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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3177 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 85: minister's office –– 3177

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Davis

Ms. Brown

On vote 87: government telecommunications services –– 3181

Mr. Nicolson

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3181

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Rose

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,

SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 85: minister's office, $119, 840.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I guess it's a bargain, or a very modest

sum, one might say. We had quite a lecture yesterday from the minister

on what is provincial and what is federal responsibility under what was

the British North America Act. But if post-secondary education is the

responsibility of provincial governments, then it is something that

should be done responsibly. If we look at what has happened since Well,

we could look at various years, but the last time a decline started was

fiscal year 1976-77, when university operating grants were about 4.8,

4.9 percent as a percentage of provincial government expenditure. In

fiscal 1983-84 this has dropped to almost 3.5 percent in terms of a

percentage of provincial government expenditure. I know that one can

play games with this kind of statistic, because if government expands

programs, if the role of government expands, then naturally everything

drops as a percentage of provincial government expenditure.

Looking at the growth of new programs since 1976-77 and at what has happened

here, we see university operating grants dropping as a percentage of provincial

government expenditure by a fantastic relative amount, from about 4.8 percent

to 3.6 percent, in just a very few short years, indicating the extent to which

we have fallen behind. We're falling behind in a time when the world is

becoming more technologically complex and when it is very possible that the

actions of this government are going to take this province to the stage of a

pre-industrial society in which it would appear that we are trying to create

a climate such as is found in Third World countries: no human rights, no trade

unions, and also no real prospects for employment, no prospects for upward mobility.

Prospects for upward mobility is the symbol of a middle class, and a large middle

class is usually the bellwether of a stable nation. The actions of this government

are destroying the middle class. This government is opposed to the middle class,

let alone to other classes. In fact, the middle class today are those people

who aspire to have their children enjoy something a little bit better than what

they themselves have struggled to achieve — people who would try to improve

the lot of their children, who would hope to see something better for their

children. I think most surveys today show that people are very pessimistic about

whether their children are going to enjoy a better style of life. And when I

say style of life, I don't say it in the same disparaging terms as those

used by the minister yesterday in talking about style of public spending, as

if university education was some kind of an entertainment, rather than a means

to full realization, not just for those who attend but for our whole nation

and for our whole society together. Mr. Chairman, the priority which this government

has given to education shows that we are not pulling our weight, and that the

government is not responsible in terms of our obligation to Canada as a whole.

HON. A. FRASER: I'd like to know who you are supporting for leader.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, a lot of people would like to know who I'm supporting for leader, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBERS: Bob Williams, that's who it is.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Bob hasn't declared yet. We want to orchestrate it properly before he does, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, British Columbia is not pulling its weight as a

province which has had one of the three strongest economies in the

country over the last couple of decades. We have allowed our province

to slip to number eight and number nine in terms of per capita spending

for post-secondary education — in terms of participation, in terms of

university degrees being granted, in terms of professional degrees

being granted. In almost any way that you want to slice it, we have

seen a tremendous erosion, particularly since the years 1976-77 or

maybe the height in the 1975-76 fiscal year. We can see what has

happened in terms of other programs, why we have fallen off.

If we look at a base of 100 in the year 1972-73, we see that for

instance the University of Victoria operating grant per weighted

full-time equivalent student has dropped to a current base figure of

about 83 percent,

whereas the B.C. average weekly wage has risen to

about 107 or 108 percent in that same time. British Columbia hospital

expenditures per patient-day have risen up to the range of 150 percent,

Mr. Chairman. But we have seen that the responsibility to build for the

future.... We are really mortgaging our future. Just as surely as we

are mortgaging our future by not adequately restocking our forests, we

are also not adequately restocking the intellectual energy of this

province, and we are going to pay the day. We are living on borrowed

time. We are living on expertise which is being stretched to the limit

and which will get older and more tired and more outdated, and we will

fall behind.

[10:15]

If you feel, Mr. Minister, that the way to bring this province back

to recovery — and it would appear to me from your actions, from the

draft piece of legislation which we saw, the Technology Assistance Act,

that what you want to do is make the political atmosphere of this

province...make the people of this province so subservient and so

obedient that they will respond like the people in emerging countries

such as Korea, Indonesia and El Salvador, where we see a lot of these

chip factories. If you feel that the road to recovery is to reduce this

country to a Third World nation so that we can somehow then rebuild

through exploitation, I say that's wrong, because those countries are

already losing a lot of that labour-intensive industry. Already the

chip industry has been automated. Already the assembly of computers,

televisions, computer printers and all of the boards and so on has been

automated. The chips are being assembled by machines now, not by rows

of people in surgical gowns in sterile conditions. The assembly is

taking place using robotic technology. So we aren't going to see that.

That was a little burst of activity that lasted ten or twenty years,

depending on when you want to

[ Page 3178 ]

start and stop it. The industry is being

repatriated, and if Dynatek goes ahead, that would be an example of how

the industry is perhaps going to be repatriated to North America. But

it is going to be fairly de-skilled work or a professional level of

work. It will be either de-skilled work, where the person who is

operating the machine gets one or two weeks' instruction to operate the

machine.... There will be no technologists. There will either be

engineers doing the design work — creating, retooling, setting things

up.... There will be nothing in between. There won't be the trades

level of skill, there won't be the technological level of skill and

there certainly will not be that massive type of labour intensity,

because the so-called high technology, the computer chip technology,

has itself become automated.

It would appear, through the Technology Assistance Act proposals

which came to light sometime back, that the theory of this government

is that we have to reduce the size of the middle class, reduce the

number of people who are informed and confident and questioning and

probing. We have to reduce them to a very manageable number, and we

have to leave the vast mass of people uneducated, unquestioning and

obedient. That is the only rationale that I can see for the

government's present policies — if there is anything that links the

actions of the various ministries with the actions of the Minister of

Universities and his conception of the directions we should be taking

in this province. If there is any rationale that I can pick out of all

of that, that would be the direction. The reasoning would be that

somehow we recreate ourselves as a Third World nation, and then we can

exploit labour as in El Salvador. I can look on the back of all the

little chips of the 74LS00s or the 7493s, which are decade counters and

things like that. I know what they are, and I know where they come

from. It would seem that is the route the government is taking, if

there is any kind of rationale behind it at all, unless each and every

ministry, and this minister in particular, are just taking wild shots

in the dark. I totally disagree with that approach. I believe that we

are paying right now and will continue to pay, if we try to shortchange

post-secondary education in all of its fields, whether they be liberal

arts, whether it be technology.

There are several other things which I would like to bring up. I

won't take too much of the committee's time this morning. I will get

back to these in one moment because I have had a request from a member

of the opposite side.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: It is with extreme pleasure that I would like to

introduce to the House today Mr. Shields and 27 grade 7 students from

the Kensington Prairie Elementary School in Surrey. Would the House bid

them welcome.

MR. DAVIS: I want to address a few remarks to the question of foreign

students at our universities. Recently a study was completed by the Commission

on Canadian Studies based in Ottawa. It indicated that there were some 65,000

foreign students currently in Canada, perhaps in the order of 35,000 at our

universities. It went on to say that the cost of educating those foreign students

at our universities, over and above the fees they pay, was in the order of $250

million or $300 million a year. I mention those statistics because they are

at variance with some of the figures we hear from our universities here in British

Columbia. I find it difficult to reconcile the numbers: say I 000 to 1,200

foreign students at Simon Fraser, fewer than 500 at UBC, say 300 at the University

of Victoria, a total admitted foreign student enrolment of 2,000. Canada has

35,000 foreign students at our universities. I suggest that there are 5,000

to 6,000 foreign students at our universities here in British Columbia, but

that several thousand, at least, are not admitting to foreign status. Indeed,

they're not really seriously asked whether they're foreign visa students

or not; they're simply attending our universities.

I believe that foreign students should pay average costs that they

shouldn't pay the low fees that our own B.C. students pay. If we feel

that foreign students should be attracted to our universities, we

should have a scholarship or bursary system which attracts those in

need, attracts those who can come or will come anyway. The Commission

on Canadian Studies points to the fact that the great majority of

foreign students come from a few places, principally Hong Kong and

Malaysia. They come well-financed. They are, in the main –– 90 to 95

percent — from well-to-do homes. The majority of them, indeed, come

from homes where one or both parents have university degrees. So

clearly the foreign student who is coming to Canada nowadays is coming

first because there is no room in the relatively small university

establishments in other countries. They are coming here for North

American exposure. They are coming here also, I think some of them,

because our fees are among the lowest in the world. They are, in other

words, 90 percent subsidized when they come here. They're subsidized

the same way British Columbia students are.

In this current period of relatively high unemployment a lot of

young people, indeed people of various ages, are going back to school,

back to college, back to university. Some, if not all, of our courses

are filled up. So there is, in some instances, a case of our own people

being displaced by foreign students, who can well afford to be here, or

at least can well afford a university education.

I would urge the minister to look into the statistics. Statistics

Canada tells us that there are some 12,000 short-term and long-term

foreign students here in British Columbia right now. How come the

universities can identify fewer than 2,000? We don't know the whole

story. If you visit any one of our universities, it's obvious that

there are large contingents of foreign students. I contend that they

should pay average costs. I'll repeat that if we want to bring foreign

students to our universities as a matter of policy, we should have the

whole matter upfront. We should provide scholarships and bursaries, and

they would then come on the basis of ability and need, and not merely

because they can afford to be here.

HON. MR. McGEER: I will respond in reverse order to some of the excellent points made by the two members who have spoken.

First, it is our policy to give autonomy to universities in British

Columbia. It's our belief that the institutions will do a better job

without politicians attempting to run their affairs for them. The

points made by the member with respect to foreign students we will pass

on to our universities. They have to account to the taxpayers, just as

we do. They are overly dependent on government grants. Our institutions

have available to them the same sources of income as do Harvard,

Princeton or the other great universities of the

[ Page

3179 ]

world, which can charge any fees they wish, accept any corporate donations

they wish, accept any alumni bursaries they wish. In addition to all those sources

that Harvard University has, they get another government grant that equals about

85 percent of their cost. This is not a bad position to be in, to accept responsibility

for the actions that you take. There is no reason why our institutions could

not charge a foreign differential fee. There is no reason why the universities

could not set up a bursary program so that people from Trinidad who could afford

to pay their way would do so, while others who were poor but deserving in an

academic sense would be able to come and receive that scholarship support. The

institutions could do that. Indeed, I would say that they should do that.

[10:30]

But the question is, would the removal of autonomy from our

institutions, by imposing political will upon them, be in the overall

best interests of our universities and, therefore, of our province? I

say not. It's my belief that the universities are not perfect; we

should not attempt to impose what we feel are improved policy decisions

upon them, but instead should tell them that they are autonomous and

ask them to take full responsibility for their actions. In this

particular case there is some movement toward the philosophy of the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour, and I am sure he will take a great

deal of satisfaction in that.

With respect to the remarks of the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson), he suggested — in fact he stated — that British Columbia was

not pulling its weight. If there is any province that pulls its weight

in this nation, it is the province of British Columbia. There is no

doubt that when it comes to nationhood, British Columbia gives more

than it takes, and it will continue to do so in the future. The

principle we don't even quarrel with is that there should be

equalization. That means that when there is a pipeline to Ottawa of

taxes raised from the citizens and the corporations in this province,

that pipelines of taxes, when it gets to Ottawa, is divided into two

streams: one stream goes to other provinces in Canada and the other

smaller stream is turned back to British Columbia to run our health,

education and welfare systems, which take up over 70 percent of our

budget. We know that over the years this pipeline has been continually

adjusted so that less comes back and more is directed to the less

prosperous provinces in our country.

We pull our weight. But by a similar token, when the

wealth-producing sources in British Columbia dry up because of world

markets, it is provinces like British Columbia and its activities that

permit those provinces that benefit from our taxes to bring all those

imports in. The province of Quebec is not supplying the exports for

Canada that allow us to bring in all those Japanese television sets and

American computers; it's the exports from western Canada that permit

the rest of the country to import. Therefore, when our industries can

no longer satisfy a demand on world markets because their economies are

shrinking, then it does become more difficult for us to carry

activities like health and education.

The difficulty, as I see it, with our colleagues opposite in Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition is that they simply cannot understand the hierarchy of jobs

and the production of wealth. It doesn't matter if the pulp mill, the sawmill

or the chip factory is automated. Each of those automated factories will be

producing for export and for the ultimate wealth of British Columbia and Canada.

What counts is not the jobs in those primary factories; what counts is their

existence and their output. You can go ahead.... Oh, the people are laughing.

They already think that's preposterous.

The reason why we have to cut jobs in government is that those jobs

all ride on the backs of primary production, and when we don't have the

primary production we have to cut back. Nobody can provide more jobs

than government — frequently they brag about it — but no government

produces wealth. They create jobs, but the jobs suck off wealth. The

more of those that we attempt to create, the higher the debt we build

up and the more we impair that primary production. But the member

opposite suggests that....

MR. LEA: Is there no hope, then, Pat? You're saying there's no hope.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, no. I'm only saying there is no hope if

we have an NDP government. That's what I'm saying, and that's what the

people said in 1933. They said there was no hope in 1937, they said

there was no hope in 1941, they said there was no hope for the NDP, or

the CCF then, in '45, they said it in '49, they said it in '52, they

said it in '53, they said it in '56, they said it in '60. They didn't

get the message over there, so the people said it again in '63, they

said it again in '66, they said it again in '69. Mr. Chairman, that

dreadful mistake....

AN HON. MEMBER: Never to happen again.

HON. MR. McGEER: Never to happen again. They decided in '72

to find out for themselves. And oh, what a lesson, Mr. Chairman. It

wasn't theory any longer. They put their economic ideas into practice,

and what happened to all our primary production in British Columbia?

Despair in the mining industry at a time of world-record prices. That's

why the province was set so far back. That's what turned Liberals into

Social Crediters.

Then came '79 and common sense in British Columbia. Then came '83

and common sense in British Columbia. That's what we're pursuing —

economic common sense.

There were some other matters, just very briefly. I can't agree with

the member's economic points, but neither did the people of British

Columbia.

With respect to his contention about the universities in terms of

the total wealth of the province getting less, of course it's perfectly

true. In terms of the relative standard of the universities, the income

of the professors — they have done less well than the teachers of

British Columbia. If one looks at the greatest increase in costs

relative to the increase in the gross domestic product of British

Columbia, the two largest increases are payments to doctors and

payments for schools. The universities have gone down, relatively

speaking. This is the interesting thing that should cause us

reflection, not for our universities but for some of our other sectors

in British Columbia: when one compares how our professors have done

with those in other parts of the world — remember that the academic

pool is an international one; people in the university system are not a

local pool, they are a world pool — ours have done relatively well,

among the very, very best. If they are discontented, and many of them

are, it is because they can see that here in British Columbia the

escalation has been so enormous in the school and medical fields that

they have been less well treated. And they have. But when we're looking

for those aberrations in our province that are taking away the

[ Page 3180 ]

wealth, these are the areas where you need to look.

Our objective with medical care is to help the sick, not to make

medical personnel wealthy. Our objective in education is to teach

children, not to make the educators wealthy. That's the principle that

we've got to try to operate from in government, because our objective

is to get the taxes to the individuals we want to benefit, not to have

them all taken away somewhere in between. So I just put down, Mr.

Chairman, that I think we are getting our university resources out to

the people themselves. I'm not so sure it's occurring in other sectors

and I suggest that's where we should look, not into funnelling more

money into our university system when we don't have it at the present

time.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief I really

had not intended to participate in this debate, but I am so tired of

the unrelenting attack by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) on foreign students that I thought maybe I should give a

different perspective on this whole issue, because I myself came to

this country as a foreign student, as did my spouse, and because I know

a little bit about what Canada, through its foreign student program,

has done for the rest of the world.

I want to talk specifically about Third World countries and I want

to talk about them specifically, even though I know that this is not

just a Third World issue. If you travel through the Caribbean, Africa,

Nigeria, Ghana — any of those countries — their lawyers, judges,

doctors, teachers, nurses and nutritionists are graduates of Canadian

universities. Canada has enriched the lives of other nations and other

countries through its willingness, in the past, to open its

universities and training schools to students from Third World

countries. Is that something for us to be ashamed of? Have we become so

self-centred and so selfish at this time that we begrudge that? Is that

something we want to put an end to, the fact that there are other parts

of the world that benefit from the wealth of education which we are

able to give in this country?

The University of the West Indies was brought into this world by

McGill University, and McGill continued to be its mentor until that

university was able to stand on its own feet. For a number of years the

graduates of the University of the West Indies were graduates of

McGill, in the same way as the graduates of UBC were graduates of

McGill. It's not just a matter of Third World countries; there was a

time when B.C. was considered a Third World province, and it benefited

from other universities — from Dalhousie, McGill, the University of

Toronto. Now we are in a situation where we can help and continue to

share, and be a part of and enrich the lives of people in other parts

of the world, but instead of being proud and happy that we can do that,

we are continually subjected to letters to the editor, to speeches on

the floor of this House and in other forums by that small-minded member

for North Vancouver–Seymour who continues his unrelenting attack on the

university system in this country which is proud of the fact that it

has been able, through that system, to help other parts of this world.

If you travel to Europe you have the same experience. I've been to Italy,

France and other parts of Europe, Mr. Chairman, and there I've run into

McGill graduates; there I've run into graduates of Dalhousie, UBC, the University

of Toronto. And we're ashamed of that. We are now, through this member,

having to deal with the fact that we're so selfish and so self-centred that

we no longer want to share. Do you know what else we find when we travel outside

of North Vancouver–Seymour? We find Canadians in other universities around the

world. In many instances we are the foreign students; we are the foreign students

in the West Indies, Europe, Great Britain and the United States. This is not

a one-way street. But even if it were a one-way street, even if it were simply

a matter of having Canadian universities, training schools and institutes open

to students from other parts of the world, it's something we should be proud

of, something we should be happy, glad and grateful that we are able to do,

rather than something we continually pick away at and are critical of.

I've never before had an opportunity to respond to that member, Mr.

Chairman, because as I said, usually he writes letters to the editor or

waits until he is in some forum where he knows that no one can respond

to his comments.

[10:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MS. BROWN: Well, it may be baloney, but the fact remains that

as long as that member remains a minority in his opinions about the use

of Canadian universities and the opening of the Canadian educational

system to foreign students, then I think Canada and Canadians can be

proud. When his opinion becomes a majority opinion, then we will be in

serious trouble indeed. I hope that day never comes.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Pray, be seated, Garde.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is a sort of recidivist when it comes to

seeing the error of his ways. He shows that he has failed to defend

himself in this debate by resorting to the famous W.A. C. Bennett

speech about the history of the NDP and CCF. But I would like to leave

the minister with one other thought, and that concerns the

participation of university freshmen, as percentages of grade 11

populations in preceding years. While the participation rate of urban

freshmen has gone up and down, but remained anywhere from 15-point

something percent up to about 17.5 percent, for people outside

metropolitan areas — and rural members should take note of this — the

participation rate, which hovered around 10.5 percent from 1971 through

to 1976, has been in a steady decline down to 7 percent. I think it's a

tremendous waste of our greatest natural resource, and that is our

young people. If that participation rate was not 7 percent, but was up

in the 16 percent range, it would mean that more than 1,000 more

students would be participating from those rural areas. It means that

there are 1,000 people who are being disadvantaged because we have not

made it possible for them....

The minister concentrated on the salaries of university professors.

Well, that doesn't excuse what the government has done to students and

student assistance. While student assistance is divided between the

Minister of Universities and the Minister of Education, but

administered more by the Minister of Education, that doesn't excuse a

minister not showing leadership, because that is probably one of the

reasons that students have been so disadvantaged. Back in 1975 $30

million was spent for student summer employment. This government has

seen that dollar figure go down, even in absolute dollars, let alone in

constant dollars, and has taken away that opportunity for people to

work and earn their way

[ Page 3181 ]

for their school years. They've also decimated

student assistance, and are now contemplating doing away with grants

altogether and putting more and more of the onus on the federal

government. Indeed, they've even deprived students of federal

government loan assistance by the new criteria they've set up. We'll go

into that in the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. Heinrich'

s) estimates. But the performance of this government has been an erosion

of opportunity. It has been an attack on upward mobility. It has been

an attack on the opportunity to participate in our society. I find it

very lamentable that a university academic has had the stewardship of

university education for so many years and has left it in a worse state

than that in which he found it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put one or two things on the Hansard

record for our system. The greatest priority that we should have, in

terms of educational opportunity, is to equalize the chances for

education for people living in our rural areas. This is why we

vigorously pursued, when we were first government, the setting up of a

number of provincial institutes, the building of community colleges

throughout the province, the establishment of the Open Learning

Institute and the Knowledge Network, which now plays into over 90

communities in British Columbia. We carry that on by our PEETS grants,

to make sure that people can receive educational opportunities in their

own homes. We now know that the Knowledge Network is watched by a

quarter of all British Columbians, one of the most popular television

networks in British Columbia. So we are vigorously pursuing the

bringing of education to the farthest reaches of our province. Of

course, giving opportunity for those to come is a matter that should be

equally vigorously pursued.

I would throw that out as a challenge to the New Democratic Party,

because at the time they were in power they promoted a massive

backwards step in our institutions by bringing in a system that took

away student employment. We spend an enormous amount of money at our

institutions employing people to do jobs that students could do, and

the old way in which students began to earn their way through college,

when they helped to run their institution and gained work experience,

was pretty well thrown out when the NDP came to power. I would like to

suggest to our colleagues opposite and to our institutions to restore

with full vigour the former system whereby students helped to run their

own institutions, got income from doing that and through that method

helped to pay their way through. It would tremendously reduce the cost

to the public purse. It would give our students the type of experience

they need to have for the world of work afterwards. It would improve

their pride and would bring greater spirit to the institutions

themselves.

Vote 85 approved.

Vote 86: ministry operations, $8,641,343 — approved.

On vote 87: government telecommunications services, $27,226,886.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to ask the minister a question in

terms of telecommunications. Does he plan to take any kind of action

with Ottawa in terms of the very insidious practice that appears to

have started of computer-activated voice solicitation over telephone?

This is tying up telephones. You can't hang up on them for 75 seconds.

We read about it through Nicole Parton, and I give her full credit for

bringing it to light. It has tied up doctors' telephones when there was

a malfunction and the computer would not ring off. Has the minister

decided to take any action on behalf of B.C. consumers?

HON. MR. McGEER: I thank the member for bringing the problem

to my attention, and I assure him that I will took into it. As members

know, B.C. Telephone is under the jurisdiction of the CRTC. The members

should know that in B.C. we have launched a legal suit against the

federal government in the matter of telecommunications generally,

because it is our view that the federal government is stifling

technology in Canada and pursuing the most retrogressive possible

policies — no better illustrated, Mr. Chairman, than in the legislation

introduced in Ottawa only this week, which would attempt to outlaw

antennas on the roofs of apartment buildings and motels in this

province. Why was that law introduced? I hope that the Parliament of

Canada has the common sense to throw it out. It was introduced to

benefit Home Box Office in the United States — a subsidiary of

Time-Life. Can you imagine Canadians hiring a battalion of RCMP and

outfitting them with sneakers and little back-pack detectors to run

around the northern reaches of British Columbia hunting for some poor

devil who has put a television antenna in his attic to receive

satellite signals? How counterproductive! How shameful! What are we

doing this for? We are doing it for the vested interest in the United

States. When the Minister of Communications in the Parliament of Canada

is acting as a lap-dog for the successors of Henry Booth Luce, it

should be time for all of us to hide our heads in shame.

Vote 87 approved.

Vote 88: universities, $353,394,486 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If I may be permitted, I would like to say

a few words before the critics rise. With me on the floor today, Mr.

Chairman, is my deputy minister, Jim Carter, and my assistant deputy

minister, Jack Fleming.

I think I could review a number of the things which have come to

pass in the few short months I've had the portfolio. I recognize the

contentiousness of the bill which was introduced, but it seems to me

that over a period of time and with a great deal of consultation with

the trustees and those involved we really did successfully conclude the

ability to place a limit on school board budgets, and also the sunset

clauses reintroduced to 1986.

The fiscal framework and funding program for all school districts

has caused a great deal of concern. When it was first introduced last

July, it was with the distinct request to all of the players in the

network to submit as much as they could in constructive criticism, and

I have to advise the House they did. For the most

part I think it has

worked reasonably well. The overall gross operating budgets for school

districts will be in the order of about $20 million less for this

coming year than the previous.

[ Page 3182 ]

The introduction of examinations. The only schools which have

administered those exams are those which are semestered; however, I

think they have worked reasonably well, and I think with the

reintroduction of examinations after a period of 12 years, any problems

we had will certainly be worked out.

It's no secret that we are looking at some revisions to curriculum,

particularly in grades 11 and 12. I've made a commitment — and we've

been working on this for some time — to finally introduce a White Paper

on a new School Act, which is something I understand Ministers of

Education and governments for the last 10 or 12 years have made a

commitment to.

We in the ministry are also looking at deregulation. There are

something in excess of 150 regulations, many of which I believe are

dated and totally unnecessary. Frankly, I would like to remove a number

of them, because I think they really cause a number of problems between

the ministry and the school districts and have cost impacts on the

ministry and government as well as local government.

[11:00]

I think probably one of the reasons we have had to take the position

we did with respect to school financing is reflected in a lot of

numbers. Over the last seven or eight fiscal years we have found a

decline in enrolment of significant proportions, dropping from a high

of roughly 525,000 to something in the order of 482,000. I am advised

that as of September 1984 enrolment is going to be in the order of

about 479,000. It's still declining. There are some school districts,

but I have to advise the House that they are very few, where there in

fact have been increases. Costs have gone up significantly over that

period of time: something like $900 million in 1976 to a total budget

of $1.9 billion, all things included. So when you reflect on the

problems we have had, they are always related to the control of funds,

which are not really available in the quantities we have become used

to. Revenues to the province have been drastically reduced, and it must

be remembered that 51.5 percent of the budget does come from

consolidated revenue. Roughly 34.5 percent comes from non-residential

sources, roughly 8.5 percent from residential, and the balance of

something under 5 percent from grants. With the decline in enrolment,

we were finding substantial differential cost-per-student figures in

various districts, even neighbouring districts. Something had to be

examined.

I think it would probably be best that I close my few comments at

this time, Mr. Chairman, and allow the critics to raise the concerns

they have, most of which I presume are very well founded. I would hope

that we keep in mind that the object is to serve students with the

funds we have available and to ensure that there is some degree of

province-wide equality.

MR. ROSE: I welcome the minister's remarks. I thought it was

a nice touch that he introduced his deputies or experts, who are

undoubtedly going to sit behind him and whenever necessary provide him

with the answers he needs, because I think there will be a great number

of questions from this side of the House. I notice the Premier is here.

I welcome him back to the House. I am certainly pleased to see him.

I'll have a number of remarks to make about him as well — not personal,

mind you, but certain observations.

I was intrigued by some of the things that the minister said, and I

will go into it later. I was particularly intrigued with his discussion

of consultation. To my knowledge, most of the consultation arrived

after the fact and not before it. I have some documents that indicate

it. Most of his actions and changes came as a complete surprise, not

only to the profession but also to the trustees. I've spoken before

about how we have been centralizing authority within the Ministry of

Education. How that squares with deregulation is beyond me. There are

more regulations being applied to school boards as far as their budgets

are concerned than there has ever been in the past — in the recent

past, in any event. His White Paper on deregulation will be eagerly

awaited by many people here.

I think it is fair to say that the atmosphere, if not the schools

themselves, is chaotic at the moment. There is a general malaise and

uncertainty — a concern, the minister said. I think it is more than a

concern. I think it's a sleeper issue. I don't think it's a big issue

at the moment. I don't think, in spite of the fact that it is in

certain areas, that people really understand what is happening in

education. I don't think that people realize that what we've set out to

do is cut educational funding by as much as 25 percent over the next

three years. People say: "How would you get that? We're only going to

cut it by 2 percent per year." But if you have an inflation factor of 6

percent per year, you've got 19 percent compounded right there. I don't

know how that squares with your 1976 enrolment figures. If you add

inflation — indications are that inflation may not be 6 percent for the

next three years — then it amounts to a savage, if not criminal, attack

on our education system.

We can't afford it, you say. That may be the case. I'm not certain

about that, because I'm not privy to the income sources, as is Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). All I know is that what has happened in

the United States for the last ten years is that they have starved

their schools. They've had several commissions, and the answer has been

that if you've got a problem, you'd better throw some money at it.

That's what's going to happen three years from now, just in time for

the next provincial election.

Here are some of the things that we're concerned about that there's

uncertainty about. We don't really know what the final new budget or

formula will be. We don't know those things. They change about every

two months. Some people are winners, some are losers. Some districts

get more, some get hacked even more severely. We don't know whether, if

there is a surplus in a district, it will be able to be carried

forward. We don't know those things now. That is a political decision,

we're told. We don't know what courses are going to be cut in the

future. Are we heading toward a 1950 school system, with a few

computers thrown in to make it look modern and to satisfy the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in his

concern for chips? We don't know how many people are ultimately going

to be cut out of the school system. Roughly a thousand teachers a year

— even more in terms of cleaning and maintenance people? The Minister

of Universities said a little while ago that he'd like to see the

university students go back to sweeping the floors of the school. Does

he want to fire a few more CUPE workers? He wants them all to become

waitresses. My daughter was a waitress at UBC. I don't think it hurt

her particularly, but I think the job of the students is to study, not

sweep floors in the gymnasium or the cafeteria — that's not their job.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page

3183 ]

We don't know what health and safety risks we're taking or whether

or not school boards are going to be forced to take adult crosswalk

attendants away and leave it to some child. We know what happened when

we had a bus tragedy a week or so ago. There's a great interest in

busing, bus safety and maintenance and in auto testing. What happens

when an injury or death occurs on an unattended crosswalk? Boards can't

afford to have adults at those crosswalks. We're concerned about a lot

of things like that.

There's a rumour about cutbacks and closings — even in colleges of

education. I know that the government feels they have no obligation to

employ every teacher turned out. I agree that they don't have any

obligation to employ every teacher turned out or graduated from a

university or institution. But we have been begging, crying for and

stealing teachers from every other jurisdiction in Canada and the

western world in the time that I've been a teacher. It may be that some

of our people will have to be employed elsewhere. But when you're

thinking about population and enrolments, don't forget that there's

going to be an echo to that baby boom. There is an echo coming, and

we've got to have the personnel for it. If we start shutting down

things holus-bolus — training institutions.... If we discourage

children from going to school, graduating from school and going on to

college to become teachers, then we have a serious risk.

Lunacy seems to prevail. Here at a time when we haven't got jobs for

students, more and more kids are pounding on the doors of educational

institutions, especially post-secondary, and this is the time we're

cutting back. Here's the time when we want to have a pool of trained

people so we can take advantage of any world recovery when it comes.

And it's going to come, because these things go in peaks and valleys;

it's called capitalism. You have a boom, and then you have a bust, and

then you have a boom again. We're in one of the troughs right now.

Should teachers now readjust their teaching strategies? It's another

question that they're asking themselves. For the last ten years we've

felt that we were aiming towards a broadly educated populace. Should we

now start teaching for the test? Should we take away those teachers who

were teaching broadly and interestingly, with information that the kids

needed to know and wanted to know? Shall we turn out a whole army of

cramming experts? I went through those times. I taught for the tests. I

know that all you had to do was remember for about five minutes and you

could forget it. The things I really needed to know were seldom ever

tested.

MR. REID: You learned to read and write then.

MR. ROSE: I hesitate to go for your bait, but you don't have

one iota of proof that the general population reads or writes less well

than they ever did. As a matter of fact....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Don't name members of your own family, please. You

don't have one iota of proof of that, and if you have, what you should

do is get up and make your own speech. I hope you will.

I think the basic competence in language is probably higher than it

ever was, because more kids go to school. They're retained in there

longer. Sure, maybe some people don't speak as well as they once did.

Some people say "ain't, " too. But I think the level of literacy in

Canada is higher than it's ever been. I don't think there's one shred

of evidence.... When I started university in 1941, do you know what

you're talking about. Every time you open your mouth you reveal an

appalling mountain of ignorance. So get up there and speak when you've

got something to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. Member, would you please address the Chair, and not the other member.

MR. ROSE: Yes. thank you. Mr. Chair, through you, I would like to carry on with my peroration, if you don't mind.

Anyway, teachers want to know: are they to readjust their styles? Are they

to throw out the window now what they've been trying to do for years: to

develop broadly based, socially aware students who can reason and think? Or

are they to become technicians, skilled at getting kids to pass exams? I went

through the system. I know some people over there who didn't. But I know

some people who were very successful at cramming for exams, and made it. I was

one of them.

We've gone from a point of view where we had given the professionals

in the business an opportunity to behave professionally. Now Big

Brother from Victoria is going to watch them through exams. And what

will happen? Enrolment will drop even more, because the role of the

school is to teach students, not to screen them out for universities.

Are we going to go back to the time, academically, where we teach the

best and shoot the rest? What's going to happen to the dropouts if this

persists? I think you're on a crazy course. And I think you can afford

to do better. If you can't demand more funds, or at least a maintenance

of the funds, then I think we should have a minister who believes in

education, because I don't think you people do over there. There is no

bottom line. There's a contempt for education.

I'm afraid that in the future our colleges will be open only to the

academic elite. One hundred percent of British Columbians pay for those

universities; 5 percent of them go. And you've put more impediments in

the way of student access in the last three months than we've done in

the last ten years.

[11:15]

Mr. Chairman. my colleagues in our research department phoned 51

school boards over the last two weeks. They talked to school officials:

superintendents, principals, trustees, secretaries-treasurer — how's

you by reading them all, because they are numerous. I'm quite sure you

could find somebody out there who thinks you've done something good for

the schools, and I'm sure you've probably got those quotes in your hot

little hands. I hope you have, because we didn't find that and we

didn't go looking particularly for negative comments. I certainly

wouldn't emphasize the negative ones, because it's not part of my case;

it's my job to oppose what you are doing. My job is to oppose and

constructively suggest alternatives, and I intend to do it.

Here are some quotes. "The potential negative impact if teachers are

laid off with seniority as a primary criterion will reduce the

effectiveness of the education system." All right? Well, we already

know from Dr. Armstrong that it is not to any board's advantage to lay

off senior teachers, because if they do, with your formula, they change

the budget, because the formula is based in part on your total salary

package. So it isn't the number of teachers per pupil. Supposing a

teacher

[ Page

3184 ]

who is my age, and who could retire, retires. That

will mean that you've taken a $40,000 salary — depending upon his

level; that is, preparation — and replace him, say, with a young

teacher with a $20,000 salary. Do we get two young teachers for the old

guy? No, sir. So even if boards do reduce their salary package, they're

not going to get any benefit from it; there is no benefit there.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: "Anything extra will be reduced," somebody else

says. What are these extras? Trips and that sort of thing — hobbies,

physical education, extracurricular activities.

"An unsettled situation is stressful. Teacher absenteeism is higher due

to frustration; there is staff tension, teacher burnout and staff morale."

Do you like to do these things? "Increased class sizes equal emotional

difficulties." Another: "Many programs crucial to an education will

be cut, such as music, visual and performing arts programs." This is what

you're doing; this is how you're paring the school and its offerings.

There is also repetition here: "Larger classes and fewer options may affect

the quality of the educational experience." If you develop the kind of

academic elitist program that you plan for the high schools by reducing the

options of the less intellectually competent, what are they going to do? They're

going to drop out. You'll reduce enrolment all right, and you'll reduce

school costs, too, but you'll dump these kids on the street, because the

school will not be able to provide the options that these kids need. I went

through a school system where kids were in grade 5 and 14 and 15 years old,

but they didn't go on; they had Grade 8 entrance exams then. Boy, we were

really rigorous then. Only about 10 to 20 percent ever got through high school.

I think it's very important that we have high retention in school; our society

needs that sort of thing. You can't dump them in the street to be ditch-diggers

because they happen to flunk one test or some other stupid arrangement of hurdles

and screens.

"There will be more negative effects on education because of reduced funding,

coupled with provincial exams." "Low staff morale is an impact on

the total academic quality." "Senior management is under unjustified

criticism given about budget cuts and increased workloads." "Rural

students are being hit hard." You know, they can't stay afterwards

for busing, and that's another problem. "Fewer options for secondary

students will have an adverse effect." "There is a negative impact

already on extracurricular areas." I wouldn't blame the teachers for

working to rule. I know that teachers spend thousands and thousands of hours

on extracurricular stuff — whether you're talking about sports, music, trips,

bands or whatever it is. I wouldn't be surprised if teachers said: "The

hell with it; I'm going to work to rule. I'm going to teach them to

cram for those exams; I'll be considered a good teacher, because my kids

will go on." That's what a good teacher is: one who can get kids through

exams. That's what a good teacher used to be: the exam specialist.

"Larger classes and reduced support aides, administration, library services."

Oh, we're back where the students in the university are sweeping out the

gymnasium again instead of CUPE workers. You want to reduce staff to the point

where you have volunteers coming in and sweeping out your schools. You don't

want any organized workers in there who might cause you trouble, who might speak

up. Get a few mothers in there to sweep up every afternoon; you'll save

a lot of money. Of course, they won't be reliable, but you'll save a

lot of money, because that's what your aim is. "We anticipate discipline

problems due to reduced counselling staff." Larger classes contribute to

that. I could go on and on. "There are lots of frustrations, " another

remark said, "because of not knowing what the government's policies

and plans are or will be in the future." We don't know what they are,

aside from knocking education. There are all kinds of other ways money is spent

that are probably more wasteful than what we spend on education. What this member

is suggesting is that somehow we're frittering away public funds on kids.

We've got to stop frittering away public funds on children. "Professionally,

staffs are starving. Professional-development workshops allow teachers to exchange

ideas, to gain new insights into teaching techniques and concepts, and get their

batteries recharged. Loss of professional development, coupled with depression

and tension, has serious effects on the classroom. We now have reduced options

for children. We have larger classes." Mr. Chairman, counselling services,

larger classes, reduced options — that sort of thing is mentioned over and over

again.

It's a depressing picture you've got out there. Will they get over

it? I don't know; I guess you get over everything. People go through

wars too, and some of them get over it. Some of them don't but some do.

We don't know what the policies are, and that's the problem. We

don't know if the policies.... I know we're going to have these White

Papers, and they'll be welcome, but we've had several White Papers, you

know. There was a report on education by the previous Education

minister. There are some interesting things there. The now

Attorney-General, Mr. Smith, had a report on the philosophy of

education. We don't know whether they're the same now or not. How are

we to know? All we know is that without adequate consultation the axe

fell. In marched the minister with a lot of new problems and new

techniques for reducing, I think, the quality of education. It isn't

just a case of staff and teacher jobs, although certainly people who

spent their lifetime preparing themselves to work in the schools will

feel surprised that all of a sudden they're not needed or are

redundant. Tell that to any group of people, and you're bound to get a

reaction.

I'd like to ask the minister some specific questions on his policies

and the proper future policies. I'll call it "the Smith report." Where

is the plan for education, I'm asking. The Smith report had this to

say: "I believe it is the responsibility of our society to provide

adequate educational opportunity for all individuals." All individuals

includes those people with learning difficulties, linguistic

difficulties, emotional difficulties and those people out in the

boonies who don't have proper transportation, whether they be in

university or the elementary schools. Okay? I would like to know if the

ministry still supports that policy: "I believe it is the

responsibility of our society to provide adequate educational

opportunities for all individuals." Does the minister still believe

that? If he does, how can he reconcile that with large cuts in such

things as ESL and special ed, or mainstreaming or larger classes or all

those factors that tend to obliterate differences and educational

opportunities for all individuals.

[ Page 3185 ]

We know that the government has a pretty good idea of plans for

money, but I'd like to know: what is the government's long-term

objective for education? Where are you going, beyond your three years?

Another quote: "Parents are entitled to have some say in shaping the educational

services provided for their children." Does the minister share that view?

Does he still believe that parents should have some say? I don't know if

he does. All I know is that there has been lots of criticism about lack of consultation.

There is also a desire on the part of parents, certainly in one district I talked

to, to make up the differences that the school can no longer provide, through

fees and through other services instead of through their taxes, because they're

not allowed to raise the money through taxes any more. The autonomy and consultation

has been removed. They're told to raise what they're told to raise,

and that's it. Where's the consultation?

Here's another quote: "I believe that all students, no matter what

their talents or special needs, are entitled to the kind of services

that would enhance the development of their potential and preserve

their sense of dignity and personal worth." How does that happen if you

flunk them out on some exam based on one test? Fifty percent of the

marks of your exams are based on one test. How does that help them if

they don't get proper training and they're linguistically incompetent?

How does it help a child if you take away the counselling services that

might help him? How does that help him to achieve a sense of dignity

and personal worth? How does it help him if you flunk him out? What

does that do to his dignity?

One of the problems with us here is that most of us are winners in

this world. There are damned few losers here, so we really don't know

what it's like to lose very much. But the losers know. Maybe we should

find out what the losers think of the school system. I don't think it's

going to help them very much. It's not going to get better for losers.

It's not going to get better for kids from backgrounds of poverty,

family upset, broken homes and that sort of thing. School is not going

to get better for them, it's going to get worse, it's going to get

tougher. We'll be back to the system that we had 50 years ago. Why do

we need it? Can't we afford it? Is it a failure of our financial

system? It's flopped, has it? Is that why we can't?

Does the minister agree that we should enhance the development of

their potential and preserve their sense of dignity and personal worth?

Mr. Smith did — the Attorney-General did, when he was minister. Here we

have the elimination of itinerant French, the cutting in half of

teacher-aide services, school closures, elimination of schools, wiping

out summer school — these are all draconian policies, hidden by the

excuse that we can't afford it. I don't think that's true at all. I

think it's because there is a contempt for education over there because

many very successful people over there have had very little education.

So they don't feel it, they don't know it; they haven't experienced it

so they don't understand it.

Another thing I believe is that it's an opportunity to get back at

some of the teachers. Perhaps you didn't like their political views — a

little retaliation, a little punishment here and there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not so, and you know it.

[11:30]

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't be surprised.

Does the minister share the view that the primary purpose of

schooling — quoting again from the report of the former minister —

"must surely be intellectual development, the cultivation of minds." Is

that still the view — the cultivation of minds? How does the minister

and his department square that with making them jump through hoops and

with standardized exams that were condemned as long ago as the

Putman-Weir report of 1925? External exams were condemned out of hand

as far back as 1925. What are we doing this for? We've got to close

schools, close classrooms, cut back on educational funding — $20

million this year — but you’ve got to go out and spend $2 million on

exams that nobody wants and nobody needs. If they do want them, they

don't know what they're talking about. They can't. There is no

intellectual basis for approving those procedures that you're spending

money on. The public may feel it's a good thing. I don't deny that. But

I'd like a shred of proof of any kind, proof based on any kind of

adequate research, that that final hurdle of an external exam is going

to increase the kids' knowledge. There is none that I know of. Maybe

you have it.

Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing about those things. I know that

Smith's report says: "I agree to the desire of local boards to

represent their constituents by maintaining control over local

educational policies." Has that gone out the window too, Mr. Chairman?

I think we've had a complete turnaround in attitude and I would be

interested in having the minister respond to some of those questions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the member's

first comment on how to square that centralization with deregulation,

deregulation is not, I think, going to be a paramount problem. The fact

is, there are a number of things which I think government has gotten

involved in over a long period of time and which are no longer

necessary. As far as centralization is concerned, the only issue that

came up was the matter of budgets and access to the residential tax

base.

MR. ROSE: That's two.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I agree, and I agree that those two items,

with respect to the framework at the time it is now in.... I agree

that being pre-empted from the residential base is an erosion of local

autonomy. There isn't any argument with that at all. But the fact is

that revenues were declining rapidly on the provincial side. In

addition, taxpayers were saying to us: "We don't have any more money to

give you." That gave us a serious problem. How do you address the

shortfall of funds on both fronts and still attempt to come in with a

system to give equality of opportunity to every student within the

province, recognizing in advance that there are many school districts

that have been exposed to significant declines in enrolment, and yet

their budgets were increasing on a historical pattern, by going to the

previous year's budget and saying: "We need this much more"? In fact

they acknowledge again and again that there was much that they could

do. What happened is, and throwing everything aside, that a little

encouragement was required. Now we agreed....

MR. ROSE: Encouragement?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right.

[ Page 3186 ]

MR. ROSE: You added regulations, not encouragement.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, a little encouragement, because....

MR. ROSE: Compulsion.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Excuse me, I don't recall interrupting you, Mr. Member. I wanted to hear everything you said.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, it's not poor. It's....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, do you want responses or not, Mr. Member?

MR. ROSE: Certainly we do. Shoot.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You talked about cutting funding, and

you're saying 25 percent. Overall it's a little over 2 percent — $20

million roughly, from $1.575 billion down to $1.553 billion. I think

it's somewhere in there. That's not very much money. When you look at

all of the budgets which you've got — and I'm sure you have a copy as

well — the total amount.... On the last one that came out it's 98.7

percent. So I was wrong when I said a little over 2 percent. In fact,

the way it's worked out after all of the discussions which have taken

place since last July, the total amount will be 98.7 percent of the

1983 budget. I admit that on top of that there is the fact that the

salary settlements for this coming year were zero plus increment, with

three or four exceptions. That obviously had a tremendous impact.

Of course, you're concerned about inflation. But it seems to me that

the inflation was taken out, as a result of what I feel to be a program

which has assisted us all through very difficult times: that is, the

compensation stabilization program. That may be debatable, as far as

members of the opposition are concerned, but I will suggest to you that

in the public sector something had to be done. In the private sector

we've got the whips of the marketplace. Yes, we have a lot of mills and

plants closed down, and an unacceptable unemployment rate. That is a

fact. But in the public sector, the whips of the marketplace did not

come into focus the way they have in the private. So the CSP has had a

desirable effect, because the object was to attempt to preserve as much

employment as we could and keep those who were working still working.

But I admit there have been some layoffs.

The member made reference to the U.S. system. I was wondering if you

would raise that. I want to raise just a few items. Do you know what

happened in California? There is an

article in the New York Times

entitled "California's Bankrupt Schools," published in July 1983. If

you wish a photocopy of the article, Mr. Member, I'll be glad to send

it to you. But the opening shot in the

article states as follows: "It

has been five years since enactment of California's Proposition 13,

which slashed property taxes by 57 percent and placed a cap on future

property tax increases." Well, we know what the effect was. It

decimated the school system. Throwing away all of the rhetoric, our

objective was pure and simple: to prevent our system from exploding we

wanted to exercise some degree of restraint, and it was important to do

it now.

Much has been made of California's recent budget, where something in

the order of $900 million was just committed within the last month. But

you can knock $300 million off the $900 million for capital

expenditures. Then the incentives are coming in. We want to increase

the number of school days to 180. Of course, when we look at the U.S.

document called Nation At Risk , and look at the average teachers'

salaries across the United States, $17,000 per year is the average

salary. All I'm saying to you is that it is fine for us to say that

something the U.S. is doing...and make some comment with respect to

funding, but I think.... This is one figure that might be of some

importance. It was published January 16, 1984. The text is Education

USA . Spending per pupil in California is $2,427.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I heard the comment made by the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and he is quite right — it shows. I'm not

sure we should take the time of the House to dive into what was

disclosed in Nation at Risk . Your colleague is right on target.

We want to look at British Columbia. In 1983 the B.C. total cost —

we know that — was $3,937. The gross operating cost per pupil for 1983

was $3,809, and if you deduct teachers' pensions, it was $3,575 per

student.

MR. ROSE: You're using both Canadian and U.S. dollars?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suppose, when you and take into account

the differential in the exchange rates and the cost of living here as

compared to the cost of living in California, you're obviously going to

come out with something similar. I would think that we would probably

find it somewhere within $100 on either side of the margin. I'm not so

sure that I'll accept everything that is said about the U.S.,

particularly what I've read.

I think it is important to remember that the object of this exercise

was not to say that too little or too much is being spent on education.

There is another factor that has significant impetus, and that is the

available dollars.

The member also mentioned that many concerns were raised in his

telephone contacts with a number of school districts in the province.

First, the number of budgets. Just exactly where do we stand? We know

by statute that each school board must submit its budget by February

15. We introduced the first documents and the figures for each board in

July. Since July, as a result of discussions with all of the districts

within British Columbia, those figures were revised in November and

revised again in January, all of which was done on a cooperative basis.

I'm not saying there wasn't some hardship or some pain suffered by some

districts. The fact of the matter is, the final budget doesn't have to

come in until February 15.

The member made reference to the cyclical nature of enrolment and

counted peaks and valleys. In 1983, according to the figures we

probably both have, more babies were born in British Columbia than at

any other time in the province's history. We know that there will be an

effect five and six years down the line. But I have to point out that

the funding

[ Page 3187 ]

formula, primarily enrolment-driven, takes into consideration any

increase in enrolment. So it's not, as the member is saying, that there

won't be any funds. Funds are going to be generated based upon the

number of students who are attending school in that particular district

— that's a fact.

Now with respect to examinations, I guess my immediate challenge to

the member is: are you for or against external examinations? I would

gather from your comments right at the very end that you think it's

been bad policy since 1925 to have them — according to the authors you

adhere to. But I leave it: are you for or against examinations?

[11:45]

Let me just recite to you an interesting dialogue which took place

last week at a conference of the National Association of

Secondary-School Principals — an international organization — and it

was held in the U.S. There were a number of Canadian participants, They

relayed a very clear message to me. The topic of conversation among all

these educators was that examinations must be reintroduced into the

system. In those schools — which they refer to in the U.S. as

"lighthouse schools" or "exemplar schools" — where there has been some

rigid control within the school, they found the following: discipline

has improved immeasurably; attendance has improved immeasurably; the

attention of the students has improved immeasurably; most important of

all, the number of dropouts has decreased.

I am passing on to the House the observations and conclusion of a

number of educators in the U.S. and in Canada as a result of a forum in

which they were involved last week. Why did we introduce examinations?

I happen to believe in them for those reasons in part. In British

Columbia it is not a secret. The only problem in British Columbia is

that sometimes people are reluctant to tell the truth because it may

hurt. Frankly, I find it a lot easier now because I don't have nearly

as much to remember if I do. It seems to me there was a significant

deviation from curriculum in various districts province-wide.

How about equal opportunity for all students in all districts for

admission to post-secondary institutions? How about grade inflation? It

was rampant. Marks assigned to students varied from district to

district. I'll tell you, push came to shove in the post-secondary

institution when certain levels of performance coming from a school

district at the low end were almost certain to achieve passing marks in

a post-secondary institution, but those with higher marks were having a

great deal of difficulty. Why? the kids asked those questions. I'll

tell you, our students are entitled to an answer. All I can do — as a

mechanic, in many ways — is try to see if we can overcome that problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Are you hungry? The member asked me some other questions, and I feel that I must respond to some of them.

One of the questions you asked was about layoffs. Remember, teachers

negotiate terms of severance with their boards. This involves

seniority, qualifications and whatever else they happen to put into

their document. But you raised one other point involving the average

teacher's salary. We recognized last summer what the problem was with

respect to that average. We worked on it in the early part of the fall,

and we made a decision to look at September 30. That's one month after

school starts. The average at that time will allow someone who wants to

take early retirement to be replaced by two younger teachers. The funds

would be there, because the date of September 30 is critical.

With respect to larger classes. the funding formula is again based

upon enrolment. What figures did we use when we created the formula?

The figures which we used and which you raised were those prescribed by

the B.C. Teachers' Federation as to class size, with one exception:

kindergarten. They thought 1 to 20 is what it ought to be, and we

believed and used 1 to 22.

Among the short snappers that came at the end of your speech, you

referred to a basic or adequate education as set forth in the document

which my predecessor had prepared. I would suggest, to you, Mr.

Chairman, the very plan on which the funding formula and the framework

is based is an adequate education.

Public view with respect to curriculum. I have told you on a number

of occasions that that is going out for discussion and debate.

Elimination of schools. Yesterday we read in the paper that in the

Surrey School District there are two school closures. One school had 14

students, and by closing that school they would have to go one block

further down the road.

MR. ROSE: Not Manning Park, was it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's what the press had. But there's

another one. There's another school where there are 150 students and

they've got to go one kilometre.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The pangs of lunch seem to be bothering members on both sides, so I....

MR. ROSE: In the remaining two minutes or so before we

satisfy the inner man, or woman as the case may be, I wanted to

reassure the minister that I really didn't want to get into all the

details about exams and that sort of thing. I was just in my

introduction.

I'd like to make a few comments, though, on what the minister bad to

say on a number of points. When I talked about the 25 percent

reduction, it's the 2 percent the minister imposed in one year plus the

5 percent inflation rate.

Multiply that by three and you've got 22 to 25 percent, depending

upon the inflation rate. The minister said he solved that through Ed

Peck and his compensation commission — he beat inflation. You don't

beat inflation if you're paying rent. The teacher or the worker or

whoever doesn't beat inflation just because Mr. Peck is around. The

cost of living continues to go up. What you do is effectively reduce

the person's salary, whether it's public or private. The fact that he

has a job is important, of course. Inflation is tough, but it's not as

tough as it is if you are unemployed. I agree with that. I'll talk as

well about the multiplier effect of unemploying teachers, and I'll cite

the example of Qualicum when I deal with that.

The other point was about exams and lighthouse schools. Nobody is

suggesting you shouldn't have exams. I'm suggesting that the imposition

of province-wide exams that count 50 percent in the first year was a

precipitous move that has caused a certain amount of anguish and

trouble. Sure, you're going to have certain schools like lighthouse

schools that attract the academically competent. You win both ways, you

[ Page 3188 ]

say, because these schools have a rigorous set of

academic competencies, so naturally they're going to attract those kids

who want to proceed and are more able academically. And yes, they'll do

better on exams. If you've got a school such as St. George's, which has

a restrictive entrance capacity, and you pick only your best students,

you probably could prove that the independent school is a far better

institution, whether it's a parochial school or whatever; and you can

extrapolate from that that it is somehow a better school. Sure, give me

the opportunity to fill my class up with only bright kids who are

really good, and I can get tremendous records on exams too. That's

exactly what I think is happening down there. I'm not saying they don't

help; I'm suggesting that to have 50 percent of a kid's final mark

riding on an exam — I'll get into the exams a little later — is

precipitous, hasty and won't accomplish what the minister hopes it will

accomplish, regardless of what the lighthouse schools say.

He talked about teachers scaling marks. Did the department never

scale marks? I remember that there were hard tests and easy tests, and

if a certain number of people didn't pass that test, the department

scaled marks, and it did it so for years and years and years. Certainly

that's an important factor. If you want to know about the various

schools and whether or not universities feel that what we used to call

matriculation examinations are predictors of success, or even good

screens for university, you'll probably find that those too are wanting

and lack any kind of research to back it up.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada