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)

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3757 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Unemployment. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3758

Quintette Coal Ltd. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3759

Reforestation. Mrs. Wallace –– 3759

Aboriginal self-government. Mr. Passarell –– 3760

Tabling Documents –– 3761

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

On vote 15: minister's office –– 3761

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this

opportunity to introduce to the House a group of young university

students from the forestry faculty who are visiting the precincts

today. With them is their chairman, Rob Laisley, who is accompanied by

quite a large group, including two who are spokespeople for the group:

Sally Aiken and David Pond. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming

them.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Chair for clarification of the Speaker's decision last Friday, wherein

the Chair said: "Bearing in mind the number of occasions on which

matters of unemployment have been raised under standing order 35 and

have been turned down as being inappropriate, it could well be

considered that continued application of a like nature constituted

abuse of the procedure of this House." Mr. Speaker, I want a

clarification from the Chair as to whether or not the admonition about

abuse of 35 is indeed a matter of fact or, rather, a matter of opinion,

and as to whether or not a ruling has been made from the Chair to that

effect over the issue of unemployment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly the ruling of the Chair was

made, and, in the opinion of the Chair, the explanation speaks very

clearly for itself.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the House can only be governed by

decisions in the chamber, rather than by opinions from any comer,

including, in my opinion, the Chair. An expression of opinion from the

Chair does not constitute an order in itself. What I am requesting from

the Chair is clarification as to whether or not it was the Chair's

decision or just a verbal opinion that unemployment is an inappropriate

issue to discuss under 35. Is that a ruling or an opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is a long-standing ruling; it is

based on over 600 years' experience of parliamentary activity, and that

is how the ruling was brought before the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, without being facetious, there was

no attempt by the Chair to interpret 600 years of rule

interpretation

to mean that we can't raise unemployment under standing order 35. It is

a current issue, with 200,000 people in this province out of work.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking for a ruling.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, not at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members, it is a long-standing rule of this House that when the

Speaker stands in his place, any member who continues to talk, or who

interrupts in any way whatsoever, is immediately asked to leave the

chamber. I remind members of that for the final time.

Hon. members, while I am on my feet I would remind the Leader of the

Opposition that a ruling brought in under standing order 35 was brought

in on Friday. That ruling cannot be challenged today on a point of

order. The time to challenge the ruling was on Friday, when members

should have been here. If it is a member's intention not to be happy or

pleased with a ruling of the Chair. the time to bring that to the

attention of the House or to challenge the ruling is at the time it is

brought down, and not to recanvass or to enter into debate on a matter

that has already been discussed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member we're not on a....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: When does an opinion by the Chair constitute a ruling? That is the basis of my original point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly, the ruling

brought in on Friday dealing with the standing order 35 which was

raised by the member at that time, was addressed at that time. The

ruling is clear. The opinion of the Chair is brought forward, as is

needed under standing order 35. Hon. member, in fact, I believe if you

will read the decision carefully, you will find reference made to a

ruling by previous Speakers, and I would be happy to supply the Leader

of the Opposition with similar rulings at similar times.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is not going to enter into debate on this matter.

MR. BARRETT: No, not debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor.

MR. BARRETT: The question I raise, Mr. Speaker, is of the

Chair expressing an opinion, not a ruling, and the opinion is that it

could well be considered that continued application of a like nature

constituted abuse — not a ruling but an opinion. What I was asking on

the original point of order is: is that opinion a ruling, or is it an

expression of opinion about what is appropriate for debate?

[ Page 3758 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, when the Chair brings in any ruling

or opinion, it is based upon the fact that a member may or may not

bring a request forward in a parliamentary method, either under the

basis of asking for genuine assistance under 35 or, as often happens,

possibly under political considerations. The Chair tries to accomplish

both by bringing forth an opinion often other than a ruling to try to

soften any feelings that might otherwise be affected.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I know of no

order in the standing rules that governs the feelings of members. We

deal with facts. An expression of opinion has been made by the Chair,

and I would ask the Chair to state clearly whether this opinion is

indeed a ruling. Opinions could be interpreted by some members who have

sensitive feelings — as described by the Chair — as being an attempt to

limit, ahead of time, what any freely elected member in this chamber

wishes to raise. The point that I'm sticking to, Mr. Speaker, is

strictly this one: there is an expression from the Chair around an

issue, unemployment, that it could well be considered that continued

application of a like nature constituted an abuse. In my opinion, that

is inappropriate for the Chair, unless the Chair is stating clearly

that the Chair tells the House it will no longer consider a

section 35

if the subject matter is unemployment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, just so we may put this matter to

rest, the Chair will undertake to review both what was said on Friday

and the points that were made in the last few moments, and will

undertake to bring back a more clear analysis for the Leader of the

Opposition.

Oral Questions

UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. GABELMANN: In view of the obvious emergency in the

province, if not in the Legislature, relating to unemployment, may I

ask the Minister of Labour a question, in the absence of the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Statistics Canada reported on Friday that

British Columbia has now reached the second-highest unemployment rate

in Canada following two consecutive regressive budgets. In the face of

this further evidence of the suffering caused by the past two budgets,

is the government reconsidering its fiscal policies? I ask the Minister

of Labour that question as he is the minister responsible for

employment in this province.

[2:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps after question period the member

would table the comment from Statistics Canada regarding regressive

budgets. I would be interested to see that. I doubt very much whether

Statistics Canada used that language. He made it up again.

Mr. Speaker, no, we are not reconsidering our fiscal policy.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the minister's

hearing is impaired today. I said that Statistics Canada has reported

that British Columbia now has the second-highest unemployment in

Canada. "As a result of the regressive budget" were my words.

I have another question for the minister. The unemployment rate in

British Columbia is as high as or higher than during the worst part of

the recession two years ago. Is the minister now prepared to admit that

the recovery in the rest of North America has passed British Columbia

by?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to

admit that at all. This government is gearing all of its policies to

developing employment projects to put people to work. Today the Premier

and a number of other people announced an important job creation

project with the extension of the ALRT across the Fraser River. I

understand, although I wasn't there, that Solidarity was there and

booed the creation of jobs for people in British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia now has 91,000

fewer people working than it had when the budget was introduced last

July. Is the minister prepared to consider other job creation

initiatives to get them back to work?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, of course we are

considering other job creation projects. The announcements that I made

myself in the last couple of weeks with the youth employment program to

be continued during the summer.... The Solidarity boos and the NDP

laughs at programs to put young people to work. That's where their

priorities lie, Mr. Speaker.

This summer there will be $10 million for youth employment. We will

be putting 9,000 young people to work directly as a result of that

program. We've also put together a program whereby we hope 10,000 or

more young people will create their own jobs by starting their own

businesses with guarantees for loans from this government. We'll be

announcing a lot of other job creation programs as well. Expo 86 is

starting now to put people to work in this province, this year, next

year and the year after. This province will have the best reputation

for job creation in Canada if it doesn't have it already.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, even if we accept the minister's

figures of 19,000 jobs for young people in British Columbia this

summer, there will still be well in excess of 200,000 young people

without jobs this summer.

What explanation does the minister have for the fact that British

Columbia's lack of performance runs counter to the trend in all of the

59 other jurisdictions of Canada and the United States?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think British Columbia's

situation is easy to explain. Our resource sector, as everyone in this

province and around the country knows, has been very seriously hit.

Metal prices are still down; markets are still down. The forest

industry has come through its most disastrous time ever, and

unfortunately is not yet responding. But I hope that very soon the

current dispute in the forest industry will be out of the way, and that

that industry will then start to recover — certainly as housing starts

increase in the United States. I just hope we get this dispute over as

quickly as possible and that our people bargain to a successful

solution quickly, in order that we can take advantage of what is a

window that will begin to improve employment rates in British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: None of my figures includes the people who are locked out at the present time in terms of

[ Page

3759 ]

unemployment. Obviously, the fact that similar economies in Oregon and Washington

are not having the kind of downturn in employment that we are in British Columbia

tells us that it's the result of the government's fiscal policy.

Will the Minister of Labour advise why the ministry has not published the February 1984 labour force statistics?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's part of a reorganization of our

ministry. Those statistics are not our statistics; they are put out by

Statistics Canada. They are readily available in a number of other

places. In the interests of saving taxpayers' money I felt — and my

ministry feels — that if you can get them in at least four other

places, what's the point of just sifting over the Statistics Canada

figures and putting them out in another form? That's really all they

are.

QUINTETTE COAL LTD.

MR. GABELMANN: The real answer is that the minister doesn't

like what the figures say. It doesn't cost much to print a mimeographed

booklet like that.

To the same minister but on another subject relating to employment

in British Columbia. I asked questions along this line last Monday; I'm

going to ask some different questions because the minister failed to

deal with the issue.

Article 13.1 of the comprehensive agreement

between the province and Quintette Coal requires Quintette to cooperate

and work with the Ministry of Labour to develop and maintain employment

plans covering construction and operation of the Quintette mine. Will

the minister advise whether this provision in the master agreement has

been observed and whether Quintette has worked with the ministry to

develop such a manpower plan?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On the basis of the last question, one

other comment. Those figures must be available, because the member

quoted from them extensively today, and he obviously got his

information either from the newspapers, where he usually gets it, or

from Statistics Canada, where it's available free.

MR. NICOLSON: You're jealous because he can read and you can't.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that is a very unkind cut,

coming from a member who is known for throwing his rule book at the

Chairman of this assembly.

I have no evidence to the contrary.

MR. GABELMANN: My question was, has the ministry worked out a labour plan with Quintette?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My answer was, I have no evidence to the contrary.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, that answer is as useful as the government's policies.

Will the minister advise whether Quintette and the ministry reached

an agreement under which Quintette sends recruiters and advertises for

heavy-equipment operators and heavy-duty mechanics in Ontario and

Newfoundland?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. GABELMANN: Is the minister aware that many

heavy-equipment operators and mechanics in British Columbia have been

refused employment by Quintette Coal at the same time as Quintette Coal

is running ads in papers in St. John's, Newfoundland, for these

positions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I am not aware of that, but I would be

extremely happy if that member would provide me with that evidence to

help me in taking this question as notice to provide him with further

information at some other date.

REFORESTATION

MRS. WALLACE: My question, in view of the absence of the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), is addressed to the

Attorney-General, who I understand is his stand-in. In view of the

serious unemployment situation in British Columbia, will the minister

advise why he has failed to conclude a new federal-provincial agreement

on intensive reforestation? This would result in $120 million of

additional reforestation expenditure in the 1984-85 fiscal year.

HON. MR. SMITH: In my capacity as acting minister only, I can

inform the member that British Columbia has offered a renewal of the

program and has put that renewal before the federal minister. The

federal minister apparently announced today in the House of Commons

that they are studying that renewal proposal. It's the hope of this

government that we will shortly be able to conclude such an agreement.

MRS. WALLACE: It has certainly taken long enough, because the

federal government had given up ever being able to conclude with you

people. Two years ago the forest and range resource fund report

recommended provincial government spending of $165 million on planting

and caring for trees. Will the minister advise why the government has

cut back to $99.7 million at a time when the future of our forest

industry is at risk?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll take that question as notice for the minister.

MRS. WALLACE: I'll try again with another question. Prof.

Jack Walters of the UBC forestry faculty says that up to 100,000 new

full- and part-time jobs could be created if the government did its

duty on reforestation. Why is the government cutting back and impeding

work in this area"

HON. MR. SMITH: Along with the somewhat dubious premises, I'll take that question on notice, too.

MRS. WALLACE: It's very difficult, Mr. Speaker, when you have

to deal with a minister who obviously knows nothing about the ministry

he's standing in for.

A group of 200 forestry students are in Victoria today protesting

the lack of funds for forest renewal. Has the government decided to

respond seriously and favourably to the concerns of these students, who

are desperately trying to ensure that their future is ensured along

with our forest resource?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes.

[ Page 3760 ]

ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

MR. PASSARELL: I direct a question to the Premier. Will the

Premier advise this House why he ruled out support for the principle of

Indian self-government at the first ministers' conference in Ottawa?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government of British Columbia did not

rule out support for the principle, but could not support putting words

into the constitution until such a time as was defined what form that

government would take and how it would be implemented. If the member

had been there, he would have understood — as I'm sure he does — that

many of the native groups have different forms of government which they

wish to see implemented. Some are not supportive at all. Many know that

in British Columbia we have a statute on the books allowing native

bands to hold a vote to achieve municipal status. One vote was taken

many years ago at Cape Mudge. At that time the requirement to achieve

that was 75 percent. Just over 70 percent was achieved. Since that time

the legislation has been amended to allow that to happen with a 60

percent vote. That's one form of government that would work under

provincial jurisdiction.

The member's got to know that different native groups take positions

as extreme as the Mohawks did at the conference. They consider

themselves a sovereign nation and not part of Canada. Some of the

proposals called for sovereignty similar to that requested by Quebec,

where they would not be part of Canada but would be sovereign nations.

I think many of the people I talked to were looking for a more workable

form. So we support the principle. What is, from any governmental point

of view, a foolish thing to do is to put words into a constitution when

you don't know the way and where such words will lead you. I think the

Canadian people and most of the native people of this country are

looking for workable answers. I think most of them are tired of words;

they want solutions, and that's what we were there for.

MR. SEGARTY: On a point of order, earlier, before question

period, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) got up

on a point of order to discuss a ruling by Mr. Speaker on Friday last.

I'd just like the Speaker to take into consideration a similar

situation that was brought up in this House on November 1, 1974, and a

ruling by Speaker Dowding on the question of unemployment in British

Columbia, when the mover asked the House to propose discussing a

definite matter of urgent public importance, namely rising unemployment

in the province of British Columbia and the recession in the forest and

housing industries in our province.

Mr. Speaker, without quoting the full text of Speaker Dowding's

remarks, it's interesting to note that Speaker Dowding at that time

subsequently ruled: "I am bound to follow the precedents I have

recited, and in view of that, in my opinion, the matter does not fall

within the scope of standing order 35."

When Speaker Dowding was....

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Inasmuch as the

Chair has undertaken to bring back a full and comprehensive decision on

the matter.... I appreciate very much the member's point. The Chair is

familiar with the ruling to which the member is referring.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to conclude by saying that Speaker Dowding ruled that the question wasn't subject to appeal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I thank you for the observation.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. The Chair has

undertaken to bring back a more comprehensive analysis, and that

concludes that particular issue. We're not going to engage in a further

debate.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, very briefly on the point of order raised by my colleague for Kootenay....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We are not engaging in a debate at this time.

MR. D'ARCY: I don't wish to debate his point, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just like to point out for clarification that in '74, when the

issue was raised under the good management of the government at the

time, unemployment was 5 percent, not 15 percent as it is now under

that government over there.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would ask the House for leave to give a brief obituary, if I could.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to say a few words of tribute. I know

that my friends opposite will forgive me if I'm doing this, because he

was a friend. Walter Young passed away on Sunday, and he was a good

friend of this assembly. Walter Young was head of the political science

department at the University of Victoria for a number of years and

during his time there worked on introducing the intern system into this

body, which has flourished and been entirely successful. He had a

distinguished academic career. He was president of the Canadian

Political Science Association. He was a biographer of M.J. Coldwell. He

was a co-founder of the publication BC Studies . He wrote in Vancouver Magazine

and a number of other journals. He was a very distinguished political

scientist. He was a British Columbia Rhodes scholar in 1956 and

president of the student council at Oak Bay High School. He was well

known in this town as an absolutely superb teacher of political science

and particularly of the class of Political Science 200. His students

have gone the breadth of Canada and the world. He was a very fine

teacher. He was a good companion to me, although of the opposite

political stripe. During election campaigns I used to step over the

orange sign on his lawn and go in and take tea with him quite regularly

and keep my flagging hopes higher than they otherwise might have been.

He died on Sunday after a lengthy illness at the age of 50. If Ernie

Hall were here today, he probably would have paid this tribute before I

did. I'd like the House to pay tribute to him and also send wishes to

his widow and family.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the

Attorney-General for a very gracious statement about the passing of a

prominent British Columbian who was partisan and never hid his

partisanship but who separated it from his scholastic work. The

Attorney-General speaks correctly

[ Page 3761 ]

when he says that Walter Young, while a political

scientist of definite political opinions — i.e., a supporter of the New

Democratic Party — never shaded his professional work with his

political convictions in any way.

In the midst of political turmoil in this province, it is essential

for people in this province to understand that there are genuine

friendships beyond temporary differences of opinion on political

philosophy. One of those people who was able to have permanent

friendships in all political parties, regardless of the times, was

Walter Young. Walter was a good son of British Columbia. He was a proud

academic and we, as British Columbians, were proud of him. He leaves a

distinguished career behind him and warm memories of his work

throughout the academic community and in the general population as

well. Unlike a lot of academics, Walter was part of the general

population, rather than separating himself in an ivory tower. He will

be missed by active politicians, by political observers and by friends

and family. It is a deep loss, and I'm most appreciative of the

statements of the Attorney-General. We wish to agree completely with

the sentiments of the Attorney-General and hope that the appropriate

message is sent to the survivors in the name of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is the wish of the House, the Chair will undertake the appropriate message from this chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the report on the Cowichan Estuary Plan

Implementation, as produced by the Ministry of Environment in March

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it wasn't too

long ago that a few comments were raised with respect to last year's

estimates. In the interests of time I'll be brief, but I think it is

probably important that we quickly review some of those reasons which

have led to the concerns that have been expressed not only by members

of the opposition but by a number of others having a particular

interest in the community. By the way, Mr. Chairman, two gentleman have

just come into the House: my deputy minister Jim Carter, and my

assistant deputy minister Jack Fleming.

I hope the House will refresh its memory on the costs of education.

The expenditure over the last seven or eight fiscal years has moved

from something like $900 million up to $1.9 billion. I think we should

just keep that in mind. It's not for me to say whether this is too

little, too much or just about right; what is important is that we be

able to fund the education system within the ability to pay. Let's not

lose sight of the fact that the cost per student in that same period of

time has gone — I'll use rounded figures — from roughly $1,735 to

$3,935. At the same time, enrolment has declined. As a matter of fact,

by September 1984 we expect enrolment to be something in the order of

478,500 students. That's a drop from a high of 525,344 in 1976.

As well, I think it's worth noting the cost of funding teachers in

British Columbia. We are among the highest if not the highest paid in

Canada. Our administrators in the school system in British Columbia are

certainly the highest paid in Canada. I raise that for only one reason:

I don't dispute what any of them are earning, or anybody else, for that

matter. Like government, all these people did was to exercise their

rights in the system that was in place to secure the best deal they

could for themselves. Nobody is taking issue with that.

For the last year and a half the issue has been the fact that

taxpayers generally don't have the money to send to government; nor do

they have the money to absorb the inflationary impact that taxation —

that is, residential and non-residential taxation — is having upon

their properties. It should also be noted that contributions to

teachers' pensions have gone from something in the order of $29 million

to $109 million. That has been revised downwards so it is somewhere in

the order of about $103 million to $104 million annually.

The framework introduced last July caused considerable concern. It's

understandable that it would cause some concern, because it's a change

in the system. Instead of budgeting, as they had done historically,

using previous budgets as the guide, what we in fact did was start

again at the beginning. We set out, for everyone to review, certain

rules and regulations in order to try to calculate the budget. We

succeeded in doing that in most districts. There are half a dozen in

British Columbia right now that are still offering some resistance.

There may be some good reason for it, but it is also something that we

must address as we go into 1985. Most budgets for 1984 have been filed,

with the exception of one or two that I know of. I think a quote from

somebody intimately involved in the system is worthwhile repeating. As

a matter of fact, his reference is to when the system first went out:

"The new system, ignoring the obvious shortage of money, is an

excellent start in establishing a more meaningful budgeting and costing

basis for British Columbia's school districts."

We have worked closely with school districts ever since last July.

We produced a number of tentative budgets and the final went out in the

middle of January 1984, allowing school districts to submit their own.

It is important, when you compare the actual expenditures for 1983 and

the budgeted amount for 1984, to note that the difference in the gross

operating budgets for all school districts is something in the order of

$20 million less. The figures are $1.573 billion for 1983, and $1.553

billion for 1984. So there is no misunderstanding, it should also be

recognized that that which is being paid for in 1984 is more than that

which was paid for in 1983, because, if you will recall, in the spring

of 1983 there were five fewer instructional days in many districts.

We can raise something about the PTRs later on, after my critic has

the floor, because no doubt he will ask me questions about that, and I

don't want to take up too much time now.

I did want to make one comment about one particular report which

caused some concern at the time, and it involves employment for

teachers. If you recall, allegations were made that the system would

knock out about 3,000 teachers. That proved not to be the case, if you

recall, and there was a headline in one of the local newspapers to that

effect. But as a matter of fact, in computing the actual number of

teachers

[ Page 3762 ]

who lost jobs between 1981 and 1983, the figure was

something in the order of 250, and during that period of time there was

a reduction in enrolment of 10,000 students.

I am not only interested in the budgets which are coming in, but

also in the previous budgets which are being audited now. They must be

completed by March 15 and filed with the provincial government by the

end of March. It is going to be interesting to compare the audited

actuals with the actuals set forth in the budget. It is then that we

start to identify the matter of surpluses; in a number of areas where

many people were hollering for more money it is interesting to note

that a surplus was established.

[2:45]

Something has to be said about the compensation stabilization

program as it affected schools. We should remember that the increases

for the three consecutive years of 1980, 1981 and 1982 were roughly 9.5

percent, 13.5 percent and 17.5 percent respectively. With the first

effect of the compensation stabilization package in 1983, we were

looking at an increase of roughly 3 percent, and in 1984, although all

districts did.... The local teachers' associations as well as the

school boards must be congratulated on recognizing that there is an

ability-to-pay problem. While they did recognize that and came in at a

zero rate of increase, increments were acknowledged. You should be

aware that the impact of increments — that is, the contractual

responsibility between the board and its employees — was worth, I

understand, about 2 percent on the budget. That is a significant sum of

money. Because the ability to pay was not there — and the object was

obviously to preserve what employment we have as much as possible and

share those resources which we have — it seems to me that the

government ought to be congratulated on facing a serious problem

head-on with the CSP program and its effect upon everyone within the

public sector, although the opposition may not be very fond of this

particular message.

I will conclude by advising you, Mr. Chairman, that we are now

working on a commitment to produce a new School Act, in the form of a

White Paper which I hope will be delivered by June.

We have made a commitment to everyone on deregulation, and I hope

that we will have something to offer in that area within the next

several weeks. A number of people who are involved at the technical

level are working on this particular proposal.

Exams have taken a fair amount of time in the ministry. I offer my

congratulations to those people who were involved and who put in rather

extensive hours over a long period of time. And we're getting prepared

for the June examinations.

The issue of amalgamation may come up, and is something that I am quite prepared to address.

In the college system, Mr. Chairman, for the most part, things are

going reasonably well. The budget states a reduction of the actual

portion to colleges and institutes of about $9 million. However,

incorporated within that $9 million are a number of items which will

not have an impact on the colleges themselves. All I can say on that is

that those officials in the ministry who have been working on it have

done a commendable job, because the formula funding program has got the

support of every college and institute in the province, to my

knowledge, with the exception of one. Interestingly enough, we saw a

letter published in the paper the other day by the principal of

Vancouver Community College who felt that basically we've gone a

considerable distance, and it's an enlightened method for distributing

funds.

I think with those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared now

to field those questions which the opposition critic may wish to

advance at this time.

MR. ROSE: I welcome the minister's remarks, as I welcome his

officials. I'd be interested to know, though, just on a point of order,

on what grounds the minister is allowed to have advisers in here. Is

there any standing order relating to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a practice of this House.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if that practice allowing strangers in the

House ought to be accorded also to the opposition, which obviously

hasn't got the same back-up as the ministry, and should be permitted,

as well, to have advisers here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's a point that's well made. I

think I have observed in times past that staff members of the official

opposition have been present in the House, but I will undertake to

bring a more definitive answer to the member.

MR. ROSE: I just wondered, Mr. Chairman, since there are

people here to assist the minister, and he has all that great

departmental backup. If I need help and I don't have anybody....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What's the member for Vancouver South saying about

his own minister? Obviously he needs all this high-priced help and

brainpower to assist him.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver South doesn't need the help of a microphone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will undertake to bring a definitive answer

to the member's question, which is legitimate. Now if we could pursue

the estimates, the committee would be well served.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: If the member for Little Mountain would stop

bleating I might be able to get on with my speech. But I take that as a

welcome permission, that if we need to have somebody in here to assist

us and provide us with statistical details from time to time, there

would be no objection either from the minister or from the Chair. I'll

assume that's true.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the minister's remarks. He talks about a

number of things that I can address in general here, in a brief way,

because I'd like to go through sequentially what he had to say. I just

made a few notes about that. Then I'll get on to the major part of my

own remarks a little further on.

The first thing was something to do with the ability to pay. I'm not

certain I agree with the ability to pay here. Ability to pay, really,

is a political decision. If you decide to spend your money on

railroads, for instance — I see the Minister of

[ Page 3763 ]

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) is here — instead of education, that's a political decision.

You can easily say you have no money left for education because you've

decided to spend it on something else, or you don't have as much as you

had at one time. So I don't regard that as final in a form of

democratic government. I think that the ability to pay is really

determined by your desire to pay for one thing as opposed to the other.

So I don't find that particularly convincing. It may wash for those

people who think that governments should be run exactly like a

business, but government is not a business. It doesn't run like a

business, and it never will, no matter if it's being run by screaming

left-wing radicals or right-wing conservatives of the Reagan

persuasion. So I don't agree with that.

The minister talked about the costs of education going up. Yes, they

have. But I don't think they've gone up any faster than the costs of

government. I don't think they've gone up any faster than the price of

eggs or cheese or anything that we spend money on. The cost of houses,

for instance, went up. Nobody came in and put legislation on to hold

down the cost of housing two years ago. The minister says: "Well,

there's only so much property tax that can be spent on education." The

point is that the portion of property taxes devoted to education has

gone down over the last three years, not up. If we were California,

where the total educational budget is funded out of property taxes,

that would be a different thing. I don't wonder that they screamed

about proposition 13. But they've changed their mind a little bit about

that. They say they can't throw money at problems any more. Well, the

Americans are throwing plenty of money at educational problems, because

the American teaches are not among the highest-paid, as the minister

said; they're among the lowest-paid in North America. There's no

question about that. Their quality is suffering, and the Americans are

concerned about it. No matter whether we like what the Americans have

done or not, certainly their technology and their system of education

has produced probably the highest technical advance in education and

technology anywhere in this world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Without throwing millions at it.

MR. ROSE: By throwing millions at it, yes, on the secondary,

elementary and college levels — through one way or the other; even

through defence contracts.

The minister says that the teachers are the highest-paid in Canada.

So what? So are our doctors. Why shouldn't they be? So is property here

in B.C., compared to Toronto or.... So are house prices. Everything the

teacher has to buy is going to be among the highest in Canada. When he

has to go to the doctor or to the dentist, if he doesn't have a dental

plan, those people are among the highest-paid in Canada. We have a

high-wage province, as everybody knows, and to some people's regret. I

don't think it's....

The minister is proud of going back to dealing, for instance, with

the business of zero-based budgeting. I don't think that's a bad thing,

necessarily. I'm not going to criticize the fact that the minister is

trying to bring some kind of order or formula into budgeting of

schools. I don't think that's something we should just reject out of

hand. What I object to is its imposition. They really had no

consultation; it was just imposed on them, in the same way that the

minister imposed changes in the colleges act. Did anybody from the

school districts demand that? No, they didn't. It was just imposed on

them. The minister prattles all the time about his act of consulting.

If there's one thing the minister has been consistently criticized for

— and there have been many — it's the fact that he has not consulted.

There have been bureaucratic impositions from on high, unilaterally,

and there hasn't been the consultation.

That leads me to another suggestion. He talked about the drop in Ed

budget. He said the Ed budget's going to drop 2 percent or 3 percent.

In the next three years, if the minister isn't halted in his madness,

it's going to drop 25 percent on average across British Columbia. We're

already now getting into the horror stories. I can name some: Jaffray,

B.C. There's a horror story: kids going 30 miles to school, grades 9

and 10, in an area that's growing in population, and they're going to

be sent to an area that's failing in population because of the collapse

of the coal deals. There's a horror story. Surrey is a horror story.

Where are the members for Surrey? They've probably gone out to stick

their fingers in the dikes. It's a problem there. Coquitlam is a horror

story. Prince George and Kwantlen College is a horror story. North

Thompson is another horror story. Due to what? Due to the formula we're

so proud of.

To his credit the minister agreed, about a month ago when we did

these estimates before, that the formula was tentative and that he

would be looking at it for anomalies and situations that caused

hardship. Well, I hope he has a good look at it. Drop in education

budget, all right; when this goes through in the next three years, it's

going to drop 2 percent per year. With a 6 percent inflation rate, if

it doesn't go higher — and the way the dollar's falling and the

interest rates are going up it's going to go higher — that means 19

percent compounded, the average 25 percent. The minister says it's only

2 percent, but in real dollars in three years it's 25 percent. I'll

examine why the formula's doing these things to Surrey and Jaffray and

some of these other places. I'll talk about that a little later.

So there's not only going to be a drop in the budget; there's going

to be a dropout rate in the schools. As these schools limit the number

of options and limit the opportunities for people of differing skills

and interests, schools will be less a home for those people not

academically capable. You may think you're going to raise some

standards. Yes, you might, but you're also going to chase a lot of kids

out of school who desperately need the options they're not going to

get. If you can be proud of that, I think there's something wrong with

you. I think there's something wrong with the whole kind of orientation

that would encourage that kind of thing — not only tolerate it, but

almost be happy about it, cheer about it.

"We're really raising standards." One of the ways to raise standards

is to chase out incompetents. That's how you raise standards: that's

how the private schools do. Many of the independent schools do it that way all

the time: they only let in those people who are good, who have academic competence.

They have entrance screenings. So if you only let in the ones who are any good

academically, naturally your averages are going to go up. That's obvious.

That's terrific. But if you leave the public schools to collect all those

people who are not able, academic cripples unable to function in a highly academic

environment — and that's the only place they can go — of course it's

going to look like the standards are lower. Anybody can manipulate that stuff

anytime. So there is going to be a higher dropout rate.

[3:00]

Teacher employment. The Premier once said to me that he didn't think it was his obligation to hire every teacher or

[ Page 3764 ]

plumber who was turned out of a trade school or a

college in this province. Maybe it isn't. I happen to think it is the

obligation of government to provide for as much employment as it can. I

don't believe it should be left up to the unseen hand; that an

invisible hand is suddenly going to come around by some means and

create employment; or that it's nobody's fault, or that nobody should

care about it if it doesn't. Why do we have colleges of education? Why

have we encouraged people to invest their lives in a career if there

aren't going to be jobs for them? It's absolute nonsense. If I had my

expert sitting behind me at the marble wall over here.... I've got a

list of unemployed teachers in every part of the country. I was

frantically searching for it, but I can't find it. But I'll read it

into the record, since the minister brought it up.

Formula funding. Well, we said that we'd agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, I think you know now that I really find the minister

very affable. He's a nice fellow. I don't think he beats his wife or....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Do you know something I don't know?

I'm sure he came on with a lot of high expectations, certainly in

the profession. My gosh, he replaced another one who was a real

hard-liner, Bill the Hammer. He came in there all smiles and affability

— wonderful personality — but he lost it. Mr. Minister, you piddled it

away in about eight months. It's gone. I think he'll end up being

considered not the saviour of education but the saboteur of the

educational system as we know it. He might tighten it up and make it

leaner and meaner, and spend fewer bucks on it. I know he might get

away with that.

One of the problems, I think, is that he's broken faith on about

three occasions. I say this more in sorrow than in anger. I want him to

write these down. I did this the last time I got up here. I just want

to remind him. I'm not going to go into the details. Before he went on

his junket to Germany, he said that if the boards could only come up

with an idea for a positive use of the $12.5 million from the three-day

withdrawal of service, he would consider giving it to the boards. They

all went home and worked like mad at some kind of task, some way that

$12.5 million could be used for educational purposes. My own suggestion

is that it be considered a voluntary pay cut for the teachers who took

three days off, so that the firing of the 23 or 30 or however many

Surrey teachers at the end of the spring break could be avoided, and

the layoffs at Christmastime as well. Did he do that? No. He got back,

and on a Friday afternoon just before Christmas he didn't get up and

say.... He announced — through Dick Melville, the PR man, I think —

that no, he wasn't going to use it for that purpose at all; that

whatever the board thought up wouldn't be any good anyway — he knew

they wouldn't, so to heck with it. You lost a lot of friends there, Mr.

Minister. I may not have that precisely the way it went, but that's the

way it appears to some of us. I hope I'm not being too unkind when I

say that.

Another thing he did, after assuring the David Thompson University Centre people only last fall....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The minister says no.

Only last fall he said he thought that place was good for a long

run. I'm not going to bore you by reading Marjorie Nichols'

article and

all this other stuff that reviews the tortuous contortions of the

government on David Thompson, and the fact that the Prime Minister, as

his father used to like to be called, was roughed up a little bit

there. Maybe that might have a retaliatory kind of slant to it. I'm not

suggesting that. I don't know about that. That's what was suggested

here in the article. The point is that people came down, headed by the

mayor, desperately prepared to offer any kind of positive help they

could in order to save their community and their university. He said:

"You've got ten days. You go on back and figure out ways that you can

make this thing a little bit leaner, if not meaner, and we'll consider

it." What happened eight days after that? We get the word. He phones

the people in Nelson. They have to have a hurried meeting in the

community hall or in the mayor's office, and it's absolutely gone. So I

think that has hurt the minister's stature. No matter whether or not

there's an adequate explanation for it, it seems to indicate that when

the minister gives a commitment, it's really not a commitment. I think

that's unfortunate. That's the appearance of it.

Finally — and there are probably others, but I hope there aren't too

many — is the whole exam bit. I have a letter here from the BCTF. I was

going to deal with it a little later, so I'm not going to deal with it

in detail now. It's to the minister, and it says: "During our meetings

in Victoria and subsequent meetings between Mr. Carter and Mr. Bowman,

you agreed to the establishment of a committee with appropriate terms

of reference attached to review the provincial assessment program."

That's what Kuehn says. The minister could say to me: "I didn't agree

to that at all." He could very well say that. Maybe he didn't. That's

what the BCTF thinks, and they're the ones who welcomed you.

The BCTF were most anxious for you to take over from a minister they

felt was too harsh and inflexible and thought mainly about shovels and

things like that. So they welcomed him, and what has happened now is

that the BCTF thinks that the minister had broken faith with that

group. So that's the third one. The first one was the $12 million. The

next one was the DTUC — promising ten days to review it and only eight

days later, bang, gone, zap, you're frozen! You're finished.

Now the exam business. Unilaterally, without by-your-leave to the

BCTF, you suggested that it had been constructed by teachers. Well, I'd

like to know who they were. The evaluation agreement had happened. What

happened after that? Unilateral. No consultation. It was unilateral

imposition without any reference to the profession. Imagine something

going on in a medical way without reference to the medical profession.

I couldn't feature that. I don't think that would happen. Maybe medical

doctors have a little more clout than school teachers. School teachers

are made, since I was born, to kick around. Maybe they are actually

masochists. I think they might be.

I am concerned, Mr. Minister — and again I say this more in sorrow

than in anger — because I think it is the minister's job to fight for

education. If a minister turns out to be coconspirator at the

destruction of education as we know it, then I don't think that's a

proper role. If he believes in what he's doing, then he has to do it.

If he is just doing it because he is getting some pressure, then I

think it is up to him to make a statement that he doesn't believe in

this and, therefore, that he has to resign or ask for another job.

[ Page

3765 ]

We wouldn't want the case where the teachers are beginning to yearn

for Vander Zalm. He's beginning to look good. You know what he said the

other day in the Sun . On March 8, 1984, Vaughn Palmer said:

"The last straw came when Mr. Vander Zalm was Education

minister, not long before last year's election. He thought he had a deal

with the teachers and the school trustees guaranteeing that they would accept

a wage freeze in exchange for government agreement that no teacher would be

laid off. But he realized that Bill Bennett's government might ignore its

part of the bargain: 'I had a sense that the commitment was at risk. Had

I been there [after the election] I would have been in an awfully awkward position.'

I don't know if that's true or not, but I know another guy who was

in an awkward position. Gary Begin ran for the Social Credit in Burnaby. He

was the head of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, and he has said —

and it's on the record — that if he had known what you were going to do

to education, he wouldn't have run for you. He has told that to a lot of

people.

As far as the salary cuts to save jobs are concerned, Williams Lake

tried that. Did they get a better deal from the department? Did they

get a better deal from the minister? They did not — not at all. Those

people just got the same hammering everybody else got.

I'd like to know what the strategy is. Somebody said to me: "This

debate is not about education at all; the debate is about money and

politics." Why? Is it really just to save money, or are we trying to

set up a dual system to so discredit the public system by exams and by

cutting its throat or tightening its belt that it can't produce

anything, and then come along and say they're not producing and,

therefore, they're no good? There are all kinds of little Machiavellian

stunts that are possible. I'm not suggesting that the minister is

Machiavelli, but I am saying that there are all kinds of things,

because we don't know the goals.

I went through a lot of lengthy, tedious and boring questions last

time to find out the current goals of Education. I suppose they'll come

out in the White Paper down the road somewhere — like the Smith "apple"

report from teachers. I didn't mind that. I thought that was a pretty

good set of goals and objectives, but that's obviously gone now — at

least we haven't been told that it isn't. So we are going to be asked

what the new goals are in Education, and I suppose we'll all have what

the member from Revelstoke used to call "input" into the decision, but

we'd like to know about that.

I'm afraid that people are beginning to get concerned. I said it the

last time I was up, and I'll say it again: this education stuff is a

sleeper issue. The people of Jaffray know it's not a sleeper issue. The

people in Coquitlam, who know that the Brookmere learning centre is not

going to have any housing, know it's not a sleeper issue. The people in

North Thompson and the people of Kwantlen College, who haven't got

their their welding any more, know it's not a sleeper issue. But it

hasn't dawned on most people yet — especially those people who haven't

got any kids in school anyway. That accounts for 70 percent of the

people in B.C.

So I think the government is actually mistaken in what it's doing as

far as public support for this. The minister has all the polls — the

government is constantly sampling. I don't think they would even go to

the restroom without sampling to find out whether it was propitious to

do that. The public money is being spent on constant polling. I'm

reminded of what Diefenbaker had to say about polls — he said they were

for dogs. But I know that there's a constant feedback.

I'd like to quote some polls here from the BCTF. This wasn't done by

the BCTF, but it was done under their financing. They didn't find that

people wanted the schools hammered any further.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Just a moment. We can often, in the way we shape

questions, learn what we want to hear. We do that all the time. I'm

quite sure that if you're paying for the polls you'll get what you want

to hear. Is that right? Is that the way you feel about the integrity of

Martin Goldfarb and Allan Gregg and all these great brains that you

hire?

AN HON. MEMBER: The NDP pollsters?

MR. ROSE: We can't afford polls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You can't afford the results of your

polls, that's your problem. You can't even see the polls. You don't

want to see your polls.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, you're going to have to protect me from....

When the minister was up there pontificating, there was hardly a

word said here. All of a sudden, because I'm up here with little or no

protection from these wits — if there were two of them over there he'd

be a wit.... While I'm up here getting all this hammering, I am

attempting to proceed with my speech as best I can.

[3:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you survive so long in Ottawa?

MR. ROSE: By being witty and skilful and knowledgeable.

One of the BCTF questions asked of the 500 or so respondents was:

"Overall, how would you rate the quality of education provided by the

public schools in your area?" They go from 1972 to 1984. Eight percent

said excellent; 41 percent said good; 31 percent said satisfactory and

10 percent said poor. I think that's not a bad record for people who

are discredited all the time. They can't even teach kids to pass exams.

That's how bad they are. I think they'll improve in that, though.

It asked about Education Minister Heinrich, who has been in the news

frequently. "What is your general impression of the statements and

activities of the minister of B.C. education?" Six percent said very

positive; 28 said somewhat positive: and a total of 34 said that they

thought he wasn't doing a bad job. They said at least he was somewhat

positive. Some said he was somewhat negative — 22 percent; very

negative — 17 percent; no opinion — 28 percent. The reason for the high

"no opinion" part of it was the fact that most of the people were

unaware that he was the Minister of Education at all. They thought that

Bill Vander Zalm was still the Minister of Education.

Mr. Chairman, I don't....

[ Page 3766 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Did you take all the heckling off my time, Mr. Chairman?

I won't read them all. I may go back to them. They were asked to add

up the positives and the negatives about the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

Even they were given 42 pluses and 45 minuses. You notice I don't just

read the good news. I think that the public doesn't like the conflict.

They don't like teachers marching in the streets; they don't like the

teachers being hammered either. They don't like the conflict in

education at all.

They say in number 4: "...the provincial government reduced its

financial support for the public school system. Do you support this

reduction strongly...?" and so on right down the line. Strongly and

moderately, 39 percent; moderately opposed and opposed strongly, 57

percent. So you're flying blind now. You're like the Korean aircraft.

You're flying blind because you don't have the public's support —

unless your polls indicate that you do.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'd be quite pleased to have the member get up and

make his own speech, if he doesn't have to read it. The only time he

doesn't read something is when he's heckling.

"Regardless of how you feel about the cutbacks themselves, do you

think that the provincial government has carried them out in a fair or

unfair manner?" Fair, 30 percent; unfair, 57 percent; and 13 percent

had no opinion. And here's a very important one for the minister, who

said just a moment ago that it was a matter of ability to pay. Here's

what the public says. "It would take an increase of 3 percent in the

B.C. government spending on education in 1984 to maintain the

activities and services at the 1983 level. Do you agree? Do you support

it?" Seventy-five percent did, and 22 percent opposed it. Even the

Tories, bless their little old hearts, want to get away from you. Even

they don't want to be associated with your policies. I'll give you a

clipping about that a little later.

In the meantime, I don't think the minister is a villain. He may be

a victim. But if he's a victim.... He's maintaining that he's a victim,

that he really doesn't want to do this. Then he should tell us why he's

doing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the minister,

the question was raised earlier by the member for Coquitlam-Moody about

assistance from staff on the floor during committee debate. The

courtesy of such assistance to a minister is a practice allowed during

committee stage of a bill or in estimates. The courtesy is extended

since it is expected that in committee a wide variety of topics and

technical details will be questioned. The courtesy of staff is in order

to assist the committee. The practice is not extended to members of the

opposition, as it is presumed that these members have ample opportunity

to prepare their questions in advance; also, they do not have a

ministerial responsibility to the committee. That has been the practice

in this House for many years.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that the

member happens to be on the other side of the fence, I have to confess

that I enjoy him very much as a critic.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We all do.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He's got a great sense of humour. I think

he had to have that to survive the few years that he spent in Ottawa,

but even someone with good humour can't last there forever.

On the issue of ability to pay, I don't think there's any question

about a decision being made as to which direction the government is

going to move. Nobody is disputing that, Mr. Chairman. Do we just throw

all of the funds which we have into the education pot, or look at some

degree of equity through all portfolios and all social requirements?

You're not going to tell me that the way the school system was financed

didn't require some assistance — and a little bit of guidance, to be

very candid. Why was there such a discrepancy between many districts,

some of which are neighbours, on the cost per student? Why is there a

$1,000 difference per student between New Westminster and Delta? It's

something we have to address. Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, that

is a matter which we were asked to address by a number of chairmen of

school boards. I received a telegram shortly after assuming the

portfolio, asking me to please address this particular issue. There is

nothing wrong with that. We did.

You're also not going to tell me, Mr. Chairman, that.... We found

that many school districts had, in my humble opinion, excessive

administration in the district office, when doing comparatives as to

enrolment within comparable districts. It was something that had to be

addressed. Remember, the provincial government pays a substantial

portion of every school district's budget. If we have to put a lot of

money into one particular district where the cost per student is much

higher than in an adjoining district, they're getting more money. Is

that fair? It's not fair at all, and we addressed it. I don't deny that

it took a little bit of political courage and a devil of a lot of heat,

but that's always the way in British Columbia if you want to make a bit

of a change.

Cost of living. You tell me that the cost of eggs and bacon went up

as well. Well, it sure did go up. But I presented a graph. I know that

you must have a copy of it. One of the first things I did when I came

into the portfolio was to get the number-crunchers available so that we

had one set of statistics. There's the difference in here: the consumer

price index going up and right above that — a substantial differential

— is the actual cost of education. So there was a difference.

Property tax. You make reference to the poll which was done by the

BCTF. They have no objections to another 3 percent going in. Well,

that's fine. The residential component of taxation in British Columbia

is a net contribution of 8.74 percent. The rest of it must come from

somewhere. All I'm saying to you is that the taxpayers generally said:

"We can't afford to pay any more right now." The way increases were

going, it had to be addressed.

Mr. Chairman, the member makes reference to U.S. policy. I keep

getting a lot of figures in that area, and we draw comparisons. In the

United States this particular book, A Nation At Risk , said

something about the average across the U.S. being $17,000 per year.

Forget about that. Let's go to the west coast of the United States: I

think there's some similarity between British Columbia and the states

of Washington, Oregon and California, where the average is about

$20,000. Another thing that came out, and I constantly heard criticism,

is the amount of money which the state of California injected into its

education budget in the second week of January this year — something

like $900 million. Of course,

[ Page 3767 ]

the critics and those who write columns in the

press keep making reference to the U.S. precedent. With a teacher's

salary averaging $20,000 or $21,000, with $300 million of the $900

million going into capital, plus putting a bounty on the heads of

students.... If the county, which is responsible for the school system

in California, were to increase its instructional days to 180, roughly

10 days less than in British Columbia, it would then get a bounty of

$35 per student. That's where some of this money is going.

The only reason I referred to teachers' salaries — and I made it

clear at the beginning that I don't blame them, nor do I blame anybody

else, because the rules of the game permitted it; all we did was say

that it's time to make a check — is that the opposition, the BCTF and

those who are opposed to restraint constantly refer to a percentage of

personal income. These statistics come in every publication. The last

one came from the Surrey Teachers' Association. What did it have? A

percentage of personal income. Then they draw comparisons with other

provinces. They always put British Columbia at the bottom of the pile.

Here are the five western provinces. British Columbia ranks second

among the five western provinces. This comes from the pupil operating

costs reported to the Council of Ministers of Education for 1982, the

most recent year available. British Columbia is $3,399; Alberta is

$3,548; Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario are estimated at $3,112,

$3,244, $3,161, respectively. Even then, we never know whether these

are accurate, because sometimes you just can't compare. Are we

comparing apples and oranges or are we comparing apples and apples?

It's hard to try to get a handle on it. All I'm saying to you, Mr.

Member, is this: the statement as a percentage of personal income is

not accurate. It really doesn't divulge the true cost in each province

across the land.

Imposition of the fiscal framework. Many districts were looking for

it. Interestingly enough, just about everyone has gone to bed and is

reasonably happy about what happened. There are half a dozen which are

causing some problems, and we've given them some problems. Maybe this

can be worked out. It wasn't imposed. It came out in July, and the

people in the ministry worked extensively with every school district in

the province. We got constructive criticism, and that's what we asked

for. There were a number of adjustments made. The only problem was that

we only had so much money, and we had to distribute it equitably among

all of the districts.

Coquitlam. The member represents part of the Coquitlam School

District. I keep hearing about the terrible things that were done. To

my knowledge their budget was filed, because the information which I've

been able to compile for the very first time, as a result of the new

system, shows that a surplus was carried forward from 1983 to 1984 in

School District 43 in their own budget submitted to the ministry. Do

you know how much it was? Have you any idea? It was $1.1 million. I

compliment that district, because they have recognized the problem and

have been prudent managers in being able to bring some funds over to

help out in the year of 1984. What is wrong with that? It seems to me

that the schools are open, the kids are going to school tomorrow, the

teachers are going to work tomorrow and instruction is being delivered.

Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

[3:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member raised the issue that he believed it is the duty of the government to employ every teacher who wants to work.

MR. ROSE: No, I did not.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, that's what I heard over here. You

made reference to the Premier making a statement that he felt it was

not the function of government to employ every teacher or plumber who

graduates or serves an apprenticeship. That's what I heard you say. How

can government be responsible for employing every person who happens to

have a ticket in a profession or a trade? It's very difficult.

MR. ROSE: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order?

MR. ROSE: No, Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege.

The minister is putting words in my mouth, the converse of what I

said the Premier had said. I didn't say it was the government's

obligation to employ every plumber or teacher that was produced in the

institution. I said that the Premier had said that, and I also said

that there was some obligation for governments to create employment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, a point of privilege can be

exercised when a member finishes his portion of debate. Rising on a

point of order is in order, but a point of privilege is not appropriate

at this time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I accept the member's

statement. If he didn't say what I thought he said, I'm the first one

to say I accept; no problem there.

Regarding the matter of, if I may use the expression, "broken

faith." I have responded to that allegation on innumerable occasions,

The problem really is that I said something they didn't want to hear.

The same answer applies to the David Thompson University Centre. Just

prior to the first day of December I sent out a letter to every school

district in British Columbia. It was sent to every chairman,

secretary-treasurer and superintendent. I said that we would be

interested in receiving a proposal, but under no stretch of the

imagination was that to be rendered as a commitment that those funds

were to remain with the district. I made that clear, Mr. Chairman. And

in the decision which was made they then had a period of two weeks-plus

in order to work out any proposal they thought would be acceptable.

Dozens of proposals came in, and I can advise you that it was my

considered opinion that none of them were acceptable. They had two

weeks in which to do that. I was not in the province for a period of

three weeks from December 2, and when I returned those proposals were

in and a decision was made. But I made it clear in advance, and it is a

matter of record and is stated in the correspondence with David

Thompson.

I met with the people a week later, and they asked me if I would

please take it back. I told them it was my duty to take it back,

because that was what they were requesting me to do. When, on review, a

decision was made, instead of leaving them dangling we communicated

with them as quickly as possible by telephone, telegram and

hand-delivered letter. All I did was deliver back to them news they

didn't want to

[ Page 3768 ]

hear, but instead of leaving them out there and playing politics with the issue, we responded to them.

I really regret how the issue of exams unfolded. I concede that

point. Firstly, a decision was made by government that examinations for

1984 were to be implemented — one which I very much support and

encouraged. Secondly, we requested the BCTF to participate on the board

of examiners. It's a matter of record that they do not wish to

participate and they did not send anybody to sit on that board,

although it was open for them and they were requested to do so. I

regret that they have not, because I think the BCTF had a great deal to

offer.

I think I would like to conclude with one last question which

concerned me that the member raised: that is, the allegation that the

framework was in fact imposed on school boards. I know I can't talk

about legislation in here during the estimates. The B.C. School

Trustees' Association made the following statement which was submitted

to the government when they were requesting an amendment to Bill 6: "We

do not quarrel with the appropriateness of the provincial government's

authority to set provincial spending limits for education." They went

on to say: "However, we would just as soon you not be involved in the

allocation process; that as a lump sum is assigned to the board, they

will allocate as between the functions." We acknowledged their request,

and you'll recall that the appropriate amendments were filed, in

addition to putting in a sunset clause for 1986. The point I wish to

make is that the boards did not dispute the appropriateness of the

provincial government, at this time in our economic history, setting

the limit on spending. That was clear.

I think that covers most of the major points which the member has raised, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROSE: I'm well aware that the B.C. school trustees

accepted the imposition of budget limitations. I think you had them

over a barrel; I don't think they wanted to. The government was making

sounds that there might not even be a B.C. School Trustees' Association

any more because they were spending $2 million and providing statistics

that maybe the government didn't like very much, and if they didn't

knuckle under there they'd be gone. That's what the problem was. They

didn't accept those limits. They got crumbs. They lost all their

autonomy when they agreed to have a budget limitation. The minister

talks about paying the lion's share. Sure, the government pays the

lion's share now, because the government stole the

commercial-industrial base from the boards. You're pretty close to the

McMath formula of 75-25 now; you're around 70-30, if my figures are

correct.

The minister never wants to hear that the measure of ability to pay

for education should be based on personal income of a particular

province. We're dead last. We're paying 7.6 percent. He doesn't want to

use that. Okay, what about a percentage of the gross national product?

We're second to the last there. This province can afford expenditures

at least equal to those of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and

places like that. Of course we can. All this cheap, chintzy

hand-wringing about not being able to afford it is, I believe, just a

ruse to get people to believe that we're throwing all that money at

some schoolteachers who probably aren't doing a very good job anyway.

That concerns me, because I think it's scapegoating. I'm not going to

go over all that stuff again. I've done it before. I've gone through a

whole series of statistics about it, and I don't intend to go through

it again — which will be a great relief not only to the minister and

his officials but also to the people in the gallery,

The minister has never said what he really stands for. Just the

tax-salary settlements that happened in the past.... What happened last

year? They took a zero increase, and then they get a crack at them in

the budget, something about discipline and how we just can't keep

throwing money at education. I think it's scapegoating. The minister is

the Minister of Education. I'd like to know how it would go over if

Henry Ford got up and attacked the Ford Motor Co. The minister's

supposed to be fighting for education, not fighting teachers. That's

the way it looks to many of us, and I wish he'd cut it out.

As far as the cost per student is concerned, of course there's a

variance within the districts. Some districts, like Richmond, have a

lot of young teachers; some, like New Westminster, where I've taught,

have a lot of teachers at the higher salaries. You can explain it by a

number of things. In Jaffray, the bus cost is 30 cents more per

kilometre than in other districts. I happen to know that. I'm sorry

that the member for that area is not here as well. I think that's got

to mean something. There's no point in the minister and I going through

a whole list. He's got the power, the government, the votes, so what he

does stands. But it's up to us to make certain that he justifies what

he's doing, or at least that the public knows who's doing it to them. I

don't want the people of Surrey and Jaffray to blame their boards. The

minister should get the blame, not the local board. If you've no

control over your own budget, and if you can't even have a local

referendum, then how on earth can you be responsible? The boards aren't

responsible. They are only sounding boards for the dissatisfaction of

the general public about what's going on with school closures and the

like.

There are all kinds of things we could talk about. If I haven't lost

it completely, I've got some material about what happens when you have

low spending per pupil. Mississippi is a perfect example of that. But

before I do that, Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about teachers and

whether or not they would lose a thousand a year. I haven't totalled

this up, but there are some pretty big figures in here. I didn't say it

was the obligation of the government to employ every teacher or plumber

or engineer who happens to be turned out. An unemployed engineer is

sitting right over there, very close to us. I don't think we should

make a special effort to employ him. After this job, if he ever has to

go back to work, maybe it would be a terrible shock to his system.

Nobody talks about closing down engineering schools.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, you've got two jobs. I see. It's like a lot of

lawyers; they have two jobs too. They've got their own practice and

then they've got the MLA job. Nobody talks about closing down

engineering schools because there happens to be a plethora of

engineers. I think 25 percent got jobs last year. So we're going to

open another engineering school. Pretty soon we're going to hear about

cutting back on education schools because we happen to have some extra

teachers.

Here are the teachers who are on UI. I don't know how many have

given up looking for jobs and therefore don't appear on this list.

University teachers, 84; university related, 147 — I guess that's

college; elementary and kindergarten, 1,312; secondary, 490 — what a

bunch of broken dreams; college and vocational, 291 and more to come.

Are

[ Page 3769 ]

we going to be lean and mean! We're going to have a

great education system: fire lots of teachers. Fine arts teachers, 124;

post-secondary teachers, 266; teachers of exceptional children, 31;

officers in training, instructors and training officers, teaching

related and not elsewhere classified, 820. There are at least 3,000

there. The concern, besides the human dimension — it's like the old

song, "The Boulevard of Broken Dreams" — is that it's not practical.

It's something that could rebound against us. That's the sad part of it

all.

[3:45]

Here's what happens. The Americans are in a crisis because of low

pay. There's a high drop-out rate, a rising tide of mediocrity, higher

teacher salaries. The lowest average teacher salary is in Mississippi,

and it's got the highest dropout rate. There may not be a causal

relationship, and I'm not asserting that there is. Minnesota, with the

lowest drop-out rate, has a pupil-teacher ratio of 17.1. The minister

wants to get his up to 19.2, I believe. Surrey is already at 19.5. He

wants to get it to 19.2. Why not get it even larger? We've got the new

domed stadium down there. We could hire one teacher and have her sit in

the middle of the domed stadium to conduct her classes.

It says here that President Reagan's criticism of education started

a major political battle. This prevented him, for example, from axing

the U.S. federal education department. "The B.C. government should not

be too surprised if its own education restraint program boomerangs."

Well, I won't be surprised. I think people are going to get uptight, I

don't think they're going to be convinced by the minister when they

start losing schools, start getting loaded classrooms, when they start

getting all those things.... that they thought they had forever — that

is, an outstanding education system.

Look what the Victoria chairman says: "We sure wish minister Jack

Heinrich would start listening to people." Chairman John Smith said:

"The White Paper apparently indicates the Education ministry wants more

compulsory courses, not fewer. There is difficulty seeking consultation

with the ministry." The minister makes a plea here, saying that he's

consulted with everybody from the grade 1 teacher to the chairman of

the largest board in the province, and they say they haven't. Then he

talks about the fact that there's going to be a narrowing of the

curriculum. He ends up with this

article in the Times-Colonist ,

February 28: "A student who has to take consumer education in the final

year has to drop something, and that may be the only elective he has

room for in his timetable."

"Tories...Urge Education Policy." Here's the president, Jim McNeil.

He doesn't want to have anything to do with you guys. Even the Tories

won't come near you. Hear that, Mr. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound (Mr. Reynolds)? The Tories won't have anything to do with this

government's education policy.

"The provincial government, in spite of the expensive and

slanted pamphlet it sent to all British Columbians, still has not clearly defined

its policy objectives for education, let alone other ministries. At best we

have been given glimpses of an overall plan, if one exists, that seems to hint

at these directions."

This is what the Tories say about you: "More centralized controls" — of

course they don't believe in that — "less local authority." That's

contrary to conservatism. "Fewer expenditures for social services and more

on Crown corporations or megaprojects. More government by edict" — like

the imposition of the things I've been talking about in education — "and

less through the Legislature. While my party has for years agreed that the size

and cost of government can and should be reduced, we object strongly to the

confrontational approach at the time when we need genuine consultation and statesmanship."

Well, anyway, there's a lot more to be said on that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Jim McNeil, President of the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: The provincial party.

MR. ROSE: The federal party, Brian Mulroney's party, doesn't

want to touch you either. They said: "Not us! We're not going to do

that. If we get in there, we're not going to have anything like that.

My gosh, we can promise you that we Tories are going to be big

spenders. We're not going to cut and restrain and cut back and cut

social services. Not us fellows. No, sir. There are no cutbacks here."

If you go along and knock on any Tory door, the answer is: "Nobody in

here but us chickens." They're not going to come out and embrace the

Minister of Education. I would think it would be unseemly if they did.

Especially in public. I wouldn't want them to do that.

I want to talk about a few horror stories here. This horror story

about the formula was predicted. The horror stories were actually

predicted by Dr. Armstrong last August. I know you've fiddled with the

formula a little bit. This is what he said. Well, he was predicting his

own demise a little while ago, too; I heard that one. He said that the

two major elements drive the new formula in the opposite direction that

it should go. He said the average teacher's salary in the district and

in the province, if your new budgets are based on that, is going to be

driven up. How your average teacher's salary.... The greater number of

square metres of floor space, the greater entitlement for the district;

this creates inflationary pressures. He goes through a number of

examples here. I think that in essence he's saying that if you don't

have some kind of early retirement schemes to humanize the attack, the

savagery, that you are vesting on education, then people are going to

hang onto their jobs. Which ones are going to keep their jobs? The ones

at the higher salary. Because the young teachers are the ones you're

going to fire. They are the ones who are going to be let out first on a

seniority basis. I have no objection to that, but as long as it's based

on a per-pupil ratio, then it's bound to work out that way.

Now if it weren't on that basis, if it were, for instance, on this

one.... Suppose a district could encourage through incentives of one

kind or another, even surpluses, some 60 year-old school teacher like

me to retire, and instead they could get two 20-year-olds at $20,000

each. That might not be a bad idea. It might appeal to a lot of people.

It might be good for education. You know, get the old cobwebs out of

there; get young, new, bright ideas — lots of vigour and energy. But

that's not going to happen. You see, the way it is now, on a per-pupil

basis — on a PTR basis — the people who are senior are going to try to

keep their jobs, and the others are not going to get in or else they'll

be first fired. That's what happens. This was predicted.

[ Page 3770 ]

We have a problem in Surrey. I don't know if they got a $1.1 million

surplus, but anyway, they've got some problems. After the spring break,

39 teachers in 30 schools are going to go. Mr. Chairman, can you

imagine the massive disruption if 30 schools are affected? Well, 39

classrooms are probably going to be affected. So after Easter all those

kids are going to have to be shaken out of where they're comfortable

and put in another classroom. That doesn't sound like a reasonable

thing to me. Why is that happening? That isn't the worst, though. They

are going to lose 28 more in June, and they are already at the 19.5 PTR

now. Right? The deputy minister nods his head. How does this happen?

This is how it happens.

It happens because the new formula does not account for growth. Now

Surrey anticipates growth. The formula is an interesting one — it's

1/22 times the average cost of one teacher plus 10 percent of the

average teacher's salary based on data available last July. Here we

have Surrey, which is a growth area. I'm not going to bore anybody with

going through how the calculations work for elementary — they work

differently for secondary — but they are purely arbitrary. Whether you

divide by 22 or 27 has nothing to do with it. It came out of the hat

like the rabbit. For grades 8 to 12 you divide by 24, but the rest of

the formula is the same. Here's the problem. Let's take 8 to 12. One

twenty-fourth times the cost of one teacher, which is $34,715, times 10

percent of $33,593 and you get $1,586.43. But Surrey is a growth area,

and for every student who comes into Surrey it costs $2,412, because

that is the instructional cost accorded Surrey in 1983. So for every

kid who comes in and registers in a growth area such as Surrey — or any

other growth area; there are six or seven in the province — they lose

$1,000 per pupil. That's what's wrong with the formula, right there, in

that instance. For grades 1 to 7 they lose about $1,000, and for

kindergarten.... There are a lot of young families in Surrey, because

housing prices are a little lower there. Will the Surrey real estate

board please take note; I don't want any commission for that little

promo, that little ad. I think it is $1,700, so it's a little less. In

other words, the formula delivers more there.

This is the problem. Who is going to get into all the trouble? Not

the provincial government. Not the Minister of Education. The local

Surrey school board. The minister promised in a response to my question

that he would be quite prepared to review this, and I take him at his

word. I know he will do this, because he doesn't want them to go to

19.5 by June 1984. He doesn't even want it to get to 19.2 by June 1986.

So naturally he is going to have to have a look and adjust his formula

a little bit more.

That is one horror story. I could go into greater detail than that, but I don't

intend to do this. Let's talk about Coquitlam. The minister has repeatedly

told the House that his new formula is fair and equitable to all concerned and

that its results are predictable. Some school districts in the lower mainland

are allowed $541 a student, but School District 43 is allowed only $440 for

operations and maintenance. Why is this? In the district of Fernie, for instance,

the average is $608. The district of Surrey is in the same category — the same

function, $579. Coquitlam, $441.50. Abbotsford: we will have a little bit to

say about the Mount Lehman school, and how your policies are going to destroy

a community there if you close down the school. "Destroy" is not too

pejorative a word, I wouldn't think — I used it, so naturally I wouldn't

think that. Why, if the formula is so fair and equitable, Mr. Chairman, is Coquitlam

allowed $85 less per student than neighbours, and Surrey is $177 less than Vancouver

and $96 less than Victoria? The operation and maintenance function needs to

be reviewed.

What has that meant? It means that Brookmere Elementary School has

to be closed; its learning centre has to be shut down, even though it

is something that is desired in the community. Brookmere Elementary

School has got the Glenayre centre for the handicapped — 21 young

children who can't go into normal classes or be mainstreamed. The

Ministry of Human Resources funds it, so that's what's going to happen

there — It could be argued, as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) argued the other day, that it's up to the school board.

"They could have closed another school down. They should have closed

another school down. The local school board are big meanies."

I don't know what options are available to them. I know that the

operating and maintenance budget is behind this in that district, and

probably in other districts. It is true in Abbotsford and probably true

there as well. What else is Coquitlam doing? Closing down its hot lunch

program. That's gone. God knows how many other schools are going to

have to close down. And who is going to get the heat? The local school

board. That was predicted a year ago when we first started dealing with

these things.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, let me now talk about the Mount Lehman situation. But

let's first put it in its proper prospective. What is Mount Lehman

anyway? Who has ever heard of Mount Lehman? It is one of the oldest

communities in the lower mainland. It is a somewhat isolated, growing

rural community. Much to my own chagrin, since I represented the area

at one time, it is very conservative. But aside from its political

complexion, it is a very important community. A quote from the Province

of March 5 says: "Family School Faces an Axe." Mount Lehman has had

that school for 100 years. It has been there a century. What else is

around Mount Lehman? What are other facilities there? It's got an

insurance office, a credit union, a post office, a store, the regional

library service and a fire hall. But look ma, no school! People have

come there because they wanted the amenities and the rural life around

there, and now they're going to lose it. By consultation? Hell, no. No

consultation. It's just gone. Zap, you're out of there!

Mr. Ron Price, whose father was well known to this Legislature as a

cabinet minister in the W.A.C. Bennett government, has criticized the

educational cutbacks. You're getting it from your own, which should be

more useful and meaningful than getting it from me — I'm supposed to be

prejudiced. I am told that Mr. Ron Price has said that property values

will fall. Here is a school, used every night by the community, that is

going to be cut. You say that it's not your fault and that the local

board made that decision. Yes, you can hide behind the decision of the

local board if you wish. You can hide behind anything else you want to.

You are free to do that. What are you going to do with those kids?

You're going to bus them someplace, I suppose. Why?

Here's Abbotsford. Abbotsford got an extra hunk of dough. I don't

know how much it was — $100,000 or $200,000 anyway. I haven't

researched it. The average cost of operation and maintenance for

buildings in the province is $608.93, and that of Mount Lehman is

$23.40. They don't have the same opportunity built into their budgets

to fund that Mount Lehman school. I regard it as an arbitrary

imposition of

[ Page 3771 ]

an unfair and discriminatory operation and

maintenance budget. That is something else that the minister might be

interested in examining. Abbotsford School District is not noted for

the lavishness with which it bestows its goodies on its teachers. It is

probably one of the most parsimonious areas, in terms of school costs,

in the whole province. I'm saying "probably" because I haven't

researched it. But even a district that has done all it can for

productivity and efficiency is being hosed. Why? Ask Dr. Armstrong of

the BCTF. Because of a lot of rural schools, a lot of space and not

enough money for operations and maintenance. The deputy minister looks

at the ceiling. I don't know if I'm right. I'm asserting that, but he

can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't have all the figures, and I

haven't looked it up.

I want to talk about another horror story which I alluded to a

little earlier, and which happened in Jaffray, B.C., a Social Credit

district. This is in the riding of the very distinguished Social Credit

member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), whom I always enjoy when he's around

because he keeps me going and provokes me a little bit. I always

welcome him when he's here. They are going to close a lot of schools up

there; well, they're going to close at least two things. I think it is

fair to remember that you've got five board members in Fernie, or the

northern part where the coal isn't being dug, and the growth

part in

the south is where Jaffray is. We've got a little problem there because

they can't afford to keep the 9s and 10s in Jafftay. They've just spent

a substantial amount, in the hundreds of thousands, on a new gymnasium,

and now the proposal is to take those kids and bus them 40 miles to

Fernie in the winter over those roads, because of the formula and the

population decline in the northern part. That's taking the guts right

out of the junior high school to ship those kids to Fernie. The

minister is very proud of himself for cutting these costs and keeping

education lean and mean. He should think about that.

In 1983 Al Stables said that the Fernie School District was

underfunded by at least $100,000. In October Mr. Starling, director of

school operations, reported that the district was underfunded by

$174,000. Now if they're underfunded and these people are making

predictions like that, why is it that that community is asked to face

that kind of disruption? As if that weren't enough, the Elko school's

intermediate grades — 13 or 14 students — are going to be bused 11

miles to Jaffray. This is what's happening: small schools and community

schools are closing. I can't see how that is going to be good for

anybody. I think that it's penny wise and pound foolish.

I'd like to go on and talk about people at Crescent Park in Dawson

Creek, Prince George and other places like that, but I understand that

I've only got a minute left. I would like to give the minister an

opportunity to respond to my perorations.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, going back to 30 minutes

ago, there was some reference made to stealing the non-residential

base. The purpose of bringing those funds in was so that they could be

distributed equitably throughout the province. That's the point. Surely

the non-residential base.... In some parts of British Columbia it

probably represented 90 percent of their base, because there was one

major plant. But what about the other parts of British Columbia, which

are primarily urban and residential? It seems to me that everybody in

British Columbia has got some stake in industrial development. When

there is an assessment and taxes are paid, some of it ought to flow

back and go out equitably throughout the system. I'm not going to dwell

on that particular issue, because I don't think the member really meant

what he said.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: My prize heckler has arrived.

I never made any statements with respect to the dissolution of the

BCSTA or to doing something the thrust of which would be to dissolve

the BCSTA — ever.

MR. ROSE: They were afraid of it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They may very well be, but I do not know

why. It seems to me that it's doing reasonably well. Because they

happen to have some dissatisfaction with their operations, which is

being raised by their membership.... According to the last little

missive which has been circulated, I would think that the members could

address that problem. That's not for government to do. It was a

four-page epistle, and it contained some revealing information. But

that's internal. That's housecleaning, and that's for the trustees to

address.

Let's make reference to Surrey, Mr. Chairman. The member has raised

a number of items. First of all, it's not 19.5 percent. They believe

that they will be at 19.2 percent in September 1984....

MR. ROSE: June.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's based on the enrolment for September

1984. That has been verified already as a result of the delegation

which was here last week — last Monday, I think.

Now with respect to those teachers who in fact are to be laid off

after Easter, do you know, Mr. Chairman, that that was the subject of a

written agreement between the board and the local teacher association?

It was made some time ago — the agreement that this is what would

happen. They were well aware of that at the time.

With respect to the maintenance and operations budget, that's

exactly the formula used to determine the amount of money. It was

exactly the amount it had cost them previously, and it was based on

their own information which they had advanced to the ministry. Of

course it's incorporated within their 1984 budget. It's based on the

information and their direct costs some time ago. The note is this:

they got what they spent on the three-year average, with the first two

years inflated to current dollars.

One other item that we might consider is this: the service levels to

which the member refers and about which he has made some points. I

think that we must go back and look at the service levels which were

originally established when the framework was being prepared. The

service levels were those levels prescribed by the BCTF in all

categories but one, and that category was kindergarten. As I recall,

the BCTF suggested 20 students, and we felt 22. So every service level,

when I look at the district averages, is better than the standards set

by one organization which has a great deal of interest in the matter.

[ Page 3772 ]

The comment by the chairman of the Victoria School Board that you

raised had something to do with curriculum. There has been discussion.

That paper has not yet been released, but it will be released very

soon. The purpose of preparing the paper was to assimilate it

throughout the community so that those people interested in education

will have the opportunity to advance their views. So when you talk

about consultation on curriculum, it's a bit premature. I can't stand

idly by and accept that type of criticism when the issue raised by the

board chairman is not yet a fact.

Often references were made to the Progressive Conservative Party.

Make all the references you want. Whatever they say, we had the courage

to make restraint an election issue. We talked about it in April....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We made that an issue from day one, and we went to the public on that issue.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Don't discriminate against minorities, Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're discussing the estimates of the Minister of Education. Back to the estimates, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would just like to remind the member

that as I recall the campaign and the five weeks preceding May 5, the

particular issue of restraint in all levels of the public sector was of

some moment. It was raised almost on a daily basis, and of course it

really became an issue when the Leader of the Opposition decided that

the public shouldn't be interested in restraint and that he wouldn't

support it. I remember that very well.

MR. ROSE: That's not true.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, then, I guess we'd better bring all the evidence in here to show that it was.

So I'm saying to you that it seems to me that the columnists I read

now are saying to everybody that if other leaders in this country would

have the courage to face the electorate on some fundamental issues like

we did, they would probably come in with substantial majorities. We

certainly proved it in British Columbia.

On the issue of early retirement, the member raises a valid point, and I wish....

MR. ROSE: I get one valid point every speech.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You're doing well. I want you to know that

the issue of early retirement is being actively pursued now within the

ministry. The point is a valid one. We've recognized the concern, and

we hope to do something about it.

MR. COCKE: I hope it's you.

MR. ROSE: He's going to get his reward, but not in heaven.

[4:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I tell you, I didn't come all the way from Ottawa to hope that the portfolio would arrive, Mr. Member.

On the comments you have made with respect to funding and some

critique which was advanced by the executive director of the BCSTA,

some of those comments were raised, but they were raised shortly after

the framework was introduced. Many of them were recognized. How many

times have I said that I'm interested in constructive criticism? I've

repeated in this House on a number of occasions that we wanted that

type of debate and help and some good ideas. They came from all

districts, and they came from the BCSTA as well.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH . We certainly did. The paper to which you have made

reference, Mr. Member, is a little out of date. The changes were introduced

long ago. Many of the observations made in the summer were implemented in November,

so that criticism which is raised now has really not too much value.

I will also make some reference to..., and this is a paper which we

prepared in response to some of his concerns. "The analysis is overly

concerned with the likelihood that the framework will be used to

control the internal allocation of spending by boards. It misses the

major purpose to determine a level of spending which would enable each

board to deliver a sound basic education." I quote again: "The idea

that the system is inflationary is nonsense. All one needs to do is

look at the budget projected to '86 to see that the degree of inflation

accepted by the system is a matter of policy, not of factors intrinsic

to the system."

The item on average district teacher salaries in particular was

addressed as a result of the concerns raised by the BCSTA. We looked at

it.

You've often raised the matter of Jaffray. As I recall, Jaffray is

in an area where there is quite a decline in enrolment. But when you

get up into Sparwood and Elkford, that's another issue. You've raised

the point, and it's something that ought to be looked at. As far as

Abbotsford and Mt. Lehman are concerned, I take note of what you have

said; but you must remember that the school district is the body which

has to make difficult decisions sometimes. I'm not questioning the

historical reference which was made, but it may very well be that those

who were elected in the Abbotsford school district have had to make

some hard decisions, and this may very well have been one of them. But

I will attempt to find out more information for you, and return to the

House on it.

I have one concluding comment on those items that have been raised.

I make reference to a statement issued by the Conference Board of

Canada entitled "Share of Social Services" — which include education,

health and welfare — "in the Total Budget for 1983-84." I think you

should know, Mr. Chairman, that as a percentage British Columbia ranks

number one. In the information given to us, the social service

expenditure for '83-84 was $5,617.6 million.

Interjection.

[ Page 3773 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I take issue with that

particular remark. The critic has reflected repeatedly that.... We're

talking about money for education. He has repeatedly made reference to

personal income. I'm just saying that the amount of money which British

Columbia has spent in those three areas, according to the statistics

from the Conference Board of Canada, places it at 66.5 percent — in the

first rank. Isn't that of some value? It seems to me that with the

funds which we have, compared to all other provinces we're doing a good

job distributing those funds into three social portfolios: Health,

Education and welfare. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) can

take umbrage at that particular statement, but it seems to me that

something coming from the Conference Board of Canada, with nothing from

the government or the opposition side, might lend some credence to the

statements we're making with respect to the funding.

I think that covers most of the items, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROSE: I'm reminded of the old one about the.... The

minister gets so angry and upset about this. He has in his notes:

"Argument weak here; shout louder." Of course you've spent more money

on welfare; you put everybody out of work. You've got 200,000 people

out of work. Of course your welfare budget is going to go up. What are

they going to do — eat at the soup kitchen? Where are they going to go

— down to the food banks that are nearly empty all over town? You

should be ashamed of yourself, in a rich province like this, for

putting people through the mill that way. What are you going to do when

all the volunteers and the charitable people and the churches run out

of food? Are you going to take what they got in food off their welfare

cheques? Is that going to be the next move? That's the one I heard.

People have a right to be upset and outraged about this. We aren't

talking about some abstraction; we're talking about people who are

suffering. I don't know anybody who wants to take the prize for being a

terrific government just because they cut the throat of all the safety

nets that we've developed over the last 25 years. What do you gain by

that? I don't think that's anything to be particularly proud of.

I said before that education is a sleeper issue, and it's going to

hit everybody. I'm pleased that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) is here. We have a letter here from Avola, B.C. They're

concerned about losing their school, and they're dumping on the local

school board. I don't know why they're doing these things, but they're

losing them. That's the North Thompson one. Here's one here from

Crescent Park, South Peace. It's hitting every district. It's not

something that we can laugh off or just say that the formula is

perfectly fair. Certain rural areas are going to get their throats cut,

and other schools have to be closed in urban areas. Sure, you fiddle

with the formula. I know you fiddle with the formula. You've fiddled

with the formula, but you haven't prevented the schools from being

closed — unless your objective was to close the schools and gut the

community. I know you've done that. I'm not the sharpest guy in the

world, but in about six months I usually find out a few things — ultimately anyway.

The business of taking over the commercial and industrial business

to smooth it out over the province because some districts had none and

others had a great deal has some relevance, but to many people it was

considered an out and out grab of those funds. How much of those funds

are ultimately distributed into education? We don't know, but we do

know that the percentage of property tax going to education has

declined. This government said that they've been very open. They're

gutsy. They have the guts to tell people on restraint....

Our leader never said that we were opposed to restraint. I said

myself that we couldn't continue to always solve our problems..., that

no government has an unlimited supply of money. I agree with that. But

getting rid of Ed Peck and being opposed to restraint are not the same

at all. They are not, as they say in the math class, congruencies. I

think the minister should know that as well.

He said the columnists are all in favour of him and that other

governments should take up on this. What columnists? Richard Jackson?

Richard Gwyn? You're reading the wrong columnists. You probably only

listen to certain economists, like Milton Friedman. You don't listen to

anybody who might disagree with you. To be fair, I suppose we're all

guilty of that. But just remember what John Crosbie said. Six months

after you did this, he said: "If we told the people what we were going

to do, they wouldn't vote for us." You didn't tell them what you were

going to do. Nobody knew the extent of your butchery. You didn't tell

them.

I want to talk a little bit about exams. I passed a few of them. I'm

a bit of an authority on them. I passed some, and I know what they're

like. I know that as far as I was concerned they weren't life or death.

I admitted I had a little problem with one subject one time, but I said

that the last time and I don't intend to repeat it. I don't think it's

going to make any difference what I say, because I think the ministry

has embarked on this. It's a commitment. It's a decision they have

made, and of course they wouldn't have a second look at this. They're

going to spend $2 million a year on this on the ground that they think

that most people want it. They think it's a good thing — that it's

going to improve discipline, it's going to improve scholarship and all

those things. So I don't think anything I say is going to change

anything very much.

I at least want people to know that the arguments are not all

one-sided, and there isn't a totally, completely, overwhelming argument

pro-test. I'm not even convinced that they shouldn't form part of an

assessment from time to time, although maybe not every year. I also

believe that there's no particular reason for asking every kid in the

province to take a test, even though he's had As, Bs, and Cs all

through his high school career, unless you want to throw money away. I

think the system of accreditation worked not badly for a great number

of years. If the public wants tests and hurdles to screen out the

incompetents or to somehow find out which of the kids are going on to

university — I believe it's something like 10 percent or 11 percent, 17

percent from the urban and 8 percent from the rural — it seems like a

lot of money for screens that the university should be providing. We

know full well that all the research that we know of up to now has

indicated that the best way of finding out which children might succeed

at universities — besides the fact that their parents have more money

than those people who don't go to universities — has to do with

teachers' assessments rather than external examinations. I say this

from what I regard as a professional point of view. I used to profess

this at one time, and it would be terrible for me to suddenly admit

that for my whole life I was wrong. At least I've had an opportunity to

think about the subject a little bit. I can’t stop you from doing what

you are doing. I don't think it's the ultimate headlong destruction of

everything we hold dear, but I think it is certainly open to some

question. I hope its aim is not to

[ Page 3774 ]

discredit teachers, because the recent headlines make me think it might be.

Again, in an attempt to be fair, the minister doesn't write the

headlines, the press does, so I can't blame him for that. I've got two

or three recent ones here. Barbara McLintock, Victoria Bureau, the Province , March 6, headline: "Failures Raised to Pass." The Sun ,

the same day: "Marks Scaled to Cut High Failure Rate." "Ministry Helps

out on Exam Marks." These are hardly designed to make the ministry look

bad; they are very kind to the ministry — exceedingly kind. That nice

old Minister of Education comes along and helps all those poor kids who

have flunked because they have incompetent teachers. Look what he did:

he came along and gave them a real boost. I think he gave himself a

real boost. What do the stories say? "Minister Jack Heinrich also took

a shot at 'soft' marking by teachers because scores didn't come nearly

up to the grades the teachers had awarded on the term's work. He said

this forced his ministry to upgrade the actual marks...on the exams 'to

avoid unacceptably high failure rates.'" That's McLintock.

[4:30]

Here's a little segment from a story in the Times-Colonist of, I think, around March 6. If Hansard

wants to know, I'll provide it to them. "The minister also said it was

possible to look at the examinations as tests of teacher competence."

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I didn't say that.

MR. ROSE: It's not in quotes, but you are apparently quoted,

without the quotes. "The minister also said it was possible to look at

the examinations as tests of teacher competence. But he cautioned

people not to read too much into the results." Here you are quoted:

"Let's not draw too many conclusions the first time round." That's

fair. I hope you didn't say it was a test of teacher competence,

because that's what a lot of people think they're for. I hope the

minister will get up and say he does not believe that provincewide

exams are now, ever have been or will be a test of teacher competence,

because the good teachers in the old days were the ones who could make

those kids get through those exams. It didn't matter what else they

taught them. If they taught a narrow curriculum and caused a higher

percentage to pass exams, then that was regarded as a good teacher. If

a teacher had somebody in his class whom he considered a dud, he

encouraged him not to write the exam: "You can't write the exam." I can

remember kids counselled into the general program because the school

was so concerned about their percentage of passes on government exams

that they encouraged the kids to enter some finger-painting class or

something like that, and not the classes which required a higher degree

of competency.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know. You named the school, but I know there were a number of them.

Isn't that great. "Marks Scaled to Cut High Failure Rate." "Ministry

Helps out on Exam Marks." Beautiful. "Failures Raised to Pass." Boy,

isn't it nice to have such a thoughtful, kind-hearted minister. What

was never asked, though, is whether or not the exam was too tough or

really covered the curriculum; whether or not the people who actually

constructed the exam knew anything at all about what they were doing.

Why did you bother to scale the exams? Why didn't you leave them where

they were? Why don't you make the exams tough now and easy in June?

That will prove, to some people at least, that the teachers have

suddenly become more competent, and that also providing more exams

gives greater discipline, greater scholarship and greater attention to

their studies. That inference could be drawn from that, anytime you

wanted to. You can do anything you want with the exam. You can make it

tough or easy, you can make it cover the course or irrelevant to the

curriculum; you can do whatever you want to.

I want to have all the information as to how the exams were scaled,

a full disclosure: raw scores, scaling process and everything. Allen

Garr says you've softened it now. It's going to be 50 percent of the

result of your exams. Now it's only going to be 25 percent, because

you've scaled them and changed the basis for them. You don't even have

the same faith in your own exam to leave it where it was and let the

chips fall where they may. Gutsy. Real gutsy. Lots of guts there.

Who produced the exams? How long did they take? Were they subject to

any kind of internal validity or reliability? Did you do the split-half

on any of them? Sure, there were some people who thought that maybe the

physics exam, the math exam or the science exam were pretty good. Those

are easy; the answers are either right or wrong. But exams in social

more difficult. So you can look pretty good on the technical stuff.

Have there been any conclusions drawn about the exam? The minister

says we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I hope you haven't. What kind of

pattern have they set? What allowances have been made by those

as a second language. This is what happened in the United States. Down

in the U.S. of A., the Supreme Court of California ruled in 1974 that

regular classes without aids to overcome the language. In the

leader in foreign language instruction, that country is not unique.

Countries throughout Europe offer other languages. But I think the

point is that if the California school board requires kids whose native

should have special concessions and considerations in provincewide

exams? I think it would be. I think it's only humane. I don't know if

that was considered either. So that's another important sidelight that

I think we should look at.

What's the retention rate in schools these days? The last time we

had provincewide exams, I believe, was in 1972. Is the retention rate

higher or lower than in 1972? I would suggest to you that it's higher.

If it's higher, it means that more average kids are staying in schools

longer. Probably they might not do as well on exams, and maybe that's

why some people who are required to face the exams didn't do as well as

they might, even if the exams were all right, and that's why the

minister had to scale them. Scaling isn't new. Scaling has been going

on as long as we've had exams, that I know of.

[ Page

3775 ]

Scaling has always been practised, because the fact is that some

examiners set exams that are too difficult. So we have the old

bell-shaped curve about a certain percentage of people who are

predestined to flunk. There's really no way, unless you replicate that

exam over and over until it becomes "a standardized test" and has norms

and all the rest of it, that it can be reliable without scaling. The

minister didn't do anybody any favours by scaling those exams.

Recognize reality, that's all. Don't make a virtue out of necessity. I

think that's what happened here.

What did it all cost? Who did it? The minister said in one

article

that it was done by members of the BCTF. It was, all right. But it

wasn't done with the active cooperation of the BCTF. They offered that.

There was an agreement. It was ignored. I don't know what you call

these people who did it at the behest of the ministry. They might have

been BCTF members, but they certainly didn't do it with the BCTF's

blessing. Had the BCTF had anything to do with it, I think that there

would have been a much better kind of exam result. I hope that if we're

going to plunge down this road, some of those questions — I'm not the

only one who's ever thought of them — will be met and dealt with.

The committee that was going to be formed from the BCTF — the

minister said he'd like to have their cooperation — agreed on these

things. What modifications should be made to the assessment program? It

should be more than an exam. That's not a quote. Given that the

government is committed to a system of pr