rates. I would be very much

interested in whether or not the trend lines are the same — '75 to '85 —

as they are since the restraint program. You've got the withdrawal of

services, job action and that sort of thing, low teacher morale, and

fewer teachers in the system by about between 2,000 and 3,000. I'm not

sure that that could be maintained. If you choose your years well

enough, you can almost prove anything. People who have argued on both

sides of fences know that.

I'd like to ask you another question. It really has to do with

philosophy, Mr. Minister. I'd like to ask you whether or not you

believe that each child, talented or otherwise, is entitled to an

education according to his or her needs, and their interests,

consistent with the province's ability to pay for it. Or do you still

believe that your government was right to single out children — and you

have — for cuts in service each year since 1982? It seems inconsistent

to me to serve the needs of every person's child — talented, ESL,

learning-handicapped, physically handicapped or otherwise —

while cutting the program and slaughtering the institution of the

public school by a total of 25 percent, if you count inflation, or over

$300 million in the last three years.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to say that

the argument again is going to relate back to funding. We've attempted,

first of all, to develop a system, through the fiscal framework, to

fund all students equitably across the province. We also take into

consideration the special education needs; we've done that, and we've

provided the funding for it. Those rural areas are also given

consideration, to get a proper education, even though they may be in a

rural or remote area of the province. I can answer the member by saying

that compared to 1975 — and that's the date he used; using that as an index, if you will —

the number of pupils have dropped in the education system primarily

because, of course, of the lack of new children coming along to fill

those classrooms. So the student population has dropped, but the

teacher population is still well above what it was per student in 1975.

That would indicate to you that we have not, even despite our restraint

program, reduced the number of teachers to what it was in 1975. When I

say numbers, I mean relative numbers. I don't want to get caught in the

actual numbers; I mean the relative numbers compared to student

population.

We also have taken into consideration, as I am sure the member will

identify, the fact that many young people were not given the ability in

the classroom of working and playing with their peers. We are now

attempting to put them in the classroom so they can work and play with

children the same age, even though they may be handicapped in one way

or another. Any social worker can tell you that that certainly has done

a lot to bring them along a lot further than they would have been

brought along had they been isolated.

So those are the efforts that are being made not by ministers or by

government but by people in education, by my staff and by

superintendents and teachers, in giving direction to how best we can

provide an education for our young people. Mr. Member, again I just

repeat that you and I can debate the issue of funding, because that is

always what it seems to come back to, and I'll attempt to argue the

rest of the day that our funding is adequate. If you can point out

areas of major concern, I can assure you I will do my best to address

them. But don't just start arguing about the fact that we've cut back

in dollars. It's not true, Mr. Member; there are more dollars spent in

education today than there have been in other years.

MR. ROSE: I don't think you can talk about that in terms of

constant dollars. You can't ignore inflation. Inflation over the last

three or four years has got to be at least 15 percent if not more than

that; some people would put it at over 20 percent. So if you're talking

about constant dollars, you're ignoring that whole inflation thing, and

if you choose to do that, well, that's fine. I don't care. But the

problem is....

Here is another paper. Here is a guy who I would think is a very

thoughtful, moderate individual, a professor or a college instructor,

and he is chairman of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. It took

the ministry — not you, Mr. Minister.... It took eight months and a

trouncing from our Premier to turn a mild-mannered, cooperative guy

into a thumping militant. You did that. You turned this man who tried

to cooperate into a man who is sharply critical of you and your whole

approach now. What has it got to do with? It's not just funding. BCSTA

says school funds talk is a sham. I

[ Page 7960 ]

don't think that a moderate would talk like that.

Who politicized this man? He thought he could work with you. He was a

Social Crediter. He may still be. But he is no friend of yours now.

It isn't just the radical left, the pinkos over here, who are making

sounds like that. You've turned thousands of teachers against you as

well. Some of them were your supporters. I could never understand why a

teacher, being an intelligent individual, would be supporting you

anyway, but aside from all that you have radicalized a lot of people.

And you are going to radicalize a lot more, because for the first time —

and I went through the wars between the trustees and the teachers —

you've thrown these strange bedfellows into one another's arms. They

are really concerned. You put them through all kinds of knots and

hoops. You haven't changed the School Act. It still forces them to

bargain, to negotiate and ultimately by the end of the year to go to

compulsory arbitration. Then when it goes to Mr. Peck and he gives them

a raise, the framework says, "I'm sorry, we can't deliver that kind of

money," so they don't get it and that forces the school boards to break

contracts they've signed with their teachers.

I don't know if that is going to be fixed up in the new Bill 12. But

I don't want to anticipate legislation, Mr. Chairman; I am wise to your

admonitions. I will not venture into that field again, although the

minister did. He talked extensively about how he has restored the

property taxing powers and that kind of thing. But I won't go into it

in that detail.

The minister talked about — and we talked about — special problems

in education: children with learning difficulties and how they've been

mainstreamed and how they can go to school with their peers. I don't

think anybody objects to that. I think that that is a perfectly

sensible, reasonable and humane thing to do. I think the way we've shut

them away in the past was cruel and inhumane. There's no question about

it; if you've got a class full of nice, well-behaved and obedient

children that are bright scholars, if there are 40 in the class you can

probably manage pretty well.

kids with learning difficulties, or a lot of kids with other kinds of

social problems — like from single parents and all these other things —

then you're in for real trouble. I hope the minister wasn't implying

that we're opposed to this concept of mainstreaming. We say mainstream,

of course; it's humane, it's decent, it's honourable. The kids are with

their peers. No question about that. But what we object to is

mainstreaming without the proper support services.

We don't even know how to assess learning difficulties in this

province, because our teachers are not given, by and large, any means

of even identifying a learning disabled, difficult child. A child with

any kind of learning difficulty.... I heard of a horror story when

I was up in Salmon Arm two weeks ago. In order to get a proper

assessment — they aren't in the schools, they are not in the local

health centres, they are nowhere — they have a private assessor in the

form of a psychiatrist that comes into Kamloops.

Do you know how much it costs? It costs 700 bucks to get a child

assessed. A parent came to me with a child with severe difficulties.

They couldn't even get that child assessed because they didn't have

$700. Cases like that I think shouldn't have to depend on the

generosity of the local Lions Club. They belong as a responsibility of

the school, because every parent pays taxes, and every parent has the

right to have an education assessment suitable to the child.

I see the former Minister of Agriculture is looking at me. I hope I haven't kept him awake throughout this.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Very relaxed. The strongest man in the world, Doug Hepburn, once said: "Better a has-been than a never was."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, he did, to me.

It is a very serious problem, this business of learning

difficulties. About six months ago, I was up in Cranbrook. I travel a

lot, you know, Mr. Minister. I go around, and I consult with the

people. I even talk to school boards. I've even been known to talk to

teachers. One of the things that came out, and this is very interesting

because this brief was presented to this NDP task force — or listening

force or whatever you want to call it — from an active Social Crediter

very closely connected with the former Provincial Secretary's office.

She presented this brief, and it says that 88 percent of juvenile

delinquents are learning disabled. All right, you have kids with

learning disabilities and you put them in those huge classes — 50 percent over what they should be in the lower mainland —

and those kids are not going to be well treated. I don't care what you

say about that average little kid in grade 2 or grade 3 or whatever

about getting better education. Eighty percent of teenage suicides are

learning disabled.

I'll give you a few more horror stories; I could read you the whole

brief, but I'd rather read you the textbook thing most of the time. But

anyway, if identification and remediation are in place by grades K to

3, there is a success rate of 86 percent. In other words, if you spot

these difficulties soon enough, there are possibilities of remediation.

If there is no identification or remediation in place until grades 4 to

7, then the success rate is 45 percent. If there is no identification

or remediation in place until grades 8 to 12, there is only a limited

success rate of 10 percent.

[3:45]

When you are interested in the numbers of graduates and the numbers

of dropouts out of the B.C. school system, perhaps the lack of

identification and assessment for kids with learning difficulties is a

serious one and should be addressed. It has implications for lots of

other ministries too: the Ministry of Human Resources — if a kid can't

get a job, he becomes a disabled adult; the Attorney-General — they end

up in the clink; Ministry of Labour — it costs you a lot more money to

train kids that can't read.

It's a very serious thing and I don't think it should be ignored. I

don't think that our department of education is doing nearly enough in

this area. Unfortunately, it takes money, and it's as simple as that. I

want to know whether the minister believes that each child, talented or

otherwise, is entitled to an education according to his needs. The kids

that are in the class of '85 graduating this year, to what future I

don't know, were in grade 3 in 1975. That's when this government took

over.

I think they're going to want to know why their education was

sacrificed while we import skilled people. If you've only got about

half the number — half is a little harsh — of graduates from post-secondary education at our colleges

[ Page 7961 ]

compared to other parts of Canada, it seems to me

that the skill development there is going to be higher in other

jurisdictions. We already know that it costs more money to go to

university if you live in the rural areas. Therefore your participation

rate is about 7 percent, and it's 15 percent for kids who live in West

Point Grey, or Vancouver and the lower mainland.

But since we've got no student aid program worth talking about,

really, if you have to go through school on a loans program, it costs

you $15,000 more to get a B.A. than it does in Ontario. So it's got to

the point now where people in British Columbia are sending their kids

to post-secondary education.... Because you burnped the fees by 30

percent and you scooped off the money from the EPF so it didn't go to

education, or at least not enough of it. That's arguable. Maybe you

would like to argue about that. But if you don't have a proportion

equal to that of other jurisdictions, when we come out of this

Socred-induced depression we're in, who's going to get the jobs? It'll

be those kids who have had their education at other places. And while

we export our teachers, we'll be importing our skilled people in other

areas. So what are you going to say to those people when they come here?

Finally on this section, I'd like to ask a couple of final

questions. I'd like to know what the minister sees as the relationship

between the school system — how it articulates with the post-secondary

education sector. I'll give you a few hints about what I'm interested

in finding out. Are you going to continue to let the universities

dominate the high schools the way you have? I know the dropout rate is

increasing because you've made the high schools in our province less

open. There aren't as many courses or options. When you have every

man's child going through school, you've got to offer those

multi-talented people some different kinds of options than merely the

academic, which all those profs want them to have.

There's an elitism in our school system. It's been there for a long

time. But I think that our kids in school should have an opportunity to

take a much wider variety of courses and still be able to go on. They

need to be able to take courses in the humanities and the arts. Those

aren't just frills. So I want to know his views on that.

Here's another stat: what's happening in the schools of B.C. that

resulted in the participation rates increasing in post-secondary

education less than I percent in B.C., where in other jurisdictions

they went up 16 percent? The participation rates in B.C. In

post-secondary education went up less than I percent, and in other

jurisdictions they went up 16 percent.

HON. MR. HEWITT: When?

MR. ROSE: Well, between '80 and '85 are the figures I have here, but I wouldn't swear to it.

No coaching. Don't give him any help. He's doing fine.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to go back and talk to some of

the issues that were raised. Are we going to provide education

according to the students' needs? I think if the member is familiar

with the fiscal framework in function 3, he'll find that we've

attempted to identify those special needs and fund them accordingly.

To give you some of the divisions within function 3, for example:

trainable mentally handicapped, severe and profoundly handicapped,

physically handicapped, visually impaired, hearing impaired, autistic,

severely learning-disabled, mentally handicapped, severe behaviour

education, gifted students. We have those all identified as areas of

concern, not by the politician but by the educator who has attempted to

devise a system where we can provide additional instruction in the

mainstreaming of the child who may have a handicap in some way but is

still able to be with his or her peers. We have provided in the system

additional funding related to the students, so that there can be a

teacher, an additional part of a teacher, if you will — a teacher's

aide — based on the number of students identified by the local school

board as to what their needs are. That's not centralization. That's an

attempt by my staff, in developing this document, to respond to the

needs that originate in the local schools.

I agree with you, or concede the fact that maybe we have to look to

fine-tuning these items. I gather that in the last few years since this

formula was brought into being there is a review committee that meets

in the fall of each year to evaluate the system, the formula, and make

recommendations for change. My staff advise me that approximately 80 to

85 percent of those recommendations for change from the committee of

educators have been accepted.

In regard to how we articulate with the universities, Mr. Chairman,

I think it's fair to say that we've attempted to have a system whereby

the student has to be evaluated, and examinations are now in place.

Granted, they are a challenge to the student, but at the same time they

are an evaluation to see whether or not they have been educated in the

classroom to a level where they can be accepted in the university

classroom so that we don't graduate young people that are faced with a

major task of trying to catch up when they go into first-year

university. As some university professors say from time to time, they

have to re-educate them because they haven't been properly educated.

We have in the high school system....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Member, it is not getting worse. It

is that we have changed the system, if my memory serves me right, which

was identified in the NDP era: "Examinations, for heaven's sake! Don't

deal with those things. Let's not have that terrible onus put on the

child." You know as well as I do that in real life you are challenged

from day to day, and if you don't learn to accept those challenges in

the classroom, then it is going to be much tougher on you when you get

out in the workforce.

We also identify in the high school through counsellors.... . We

assist young persons to determine whether they wish to take the

academic course so they can go on to post-secondary education, or

whether they are looking at the arts or whether they are looking at a

vocation. We've attempted to give them assistance in making their

choices.

Mr. Member, I don't see a problem between us and the universities.

If I do see a problem between us and the universities, I can assure you

this minister can debate long and loud with my colleague the Minister

of Post-Secondary Education

[ Page 7962 ]

(Hon. R. Fraser) or with university professors or

with university presidents. I can see there may be times when I am

going to have to say: "Look, if you want our young people to be

prepared for post-secondary education, then we've got to work

together." There is not going to be any pressure put on us from

university professors, as you seem to think there is.

Just to correct the record, I am told by my staff.... This goes back

a long time, and I apologize to a former Social Credit government. I am

told by my staff that exams went out in 1970. I would have thought it

was 1972 or 1973 or 19741 for one support having examinations in

school. I think it is important that those exams are carried out, and I

appreciate that they put pressure on young people, but that is part of

education as well. I think it is fair to say that standards have

improved, that results are being achieved because of examinations in

the classroom.

MR. ROSE: It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. If

standards have improved, then why do we need to reeducate the students

when they get to university? I just find that argument inconsistent. I

don't understand it, but I am a slow learner.

As far as exams are concerned, I don't think anybody objects to

exams or that you need some measure of evaluation. Pedagogues,

though.... There is a good deal of research to say this. They are not

always the most practical people in the world, even if they are

experienced experts who work for the Ministry of Education. Pedagogues

and research generally have indicated that the best kind of assessment

is really teacher assessment, but if you are going to use exams, don't

have all your eggs in one basket. I don't think a child should stand or

fall on the basis of one provincewide exam.

I would be interested to know too, speaking of exams, when the

ministry is going to be able to report the number of people who have

taken exams, what success rate or failure rate, whether they had to

boost or alter the scores. I've forgotten the term for it now, I

haven't done it for so long. I'd be interested in that.

Finally on this

section 1'd like to ask the minister if he feels

that there is a link between the cut in educational spending.... He

doesn't agree that they've been cut. He says in dollars they haven't

been. I say in inflation they've been cut about 25 percent, while

enrolment, by the way, has dropped 10 percent. You slashed it about 25

or 20 percent in 1983. I understand the echo of the baby boom is going

to change that somewhat.

But you're going to get into the California system pretty soon,

where if you chase people out of the profession.... You're doing a

pretty good job of it because there are relatively few young teachers

in.... Only 377 under 25 are employed this year. I want to ask the

minister whether he feels there is a direct link between educational

spending and the declining real levels of investment in our province.

Or does he blame it on something else?

[4:00]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I challenge the quorum.

[Interruption. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes a quorum. Debate on vote 16 continues.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite keeps

commenting on the California issue, and the fact that representatives

are coming up from California and hiring away our schoolteachers. They

have absconded with his daughter and taken her down there so she can

teach in California. Mr. Member, first of all, let me say that I am

really quite pleased that our teachers are identified as having the

quality to be in demand. People come up from California to interview

them and possibly provide them with a job. Also, Mr. Member, I have to

say that we compete with Toronto as well. Those same people who come up

to hold meetings and attempt to recruit our schoolteachers are also in

Toronto. They go to Alberta to do the same thing. I think it's fair to

say that because of the growth in student population down in the state

of California, there is a need for teachers. So they search to find the

best teachers, and they have the opportunity to come to British

Columbia, as well as to Alberta and to Ontario.

Of course, in British Columbia — and, I guess, in other parts of Canada —

our student population has dropped off. As a result, you find a

situation where you don't need as many teachers as you used to. I think

Mr. Stables' report — the appointed trustee of the Vancouver School Board —

indicated that between 1969 and 1985, I think it was, the population in

K to 12 dropped from 75,000 students to 50,000 students — a tremendous drop.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry. I said Mr. Stables, Vancouver

School Board. In the years 1969 to 1985 it dropped from 75,000 students

to 50,000; that's a reduction of 25,000 students in Vancouver. Think of

the impact on the teaching population in 15 years. There's no question

that there may be more teachers here than are required, because

teachers are driven by students; you have to have the students to have

the teachers there in the classroom to teach. There's no sense having

them in empty classrooms or classrooms with three or four. The taxpayer

just can't afford that size of class.

Mr. Chairman, other comments were made. We are often criticized in

regard to the salaries of teachers in British Columbia. As you know,

the average salary, provincewide, is some $37,000; but California

teachers start at $21,000, and they peak at $40,000. Our young people

start at about $24,000 and peak at about $43,000. I don't know what the

member's daughter makes in U.S. dollars when she lives in the United

States. And don't try to indicate that those are U.S. dollars; when you

relate them to Canadian dollars it doesn't wash, Mr. Member. I enjoy

debating with the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that if we look back a little bit

I think the member will remember that there was a time when we needed

teachers and we went on a recruiting drive to hire teachers from

England. We had a shortage. You can't have equal supply and demand.

There are times when you're going to have more or less than is needed.

The point is that it is the student population that primarily drives

the number of teachers that you're going to have in the province.

The fiscal framework, if the member doesn't already know about it,

indicates that there will be a teacher funded for every 25 to 27

students in grades K to 7, and one teacher for every 22 to 24 students

in grades 8 to 12. Our formula identifies that, on average, if the

class size works out to those

[ Page 7963 ]

figures, there's a teacher for every 22 to 24

students in 8 to 12, and then we have adjustments for special-needs

that funding is there and is adequate to cover the needs of the

children in the classroom on a basis that doesn't indicate that we need

classes of 40, 45, etc. I can appreciate that some classes go up over

25 to 30 students, because we can't equally divide each class into

common numbers of 25 to 27, but where there are some that are higher

than those average figures, you can appreciate that there are other

classrooms that are lower.

MR. ROSE: The minister's response just bristles with other

kinds of questions and comments and is so inviting. He lobs them over

here as big as grapefruits. He's suggesting, for instance, that the

reason we have to export unemployed teachers is because of decline in

enrolment. I grant you that that may be part of it, but since 1982

we've gotten rid of something like 3,200 teachers. Surely that isn't

all enrolment driven. That's too much to ask, far too much — 3,200

positions have been cut out of the system. There might have been a drop

of 10 percent in student enrolment since 1982, but I doubt if there'd

be much more than that. The minister has got his number-cruncher over

there and he's looking at these things, and I hope he'll come up with

it.

The minister told the B.C. school trustees that there's no money for

education because of jobs, jobs, jobs. This reminds me of Jaws III, our

Prime Minister. The thing that he's really concerned about is the jobs —

3,200 jobs out of the system. How many jobs has he created in B.C.? The

number of teachers under 26 years of age was 2,159 in 1979; in 1985,

just 377. The profession is dying out. There aren't any jobs, and if

the average teacher's salary is $37,000 a year, which is the average

salary of a working family in British Columbia so the average teacher

makes an average salary for British Columbia — then what I would like

to know is how many jobs have you created, what are you going to do

about jobs in education, and what do you expect the future's going to

be for people?

Nobody wants to go into a profession that's constantly being

attacked as "greedy," so you don't give them any salary raises for

three years, "lazy," so you increase the size of their classes, and

"incompetent," so you put exams on them to make sure and check them up.

I have no objection to exams. I just don't think every child's future

should ride on the basis of one exam, because provincial exams are

notoriously poor indicators of future success in education or anything

else.

Here's the number of teachers under 31 years of age: 8,000 or more

in 1979; 3,000 now. The reason that the salaries are increasing on the

average is because the young teachers, who are the lower-paid teachers,

are not being hired and they're first fired — except if you live in

West Van. The people who are being retained because of seniority

provisions — under Bill 3 in 1983 — are the more senior ones and

therefore are higher up in the salary scale. Your whole framework,

since it's based on the previous years and their salaries, perpetuates

increase without getting any more bang for your buck, really. You're

just paying more and on average you're getting more senior teachers

there.

As for the salary comparison with California, we went into this one before.

The minister suggested that they weren't as well paid down there. He's changed

his tune today, because he read the figures. I don't know if he got them out

of the Vancouver Sun or where he got them. I have them here. One of the figures

is wrong. It says that senior teachers in B.C. make about $36,000 a year. We

know that a PA (max) makes about as much as an MLA.

MR. REID: You know that's not true.

MR. ROSE: I know. I just said it was. I said a PA (max) makes

about as much as an MLA, which is about $43,000 a year. And we have

very poor job security too, which makes it even worse.

MRS. JOHNSTON: They only work nine months of the year.

MR. ROSE: Are you back again? Oh God, George Burns and Gracie Allen have come back in here....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Where are you when we really need you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. ROSE: I was responding to the heckling that I'm getting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you respond to the heckling comments through the Chair.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, why don't you let the boards decide

what they're going to do about how they spend their money? You have the

framework. I have no objection to having a framework with guidelines

suggesting certain things. This year your framework delivered funds

that didn't even make up the status quo budget, equal to last year. It

was a cut.

Equality is not equity, and there are certain costs in certain

districts that are not equivalent all across the province. That's where

I think you make your mistake — in your bureaucratic centralization

known as the framework.

I would like the minister to indicate to me — and he never did get around to answering that question —

whether or not there's a direct link between investment, which is

declining, and the cuts in educational spending that we've undergone in

the last three years.

[4:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, first of all I compliment my

staff, because they have a massive amount of material they provide me.

I thought I'd use this one, because I think it's important that the

member see the track record. This is dropouts as a percentage of

September 30 net enrolment each year starting in 1971. I'll bore you

with the figures, Mr. Member. In '71 it was 7.3 percent; in '72, 8.7

percent; in '73, 8.6 percent; in '74, 8.5 percent; in '75, 7.5 percent —

probably a change there in administration; in '76, 7.9 percent; in '77,

7.9 percent; in '78, 7.8 percent; in '79, 7.9 percent; in '80, 7.9

percent; in '81, 7.9 percent; in '82, 6.5 percent; in '83, 6.3 percent;

in '84, 6.95 percent; and I don't have '85. If I were to look back to

1975, which is the key year

[ Page 7964 ]

that the member continues to refer to, we are less

than we were then. Our dropout rate as a percentage of previous

September 30 enrolment is down. That's a good sign. I think both of us

are pleased to see that. It would be nice to get it down even further.

Mr. Member, you talked about the aging of teachers. That's quite true. As in

any industry, business or commercial activity, when you have a reduction of

staff for whatever reason, usually those with experience are the ones who stay,

and those with the least experience are the ones to go, and that happens to

be the person on the job a little less time than the ones who are retained.

There is also the issue of competency and ability in the classroom. The member

opposite referred to it. There is one case where a school board said: "We

are going to make the decision based on ability." I guess maybe I shouldn't

be referring to it, but that issue is being challenged in the courts on its

constitutionality, if I understand it.

So that's one statistic that you wanted and you've got. I think it

shows an improvement. The difference in debate may well be, what is

1985? Is it going to be a disaster? I can't answer you that; we haven't

got those figures yet. You can appreciate that the young people aren't

through their school year. The other is that 6.95 percent is too high.

I don't disagree with that, Mr. Member. I'd like to see it down to less

than I percent, but I don't know whether we can achieve that.

And then you said: "Let the local school boards decide on how to spend

the money." Mr. Member, that's basically what the fiscal framework does.

They have the ability at the school board level to move funds to each function.

MR. ROSE: No, within the function.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No. Just a minute. I'm fairly new, but my

understanding in talking with my staff is that it's through the

functions, one to seven. My staff say that I am correct, Mr. Member,

and you are incorrect. They have that flexibility of moving the moneys

for various functions within the school district on the school board's

decision, and that does give them that autonomy to do that. I think

that's good. They should have that ability, because who has the best

knowledge of what's happening in the local level if it's not the school

district and the administration? So we have responded to your concern

there.

MR. ROSE: I think that this is more doublethink. Surely, if

the minister wasn't present.... But I was, when the Coquitlam School

Board visited the minister, and so were the officials. When they tried

to move $600,000 which they had saved from maintenance into salaries,

they were refused the right to do that by the previous minister. I've

got it in my own.... He's giving him the answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got to check it; that's not a fact.

MR. ROSE: Well, just a minute. I know what was said. I was

here in 1983 during the debates when the former minister promised the

school boards precisely that — that they could move it among the

functions, not just within the functions. But when they tried to do

that — from maintenance to salaries — they were refused, and they were

not granted that $600,000.

We also know what happened in Surrey, in terms of what the framework

delivered in growth. It ended up that they had a thousand new kids in

Surrey in the spring of 1984, and all the framework gave them was

$1,000 less than they needed. So Surrey, because of the anticipated

growth potential, needed an extra million bucks and had to get a

special order to get it, because the formula and framework for growth

were insufficient to meet those funds.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the member for

Coquitlam-Moody has been recognized and has the floor. He should be the

only person speaking, except for interruptions by the Chair. If the

member for Coquitlam-Moody would direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. ROSE: Anyway, I think the framework is bureaucratic. I

have no objection to guidelines. I don't see how the minister can argue

that there really is local decisionmaking when the whole framework

determines the budget, and the total of the budget is determined by

Victoria, except for that puny little 8 percent of the tax base that

the boards may be able to tax in future.

The dropout rate is a serious thing. To say it's declining....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Marginally. You said year by year. What does that

mean? There are 12 years in a school life for most people. If 7 percent

each year are dropping out, conceivably there's only 4 percent left at

the end of the 12 years. You know that's not true, and that's hogwash.

You mean to tell us that there's only 7 percent year after year?

There's 0.2 percent between grades I and 7; but boy, watch it later on.

I'm not suggesting that you intentionally mislead us, but you certainly

confuse us and confound us with the suggestion that there's only 7

percent dropping out over the whole life of a school system, when you

know and I know that that's not true. So it went down from 7 percent to

6.9? Isn't that really terrific?

The minister likes to indulge in nostalgia. He likes to look back to

when life was simple. He wallows in nostalgia. I'm quite sure that he

feels that he got a better education in the little red schoolhouse. He

ignores the explosion in knowledge. Maybe it's because he hasn't

absorbed any. How do I know?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Minister, you raised the issue. That's

about all you can raise any more. But I want to tell you something

about hair. It not only grows up, it grows down. Now if it grows down

and hits grey matter, then it comes out grey. But if the roots grow

down and don't hit anything, it falls out. Or so I'm told.

MS. BROWN: What does the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) have to say about that?

MR. ROSE: I don't know.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's rude.

[ Page 7965 ]

MR. ROSE: Well, he raised it. I wasn't going to mention it.

Let's get on to something else. Why don't we get onto something

else? I was going to get a substitute. I thought the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) was going to get up for a little while.

I want to know, because I'm going to talk a little bit more in

detail, Mr. Minister, about goals and curriculum in the second segment

of my diatribe. I'm sorry if I'm keeping the Minister of Health awake.

Or is it the member...? Oh, it's the member in the chair, the Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm not attacking the Chair. We have a shift system

going on here. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) just decided to

shift out. I'll miss him. Come back soon, because unless you provoke me

I might run out of speech.

Mr. Minister, I want to know what the government decides in terms of

goals for acceptable standards of literacy for British Columbia

students. What level do you expect or do you anticipate? What is our

goal for literacy standards? We know that in many societies in North

America — perhaps we're somewhat better than the average for the States —

functional adult illiteracy runs in excess of 20 percent, even 25

percent. So I want to know what the minister's standards are for

acceptable levels of literacy? Is it passing grade 8, 9, 11, or

graduating by grade 12? I would like to know what your aims are?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Two things, Mr. Chairman. I think, if you

are looking at young people going through the school system from K to

12, there's no question that our goal is to ensure that when they come

So that, I guess, would be a simple goal that we would be looking at.

If you are looking at adults who have come to this country, then I

think the college and night-school courses are certainly important to

make sure we give those new Canadians the opportunity to learn the

language so that they can obtain employment in the marketplace.

I am just looking at an item here that I thought I would make the

member aware of. The concern is out there. I want to relate that to a

speech that was made by Lorne Bolton, president of the Institute of

Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, who called on professions

and businesses to work with educators and government in creating a

mission for the education system. He expressed his grave concern,

uncovered by chartered accountants in their examinations of young

candidates for the profession. He said his group had identified three

main areas of concern about young people attempting to become chartered

accountants, and suggested that other professions and businesses were

encountering the same problems. He said the first deficiency was in the

written skills, the second in the lack of key thinking skills, and the

third in the inability to work in an unstructured situation. Those are

three concerns that the head of the chartered accountants' association

of British Columbia has.

I am deeply concerned. If we have businessmen or professions in

British Columbia who feel that young people coming out of the high

school and post-secondary systems do not have an adequate command of

certainly be dealing with that issue in my tenure as Minister of

Education, to ensure that some of these statements made by heads of

associations will not continue, that they will be satisfied with the

quality of students graduating.

MR. ROSE: I am not always too impressed by the utterances and

musings of the chartered accountants. I know that the minister is an

accountant. I don't know if he is chartered, registered or certified — apparently there are three kinds.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not certified yet — I'm still registered.

MR. ROSE: I think there is some move to certify you, but I won't tell you what.

All I know is the story that the chartered accountants, if they get

too many accountants, flunk a few on their exams — a sort of self

policing, self regulating, self-fulfilling body. Anyway, I think their

views are worth thinking about.

What I want to know then, if the minister is concerned about this —

the level of functional illiteracy — is what plans, proposals and

programs has he got to improve this level?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, what programs does the

minister have to improve this level? I have the expertise of my

ministry staff and the educators in this province — to give me their

concerns and their guidance in ensuring that we address those problems

in the educational system. If we have a problem, then I am going to be

challenging my staff to address it, and to come up with how we improve

the record if the record is not good. I don't have any "specific

programs" that I can name to you across the floor of the House. Nor do

you expect me to respond, and if I did you wouldn't listen anyway,

because all you want to do is keep saying that whatever we do is

inadequate.

[4:30]

Mr. Chairman, if the member wants to, in debate or in corresponding

with my office, advise me of various concerns, I can assure him that I

will take his concerns. If they are justified, I would certainly take

action to see that they are corrected.

MR. D'ARCY: This may be something completely different — a la Monty Python —

but I have some questions for the minister. First of all, I would like

to congratulate him on his appointment and thank him for taking the

time in the last week or so to visit with the school boards in my

constituency and have a frank and open discussion with them. I'm not

sure he was happy with everything they told him, or that they were

happy with what he said, but the fact is he did make the effort to come

into the area and discuss things with the duly elected school boards in

Trail and Castlegar.

I wasn't going to talk in specifics; however, I do want to make a

comment on one area. Earlier in committee this afternoon the minister

mentioned that he took some pride in the fact that the student-teacher

ratio is still lower than it was ten years ago, in spite of the

economic restraint program of the government. I want to point out that

we all, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) said, can take

specifics to suit our particular bias. I suggest that it's not whether

the student-teacher ratio is greater or lesser than it was in 1976 or

1966 or 1956. The point is, there has been an ongoing

[ Page 7966 ]

evolution in the education system, and there are

more students in the system today with special learning problems and

special behavioural problems than there were 10 or 20, or even 5 years

ago. Many teachers in both of the school districts, including the

school in my own neighbourhood, have indicated to me that it's not that

they have more students in their classes than a few years ago, although

that's a factor. Nor is it even that they have more students with

learning difficulties or behavioural problems, although that is also a

problem. The real difficulty is that they have more students with

severe learning and behavioural problems than they had just a very few

years ago.

There have been other contributing factors to this difficulty in

delivering quality education to the students, one being the simple fact

that there is not the recess and noon-hour supervision that there used

to be. Teachers used to take this time to provide special remedial and

tutoring help to students with special needs. Now, because they're

keeping order during the noon hour and recess, they can't provide that

extra service — or at least they can't provide it to the same extent that they used to.

In any event, I had some local items, some questions I would like to discuss with the minister.

I don't know whether the school board in Castlegar brought it up

with the minister, but they — as well as other elements in the

community —

have raised with me the issue of an application which they have sent to

the Excellence in Education fund for assistance in establishing a

Russian language immersion course in district 9. I gather this has been

supported by other school boards and by the major group of people of

Russian extraction in the area, the USCC, which is based in Grand

Forks, in the minister's own constituency. I think the minister said

earlier in his remarks that under the excellence fund program, they

were looking for new quality programs in the classroom.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I submit to the committee that this is exactly within the guidelines

which the minister gave to this committee earlier. It's also a pilot,

in the sense that there may be other languages suitable for immersion

in that region because there are other major ethnic groups. It is my

understanding that the other major ethnic groups have in fact agreed

that the first established immersion program in the area should be a

Russian language program. I'd also like to point out to the committee

that the school board which endorsed this has only one member whose

ancestry is from eastern Europe, or what is now the Soviet Union. It

wasn't the Soviet Union when these people left it; it was czarist

Russia. So it's hardly a case of eastern Europeans or people from the

Ukraine or what is now the Soviet Union having sort of taken over the

school board. There are people of other ethnic extractions on that

board, including Italian.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any Scots people?

MR. D'ARCY: There is now, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure I could find one.

In any event, from an economic argument I'd like to point out that

one of our major trading partners in the Pacific Rim — when I say "our"

I mean Canada, specifically British Columbia —

which we don't discuss very much or think about very much is the Soviet

Union. One of the major trading ports through which material moves in

and out of the port of Vancouver is in fact the major Soviet port on

the Pacific, Vladivostok. So we're talking about a major trade

relationship as well. I would hope that the minister and the committee

of cabinet, I presume, within his ministry that looks at these

particular applications will look favourably on the proposal for

Russian immersion as an established course in School District 9

starting in September of next year.

Certainly the board is not in a position to take funding from other

programs within the district to set this up, but I would suggest to the

minister that there is great deal of community support for this

proposal from other groups as well. There are many families, as the

minister well knows, that only have one parent of Russian background;

many of those families are the ones that feel strongest about the

possibility of having their children have the opportunity for a Russian

immersion course.

Having got that off my chest, Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of

other items I would like to talk to the minister about. They're not

directly involved in education but involve his responsibilities as

chairman of the Expo 86 legacy fund. As I'm sure the minister is

aware....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, the member for Coquitlam-Moody is trying to get me declared out of order here.

MR. ROSE: Oh, no. I'm saying that it's okay, and he agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He was questioning your debate, but we agreed that it's in order.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have a number of applications from my constituency. There are two

in particular which I know have involved letter-writing campaigns,

because I've been written to and so has the minister on them. I was

wondering if the minister could give us a progress report on them. One

is the application for assistance for the Haley Park redevelopment in

Trail, which has already received, at the local level, a substantial

amount of community assistance, both municipal money, volunteer work

and a substantial amount of public subscriptions of funds through

door-knocking campaigns within the community.

The other proposal is the new library proposal from the Castlegar

Library Board, which has also received substantial amounts of community

support — self-starting, I might add — as well as good support from the

city council of Castlegar, which of course represents all of the

property owners and property tax payers in Castlegar.

I would like the minister to report to this committee as to a

progress report on both of these projects, as we're getting very close

to the opening of Expo 86, and all of us in the southern interior —

indeed, I'm sure, throughout the entire province, outside the lower

mainland —

are looking to the government to come through on the indications that

government spokesmen have made: that Expo 86 will have a continuing

presence in terms of assistance for permanent capital developments

throughout the communities of the southern interior.

[ Page 7967 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to deal with the

questions as they came. Rossland-Trail and the comment that the member

made with regard to pupil-teacher ratio. Back in 1975 it was 19.01

students per teacher. I appreciate that that took into consideration

non-teaching administrative staff. But that was the figure I was

working from, because the member for Coquitlam-Moody referred to 1975;

that was his key date.

In 1985 it was 18.05, so we're less than what it was. We also

appreciate that the special-needs students are of concern. You weren't

in the House, but we were talking about that before. I guess we're

attempting to put more money in that area. The request for dollars is

driven by the local school boards indicating that they have handicapped

or visually impaired, etc., students, and they need to classify them as

special-needs students.

Our budget in 1985-86 was $203 million. In 1986-87 it will be $220

million; so there is an increase there of a little less than 10 percent

in that particular category. Again, those numbers usually reflect the

needs at the local school board level, and the increase indicates that

we are responding to those needs.

Castlegar and the Russian language course. I met with the Castlegar

School Board. They talked to me about it. They have, I think,

kindergarten to grade I elementary Russian language, and they want to

expand it to grades 2 and 3. They were talking about the Excellence in

Education fund. However, I said that that was one of the areas that I

felt was quite logical to look to the local residential taxpayer for

funding for the expansion of that program, for two reasons. One is that

it serves the local community. The children of that school district

will have the ability to learn that language from kindergarten to grade

3. They also fund it now kindergarten to grade I out of the system that

they have, so any expansion they could take from local taxpayers. They

could fund it