1984 Legislative Session: 1st 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 )

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3189 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

PCB shipment through B.C. waters. Mrs. Wallace –– 3189

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. Mr. Passarell –– 3189

Motor vehicle safety. Mr. Passarell –– 3189

Mr. Cocke

Habitat conservation fund. Hon. Mr. Brummet replies –– 3190

Foreclosures in Vancouver. Mr. Blencoe –– 3190

Psychological experiments. Mr. Howard –– 3190

Mr. Cocke

Taxes on banks. Mr. Lea –– 3190

Tabling Documents –– 3191

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3191

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Premier's office estimates. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: premier's office –– 3205

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Ombudsman estimates.

On vote 3: office of the Ombudsman –– 3208

Mr. Reid

Mrs. Dailly

Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates.

On vote 1: legislation –– 3208

Mr. Cocke

Supply Act (No 4), 1983 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Curtis 3209

Royal assent

Prorogation –– 3210

Appendix –– 3211

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1984

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the members of the

Legislature to join me in welcoming some visitors to the gallery today

and to the precincts. They are all directors of the Islands Protection

Society from the Queen Charlotte Islands. They are here to educate us

all on good reasons to look at the southern part of Moresby Island and

to look at saving that for future generations. I'd like to introduce

those directors to you. Sitting in the gallery today are Jack Miller,

Josette Weir and Tom Snider. I don't see John Broadhead up there, but

he is in the precinct somewhere. I'd ask you to join with me in

welcoming them.

Oral Questions

PCB SHIPMENT THROUGH B.C. WATERS

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't expect to be first on the list, but the absence from the cabinet benches gives me that opportunity.

My question is for the Minister of Environment, who I will say is a

faithful attender of question period. My question is this: the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that a shipment of 261

long tonnes of toxic PCBs are being shipped through Johnstone Strait,

Discovery Pass and the Strait of Georgia. That's a lot of PCBs, Mr.

Speaker.

The government has long claimed that it has jurisdiction over these

inland waters. I wonder whether or not the minister was consulted prior

to this proposed shipment.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Briefly, no, we were not consulted prior to

the shipment. However, as soon as it came to our attention, we checked

with the federal authorities. My people have been gathering what

information they can on it. Apparently at this time there is no

requirement for prenotification of the federal authorities when it

comes through Canadian waters. We have contacted the federal

authorities, and they are now going to meet with the appropriate United

States authorities to see if this can't be rectified in an agreement

that pre-notification be given. I agree with the member that that would

be a great deal of PCBs. Unfortunately the member has not got the whole

story. There are two hundred and whatever it is tonnes of varied

material ranging from some very slightly tainted with PCBs to some

minor quantities of concentrated materials that are being shipped to

Seattle. The ship was inspected by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency when it left Alaska. When it enters Canadian waters, it comes

under special traffic management regulations; therefore other ships

give it a wide berth and it's covered by radar. The barge has been

certified as seaworthy in heavy waters and, as nearly as we can

determine, it's being monitored by the federal authorities. Our people

are keeping tabs on it and it's as safe as it can possibly be.

MRS. WALLACE: Can you tell me, Mr. Minister, if these are single-bottom or double-bottom barges?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: My information is that it's a double-bottom barge,

and that the material is also double packaged or triple packaged. It's in

30-gallon drums, which are put in 45-gallon drums, which are again put in containers.

So every precaution has been taken.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES LTD.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to the Minister of Human

Resources responsible for transit in the province: will the minister

advise the time frame of the government for awarding the sale of

Pacific Coach Lines? Secondly, will it be decided during the month of

February?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the date of

the finalization of the company's sale. When I hear from the board of

directors, I'll be able to give the House that information.

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

MR. PASSARELL: I have another question to the same minister.

On February 7 the minister declined my request for a moratorium on the

sale of Pacific Coach Lines pending a full public inquiry into bus

safety and safety precautions. Would the minister now advise whether

she supports such an inquiry, independent of her desire to liquidate

Pacific Coach Lines?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe my response to the

inquiry this past week on the same subject was done in light of the

fact that I am not aware of those who are making proposals to the board

of directors to purchase that company. Therefore I have simply passed

on to the board of directors the implication that I assumed was in the

member's question last week, inasmuch as we would take safety measures

and the safety capability of any purchaser into consideration. I have

done so.

MR. PASSARELL: Is the minister aware of the concerns of the

police and the transit operators over the government's decision to

close the Burnaby testing station on March 9, 1984? What provisions has

the minister made for regular safety inspection of transit buses?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to take that question as notice at this time.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. The minister is aware that two vacancies

have been created on the Motor Carrier Commission by the departure of

Mr. Sutherland on January 15, 1984, and Mr. Basile on February 4, 1984.

What assurances can the minister give that he will keep the salivating

Socreds away from these jobs and appoint people with experience and

commitment to safety?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

HON. A. FRASER: To the member, we're aware of that and we're acting on it.

MR. PASSARELL: In view of the fact that the one remaining

commissioner does not constitute a quorum, will the minister assure

this House that the new appointments will be made with dispatch to help

clean up the traffic safety mess created by this government?

[ Page 3190 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would make the same response as to the first question.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask that strangely silent

minister a question as well. The Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia has reported to this House that the abolition of motor vehicle

testing stations is expected to result in four more deaths and 237 more

injuries per year. The minister has said he has no way of knowing

whether this information is correct. Does the minister plan to find out?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have lots of opinions we look at all the time.

MR. COCKE: In view of the fact that the minister takes the

ICBC report so lightly, will he advise this House what information the

original policy of closing testing stations was based on, or will he

consider tabling the information in the House?

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Please repeat your question.

MR. COCKE: You closed down the testing stations, assuring

this House that everything would be okay. A very large Crown

corporation has said everything will not be okay. Will the minister

tell us on what basis he closed those testing stations? Did he have any

idea what it would to do to human lives and human suffering?

I would like to ask one additional question. The ICBC report goes on

to state that the additional accident injuries will cost ICBC and the

insured motorists — who are also taxpayers — some $2.4 million per

year. Will the minister advise what his estimate of the additional

damage caused by closing the testing stations will be? Is it meaningful

to the minister?

HON. A. FRASER: All these people are entitled to their opinions. You don't necessarily have to agree with them.

MR. PASSARELL: It took three inspectors working full-time for

one week to check the seven buses of Conmac. How is one inspector going

to check all 700 or more buses on Vancouver Island?

HON. A. FRASER: Again, there is a lot of assumption. I'm sure three inspectors didn't take all week to check the buses.

HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I took part of a question from the member

for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) on notice the other day. She asked

how much we receive from the surcharge on licences for the habitat

conservation fund, and how much is expended. I told her at that time

that about $1.3 million is expected or estimated in revenue and $1.2

million is budgeted for expenditures. The projects approved to date are

worth $960,000, and $622,000 has actually been expended to date.

FORECLOSURES IN VANCOUVER

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. The B.C. supreme court registry reports a record

number of foreclosures in the city of Vancouver for 1983. Although it

is too late for those 4,300 who were subject to foreclosure proceedings

in Vancouver last year, will the minister advise whether he is finally

prepared to move on the problem of banks which have locked

mortgage-holders into high-rate mortgages and which refuse to

renegotiate?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's a similar question to one asked before.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask a question of the

Attorney-General. Based upon the apparent collaboration between the

Central Intelligence Agency in the United States and the government of

Canada a few years back to engage in psychotherapy and other mentally

tortuous activities upon people who are now residents of British

Columbia, Canadian citizens in any event, and inasmuch as some of those

people whom that indignity was visited upon are contemplating court

action against the federal government, will the minister commit himself

and his ministry to assisting those residents of British Columbia in

their case against the federal government?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General whether or

not he feels there is a possibility that that same kind of procedure

was being used in the province of British Columbia at about the same

time. Has he had any report on that?

HON. MR. SMITH: I've had no such report, but I will make an inquiry.

MR. COCKE: I would suggest very strongly that the minister do make an inquiry. If he makes an inquiry will he report to the House?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I will.

TAXES ON BANKS

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The

banking industry in this province and across Canada has doubled the

spread between the interest rate paid on savings and the rate charged

on borrowings. That change has resulted in an explosion of bank profits

to the point where hundreds of millions of dollars are made by the

banks in B.C. from that spread difference. Has the minister decided to

increase the special bank tax introduced in May 1982, in order to

capture some of that windfall profit for the taxpayers of this province?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert

refers to a tax measure which was introduced by this government and

which has added to the revenues of the provincial treasury, but I think

the member would know

[ Page 3191 ]

that even if I were contemplating a change in the budget for 1984-85 I would not be in a position to comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the report of a joint federal British

Columbia committee which studied and is reporting on the chlorophenate

wood protection recommendations for design and operation.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled answers to questions taken as notice and on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 21: minister's office, $207,010.

MR. ROSE: I'll wait just a moment for the minister's

officials to resume their seats and welcome them back. I hope they've

had a sumptuous lunch. I hope the minister did too and is prepared to

give me better answers than he did this morning. I'll try to ask

shorter questions.

I have to begin with a little quote for the minister. I'll read it to him. It's from the Phi Delta Kappan ,

a magazine of professional educators, which makes it, of course,

suspect right at the beginning. It is "Education's Move to Centre

Stage: An Overview of Recent Studies," by one Harold Howe. I will read

a couple of short quotes from this article, and I recommend the

article

to the minister for bedtime reading. He may have it there, or one of

his page-turners may be able to help him with it. I am quoting from

page 172:

"One of the dangers inherent in all the

recommendations for more demanding courses and higher standards is that

these more rigorous requirements will be insensitively applied and will

force more young people out of school altogether. There is no adequate

safety net today for a boy or girl who does not finish high school, and

those who are recommending tougher standards for a high school diploma

have not suggested one. 'Do you have a high school diploma?' is the

first question that is asked, often." I am paraphrasing that. "It is

possible to raise academic standards in high schools without rejecting

large numbers of young people, but the difficulties in doing so are

insufficiently recognized in many of the news reports."

What the man is saying is that we don't really recognize that the

demand for higher and more rigorous standards is not that simple —

applying tougher exams and making more rigorous courses. You do screen

out a lot of people there, and that is a dangerous thing, because in

our society we can't afford to have more dropouts. All those unskilled

people are going to do is clutter up the labour market and be a cost,

not to education but to human resources later on, or to the jails.

Those are frustrated people who do not have a sense of direction,

self-worth or anything else that is worth having possession of as a

healthy human being.

The

article goes on to say:

"You give a child nothing, I think, when you give him

this joyless, driven concept of the meaning of learning. But alas,

there are plenty among us who think this is just fine. Following the

great cackles of the political anti-permissiveness crowd when this

report was released" — that's 'Action for Excellence' — "I was struck

again by how much such people, who claim to be champions of education,

implicitly view education as a disagreeable thing. It is invariably

discussed by them, and with relish, as something between medicine and a

punishment that must be administered to its unwilling little subjects

for their own good no matter how they howl. It is not supposed to be

fun, they admonish, and children cannot be expected to like it —

whatever happened to our moral fibre, and so forth. Schooling needs to

be saved from these 'friends.'"

He has a number of other things to say there, but I won't quote them.

"There is a difference — night and day — between...fun and

the joy of learning, and everyone who has ever had one great teacher of a serious

subject knows what it is. So do those kids in a handful of slum schools notoriously

programmed to fail who instead thrive because they are in the care of people

who know what teaching is about. If we could acquire, come to honour, this great

value, if we could truly aspire to become a learning society, the rest — the

competitive and material benefits — would follow. But we keep trying to do it

the other way around."

I guess what the man is saying is that teaching is an art as well as

a discipline, and that some people, no matter what exams you put them

through, as teachers, might fail the exams but turn out to be great

teachers. As a matter of fact, there are some studies that show this,

quoted most recently by our friend in the Province , Crawford Kilian. He says:

"The normal means of evaluating teacher performance are

ratings by supervisors and students' scores on standardized achievement

tests. Studies have shown that performance on the NTE and other teacher exams,

has no correlation with normal — yardsticks. What is worse, it doesn't look

as if supervisors' ratings and students' scores are reliable either.

This means a teacher can do poorly on the NTE yet produce students who score

high on standardized tests."

The same thing is true of students. They can score high on the standard tests

or the external exam and yet do poorly at university. The converse is also true.

So if it isn't a reliable predictor, then why are we doing it? I

mentioned before lunch that a number of studies have said it wasn't an

external examination at all; rather it was the teachers' grades that

were the greatest predictor of university success. The dean of

education has quoted these in an

article in the recent B.C. Teacher.

Dan Birch quotes more than 800 studies which have shown that. Then why

are we persisting with this inanity? Dr. Birch closes his argument by

saying simply this. It is, I think, a word of advice for the minister.

"Too great a reliance on any single predictor of success has severe

disadvantages. Too great a reliance on success or failure based on 50

percent of an external exam, I think, is too great a reliance on a

single factor." I hope that the minister and the ministry considers

this.

Why do we have these tests anyway? I think we could summarize by

saying the people who oppose them are not opposed to testing or even to

evaluation. We support constant evaluation. I was, as you might know, a

teacher at one time,

[ Page 3192 ]

and I felt that the more I tested the better my

students became. It wasn't just the carrot and the whip; it was the

fact that no one particular score was decisive in whether they

succeeded or failed.

[2:30]

Those people who are objecting to these things say it's societal.

It's the lack of consensus on goals; in other words, what are you

trying to do? If you'll tell us what you're trying to do, what your

goals are and then you test on the basis of those goals, then given all

the other ifs and conditions it may well be acceptable. It's not the

fact that we have a provincewide test that is the big issue; it's what

we use it for and whether or not it does test the subject. I would

almost be forced to use terrible words like validity and reliability,

but I wouldn't do that. No, I wouldn't offend the Chair with that.

The second thing: lack of agreement on objectives. This is an

objection. Distortion of the teaching curriculum to fit the narrow

focus of examination; ignoring of future-oriented studies — you know,

reliance on the past or the old curriculum, freezing it in, the iceberg

approach; the uncertainty of the nature of knowledge. Socio-economic

and ethnic and family and geographically induced variations of B.C.

students — in other words, it's not fair to all students to give them

the same tests; they come from different backgrounds linguistically,

culturally and all the rest of it. The broad base of teacher

information and reporting to the public on the competence of

secondary-school graduates: we think the teacher is in a better

position to tell the public how well the student is doing than one

single test. The right of the provincial government to evaluate

students: do you really have the right to do that? You may have, but

legally it may be contentious. You may not really have that right any

more. The external examinations promoted appendant and personal

distress among students and teachers: teachers feel that they are being

rated and students sometimes feel that they are being raped by the exam.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. ROSE: Yes, they do. Here is one student who wrote the

supplemental in Chemistry 100 four times. I did. The fourth time I got

51 percent, and I promptly forgot all the chemistry I ever did know. It

didn't make any difference. Another little autobiographical bit of

trivia of interest to no one but me was my own particular experience in

going into post-graduate work. From a degree in agriculture I went on

to a masters in music. Did I have the prerequisites? Of course I did

not, certainly not down on paper. I had it from a broad base of

knowledge and a broad base of practice and experience. Certainly it

wasn't the screens that the universities put up that helped me there.

Anyway, there seems to be always an implication on the part of the

minister — and correct me if I'm misquoting — that the teaching

federation does not want to cooperate in evaluation. Quite frankly, to

use a very coarse term, I think that's a bum rap. I have a letter here

of September 13, 1983, written to the minister, suggesting that they

get together and discuss means of evaluation. I am quite certain the

BCTF wasn't involved in these consultations or these exams. They asked

the minister, and I'd like to ask him some questions too, and maybe he

can make a note of them. Writing to the minister they had two major

questions. "What modifications, if any, should be made to the

provincial assessment program?" I understand there is one now. "Given

that the government is committed to a system of provincial exams, what

alternative should be considered by the ministry in implementing a

long-range plan which will be in effect June 1984." And under this he

says: "The committee will consider the following issues: the purpose of

province-wide assessments and provincial exams." What is your purpose?

Was that discussed with the BCTF? They wanted to discuss it with you

and work with you on that. Did you or did you not?

"The relationship between what is tested and the goals of education."

I touched on that earlier. What are the present goals of education? Are they

the ones that were outlined in "Smith's apple report" two years

ago, or have they changed? There are lots of inconsistencies between what the

apple report has said and the recent actions of the minister and the ministry.

Graduation requirements of program offerings in the schools. Why

don't we look at those things? Are we going to have exams in

everything? Are we going to have exams of certain things? Are we going

to have exams in everything every year? In what grade are we going to

have these exams? And if we are, what are we going to do over the long

haul? The context and evaluation in the total school program. A lot of

people don't understand, Mr. Chairman, that when you give a test, you

only take a small sample of all the things that were taught. I might

learn 100 things out of 120 in the course, but if you tested me on only

20 things they might be the 20 I didn't learn. So I would flunk, and

yet I know and have learned 100 out of the 120 things in the course

material.

So there's that kind of bias in exams as well, aside from the

cultural ones which I mentioned earlier. It's getting technical, and I

want to be political about this. I don't want to be technical. I went

through the technical side of it for a number of years and I didn't

enjoy it very much sometimes.

Public and professional expectations in dealing with province-wide

testing: what do people expect to get out of this? What does the

department expect to get out of this? What do teachers expect to get

out of this? Is it worthwhile? These are important questions. This is

what the BCTF wanted to talk to you about, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you for exams or against them? Come on, one way or another — you're equivocating.

MR. ROSE: No, no, it's not yes or no. It's not at all a "When did you stop beating your wife" question.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you believe in a testing capacity? How's that?

MR. ROSE: I believe in the testing capacity of teachers. Certainly.

Here's a test item for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

minister would answer this multiple choice question: While looking at

my map, the train pulled out; While looking at my map suddenly the

train pulled out; The train pulled out while looking at my map; While

reading my map the train pulled out; While I was looking at my map the

train pulled out. Which is right?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did he have a map?

[ Page 3193 ]

MR. ROSE: The train didn't have a map. Answer the question. The minister has a map. I don't like his map, but he's got a map.

Interjection.

Anyway, this rigour is supposed to produce scholars with rapier-like

minds. Here's a sentence from the grade 7 reading examination: "Doors

open and several race across the road." What raced across the road?

Doors? That was in your exam. Terrific! That's shocking. In answer to

the minister's question — I think it's important to answer ministers'

questions — certainly you need evaluation, but to base the kid's whole

career or 50 percent of it, on one exam? You need lots of exams, lots

of evaluations, and there are different kinds.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Do you want some more of the exam?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're starting to demonstrate logic. They'll throw you out.

MR. ROSE: I wish the minister wouldn't interrupt, because

I've only got about three hours left of this speech. As I go on it'll

get worse, especially if I'm heckled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go back to the train and start from there.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, by and large, teachers are not very

militant people. It takes a lot to provoke them. Their whole history

has not been one of militancy. I think they are really concerned, not

only about themselves but about education, to be forced into taking job

action. They don't do that easily or willingly. I was a teacher long

enough to know that. I didn't think they would ever be politicized at

all. But if they feel that education is being threatened, their future

is being threatened, then just like anybody else they're going to take

certain kinds of steps to protect themselves and to protect what they

believe in, what they were trained in, what they were taught to do. I

would think the doctors would be similarly prepared to demonstrate if

our health standards or our water systems or something else were

allowed to erode and be neglected.

They don't want to be treated with contempt; they want to be treated

with respect, and I think they're due a certain amount of respect. But

when the Premier of this province went on radio on December 1 and said

it would be very irresponsible for anyone at that time to put their own

personal self-interest against the interests of our children, he was

talking about teachers. And: "I think it would make clear once and for

all to many people who have not understood the issue that the issue

with Mr. Kuehn and the BCTF has never been our children or education."

That's his opinion. But he's the Premier of the province; he sets the

tone. He sets the tone of contempt for teachers — and by extension, for

education.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, he does.

Listen to this: "It" — speaking about the job action — "has

been self-serving for wage increases for teachers at a time when others don't

have them, and to maintain employment at any costs, when others have faced layoffs."

These teachers wanted a zero percent increase. That's all they wanted, and

they didn't get it. That's what they got: zero.

Those were very, very difficult times. I'm glad they were resolved.

At least, they were resolved on the surface. I think the anger and the

resentment will linger for a long time. I don't think it will go away.

Also, the trustees were kind of mad at you people about that time,

especially at the minister. They really weren't very pleased with the

minister. The minister said, first of all, that they were going to have

to make up the time. They weren't going to get that money; but if they

were, maybe he'd consider it if they gave him suggestions on how to do

it. Then he jumped on the plane and went to Germany. Three weeks later

he came back and said they weren't getting the money anyway — a

complete flip-flop. I'll leave it to you to decide who was the flop.

But some trustees were pretty angry about this.

Here is a letter from Grand Forks: "We made our submission to you,

only to find out through the news media that any proposal whatsoever

would be unacceptable." This was after they were asked for ideas on

what to do with that $15 million to $20 million. They probably studied

the issue; they probably had meetings. The money was not to be returned

to the individual school districts; it was earmarked for other

purposes, and once again without consultation. The minister made a

great deal out of his consulting. He also said — and this is in the Vancouver Sun

of December 29, after he came back.... Did the minister make the

announcement? Of course not. When you've got bad news to give, you get

an official to do it on a Friday afternoon. The minister will make all

the good announcements, but bad announcements are to be done by an

official on a Friday afternoon after all the news boys have gone to the

press club — that's when it should be done. Anyway, here's what the Sun

had to say in an

article on the 29th by Doug Ward, a labour reporter:

"Heinrich also said that he knew in advance that proposals from school

boards on how to make up instructional time...lost would be

unacceptable, 'because no matter what happened there would be some

inequities....'"If they would be unacceptable and you knew it in

advance, why ask them? Why put them through the hoops?

[2:45]

Finally, I'd like to make another observation on those three days.

Here is a newscast transcript from CKWX for November 10. The minister

said: "Children lost three days in the classroom, and I think it's

important that it be made up. That's the condition for some of those

funds moving forward to the school districts." Of course, that's before

he asked them, of course, how to do it. But when we stopped off in

Geneva for five days the year before and the International Labour

Organization in Geneva asked them why they did it, here's the

minister's reply: "Regarding the reduction of the length of the school

year, the government of British Columbia notes that this only affects

the amount of pay for teachers in 1983, not the rate of pay, which was

determined by collective bargaining." That's out the window too, now

that the lid is on. It also points out that the reduction results in

increased productivity. So when the minister makes them stay home for

four or five days, that increases productivity. When the teachers take

three days off on a job action protest, that's some crime against

children. You can't have it both ways.

I can read you all kinds of letters — Burns Lake, Vancouver. Vancouver is not very pleased with what you're doing

[ Page 3194 ]

either. This is from the bulletin of the Vancouver

School Board meeting. It was moved "...that a letter be sent to the

Minister of Education expressing strong opposition to his decision to

withhold the $1.2 million saved during the employees' withdrawal of

service." Trustee Phil Rankin said the board had been put through a

'sham' because of the expectations that had been raised. "He criticized

the minister for changing his mind without consultation. 'It's another

example of taking autonomy away from the boards,' he said. Trustee Kim

Campbell" — a former Socred candidate —"said she favoured the motion

because she regarded the minister's action as a 'betrayal.'" Those are

pretty strong words. "Trustee Graeme Waymark said expectations were

raised, and he was concerned that the minister's decision had put the

board in an uncomfortable position." So on and on it goes. People are

unhappy. I don't know whether you could have asked them to put up the

three days or not. The School Act is pretty clear on how many minutes

are allowed in a school day. A certain amount of recess is required.

Schools cannot exceed six hours. So it may be contrary to the act —

even if they had been asked to make up the time. So anyway, from

Vancouver we got two budgets: one which they're given and one which

they need. There's quite a difference between the two budgets. I don't

think you're going to win any popularity contest in Vancouver over this.

The part that bothers me is that we always hear: "We can't afford

it. We've got to cut the cloth to fit the suit" — and other proverbs

and clichés. But as a percentage of the gross provincial product — even

the provincial budget — B.C. is presenting only 15.5 percent of its

budget for education. That's all we're giving. Newfoundland gives 25

percent, Prince Edward Island 24 percent, Nova Scotia 24 percent, New

Brunswick 23 percent, Quebec 25 percent, Ontario 20 percent, Manitoba

18 percent, Saskatchewan 15 percent and Alberta 17 percent. We're dead

last. We're the only ones in Canada that have a recession? I really

don't understand it.

I'd like to talk a little bit about finance. I don't know how my

time is coming along; I haven't seen the light go on. It's probably too

long for some people. I don't blame them. But, you know, it's a long

time before I'll get another kick at this cat. I might not have another

chance at the estimates until they're eleven-twelfths spent again.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Who knows? We might have a new minister by then.

He's been pretty good so far, running around putting fires out —

Labour, Municipal Affairs and all that. Maybe somebody'll come and put

his fire out, I don't know.

I'm really pleased to see the second member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat) here, because he lives in that great city of

Vancouver and hears the screams of anguish. I wonder if the member

really approves of the withdrawal of all the

that program and after Vancouver and the provincial government have

invested many dollars in equipment and personnel training.

Forty percent of the kids in Vancouver and 25 percent in suburbia do

ESL program. Does that make any sense? Now the feds are putting in for

it, and the city is going to, but the province isn't. Does that make

any kind of sense among your voters in Little Mountain? Do you support

that kind of thing? If not, then don't be sotto voce; when it comes to

heckling you've got a loud, effective voice. And he sits there and says

nothing. I don't think that's fair.

At the same time as we're withdrawing funding from the public schools, we're increasing it to the independent schools.

MR. SEGARTY: That's not true.

MR. ROSE: We are so. Are you here again? I scarcely recognize you.

MR. SEGARTY: I was here longer than you were.

MR. ROSE: Well, you may be. All I know is that the provincial subsidy from 1978 to 1982 has gone from $520 per pupil to $785.

MR. SEGARTY: You don't understand the formula.

MR. ROSE: I understand the formula: it's based on enrolment. It's based on the previous year in that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. member would like to take his own seat.

MR. ROSE: Yes, in his office. I think he should go into his office and study his memoirs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we get on with vote 21, please.

MR. ROSE: I've tried to say that at the time the public

school budgets are falling, those of the independent schools are

rising. I'll go into that. There may be some very good reasons for it.

I wonder if the minister would care to answer the questions, because

I have to have somebody else interrupt me now or I won't be able to

speak any more, and that would be a sad thing to happen to this

Legislature at this moment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll try to answer these very quickly for

you, Mr. Member. The first thing you made reference to was some

particular publication produced by, I presume, a sorority or fraternity

— I'm not sure which — called Phi Delta Kappa.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Whatever it may be, I was never involved with some of those elitist organizations, Madam Member.

You quote this particular

article from this publication as being a

be-all and end-all, but, Mr. Member, we just need to go to the

publication of January 1984 — I don't know if that's the copy you have

— from the same publisher and the same material, and there's one

article entitled "Financing Educational Excellence." I'll just very

quickly read what's here:

"The various national commissions generally agree that

educational reform is necessary. Although the groups differ on the

specifics of what needs to be done and by what level of government,

they have proposed reforms in six areas: (1) more intensive academic

work, usually including such specifics as

[ Page 3195 ]

stiffer high school graduation requirements; (2) better teachers;

(3) better management of the educational system; (4) greater accountability;

(5) more time on tasks; (6) more and better use of technology."

It's fine to report, and no doubt people will find holes in this

particular article, but I don't think I can lend a great deal of

credence to a quote from that particular publication if you're going to

use it as a critic representing, presumably, in its entirety the views

of the educational community.

With respect to the BCTF, the item mentioned with respect to

examinations: I recognize and accept the original criticism. Their

timing was a serious problem and there certainly was resistance. On

more than one occasion we invited the BCTF to place their

representative on the board of examiners, which again and again they

have emphatically refused to do. We wanted people from the teaching

profession, the BCTF, on the board of examiners, but they won't have

any part of it; so we had to go to the field to have teachers put on.

The purpose of the board of examiners is to examine examinations.

With respect to the problem which occurred November 8, 9 and 10, I

sent a letter to every school district in British Columbia. I'm sure

you're familiar with the contents of that letter; you must have a copy.

In it I said we would consider, review, the utilization of those funds

if you cared to make a submission, but under no circumstances was there

a commitment given that those funds would remain with those districts

which saved — allegedly — a great deal of money because of a withdrawal

of services, I specifically mentioned that a program cannot penalize

those who did not act in contravention of the law. I made that clear.

All of the submissions that were made came from every type of proposal.

The commitment made by the Premier was that those funds would remain

within the education system. That will be subject to a Treasury Board

submission, but there is the commitment which has been made.

One of the problems is what would have happened if we had wanted to

put a price on the heads of those who sanctioned illegal — in my view —

activity, and filled up the treasuries of those school districts whose

teaching staff are not working and whose other staff have padlocked the

school? I compare that district to the district that sought injunctive

relief and the district that didn't close their schools, and in fact

used those funds to pay their staff. The others who did withdraw their

services would use those funds to prevent any form of restraint

measures in the following fiscal year. Now tell me, how can I, as a

minister of the Crown, sanction someone profiting from what I believe

to be illegal activity, in violation of their own fundamental contract

and the contractual relationship each has with their respective boards?

I can't put the stamp of approval on that.

There were a couple of other items on here. Again, Mr. Member, you

are asking about the purpose of examinations. This morning I thought it

was clear that what I'm concerned about is standardization and

adherence to curriculum. There is no question about the view of the

public. Interestingly enough, we don't hear from the public, or have a

great deal of comment from the teaching profession, but there are

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of teachers who support the concept

of examinations, including administrators and superintendents. We are

interested as well in equality of opportunity to post-secondary

institutions. We were concerned about grade inflation. What about the

effect of examinations? I'm not saying for one moment that some of

those exams didn't have the odd wart on them, but I'll tell you, after

12 years — reintroducing the concept — something was required. How

about discipline in the classroom? How about attendance in the

classroom? What about attention?

My only point is this: I can relay to the House, Mr. Chairman, those

comments which are passed on to me by professional educators, and not

my observations. I have to rely upon the educators in the province for

a great deal of information. That's all. I'm a mechanic. I'm a layman.

I'm a politician. That's what we all are. Surely we rely on expertise

all the way around. The expertise is funnelled in and we have to make

decisions based on good judgment, and presumably exercising a

reasonable amount of discretion.

[3:00]

The Vancouver ESL budget under special education. I've just had that

checked out and I'm advised it's going to be in excess of $16.7

million. That's a significant sum of money, Mr. Member.

With respect to the independent schools, I've repeated, I don't know

how many times, that the policy of our government is to support

independent schools. There is a very simple formula. A group 2

independent school receives 30 percent of the previous year's

per-student costs within the district where that independent school is

located. They receive those funds one year hence and have to rely upon

the previous year's amount. That's the first thing.

Secondly, the increase from roughly $17 million to $22 million was

based on increased enrolment in the independent school system. Also,

what that $5 million spread really told us, because of the formula, is

what the costs were in the public education system the year before. So

there isn't any magic. There was no change to that formula.

I might just add one thing: one of the concerns I've had for some

time is the criticism which the public seems to be making of our public

education system. Surely, as a minister of the Crown with this

portfolio, I must recognize that. I'm not going to put my head in the

sand and not recognize what the public is saying about it. My job is to

do what I can to help. I'm certainly far from being perfect, but I'm

trying to help. I think we have made tremendous moves in the last

several months. But let me tell you, in West Vancouver right now

there's a real initiative to move into an independent school. I look at

West Vancouver and the North Shore, and what do I find? A significant

decline in enrolment — as big a decline as anywhere in the province. So

we know that the inequities under restraint 1 and 2 were locked into

the system, which meant that they had surplus funds. So dollars were

not a problem. I'll tell you what the problem is: it's attitude and the

concerns people have about the system. It seems to me that we've got to

recognize that. Probably one of the best things that we can really have

for the public education system is some competition from the

independent schools, because that might make us pull up our socks and

maybe we then can do a better job.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, this is a budget of some $1.4

billion, plus some more from higher education. I don't think it is

abusing the time of the House if we take some time to examine that.

That's what we're here for.

I guess I'm up to rebut the rebuttal, to begin with. I'd like to do

it this way. First of all, Phi Delta Kappa is not one of those "fun and

games" fraternities, you know.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I recognize that.

[ Page 3196 ]

MR. ROSE: You might even have thought of it as a sorority, I

really don't know. Phi Beta Kappa isn't that either. It's a key for

outstanding scholarship. So just because it happens to be from the

Greek alphabet doesn't mean it's all fun and games, beer-drinking,

chasing girls and panty-raids. I know you probably wouldn't be quite as

interested in it, perhaps, Mr. Minister, when I tell you it's very

prosaic. It's a very well-respected educational magazine.

Yes, Mr. Minister, I realize that you can find views on both sides

of the exam question. Nobody's denying that there are other views about

it. We just don't see the research that backs up the need for the

trouble it causes. There'll be a time when we abandon them again. As

far as the BCTF not wanting to come in, they're not going to be

co-opted. If they're not going to be part of the whole planning and

evaluation process, and are going to be sucked into just the exam side

of it, then why should they? Why should they give legitimacy to

something that they have not had a

part in and have certain profound

reservations about? I don't think it's just closing ranks. It isn't

just protecting the boys, or the girls, or whatever you might think. I

think they have some profound professional reservations about that, and

I don't think that those should be ignored.

As far as the business of giving the money back, and whether or not

you should sanction what is called, in your words, some illegal job

action, here's a letter I have that came to you from Burns Lake. "We,

the board of school trustees in district 55, believe that we acted in a

responsible manner. All schools in the school district remained open

during the withdrawal of teachers' services. We believe the public who

elected us will be penalized unjustly if moneys are deducted from our

December payments." Then they go on and show how these have been

deducted. I could read those, but I'm conscious of the time. "The

ministry calculated formula figures indicating a grant reduction of" —

$48,000-odd — "whereas our actual teaching salary savings were

$39,000." They want to know where the difference is? "Has there been a

revision?" Well, I don't think this is the time to discuss it.

We do know that there's been a cut. We do know that there's been a

cut in the ESL grants. We know that. It's been published. People have

protested against it. There's no point in the minister getting up and

shouting about how many millions they're giving. The fact is that we

have a large number and the grants have been cut, even though they do

come from the federal government. They're not necessarily a charge on

the taxpayer of British Columbia to that extent anyway.

But I'd like to get onto this business of the independent schools. I

think that there are many good reasons for independent schools.

Independent schools per se are not being attacked over here. What I'm

saying is the fact that the independent school growth has meant,

because of the formula.... And I don't disagree with the minister's

interpretation of the formula; he knows the formula. It's gone up 51

percent since 1978. The more you cut back on the public schools,

probably there's going to be a greater demand for independent schools.

Why do people want to send their kids to independent schools? I'm

sorry the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) is not here. I think he

thinks my views are quite negative. I want to protect the public

schools. I'm not up here to damn the independent schools; not at all. I

want to protect the public schools and enhance them, because I believe

in them. To the south of us we've got the strongest nation in the

world. It has based its strength, vigour and competence on a public

school system, which they've had from the beginning. I don't think you

can argue with that.

I understand why people want their kids to go to independent schools

— some of them do, sometimes. They want to perpetuate some cultural

values. It could be anything. It could be Mennonite or Dutch Christian

Reformed. It could be a Jewish school; it might be ethnic. They feel

it's their responsibility, not the state's, to pass on to their kids

the values that they hold dear, and they like to see their school do

it. There are counter-arguments to that one. It may be isolationist and

it may be even undemocratic, but that's the view they hold, and they

should have a right as a citizen to follow that view. Nobody argues

with that.

The second one is that the schools generally stress politeness,

dress codes and that sort of thing, and that appeals to a lot of

people. They find some young people unruly, sloppily dressed and

uncouth in a number of ways. They think that sending the child to

school in an environment that stresses these positive values is a good

thing, so they look to that. Finally there's the snob appeal. What are

the arguments that independent schools use? They say that it's very

important to go to a "good" school — later on, socially, in business

and all the rest of it. Half the corporate directors in Canada went to

one prep school: Upper Canada College. So if you want to be a corporate

director or a big name in the Liberal Party, you'd better go to that

school. It's very important. It may not be true today, but it was true

when the Vertical Mosaic came

out — that's John Porter's great sociological study of Canada. I can

show you the

chapter and verse where that exists. It was true. If it's

not true, I would think it would be one-third, but you know the

corporate directors of Canada. I'm not so well acquainted. I know very

few of them. There is a snob appeal and an exclusivity about it. I can

understand that.

Some people argue: "Well, you know, actually I'm taking the drain

off the public system by sending my kid to a private school at no charge to

the taxpayer, so I should be rewarded for that." That used to be the argument.

That's not true any more. There is a charge to the taxpayer, because it

is based on the average pupil cost in the district plus the enrolment. If the

enrolment goes up, the grants are going to go up. If the enrolment in the public

schools goes down, what will happen? The average per-pupil cost may not go down.

But still, the independent schools can get a growing amount of money, for whatever

reason. Maybe because they're doing a better job; that's a possible

reason. That's what a lot of people on the other side think.

This party has not come out against independent schools. We

understand the need for them. As a matter of fact, if you want to take

the argument to its illogical conclusion, there would be no cost at all

to local taxpayers if you sent all those kids over to Switzerland to

study in some sort of private school. Sometimes it's because of broken

homes. Some people are after the academic rigour. I can understand

that. I'm not arguing with that. But I am saying that their budget is

up by 51 percent over 1978; that is a fact. It will get even higher

unless we can do a better job, and fund and look after our public

schools. If everyone is dumping all over the public schools all the

time, it's certainly not going to give people a lot of confidence in

them. There are all kinds of people who just love to use the public

schools as whipping boys. It's very simple to do that.

There are some other things I would like to deal with. I will try to deal with them expeditiously, because we want to

[ Page 3197 ]

be through this by 4:30. So you can look forward to at least that relief, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, you made a great deal of your new finance formula based on enrolment:

when the echo of the baby boom came along, enrolment would go up and everything

would be fine. We've been looking over your finance formula as it applies

to certain districts, and we find — to put it politely — some anomalies in all

this. The new education finance formula is not equitable between districts.

For instance, the North Thompson School District expects enrolment to go down

by 2.1 percent next year; their budget will be cut by nearly 11 percent. How

is that equitable with Grand Forks, where the enrolment goes down by 1.6 percent

but the budget goes down by only 2 percent? Has there been any consultation

over these apparent anomalies, any projections versus budgets? I think that

is worth a little bit of explanation.

Another point: why does School District 21 in Armstrong qualify for a budget

increase of 7.65 percent on an 8.5 percent increase in enrolment by 1986, when

Abbotsford will have a 14.6 percent increase in enrolment by 1986 but only qualifies

for a 5.59 percent increase? I understand Abbotsford has been somewhat revised,

but there are some anomalies here, and I think it is worthwhile asking about

it. If you're talking about administration, I can give you the figures.

The administration for various districts doesn't square with it either,

because they have spent more money on administration. So there are some questions

here.

I also mentioned that some of the districts were concerned about the

fact that they really didn't know where they were going financially.

They were urged to prepare three-year budgets so that they would know

where they were going when interim financing runs out in three years

and we start throwing money around, porkbarreling it up for the next

election and giving all the money back. We found through our surveys,

by talking to the various boards regarding the three year plan, that

reaction can be summed up in the following way: some boards have

developed three-year plans, but they are in the minority; many

districts are planning year by year, because the government is changing

the rules — "changing with the wind" were the words used. Uncertainty

means no ability to plan. A three-year or a three-month plan is a waste

of time. This sums up the districts' frustration with the government's

finance formula.

In the earlier debates during the all-night sessions, the minister

did admit that the finance formula was about to have certain revisions

done to it. I presume that's an ongoing process. But I'm quite sure

also that other anomalies will be pointed out besides the ones that I

have pointed out. I don't really want to go into the argument again

about whether we lost 25 percent or $22 million, or what we're going to

lose by 1986, but our projections say we are going to be down 22.9

percent. If Dr. Morton Shulman, a well-known financier and millionaire,

says that inflation is going to go up and it does, the cuts in real

dollars are going to be even more severe than what I have said. I think

it's quite a serious matter.

The question about certain kinds of budgets is: what is the budget

for the district? For instance, I have a letter of November 28, 1983,

which the minister wrote to Mr. Taylor of Sir Guy Carleton School — and

I'm not going into their particular problem. He says:

"Public education is included in the provincial

restraint program, as are other sectors of government, but it is wrong

to conclude that it is being singled out for particular attention. The

fact that education is being held to a 7 percent increase this year,

while other ministries receive larger increases, can be attributed to

then increases received by education in the previous two years."

We looked over this budget and we don't know where that 7 percent

increase is. We can't even find the special warrants. Here the minister

says that it's going up 7 percent. I think he's wrong. I think he meant

last year. Nevertheless, I'd like to know if there are any special

warrants, because we need at least — if you look in the estimates book

— $96,238,598.56 to make the minister's statement accurate. This is

something else that could be clarified.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[3:15]

I'm not going to go into the details of the number of people who are

likely to be laid off by these budget-slashing techniques, but I do

know that they are going to be in excess of 1,000 a year. If nobody

cares, then I would recommend that they look at the effects in a study

done in the village of Qualicum, where the board was quite zealous in

effecting their cuts in January, instead of waiting for June to let

heads roll. In it, they tried to determine what was the effect of the

layoff of 23 teachers. They found that it had a multiplier effect. The

saving effect was a little over $500,000. I'm not going into all the

details about this, because my colleague the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) will go into them. But I should think those people who are the

merchants will be interested in this as well. Twenty-three teachers

have been let go, but when you have employment in a community, you have

a multiplier effect beyond the numbers employed. Everybody agrees with

that. You open a new pulp mill and you have a new stereo store, tobacco

stand, hardware store or a hotel, but when you fire 23 people, that

isn't the end of it. It ends up about one and a half times that. It

ends up to be about 36. All across the province, it is going to mean

the same thing. If you lose 1,000 teachers per year across the

province, you’ve really lost not just 1,000, but you've lost 1,500

other jobs — or a total of 2,500 each year. With our unemployment at

record highs, down slightly from last January but still extremely

severe, I'm not sure that the local merchant and chamber of commerce

member is going to be all that happy with this prospect. It isn't just

the 23 jobs lost and that affecting the savings; it's the multiplier

effect in reverse in the community. People say: "Well, it's all public

money anyway." Yes, it is all public money and it's got to come out of

certain people. I don't mind if it comes out of me.

MR. REID: But you are rare.

MR. ROSE: Yes, and you're well done.

I think we've got to look at not only the people who are put out of

work but also at the various kinds of mercantile snowballing effects in

the community.

I notice that the Premier is getting his pencil sharpened for a

penetration into this debate. But I would like my colleague from Comox

to tell us a little bit more about the Qualicum situation at this

moment, since I touched on it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make specific

reference to the situation that exists in School District 69, Qualicum,

with which most members of this House will be somewhat familiar at this

stage, because the whole issue received a good deal of publicity just

before the end of

[ Page 3198 ]

December last year, when the minister was away in

Germany. What we saw happening in Qualicum at the end of December I

think we can expect to see duplicated in school districts throughout

the province in September or perhaps December of this year. The

minister during his response to the critic for Education for the NDP,

the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Good try.

MS. SANFORD: It's so much easier, Mr. Chairman, if you can

refer to people by their first names, but of course, that's not allowed

in this Legislature, so you have to remember the names of these

constituencies.

The minister made reference to the availability of funds on a number

of occasions when he was responding to the concerns raised by my

colleague. One of the things that the minister did not refer to is the

fact that this government has been criticized by economists from

various sectors of the province....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Name names.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, there are lots of economists who have said

that the government is on the wrong track. As a matter of fact,

Ministry of Labour officials, in a report that was not to be made

available to the public but which became public, pointed out that the

tack that this government has taken has indeed hampered the recovery,

has made the economic situation in this province worse. It is their

slavish adherence to that group of people in the Fraser Institute that

is the cause of a lot of the problems in this province, and in trying

to say that education has to be cut, the Minister of Education made no

reference to the direction that the government is taking in the whole

economic field. Why doesn't he refer to the fact that his government is

probably on the wrong track, and if we had...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Madam Member.

MS. SANFORD: I am talking about education funding, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Member, order, please. Let me finish

before you interrupt. Would you get back onto vote 21. The overall

government plan is not part of what the Minister of Education is

responsible for; the Minister of Education is only responsible for that

ministry. If you would keep on that vote, we'll get through it quicker.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the minister's

statement about the availability of funds, which he made earlier in

this Legislature, and he was talking about the overall availability of

funds for this government. That's what I'm referring to.

That's only a part of it, Mr. Chairman. The other part of it relates

to the priority that this government is prepared to allocate to

education. Again, my colleague pointed out that we in British Columbia

are at the very bottom of the heap of all of the provinces in terms of

providing funds as a percentage of budget. Even the poverty-stricken

Atlantic provinces allocate as much as 25 percent of their overall

budget to education. Here in British Columbia we are at the bottom of

the heap, allocating 15 percent to education. You can't deny that. For

the minister to stand up there and talk about the availability of

funds, and cry in his beard that we're in a tough economic situation,

does not alter the fact that the percentage of the present budget

allocated to education is at the bottom of the heap in terms of

education financing in the various provinces across Canada. The other

provinces can provide the services, but when you don't have a

commitment to education, you are going to allocate a much smaller

portion of the budget to education.

Mr. Chairman, that is the philosophy which the government tries to

use at this stage to justify the adverse impact they are having on the

educational system in this province, the adverse impact they are having

on the ability of the students of British Columbia to fulfil their

potential, as well as the adverse impact their actions are having on

the economy by laying off all those teachers all over the place. The

main reason this attack on education is taking place is that Social

Credit has never had a commitment to education and is now using the

current economic downturn.... That marvellous word they have latched on

to, "restraint," results in the kind of cutbacks and the kind of

disruption that we're seeing in the educational system.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That member cannot deny the figures. We are at

the bottom of the heap in British Columbia. Do you deny that, sir? You

can't deny it. Where is the commitment?

In School District 69, over 11 percent of the teaching staff were

laid off at Christmastime, resulting in quite a massive disruption in

the educational system within that school district. Fully half of the

students in one of the elementary schools had to face a new teacher

when they returned following the Christmas recess. We've seen a

doubling-up of classes, increased class size, reduction in services of

all kinds. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I had parents phoning me

at Christmastime because of their young children. I'm afraid that in

grades 1, 2 and 3 the children are very impressionable. They are very

easily upset emotionally and the mothers were phoning me because those

children were having nightmares about what was going to happen to them

when they returned in January. Parents phoning me!

I had one parent bring in his child, who was obviously disabled.

That parent brought that child to my office during office hours to make

the point to me that that child was not going to function well in a

regular classroom situation. He needed special attention. He needed

special help. The parent wanted to make the point to me about what was

happening to education within School District 69.

[3:30]

Parents' committees were established in nearly every school in the

district. These committees bombarded school board members with

questions and concerns about what was happening to education. And we

had parents stating time and time again in briefs to the school board

that while they understood and accepted and approved of restraint, they

did not approve of the kind of destruction that was taking place in the

school system within School District 69. Restraint to them did not mean

the kind of actions that had to take place in School District 69 in

order to meet the budgetary requirements of this particular government.

The minister will stand up and say: "Oh, I met with the school board

just after I got back, just before I went to Hawaii, and we got them

some more money." The only thing

[ Page 3199 ]

I can say to the minister at this point is that the

finance formula which the government established in the first place

failed to take into account that School District 69 was a growing

school district, and therefore he had to come up with that extra money

to meet the particular shortcoming in his own finance formula. We're

going to see the same kind of thing duplicated in various parts of the

province at the end of June and next December. That school board didn't

have any alternative at this stage. They made absolutely every cut.

They had been very frugal and very concerned about the education of

students in School District 69. That's one of the reasons that they

didn't lay off any schoolteachers last year. They cut every other place

that they possibly could, and this year were left with no alternative

but to lay off 11 percent of the entire teaching staff within that

school district.

But the problem is that this government sees education as part of

the problem, when it should be seeing education as part of the

solution. Don't go around ripping it apart, disrupting classes, jamming

kids together, making the labs overcrowded, cutting back on special

services to those students who have special needs.

MR. HOWARD: They need the money for northeast coal.

MS. SANFORD: They need the money for northeast coal and all

of their other megaprojects that they would prefer to spend money on

rather than on the children of British Columbia. I'm afraid that's what

the situation is.

The people who did the research in the Ministry of Labour, and who

prepared a report for government which became public recently, were

quite correct. The kinds of moves made by this government are

detrimental not only to services to people but to the economy as well,

And the recovery is going to be delayed because of it. We talk about

consumer spending; we're going to have a consumer-led recovery. How on

earth can you expect the teachers, and all of those other people who

are facing layoffs because of the policies of this government, to go

out and spend money in order to help in a consumer-led recovery?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I can't hear what the minister's saying, and it's probably a good thing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I said there's more money in savings accounts in Canada than at any time in history.

MS. SANFORD: No wonder! They don't want to spend it. They're

afraid that they're going to get laid off next week, because of you

people sitting over there. Why do you think they're saving that money?

If I were a teacher in this province, I wouldn't be going out and

buying a whole lot of things that I would otherwise buy. I'd save that

money, because who knows? After all of these cuts....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will have an opportunity to stand during these estimates.

MS. SANFORD: That's right, bring him to order, Mr. Chairman. He can have his own turn.

The total impact using a multiplier effect, which has been accepted

by most economists.... This was a survey done by the B.C. Teachers'

Federation. They discussed the multiplier effect, what happens when you

have these kinds of layoffs and cutbacks, with Professor Davis at the

University of British Columbia, in the School of Community and Regional

Planning; with Dr. Horace Singh, director of statistical services and

integration with the central statistics bureau of the B.C. Ministry of

Industry and Small Business Development. They determined — as well as

looking at the figures provided by the Employers' Council — that a

conservative multiplier effect with these kinds of layoffs would be

about two. So if you have the lost income in School District 69, which

is a very small area of the province, at $700,000 as a result of this

government's lack of commitment to education, then the total amount of

money that that school district loses in its economy is $1,400,000.

Already School District 69 is suffering in terms of high levels of

unemployment and low levels of income. There's no major industrial base

in that area. As a result of all this, there's going to be a further

impact economically. I'm not even talking about what happens to the

students in the schools, or to those people who get laid off. But it's

going to have a major impact on that economy, which is already a very

fragile one, in these difficult economic times.

I don't know how you change the commitment of government to

education, Mr. Chairman. Surely when the government realizes that it is

dead last in terms of all the provinces, or in relation to all the

provinces in Canada, they would alter that commitment, and they would

make sure that we're not hampering the ability of our young people to

gain the best possible education that we can provide.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll answer a number of the questions from

the members, Mr. Chairman. First of all, references were made to North

Thompson, where there was a 2 percent decline in enrolment and a

roughly 11 percent decline in budget. Then a comparison was done with

Armstrong. I don't recall exactly what the figures were. But your

point, I think, is that there may have been a decline in enrolment or

there may have been a static enrolment, but the funding went up. The

concept of the funding formula, as mentioned this morning, was to

deliver to each school district an adequate educational base. I think

what we have to remember is that expression which I don't think the

members will dispute: an equality of opportunity. We must also remember

that each school district has a specific charge on the consolidated

revenue of the provincial government. Then you find that some school

districts may very well be running at a level of service which is well

in excess of that determined under the basic program. Consequently you

will find, in the area of Armstrong — I think it's Armstrong — where

there was an extremely lean operation.... You want to compare it to

North Thompson, where in fact there was not.

With respect to budgets over three years, one of the requests that I

understand has been made repeatedly by school districts and the B.C.,

School Trustees' Association is for some degree of predictability in

the budgets which they must live with. One of the objects of this

entire system was to give some degree of predictability over a

three-year period. Many school districts in fact have sought comfort,

found refuge and are accepting what is there. I admit that there are

[ Page 3200 ]

those which do not. But it is like every time you

make a change: there are always those who offer more resistance than

others, until they find out that this is for real. I expect that to

come, but I must also advise you that the amount of criticism or

concern which is being relayed to the ministry now is not anywhere near

what it was when the system was first introduced. That's to be

expected. After everyone begins to understand how it works and the

basic fairness within it, they then accept it. As a matter of fact,

even the B.C. School Trustees' executive will tell you that we have

made a valiant effort during very difficult times to try to get some

degree of order and predictability in school board financing. That's a

statement which they will not deny. I'm not saying that they don't

couple that expression with another statement saying: "It's got to

improve." As a matter of fact, we just had two days of meetings with

them, during which a number of suggestions were made on both sides. We

sat there for two solid days — Monday and Tuesday of this week — and

tried to work out some of the concerns which they have raised.

The matter of the 7 percent increase in the budget. I will have to

get a detailed response on that for you, Mr. Member. I did work it out

last fall. I do not have the material with me, or I can't locate it in

this volume, to assist you in an explanation, but I am advised that the

7 percent is the actual amount by which the grants were increased to

school districts. The reason for that is that the tax level was held at

zero. So those additional funds representing the 7 percent were

incorporated within the grant portion which is given to each district,

and were therefore charged to consolidated revenue.

It must be remembered, too, that when you look at the per-student

cost in each school district you will find a discrepancy. There is an

average — I concede that point. But there are some significant

variations. When we look at those variations, they must be examined. Is

there an explanation? Some of it is explainable, but much of it is not.

You must remember that if school district A is receiving a certain

percentage from the provincial government and school district B, which

has a much higher cost per student, is receiving a specific amount from

consolidated revenue in the form of a grant, and there is a discrepancy

between the two amounts paid by consolidated revenue to each of the

districts, we then have to answer to those school districts which say:

"Look, we operate a lean show." There are many of them who put this

argument before us: why is this particular district receiving so much

more per student from consolidated revenue? With all due respect, Mr.

Chairman, that's exactly what the funding formula was attempting to

address and has addressed.

One of the points raised by the members was the effect on the

communities. I disagree with the multiplier effect to which the member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) referred: I'm advised that it's something in

the order of about 1.3, and I noticed the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Rose) referred to 1.5; I don't think it's as high as 2, with all

due respect. I could be in error, but the information which has been

passed to me from a number of sources would indicate that. But I will

tell you the effect is not anywhere as severe as what some of the

communities are experiencing right now. In my own riding in particular,

with six pulp mills, ten major sawmills and a logging industry,

everything is shut down. I will tell you the effect of that is what we

call damaging and is of horrendous proportions.

[3:45]

I would like to make some reference to Qualicum. Yes, Madam Member,

I did meet with the board. It was the first thing I did when I came

back from Germany — and by the way, I wasn't in Hawaii.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Three weeks. I had eight days in California. Is that okay?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Thank you very much for that concession.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Minister. Would you stay within your estimates.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I agree.

Now with respect to Qualicum, I met with the board for about two and

a half hours, and it was a very lengthy, good meeting, Mr. Chairman.

The interesting thing about it is that the school board recognized the

issue of restraint, and they said that even with restraint, they still

have some problems. There were two issues. One was involving two

schools, the operating cost of one of which I don't think has yet been

resolved....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It has been now? We think it has been

resolved. The other matter had been resolved. But I do want to raise a

couple of matters. The question you have to ask is: how much are we

prepared to borrow? How much would you agree that we ought to borrow?

If you look at the accumulative deficit of the provincial government

and anticipate it for this year, I don't know what it's going to be,

but we were told by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) some

months ago that it could be $2.4 billion. The education budget is

something in the order of 17 percent of the provincial budget. That

means, rounded, $400 million. That means that the provincial government

obviously will have to borrow $400 million as the education portion to

service the debt; the debt is obviously rolled over to the next fiscal

year. So how much more do we borrow? The fact is, Mr. Chairman, I just

can't recommend more for now. That is a considerable sum of money.

An interesting point is raised repeatedly, and that involves the gross domestic

budget. First of all, I have to raise this: when you wish to compare incomes

of those in British Columbia with those in the Maritimes, we then are comparing

apples and oranges. That's number one.

Number two: equalization plays a major factor in the education

budgets in the Maritimes. On Monday I met with somebody who, I'm told,

is one of the leading economists in the public sector involving school

financing, and that was the very issue which was put on the table. As a

result of our conversation and dialogue back and forth on this, we

raised this particular point: the comparatives are meaningless because

of the amount of money which is then funnelled to Ottawa and through to

the Maritimes. That's the point he made, and I think we've all been

making that from time to time. But I would like to leave with the

House, Mr. Chairman, some comparatives, because the member for Comox

was very adamant in her position with respect to the amount of money

put into education and referred to the Maritime

[ Page 3201 ]

provinces. Well, I'd just like to refer these

figures which came from the Council of Ministers of Education based on

— when you go across the board like this — Statistics Canada plus the

input from the various ministries of education across the country. The

numbers in the brackets are estimates. The capital expenditures and

debt services are excluded in calculating the operating cost per pupil:

New Brunswick, $2,329; Nova Scotia, $2,576; Prince Edward Island,

$2,569; Newfoundland, $2,587; British Columbia, $3,399.

MS. SANFORD: Everything costs more here.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not disputing that. I'm trying to make

the point, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot bandy comparatives between

provinces unless you put in all of the other factors.

MS. SANFORD: Percentage of budget. You can do that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, and as I mentioned earlier, Mr.

Chairman, you look at percentage of budget and then you compare

incomes. The concluding fact on all of this is where we look at the

average teachers' salaries. If you believe that we are depriving the

education system of revenue to which it is entitled, then please

explain how we are sitting with average teachers' salaries in excess of

$34,200 per annum, which is, I believe, the second highest in Canada,

next to Ontario. To top that off, I believe I can say that we have the

highest paid administrators in all of Canada.

I would like to close with one note in respect to Qualicum, because

the member has spent some time on that, and I think it is important

that we raise some of these points.

First of all, after meeting with the board, Mr. Chairman, one of the

points made by the Qualicum board is this. There is some difficulty in

managing the transition. The extra money that was put into the Qualicum

School District came because a number of districts in the province with

increasing enrolment — and there were about six — were able to show

that the transition from the old system to the new system was posing

some difficulty. So the phase-in was marginally adjusted. I still have

the same amount of money, but what was interesting was that under the

formula I could take into consideration the use of that formula to take

money from other school districts and put it into those districts where

they were having difficulty in the transition — and that is those where

the enrolment is growing.

The material that was submitted by their own teachers' association

states that from 1979 to 1983 there was an increase of 691 students. Do

you know how many teachers were added to the system to handle the

students? Seventy — that's a ratio of one teacher per ten students.

Some of that is explainable as a result of special education and

mainstreaming. Surely, with a figure like that, I am demonstrating the

need — why some of these problems have to be addressed.

We went to the class sizes in Qualicum, and this reference was again

made. Class sizes of from 1 to 20 students, including special education

— 93, or 37 percent; where the number of students was between 21 and 25

— 61, or 24.3 percent; from 26 to 30 — 74, or roughly 29.5 percent;

over 30 — 23, or 9.16 percent. My point here is that there were some

problems which had to be addressed, and the fact of the matter is the

Qualicum School Board really deserves a bouquet, because what they did

was address the immediate problem, so they don't have any more problems

for the rest of the three years. And they had the courage to do it. The

member may disagree, but the fact is that is what happened.

Then I looked at this particular brief which the people from

Qualicum brought to me. The number of people involved in full-time

equivalents in Qualicum was 23.5. There were 4.4 temporary layoffs —

people who were on temporary permit; layoffs of permanent people: 11.6;

reduced assignments: 2.7, which I think we have resolved; early

retirements, three; and vacancies not replaced: 1.8. Upon analysis of

the concerns which were brought to us, we recognized the difficulty in

transition, we addressed it as we did for the other five districts with

increased enrolment.

Number two: with respect to the reduced assignment, we are in the process of addressing that.

Number three: with respect to the problem of the two schools — one

has been resolved; the other has not, but is in the process. The budget

was adjusted to look after those points. I think that we did a

commendable job under some difficult circumstances. I would really like

to congratulate the ministry, because they did work with them and

recognize their problems.

MR. ROSE: I've seldom seem the House Leader spring to his

feet with such bounce, such alacrity, such vigour. I wish him well in

his future endeavours, as he becomes our tweedy representative in

Britain — he'll fit right in there.

I have one major topic that I wish to address now, and although one

is tempted to go on and on, I think that I will resist the temptation.

I think I can help the minister in discovering where his 7 percent came

from. It actually came by comparing the amounts spent in 1982 with the

budgeted amount for 1983-84.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I answered that — unaudited actuals.

MR. ROSE: You can't attack me on it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I know. I gave you that answer before. I'll give you the details later.

MR. ROSE: That's all right. I was attempting to answer the

minister, because I think I have anticipated his answer. I think it has

to do with the difference between the amount budgeted and the amount

spent out of the budget. I know that. You didn't mention the $12

million cutback and the unspent funds. However, I don't think it's a

matter of great import. I just brought it up because I think you might

as well have it clarified, because it's really not accurate.

The last topic I want to address myself to is this matter of access

to education. I know that this was discussed by my colleague this

morning when he was discussing the estimates of the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I'm aware

that he dealt with it in some degree of detail. However, a large part

of our educational system, as the minister pointed out earlier today,

is in what we did call junior colleges and now call community colleges.

A number of things affect student access, and I'd just like to go over

one or two of them. Certainly the kind of standards we have, the kind

of screens we have in terms of entrance exams, affect access. I don't

think there's any university that has open registration. Some schools

do in other jurisdictions, but I don't think we do. So that's certainly

going to be one. Certainly the ability to pay affects access. The cost

borne by

[ Page 3202 ]

the student who lives outside the lower mainland or

away from a community college or university is going to be much higher

— maybe $2,500 a year for room and board — than a person such as the

present Minister of Communications, who lived in Point Grey and went to

UBC when I did. His costs were far less than mine, because presumably

he lived at home.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who?

MR. ROSE: Your colleague, if they would have him. I don't know whether dad kicked him out or not, but presumably he lived at home.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know if you lived at home. No, I'm sure you were not living at home, were you? You weren't living in Dewdney anyway.

The other thing is fees, Mr. Chairman. I heard a news spot on the

radio this morning that Camosun College fees have gone up $300 per

semester. That's a limiting factor, especially in community colleges,

when you have many of those students who are single parents and people

who are working part time — people who are generally attempting to

qualify and upgrade themselves. I'll have more to say about that.

[4:00]

A limitation on enrolment is certainly going to affect student

access. If a school says, "No, we've only got so many places," or if

the school says, "You can't run that class for five students; you've

got to have at least 30 or you can't ran it," that is certainly going

to affect access. But I think probably one of the worse things as far

as this government is concerned is the way it has fiddled with the

formula for student loans. I don't know if everybody in this room

realizes that the feds kicked in more money for student loans this year

and the province, in turn, limited its amount. It changed the formula

and said: "If you live at home, that's considered a subsidy. Therefore

you don't qualify for a loan. You have to take an 80 percent course

load." The mixture of provincial grants and loans was altered.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The Premier disagrees. They're the Happiness Boys

over there. They never complain about anything. They didn't complain

about anything when they were in opposition. They cried and cried all

over the province. God, they had tears as large as....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were lost in Ottawa.

MR. ROSE: I wasn't lost. I was down there serving the public. I was down there doing my duty as a statesman.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: That's the way you described this bear pit; I didn't.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know. I've been through rough times before.

There's no question about it, though, the province has diverted....

We have the meanest and toughest student loan assistance program of

anywhere in Canada. We've got the toughest rules.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense.

MR. ROSE: There's no point in spitting the word "nonsense"

contemptuously if you don't know what I'm basing this on. The change in

the mixture between grants and loans has, I think, made our province

the one province that makes it more difficult for a student to get a

student loan, financed by the feds, than any other jurisdiction in

Canada. There is not question about that. Laughter and ridicule and

nonsense isn't going to change those facts — not one iota.

I'd like to just give you a few little examples of what I've learned

about the major concerns of college students — I'm not talking about

university students, but college students about the student assistance

program.

The first thing they're concerned about is the delay in processing.

I know that it was changed pretty late this year. There was a delay of

two or three months in releasing the new guidelines, which caused a lot

of trouble here. The typical student waited three months from the date

of application until he got his loan. What does that mean in terms of

his enrolment and registration? Here's an example. A 22-year-old male,

unemployed and receiving Ministry of Human Resources funding, applied

for a loan on July 7. His application was processed by the college on

September 9 and sent to the ministry. Without delay in releasing the

guidelines, his funds would have been available in October. He had no

savings to carry him through the fall, and he therefore could not

attend school in September. He spent the fall on welfare and re-entered

college in January.

That is one example of what we're talking about — the delay that

affects access. Here's another: changes in the general requirements of

both the loan and the grant. "Nonsense, " says the Premier; a little

more ridicule. Many students who would have been eligible for aid in

previous years are now excluded completely, or had to go through an

appeal process which took several additional months of processing time

before they received the funds. Example: a married student was assessed

on the need for $5,600. He therefore was awarded a $3,200 loan and a

$2,400 grant. In December, when his award documents were received by

the college and checked for prerequisites, he was found to be

ineligible for the grant. He's fortunate that he's been able to

continue his studies, because he was able to borrow the funds. Why was

he ineligible for the grant? Because of the change in the guidelines.

When he finally finishes his education, however, he will be at least

$2,400 further in debt than he would have been. The grants last year

were $21 million; this year they are $14.4 million. That's what's

happened to the grants and loan mix.

I won't read any more of these, but I'd like to give you the third

point. Students registered in adult basic education programs are

effectively blocked from becoming self-supporting members of society.

Here is an example: a single student who is supporting herself as a

waitress wanted to come back to school in an adult basic education

program, but required assistance with her fees. By the time she applied

for the loan the fund was exhausted. She's now forced to wait. I can

give the minister lots of examples of these. I didn't read them all.

But what I'm saying is that there are some real impediments

[ Page 3203 ]

and some real difficulties. Students need that kind of help. You've

cut the funding, you've made the guidelines tougher, and you've caused

certain delays because of change of eligibility.

Finally, there is concern across the province about the federal

money that has been diverted: federal money that was originally

intended to go to education before block funding was renegotiated in

1977, allowing the provinces to establish their own priorities. I don't

see how we can object in principle to that kind of decentralization.

But the fact is, there was a 20 percent increase — and I'm glad the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is here, because he can correct

me if I'm wrong. Some $84 million in federal grants for post-secondary

education in this last budget, made available under the established

programs financing act, didn't arrive in the university or college

budgets. It was used for priorities established by the government,

which were non-educational priorities.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Obviously. I don't know what you did. I don't know

where you squirrel away your dough. I don't know whether you have a

sock you keep it in, or a buried tobacco can, or whether you used it to

finance some more borrowings. I don't know what you did. All I know is

that you got that money that normally would have gone to education, and

you didn't spend it on education. You want to know where the $84

million is? You tell me.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, the total has gone down. The total hasn't gone down in real terms, but in percentage terms it's gone down.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Lousy research.

MR. ROSE: It may be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we're on vote 21, the estimates of the Minister of Education, and not Finance.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, just broke his microphone in a fit of pique.

If the minister doesn't like the new federal-provincial program, or

the taxing program, I don't know why he doesn't negotiate this province

out of it. If he's always angry about how much the feds get, or if so

much money goes to Quebec....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Let's get back to vote 21.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have attempted, and my colleagues

are going to add some remarks.... I know that my friend from Atlin has

some things to say about native education. I have attempted not to say

everything, or at least not to say it too many times, to cover the

waterfront. There are a great many other things that could be said, but

I'd like to thank the minister for his attention, at least to my

section of this, and the sincere attempt by both him and his officials

to answer the questions. We do appreciate that over here. So thank you

for your attention, Mr. Minister. We look forward to your response.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a couple of questions for the minister.

The first question is in regard to the Dease Lake school. It's really a

pit. The toilets aren't working; the water hasn't worked in that place

for months. It's really a dump. I would hope that the minister could

find some capital spending for it. Two weeks ago the residents were

told that it was fourth priority for a new school in the province. I

would hope that something could be worked out with the ministry this

year, because that place is really a dump. I taught there six years

ago, and not much has changed. It's really a bad environment for

children to attend school in.

The next issue which I'd like to discuss is native education. As the

minister is aware, in School District 92 approximately 95 percent of

the children are Nishga. A concern that has been brought to my office

is in regard to native language programs. Parents are concerned because

they have heard that with the cutbacks the possibility exists that the

native language programs will be cut back. I would hope that the

minister will clarify that for the public record, that the native

language programs in the Nass won't be cut back.

The next issue I'd like to discuss is something that we've talked

about over the last eight or nine months: the reference that was made

in the Speech from the Throne to incorporating smaller school districts

in larger ones. The minister has talked to me privately on this

subject. I certainly hope he will make a positive statement in regard

to School District 92.

The last question I have for the minister is in regard to school

buses on the Nass road, particularly between Greenville and New

Aiyansh, where the children have to attend school. That road is getting

worse and worse. There is concern every spring about the danger to the

school bus because of the runoff. It's not a gazetted highway; it's a

forestry road. The school bus has to use that road to take the children

into New Aiyansh to attend school. It's of concern to the parents and

the residents of the Nass that there was no work done on the road in

the fall, that with the spring runoff and the condition of that road

the children on the school bus could be jeopardized. It's quite a long

drive from Greenville to New Aiyansh to attend school. What kind of

assurance is there that those children won't have to face those

conditions? I know it's not really in the minister's realm — talking

about roads — but it's a particular problem up there where the children

have to get on the bus. They walk across the ice or they take the boat

over to the school bus, and then it's a half-hour drive into New

Aiyansh on a really dangerous road. Mr. Minister, as a personal plea to

you, if something could be done to fix up 25 kilometres of road in that

area....

Those are the three areas. In particular, is there a government

commitment to keep the native language program in existence in School

District 92? Those were the four or five questions I directed to the

minister.

[Hon. Mr. Bennett in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are a number of points from the two

members who have spoken. The first item was with respect to

post-secondary institutions. There are a number of statistics which are

helpful. To the member who is my critic, one way is to use

student-contact hours. In 1978-79 it was 516,678; in 1982-83 it was

635,580. There was quite a jump, particularly between 1981-82 and

1982-83. Even

[ Page 3204 ]

though we've been experiencing some difficult times

with respect to revenue for colleges, the enrolment has been absorbed

and those students have had access. I think the figures would indicate

that the institutions are doing well. These are what I have to rely

upon. This is the evidence coming to us from all of the colleges. That

seemed to be one of the concerns which you had.

The other concern you raised was student loans. We made a decision

that before any student could qualify for the provincial portion, they

must take at least 80 percent of a full load. That's a policy decision,

and it's one with which I agree and which I obviously support.

[4:15]

With respect to the delays, I'm advised there were two reasons for

those delays. One, the guidelines and the amounts for the federal

portion were not available until last August. Obviously there are going

to be delays. Two, we are partly responsible because our guidelines

were not available until later on as well. I am hoping that come this

spring and early summer we will be able to do something about it.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) — I will take your reference to

the Dease Lake school. I cannot give you any specifics on that right

now, but I will make the appropriate inquiries. I will also make the

appropriate inquiries on native language programs. The matter of the

Nishga School District has never been considered with respect to

joining another. I might also mention to you that as of yesterday we

have appointed a new director of Indian education, and no doubt he will

have something to say. His name is Tom Elwood; he is a superintendent

and well-experienced educator.

MR. BLENCOE: Nice to see you, Mr. Premier, in a working position — an unbiased position.

I have a few questions pertaining to the Victoria educational

system, particularly School District 61. Mr. Minister, I am sure that

you are aware that School District 61 is facing having to reduce its

budget by approximately $15 million over the next three years. This is

a substantial amount of money that is going to have to be taken out of

the budget. In 1984 it will mean approximately $2 million, in 1985, $5

million, and in 1986, $9 million. I'm wondering if you know, Mr.

Minister, what options School District 61 is facing. I'd like you to

comment on them in terms of what you think should happen and whether

you're concerned about these kinds of options.

The first option will be the closing down of the entire system for a

considerable period of time — maybe two or three weeks, maybe a month —

to take $15 million out of the budget. Another option is the laying off

of staff. In 1984 that could mean 50 or 60 full-time teachers, plus

one-third of all the school aides. In 1985 it could mean between 60 and

70 teachers and a major janitorial reduction. In addition to this

option of removing staff, school aides and janitorial staff, it will

also include a minimum of a four- to five-day closing of the entire

system — not just in 1984 but also in 1985 and 1986 — plus a minimum

reduction of 25 teachers because of the dropping enrolment in 1984 and

15 in 1985, added to the full-time people who are going to have to go

because of the policies that you are enunciating. That will have a

dramatic impact on School District 61, which over the past few years

has managed to build a good system in terms of a diverse kind of

programming and meeting parents' expectations in terms of the education

that we can expect in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

Mr. Minister, how do you think School District 61 is going to be

able to maintain the quality of education, given these kinds of

options? Perhaps you'd like to comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass? The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: I was hoping that the minister would feel some

sort of obligation to respond to those questions. I believe he was

about to do so.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I appreciate the urgency with which the

business is to be conducted, and I recognize as well that I don't

believe that the second member for Victoria was going to surrender the

floor unless the questions were answered. So we might as well get it

over with.

First, I think if you look at School District 61, the decline in enrolment

has been significant. In 1975 there were 27,227 students; in 1982 there were

21,443. I don't have the 1983 figures before me, but I might advise you

that the overall enrolment in British Columbia is still declining. I am advised

that the Victoria enrolment is declining as well.

Quality of education. I sometimes wonder if that particular

expression is used without really knowing what it means. I suppose it

means something different to all of us. I would submit that pushing out

more and more money into the system is not going to resolve our problem

with respect to a basic and adequate education — a quality education.

It seems to me that the real answer is in the classroom and the ability

of teachers. I will not dispute that.

The pupil-teacher ratio for Victoria is 18.19. That includes all

certificated staff; it includes an administration which isn't

necessarily that lean. Perhaps there are certificated people there who

might eventually be back in the classroom or in administrative

positions within the school system itself. I will have to submit, Mr.

Chairman, that when we look at the figures for Victoria, the actual

number of dollars, there is a decline: the 1984 budget will be 97.5

percent of 1983. The differential is something less than $1.8 million.

I'm not saying that they will not suffer some pain, just like every

other school district in British Columbia. The same argument is

advanced. As a matter of fact I have reason to believe, from the

information I have, that they are handling some of the problems which

they had with a fair degree of expertise, and some of the disruptions

which will occur are being handled reasonably well. I know what they're

looking for. They're looking for a carry-over of surplus for 1985-86 to

see if they can alleviate some of the problems, and that's an incentive

to save even more money this year. Perhaps we're going to handle some

problems. It's very interesting to note the surpluses which school

districts accumulate even in tough times. I'll be most interested to

note what those surpluses are going to be come next fall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.... Oh, the minister's not speaking on this vote. The second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: You're a tough Chairman; it's hard to get

recognition over here. I recognize the urgency, and we want to get on,

but it's the first opportunity that Victoria MLAs have had to address

the minister on this critical issue. There are thousands of concerned

parents, obviously.

[ Page

3205 ]

Mr. Minister, you really didn't answer my question. I did allow for the

drop in enrolment, and I said 40 teachers would go because of that, but I also

indicated to you that as many as 120 to 130 other teachers would have to go

because of the particular policies that you are enunciating and the major financial

cutbacks. I think you're going to have to answer that and you're going

to have to indicate whether you believe that's going to be a good move in

terms of the quality of education and what kind of option you support. Do you

want to see a shutdown of the whole system, or do you want to see the quality

of education drop because we start to see from about 120 to a maximum of 150

teachers go in the educational system in Victoria? That question hasn't

been answered, Mr. Minister; maybe in time you'll be able to answer it.

I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the minister

can answer it very fast. Victoria district has a wide variety of

educational services and is quite well known in the province for it,

particularly programs like the gifted program, alternative schools,

special education for handicapped children, French immersion, community

schools and many others. Mr. Minister, there is great concern in this

community that the budget cuts are going to dramatically impact on

those special kinds of programs for special children. Could you

indicate what your feeling is about those special programs? Is it your

intention to try and maintain those special programs, particularly

things like the gifted program, the alternative schools and the

community schools? Perhaps you could make a few comments about those

areas, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the member is

going to stop until he gets an answer. With respect to the last two

items, alternative schools and gifted programs, we have every intention

of doing our very best to preserve them, but remember that the basic

concept of the funding program is to establish an adequate or basic

education system within every school district. If that involves

reducing the size of the staff, that in fact is what will probably

happen. That is for the school district to manage.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I want to say how pleased I am to

see you in the chair, and on another occasion would certainly support

you to have that position permanently.

I wonder if I could direct through you a very brief question to the

Minister of Education. In the estimates there is an amount of a little

bit in excess of $8.7 million for something called "professional and

special services." I'd like to ask the minister what he wants all that

money for. What does he do with that $8.7 million, and what's this

"professional special services"? There has never been any accounting of

that classification, and I would like to know what it's for. Because

we're near the end of this fiscal year, how much of it has been spent

so far?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 21 pass?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I think I'd better stay on my feet while the minister is preparing...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: ...just in order to hold the opportunity for the minister

to receive the information and develop the answer.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In consulting with my deputy, Mr.

Chairman, I understand that those particular funds are used to look

after curriculum development, special education, testing and

assessment. Many of people involved in this area are seconded from the

field. I will read to you the overview, right out of the estimates book

— and I quote, so there is no misunderstanding.

MR. HOWARD: I've read that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I'll sit down then.

Vote 21 approved.

Vote 22: management operations and educational finance, $24,383,227 — approved.

[4:30]

Vote 23: public schools education, $1,040,531,959 — approved.

Vote 24: post-secondary colleges and institutes, $319,463,135 — approved.

Vote 25: independent schools, $22,117,339 — approved.

Vote 26: financing transactions, $10 — approved.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

On vote 4: premier's office, $660,799.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that members

opposite have a number of questions to ask, and I'll be very brief and

just say that the estimates in the Premier's office show a decline over

the previous fiscal year. Every indication allows me to tell the House

that we will be able to come in under the estimates, which are already

at a decreased rate from those of the previous year, in line with the

wishes and guidelines of the Ministry of Finance.

MR. HOWARD: I don't doubt that the Premier's office will be

able to end the fiscal year having spent less money than was in the

estimates. I wouldn't doubt that most ministries will be able to do

that, because we've seen in the examination of estimates for the fiscal

year that's just about to conclude that they were overbudgeted in the

first place. It's standard practice to overestimate and then come back

in and be able to say: "See what a good manager I've been. I've spent

less than I originally intended to spend."

Mr. Chairman, government has an obligation. In singling out

obligations, more than any other it has an obligation to serve people.

In order to do that properly, I'm going to submit to you, government

has to have, to exhibit, to declare and to practise an identifiable

morality. That has to be the underpinning. That morality must be

constant and continuous. It must be such that it permeates the whole

structure of government, from the Premier to the cabinet to the

individual public servant who deals in the community with citizens who

come into offices to have their dealings and relationships with

government. It's got to be reflected in legislation. It has to

[ Page 3206 ]

show up all the way across the board and be the

foundation for all programs. I submit that if government doesn't have,

declare, exhibit or practise day to day that political morality

necessary to serve humanity, then government does not have a vision for

the future and a vision for the people of this province, or any other

jurisdiction, wherever that government might be. It doesn't offer much

vision for the future if there isn't that exhibition of an ethic — a

political ethic and a morality. It doesn't offer much hope for a

valuable type of social relationship. It doesn't offer much hope that

there will be a full and meaningful opportunity for economic activity,

for jobs; because without the long-range view, without the long-range

declaration on the part of government, it's a day to day existence.

It's politics for partisan purposes, not the purity of politics to

serve humanity.

I think it's the major task of a Premier to set that moral tone for

the government, for the public service and for society. It's a major

task of the Premier, the leader of the government, to make that

politically correct and ethical statement by example continuously, to

prove the content of the statement. I want to submit to you, Mr.

Chairman, and to the House, that in this instance the Premier has

failed miserably to meet those requirements. Instead of being able to

offer humanity and society a vision for the future, he offers a

nightmare — and his government. Instead of being able to offer hope,

they offer despair. They offer more of the same.

Governments are a mirror image of their leaders, and of their Prime

Minister or Premier, as the case might be. Leaders have to make

decisions. Some of those decisions are usually not very complicated. In

fact, most of them are not complex. They're not very involved. Some of

them, though, are based upon and predicated upon a person's conscience.

What do they think is the correct thing to do, in a way of conscience?

I've found and felt that the more one has to grapple with a problem on

a basis of conscience, the more difficult it is to make that choice.

Invariably you will find that the most difficult choice to make is the

correct one, and that the easier choice is not the correct one; that

the easy route, when it comes to difficult choices, is not the correct

route to follow.

I want to give you some examples of what I mean in terms of a

practice and an activity. About a year ago, people in B.C. were

inundated in their homes with a series of television broadcasts that

showed the Premier and other cabinet ministers involved in a number of

activities. They employed the services of a well-known television

broadcaster to participate in those particular programs. Those programs

were preelection material. Their purpose was to create a tone about a

coming election, to create an atmosphere, to influence. They used

public money to do that. That's where conscience should have come to

the fore. In that instance government should have said: "No, it is

morally wrong to use public funds to advance the interests of a private

political party." That would have been the conscionable thing to do. I

think the Premier failed the demands of a political ethic by not

clamping down on Doug Heal and those people in the propaganda segment

and saying: "No, we are not going to use public funds to advance the

interests of a political party."

The other election campaigns that have taken place, the revelations

subsequent to 1979 about all of the dirty-tricks activities.... That

should not have been permitted. Permitting it was the easy route. That

was the advantageous route — not the ethically correct route, but the

easy route and the wrong route, in terms of setting a tone for

politicians' activities in this province.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, even people like Dan Campbell, failing to

meet the demands of the law with respect to declaring election

expenses, running activities out of the Premier's office with party

funds — that's his business — using thousand-dollar bills, and then

saying: "It's none of the public's damn business what happens...." Dan

Campbell was gone, but he's back again now, doing something else.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I'm talking about the need to establish something for the future, that's all.

I notice the member down the line here from North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Ree), who, Mr. Chairman, sits in the chair in your place once in a

while, and who admonishes every member of the House if they even

whisper, continuing to chatter away and interrupt. That's a question of

ethics. He is not prepared to follow what he demands of others. That's

his business. I have no quarrel with him. We're not dealing with him.

We're dealing with the estimates of the leader of this province.

When this House resumed its sittings a few days ago, we attempted to

present a motion seeking to rescind an earlier decision to ban the

Leader of the Opposition from this chamber. The Premier was the person

who led the chorus of noes, objecting to what would have been, I

thought at the time, an ordinarily respectful thing to do. That was a

choice that the Premier made. The correct choice for him to make, in

terms of an ethic and in terms of setting the tone for government,

would have been a different one. But he didn't. He said: "No, I don't

want the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber until this session is

over. I don't want him here to deal with my estimates. I don't want to

debate with him." It's easy to be mean, narrow and restrictive, and say

no, as was said. The more difficult choice — and, I submit, the correct

choice — would have been for the Premier to have increased his stature

as an individual and said yes. The heat of last fall had gone. When the

House adjourned on October 21, it was for a cooling-off period. I think

that decision sums up the fact that we do have a tone to government, an

attitude on the part of government that does not take into full account

the need to have ethical considerations and does not show that there is

and should be a common pond of respectful and politically decent

behaviour.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, all I want to say in conclusion is that some may

consider that these are some comments of mine that have some bite to

them, on an individual basis. They're not for that purpose. They are an

attempt to show that where leaders fail to set the tone, chart the

course, set out their vision and their hope, and make declarations

about their intent for the future on a politically ethical and moral

basis, then all of humanity suffers by that lack. I am simply saying to

the Premier, for heaven's sake, so long as you are Premier, pull up

your socks and show this province that there is more stuff than simply

meanness in the character of this government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't let those few remarks go by without

some response. Although they didn't deal with the estimates of the

Premier's office, they certainly were in keeping with the type of

comment I have come to expect from the

[ Page 3207 ]

member for Skeena. Although carried out in a

quieter manner, the content and intent of the statements remain

consistent with his earlier approach to debate in this chamber.

However, he did use as part of his premise the statement that the more

difficult choices and decisions are usually the correct ones. To that I

can say amen.

Without dignifying the fairy-tale atmosphere of the rest of his

comments, which were personally directed in trying to make some

statements which I know to be incorrect, I would comment that the very

character of this government, particularly in difficult times, has been

one of making difficult choices, rather than following the easy path

that has been espoused in this House by the New Democratic Party, as

shattered and fractured as it is, a party that is today seeking new

directions and admitting publicly that it is irrelevant — admitted at

least by the leading members of the party and caucus. They have

admitted their failure to be relevant in this province and admitted

their failure to come up with those types of decisions, and then to

hear that type of criticism from the member for Skeena who has perhaps

in that case been the worst offender of all the members....

Although many would like to conclude this session in a positive

manner and get on to the new session, during which there are many

positive things to do, I know they would not want me to allow this

opportunity to pass without recalling what this government has done.

Earlier today in estimates I think the very attitude of that group

and that party, which is, by their own admission irrelevant not only on

the provincial scene but nationally as well.... We had the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) with some very convoluted argument trying to

prove that those who are in the teaching profession should not face the

same consequences of the recession as