1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5749 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5749

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Davis

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Williams

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1985

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 17: minister's office, $179,543.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to

speak to the spending estimates in this debate. I will be speaking

generally about some of the concerns that my school boards, teachers,

parents and students have regarding School Districts 46, 47 and 49.

Before I express some of these concerns on behalf of my

constituents, I'd like to clear up one matter. Mr. Minister, you will

recall that last Thursday during question period we exchanged a few

words across the floor of this House. I've thought about that situation

since, and I think I know now where the confusion lies. I am aware that

you did have a very in-depth meeting with School District 47 in Powell

River. You met with School District 48, which is Howe Sound. Those two

school districts are to the north and to the south of School District

The trustees of School District 46 had requested a meeting with you.

I had asked you at that time, approximately a month ago, if you had met

with School District 46, and you said yes. I'm not accusing you of

misleading me; I understand the confusion. You had actually met with

School District 48, and School District 46 trustees were not invited.

Consequently they did not meet with you.

When I brought that matter to your attention in your office, I

subsequently received a phone call about two weeks ago — maybe closer

to three weeks ago — from your office stating that you would in fact be

meeting with the trustees of School District 46, possibly in

conjunction with some other school district trustees you had not met

with. So I think that clears that matter up.

Now that you are aware that you have not actually met with trustees

of School District 46, Sunshine Coast — as far as I am aware — you will

now make a note and have your deputy and assistant deputies ensure

that.... It may be too late, since in the meantime they have received a

directive from your office — and I'll be talking about this in a short

while — stating that they will not be allowed to deficit budget;

consequently, they face layoffs of teachers, maintenance people and so

on.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to repeat and go through all of the

arguments that have been put forward here, particularly by our debate leader

from Coquitlam-Moody, regarding the quality of education, the methods of the

cutbacks that have taken place across this province, and the horrendous effects

these cutbacks have had on education all over the province. But I do perhaps

.... Let me put it this way, Mr. Chairman. I've taken the trouble to find

out from the various school districts in my riding some of the problems faced

as a result of the cutbacks in education over the past several years. I've

made a list of what is happening and where these cutbacks are taking place,

and perhaps some of the consequences of these cutbacks. As a result, I find

that in all three school districts within my riding — and I'm going to name

them here — some of the programs that most of them have in common are affected

by the cuts. I'll name them right now and then we'll talk about the

three school districts in my province — oh, no, it's not my province yet;

in my riding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sorry about that. A Freudian slip there.

The list is quite lengthy, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to give you

the whole list, but I'll give you some of the highlights for the

record. I'm sure the minister is very much aware of this. I know that

the minister has been receiving thousands of letters from people all

over the province. I've had a lot of correspondence from people in my

riding, most of it addressed to the minister with copies to myself.

As a result of this survey in my riding, here are some of the

programs affected by the cuts: reduced outdoor education; reduced field

trip extracurricular travel funding; reduced funding for curriculum

development resource centres — and that's an important one, in my view.

Reduced elementary French programs; reduced elementary band; reduced

swim programs; reduced learning assistance, special education; reduced

services for the gifted child — another very important one. Increase in

combined classes, Art 9 and 10; increase in double and split classes in

elementary; reduced secondary course electives; reduced maintenance and

supplies — I hear a lot about that too. We might talk a bit more about

that later. Reduced cultural and recreation programs; reduced library

services and book acquisitions; reduced busing. Programs eliminated by

cuts: elementary swim and outdoor ed; Indian language culture program —

another very important program in my riding. Approximately 11 percent

of the population in my riding is native Indian, and these cuts or

elimination of these programs will have very serious consequences, in

my view.

The bicycle safety program; elementary librarians; elementary

enrichment programs; the secondary construction program; the district

drama program; elementary French, K-5; elementary industrial art

education; the district choir; the elementary band; rural programs —

those are the highlights, but there's a lot more. I won't get into them

right at this point. Not every one of these program cuts apply to every

school district in my riding, but the list highlights what they all

have in common. So with that, Mr. Chairman.... I know that the minister

is very much aware of these matters, but I did want to get these cuts

on the record.

The effect of all these cuts, Mr. Chairman, as has been stated so

often over the last week during the debate of the minister's estimates,

is a reduction of the quality of education, not only in the school

districts in my riding but throughout the province.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I've got so much stuff here I don't know

where to begin, but I'll start at the start. Let me tell you about....

I'm looking for one letter here; here we are.

Interjection.

[ Page 5750 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's true. I love being heckled from my own side. It's bad enough when you get it from the opposition, but….

[10:15]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay, well, I usually do that. Sometimes up, sometimes down.

If I may quote from one letter that was sent in fact to the minister

with a copy to myself, a Dr. Joel Bornstein from Gibsons wrote to the

minister expressing concern about the current situation re funding of

public education. On March 8 the minister replied to the good doctor,

and what did he say? He said: "This is to acknowledge receipt of a copy

of your recent letter to Mr. Don Lockstead expressing concern about the

current situation in funding public education." Here's the key part of

the letter: "The specific points raised in your letter will be given

serious consideration in our ongoing review." We already know what has

happened since that time. That has been raised in this House many

times. "But in the meantime I am enclosing some information I hope will

put the current financial situation into perspective."

Here is what the minister enclosed, Mr. Chairman: a little one-page

brochure published by the ministry, "Background on the Funding of

Public Schools." As you go through this brochure.... It's not very well

done and full of inconsistencies that have been brought to light during

the course of these estimates. A couple of highlights out of this

brochure — I won't bother reading it, because it's absolutely

worthless, not worth the paper it's written on: "1. Enough money is

being provided to allow for quality education" — and then a whole

blurb, which I won't read. "2. The amount of money taken out of school

district budgets has been relatively small." Come on! We've already

been through that in this House over the last several days, and we know

that is not correct.

"The technical details of the fiscal framework system are sound and fair."

Well, Mr. Minister, we know that's a crock. That's been proven time

and time again, particularly by my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose).

We know that's a crock, and that has been proven over and over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, is "a crock" bad? Do you know what a

crock is? A crock is a vessel in which you can put liquids — and other

substances. So I can't see how that possibly could be out of order.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Full of something.

"Salary increases awarded in 1985 will cause a problem." Now you're

right with that one. There are a lot of problems there.

I won't read many more; they are going on with graphs and things.

"British Columbia devotes similar resources to public school education

as other provinces." Now, Mr. Minister, you might want to respond and

tell us that that's not so. Just once, just get up. You don't have to

make a long speech; in fact, I hope you don't. Just tell us that that

is not so, that that statement is totally incorrect, because your own

ministry figures indicate where British Columbia stands with regard to

other provinces in terms of funding for public school education.

During the course of meetings and discussions I've had with school

boards, school board members, school board chairmen, administrators,

teachers and others in my riding, particularly over the past seven or

eight months, Mr. Minister.... I want to go through — I am going to do

this quite briefly — some of the highlights of the concerns expressed

by the various school districts, and I think I'll start with School

District 47.

MS. BROWN: You have two minutes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Two minutes!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're just warming up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes. Obviously I've got two minutes left in

this segment. I thought I had half an hour, but the new rules.... I'd

forgotten, Mr. Chairman. I'll give the minister the opportunity to

perhaps respond or perhaps not, and complete my presentation in a few

minutes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, most of what the member has

advanced I have heard before. If you start on Powell River.... I had a

very lengthy meeting with the school board. In fact it was a public

meeting; it wasn't just with the school board. Really, I would just ask

you to consider a couple of things and keep in mind your remarks. We

are talking about Powell River, which is pretty well a core area, and

two schools, one to the north and one to the south, about 20 miles each

way, give or take. They seem to have resolved their problems, to the

best of my knowledge. Those two are on the extremity of the school

district.

Within the Powell River area itself.... It's compact. It's got a PTR

of 16.84 as projected for 1985-86 and, as a matter of fact, the PTR

projected for 1985-86 is less than the PTR for 1983 –– I think, for the

most part, they're doing reasonably well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll try not to be too lengthy because I know

the minister has much of this information that I have before me. The

minister has received, either by mail.... I'm talking about School

District 47 now. I think some of this material is worth repeating.

Mr. Chairman, on the pupil-teacher ratio, it's easy to get up and

say 16.2 or whatever the minister quoted — somewhere in that area. The

minister knows that that is essentially not correct. There are class

sizes.... I've been in one class in an elementary school in my riding

where there were 36 pupils. When you're talking about PTR, you're

including principals, administration staff and others. The fact is that

there are some.... How can a teacher properly teach 36 pupils in a

class and give individual attention to each one? It's totally

impossible, of course.

The highlight of the problems in School District 47.... The

information I received from the board was simply that that school

district is being penalized for doing a good job. Some years ago,

because of declining school enrolment, the school board decided to take

necessary steps, reducing their administration, not by layoffs or

firings but through attrition, and reducing their teaching staff to

comply with and maintain the quality of education in that district. As

a result of good management in that school district, because of the

guidelines

[ Page

5751 ]

and orders coming out of the office of the minister and from this government,

the school board was in the position where they faced greater cuts than most

school districts in the province. I think it was in 1982 that they had a surplus

of about $150,000, as opposed to some other school districts that were running

deficits. Because they had a surplus they were penalized, as the so-called restraint

program came into effect — which was very unfair.

The net result is that this year there will be 30 teachers in School

District 47 laid off as of September, and in the new school year

commencing in September 1985. Thirty teachers gone. Now that may be

reduced a bit. The board is currently working on a process of early

retirement which is going to be very costly to the board but in the

long run may save five teachers' jobs — because only one teacher in

that district is retiring because of the retirement age this year. So

that means 29 teachers possibly will be laid off, thereby increasing

class sizes, in my view, and reducing morale in the district. A number

of aides have already been laid off in that district. Maintenance

people have been laid off. And the list goes on. But as I say, that

figure may be reduced somewhat because the board is working very hard

on encouraging and buying out the teachers for early retirement.

I was going to go through

chapter and verse of the brief that was

presented to the minister expressing in depth the concerns of the board

of trustees in School District 47. The minister tells me that he has

all this information, but I think perhaps it's worth repeating one or

two paragraphs.

"Since 1976 the school district has cut its teaching

and administrative staff by 71 and its support staff by 32. It should

be noted that, because of economy of scale, expenditures in a declining

enrolment situation do not decline proportionately, due to fixed costs.

Example: buses. It costs as much to run a bus for 40 pupils as it does

for 60 pupils, or to heat a school for 400 pupils as it does for 600

pupils. Janitorial costs don't change — the square footage is the same.

In a family with three children, do the operating costs go down by

three-fifths when the children leave home?"

Of course not.

"The mill rate in 1981 was the same as it was in 1977,

but it has increased during the period of restraint. During the same

period the provincial share of the Powell River budget went from 32.6

percent to 7.1 percent. Since 1981, while our budget has decreased each

year, the mill rate has gone up."

I want to tell you there are a lot of people in that district who are not very happy with that.

I could go on on this one: the effects of the quality of education

and the preparation for budgets, which total up to confusion in almost

every school district in the province. How can a school district

prepare a budget when they don't know what the guidelines are and when

the goal-posts keep changing sometimes every week or every month, or

whatever? Contracts are negotiated and arbitrated in good faith, and

then we read in the paper that there will be no increases, no matter

what the arbitration may have decided for teachers. So you can imagine

the effect this is having on education and on the morale of the

teachers.

I know that my time is not that lengthy, and I do want to talk about two other

school districts very briefly. There are some genuine concerns in School District

46, and I know that the minister has this document as well. Last fall, the member

for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) and myself — because our school

districts overlap — met with the board of school trustees of School District

46. As a result of that meeting, a letter was forwarded to myself and that

member dealing with the highlights of that lengthy discussion. We met for about

three hours, some of it in camera, some not. I'll just go through the highlights.

Mr. Chairman, I did supply the minister with a copy of this piece of correspondence

some time ago, and I know that he will have addressed these matters by now.

Basically what the board was requesting at that time was the right

to go into deficit financing to maintain the standard of education in

that school district. The amount was somewhat in excess of S400,000. I

have the exact figure here somewhere, but I just don't want to look for

it right now. The board was concerned about local autonomy; it urged a

return to local taxing authority for school boards so that the board

could develop a system which meets the needs of local school districts

in these areas where the needs are not adequately addressed by the

provincial funding formula of the day.

[10:30]

Anomalies in the fiscal framework were discussed. There are certain

sections of the fiscal framework which are demonstrably underfunded in

terms of unit cost or have a formula which develops an inadequate

number of units, or both. The concerns with the detailed application of

the framework are addressed by the appendix. I won't go into that, but

the minister knows very well what I'm talking about here: the ability

to incur a deficit, which the minister has declined — he has refused,

as far as I'm aware, the arbitration process under compensation

stabilization which I just spoke about briefly a minute ago. These are

the kinds of things, also resulting in that district, by the way, I

might add, in cutbacks in teachers, maintenance, aides and so on.

Mr. Chairman, one other district in my riding, School District 49,

which is a very small school district, and isolated.... In School

District 49, the central coast area, the communities are separated by

large bodies of water, with no road access. There is road access into

Bella Coola through to Williams Lake, but there is no road access into

Ocean Falls, which has very few people now, or into Bella Bella. I

wonder, Mr. Minister, if you're listening, if you could possibly....

You'll have these figures. I am told time and time again that the

government subsidizes this particular school district proportionately

more than other school districts in the province because of the

problems I have just outlined.

I have one other problem. I wonder if the minister could inform me

and bring me up to date on the situation regarding Bella Bella. You may

recall, Mr. Minister, I spoke with you about the funding situation. In

Bella Bella we have a large Indian community of about 1,200 to 1,500

people on Campbell Island, and a large native Indian school. On Dennee

Island, which is basically a very small community of about perhaps 60

residents, they have 11 school-age children in that school. The

situation, Mr. Minister....

This is important, so I'll need your attention. Mr. Chairman, I'll

just ramble on about something else until I have the minister's

attention, because I want a precise answer to this question.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is quite important, so I'll want your undivided attention for a few minutes, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 5752 ]

On Dennee Island there are 11 school-age children who have been

going to school over at the large native Indian school at Waglisia on

Campbell Island. They have been subsidized by the provincial government

to some extent. This past year, 1984, there was a funding problem.

There was some dispute with the provincial government over that

funding. At one point the school board of the native Indian village,

which is a separate school board because it's under federal

jurisdiction, threatened the provincial government not to accept these

11 students from Dennee Island. As a result of this, at one point your

ministry indicated that they would open their own school on Dennee

Island at a horrendous cost. It didn't make sense at all. The problem

has been somewhat resolved. I know that those 11 children are still

going to school at the large Indian village school over on Campbell

Island. I wonder if the minister possibly has before him the figures on

the subsidy being paid by the provincial government to School District

49 to compensate the federally funded native Indian school over in

Bella Bella. How do you intend to resolve that situation in the future?

Last but not least, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to quote our party

leader in terms of education, if I may, before I sit down. He said:

"Education must be recognized as an investment in our

future, and an important component to our economic recovery. By

slashing access to education programs now, when other provinces are

maintaining theirs, the current government is condemning our young

people to a lifetime of poorly paid, unsatisfying work or welfare,

because they will not have the skills or the qualifications to compete

when the economy recovers.

"The number of jobs held by young people declined by 92,

000 between 1981 and 1983. We recognize that youth unemployment is directly

related to the lack of educational opportunities.... . "

Well, I'll just leave it there. We could go on.

I am very, very unhappy with the performance of this government and

this minister in the field of education. I think the education system

is slowly being destroyed. Our only hope is that we have an early

election in this province so we can kick these guys out of here and get

on with rational government.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I won't bother getting wound up with respect to your final comments.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to leave with you a quote from the Winnipeg Free Press , in that great province of Manitoba.

" The Pawley government of this throne speech has

abandoned the aim of financing through provincial grants 90 percent of

the costs of public schools. Reliance on the property tax to finance

education will grow. The government will find new ways to divide up its

dwindling share of education costs. Gone is the interest in family life

education. The education policy word today is assessment, which is the

nice name for testing and which now suddenly surfaces in the throne

speech alongside teaching, curriculum and public involvement as the

pillars of the education policy."

The only reason I make reference to that statement is that it's not

just British Columbia which is facing difficulties in financing public

education. I won't belabour it, but here is a set of clippings from

Manitoba.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought we were in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Correct, but you made reference that this is the only place in Canada that's having some difficulty funding public education.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I tell you that what I heard, and

how I interpreted your comments would indicate to me that it wasn't too

far from the thrust of your argument.

Now in Central Coast you know we've got a very, very small district

of approximately 450 students which submitted a compliance budget. You

are correct. My information is that the resolution involving the native

Indians has taken place. We in the ministry do not know of any

particular problem at this time. The problem that did exist, I gather,

has been resolved. The actual dollars paid.... I cannot give you a

precise figure, but I can tell you that it's the same amount — that is,

in per-pupil dollars — for any other pupil in the district. That is a

formula which applies provincewide — the amount which is given. So

whatever the average cost within your district.... I would suggest it

would be very substantial in view of the fact that you have a PTR of

roughly 12.5 to 1; so it causes some problems. The other problem is

this. When we start talking about where a district like this goes,

where does it hook up if that were ever to occur.... It's not like the

lower mainland, and all of us from the interior and the north

understand how wide and expansive British Columbia is.

May I make reference to Powell River? The average tax in Powell

River after deduction of the homeowner grant is minus $86. In other

words, there's a spillover to the municipal coffers. So the average

residential taxpayer is in a preferred position. Between '81 and '85

enrolment in Powell River is down 17 percent. Teaching staff is down 13

percent. I didn't quite understand what you were saying when you used

the expression "poorly paid." I don't know what you were referring to.

AN HON. MEMBER: MLAs.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, we could call a vote on that right now, I think.

All right, I'll sit down.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) links unemployment among our younger citizens with the state

of education in the province. I didn't know he was a supply-sider. He

apparently is, in this area. He believes that because there is an

abundant supply of young educated people, somehow the economy should

resolve itself into full employment for them. My impression of the

situation in this province and generally across Canada is that there

are insufficient opportunities in industry for these young, often

well-educated people, certainly young people prepared to do a good job

— insufficient demand for their services and for their abilities. So I

don't think one can draw the inevitable conclusion, because there are

unemployed and because there is a limited number of job opportunities

for our young people, that this is a fault of the educational system, a

manifestation of its inadequacy, proof that restraint is hurting the

labour supply. I don't think it follows at all.

[ Page 5753 ]

One of the columnists in the Vancouver Province , Crawford

Kilian, who is a long-time supporter of the NDP — he was a school

trustee in North Vancouver and currently writes on educational issues

in the Province — is critical of the NDP and its lack of policy in this

entire area. He says: "…the New Democrats are admirably pious, but

again they're vague on details. They fall back on the funding

recommendations of the McMath commission, which a decade ago proposed

meeting 75 percent of school costs out of provincial general revenue

and the rest out of property taxes." That was to come about in ten

years. "…you'd think the NDP could have come up with something newer

and more practical — especially after we've seen what can happen to

provincial tax revenues in a depression."

First of all, the 75 percent formula. My understanding of the

financing situation now is that the province — substantially, one way

or another, through revenues collected by the provincial treasury —

does pay in the order of 75 percent of the costs of primary and

secondary education in this province. In other words, we've arrived at

the recommendation; we've achieved the recommendation of the McMath

commission. That's history — three-quarters of the expense paid by the

provincial government, as opposed to local government.

I'd like to repeat a few figures, which I've heard the minister

state, simply to put this 75 percent figure in some perspective. It's

my understanding that the province puts up about half of the cost of

primary and secondary education out of general revenue. Within that 50

percent is some 15 percent which is the homeowner grant; but, again,

those are moneys collected by the province out of sales taxes, income

tax and so on, and paid by homeowners back into the educational system.

So half, or 50 percent, comes directly from provincial coffers.

Recently, within the last couple of years, the province took over

the taxation of commercial and industrial properties for school

purposes. That revenue from those property owners accounts for about 35

percent of the cost of primary and secondary education. It should be

added to the 50 percent, because the moneys are now collected by the

provincial treasury and disbursed by the province through the Ministry

of Education, So 50 percent plus 35 percent is 85 percent.

[10:45]

Residential property owners put up, the minister recently said, 8

percent — let's say 8, 9 or 10 percent — and the remainder comes from

the federal government, property revenues, grants in lieu of taxes, and

so on. If you add the federal and provincial contributions together,

you come to a figure in the order of 90 percent. In other words, $9 out

of every $10 spent on primary and secondary education comes from the

senior levels of government, 10 percent or less from local property

taxation. According to the budget, arrangements are apparently being

made to eliminate — progressively over three years, anyway — school

taxes on machinery and equipment, and over the longer term to reduce

school taxes on non-residential property — that's industrial and

commercial property — to the order of two to one rather than three or

four to one. That will be the new rate charged on these properties, as

opposed to residential properties.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The question I ask the minister, but I think the answer is obvious,

is: in reducing this tax load on commerce and industry, and thereby

reducing the income to the province, does the province intend to make

up for that loss of revenue by increasing its contribution out of

general revenue to the school system — in other words, to maintain this

roughly 75 percent contribution, or $3 out of every $4 coming from the

province, to the local school system, to the local school districts, to

the school trustees for their administration of the School Act?

That's the income or money supply side. The expenditure side is not

as clear. Expenditures in school districts vary, and they vary

according to the assessed value of property. Some school districts —

the hon. minister mentioned Mackenzie, and specifically mentioned

Powell River — receive so much money from the provincial treasury that

they actually have money left over. The property owner, in fact, has

money left over with which to help pay local municipal, as opposed to

school, taxes. That's the case in the majority of school districts in

the province. There are a minority of school districts with assessed

values higher than the provincial average which, on the whole, pay more.

I, along with the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Ree), represent School District 44. In School District 44 the assessed

values are sufficiently above the provincial average — roughly 1.3

times the provincial average — for the province not to make any

contribution over and above the basics. It, along with the federal

government, provides about 65 percent of the budget. The remaining 35

percent has to be provided by the local citizenry out of local property

tax. If the average cost of educating a child in our primary and

secondary school systems in B.C. Is $3,600, in North Vancouver $1,200

has to come out of local taxation. In Powell River, not. In a majority

of the school districts around the province nothing comes out of local

property taxation; in a dozen or so, varying amounts come, the maximum

being in the order of $1,200 out of the $3,600 cost.

The minister says he's going to be looking into this matter, I hope

he does. It's obviously inequitable. People who have homes with higher

than average assessed value generally live in communities where they're

taxed heavily to keep up better roads, better municipal services,

better lighting, better policing and so on. Those are among the reasons

why they have a high assessment; but because they have achieved this

higher assessment through their expenditures, through taxation, they

have now in some instances to pay a higher tax — indeed, a unique tax —

in respect to education. I think that's obviously inequitable.

A simplistic solution to all this would be for the province to

simply take the total number of dollars it collects, divide it by the

number of primary and secondary students in the province, and pay that

figure. If it's $3,300, $3,400 or $3,500 per student — that's roughly

what it is now — that should be paid to each school district, and the

school district should administer its responsibilities with that income

from the province and with whatever additional local income it requires

to carry on the programs which people locally require. Roughly, today,

the number would be $3,300 from the province — to every school district

$3,300 per child in school — and the remaining $300 would be raised

locally by local property taxation. That would still be a

redistribution of wealth across the province. But we've got a double

redistribution of wealth occurring under the present formula.

Briefly, in the few remaining minutes I have, I'd like to say

something about class size. Class size has fallen from around 22 or 23

students per teacher in the early 1970s down

[ Page 5754 ]

to close to 17 students per teacher in the early

1980s. It was higher in the NDP years, but admittedly there was a

policy of reducing class size. The reasoning, initially at any rate,

was based on some studies done principally in the United States that

indicated that class size was significant — at a break-even figure

around 25 in the case of secondary schools and 15 in the case of

primary schools.

Those studies turned out to be ephemeral. There was a study by a

gentleman by the name of Olson at Columbia University which turned out

to be substantially a sham. I have endeavoured — and I know that

others, including a number of school trustees, have endeavoured — to

find the definitive study which indicates that class size within a

range of four or five students up or down is important. There is no

definitive study which proves that class size within those relatively

narrow limits is important. Much more important — and this is stated

quite explicitly in the study recently commissioned by the President of

the United States.... It makes international comparisons, and shows

that the size of school, especially in the giant high schools — the

loss of personal identity in the school, both among the teachers and

certainly among the students, the homogenization of courses, the lack

of discipline, certainly the lack of any measure of productivity — has

been responsible for a significant decline in the quality of education

in the United States. I think that's also true in Canada. They don't

point to class size — within reasonable limits — as being very

important. Much more important is the nature of the courses, discipline

in the classes, and above all the quality of the teacher and the manner

in which the teaching process takes place.

Administration. This is certainly a North American.... I was going

to say phenomenon; certainly a happening. Administration has increased

in size. The administration in schools nowadays accounts for up to 5

percent of budgets. Any measure of productivity — students graduated

per administrator — indicates that there has been a constant decline in

productive output, certainly in numbers, and in the United States and

in some other jurisdictions, in quality. That should also be taken into

account.

I see my time is running out, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make

some further remarks about special needs as a category of expenditure

in our educational system.

MR. BLENCOE: I see the minister doesn't wish to respond. He will in due course.

I have a few comments to make to the minister regarding education in

Victoria. However, before I do that I would like to remark very briefly

on the previous speaker's talking about class size. An interesting

point is that the independent school system very much advertises the

fact that they are so much better than the public school system or can

offer more because.... The major criterion for their attractive power

is their class size, they say, and with smaller classes they can get a

lot more done. The independent system, as we all know, is taking many

public dollars these days, something we have some concern about. I

would remind the member that the independent system very often

indicates that the fact that they are successful, or supposedly so

successful.... Class size is a very important ingredient of their

success. So despite what the member has to say, I think class size does

have something to do with the ability to perform effectively in the

classroom.

The member talks about discipline in the classroom and the quality

of teacher. There's no question about that. We all know that if you

have large classrooms your effectiveness in terms of discipline and

effectiveness in terms of the teacher can be very difficult and the

effectiveness can be moderated. I want to go over a report which the

minister may wish to respond to, and I hope he does. The Victoria New

Democratic Party Constituency Association gave a very important brief

to the minister during his "Let's Talk About Schools" road show.

Because of the time that was put into this by our constituency

association on the topics which it covers and because it is extremely

good, I would like to utilize this report this morning. I also think it

would be in recognition of the hours of work that went into this brief

on behalf of our constituency association here in Victoria and

therefore on behalf of all the residents in Victoria.

I will just go through the brief. I think it says much about where

we are in terms of education in the province of British Columbia.

"The Victoria NDP is taking the opportunity to place

its concerns before the Minister of Education because it believes that

current government policy is negatively affecting the fundamental right

of all British Colombians to equal access to a quality education. The

effects of the government restraint program on public schools in

British Columbia has caused great concern to the members of the

Victoria NDP" — and therefore to the two Victoria members of the

Legislature — "as it has to the majority of British Columbians. It is

our great hope that the minister and the government will heed the

message being repeated throughout the province by parents and other

concerned citizens that the public education system is in crisis and

that current government policy is at the root of this crisis."

[11:00]

Mr. Chairman, the report deals with three particular areas of

concern. The first is the actual process of "Let's Talk About Schools,"

the process itself; the second is the amount of funds allocated to

education and the method in which the funds are raised; and third is

the control of allocated funds and the setting of funding priorities.

First, let me talk about the actual process that the minister put into

place, the "Let's Talk About Schools" process. The Victoria

constituency has serious doubts about the usefulness and validity of

that particular forum. To begin with, the Victoria constituency

believes that the commission process established is the right process

to deal with an important subject.

"The Victoria NDP agrees that the wide debate about

educational matters is important. However, we would prefer the royal

commission approach as suggested by the B.C. School Trustees'

Association. We are disappointed that the commissioners have not

traveled throughout the province to receive submissions themselves and

that neither the B.C. School Trustees' Association nor the B.C.

Teachers' Federation are officially represented on the commission.

"Secondly, having reviewed the 'Let's Talk About

Schools' discussion paper and response booklet, we fail to see how this

process can possibly be expected to permit sufficient discussion of the

matters suggested or to deliver adequate responses to them. A cynical

observer might conclude that a serious, thoughtful debate is not truly

intended by the minister.

"Let's illustrate this point.... The discussion paper, in less than 250 words, tries to deal with the

[ Page

5755 ]

matter of technological change and its effect

on schools. The response booklet then asks respondents to give their

ideas on questions such as 'How might technological change affect the

schools?' First, technological change is an incredibly complex subject

— entire books have been written on the effects of technological change

on society in general and education in particular. To expect such a

question to be answered in a few lines indicates a lack of respect for

the respondent and makes a mockery of a most important matter.

Secondly, technological change is a subject poorly understood by the

public at large. The discussion paper does nothing to enhance this

understanding. It refers almost exclusively to computer technology,

reinforcing the commonly held but incorrect public opinion that

technological change equals computers. How can the average parent or

member of the public be expected to contribute meaningfully to a

discussion on technological change and schools with so little

background information? It is our contention that the Ministry of

Education should be providing us with expert guidance on the potential

effects of technological change — in its broadest definition — and the

options available to the public school system to positively manage

those effects. Only then will it be possible to gather opinion from an

informed public and ask for their views on such options to pursue. This

is only one of many issues covered in the discussion paper and response

booklet, all of which we feel are too complex and too important for

such a casual process."

That is why, Mr. Minister, we have suggested the royal commission. We believe

that the state of education in British Columbia is so desperate and in such

crisis that we need a full-blown investigation and, once and for all, some deter

mined effort to put education back on the map in the province. Back to the report.

"As a result of our grave misgivings with the process,

we have chosen not to complete the response document. We do, however,

wish to continue with this submission to raise what we consider to be

the two fundamental educational policy issues."

First is funding.

"While the discussion paper directs the public to

consider a wide range of educational policy issues, we believe that

issues of curriculum, achievement standards, technological change,

labour relations, etc. are all secondary to the funding issue. This is

not to say that these issues are not fundamentally important. It is

simply that the answers to questions about them will change, depending

on the amount and method of funding. We believe that we must first

address the questions of how much money, from what source, and

controlled by whom, before we can tackle these other matters.

"The Victoria New Democratic Party advocates the funding

formula recommended by the McMath commission, namely that education should be

financed 75 percent by the province from general revenues and 25 percent by

the community through property taxes. Both residential and industrial tax bases

should be available for school assessment. Such a system would provide a basis

for ensuring that all school districts had equal access to adequate financing

and would allow special community needs to be met where they exist. The referendum

option does not achieve this, as there is no commitment to adequate funding

from the province in the first place.

"Coupled with the method of collecting moneys for

education is the amount collected. If the province is to provide 75

percent of total funding, then the total amount needs to be set at

realistic levels. We believe the funding levels set under restraint by

this government are arbitrary and totally inadequate.

"We do not believe that current funding levels reflect

the priority British Columbians place on their children and on

education. British Columbia ranks tenth out of the ten provinces on

expenditure estimates for education as a percentage of total

expenditures: 15.5 percent of total expenditures is budgeted for

education, compared with a Canadian average of 21.2 percent. British

Columbia ranks tenth again on per capita education expenditures: $459

per capita compared to a Canadian average of $696. We find it a

shocking indication of the government's spending priorities to note

that British Columbians spend more money per capita on new cars — $539

— than the $494 that government allots for education. It is a matter of

priorities, not simply a shortage of revenues. When revenues are

limited, as they have been during the recession, the allocation of

public funds must be done prudently and wisely. We suggest that the

government has not given sufficient moneys to education because it has

failed to prioritize it highly enough. We have repaid the BCR debt

years in advance of what was necessary while squeezing education

budgets to the extreme. We have spent millions of dollars on

megaprojects but neglected to spend sufficient funds on educating the

future leaders of this province. The Victoria New Democratic Party" —

and its MLAs — "contends that if we wish to invest in resources to

provide future jobs, if we wish to invest for recovery instead of

recession, then there is no better nor more certain investment than in

our children and their education."

The next major item, Mr. Chairman, is control and priority and who decides —

who should decide how school budgets are spent.

"The Victoria New Democratic constituency believes

that elected school boards should decide where, when and how to spend

moneys allocated within general guidelines established by the province.

We must stress that we mean general guidelines designed to ensure

equality throughout the province, not guidelines which dictate every

aspect of spending and budgeting.

"We believe that the provincial role in spending

control is similar to that of an umpire at a baseball game. The umpire

calls the shots and watches closely for fair play and safety. We

believe that the government has twisted its role of 'umpire' to the

point where the umpire's activity has become the focus of the game, and

we no longer can see the game itself. The confrontation caused by the

minister over school budgets has had this effect. How can we talk about

schools when the players are having a brawl in the middle of the field?

[ Page 5756 ]

" Equal access to quality education is our goal. Equal

doesn't always mean being treated the same. The various regions of the

province are different, have different needs, different populations,

different community values. Equality means that the differences between

school districts are respected and that community needs and values are

served equally throughout the province. This is why we elect local

school boards. We expect locally elected trustees to reflect the needs

and values of our particular community. Once an adequate budget has

been established for education and allocated fairly to the various

school boards, all decisions with respect to spending should be made by

the locally elected trustees within the broad provincial guidelines.

"We request that the minister rethink his approach to education

and stop the cutbacks and confrontation before the public school system in British

Columbia is brought beyond repair. We request the minister and the government

to give urgent and immediate attention to this issue by: (1) appointing a royal

commission to examine the matter of public education in a fair, open and impartial

manner; (2) immediately raising total funding levels to at least the Canadian

average and implementing the funding recommendations of the McMath commission;

(3) returning authority for budget control to locally elected school boards."

This report was done by the Victoria New Democratic constituency. I think it

is a concerted and sincere effort to bring some issues to the minister from

Victoria. I wished to take the time today to read it into the record on behalf

of you constituency, our members and the Victoria residents. Maybe the minister

will have some response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to comment out of the eighteenth

edition of Erskine May,

chapter 19, for the edification of the second

member for Victoria: "A member may read extracts from documents, but

his own language must be delivered bona fide in the form of an

unwritten composition." That's on page 404. On page 405: "An attempt to

influence the course of a debate by the reading of arguments or letters

from persons of authority outside is repugnant to the spirit of debate,

although it has been permitted." Possibly to encourage the spirit of

debate, if one has a report, you may make comment on the report, but

the report should be tabled in the House for the benefit of all members

rather than taking the time of the House to read the whole report.

MR. BLENCOE: I ask leave to table the report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Member; I have been advised that leave to table can only be given in the full House and not in committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, towards the end of last week

during the estimates of my colleague the Minister of Education I dealt

shortly with three topics: first of all, the advisability of a

contemporary assessment and evaluation of the worth, continuance,

modification or indeed abandonment of the grid system, with one of the

components to compensation for teachers being based upon academic

attainment. When I discussed that topic, I also dealt with some the

complaints that we are hearing from the teaching community, and indeed

from parents, about there being too many chiefs, admirals and generals

in the system and too much fat at the top.

Now I happen to have just a few specifics here, much along the line, I think,

of the very forceful remarks that were relayed to this assembly by my colleague,

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I think I'd be fully prepared

to bet that in British Columbia we've got the highest administrative — as

opposed to actual teaching — costs in the country, and perhaps indeed in the

continent, with maybe the exception of Alaska, and probably indeed in the whole

world. Our colleague the Minister of Health dealt with some specifics, and

he made some very forceful remarks.

[11:15]

1 notice a lot of chirping from the new recycled member for

Vancouver East, and I'm sure the recycled member will have a full

opportunity to volunteer his remarks, academic or otherwise, to this

assembly at some point in time when he's on his feet, as opposed to

blathering from his seat.

In the Vancouver School District, I gather there are about 350-odd

people in the head office, about 167 of which are involved in

administration, and there seem to be 16 rather major positions: the

superintendent of schools, with a salary range of $89,040 plus $1,781

savings plan; the deputy superintendant, $78,420 plus $1,568 savings

plan; the secretary treasurer — the head of business administration —

$72,466 with a $1,449 savings plan; the assistant superintendent of

personnel, $67,000; six assistant superintendents of schools, five at

$72,480 with a $1,450 savings plan, and one at $67,056; a director of

employee relations, at some $61,500; a comptroller, $59,300; an

operations superintendent, $54,600; a purchasing agent, $54,672; a

maintenance and construction superintendent, $64,000; and an assistant

secretary-treasurer, $54,500. Those seem to be the principal positions,

and I would just wonder if the hon. minister might have the total cost

of administration in School District 39 in the city of Vancouver.

And

I note this with interest because I read in the paper a couple of days ago that

in Delta a number of vice-principals were sent back to the schools to teach.

I think Delta should be complimented for taking that kind of course, and indeed

those vice-principals should be complimented for accepting that new challenge.

But in the city of Vancouver I understand there are 50 vice-principals, as of

September of last year, ranging in salaries from some $58,990 to $42,919,

and I would ask the hon. minister if it would result in any savings for the

Vancouver School District if they took a similar course as was taken in Delta

and those 50 vice-principals went back to teaching. Maybe some of them teach

at this present time, Mr. Chairman; maybe they do not. I regretfully don't

have that precise information.

The second point that I discussed at the end

of last week was as to whether or not merit pay or merit benefit or performance

recognition should become part of the pay package for teachers. I also raised

the question of whether the closed-shop compulsory check-off system that is

in place at the present time for the BCTF may or may not offend

section 2 of

the freedom-of-association

section of the charter, remembering that the constitution

of Canada is, by virtue of

section 52 of the constitution, the supreme law of

our country. We heard from our good minister and he again put this assembly

on notice I believe it was yesterday, Mr. Minister, or at the end of last week

— that he wished public input, and that he was proposing a white paper or a

green paper that

[ Page

5757 ]

will be soliciting comment and direction concerning

educational policy and programs. I say very much hurray for that. And I

would hope and, better still, anticipate, Mr. Chairman, that the three

points that I discussed at the end of last week and have reiterated

very shortly today would receive full and careful assessment and

consideration during that process.

I'd like to suggest, if I may, a couple of other issues which I

think would be equally deserving of similar assessment. First, during

this investigative and consultative process, thought should be given as

to whether or not school boards, as they are now structured — and I

would underline those words — are of paramount necessity. Could some or

all of their functions fall within the municipality or city

responsibility, and would or could some savings and some efficiency

result from such a course? I would like that to be put up to public

scrutiny.

Secondly, should school teachers in one school district be entitled

to become school trustees in another district? Is that, or could that

be, a conflict of interest either in fact or in appearance? We all know

the old adage that justice must not only be done but appear to be done.

I say, Mr. Chairman, turning that around: there must not only be no

capacity for conflict of interest; there also must not be the

appearance of a capacity for conflict of interest.

There's another item that I would like to discuss, Mr. Chairman, but

I see time is pressing on, and I do know that other members wish to

speak. I will be returning to the forum, hopefully, this afternoon for

a few additional words.

MR. WILLIAMS: Profound comments from the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, who does a quick skip through somebody's budget

and then concludes that these are the highest administrative costs,

yea, in British Columbia, maybe Canada, maybe the continent, maybe the

world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, maybe — a very responsible speech from the

cabinet minister. And maybe it's a bunch of hokum from the minister,

which is what we should expect: the usual casual romp through a few

numbers. The numbers, if you look at them in terms of Canada — let

alone North America, let alone the world, Mr. Member — are something

like this: the most recent study, which was a few years ago, showed

that Vancouver had fewer officials on a per capita basis than Calgary,

than Edmonton, than Etobicoke, than Toronto, than North York, than

Scarborough, than Waterloo.

I don't carry any brief for the administrators, and there may well

be a case for reviewing that, but that's what you're free to do, in

terms of reviewing these things. It's not good enough for a member of

the cabinet to get up and say, "These are probably the greatest numbers

in the world," not knowing one way or the other whether they are or

not. That's pure, simple irresponsibility. You can do a proper job.

You've got a staff that can do a proper job. My God, what's

Intergovernmental Relations about? It's a phony sinecure. You could use

your staff to do some productive, interesting work. You could even

check out the facts in the Vancouver School District, and you might

even reflect in Vancouver on the very special question that they have,

second language.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, but it's a cost and a need in the

Vancouver School District, and you're trying to squeeze them down in

every respect — not just with respect to administrators but in terms of

neighbourhood school in the East End where my daughter goes to school

right now, you attend a school play.... The last one I attended was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs .

Of the seven dwarfs, six were Oriental, and half of them were boat

people. That's the reality in the east side of Vancouver. Those are

special needs, I assure you.

I'd like to hear from the minister on the special questions that

Vancouver faces with this unique problem — unique because it's greater

there than probably anywhere in western Canada. I think the numbers are

their mother tongue, or something of that scale; half the kids anyway

problem.

You can deal with the administrators. Sure, they've cut back 10

percent in the previous year; they cut back 4 percent this year. I'm

not crying about that; that's fair enough. But ESL is a special problem

in the community that I live in and represent. I know that the minister

has met with the school board and has discussed this specific question,

and I would think and hope that there should be concessions to that

school district that are different than the rest of the province.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't have all of the

particulars available right now, but I will have them with respect to

45 and…maybe a touch higher than 45 percent. That's not the issue. The

language is a very real one. We recognize that in the ministry. This

came to my attention shortly after assuming the portfolio. The funding

extraordinarily high. I'm not arguing whether it's too high or too low;

what I'm saying is that they get a very substantial portion of the

budget. I believe that for the 1985-86 budget the amount which was

allocated under the special-needs function had been increased by

somewhere from $16 million up to about $20 million. I think it's in

this particular book here, and I don't want to delay the debate on it.

So it is recognized.

language is not the large percentage of students — that group of

students of which there are.... I think it was one short of 1,000. That

was the figure that was given to me when I attended the Vancouver

there have to be programs for them. In that regard I believe the

Vancouver School Board is doing an exemplary job with respect to that

portion. I have no criticism whatsoever of that.

Now there were some items — there have been three speakers since —

and as a matter of courtesy I would like to respond to some of the

comments which were made, and quickly. The comment which always comes

up — and this was raised by the member for Victoria — is that per

capita we are as a province injecting fewer funds, if you want to

compare on that basis. But we've got to remember also that B.C. ranks

tenth in the number of school-age children as a percent of the whole

population. So it shouldn't be a surprise to us

[ Page 5758 ]

that the expenditures in public education reflect the amount of money which is injected.

We can make figures dance and do a number of things. We can do that,

but I think what is important is that for one set of figures which will

be advanced by the opposition, there are a dozen more that can be

pulled out of another drawer. I think we should keep that in mind.

Now the concern was raised with respect to independent schools. You

know, the independent school funding formula has been in place now for

a number of years. It has never been changed. It represents for group 2

schools, which take the lion's share of the money allocated for

independent schools.... It remains at 30 percent of the average per

student cost in the district where the independent school is located.

The reason for an increase in funds this year to independent schools

was twofold. Number one, there was an 8 percent increase in their

student population, which I believe was something in the order of about

1,000 students. In addition to that, the auditor-general stated that

the accounting for independent schools must be changed, I believe, from

a cash to an accrual basis, and that accounted for about $1 million.

Also, we deliberately and by design have not incorporated within the

per-student allocation and the 30 percent of that given to independent

schools the amount of the pension contribution made by the'provincial

government to public school teachers. I kept that in mind, realizing

that this can be a sensitive issue at times.

Another item occurred as well. In the past it's always been in

arrears, so they collect one year later. The previous year, where

independent school funding went up, was truly a reflection of the

actual cost per student, but they weren't allowed to participate in

those funds until one year hence.

[11:30]

I think the position of the opposition has always been.... I'm not

sure what it is. Some say they support independent schools but no

funding; others say that they don't support independent schools at all.

I would just like to say this. The position of our government is that

we do support the independent school concept. There's nothing

whatsoever wrong with some competition out in the field. I think

everybody should be entitled the basic right of the freedom to choose.

I would also say that there are no heavens for only those who can

afford to send their children to independent schools, because there are

many who go to independent schools who are just ordinary people like

you and I.

One comment was made was about "Let's Talk About Schools." Yes, I

was disappointed that the BCTF did not participate. You know, I got a

magnificent letter from the past president of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation. I asked him to sit on the committee, and he said he would

be quite prepared to sit on the committee. As a matter of fact, he

said: "You've got a darned good idea. I support everything that you're

doing with respect to bringing it down to the roots of the community

for public debate, instead of always falling into that old Canadian way

of resolving our problems — that is, by the use of a royal commission."

You know, royal commissions, in my view, are opted for by

politicians who are not prepared to fulfill their elected

responsibilities. I went right into the field and to the people who

were involved and asked them to prepare the document. That document

contains no statement or imprint from a politician such as myself at

all. That document was authored by people who were in the field. I was

fortunate to secure some very capable and competent school

superintendents, and to have their involvement. I used the past

president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. All were supportive

of it.

When it came to the teacher portion, there was an agreement, That

agreement was very simple: we would have a number of names prepared and

we would allow them — by agreement, in my office — to scan the list of

potential candidates whom we wanted to be on the review committee. As I

recall, I came up with three excellent candidates: Norm Ornes, the

principal of Vancouver Tech; Berenice Wood, who is a well-known

educator in Burnaby; and Pat Brady, past president of the BCTF, past

president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation and current president of

the Prince George District Teachers' Association.

Tell me, as a government — and as a member and a minister — what

more could I do in seeking the cooperation of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation? I couldn't have done any more. The fact is, they didn't

like the concept. That is, the executive of the BCTF didn't like the

concept, yet were prepared to participate in it provided.... They said:

"We will name the people, no ifs, ands or buts." The recommendations

that were given to me by all of the other players.... As I've said

before on those players, if I were recruiting my campaign team for the

next election, I'm not so sure I would recruit that same team — not for

campaigning. What I'm really saying to you is that I was putting this

matter above politics, and I think I did the honourable thing. It's not

on my head because they weren't prepared to participate.

As far as the brief, which I presume the member will file, I hope

that brief has been sent to the provincial school review committee. I

cannot tell you too much about that, because it's not my business to

make inquiries about it. I have kept to my word on that as well.

However, I have been told, as a result of a call which was made to me,

that the response has been extraordinary. I am told — and I'm advising

you of this second-hand, because I have not talked to him about it; and

I will not — that Dr. Todd Rogers at the Faculty of Education at UBC

has said that he has never in all his experience received such an

abundance of material. Nothing like this has ever occurred in the

province before.

Where did that material come from? It came from the public

generally. We know that some of the hearings were not well attended.

But I thought that it was best.... You know as well as I do how people

often feel about making appearances and making public statements. So a

lot of them completed the response document, and they spent literally

hours on those documents. That is what, I am told, is being codified

now so that all the points can be put into their various categories

before the writers get involved in preparing the report.

I kept it as open as possible — so open, as a matter of fact, that

the committee said when I asked them to serve: "We're prepared to

serve, but we're going to do it our way." One of the things that they

absolutely insisted upon was that if there was to be any polling, which

we recommend and want funding for, the results of those polls shall be

made public concurrently with the production of the report.

I think that's pretty open government. I suppose and would expect

that there will be some criticism of me within that report and within

the polling. But so what? What we're looking for is the truth and the

right answers and what the general public has to say.

[ Page 5759 ]

Another comment made involved equal access to funding. The answer,

in my view, is very easy. The reason the nonresidential tax base was

claimed by the provincial government was to provide equitable funding.

You know, not every provincial electoral riding has a tax base that

some of us may have within our respective ridings. I go to my own

riding, and, with the twinning of Northwood Pulp, there are six pulp

mills in my riding, ten major sawmills and an oil refinery. You know,

that is a substantial tax base, and it would have been very easy for

the Prince George School District to survive on that. But it might have

made it pretty difficult on places like maybe Williams Lake or

Vanderhoof or Fort St. James, you know. They are all small communities,

and they need some help.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: But we look at the size and the number of

students within the district as well. I can tell you about the trial

run I did on a proposed referendum on 2 percent. I looked at what 2

percent would raise, and it would get most people out. They just wanted

us to do what they were not prepared to do.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) made a

comment on administration. Well, I do know this. The Courtenay School

Board and the Delta School Board both acknowledge that problem with

respect to vice-principals. Perhaps they ought to be spending more time

teaching. If school districts can do that, perhaps Vancouver might have

a look at it.

With respect to the other comments made by my colleague the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations about what he would like to see

discussed in a White Paper — I said a White Paper or a bill — I have

made this commitment. I will not talk publicly about what I believe the

contents of that document ought to be. If I did talk publicly, the

public could rightfully conclude that I've made up my mind, and I

haven't.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for his response to our brief. I will table the brief at the most opportune time.

I would very briefly like to indicate to the minister the effects of

the budget reductions on the Greater Victoria School Board. I hope he

will have some response to this. Victoria has, like everybody else,

been hit hard, and it has had a dramatic impact on our school system

and our children. In September 1984 the minister may be aware that

School District 61 had a reduction of 50 teachers, which has had some

dramatic results. First, class sizes have increased dramatically. One

member who was speaking this morning said that class sizes have nothing

to do with the effectiveness of teachers in the classroom. In

independent schools class size is always advertised as a very important

factor in why you should go to an independent school. Class sizes do

have an impact. In Greater Victoria they are having an effect on our

students. At the kindergarten-elementary level, 115 classes exceed the

district class-size guidelines. At the secondary level, 715, or 40

percent of classes, exceed the guideline of 30 students. I should

indicate that this information was provided by School District 61 in

January of this year. There may have been some slight changes since

then. My understanding, however, is that things have got worse since

January.

In special education, 95 percent of classes are at or exceed

district guidelines. Furthermore, there are 114 students on

waiting-lists for special programs, and many more are waiting for

assessments.

The amount of counselling time for students has decreased. This is

very serious, particularly for those children and families whose

services have been reduced because of other ministries. I will go back

to the counselling item in a minute.

There is less learning assistance time for students with special

learning problems in School District 6 1. School aides spend less time

with small groups of students, listening to students read and providing

individual assistance to students with learning problems.

Student participation in such things as field trips and outdoor

education has decreased dramatically. In some schools, where parent

volunteering is limited, the school board simply cannot offer such

activities. I happen to believe — I think we all do — that such

activities outside the school are very much a part of a well-rounded

education system. Unfortunately our children are not getting those

opportunities today.

The whole question of instructional supplies and equipment. In

School District 61 the reduction in funding has had a serious effect on

students in business education and computer education. We hear that a

priority of this government is business and computer education, yet

their very funding allocations are having a dramatic impact on this

area. It doesn't make much sense. If this government has any

priorities, that seems to be a priority that's going to go nowhere

either, Mr. Chairman. It's not been possible to purchase the essential,

up-to-date equipment to develop the necessary student skills for

entrance into post-secondary education or employment — another

short-changing of our students, obviously not just in School District

61 but right across this province.

Utilities and maintenance and grounds service, the maintenance of

our infrastructure, of the various institutions themselves, have been

dramatically affected by this government and this minister. Reduced

expenditures in energy resulted in the heat in schools not being turned

on until October 15. The lack of heat has been perceived to cause

increased absenteeism of students and staff and decreased productivity

in extremely cold conditions, not conducive to good educational

surroundings. The decrease in expenditures on water and service to

grounds has resulted in elimination of some very important outdoor

physical education activities as well as expenditures by schools to the

University of Victoria to rent fields for inter-school games, etc.

Those inter-school games, sometimes the highlight of children's

activities in school, are being virtually curtailed. We believe that

you should allow those things to go on. That's a healthy interschool

rivalry. Those things that challenge young people to participate in

physical activities are being curtailed and not being expanded.

[11:45]

Reduced janitorial staff has resulted in less cleaning of classrooms

and common areas, and reduced maintenance expenditures have indeed

reduced school maintenance. I would suggest that, as I've indicated in

municipal problems, if you reduce your maintenance programs today, the

financial ramifications will come home tomorrow, and we will be faced

with horrendous costs down the road if we do not ensure that our

facilities are property maintained today.

I want to go back to the counselling, and I'm going to leave it there, given the time. Counselling is an issue that has

[ Page 5760 ]

come to my attention numerous times. I don't know

if the minister is aware of a very good report that was prepared and

edited by trustee David Turner of the Greater Victoria School District.

He wrote a report called "The Crisis of Educational Counselling." If

the minister has not seen it, I would suggest that he can get a copy

from School District 61. It's an excellent report of what's happening

in counselling in School District 61 and I think it would be useful for

him to read it. I know he is a very busy fellow; but counselling is a

very important ingredient of educational life in our schools, and I

certainly have — and I know the school board has — some serious

reservations about what's happening. For instance, Mr. Chairman,

counsellors as a group are trying to handle a load which, according to

Mr. Turner's report, has escalated from less than 1,000 pupil

population per counsellor three years ago, to more than 1,700 per

counsellor this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this elementary schools?

MR. BLENCOE: This is elementary schools, yes.

I know there are many issues in the school system. There are many issues I

could continue to go through — others on our side will go through those — but

this is one area I have chosen to specifically isolate this morning. Counsellors,

I think, are dedicated to the importance of early intervention and encouraging

self-help, and it's quite clear, with the overload they are currently facing

in the elementary school system in School District 61, that they are not able

to do the work they are supposed to do.

I bring this to the minister's attention; I'm sure it has already

been brought to his attention. Their ability to deal with issues that

elementary school children do need to be counselled upon is being made

virtually impossible by the current government's policy. If the

minister has not looked at this report from Mr. Turner of Greater

Victoria School District 61, I urge him to do so. I will leave it

there, Mr. Chairman, in terms of School District 61.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada