1984 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3795 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Charitable distribution of food. Ms. Sanford –– 3796

Employment program cutbacks. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3796

Effect of government fiscal policies on unemployment levels. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3796

Post-secondary education. Mr. Nicolson –– 3797

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

On vote 15: minister's office –– 3798

Ms. Brown

Mr. Michael

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Ree

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Nicolson

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, seated in the member's gallery this

afternoon is the accountant for Anthes Equipment of Burnaby, Miss Gail

Zuccolini. I would ask the House to bid her welcome.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, the introduction I am going to

make today is appropriate as we're on the Education estimates. Not too

many school children get a chance to go on field trips outside the

greater Victoria area. I would like to introduce 50 grade 11 Esquimalt

Senior Secondary School students and their teacher, Mr. Don Taylor, who

are seated in your gallery.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon is

a constituent from Surrey, Mr. Lou Foret, president of Lou's Rent-All,

I would ask the House to please welcome him.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, today I have two introductions from

your riding, and one to follow. We have Mr. James Johnson, president of

Sky-Hi Scaffolding Ltd.; and Mr. Palmer Ulvild, president of the Rental

Association of Canada; from North Vancouver–Seymour we have Mr. David

Angel, the managing director of SGB Jackson Scaffolding Ltd. They are

here meeting the government today regarding the Builders Lien Act, and

I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the beginning of the afternoon

sitting on Monday last, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose on a

point of order asking for clarification of a ruling given by the Chair

on Friday, March 9. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition was

concerned as to whether or not the admonition of the Chair relating to

possible abuse of the rules amounts to "a matter of fact or a matter of

opinion."

First, I wish to restate the obvious proposition that debate is not

permitted on decisions from the Chair. If on any occasion any hon.

members find themselves uncertain as to the

interpretation to be given

to a decision from the Chair, the Speaker would be pleased to discuss

the implications of such a ruling with any member in his chambers. The

matter at issue is no exception, and I invite the Leader of the

Opposition to discuss this matter with me at any time.

However, I wish to make one or two general observations relating to applications

under standing order 35 –– I do this so that members will not, however

inadvertently, misconstrue the Speaker's application of the rules. Sir Erskine

May's Parliamentary Practice , sixteenth edition, page 369, in commenting

on this matter, provides a useful guideline: "The general meaning of the

standing order may be set out in the words of Mr. Speaker Peel: 'What I

think was contemplated was the occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in

home or foreign affairs, but I do not think it was contemplated that a question

of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective

manner, should be the subject of discussion.'" If one applies this

very clear explanation of the rule to the subject matter of unemployment, it

will be readily seen that it does not qualify. It seems to the Chair that there

is a duty on hon. members who wish to discuss a particular subject, be it unemployment

or any matter, to select one of the numerous occasions on which such matters

can be properly debated within the rules. The budget debate, the throne debate,

numerous areas in Committee of Supply, certain motions and much legislation

all provide ample opportunity to discuss unemployment. Standing order 35 applications

do not. To choose the incorrect forum to launch a discussion on unemployment

seems to the Chair inappropriate.

Having examined the limitations imposed by the rule itself, I wish

to touch upon the Chair's admonition to hon. members, which was

intended to assist in avoiding unnecessary pitfalls. It has been

historically the duty of the Chair to admonish members who abuse the

rules, and in a true sense of fairness the Chair has from time to time

attempted to warn members who are coming close to such abuse. This

would seem the proper course followed in most jurisdictions and one

that tends to be fair to all members.

The Leader of the Opposition has been present in this House on

numerous occasions on which the issue of unemployment was brought

forward under standing order 35. On each of those occasions the hon.

member will recall that because of standing order 35 restrictions the

subject matter of unemployment has not qualified.

Reference has been made to a decision of this House in 1974, wherein

the Leader of the Opposition of that day asked leave to move

adjournment of the House under standing order 35 for the purpose of

discussing "the rising unemployment in the province and the recession

in the forest industry and in the housing construction." The Speaker of

the day referred to numerous decisions of this House dealing with

similar applications under standing order 35. After stating his opinion

that the application was not in order, he remarked further that his

opinion was neither debatable nor subject to appeal. The Chair agrees

with Mr. Speaker Dowding when he states that his opinion under standing

order 35 is neither debatable nor subject to appeal.

Hon. members are referred to the specific wording of standing order 35(3) and Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 90.

The Chair believes this fully answers the questions raised by the

Leader of the Opposition. If there remains any uncertainty in the minds

of any hon. members in relation to the application of standing order

35, or indeed any procedural matter, the Chair would be most pleased to

discuss the matter privately.

If the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) would keep their conversation down,

the Chair would be pleased to finish the ruling.

The Chair wishes to make two final observations. Firstly, each and

every application under standing order 35 will be treated on its own

merit. Secondly, the matter of unemployment is viewed by the Chair, and

I am sure by all hon. members of this House, as an extremely grave

issue, and the Chair does not suggest otherwise when ruling, as the

Chair must rule, that the requirements of standing order 35 have not

been satisfied. Other opportunities to discuss the issue of

unemployment are clearly available to all hon. members. Any

admonishment from the Chair on Friday last was simply to discourage

continued attempts to use standing order 35 as a vehicle for debate in

the face of so many rulings from the Chair that it was not appropriate

to do so.

If hon. members feel that the present rules do not allow sufficient scope for comment or debate, then it is incumbent

[ Page 3796 ]

upon them to make the necessary recommendations for

rule changes. But in any case, hon. members, the Chair suggests it is

inappropriate for members to direct their feelings of frustration at

the Chair when such energies would be more appropriately directed at

changing the rules.

Oral Questions

CHARITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Agriculture and Food. Since 1935 the U.S. Department of Agriculture

has been involved in emergency food distribution aimed at improving the

nutritional state of infants, children and low-income families. Given

the unemployment crisis in B.C., why has the government failed to

establish such a program here in British Columbia?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's a matter, hon. member, that perhaps deserves consideration. Thank you for the suggestion.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, here in B.C. the emergency food

banks which have been staffed by church groups and trade union groups,

as well as other volunteers are so heavily patronized that the food

banks simply cannot supply the need. Has the government decided to give

urgent consideration to purchasing excess food production from British

Columbia farmers for donation to the emergency food banks?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: There is no funding established for that kind of a program, and so I don't anticipate it in the immediate future.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister just indicated

that my initial suggestion about distributing food was, in fact, one

that should be considered, but what he's saying now is that the

government is not interested at this time and it will have to wait

another year.

Mr. Speaker, the retail sales of fluid milk fell by some six million

litres in B.C. In 1983 because unemployed families cannot afford to

purchase the fresh milk. Is the government prepared to consider making

up at least this shortfall — through the purchase of fresh milk — for

distribution through the food banks?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The consumption of milk in the province of British Columbia is down by just a little less than 3 percent.

MS. SANFORD: I realize that. Mr. Speaker, he did not answer

my question. I'm well aware that the six million litres represents

about 2 or 3 percent. It also represents a lack of nutrition for many,

many children and their families in this province. My question is: is

the minister prepared to ensure that those milk supplies reach those

families who need that milk at this time? The need is urgent, Mr.

Speaker. People are going hungry in this province today, and I'm

wondering what action the minister is prepared to take to meet the

immediate food requirements of the people who are unable to have their

food requirements met today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: There is no provision through the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the kind of the program that the

member is suggesting. However, there is increased funding in the

Ministry of Human Resources not for the milk itself, but in which

funding is provided to recipients who have needs in order to purchase

exactly what the member suggested.

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM CUTBACKS

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Labour. On June 30, 1983, the provincial government suspended the

community recovery and employment-bridging assistance programs because

"they met their requirements during the period of greatest need." In

view of record levels of unemployment in British Columbia this winter,

has the minister decided to reconsider that decision and to seek a

renewal of joint federal-provincial initiatives for urgently needed

reforestation and community development projects?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The bridging program wasn't suspended by

the government; it was a federal program in which we participated.

We'll be talking with the federal government, I'm sure, on an ongoing

basis about ways in which we will continue to cooperate with the

federal government over the years.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would tell us when

the last conversation he had with the federal government about

establishing joint programs was held.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd be happy to take that as notice, look in my diary and come back to you.

EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT FISCAL

POLICIES ON UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS

MR. GABELMANN: I have some questions for the Minister of

Finance. Yesterday in the minister's absence I questioned the Minister

of Labour about the effect of government fiscal policy on increasing

the number of jobless in British Columbia. In the face of tremendous

suffering because of increased unemployment in B.C., will the minister

advise if the government is now reconsidering its fiscal priorities?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent at question period yesterday, but I did read the Hansard

Blues and noted the questions which were posed to my colleague the

Minister of Labour. The answer to the question is no, the government is

not re-examining its fiscal policies for the year 1984-85. Indeed, the

whole purpose of the thrust upon which we have been embarked since we

were re-elected in May of last year has been to encourage and expand

the private sector in order that we may move out of the admittedly high

levels of unemployment in the private sector. That was the thrust of

the budget, of the debate of members of this party participating in the

debate, and, sir, it is the road to recovery, rather than that which is

proposed by the members opposite.

MR. GABELMANN: If in fact the government policies are

designed to put us on the road to recovery, what explanation does the

Minister of Finance have for the fact that B.C.'s

[ Page

3797 ]

experience is running counter to that of 59 other jurisdictions in Canada and

the United States? B.C. alone is suffering increased unemployment during a period

of North American economic revival.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is the

responsibility of the opposition in a House such as this to examine the

most recent statistics. While I was not here, I learned later of the

reference to 59 other jurisdictions. But, Mr. Speaker, the word which

has reached me, the Premier and our colleagues suggests that British

Columbia is in fact showing the way toward…

MR. COCKE: …the soup kitchens.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I may conclude.

…showing the way toward recovery while others still have their

blinkers on. I feel very comfortable in telling this House and in

indicating to the people of British Columbia that I think we will see

lowered unemployment levels. We will see higher employment levels as a

result of the longer and mid-term policies of this government.

MR. GABELMANN: Does the minister feet comfortable with the

fact that since the budget was presented in July 1983, an additional

91,000 British Columbians have become unemployed? Putting it another

way, 9 1,000 fewer people are working in British Columbia as a result

of the budget. Just how long-term is the budget in terms of its

panaceas, as the minister would describe them? Is this long term to the

1990s or is it into the year 2000?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I expect that it will be much sooner than the time-frame that the member for North Island has indicated.

I also dissociate myself from that part of his question which

suggests that the July 1983 budget is the root cause of the

difficulties; rather it is part of the cure. Quite frankly, as we on

this side of the House have observed previously, while one has to be

concerned about the numbers of unemployed British Columbians, one also

has to recognize that that is a number of people who are in British

Columbia and who may indeed, in some measure, have moved from elsewhere

in Canada in order to seek work. Mr. Speaker, the problem is not

limited to British Columbia; the problem is nationwide. I can only hope

that other jurisdictions in this country, including the federal

government, will recognize that we are taking the kind of action which

may not satisfy the members opposite next month or the month following,

but in the months to come, and in 1984, '85 and '86. It is, indeed, a

document for the road to recovery.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications. The minister must be aware that young people in British

Columbia are facing a staggering 25 percent unemployment rate, and career prospects

are far worse than at any other time in our province's history. Given these

circumstances, does the minister agree that our young people require increased,

not diminished, education and skill-training to participate in a modern economy?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's hard to give a specific answer to a

general question such as that, Mr. Speaker. I do note that there has

been a recent request of graduates of the University of British

Columbia that the government spend more money to provide them with jobs

after their graduation. I think that hon. members can see the

difficulty that the province will be faced with economically if it is

urged to spend money on the one hand to provide additional educational

opportunities and then further money to employ the graduates following

the completion of their courses. The difficulties that we face are

better addressed, I think, by getting at the underlying root problems

of our economy, basically the overspending by government and the

difficulty of those who would invest and provide jobs in the private

sector in becoming established because of the baggage that they carry

from the profligate spending of recent years. Of course, the government

of British Columbia is addressing that fundamental problem, in sharp

contrast to the federal government, which is currently spending our

future away and compromising, more than any single institution in

Canada, the ability of our young people to find employment in the

future.

MR. NICOLSON: Does the minister believe that we should follow

a short-term policy in terms of meeting the educational needs of our

province? In other words, if only 25 percent of the engineering

graduates at UBC last year got jobs, should we immediately curtail the

level of graduates to 25 percent?

HON. MR. McGEER: No. I would say certainly not, Mr. Speaker,

because I can't think of a better way in which somebody, unable to find

work because of all of the reasons that we've described, could use that

time to better their skills and their future opportunities. I think

members can see the dilemma that we face if, on the one hand, we're

told that spending money on education will solve — all the economic

problems of the country, and on the other, discovering that there are

not jobs for the people we are currently graduating. If it were only a

question of spending money on universities and having people attend the

various courses that were offered them, then the wealthiest place in

Canada should be the Maritimes, because over the years it's

concentrated on that particular activity. As members of this House

know, British Columbia is one of those provinces in Canada that must

continue to subsidize the Maritimes, as we do through our natural

resource revenues to the less affluent areas of Canada.

Again I reply to the member that it's a complex problem, and I

suppose all members wish they had an easy answer. But I'm afraid it

isn't as simple as the question implied by the member.

MR. NICOLSON: Since the minister agrees that we should not

follow a short-term policy that just reacts to the immediate downturn

in the economy, I would point out that hundreds of concerned British

Columbians have paid for a newspaper advertisement protesting the fact

that the government has withdrawn $27 million from university funding

at the same time as the federal transfers under the formula increased

by the same amount. Has the minister then decided to at least

reconsider this decision, and to restore federal funds to university

operating budgets?

HON. MR. McGEER: Again, Mr. Speaker, no one in British Columbia wishes more passionately than I do that

[ Page 3798 ]

additional funds could be available for our

universities, but we can't spend our way to prosperity. The federal

government borrowing money on the one hand and using that money to try

to force the provinces themselves to spend money which they don't have,

as is currently going on in the health field, is really the path to

ruin in Canada. I certainly don't approve of the way the federal

government, not spending tax money but borrowing money abroad and

pushing interest rates up and forcing the Canadian dollar to be

devalued, will then use that borrowed money to try to coerce the

provinces that are already running a deficit into borrowing still more

money in order to match their overexpenditure. Surely members can see

that this is a ruinous approach to the economy in the future.

Orders of the Day

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

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 15: minister's office, $186,000.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to complete some

comments which I began before lunch on behalf of School District 41 in

Burnaby and specifically to refer to the document, which they forwarded

to the Ministry of Education, based on the impact of the budget on that

particular school district. The part of the budget dealing with the

critical policy decisions that had to be made in terms of financial

strain....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'll wait until I get the minister's attention.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got it now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: But the minister was unable to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Does the minister rise on a point of order?

HON. MR. McGEER: I thought the member was concluding. She said that she was finished, and I wished to make some remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the Chair still recognizes the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

HON. MR. McGEER: But when the member is finished, I would like to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member only halted for a minute because it was a little noisy here. My apologies, hon. member. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the school trustees were talking

about being forced to reassign staff but being unable to assign

resources to revitalize or to retrain. They also went on to talk about

the state of the buildings and facilities that we have to work with.

They say the buildings are old, poorly constructed and require constant

rehabilitation, none of which is going to be possible under the

existing budget.

The minister stated again that the aim was to bring the class sizes

to the 1976 level in terms of pupil-teacher ratio. I pointed out to him

that in Burnaby it looked as though we were beyond that because, when

you take into account the integration into the school system of kids

with disabilities of one sort or another and the special teachers and

resources that had to be incorporated to go with them, you got a

different picture altogether. All of the decisions about integration

were imposed on the school district by the government, whether it was

the phasing out of the Jericho Hill School or the general legislation

dealing with the integration policy. They're not opposed to integrating

disabled children into the school system, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of

fact, they think it benefits everybody — the teachers, the kids who are

not disabled and the disabled children. But they would like to be able

to afford the resources so that the quality of education is not

impaired in any way by this action.

They talked about some of the things that are going to happen as a

result of the impact. They say that teachers are now teaching in areas

for which they have no special qualification. We have math teachers who

are teaching social studies, for example, and social studies teachers

who are being forced to teach physics or something else. In terms of

dealing with the reorganization, the real skills and talents of

teachers are being wasted as a result of this budget.

There's a reduction of safety for children on their way to and from

school. Burnaby can no longer afford the level of supervision which it

would like to see for children getting to and from schools. They've had

to release a number of traffic supervisors and are now relying on

children to do their own traffic supervision. That's not nearly as good

or as safe as would be the case if an adult or adults were responsible

for that.

The summer-school options are being cut back. There aren't the

alternatives being offered to the students that they should have if we

are going to continue to have quality education in that particular

school district.

They pointed out that the reduction in the kinds of support services

that used to come from the Ministry of Human Resources is beginning to

show up in increased problems in the classroom, at a time when they do

not have either the staff or the resources to deal with these increased

problems. They're suggesting that rather than cut back, the school

trustees and the board are in fact finding that they should beef up and

add to their resources and their staff in order to deal with the

cutbacks which are taking place in other areas.

They talk about doubling up in terms of programming. In one

classroom they'll have two or three different typing classes, for

example, taking place. That's not the best kind of situation for the

students taking those courses.

They're talking about the teachers' hotline, which is reporting that

the use of the hotline is increasing dramatically. They're finding that

most of the calls coming through on the hotline are stress-related, and

that they're having to do a lot of counselling. The morale of the

teachers in the system is beginning to…. The anxiety is going up while

the morale is going down. This is showing up on the teachers' hotline.

All of the re-entry programs in Burnaby have astronomical waiting lists, as I pointed out, at a time when an education

[ Page 3799 ]

is more important than ever, either to young people

who have dropped out of school for one reason or another and find that

they're unable to secure employment — we're facing an unemployment rate

of close to 25 percent in that age group — or to the adults whom I

mentioned earlier. They have a sort of catch-22 situation. By law

children under the age of 16 should be in school, but because there is

such a long waiting list for the re-entry program, a number of these

children are not in school and are waiting to get on. There is no space

for them in these programs.

The thing that's really tragic about this is, I think, that the

level of taxes that Burnaby parents pay just about covers the cost of

quality education for their children, yet this is not happening. In

addition to their taxes, they're having to subsidize almost totally any

kind of field experience or extracurricular programs that the children

participate in. That means that the goal of programs shared equally by

everyone in the school system cannot be met, because there are always

some parents who cannot afford to subsidize these field experiences and

extracurricular activities, which are such an essential part of a young

person's education. Field experiences are not just fun and games; they

really are part of the educational process. It's just that they're not

covered by the traditional school budget. They used to be. It used to

be possible for the school to pick up the tab for this, but that's not

possible anymore. We're finding that inequalities are creeping into the

system in terms of which children can afford to participate in all of

the programs and which children cannot afford to participate in any of

the programs.

I should bring to the minister's attention that we recognize there

has been a declining enrolment in Burnaby. Over the last year, eight

schools have been closed. The school district has moved to cut and trim

its sails in order to try to live within its budget, and it's done this

during a period of great uncertainty and insecurity. As you'll

remember, Mr. Chairman, last year directives were coming out of the

ministry every three months dealing with the budget changes, so a

school district would never know from one three-month period to another

how much money it had to deal with. However, because it is an excellent

school board — we've always had good school trustees in Burnaby — they

were able to meet the challenge. They've had to reduce staff by

something like 150 teaching positions in the last three years. So we've

done the things that had to be done as a result of declining enrolment.

We closed the schools and the teaching positions are gone. That's no

longer possible if we are to retain, maintain or even achieve for the

students of Burnaby a level of education which we think they deserve,

and certainly which their parents are paying for and which the teaching

staff would like to be able to give them. I think the last figure we

have is that the parents in Burnaby — or taxes anyway — pick up the

cost for something like 90 percent of the school budget, but maybe the

minister can correct me if that's not right.

We find that the province's contribution to the cost of education in Burnaby

is going down. It's declining, as it is for the education of kids in most

other school districts. Certainly the cost of education per pupil is among the

lowest in Canada. That's something we're not proud of. Even though the

minister speaks at great length about the percentage of the overall budget spent

on education, the fact of the matter is — and I think the minister will agree

— that that percentage has been declining over the years. It's certainly

much lower now than it was, say, in 1970. From 1970-71 to the present date it

dropped from something like 12.9 percent to something like 7.8 percent, and

that certainly does not say very much for us when we realize that our young

people are moving into a society in which they need skills, training and education

much more than they ever did before.

I have a couple of questions about how the $12 million in savings

from teachers' salaries as a result of the walkout last year is going

to be spent. What was the point in spending nearly $1 million in terms

of new curriculum initiatives when there isn't going to be any staff in

order to implement those initiatives?

The media centre has been cut back. We find that $258,000 is

earmarked for that. What on earth is going to be covered by that $4

million that has been earmarked for publication? As far as the purchase

of equipment, such as computers and those kinds of things which we

would welcome in the school system, they have to be accompanied by

teachers to teach those courses. Just sticking a computer in a

classroom doesn't really benefit anyone. Somebody has to be there to

teach the course and to help those students deal with it.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the comments made by the school trustees are:

"In the short term, the loss of programs having to be cut

while other programs continue at the normative level of staffing is serious.

In the long term, the insidious message that the only productive place for a

teacher is before a class, coupled with the assumption that the principal will

manage the system with all its new complexities — thereby relegating support

staff to parasite status — will recreate a mediocre, unresponsive system. Empathetic

leadership, developmental and supportive activity have been squeezed out of

legitimate existence at the very time that they are most needed."

All of this, Mr. Chairman, was in response to the sheet which was circulated

by the minister's department asking Burnaby how it was going to deal with

this incoming budget. I wonder whether the minister has had a chance to study

those responses. Is he at this time able to give me some feedback on that, and

also respond to some of the questions I've raised?

[2:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member was

referring to notes which were appended to the budget submitted after

February 15. Burnaby School District 41 had requested permission to

file their budget, I think, following another board meeting held the

first Tuesday after February 15, so I'm not sure when it arrived. I am

advised that some of the questions to which the member refers are

contained in the commentary portion of that budget. Those matters will

all be looked at. All budgets being submitted are being reviewed. It's

in our interest to find out exactly how they are able to cope with the

restraint measures.

I'm advised that the Burnaby School Board is managing reasonably

well under the conditions in which they must manage. Having said that,

I will also say that I do recognize a number of the matters which have

been raised by the member. The Burnaby School District posed a rather

difficult problem. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds raised, there has

been a declining enrolment, and Burnaby has had a significant decline

in its enrolment. In 1976 the enrolment was 23,080; in 1982 the

enrolment was 17,591. That's a decline of almost 24 percent, so we had

a serious problem here, knowing full well that if the board were to

deliver on the

[ Page 3800 ]

projected PTR without any phasing in over a period

of three years, it would have encountered a great deal of difficulty.

Now they will have over a period of three years in which to handle it.

In 1982 the PTR was 16.79 to 1; in 1983 it was 16.75 to 1. I don't

think that we can lose sight of that fact; nor can we lose sight of the

fact that the drop in the budget was roughly 3.7 percent. It's gone

from $60.58 million down to $58.35, which is a touch under $2 million.

Mr. Chairman, to give the member some comparison — I'll just use one

year, 1984 — the provincial average had a cost per student of $3,259:

Burnaby, $3,340; Vancouver, $3,305; Coquitlam, $2,948; Delta, $2,780.

With the exception of Vancouver, the other districts are comparable in

size. There may be a 3,000 or 4,000 student differential between

Coquitlam and Burnaby, but it should give some indication of the

difference on the per-student costs. The differential between Coquitlam

and Burnaby is roughly $400 per student. I believe the makeup of those

two districts is very similar, but there's a difference in cost of

roughly $400 per student. It's something which has to be addressed, and

it will, over a period of time.

I raise the PTR again. In September 1983 it was 16.75 percent.

Points have been raised involving programs which have been removed out

of the system in order to meet the budgetary requirements; I have to

say that I believe that the member can be proud of her school board and

the district who have been able to rise to that challenge. The evidence

and information I have is that while there is some difficulty, the

services are being delivered, for the most part.

As far as taxation is concerned, I think that we should raise this

point. In Burnaby approximately 60 percent comes from consolidated

revenue and non-residential tax and about $24.5 million from

residential tax. That's understandable, because we know that the

province-wide actual amount paid by residential property tax, after the

homeowner grant, is about 8¾ percent. I think the point has to be made,

though, that it's not a district one would think funds its operations

on its own.

Another interesting fact has come to light. A number of school districts in

the lower mainland: Richmond, Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby, North Vancouver

and West Vancouver.... After advising the House of the significant decline

in enrolment — by the way, the enrolment for 1983 shows a drop again from 1982

of 41 students down to 17, 552.... I want to make this point by drawing

this comparison: with the decline, which is probably one of the largest declines

in any school district in the province, the cost of the district in 1980 was

roughly $47.5 million. In 1983 it had gone up to $60.58 million, yet the student

population has gone in the opposite direction. It's something which we had

to have a look at. In order to ease that transition, a decision was made where

we would allow the phased-in amounts for 1984 and 1985 to assist. Secondly,

the surpluses could be carried forward from 1983 to 1984. Now that's a very

significant item. In the case of Burnaby, $605,581 was allowed to be carried

forward. I'll tell you why I felt strongly about allowing that to happen.

It provided an incentive to districts to manage prudently. I was advised, interestingly

enough, by a number of boards that when surpluses could be spent, they would

look at Christmas and say there were only so many more shopping days until Christmas,

and the surplus would be cleaned out. Districts were doing that because they

thought: "If we don't, and this carries forward, that will affect the

grant portion we receive in the following year."

That didn't make very good sense to me, so we permitted it to be rolled over.

In addition to that, they have the allowable expenditures in

auxiliary services, as well as any revenues that they generate within

the district. So the actual amount of the board's budget, which I do

not have with me right now, will be in excess of the amount which is

set in the fiscal framework for 1984, which again is roughly $58.35

million. The actual budget will be more than that as a result of

surpluses being carried forward and the other items we have addressed.

I am not going to pretend in any way, Mr. Chairman, that it did not

hurt some districts, particularly those with a significant decline in

enrolment, that they were not going to have to move out of some of the

programs. I mentioned before that we have to establish priorities for,

in my view, a good, sound, basic education. A number of the other

recreational skills and life skills, which the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) also referred to, as did the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), are going to have to wait until there is

an abundance of funds to address them. I don't question for a moment

the inherent value in some, but I have to raise the fact that under our

present environment we can't expect to request school boards to carry

on all of those programs which they feel to be desirable.

The moneys which were saved because of the withdrawal of services

have been broken down and are identified. I did issue a press release

on that, and I went to great lengths so that the public would

understand what those moneys were earmarked for. The commitment was

made that those funds would remain within the education system. They

have, and they are identified.

I think I've covered the main points. I recognize the concerns which

the member has raised, involving a number of the programs which have a

social impact. But I only had so much money to distribute, and the same

criteria have been used in all school districts in British Columbia.

Those which are feeling a bit more pinched than others are those which

are experiencing a significant decline in enrolment. I have mentioned

to you, Mr. Chairman, where those districts are. Interestingly enough,

some of those districts seem to be coping a bit better than others.

Why? That will remain to be seen. Anything else which I could say right

now would probably be repeating myself. When we draw comparisons on per

student costs in those districts, it seems that Burnaby is on the high

end of the scale.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: Just a couple of responses, Mr. Chairman. First of

all, I mentioned that Burnaby recognized the significance of its

declining enrolment situation and moved immediately to deal with it by

closing those schools, et cetera. I just want to read into the record a

statement which I got from the school board on their planning process.

It says: "The only reason that Burnaby has successfully avoided much of

the trauma associated with current reductions is the board's ability to

act in anticipation of, not in reaction to, imposed restraint programs.

The effects of this posture on employee morale and its contribution to

the education of children cannot be overemphasized." I wouldn't want to

leave the impression that Burnaby is the top in terms of the cost per

pupil. It is certainly not among the lowest, but there is North

Vancouver, West Vancouver and New Westminster and a bunch of others

that are higher. You picked the lowest when you picked Delta,

[ Page 3801 ]

but to be fair we have to say that Burnaby probably falls somewhere in the middle.

The projected decline is really what is sending the school trustees

into a bit of a tailspin, because projected to the year 1986 Burnaby is

going to continue declining in terms of the budget that is being

allotted to it. This year it is 58 million and some dollars, next year

it is going down to 56 million and some dollars, and by 1986 it is

going to drop to 53 million and some dollars. The declining enrolment

is not something that we anticipate is going to last forever, Everyone

is talking about this bubble that's coming, the baby boom's echo, and I

would imagine it's going to hit Burnaby the same way that it's going to

hit everywhere else.

In addition, I cannot stress too strongly the number of students in

would imagine that Burnaby is second only to Vancouver South in that.

The minister can correct me if I'm wrong. The funding for that program

has been very severely eroded, certainly for the adults who use the

program, so it is impacting on the quality of education in Burnaby.

The second thing which we are very proud of, but which also is

impacting on the program, is the large number of special-needs kids. As

I said before, I wouldn't want them pulled out of the system, because I

believe in integrating them into the system, but it's having a

tremendous impact on the quality of education because the other

resources aren't there. The special teachers are there to meet their

special needs, but the other resources aren't there, If you permitted

the school district to carry the surplus over to 1984 and you thought

that was such a wonderful thing that you did — the halo is blinding me,

quite frankly — why didn't you carry that through? Why aren't you going

to do that in 1985 and 1986? If it's such a great thing, why stop now?

Why not just keep on with it? As I said before, if we could put a stop

to the projected decline in Burnaby's budget we would certainly

appreciate that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Could I just answer that one question, Mr. Chairman?

First of all, I mentioned that Burnaby has addressed the matter, and

you can be very proud of the board. It seems to me there were six or

eight school closures, as I recall when I met with some of the board.

They may have been unpopular at the time, but interestingly enough the

public were very supportive of the board for what they did.

I cannot give the member a specific answer for ESL, but I can get

the item and the funding for ESL for you, It will be involved under

function 3, the special education category. I will take that question

as notice — if one can do that in estimates — and see whether or not I

can get an answer for you.

As to the surplus being moved forward, I must advise you, Mr.

Chairman, that that matter is under consideration. It's a little

premature to make any decision like that at this time. The object of

the three-year framework was to give predictability to school boards

over a period of time. That is something which they have always wanted.

The unfortunate thing is that that concept was introduced at a time

when there was a constraint placed on funding, and so it has been a

little more difficult. The predictability and surplus issues are

something which I am considering now.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I would just

like to repeat a little bit of what has been said already. on behalf of

my constituency. I have three points to pass on to the minister.

The first has been dealt with to some extent, but I believe that

budget surpluses should be carried forward. I think it leads to and

encourages good financial planning by school administrators — the

superintendents and boards and secretary-treasurers — to have such a

rule, as I think it gives them the required incentive to keep their

operations as lean as they can, providing good education and knowing

full well that the surpluses would be carried forward to the next year.

The second point has to do with the elections, I don't wish to get

into a long discussion today on triennial and biennial elections. But

if the municipalities are going to go for elections every three years,

it would naturally follow that the school boards would do likewise.

Failure to do that would lead to a very poor turnout in those off years

for the election of school trustees. I'm sure the minister has that

under control.

The third and perhaps more lengthy point I would like to pass on to

the minister has to do with school administrators — onsite

administrators. It is my view that school administrators cannot

function in an appropriate administrative capacity while required to

observe the restrictions placed upon them by the BCTF Presently the

school administrator faces a conflict between the requirements of the

School Act and the requirements of the BCTF in such areas as teacher

supervision and evaluation providing management recommendations when

budgets must be reduced, and responsibility for provision of

educational services during labour disputes involving teaching staff.

It is my belief that school administrators could function effectively

and remain members of the BCTF if the legislation were amended to

exempt them from restrictions placed upon them by the BCTF I believe

that the minister should give serious consideration to presenting

legislation to amend the act so that principals of schools, while still

remaining members of the BCTF, will be exempt from the restrictions

placed upon them by the BCTF when called upon by their employers to

make management recommendations or perform necessary management

functions. I would ask the minister to take that suggestion under

consideration and look back over what's happened in this province over

the last year or so. I'm sure that he will come to the same conclusion

that I have — that that would be in the best interest of the citizens

of the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps just a comment. Committee of Supply

does not allow us the opportunity to discuss the necessity of

legislation, but I'm sure all hon. members can find other vocabulary to

allow them to say the same thing.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to talk about

the New Westminster situation — naturally. I guess most people in the

House — on our side of the House, in any event, I presume — wish to

talk about their particular school districts, which have been slightly

mauled.

I've heard this government described as a government that knows the

cost of everything and the value of nothing. I think that's probably

more a description of this particular portfolio than almost any other

portfolio. The value of an education, the value of our human resource

is at present being overlooked by this government. The minister is a

prisoner of

[ Page 3802 ]

the Treasury Board. The minister hasn't been able

to convince — if he's tried — the Treasury Board of the importance of

education. However, even having said that, when we do the kind of

across-the-board planning and programming from the centralized ministry

which we have overseeing education in our province, we find that there

are districts that are very badly hurt vis-à-vis others. It's the same

thing in health. Any district that has maintained a very tight control

and is a lowcost district in the first place.... When you have these

sweeping changes that reduce the amount of budget based upon past

experience, naturally those that had the tightest control in the first

place are those that are going to be most badly handled in this respect.

New Westminster is a well-managed district, whether the minister

likes to admit it or not. It is not a district, however, that is

blessed, as some are, with all junior teachers. New Westminster is one

of the oldest jurisdictions in our province. Going along with that,

naturally, many of the teaching staff have come right to the top of

their incremental situation in terms of salary and so on. It's a fairly

stable community, so there hasn't been the coming and going situations

that arise in some of the newer districts and the ones that are growing

in terms of families and so on. There's no room or very little room for

more in my area. We have a district that's six square miles and

encompasses 40,000 or more people — I was going to say 40,000 odd

people, but I don't think I'll say that. This year they have suffered a

budget cut of 2.5 percent. That's bad enough, in the face of inflation

and all the circumstances we face at the present time. However, because

of careful planning, they've been able to place themselves in a

position where the cuts haven't been utterly disastrous. That does not

say, however, that that will not be the case next year or the year

after — we'll come to that in a moment or two.

We have had a good deal of staff reduction by way of attrition, and

we've had a number of early retirements, but with that, of course, we

now have the complementary increased class sizes. The increased class

sizes have been in the core programs, and those class sizes are

unacceptably high ' Let me give you one particular illustration. We

have a grave concern right now in the high school about the class sizes

in the labs, because of safety. If you have an unmanageable size of

class in the laboratories and you don't have the necessary supervision,

safety becomes an increasing factor of concern.

We also feel that this new graduation program that has been foisted

upon the school system is going to create an increased amount of

budgetary pressure on our district.

That gives you a few of the areas of major concern.

[3:15]

Let me tell you some of the programs we have cut. Counselling has

been cut back 50 percent. Isn't that marvellous, Mr. Chairman?

Counselling has been cut back 50 percent in a time when counselling, if

it was ever important in all of our history, is most important. For

young people who are about to go out into a world that is alien to

them, one that's producing 25 percent unemployment in their age bracket

— and worse, in some areas — counselling is relatively unavailable as a

result of the cutbacks. Naturally any school district will try to

compensate and put teachers in front of classes, and when that's the

case, then counselling has to be one of the areas that suffers. And

it's suffering: a 50 percent cutback in my school district.

We had a coordination of both French and music not cut back but cut

out. Therefore it's jeopardizing those particular areas of instruction.

Libraries. I realize that there are many Socreds who are bordering on a burn-the-books mentality.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member now heckling me is one of those who proves it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wasn't there. I have attended many of them. The

fact that you were at a federation meeting doesn't mean that you have

any great interest in books — at least, you certainly never expressed

anything in this House that would make us feel that you were.

In any event, our library program has been seriously eroded. I

believe that's a situation that none of us should be tolerating in this

day and age. We no longer have a gifted and talented coordinator for

the assistance of gifted and talented children. I can tell you right

now that if Charles Barber, the former member for Victoria, were here,

he'd speak for three or four hours on that one particular area alone.

In any event, it is another curtailment that I think is seriously

affecting good education coming out of our school system in New

Westminster and elsewhere. However, as I say, we are living with what

we have at the moment, but not with any semblance of glee. We're living

with it because we have to, having been blessed, or cursed, with the

Socred government that was recently re-elected.

What have they done to the future? If we think it's bad now, let's

look at the next two years. I can see nothing but chaos. The minister

talks about the three-year predictability of funding. Marvellous!

Cutback, cutback, cutback; three cutbacks in a row. We're already down

the tube, and he says we have to go even deeper. It's interesting to me

that the sunset clause in that piece of legislation, which was sort of

an afterthought, is all over just before the next election in three

years. Just before the next election there will be announcements that

"it's all over now, gang, you're going to have another good, great kick

at the cat," and our kids will finally get back to a situation where

they get their education.

The most deceitful and dishonest kind of thing that we've grown to accept from the Socreds....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's absolutely true. Anybody who can persuade me

that that government won its last election on what was yet to come in

the July 7 budget.... You can't tell that to me or any other

intelligent person in this province. Nobody even knew. Not even any of

you back-benchers, you poor fellows, expected what was coming out of

the minds of that treasury bench.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If you did, hang your head in shame, because you

should have been out there on the platform telling the people exactly

what to expect.

MR. REID: We did.

MR. COCKE: You did not!

[ Page 3803 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I'll ask the members not to interject, and I'll ask the member for New Westminster to address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Not one of them had the courage to predict what

was going to happen in education. There was never a line in the paper.

Never did they stand on the platform and tell the people of this

province that they were going to cut back education three years in a

row. Not one of them dared. You wouldn't have been elected even in

Surrey.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Yes, he did," he said. You know, that little

mouse of a man is like Two-Story Jack. He's got one story for Surrey

and another story for this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The phrase must be withdrawn immediately.

MR. COCKE: What phrase?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was a personal reference to another member. I'll ask the member for New Westminster to withdraw.

MR. COCKE: Sure, I'll withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The withdrawal has been accepted.

MR. COCKE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I know he's feeling guilty.

I know that his mind is just burning up, wishing that he could get back

to his campaign and tell the public exactly what to expect. But he

can't do that. He didn't do it then, nor did any of these other brave

people who are so totally dedicated to what they call restraint.

Restraint is a lash on our children. Restraint in this particular case

is a choker for our most precious resource, and that's our human

resource. Up to now we in New Westminster have done everything that's

humanly possible to keep teachers in front of the classes. Those who

don't know our district should maybe start thinking a few things about

it. Every district is unique. That's why all these stupid formulas that

don't take into consideration anything other than a minister's will to

follow the edicts of a treasury board which is totally mindless in this

case....

We're a special needs district. Twenty-five percent of the children

in New Westminster come from single-parent homes. That is a

particularly high level. I don't know if any other total school

districts have a worse incidence of single-parent family situations.

That is a more difficult and more transient group to cope with than

just a normal group of children in the school system. And we have a

significantly high percentage of children with special needs. Again it

puts us in a position where it's very difficult to cope. As I say, if

the minister changes grad requirements again in the future, it will be

absolutely disastrous, especially with our budget cut to the bone right

now.

What we in New Westminster have also done is maintain old buildings,

feeling that that was proper. But those older buildings cost more to

maintain. The capital cost, of course, is reduced, and that's

responsible. But at the same time, those older buildings must be

maintained. They must be kept.... The fire hazard must be kept reduced

to an absolute minimum, and they must be maintained in such a way as to

keep them functional. We've been living with that. Now we have foisted

on us this new situation where we're having to curtail the maintenance

of those buildings. Anybody who doesn't believe that should go and take

a took at them.

I believe that this shocking, irresponsible attitude toward

education must stop. The other ministers don't give a sweet darn, Mr.

Chairman. They're not even in here listening. The Minister of Finance

never darkens the door to any of these debates, yet he and the Premier,

who sat here during question period today, full of himself in terms of

restraint — the restraint he has vested in this ministry, the restraint

that has taken this province into a situation of 15.5 percent

unemployment.... Along with that, Education is the one that they sort

out to suffer almost more than any other department.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In New Westminster we bring in, in taxes from our own community, 103

percent of our budget. Yes! Tell me sometime what you bring in in

Surrey. In New Westminster our tax base has been dramatically impaired

by the Socred government, but in spite of the Socreds we still bring in

103 percent of our educational budget. In other words, we bring in more

than we spend on our children. And we make the right decisions. We have

never fought equalization.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Listen, Mr. Member, you get elected as many times as I have and then you can make those kinds of remarks.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Just keep on going and see how long you last. I predict you're a one-timer.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: A last-timer, yes.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: He's a two-timer, they say. Mr. Member, I'll tell

you what he did: he two-timed his electorate; he didn't tell them what

was coming up in education, or anywhere else for that matter.

[3:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, getting back to this situation, we have never

fought equalization; we feel it's just and it's right. But you know, if

a school district goes over its budget, then I believe that it should

be listened to a little bit more carefully and that it should not be

placed in the position that we've been placed in. I don't want to go on

too much longer, other than to

[ Page 3804 ]

say that in 1983 our gross shareable budget....

Look, we're facing inflation, they tell us. As a matter of fact, we're

facing inflation to the extent that in the United States they've raised

the interest rates, so that the Canadian buck is down and our interest

rates and our inflation will go up correspondingly. Don't let anybody

in this House tell me that every fiscal policy made by both Socreds and

Liberals in this country isn't carrying us down the tube into more

inflation. In any event, this year our gross shareable budget for 1983

was $12,614,655. You add for the unshareable and you get up to

$12,714,346. Next year we get 97.93 percent of the 1983 budget; in 1985

we get 95 percent of that 1983 budget; and in 1986 we get 92 percent of

that 1983 budget. In other words, as inflation soars, we continually

reduce the dollars going into education in New Westminster.

Mr. Chairman, they haven't given any consideration to the echo boom

that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was talking about. The

beginning of the echo boom takes place next year. That's when the

baby-boom children of the post-war period start having their children,

and they start getting into the school system. No, in face of that,

we're getting a continually reducing budget until…guess when? Just

before the next election they'll take the chains off and say: "Okay,

gang, we're ready for new horizons in education." That, Mr. Chairman,

is absolutely despicable.

We haven't any possibility of adjustments for student population. We

haven't any possibility of adjustments for increased wages, or

anything. When I go back home and talk to school board people and

parents, I'll have to go back and tell them that we've got a government

that obviously knows the costs but has no idea of the values — none

whatsoever. Having said that, I've said all I can say. I hope that

there will be some repentance in the future. But the more I hear the

catcalls and the more I hear the answers, Mr. Chairman, the less

optimistic I feel.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll just be a moment or

two, and I would just like to pass on a couple of comments with respect

to a part of what the member has offered — and it really had some

political overtones to it. You know, before going into the election in

May 1983, we experienced both restraint 1 and restraint 2, and that was

clear in 1982-83 in the Education budget. I don't accept for a moment

that restraint was not an issue, and I don't accept for a moment that

school districts and teachers were not aware of what was going on,

because in my own experience, campaigning within my own riding, this

was abundantly clear. After knocking on over 2,000 doors in my riding,

I would candidly say that in about 50 percent of the homes whose doors

I knocked on, where the home was occupied by a teacher, there was a

divergence.... Believe me, they were either with you or they were

against you.

MR. COCKE: Now isn't that something!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just never mind, Mr. Member. I listened to

your diatribe for some time. All I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that

the statement made by the member for New Westminster.... It was not an

issue and was not raised during the campaign. It was very clear, at

least in my part of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Where did you get that Fellini sweater?

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I never thought you'd notice, Mr. Member.

In the New Westminster School District we have another area in the

lower mainland with a significant decline in enrolment. The enrolment

in New Westminster has dropped over 30 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since when?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Since 1975. It's still going down. That's

the problem. But there's hope. Interestingly enough, I think it's

starting to plateau at the bottom level. I hope, for your sake, Mr.

Member, that it starts to grow, because the formula and the framework

take into consideration any increased enrolment. When enrolment rises,

so does the injection to the gross shareable operating account.

When we start to talk about reduction in New Westminster.... I remember

because I met some students from New Westminster. They came to my office and

talked. I had a good meeting. There were a number of other issues. One raised

the particular question: how is this…? They didn't refer to it as

a framework; it was something new at the time, and they wanted to know. I said:

"I think that probably something in the order of about $300,000 in New

Westminster…." That was just about bang on what it is. I don't know what the

surplus is that New Westminster had to carry over, but, of course, after today

we'll find out what surplus they carried over from 1983 to 1984.

MR. COCKE: But they don't get to carry it over into 1985 or 1986.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That decision was made, and my explanation

to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).... I can advise you that

that is a matter which is under discussion right now. It's a little

premature to start making those arrangements. The reason for allowing

it to roll over from 1983 to 1984 was that it gave them the opportunity

to manage and not turn around and spend those funds, to blow them out

of the well because they feel they're going to get scooped at the end

of the year and deducted from their grant.

In New Westminster in 1975 the PTR was 19.12. In September 1984 it's

expected to be 17.98. The member doesn't feel that's acceptable. I

don't see anything particularly wrong with that. And $300,000 out of a

school district, not including surplus, if there was one and there

probably was.... It's going to be, I think, adequate to serve the

educational needs — perhaps not without some pain.

You mentioned old buildings, transportation, maintenance and

operations. The figures used to generate the dollars within the

framework were the actual expenditures which are incurred within the

district. There was a three-year average in maintenance and operations.

The amount of money required to look after some old buildings which

they wished to preserve is already within the budget.

There are only two other items which I would like to make reference

to. Yes, New Westminster has got one of the highest costs in the lower

mainland per student. One of the reasons is an old stabilized teaching

force. You mention, Mr. Member, that the framework used takes the

average teacher's salary, and it takes into consideration the amount of

money

[ Page 3805 ]

being paid. Why, then, is the average teacher's

salary in New Westminster up here and in other districts it's down

here? The amount of money injected into the framework for funding their

account is at that level because that's their average teacher's salary.

It's not province-wide; it's within the school district in New

Westminster. Let's just remember what's in the system. There may be a

wart or two on it, but that's certainly not one of them.

The other item which the member for New Westminster has raised

before is the funds which are generated within the district so that....

New Westminster is really self-sustaining as a school district. Well,

it all depends how you want to argue it. Yes, they have a

non-residential base of some significance. But, you know, there are

other communities in British Columbia which don't have that type of

non-residential base. A particular area, whether it's in the lower

mainland, on the coast or in the interior, has a major commercial and

industrial base to tax,

whereas many other rural, urban and suburban

areas without that kind of base are entitled to the benefits of

non-residential, commercial or industrial. I don't know why the people

of New Westminster should be upset about that, because I don't know how

many oil wells, gas fields or forest reserves we find at New

Westminster, but there are mills and service industries there which

live off those resources in the other parts of the province. Why can't

we just share that? Or do you want everything to yourselves in New

Westminster? I don't accept that. The thrust of the government is not

to accept it. That's our policy and the only way they're ever going to

change that is to change government, and that's never going to happen —

not with a 13 percent response at the polls. It's silly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's what I was told yesterday.

It seems to me that it is only fair to everybody else involved that

we turn around and spread the heavier assessments. Is it fair for one

community with 300 or 400 people in it, but which also has a huge pulp

mill or oil refinery, to suddenly get it all? Not on your life. The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is not particularly interested

in the response, so I'll....

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I have two different issues I'd like to explore with the Minister of Education.

One is to try to find out what the Ministry of Education is doing as

far as the future of education is concerned — the changes in education

that we're looking for. The member for New Westminster made reference

to the future; he was looking two years in advance, but that's with his

short-sighted glasses on. I think we have to look a great deal further

than the two years ahead of us for education. We have nineteenth

century education in this province, and pretty well in this country.

What we need to do is bring education into the twentieth century,

before we get into the twenty-first century.

The education system in Canada, and in this province, is no

different than it was back in the time of Christ. Today we still sit

around with a teacher and students surrounding him. Whether it is a

classroom or an oval room, it doesn't make any difference. We have the

same system of teaching going on. They talk in the budget of the ratio

of students to teachers. We could have one teacher to 5,000 students,

and probably still have a far superior education system than we have at

this time.

We have gone through an industrial revolution, and we are well into

a technological revolution. but none of this has been adopted in our

education system at all. We are teaching our students how to operate

new machines and computers in our schools, but we don't have these

machines teaching our students, and these machines are perfectly

capable of it. Probably the only technological advance in teaching in

Canada has been the Knowledge Network, for which we can give credit to

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer). But that is used only by a select group of people within the

province. It could be expanded to every student, whether he be in

school, university or college. We can teach large groups of students

with one teacher.

[3:45]

In the recent examinations we found great divergence between the

quality of education the students in different schools and school

districts had received. If we could standardize the methods of teaching

to large numbers of students through the technological knowledge we

have today, we could improve the standard of knowledge of all the

students and people within the province. I would like to know from the

minister what the province is doing to bring our education system into

the twentieth century. We are spending 80 cents out of every dollar in

the educational system on labour. That shows that our education system

is the most labour-intensive industry in the country. Let's bring it up

to date with new technology. With the money saved we can create other

jobs in the technology industry. Teachers would not have to be

teaching, and we would end up with motivators and counsellors. The

member for New Westminster was saying we have to cut back on

counsellors; we can have counsellors and motivators to motivate

students. Students, with the technology available, will be able to

learn at their own rate because the machines will be able to be

programmed for the rate of ability of the student. I do not believe

these things are being addressed in our educational system, and I think

they have to be. We have to gear ourselves up to what is available.

It's so simple.

There have really been no changes in the schoolroom at all in the

last 2,000 years, yet I can remember when we didn't have television or

these things to portray stills on screens, and what not, in our

classrooms. I remember when the first television came in. We use very

little of that in the classroom, when it is possible to use it. We are

using certain changes, yes. I can go out to a store and buy a record to

teach me how to speak French. That's a lot cheaper than going to a

university, college or school class to learn French. It would save us

tremendous amounts of money. I support people learning French or

learning alternate languages — and I'm often amazed and worship people

who can, because I can't — but we have a great deal of technology

available to us that we are not using so that we would have dollars

available for other social services for people. I ask the minister that

question: what are we doing to bring our educational system into the

twentieth century before we get to the twenty-first century?

The second item I have is more parochial, more related to North

Vancouver–Capilano. We have a vacant school up there that used to be

Hamilton Junior Secondary School. Up until two and a half years ago

they had an excellent program at that school run by Bill Sulymka, the

principal there. It was a very innovative program which helped a great

number of students stay within the system who otherwise might not have.

I was a

[ Page 3806 ]

great supporter of his program at that time. But

our school board, in their lack of wisdom, decided this program should

be scrapped. I don't disagree with them for closing the school, but

they scrapped the program and moved all the students over to Carson

Graham Secondary School. Since then Hamilton school has remained

vacant. At that time, when I was averse to the scrapping of the

program, I also voiced a suggestion that one of the main reasons

Hamilton school was going to be closed was so that School District 44

could move their administrative offices into Hamilton school. Oh, that

was terrible. The school board said: "Never. No way. We're not

interested in moving our offices into Hamilton school."

At the moment there are some energetic people on the North Shore

wanting to establish an independent school. They have gone to our

school board and said: "Can we lease Hamilton school? It's vacant, it's

costing you money at the moment, and you're having to maintain heat in

it and maintain part of it. Can we rent that school from you? We will

generate some additional revenue for you." After all, our school boards

keep screaming: "We don't have enough money." We've got one of the most

Cadillac educational systems in the province up in North Vancouver, but

we can still obtain some revenue from renting that school out to the

independent school people. But the North Vancouver School Board won't

even meet with representatives of the independent school people. I know

that's not within the jurisdiction of the minister, Mr. Chairman, but

they won't even meet with them, and the reason they're giving is:

"Don't bother meeting with us, because we're going to move the

maintenance yard up into Hamilton. We can also move our school board

offices into Hamilton school." They're saying after all that they're

going to move the administration offices, when two and a half years ago

they said: "No way will we go out to Hamilton school." That's what

they're using as an excuse.

I, of course, am averse to the school board offices going into

Hamilton school, which provides more accommodation than the present

school board offices do, particularly when we have a diminishing

enrolment of students in North Vancouver. The only thing we don't have

diminishing in North Vancouver is the number of administrators in our

school board. Everything else is going down. We have a diminishing

enrolment, a diminished number of teachers, and an increase in

administration. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to

comment: if this comes to pass and our school board wants to move on

the Hamilton school, what sort of inquiry, what sort of conduct, what

sort of authority might he have in that matter? I personally am very

averse to it and I think it would be a retrograde step in the

educational system in North Vancouver. Our school board, except for two

members.... We have two progressive members, but the majority of them

are no more than the puppets of the administration; they dance when the

administration pulls the string. Somebody's got to oversee that

administration. We're spending $50 million a year in North Vancouver

and something's got to be done.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's extraordinary, the amount of money

that's being spent. North Vancouver is one of the districts, like West

Vancouver.... You know, interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, the

combined school population of West Vancouver and North Vancouver is

really what North Vancouver was a few years ago. Maybe those two are

great candidates for amalgamation too; I don't know. There's lots of

that sort of thing bandied about, but maybe it's a bit too large.

On the matter of school property, I'm aware of the concerns

expressed by both the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Reynolds) and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), but

you've got to understand that if at all possible, one of the things we

want to preserve, even through this difficult period, is the autonomous

nature of boards. If the school board won't meet with a certain group

of people, that's on their heads. Let them worry about that problem.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Because somebody in a particular area can't get along with the

school board, they come to the provincial government and say: "We want

you to do our work for us." I don't particularly need any more chores

like that. The political problem with respect to the issue raised by

the member for North Vancouver–Capilano is that obviously those

districts don't want to lose any enrolment, because if they lose

enrolment it's going to affect the driver increasing the funds to the

district. There's not very much I can do about that problem in North

Van with respect to the demand that they want to lease some property.

As far as what's coming in the twenty-first century, that's a large

question. I don't know if I really have the ability to tell anyone

what's going to happen in the twenty-first century, so why don't I just

level with you, have a look at Hansard ,

and perhaps we'll try to get a response back to you. But I know one

thing: they tell me, and I'm inclined to believe them, that television

is not really the answer — to pipe in education, and everybody becomes

a dot at the end of a ruddy tube. I just don't see that there's any

great claim there.

Oh, here comes trouble.

MR. HOWARD: I want to pose a question to the minister

relating to the master tuition agreement between the province and the

federal government with respect to the education of native Indian

people who have status under the Indian Act, and who attend public

schools under the domain of the provincial government. First, what

amount per student per year — if that's the way it's calculated — is

paid under that master tuition agreement? In what way can it be

determined or discovered? How does one go about finding out how that

money is allocated to a school district, and how does it show up in the

school district's books? In other words, if there are, say, 500

students of native Indian origin covered by the master tuition

agreement and attending public schools within a particular school

district, where do you find that 500 students times the per student

amount of money?

I put this forward, and I'll tell the minister why. There are many,

many complaints that they can't discover or find out, by an analysis of

anybody's books, where the money goes. Does it come into the provincial

government and stay there? Does it get lost in the funding formula? Is

it transferred straight through? Is it dollar for dollar, and all you

are is the conduit pipe that moves it from the federal government into

the school district? Those kinds of answers are what I'd like to know,

particularly the amount per student.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I personally do not know,

but I will find out. The information has been given to me by one of my

officials. I will give you that information.

[ Page 3807 ]

1 think what we'll do, if this is not adequate, is flesh it out, because I'm as interested as you are in the answer.

[4:00]

First, about the note you've given me: there is no master tuition

agreement. The province has a financial agreement that recovers from

the federal government the provincial average cost per pupil,

calculated each year. The funds are allocated to the district in a

ratio of the district's costs to the provincial average cost. The

amounts, of course, in each district vary. I'll just expand on that.

The federal government will advance to the provincial government the

average per student cost province-wide. The province will then disburse

funds in accordance with the school district average, because some are

low and some are high. It is all in the books of the district as

specific revenue to reduce provincial and local costs. We share that

expense.

As I recall, the total amount of money — I'm going from memory on

this — into the school system.... When we break down the cost overall,

for example, I think it was 51.51 percent from consolidated revenue,

roughly 34.5 percent from the non-residential commercial-industrial

base, and roughly 8.74 percent from the residential base. And then

there was a portion in there of roughly 4 to 4.5 percent, as I recall,

which covered funding in the form of grants in lieu of taxes — moneys

from the Department of National Defence and from the Department of

Indian Affairs. I think the moneys are advanced to the province on a

provincial average. The province disburses to the district on the

student average within that district.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the minister could tell me, say, for

a given year — he can pick the year out; the most recent one would be

helpful — what that provincial average cost per-student year is. Is

that the way they measure it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We've got that in a dozen places right

now. The total cost per student in the province, everything included,

is $3,937. I don't think, Mr. Member, that that's the figure you want,

because that includes debt servicing and teachers' pensions. The

per-student average cost in the district, as far as operating, is

something in the order of.... I'll get that exact amount for you. I

want that. It will take a minute to get, but we're going to get that.

MR. HOWARD: We'll get the precise figure, and then it will be

on the record. For the sake of the argument that I want to put forward,

say that it's $3,000. I think that's on the conservative side of

looking at it. I mention $3,000 because $3,000 is the amount identified

in a letter from a Mr. Jim Angus, who's the administrator of the

Anspayawx — and that will require some spelling for Hansard

when they get to it — School Society, which is a school operated in the

Indian community of Kispiox, just north of Hazelton. Mr. Angus mentions

$3,000; he's picking a round figure out of that. So roughly speaking,

on the basis of Mr. Angus — and there are other bands who are in the

same category; the Nimpkish band, I understand, is similarly operated —

in the school district of Terrace that encompasses the Hazelton area,

the school district for all intents and purposes receives, say, $3,000

per student-year for native Indian children who have status under the

Indian Act. The school district gets that amount of money. The

Anspayawx School, which is on a reserve, has students who are not of

Indian descent attending an Indian-operated school. The amount of money

that the Anspayawx School receives — and this is by calculation of Mr.

Angus — per student-year from the provincial government is $750. That's

the figure he gives me. So if you look at the situation here, Mr.

Chairman, and ask the minister to look at this situation, we have a

public school operated by the school district under the laws of the

province of British Columbia to which native Indian students attend,

and for that the school district receives from the federal government

$3,000 per year per student — on the conservative side. We have the

reverse situation where non-Indian students are attending a school

under federal jurisdiction. There is no balance factor there; that

school receives $750 per non-Indian student in attendance. That's Mr.

Angus's figure. What he wants to know and what I want to know is: if

$3,000 is an appropriate figure on the one side, why isn't $3,000 an

appropriate figure on the other? Why doesn't the Anspayawx School get

$3,000 for each non-Indian student who attends that school?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think this

is a side issue to the real per-student cost, but in 1983 when I look

at operating budget only, the cost average in British Columbia is

$3,263. Now I know that's not what you're after. What we've got here —

is it a school federally funded and operated under the Department of

Indian Affairs, or is it a band-operated school but funded federally?

And what you have is non-Indians attending that school; the question

then comes out as to whether or not there should be funding advanced to

that school and whether or not there is authority for it. I think there

is a question in here. I'm not trying to duck anything here, but I want

to find out what the real problem is. I think I know what the problem

is, but I'm not sure I have any ideas for the solution. The question

you're asking is why we have an anomaly really one way. We have a

minority non-Indian population attending an Indian school, and if those

children are the responsibility of the province, why then is the

province not advancing moneys to the Indian school? What they are doing

is what we cannot; in effect that is what's happening in the field. I

haven't got the answer to that, but we're going to find out.

I don't know if it's mixed up with independent schools. If it is,

whether there is a grant that's given in that area and the funding then

is on a group I or group II level.... And then of course the question

comes in as to who is advancing those moneys. Is it the provincial

government under the independent school legislation or is it a school

district? Mr. Chairman, it's a very penetrating question, and I think

it's worthy of an answer. I will come back tomorrow with some more

detail, if I can get it, because I haven't got it here. There is some

concern exactly what we're getting at with my two officials as well,

but we're going to find out.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, a letter would be beautiful — one that's comprehensible, preferably.

Mr. Chairman, yes, there are some other factors. But the major fact

is that the $750 per-student per-year figure to which I referred, and

to which Mr. Angus referred in a letter, is an approximate figure. He

is taking that out of the funding that he gets. It isn't a block amount

of money. It’s not an average cost factor at all. It's a percentage

figure, depending on the class in which they fall. It's a 9 percent

level now, I think. In any event, he is saying that in working out the

money that they get from the provincial government under the statutes

of this Legislature, it works out to approximately

[ Page 3808 ]

$750 per student. On the other side, it's $3,000.

The minister very succinctly put the question. We want to know why the

disparity.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would

appreciate the member forwarding to me, if he would, any correspondence

and perhaps the letter he authored. If you want to take the time to do

it and give me a full understanding of what.... You might have

additional information which hasn't been raised in the House. The more

I listen, the more it sounds to me that it's being funded under the

independent school legislation, but we'll look into that. I would

appreciate your material.

MR. HOWARD: In response to the question of the minister — and

I'm glad to answer his question — if you look in the files of your

predecessor, you will find correspondence without this. However, that's

beside the point. I'll gladly send the minister copies of all of this

correspondence that's been related to me with a short covering letter

simply referring to the debate this afternoon. I think that might be

satisfactory.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of short questions

for the minister. One of them has to do with your policy today on

capital financing. I'm particularly concerned.... The minister contends

that a great deal of consideration has been given in your formula to

have a mechanism built in to assist increasing enrolments which school

boards may meet. The formula is supposed to take that into account,

although as our Education critic has pointed out, we question that. I

wish to discuss with you what your policy is for districts that have

pockets of increased enrolment. In my own area of North Burnaby....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Forest Grove.

MRS. DAILLY: That's good. I pay tribute to this minister. He

has an excellent memory, and to have him remember my school — the

Forest Grove school in Burnaby North — is excellent.

They have experienced a tremendous influx of young people into

co-ops, as the minister probably knows. These young parents are

naturally very concerned. I know that you know all about it; you've

received a number of letters. I did finally receive an answer to one of

my letters I sent to you. Frankly, the answer did not give me or the

parents much hope that there was going to be immediate consideration.

Mr. Chairman, even though the Social Credit government has embarked

determinedly against all signs that this great restraint program is not

working when it comes to education, surely this is one area that has to

have some flexibility — particularly in capital — where you do have

parents having to see these wee kids being bused early in the morning

or doing a long walk. I really think we owe it to.... I'm not just

talking about North Burnaby. I don't know what you're doing about your

capital financing in other areas. Are you having great difficulty

getting it through cabinet? I presume there's some block there. I'm

really concerned. Would you tell us what your policy is? Have you

frozen all new capital financing? Are you prepared to look at some very

serious areas?

[4:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for

raising the issue of Forest Grove. I met with the mayor of Burnaby and

the former board chairman; I had discussions with another ministry. It

is included within the 1984-85 capital requirements, as is Dease Lake

School, which the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) referred to. I would

have liked to have done something about it earlier. I have to advise

you that capital expenditures in the education budget last year were

something in the order of $20 million province-wide. That is not very

much money. We are aware of that particular problem. We are aware that

the Burnaby School Board — district 41 — has closed eight schools,

through some good management, which were in catchment areas or pockets

of the community where operating a school could not be justified. They,

as a board of trustees, took it on the chin and, no doubt, were

unpopular for some period of time. I think the amount of money is

something in the order of $2 million, if my memory serves me correctly,

that is shared. There was some problem or arrangement which I was

hoping would be worked out, and may very well by now have been worked

out, between the municipality of Burnaby and the school district,

involving the disposition and/or leasing of some properties, which was

going to assist in the funding.

There was the other matter.... Because Lands, Parks and Housing was

involved in a development in the community, that development created a

catchment area and generated some students. I think it was around 200 —

is that correct? — students who really should be attending school in

that area. These are grades 1, 2 and 3, and I'm not sure if

kindergarten is involved, but as I understand it.... Or is it grades 1

to 4? I was hoping that something could have been worked out with them.

It's still very active.

I have done what I can to try to advance the interests of a school

which is required. There are a number of other schools, too, within the

province which are putting forth the same position. But I will advise

you that that has been incorporated within the 1984-85 capital

expenditure program.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister. I would like to go on to

another question to do with independent schools. I listened with some

dismay to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who was asking the

minister if he would consider what seemed to be, if I took him up

correctly, this whole matter of the government exams as they apply to

the private schools — certain religious ones. I gather he was even

asking if you'd consider a separate kind of exam. What dismayed me also

was the minister's reply. It seemed to me you said you'd be looking at

it. I hope that I misunderstood that reply, because I really don't

think the public of British Columbia, whom the minister has said in the

past are in favour of these exams — and yet you and I

part company on

that assessment.... I don't think the public of British Columbia,

including the people who have their children at parochial schools, who

are all generally paying taxes, will take too kindly to a system with

two kinds of exams. I think, actually, you're going to create a lot of

trouble, Mr. Minister, that you don't need at this time. I wonder if

you would answer for me just what you meant by stating that you were

thinking about it or might look into it.

One more question on independent schools. I'm wondering, Mr.

Chairman, if in this time of restraint, when the Social Credit

government is constantly telling the people of British Columbia that

there is no money, that we have to cut back on public schools, etc....

I'd like to ask the minister a direct question: how can you accept the

fact that in a time of

[ Page 3809 ]

restraint and cutbacks for public schools — or, you

know, you admit it yourself; you don't have enough money to give them

now.... How can you explain to the public of British Columbia that in a

time of restraint, someone who has a large income and who can afford to

pay $10,000 to send their children to a private school should be

subsidized by the taxpayer? I'm referring particularly, as the minister

knows, to the schools that charge these very large fees. I know you

hear from these schools. Their only answer is: "Well, we do provide a

few scholarships." To my mind that's irrelevant. The point is this: in

a time of restraint, will the minister tell me how he can accept the

fact that people who can afford $10,000 a year to send their children

to a private school should be getting subsidized?

Those are my two questions — about the exams and that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Both are good questions, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the examination issue, I responded to the member for

Omineca, who made the comment that the independent schools — that is,

the federation of independent schools — were opposed to the external

examinations administered by the province. I don't believe that to be

the case. As a matter of fact, there is considerable support within the

independent schools association for those examinations. There is one

segment, the parochial schools, often referred to as Christian schools,

involving an overall student population, under the umbrella of the

independent school system, of roughly 3,000 students from kindergarten

to grade 12. If we broke it down, I don't know exactly how many grade

11 and 12 students there would be writing the exams. I have been very

firm on this matter with respect to examinations, and that has been

most clear. However, there is a problem with one portion. They have

agreed that they would go along with it, but I know that there is a

great deal of resistance in that one segment of the independent schools

association. It is a concern which I am attempting to address, and

that's all I have said.

When you start talking about funding, first of all on independent

schools, let's be clear on one item. It is the policy of the government

to support the independent school system. That is a debate which has

gone on for a number of years. The government, I think courageously,

took the position to support independent schools, and I know it was the

right decision. However, the funding which is advanced is at two

levels, group 1 and group 2. I think group 2 funding is primarily the

funding to which the member refers. Group 2 funding is based, again, on

the average cost per student in the public education system within the

district where the independent school is located. As an example, if the

cost is $3,000 — we'll just use that for illustrative purposes — under

group 2 funding the sum of 30 percent of that $3,000, or $900, is

advanced to the independent school. That formula has been rigid for a

number of years, and to my knowledge the 30 percent factor has not

varied at all. What has varied, however, is the enrolment within the

independent school system, which has increased. That increase accounted

for the increase which was set forth in the Education estimates — the

increase in enrolment is reflected there.

Secondly, we must remember that the independent school system is

funded one year behind. As a result, when we had the great foofaraw

last year and found that it increased from something in the order of

$17 million to $21 million or $22 million, that came a year after, but

it reflected the cost in the preceding year in the public school

system. There was no additional funding given to them.

So to get back to the thrust of the question from the member for

Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) as to why we fund these schools when it is

believed — according to the member — that those students come from

families who can afford to pay, I'm not so sure that's always the case,

although it must be in a number of instances. The formula is built in;

it's constant. The enrolment has gone up, and we know that the average

cost per student the previous year was higher than now. Next year under

the budget we will see, I would think, a reduction in the amount on the

30 percent formula, but, of course, it may be adjusted, depending on

what the enrolment is.

I don't know if I've adequately answered the question, but I think

it's best that I've gone into some of the history and background of it.

Again that's maybe where we

part company, although I don't like that

type of expression. But I think there is a philosophical difference

between the policy of the party in opposition as compared to the policy

of the party in government. Although I am told that some years ago

there may have been some change by the members opposite with respect to

the independent school system, I don't know whether that's true or

false. But I don't know if they would ever be ad idem on it. The

formula and the enrolment is there. I think you must be honourable and

recognize that formula and that there must be funding according to it.

It would be patently unfair for the government to turn around to

somebody who has agreed with it and suddenly cut in midstream.

MRS. DAILLY: This will be my final comment and question, Mr.

Chairman. I appreciate the sincerity of the minister in his attempt to

answer it. I wasn't at this time questioning anything to do with the

formula. That has been discussed before. I simply want to make it quite

clear to you that I am talking specifically about schools such as, for

example, St. George's in Vancouver. Number one, it's a school for boys;

number two, it has restricted enrolment. It's obviously a school where

people have to have considerable means to send their children to it.

It's good that they're in that position. I'm just saying that this

government has been very cold, hard-hearted and harsh about cutting

back on the people in the low-income bracket. Here is a chance to show

that you're concerned about equality in your so-called restraint

program. If you want to make cuts, I would suggest questioning whether

you should continue to subsidize these wealthy parents. That is my

question and my point.

[4:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The argument advanced sounds to me like

this: if we have a group of students writing scholarship exams, and of

the ten students who are awarded a scholarship we find that two come

from very well-off families, should those students be denied that

scholarship? I haven't got the right nor the desire to invoke a means

test for any particular group in society, and I'm not about to

discriminate against anyone, whether they're rich or poor. I don't

think that's the job of government. In addition, those people who are

sending their students to independent schools not only are paying, as

the member points out, substantial sums in order to put their children

there — as a result of freedom of choice, which is important — but also

are contributing to consolidated revenue and property taxation. So do I

really put that group of people in double jeopardy, establish a means

[ Page 3810 ]

test, and then — just to carry it to its logical

conclusion — if one of them should be awarded a scholarship because he

has a great deal of ability, deny that scholarship because he happens

to come from a family that's well-to-do? I appreciate the concern

advanced, and the necessity of restraint, but there are some times that

we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

MR. REYNOLDS: I've just got a couple of short questions for the minister. One of them....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) had

short questions too; he took about two and a half hours. I assure you I

won't take that long.

The other day there was a letter to the editor in the paper that

made statements about the provincial examinations for our students in

British Columbia being printed in the United States. I understand that

that isn't true. You see these things in the paper all the time, and

this is the letter of the day. I would have thought that the Province ,

which usually does a very good job of checking facts in the

letters-to-the-editor page, would at least have phoned the ministry and

asked them. I would like the minister to assure the people across this

province that those examinations were not only designed by his

department but also printed here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That letter, which I think was in the

Province , is like a number of letters which are forwarded to the

editors of some of our daily publications. I suppose they mean well,

but I often wish that somebody would make a telephone call and find out

what the facts are. First of all, all of the exams were printed in

British Columbia right across the street at the Queen's Printer.

Secondly, the paper used for the machine-marked portion of the

examination — that is, the paper only — was purchased in Minneapolis.

The reason for it was this: it was the only paper which we could use to

be assured of accuracy when the machine-marked papers were being

marked. That's all there was to it: we bought a little bit of paper

across the line. So I think that the writer of that letter should rest

assured that we print, publish and mark exams in British Columbia.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure the pulp that was used in the paper probably came from British Columbia originally anyway.

I would like to also ask the minister.... In moving around West

Vancouver–Howe Sound, I know my constituents keep on asking me when

we're finally going to get the principals and vice-principals out of

the Teachers' Federation, so that we don't run into the problems like

we did last time, when the teachers walked out on their illegal strike,

of principals being in a position that is really unfair to them if they

are to be the chief administrator of the school in any business. That's

why in most unions your management level people cannot be in the union,

because they have to administer. I think it's impossible for a

principal to administer a school when teachers are out on illegal

strikes. I think that should also go for the vice-principals. I'm just

wondering what kind of reaction the minister is getting from around the

province on that issue.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: A brief answer would be, mixed reaction. I

have had, I confess, a number of administrators who have quietly — and

I must repeat "quietly" — advanced that concern. The reason why they

have done so quietly is that it is a very difficult issue to address,

whether or not administrators do or do not want to be members of the

B.C. Teachers' Federation. The problem is a very real one: it's a

matter of mixed or divided loyalties. I think that administrators have

a duty to the profession, to students, to the school and to their

employer, because they in fact are management employees. On the other

side of the coin, the argument is put on purely professional reasons:

the relationship that administrators have with their staff is that they

should be on the same side of the fence. One problem in this area is

whether or not principals should have the right to write reports on the

performance of their staff.

Mr. Chairman, if I could get the members' attention on the issue,

one of the things that I think is very important on this item.... I

think the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) might be interested in

this point. A directive was issued by the BCTF which said — I'm going

from memory now — in effect, that you as administrators should amend

the regulations of your association so that you are bound by the

majority decision of the local association and/or the parent body in

the event of work stoppages. I know for a fact that that did not go

down very well with the administrators — that is, the Principals' and

Vice-Principals' Association. The concern that I have with that type of

direction is that a professional organization is issuing a directive to

a constituent portion of its membership suggesting that they should

pass a regulation whereby they would be bound in the event of a work

stoppage. Now we're treading on thin ice in here as between a

professional organization and something which has the tinge or

accoutrements of a trade union. That's really what it boils down to.

So my response is an honest one. From the field the answer is mixed,

but there obviously is some concern by the administration. I think

probably enough has been said, because the problem is now surfacing.

Perhaps they're going to resolve it from within; I do not know.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to make some comments about some

previous comments made by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Ree), who was talking about the North Vancouver school board. I

certainly agree with his comments 100 percent, and would back him up on

the treatment that the parents on the North Shore got from the North

Vancouver school board. I think it's atrocious that the school board

will not even meet with these people.

But I'll leave that alone and go over to West Vancouver. There I

think we have a bit of a different situation, with a school board that

is doing a nice waltz with parents who want their children to go to a

private school that would be situated somewhere on the North Shore.

These parents, for obvious reasons, are not happy with the system. They

want more discipline in the schools. Some of them know their children

will get through the system with an education that will get them into

university, but they're looking for more than that. They're looking for

a school on the North Shore that can compete with St. George's and

other private schools around this province. A number of our students in

that area are going to those schools, and these parents want to sort of

bring them home into the North Shore area. My great concern in this

whole area, and why I use the word "waltzing" or "dancing, " is that

the parents of this area are getting very frustrated. They've been

through, for the last couple of

[ Page 3811 ]

months.... People who have jobs and other concerns in their lives

have been going to meetings just about every night, and they're

extremely frustrated. Some of them are probably near the point of just

about giving up. They say: "We can't beat this bureaucracy. It's like

beating big government."

Here on the North Shore we have a number of empty schools that all

the taxpayers of this province have paid for to some degree, and we

don't have the mechanisms within government…the minister doesn't

have the mechanisms whereby he can pick up the phone and say, "That

school must be leased within 30 days," whether it's to this group or

not. That school should not be allowed to sit empty for the time it's

going to sit empty. We know that in West Vancouver the school board is

going to give one of its schools — probably for $1 — to the

municipality to use for a recreation centre. I support that. I think

the school is ideally situated, and the municipality needs a centre for

the arts and other things in that area. It's not going to be used as a

school again because of the location. A perfect idea. Nevertheless, the

school board in that area has seen fit to keep the dance going. They

don't want to say no, because they know it's popular with a lot of the

voters in West Vancouver, but they're afraid they're going to lose

these students to the private school. Of course, then they'll lose the

money that goes along with it, so teachers will lose their jobs. But

that's the way the system works. Those teachers in West Vancouver who

are so concerned about losing their jobs should maybe look inside and

say: "If we were doing the job that these parents want, they wouldn't

be looking at taking their children out of my school and putting them

into a private school." Some of those teachers can take the blame,

because it's the kind of education they're giving the children — the

lack of discipline by some of them — that is forcing these parents to

go somewhere else.

I would hope that sometime in the next little while the Minister of

Education and his department can come up with a program that would

ensure all the citizens of British Columbia that if there are empty

schools in any district, the school districts can't play games with

these buildings. To suggest that we're going to take a large high

school in North Van and make it an administration building is nonsense.

I know the minister would probably agree with that. To suggest that we

would leave a school empty in West Vancouver and prevent some parents

from starting up a new private school is nonsense. The people within

these public fields must understand that if somebody wants to start

their own school, they should be encouraged to do it. It would

certainly cost the taxpayers a little less money because they don't get

as large a grant as we put into the public schools; and they certainly

should have the right to give their children the kind of education they

want for them in this country. If we were in Vancouver, Richmond.... I

know that even up in Squamish there are empty facilities that we could

get easily, but in West Vancouver land is short, buildings are short.

It's a tough situation.

I give full credit to the minister and his staff for the help

they've given these people, but I know their hands are tied in a lot of

areas and it depends on a decision of the school board. I don't want to

interfere with the school board; it's their job to make those

decisions. But I don't mind saying that I think they're wrong. I think

they should be encouraging that group of parents to start up their

school. Their prime consideration should be of the students. If the

parents aren't happy with that education, the school board should be

looking in that area.

In a lot of these meetings it is interesting to see the number of

teachers yelling and screaming: "You can't let this happen! It's

against democracy to allow a private school to start." Those same

teachers go to the meetings all the time, and I'd suggest to them that

they're part of the problem as to why these parents want to get their

children out of the public school system and into their own private

school. I'm not looking for a comment from the minister. I merely

wanted to put that on the record.

[4:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to finish up by saying that I've talked a little bit here

about the teachers in the situation in West Van. I've asked the

minister the question of the principals and vice-principals. I bring

that up because I think it's important that everybody know they're part

of the management team and are there to protect our interest in the

schools. When I look around in different areas of the province.... My

friend and colleague from Surrey received a presentation that was made

to the British Columbia government on behalf of the British Columbia

Teachers' Federation; he received it at a meeting that he went to with

his school district. Here is their list of priorities in that school

district: number one, increment cost for teachers; number two,

increased salary costs for nonteaching staff; number three, increased

staff for increased students. That's what the teachers call quality

education in this province? Their number three priority is to look

after the students? The first priority is to look after themselves, and

the second is to look after the janitors and other staff in the school

and their third priority is the students.

Well, Mr. Minister, when I listen to our friends from the NDP here

talk about education in this province and knock it, they should really

be looking at where the problem is. The problem is not in the amount of

money that this province puts into education. If they want to be honest

about it and look across Canada and relate it to the cost of money we

spend per student in this province, we're equal to just about anybody —

within a few dollars. But where we're not equal to other provinces is

that the other provinces aren't as strong.... I call it a union; they

call themselves a federation. There's a bunch of unionists involved

there. Guys like Larry Kuehn are out to destroy our system. Larry Kuehn

is not out for the benefit of the teachers; Larry Kuehn is out to

destroy the type of democratic system we believe in in this country.

He's there to keep on jabbing and causing problems, putting out....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I don't want to call him that. Everybody knows that anyways.

But he's putting out false information and creating dissent across

this province. You know, I was very upset. I sent the minister a

brochure that was delivered in my area to the Capilano College, and the

headline is: "Why We Joined the Solidarity Coalition: The Capilano

College Faculty Association Speaks Out." They have four pages of

information. This was given to every student in Capilano College by the

faculty, with a note on the back on how to reach myself and other

members on the North Shore.

Mr. Chairman, this is where I think the minister has his problems

within that department. You're dealing with these kinds of people. I

mean, the first item on the brochure was on the Human Rights Code, the

next ones were rental protection ended, social services cut, basic

unemployment and taxes going up. They don't even get to schools until

the fifth point.

[ Page 3812 ]

This is the Solidarity group from the Capilano College Faculty

Association passing out absolute political information to the students

in their college. It's absolute false information, filled with lies,

probably given to them by Larry Kuehn and some of his other radicals,

and that's what teachers are doing in this province — teachers who are

out to destroy our system.

You know, it's so easy, Mr. Chairman, to lump them all into that

boat. I don't even like to get up and say some of this stuff, because I

don't want other teachers to think they're all like that. I have six

children in the system. Two of them are finished. They've had great

teachers. The majority of them started school in Delta, which is, I

think one of the best-run school districts in the province. I look at

their cost per student in that area and it's very low, but they got and

are getting good educations.

I think a lot of teachers would agree with me when I talk about the

radicals within their federation who are really not out for better

education for your children and my children. They're out for better

things for themselves. They put themselves first, as you can see in the

book they put out. Increases for them is their main interest. It's not

how well our children are doing. If we try to compare marks across the

province, if we try to give examinations to see how they're doing at

their teaching jobs, they yell and scream that that's unfair to

children. I don't think there's a member in this House looking around

that didn't have to write exams and compete in their classrooms. I know

I'm 42 years of age, and I had to do it. We got marked on our

percentages from one to 100. You got graded in the classroom. When you

went home, your father knew whether you were first or whether you were

forty-first. And if you were less than half, at least in my household —

and I was pretty close to that all the time — you got treated pretty

roughly by my father. There was strict discipline at home. We're losing

that with the type of teachers that we have that lead some of these

unions.

It's a frustrating situation for me as a parent to sit and see some

of this political activity take place inside the school system. That's

why I'm up talking about it. I think the minister has one of the

toughest jobs of any minister, because education is one of the most

important — if not the most important — ministry. Health is important,

because people get sick and we have to fix them up. Human Resources is

important if they need some assistance. But education, Mr. Chairman, is

what makes the world go round. I think the minister's doing a very good

job under extremely trying circumstances, and I just think it's.... We

have to get up here and give some of the other side of the story,

because we don't always get that from the New Democrats. They're

playing their political games all the time, and they don't want to

offend some of their friends in the unions — or if they want to call

them federations.... So I'm glad to get up here and present some of the

other side of the story — a side of the story that parents bring to me.

It's parents who bring me those brochures that their children bring

home from school, and I think it's shameful. Mr. Minister, I want to

congratulate you for the job you're doing in trying to give our

children the best education of any province in Canada, and I believe we

are getting that in this province. Under the circumstances — with the

worldwide economies as they are — you are doing a very good job, and I

commend you for it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I just want to make one correction on

something which I mentioned earlier in response to the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds): the request to change was not

within your own association, but a change in a regulation within the

ministry, and that was with respect to a directive that was given by

the BCTF to the Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association. That's

what I want to make clear. I made a mistake earlier, and I think I'll

leave it at that.

As far as the independent school in West Vancouver is concerned, I

recognize the problem, and I don't want to make any comment on it right

now.

MR. ROSE: I, too, would like to comment on the response that

the minister gave a little earlier about whether.... He seemed to

suggest that somehow the BCTF used a big, heavy hand and imposed their

own view on the principals and vice-principals in relation to their

duties in various districts should there be a withdrawal of service. I

am informed that the directive that was discussed, which the minister

has just withdra