1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 9, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4325 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4325

Oral Questions

Business immigration. Mr. Clark –– 4325

Mr. Rose

Pollution control in pulp mills. Ms. Smallwood –– 4326

Environmental laboratory. Ms. Smallwood –– 4326

Privatization of highways maintenance. Mr. Harcourt –– 4327

Cyanide-leaching permit appeal. Ms. Smallwood –– 4327

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

On vote 23: minister's office –– 4327

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Jones

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Loenen

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

MONDAY, MAY 9, 1988

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH : There are two very distinguished guests in our gallery

today. First, His Excellency Jan Edmund Nyheim, the Ambassador of Norway to

Canada. Accompanying His Excellency is Mr. Odvar Mosnesset, who is the consul-general

of Norway in Vancouver. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

As well, we have the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Graeme

Roberts, and I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. G. HANSON :

In the gallery today we have very special guests from the Commonwealth

Games Association of Canada: the president of the Commonwealth Games

Association, Ivor Dent, who is visiting Victoria with his wife, Ilene;

and the secretary, Ken Smith, and his wife, Nancy. They have been

attending the annual meeting of the Commonwealth Games Association

which was held in Victoria over the weekend.

A great deal

of credit goes to Mr. Dent and Mr. Smith, in that they are highly

respected representatives in government and sports circles throughout

the Commonwealth. They have been working very hard to bring the games

to Victoria. On behalf of the second member for Saanich (Mr. Huberts),

all members of the House, and the Speaker who hosted them today at

lunch, would you join me in giving them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. REID :

On behalf of the government, I would also like to make a special

welcome to Ivor and Ilene and Ken and Nancy. I wish them good times in

Victoria. Be the average tourist that everybody else is and spend $54

on average while you're here. Welcome to Victoria.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

In our gallery today is a constituent and a good friend. He has been in

Victoria studying our remarkable archives across the street. I would

like the House to welcome David Trudel of Vancouver.

MRS. GRAN :

Visiting the Parliament Buildings and the Legislature this afternoon

are members of the Fraser Downs Thoroughbred Racing Foundation. Would

the House please welcome Sherman Olson, who is president of the Horse

Council of British Columbia; Rick Clough, who is president of the

thoroughbred breeders of British Columbia; and also Tom and Isabel

Ivanore and Jim Wallace.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : It's my

pleasure to introduce to the House this afternoon two visitors from

central Canada, from the city of Toronto: Bill and Ruth Alexander, who

are with one of my good supporters, Mr. Blair Cafferky. Would the House

please give them a hearty welcome.

MR. HUBERTS : Mr.

Speaker, a great constituent of mine and an alderlady in Saanich, Vicki

Kuhl, is here. I'd ask the House to give her a welcome.

MR. CHALMERS : Visiting in the gallery today is a very enthusiastic member

of the B.C. Young Socreds. He is the Okanagan director. I'd like everybody

here to give a warm welcome to Mr. Cory Pich, please.

HON. MR. REID :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today,

from Lynden, Washington, Mr. Ben Mulder and his wife, Grace, chairman

and co-chairman of Holland Days, the home of.... The champion wooden

shoes runner in Canada and the United States is the hon. Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture, a participant in their Holland Days

last Saturday. Would the House make Ben and Grace Mulder specially

welcome.

While I have the floor, I'd like to make a special

welcome today to the wife of my deputy minister, Shirley Hayward, and

his daughter, Nancy Hayward, who are in the Speaker's gallery today.

I'm

pulling a Cowichan-Malahat. I have three more I would like to recognize

while I have the floor. I would like to give a special welcome today to

four of my constituents who were introduced earlier: Tom and Isabel

Ivanore, Mr. Rick Clough and Jim Wallace. On behalf of my constituency,

thanks for coming to Victoria.

HON. MR. ROGERS : We

will be joined this afternoon at 4 o'clock by 21 young ladies of the

31st Guide troop from Kerrisdale in my constituency. Rather than

interrupt the House at that time, I thought I would introduce them now

and record it in the journals.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the second annual report of the Public Service Commission.

Oral Questions

BUSINESS IMMIGRATION

MR. CLARK :

I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development in the

Premier's absence and in her capacity as chairperson of the Premier's

Economic Advisory Council. Will the minister confirm that at the second

meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, the subject of the

federal business immigration program was discussed and that a decision

was made to support a provincial lobby of the federal government to

allow greater flexibility in terms of administering this program?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : No, I can't confirm that.

MR. CLARK :

Will the minister confirm that the question of the provincial

government's position on the federal program for business immigrants

was discussed?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. CLARK :

A supplementary to the minister. Will the minister confirm that several

weeks after the second meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory

Council, ministry officials travelled to Ottawa to lobby their federal

counterparts to allow syndicates to arrange with banks to offer

guarantees of the principal plus interest to prospective business

immigrants — in other words, that the provincial government was

lobbying to relax the rules regarding business immigration?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that, so I can't respond to that question.

[ Page 4326 ]

MR. CLARK :

Supplementary to the minister. A Mr. Peter Toigo attended the second

meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council. Did Mr. Toigo

declare that he was a major shareholder and director of a company

called Tang Peacock Investments Ltd. that stood to benefit from a

relaxation of the rules regarding business immigration?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : No, I have no knowledge of a conversation like that.

MR. CLARK :

Would the minister advise the House whether she was in attendance at

the second meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I was there for most of it. I was away for one brief time, but I was there for most of the meeting.

MR. CLARK :

It must have been a brief discussion on business immigration. Could the

minister advise the House when the minister first became aware of Mr.

Toigo's ownership position in Tang Peacock Investments Ltd?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I am aware of a business arrangement that Mr. Toigo has with a firm

called Tang Peacock, and that was through a personal conversation that

I had — a business meeting in Vancouver several months ago. The member

seems to be suggesting that there was some conversation within the

policy meeting of the Premier's council on economic development. I'm

not aware of any conversation there.

MR. CLARK :

While the minister says that she's not aware, the Premier, on leaving

that meeting, indicated to the press that the provincial government had

a policy with respect to business immigration, and it was to lobby the

federal government to relax the rules. So the minister must have been

attending a different meeting.

Could the minister advise

the House if she learned of Mr. Toigo's involvement with Tang Peacock

Investments Ltd. before or after the second meeting of the Premier's

Economic Advisory Council?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I couldn't tell the member that, because my recollection of that and

that knowledge is simply done in the sort of social talk at a business

meeting. I don't have any recollection of the date, nor would I need to

have a recollection of that date. There would be no need for me to even

commit that to memory.

MR. CLARK : A supplementary.

Could the minister, in her capacity as chairperson of this advisory

council, advise the House whether minutes were taken, and is that

information public information or private information?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I'm co-chairman of that committee, and the meeting that the member

speaks of I was away from for a short time on other business, so I

can't confirm any of the questions that he has asked. As far as minutes

are concerned, I don't believe minutes are kept of the meeting. The

business sessions that we have had — and they've been very constructive

— have been overall policy, gaining information from those people at

the table who have both international and national business experience

just to get ideas from them as to how we can do a better job in terms

of addressing the economy of British Columbia. They've been very useful

meetings, and all of the people around the table have contributed

greatly.

MR. CLARK : A supplementary. The minister

says that information is exchanged. Quite clearly, some kinds of

information are used for personal benefit and not just for the benefit

of the public. Could the minister advise whether or not, during the

time that she attended that advisory council, Mr. Toigo at any time

ever declared that he had an interest in Tang Peacock Investments to

those who were discussing these matters?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Never in my presence, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE :

I have a supplementary too. In contrast to the minister's usually vivid

and accurate memory of things that go back a long time, I wonder if the

minister would assure the House that she would be interested in looking

into the minutes of those meetings and reviewing the facts with others

who were in the know, and taking the questions that she was unable to

answer as notice for a later day.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

The questioner, the hon. second member for Vancouver East, did not ask

me to take them as notice, nor in my answers have I suggested that if I

did take them on notice I could find the answer. So my suggestion to

the members of the opposition and the House Leader and the member for

Vancouver East who spoke is that the question should be directed to the

Premier to answer, as was suggested by the hon. member in the first

place, who suggested I was to answer them in the absence of the Premier.

want to say too that there was a statement made which I'd like to

respond to, and it is in response to people around that table who sit

on the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, using the council for their

personal benefit. I can tell you that I have never known that to happen

around that table. And I'm pleased that that committee does its job as

well as it does.

POLLUTION CONTROL IN PULP MILLS

MS. SMALLWOOD :

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Eighteen out of 22 pulp

mills were found to be consistently in excess of pollution control

limits in the province, yet no charges have been laid in 1987. Can the

minister tell this House why it is these polluters have not been

charged?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I've heard that story through the media. I will respond at a later date, Mr. Speaker, and take the question for now on notice.

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

MS. SMALLWOOD :

A new question to the Minister of Environment. How can the minister

justify selling the Environmental Lab when there is such a problem with

industry in this province? Can the minister explain if he has

completely abandoned his mandate to protect the land, the water and the

air of this province?

[ Page

4327 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Number one, the Environmental Lab has not been sold

as yet; it has been offered for sale.

Secondly,

I want the House to be aware that we are putting in place a six-member

group within the Ministry of Environment who will be a data standards

group, retained by the ministry to collect, check and analyze a stream

of environmental data flowing from private laboratories and provide

contract administration.

We will be asking B.C. Research,

who are an established, independent and respected organization, to do

audit procedures for us. This will be paid for by those who are

submitting samples to them. We have no right to question the ability of

B.C. Research to do a comprehensive and independent audit of materials

as they're submitted to them. I think every protection for the people

of British Columbia will be in place by the highly competent and

independent staff of B.C. Research. So I have no concern whatsoever.

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Over the

last four months 85 municipalities and regional districts have passed

motions opposing the privatization of Highways operations. They've

asked this government to stop and listen to their concerns and

undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of the Highways

privatization, not only on public safety but also on the service levels

and cost. Is the minister prepared to listen to the grassroots of this

province, to their call to halt the privatization of the Highways

maintenance and undertake an independent review of its impact on

British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker,

members of this government are always prepared to listen to submissions

from the grassroots. And if the Leader of the Opposition wants further

information on privatization of the transportation sector, he should

address his questions to the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Rogers).

MR. HARCOURT : We've already done

that, Mr. Minister. As the minister in charge of privatization, I

thought you'd be willing to take responsibility for it, even though I

don't blame you for not wanting to take responsibility for

privatization.

Is the minister aware that almost 600 public

employees, with a payroll of $16 million, are providing important

services such as highways maintenance and health care in the area of

Penticton and Grand Forks? Can the minister assure this House that his

government's privatization scheme will not result in job losses or

reduction of payroll in these important areas of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

One of the objectives of privatization is to do a better job at less

cost to the provincial taxpayer, and the other is to involve employees

as much as possible, and I think we will achieve both those objectives.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT : I wonder if Pavlov's dog rings a bell with some of the thumpers I hear.

As the minister is aware, good, safe highways are important for

tourism growth — which I'm sure interests the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr. Reid) — in many areas of this province, particularly the South

Okanagan. Can the minister table any studies that prove that under

privatization highways such as 3, 97 and 33 in the South Okanagan will

get better standards of maintenance?

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Mr. Speaker, I think the proof of the success of privatization will

follow privatization. Several studies have been carried out under a

previous minister of the previous government. We could certainly make

results of those earlier studies available. They all indicated that

there would be economies for the taxpayer, and that service would not

deteriorate. I'm sure that the actual experience resulting from

full-scale privatization will bear the studies out.

CYANIDE-LEACHING PERMIT APPEAL

MS. SMALLWOOD :

My question is to the Minister of Environment. In the Grand Forks area,

a permit was issued to mine gold using a cyanide-leaching process. The

permit was appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board, which made

issuance of the permit conditional on studies such as contingency

plans, water flow and closure. Those studies were to be made available

to the community. The minister subsequently overruled the Environmental

Appeal Board and denied access to that information by the community.

Can the minister tell us whether this is his policy now to overrule the

Environmental Appeal Board, and if so, what's the point of having an

Environmental Appeal Board in the first place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No, it's not my policy to overrule the Environmental Appeal Board. It's

a fine group, and it's in place for a very good reason — for people who

have concerns with permits issued by the Ministry of Environment, or

decisions taken. If the members of the public or any specific group

want to have that permit or an action of the ministry investigated,

then the Environmental Appeal Board is the body set in place to hear

that type of appeal. So I feel confident that the work they do is well

done and well prepared and acts in the best interest of the people of

British Columbia.

In terms of the specific question you asked, I'll take that on notice. We'll respond to you tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 23: minister's office, $211,618.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

It has certainly been an exciting year in education, and I anticipate

that we will continue to have challenging and exciting times ahead. I

mean that in a very positive sense, because for all the discussions

that seem to have conflict or protagonism as the root of the reporting,

and that sort of thing, I know that as I get around to the schools and

see the education system in operation, it's a very exciting time

looking ahead to very positive changes that we can anticipate in the

education system.

Before going much further, I would like

to recognize my deputy minister, Sandy Peel, who is with me here; and

also somewhere handy is Wayne Desharnais, my assistant deputy

[ Page 4328 ]

minister.

These two people will be with me, and others may join me as required.

On behalf of all of us and the people of British Columbia, I would like

to recognize the work that these people do in keeping the education

system operating. This is a remarkable task with many problems to face

and to solve. They are a very helpful group.

[2:30]

I would also like to recognize the many times these members of

my ministry and also my own office staff are called on to go beyond

what might be anticipated in the way of duty. It is not unusual when

I'm travelling to run behind schedule. Sometimes that means getting

back two or three hours late in the interest of continuing meetings or

having the opportunity to visit schools or discuss things. I would like

to recognize the work that they do.

Something seldom

acknowledged is the contribution of their spouses, who may have planned

dinner at a certain hour and don't even get a phone call to say that

dinner or their evening plans might be delayed. I would like to

recognize those people who aren't in the direct line of fire, but who

in their own way — with their tolerance, if for no other reason — make

a considerable contribution to the education system and the people of

this province.

I might mention a few points. The Royal

Commission on Education will be reporting out soon. In this world of

rapid change, we hope that they will be able, from all of the material

they have been given, to give us a pretty good road map of where to go

in the future. It will certainly be a major help in determining the

directions that we go into the next century.

I'm also very

pleased that in this year we've had a substantial increase to education

funding. The Ministry of Education budget of $1.97 billion provides for

an 8 percent increase in grants to school districts for the 1988-89

school year, which could well be the highest increase in Canada, from

what I see happening in other provinces. The $175 million in the

shareable operating budget for this year means that the provincial

government has recognized current instructional costs in the framework

and has further provided 2.8 percent for increased instructional costs

in 1988-89 –– I think we will get to more of the particulars as we go

through my estimates.

Bringing the funding up to date to

create a more logical base required $72.4 million in the shareable

operating budgets. We've provided an ongoing automatic increase of $21

million for established salaries and benefits, operations, maintenance

and transportation funding and enrolment increases. Improvements to

existing service levels amount to an increase of $30.4 million.

Finally, the government is providing $51.2 million to support services

not recognized previously in the fiscal framework and funded entirely

by residential taxpayers in the past. In doing this, we had in fact

moved into the shareable operating budget a great deal of the money

that last year were expenditures that were justified by the school

districts in supplementary — that is, over and above the fiscal

framework. By moving it into the shareable operating, we anticipated

that the increases in the supplementary or certainly the need for

continued spending above that limit would be reduced.

From

a look at the preliminary budget, very little has happened. It appears

that that has been absorbed into the shareable operating — the fiscal

framework — and almost an equal amount has been added on as additional

spending once again. With that before them, taxpayers in increasing

numbers are starting to question why the taxes must go up so much this

year after a considerable increase last year. I'd like to point out

that we have moved in additional funding.

Fifteen million

has been provided for computer technology in addition to the sum of $42

million that was provided for at least two-thirds of that, according to

our estimates — two-thirds of the $42 million in the past couple of

years for computer technology into the schools. As I go around to the

schools, I see a great deal of productive use being made of the

computers, and I anticipate that that will go on. As has been

indicated, the $15 million that we have put into the computer program

this year is year one of a five-year plan to move in that direction.

Passport

to Education is well underway. Students this year will be the first to

be able to take a credit to their post-secondary institutions. Of

course, it will grow in years to come.

The Pacific Rim

program is exceeding all our expectations in terms of interest it has

generated. The student exchange and the teacher exchange programs for

this year are well underway, and a great deal of interest has been

shown by the Pacific Rim countries to work with us on that. Also well

underway is the teacher training and the program development necessary

to provide some of the Pacific Rim languages in our school system and

to bring people in to assist with that.

I did mention the

Royal Commission on Education. We have worked into the budget this year

an amount so that as soon as the report is brought forward we can look

at analyzing it and whatever steps can be taken to implement it as

quickly as possible.

There's a small starter fund set aside for native Indian languages development in the school programs.

major move that we have made is in the capital budget area. There we

have again announced the first two years of a five-year planning

process to meet the school construction needs. Last year, as people may

recall, we had some $50 million with a commitment for this year so that

the planning done last year could go forward this year. This year we

have $53.9 million committed for major capital projects and a

commitment for $118 million next year, so whatever is being planned

this year can be constructed next year and completed as soon as

possible. Again, it's a very significant increase both in the level of

funding and in the prior commitment so that the planning process can be

better rationalized. In addition, $55 million was committed to minor

capital projects for this next coming year, with a much earlier

announcement so that boards and maintenance staffs can get started on

it; plus another $23 million in the operating budget itself for the

type of things that used to go into minor capital projects.

All

of this means that school boards can plan ahead and set their summer

work

schedule because of our earlier announcement and because of the

firm commitment of what will be funded. I might point out that the

specifics of exactly which projects are approved are now in the works

and should be made known to school boards very shortly.

far as administration, we underwent a major reorganization this last

summer with two specific purposes in mind. First, there was a need to

consolidate the financial function in the ministry to ensure enhanced

financial effectiveness with the resources available. Secondly, the

ministry needed to ship substantial resources to the evaluation

function in order to increase, in a major way, the work of evaluating

the level of achievement in the public school system in British

Columbia. As a result of this restructuring, there have been significant

[ Page

4329 ]

accomplishments in the ministry during the

past year. In the '86-87 annual report, we outlined four goals and six

attributes of the education system as well as an image statement of the

educated person. All ministry activities are now linked to the mission

goals, and constant efforts have been made over the past year to

communicate the mission and goals to the school districts.

the school district funding area, standard costs have been established

for teachers' salaries and instructional costs, and work continues on

the development of standard costs in the area of school operating costs

and student transportation. I might just point out that if we can get a

standard cost, we can plan and budget ahead in a much better way.

That's what we have done this year by bringing funding up to the

standards. We can then look ahead in some respect as to what we need

for the following year. We can also anticipate better what might be

needed in the future. We've moved to a five-to-six-year review cycle

for curriculum. All new curriculum materials include detailed learning

outcomes that school districts are expected to use as standards of

learning and achievement. Major efforts are underway to provide more

information in the annual report on cost effectiveness of the education

system and, where possible, measurement indicators for the education

system's success in meeting the stated goals of education.

There are a number of ongoing ministry programs. The child abuse prevention

program has gotten a lot of attention for the child abusers who have been found

and dealt with. But I think it's a measure of its success, really, that

these people are being weeded out of the education system. With the attendant

publicity, hopefully there will be no child abuse left in the school system.

The coordinator has done a great job in that regard.

far as small secondary schools are concerned, we are continuing our

commitment to see that a quality education is provided to students

attending those schools. Creative new approaches are being taken which

combine correspondence courses with strong technical support from audio

and video materials, computers, etc. I think it's vital that students

in small rural schools receive an equally fine program of studies as is

offered elsewhere across the province. I would like to extend my

commendation to the people in the small schools who have come forth

with many very positive suggestions about what might make it possible

for them to offer better equality of opportunity to the students in

their schools.

I want to thank the many teachers, students

and school boards who have invited me to see their schools over the

past year. It has always been a pleasure for me to visit the schools

because I see many imaginative, innovative, positive things going on

and great things happening with the dedicated, committed people working

with students in the school system. I am sometimes perplexed when I

still hear in some schools: "Why are you putting down teachers? Why are

you putting down the education system?" I defy anyone to find where I

have put down the work that teachers do in schools and the work that's

going on in the education system.

As a matter of fact, I have taken the opposite view. I think they are to be

commended for the work they do, and I have constantly believed in positive reinforcement.

If we talk about the good things going on in the school system and build on

those, I think we can accomplish a great deal more and get a great deal more

support from the community, the taxpayers and from everyone. People are very

much more inclined to invest more money in what they consider a basically good

system that needs improvements than they are when they are being told that it's

an inadequate system.

I'm

not just being emotional about that. In any comparison we make across

this country in objective tests, our students come out very well. My

commendations are to all those at the school level who make that happen

and certainly to the board members who devote a great deal of time to

bring about an improved education system to deal with the many concerns

and problems that they are faced with — far and above the weekly or

monthly meetings that some people think is all the trustees do. Many of

them work on committees, and they do a great deal of work on those.

Again

I would like to thank all those involved in the education community for

providing me with advice, assistance and ideas. Many of the ideas now

incorporated in the Ministry of Education — in our programs, policies

and curriculum development — started a few years ago by someone who

said: "I have a better idea, and I'd like you to take a moment to hear

me out."

We can — as a partnership with the teachers,

school boards, taxpayers and students — have an improved education

system, and we have a pretty good one now. With that, I welcome any

questions that people may have, and I know the questions will be

strictly in the line of support for the education system we have in

this province.

[2:45]

MR. JONES :

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister and his deputy. It's

a pleasure for me to rise and assist the minister in his very important

task of ensuring that the young people of this province have a bright

future through the education system, to make constructive suggestions

to the minister aimed at areas where I think he needs to focus his

attention more on certain inadequacies and to encourage him to work

even harder on those areas where we have made progress.

would like to thank the minister for his view of the world, although I

am sure it is not completely shared by all British Columbians. There

were some areas that I would like to commend the minister for

mentioning. He did mention that the school system in British Columbia

is an exciting place, and I certainly agree with that. It's always made

more exciting in British Columbia with the Social Credit government

which makes education a political football.

He also

mentioned — and I commend him for it — the sacrifices of the many

families in this province who contribute their time and effort, often

at great sacrifice to the family, to all those long hours of work that

go to make British Columbia a better place through the education system

in this province.

I would like to begin by putting our

system of education in 1988 in British Columbia in context — in a

historical and Canadian context. I don't have to remind the minister,

and I'm sure the minister doesn't want me to remind him, of some of the

tragic legacy that he must carry with him in his role as Minister of

Education. I'm sure I don't have to remind him of the years of

restraint and cost-cutting that really have created a distortion in our

public school system that has diminished the overall quality of

education offered to B.C.'s children and to some degree has damaged the

morale and sense of common purpose among administrators and teachers in

this province.

It's unfortunate that the minister does face this legacy of confusion and mismanagement, much of it caused by lack of

[ Page 4330 ]

consultation,

lack of careful planning and lack of commitment to the goals of public

education on behalf of the government of British Columbia, and in

particular caused to some degree by an excess of distrust for those who

teach our children in this province. I hope through my remarks to deal

with some of the issues that may help the minister break with this

legacy of the past, this legacy of mismanagement, and help him in his

job of providing for the children of this province the kind of quality

education that we all want to see. I think the minister is well aware

of that historical legacy.

He's also well aware of the

Canadian context in which we operate in British Columbia. The question

of finance of education has always been at the heart of controversy in

this province. I'd like to spend some time dealing with the financial

aspects. The minister certainly raised them in his introductory

remarks. The financial contribution, support and effort of the province

of British Columbia under successive Socred administrations has

certainly been a focal point of controversy. I think this contributes

to much of the malaise that the minister, at least to some degree,

glossed over in his remarks.

The minister did mention the

Canadian context, the interprovincial comparisons, at a recent BCSTA

annual general meeting. Quite properly, in his remarks the minister

said that it would be improper for a government to pride itself on

higher costs of education as a major criterion in judging that system.

However, I think it would also be foolish to pride one's government on

looking at lower costs as a major criterion of the success of a system.

We cannot neglect the fact that the financial effort is some measure of

a province's concern, priority and caring for its education system.

Certainly

there are many other measures that we should be looking at in addition

to the financial contribution. Many of those are not as easy as

counting the cold, hard cash contribution of a province. We should be

looking at the withdrawal rates, the participation rates in

post-secondary institutions, and the attitude of the public towards the

government's contribution to education. We should be looking at other

attitudinal kinds of things such as the desire of the young people of

the province to become teachers of children.

We all know

that the Canadian economic climate in every province faced a downturn

in the eighties. Many provinces suffered worse than British Columbia

did. But what we have seen exacerbating the problem in this decade in

British Columbia is a systematic underfunding, relative to other

provinces, under successive Social Credit administrations. At the

annual general meeting of the B.C. School Trustees' Association that I

mentioned, the Minister of Education spent a good deal of time in what

I think was a futile attempt to discredit the interprovincial

comparisons — those comparisons put out by Statistics Canada and the

Council of Ministers of Education, of which the minister is a member,

and those figures the minister does not hesitate to include in his

annual report. So I think they certainly are credible enough.

The

minister indicated, with respect to interprovincial comparisons, that

if he included all kinds of other things — capital expenditures and

those kinds of things — then the minister could credit British Columbia

with the highest per-pupil spending in Canada. That is certainly not a

valid argument, and I'm sure that ministers across Canada would be

interested to hear that the Minister of Education of British Columbia

believes that B.C. spends more per pupil than the other provinces. Even

if that argument, as futile as it is, were true — and it's not — it

would still not be valid in the sense that what we've seen, even with

those figures, is a continual annual slide of this province's

contribution to education down to the bottom of the pack in this decade.

The

minister at that same meeting described the provincial contribution as

being at the middle of the pack. Well, last year I indicated to the

minister that our per-pupil spending was the lowest west of New

Brunswick. I'm sad to say that I was wrong, because at the time I was

speaking we had slipped even lower in per-pupil spending. The

situation, according to the latest Statistics Canada figures, shows

that in terms of per-pupil expenditure we are now the lowest west of

Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, according to the

latest StatsCan figures, have moved ahead of British Columbia in

per-pupil spending. Two provinces, with some 155,000 pupils in them,

are the only provinces with less financial contribution per student on

behalf of their provincial governments in Canadian dollars — less money

in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island than in British Columbia — so

that suggests that that 3.5 percent of the Canadian student population

represents the only students who live in a province whose government

contributes less. The minister says British Columbia is in the middle

of the pack; we're right at the bottom of the pack, except for that 3.5

percent of the student population.

The slide I mentioned

has been systematic and progressive. In 1978, in terms of per-pupil

spending, we were second behind Quebec. In 1982 we were third; we'd

moved behind Quebec and Alberta. In 1984 we were sixth — keeping in

mind that every province in the eighties suffered the difficult

economic times of that early part of the decade. By 1987-88, as I

mentioned, we were eighth, behind Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island

— two very clearly identified have-not provinces in this country.

terms of per-pupil expenditure in that year the province of British

Columbia contributed only 84 percent of the national average, and less

than the American national average — considering all the American

have-not states. That American national average had just increased its

spending per pupil. Because they recognized the importance of the

education of their children to the future prosperity of that country,

they had just increased, as a national average in the United States,

their contribution to the tune of $250 per pupil. So not only have we

slipped in terms of the Canadian context; we've slipped in terms of the

North American context. We had the lowest percentage increase in the

years '81-87 of any province in Canada, and half of that of some other

provinces.

I'd like to commend the minister for his

contribution this year to putting an end to that trend. However, I

suggest that those moneys that were quite rightly put into the

education system in this budget were those moneys that were promised to

the school system as part of the funds for excellence in education.

Those moneys were part of the $600 million that the province of British

Columbia promised to the education system of this province in 1986. A

vast amount of that $600 million was unspent. Where did that money go?

I would like to commend the minister for that contribution, but I

suggest to him that it was underspent money from the funds of the

excellence in education program — part of a previous education promise

to the school system in this province.

[3:00]

As I've said, we've seen the continual slide in contribution. I

suggest that this year's contribution — as welcome as it might be — is

not going to stem the tide, is not going to reverse the trend, and in

fact, is going to be part of the

[ Page

4331 ]

continual slide in terms of interprovincial and

North American comparisons. I would like to ask the minister where he

sees the future position of British Columbia being for per-pupil

spending across Canada.

I'd like him to promise this

Legislature that we'll see the end to the slide. I'd like to ask the

minister if he uses these compelling arguments of interprovincial

comparisons and comparisons with other jurisdictions in North America

when he goes to Treasury Board to ask for funds on behalf of the people

in British Columbia. Perhaps I'll leave it there and ask the minister

to respond to those three questions.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I guess we've just heard the member sum up his approach of:

"Improvements are being made, but let's not talk about those. We've got

to go back over last year, two years or three years ago." In other

words, there is no way that he can bring himself to say that maybe

we've turned the corner, maybe we're spending more. There's no way that

the member can acknowledge the larger amounts of money that we've been

putting into education in the last two years for operating, capital,

minor capital. There's absolutely no way he can acknowledge that

without saying it's not good enough; it's too late; it should have been

done years ago. It wasn't.

Don't go back in history; we're

moving at this point. I think he agrees that education is not

necessarily to be judged by "let's see who can spend the most to get

the job done." He doesn't say that, but then his whole argument

revolves on who has spent more to get the same job done. I suppose that

will be ever the case.

If we were at the top of the heap, I

suppose with the negative approach that the member must take, he would

be wondering how we're wasting the money in education. As long as we're

somewhere else.... I don't know what figures the member uses; they

certainly don't compare to the statistics I get about us being down at

the bottom of the heap.

MR. JONES : StatsCan.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

StatsCan. I don't know what figures they are using, because I get

certain figures from them, and we don't seem to be down at the bottom

of the heap. Even they will acknowledge that the homeowner grant, which

other provinces don't include — that is, it's not included and worked

into our per cost per pupil — makes quite a difference.

That's

what I've said to the member: what are you comparing? I do know this:

all the provinces and all the ministers have realized the inadequacy of

the basis for comparing. It wasn't that much of an issue when people

took it as a comparison. Since it has become the whole determinant for

educational quality by the opposition and by critics, therefore there

should be a degree of accuracy built in. The Canadian Council of

Ministers of Education has set up a committee, working with Statistics

Canada, to see if we can make valid comparisons.

When I add

in the other costs that are not included — and they vary from province

to province, year to year — everyone agrees that you cannot do a valid

comparison of per-pupil costs, because different things are included. I

can use our figure for last year, anywhere from $4,000 to $4,600,

depending on what is included. The opposition critic says that's not

true. I could show him the figures. It just depends which columns I

include: statutory benefits, non-statutory benefits, pension

contributions, homeowner grant, commercial or non-commercial property.

Just change the statistics — if it is so important that he judges

education strictly by the amount spent per pupil.

I'm more

inclined to think and I think a lot of people might agree with me: is

the job being done? Whenever we compare the quality of education, the

quality of our students being turned out in British Columbia, we

measure up at the top of the heap. But the member ignores those

statistics; he doesn't want to talk about those. He says: "Let's talk

about the amount of money." It's apparently irrelevant to the critics

whether the job is being done. How the costs compare is the only

argument we seem to hear.

As far as this total controversy

about financing, since the member has decided that we're the bad guys,

I would say it has been to his advantage — and to the advantage of some

of the critics — to keep a constant controversy going on financial

matters by selectively using figures to say it's awful, when we could

be dealing with educational issues. A tragic legacy, he calls it. Our

pupils have done well through the '80s in educational terms. Our

teachers have done well in educational terms, and in financial terms.

Yet the member says we have a tragic legacy. I would suggest that this

whole confrontation, this damaged morale.... If you listened to the

member's comments in response to my comments, his whole focus was on

saying how bad everything is. So it's politically in his interests, I

guess, to try to maintain the perception — false, in my opinion — that

our education system is a disaster. In that way he can keep

capitalizing on it and saying we just need to put more money into it.

Never mind what the results are.

I have difficulty with

some of the arguments that the member makes. For instance, he says we

must look at the withdrawal rates. He uses Ontario as one of the higher

spenders in education on a per-pupil basis. Guess what? Their

withdrawal rate is higher than British Columbia's. There is no definite

correlation between amount spent per pupil and the withdrawal rates in

the education system, yet somehow the member seems to say we don't

spend enough, ipso facto our withdrawal rate is bad. Across this

country you can't find a positive correlation — not across the board.

You might find one if you compare two provinces against each other, but

you cannot find a consistent comparison of withdrawal rates relative to

the amount of money spent.

In answer to the member's

question — which somehow or other I think I've lost in all his negative

comment — I can assure the member that we are committed to keeping the

education system a high priority, as we have been doing. But to ask me,

regardless of the results, regardless of any other reasons, whether I

will commit to saying we are going to work to be the highest spenders

in education across this nation, no way. I want results, not just high

costs.

MR. JONES : The minister accused me of looking

selectively at figures. I think the minister is guilty of selective

hearing. I said very clearly that I commended the minister for his

efforts in terms of funding this year. I don't blame him for wanting to

forget the legacy that is his albatross. Certainly if I was Minister of

Education and I had that kind of tragic history to bring with me, I

would be very anxious to forget that as well.

The minister

seems to want to come in here and have a love-in. If he wants a

love-in, maybe he should go to St. George's or the Fraser Institute or

the corporations that have

[ Page 4332 ]

had

their taxes reduced tremendously in this province. But if he wants to

come in here and debate education, then be prepared to do so, and be

prepared to listen to the kinds of things that I said. I said very

clearly to the minister that the funding aspect.... We're going to

be here for a little while, and I thought I would get at what has been

at the core of problems in this province for this decade, if not

before, and deal with some of the funding questions — get those out of

the way and get on to some of the more educational things. I said very

clearly that this is not the single priority, that being the highest

spender in the country is not the objective of this side of the House.

I said one measure of a government's concern, effort and priority is

its contribution to education.

did say we should be

looking at other things, and we will have a look at things such as

withdrawal rates, participation rates, the attitudes of the public and

the desire of young people to become teachers in this province. Don't

twist what I said. I said very clearly that those statistics are valid.

They have been valid for years. They can be made more valid. I'm sure,

as part of the Council of Ministers of Education, you'll do your best

to make them more valid. They have been used as a basis of comparison,

but suddenly the minister has just discovered these statistics that he

has been printing in his annual reports. Now he wants to discredit

those statistics because they make this government look bad — very bad

— in terms of interprovincial comparisons across this country.

I'd

like to suggest that we see virtually no members on the opposite side

of this House, particularly the Premier. I'm sure the Chairman has

noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has been an active

participant in all the major debates in this Legislature; he has made

his contribution to this province through his full participation. The

Leader of the Opposition would like to say a few words about financing,

about some problems of inner-city schools. I'd like to relinquish my

spot and have the Leader of the Opposition say a few words in debate to

the Minister of Education.

MR. HARCOURT : I am

pleased to say a few things about the education estimates. I regard it

as one the most important areas of activity in the province, if not the

most important, to the point where I was prepared to put a brief before

the Sullivan commission on the education prospects for our young

people, as we approach an uncertain twenty-first century. For those

reasons, I wanted to reiterate some of the remarks I made to the

Sullivan commission presentation at Notre Dame School in the east side

of Vancouver.

I had three areas in particular, Mr.

Chairman, that I wanted to address to the commission. I'd like the

minister and his deputy to hear them too, because they are three of the

key problems that the education system is facing in the public school

system throughout British Columbia. In particular, I want to talk about

some of the problems that the constituents in Vancouver Centre — and

the other inner-city schools — are facing.

The three areas

that I will be talking about are: first, the funding formula; second,

Vancouver's inner-city schools, and an education system for the rich

and another one for the poor families in our city; and third, the

problems of hungry schoolchildren, which you'll be hearing more about

from the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), who has

presented a bill to the Legislature to address that particular issue.

The

minister, in response to our able education critic from Burnaby North,

stated that the critic kept saying that the education system is a

disaster. I didn't hear him say that at all; I heard him saying that

what's happening in this province in education is not good enough.

That's the point. We're not here to score political Brownie points —

whether we like each other or not, to say good or bad things. The main

reason we're here is stated very well in this brief that was also

presented to the Royal Commission on Education by the Vancouver

Elementary School Administrators' Association. It's a quote. Although

we may not like this particular trade deal, we certainly are free

traders in ideas, and I'm quite prepared to quote from a great poet

from among our closest friends and neighbours to the south of us, in

the United States, Carl Sandburg, who is at the introduction to this

brief from the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association

to the Royal Commission on Education called "The Future is Theirs. " On

the cover is a picture of children of every ethnic community that makes

up the mosaic of which we're very proud in British Columbia. That's

really why we're here, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister and your deputy.

[3:15]

Carl

Sandburg wrote: "There's only one child in the world; and the child's

name is all children." That's really what it's about: a future for our

young people; that they're properly educated, trained, able to go into

the job market, able to be enriched citizens of our fortunate,

democratic society. I don't make these remarks as the leader of the New

Democratic Party and of the opposition to play Jimmy Chicken — that

this government is a disaster; their policies are a disaster; what's

happening is not good enough for these children. These comments about

the financing formula, the problems of the Vancouver inner-city

schools, of 500 schoolchildren per day coming to those schools

hungry.... I make them for those children, because that's what we're

here

for. We may have different priorities: whether we should be wasting

$500 million on the Coquihalla or investing a few million well-invested

dollars into the education system.

The member for Burnaby

North (Mr. Jones) talks about areas in the education system suffering

difficulties, and one of the areas has been that of confrontation. That

has been one of the most unfortunate benchmarks of the last few years

in education, because the education system has been fraught with

confrontation, to a large extent by the misguided policies of this and

the past government, a government that is out of touch with the real

needs of our communities, which differ from area to area throughout

British Columbia.

These policies in a government that is

out of touch have created an adversarial environment in which each of

the players find themselves pitted against the others. We have the

government pitted against school boards, school boards against

taxpayers, teachers against parents, and all the combinations in

between. This isn't just the normal give and take and different

interests that I've observed in 30 years — more than that, back to the

age of four — in the education system in this province, as being

extreme and exasperating. That's why, on behalf of the New Democratic

Party caucus, I put in some remarks to the royal commission: to try and

transcend the short-term problems that our education system is having.

Although,

as the minister says, you don't want to throw money at problems or

throw money at systems, we're not suggesting that. We're suggesting

that those jurisdictions that are prospering are the ones that have

made education their primary area of investment, whether it be

Massachusetts, California, Washington, Japan, or some of the European

countries. They've made it their primary area of investment.

[ Page 4333 ]

Brain

power — creativity and imagination, the ability of our young people to

adapt. This adversarial system squeezes us away from that emphasis on

the big picture and the need of a good education for our young people.

The

unfair nature of the financing formula we have in British Columbia

right now shows up in the confrontational approach of the minister On

February 21, the Minister of Education announced that teachers'

salaries for the 1988-89 school year would be limited to a 2.8 percent

increase. That is total interference with the collective bargaining

process; an unnecessary restriction on school boards. Anything

negotiated beyond the 2.8 percent would force the school boards to

reach into the taxpayers' pockets and increase residential property

tax. It's exaggerated even more because of this unfair, overall

investment in education and the focusing of any increases on to the

residential property tax. This is not the way, Mr. Chairman, that a

responsible government should be dealing with our education system.

understand that governments should be budgeting carefully, but that

should come only after consultation with our school boards and

respecting the fact that our school boards understand the needs of our

communities throughout the province. That kind of respect and

consultation doesn't come from what the government is doing now, aside

from arbitrarily and unilaterally setting that 2.8 percent increase on

teachers' salaries. It doesn't come by redefining the duties of

teachers and their hours of work without prior consultation and without

regard for the bargaining process.

What we have is a

government that is confrontational; it doesn't consult. Its actions

show that they are not interested in consultation. It's a front, a

cover for their own agenda, which belittles our own educational system.

want to draw to this House's attention this major problem which I put

before the Sullivan commission and which that commission is coming to

terms with. Hopefully, they will put a full report before us, not at

the government's hurried pace of June 1 but when they are able to put a

comprehensive and full report before us, because they have received 180

extra submissions as at the close of submissions at the end of March. I

want the minister and this government to allow the commission to have

the opportunity to digest those 180 reports and submit a full royal

commission report on the future of our young people as soon as possible

— not some artificial deadline that is governed by already prepared

government legislation and game plans in secret for our education

system.

What I said, Mr. Chairman, at the Sullivan

commission I'll repeat today: the present funding formula is simply

unfair. It treats school districts more or less equally and, secondly,

it generates artificial cost assumptions that don't correspond to

reality. For example, if a district is compact, with schools close

together, its budget may be adequate, but if it is in a rural area like

Atlin, which I visited last year, where the schools are scattered and

the local economy is weak, it's badly hurt by the design of the funding

arrangements.

Person after person that I spoke to in Atlin

made that point — the desperation of their school district's financial

situation because of these artificial assumptions of financing

education in rural areas. In other words, we need a funding formula

that the minister doesn't laugh at. I'd laugh about it too if I was the

minister of mis-education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm laughing at your comment.

MR. HARCOURT : I would laugh too if I was putting these poor people through

that kind of squeeze just so their kids can get a decent education. I can see

that the minister doesn't take education very seriously at all when he laughs

at the comments being given in good faith in this Legislature to help him finally

see that what he is doing isn't good enough for the young people in this

province, and to try to stop his giving us his rote: "Negative, doubting

people, you're just offering disaster scenarios; you don't know what

you're talking about; you're mixing up your figures; you're distorting

the reality...."

I've

heard it from you time after time, Mr. Minister. When are you going to

get serious about education in this province? Why don't you look at a

financing formula that allows for a more equitable distribution of the

tax burden between the provincial government and school boards,

provides fairer property taxes for individual taxpayers and builds

stability into our education system? I see that some of the heckling is

coming from the past Minister of Post-Secondary Education, who

basically said when he was the minister that if you don't have wealthy

parents, tough on a post-secondary education. I can see why he would be

heckling. I'd be embarrassed, too, if I had that kind of a track record

as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education.

From 1972 to

1975 we took seriously a royal commission on education, and we asked an

outstanding British Columbian by the name of Bob McMath, who has

decades of experience in the education system and was a well-respected

alderman in Richmond — I am sure the member from Richmond will agree —

to look at the financing formula in our school system. That commission,

after extensive presentations, recommended that 75 percent of B.C.'s

education costs should come from provincial funding and 25 percent from

property taxes.

MR. LOENEN : We've done better.

MR. HARCOURT :

Yes, you have. You have expropriated the property tax from the

commercial and industrial people and taken away from the school boards.

That's the Social Credit view of doing better — expropriating

unilaterally the source of revenue from school districts. As a matter

of fact, in 1982, after the provincial government did that, they'd been

lowering the amount of tax recovered from commercial and industrial

sources. Commercial sources have dropped from 35 percent of total funds

for education to 21 percent.

While it's laudable that the

provincial government's share has increased from 51 percent to 59

percent during those years, the tax burden on individual taxpayers has

not dropped correspondingly. The reasons are that this Social Credit

government and past ones, by controlling the commercial tax rates and

keeping their own share unrealistically low, have forced school boards

to go to the homeowners and tenants to seek additional residential

taxes to fill the gap in the education system.

While school

board budgets have risen only 10 percent since 1982, those school

boards have been forced to increase residential taxes 77 percent to

make up the shortfalls. As the minister has disputed the figures that

have come from the very able critic on education from Burnaby North, I

would like to let you know that during that five-year period I've just

referred to, the figures I have confirm what our education critic has

been hearing — which you refuse to hear — that we

[ Page 4334 ]

have

fallen from near the top to the bottom in Canada on school district

expenditures per student. According to Statistics Canada, only the

Maritime provinces spend less per student than B.C.

fact, in B.C. we have increased our expenditures only $375 per student

over the last five years — far and away the least of Canada's

provinces. Those are the facts, Mr. Minister. You may not like them, as

our critic from Burnaby North has said, but those are the facts. If you

are of the school most of your colleagues seem to be from, of "Don't

confuse me with the facts; we've already decided to mistreat education,

" then so be it. But those facts are in stark contrast to the

provincial government's own 1985 budget which promised that the

decrease in non-residential school tax revenue would be fully

compensated for by an increase in contributions to school districts

from provincial general revenue. That hasn't happened. What has

happened instead is that by forcing school boards to go to individual

taxpayers for more money, the provincial government is playing politics

with the future of our children.

On February 18, 1988,

after the minister's interference once again with the collective

bargaining process in setting that artificial limit on negotiations

with teachers, the Vancouver Sun said: "It's an old game that has been

played for a long time in Victoria. The provincial government

shortchanges the education system but sees to it that the school board

gets the blame." What they do is create a hostile and divided

relationship between those parties who should be working together for a

healthy education system. It drains the energy of school boards,

teachers, parents and people involved in education away from the

primary purpose of educating our young as well as possible so that they

may play a full and meaningful role in British Columbia.

[3:30]

The present funding formula is not workable. It leaves a legacy of unfairness.

We must find a realistic and equitable method of funding education, and we hope

that the Sullivan commission, after listening to the hundreds of representations

around this province, will give us some further guidance in updating the McMath

proposals. It's only through sufficient additional funding that school boards

can accomplish those programs that British Columbians want and expect, such

to name a few.

This

inequity in school financing shows up very starkly in my riding,

Vancouver Centre. Because of the quality of the people in the system

who refuse to roll over and quit and be cynical, and because they are

prepared to say that the future is theirs — the children of our

province — and to put a brief in to the Royal Commission on Education,

I think it's worth listening, Mr. Minister, to what the Vancouver

Elementary School Administrators' Association has had to say about the

problems of inner-city schools in Vancouver.

Their position

paper prepared in January 1988 states that there are 10 to 13

elementary schools in Vancouver that can be classified as inner-city

schools. They base that number on eight characteristics which are

contained in the brief, and I'll summarize them for you: (1) proximity

to a core industrial area; (2) lower income or lower socio-economic

status; (3) high unemployment; (4) higher student transience and

absenteeism along with social and emotional problems; (5) higher levels

overcrowded housing; (7) a lower level of education on the part of the

parents; and (8) poor interaction between parents and children.

What

we're talking about is the poverty of circumstance, those kinds of

circumstance that increase the likelihood of failure in a regular

school system. These inner-city children from deprived backgrounds lack

the basic skills and aptitude assumed by the regular curriculum. They

come to school without the advantages of a lot of children in this

province. In other words, these children are not starting from the same

point as their more fortunate peers.

I think it's worth

quoting from the Province newspaper

article that just came out on the

weekend: "School Elitism Hits City Kids." Andrew Ross, the staff

reporter, reports what we've been seeing through the media, which many

of us, whether we're politicians, educators, parents, journalists or

concerned citizens, can tell you about the Vancouver school system.

This is what the

article says: "Vancouver schools are getting better

for the rich and worse for the poor, educators say. They charge that

Socred restraint policies have created a more elitist school system

than B.C. has ever seen."

One of the offshoots of relying

on the financial resources of the parents of the children in the system

is that more and more schools are having to rely on fund-raising

activities for "extras" like computers, like extra-curricular

activities. At a school like Shaughnessy Elementary, the parents raised

$20,000 at a circus bazaar. At some of the inner-city schools, the

parents don't have that kind of money. The parents are doing this not

out of a sense of adding to the quality of education for their

children, but out of desperation to give their children the quality of

education they deserve. From the basic funding that should be there,

fund-raising is now a desperate way of life for most of these schools

and most parents.

I quote the

article again:

"Fund-raising is a direct result of five years of government

restraint and has led to a two-tier system of 'have' and 'have-not'

schools,' says Noel Herron, principal of Strathcona Elementary.

"And it's not much different in the suburbs.

"We've got schools with more computers than others because

of better fund-raising capabilities,' says Coquitlam school trustee Louella

Hollington."'

Obviously, Mr. Minister, you're not prepared to listen to my research.

You're not prepared to listen to Noel Herron, the principal of Strathcona

Elementary School. You're not prepared to listen to all his colleagues listed

here. You're prepared to sit there and make snide remarks, showing your

distaste for your job. I don't blame you. I'd feel my job was distasteful

if I were doing it the way you are. You're not prepared to listen to Noel

Herron of Strathcona School, Gail Sear of Moberly School, Stanley French of

Queen Elizabeth, Allan Garneau of Maple Grove, Graham Nixon of Kitchener, Dennis

Jantzi of Emily Carr, and about another 30 people who were prepared to put this

brief together for you to read, instead of sitting over there sucking on your

thumb.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member!

MR. HARCOURT : Oh, his thumb wasn't in his mouth; it was just beside his mouth.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I would suggest that that really isn't....

[ Page 4335 ]

MR. HARCOURT : I withdraw that remark. It looked like his thumb was in his mouth, and it wasn't.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my name-calling of that member. It was on impulse after his very reasonable description of me.

MR. HARCOURT : And I withdrew my remark. You were not doing what I said

you were doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I see the first member for Victoria out of the comer of my eye, standing on a ....

MR. G. HANSON : I was about to rise on a point of order, but I think the minister has withdrawn.

MR. HARCOURT : If the minister is prepared to listen, I'd like to let him know about the....

Why

don't you go out and take a breather, Mr. Minister? It may improve your

situation. If you don't like to hear these kinds of things, if you

can't stand dealing with anything other than a fantasyland education

system, please leave. I know you're not going to listen to these things

that parents and educators, people in the media, people on this side of

the Legislature, say need to be done in our education system. You don't

want to hear it. You don't really care about these kids that I've had

to work with for 20 years. But I'm going to tell the record about them,

because there are things that we're going to be dealing with when we

very shortly get to be government in this province, Mr. Minister.

What

the administrators, parents, media and interested citizens in our city

have to say about these children in the inner-city schools, for example

— I'm glad to see that your deputy, at least, is writing this down, and

I hope he's read the report — is that there is a direct correlation

between success in reading and school achievement, and that inner-city

children are often deficient in basic language skills. I'll read from

the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association report,

which states: "Lacking the language development, the peripheral,

attentional and motivational skills and the positive self-images of

their non-deprived peers, these children seem to fall increasingly

behind." The gap between students at inner-city schools and others is

there when they arrive at school, and it widens with time. By grade 4,

many are an average of two years behind their peers; by grade 7, the

gap may be unbridgeable. Mr. Minister, these children need help.

Starving the education system means insufficient funding for remedial

programs, creating a burden that falls more heavily upon the poorest of

students.

The Vancouver Elementary School Administrators'

Association report describes these children's special problems. They

are, first, delayed development of basic skills relating to language

use, and second, poor auditory and visual discrimination. I was very

pleased, when I was the mayor of Vancouver, to be able to help the

health department at our city hall, along with some very fine citizens,

put together a mobile unit that could go out and test schoolchildren

for auditory and visual discrimination, and to add a second vehicle

able to do that. That's the reality of our school system in the inner

city, and those are the kinds of resources that those children deserve

and need. The third area of their special problems is delayed concept

formation, which, I'm sure the minister and deputy minister will

remember, is the ability to categorize, classify and express abstract

ideas.

Without specific programs to deal with these

problems, those children will never have a fair chance to fulfil their

potential and realize their dreams, Mr. Minister, and are instead

doomed to be underachievers. B.C.'s education system must get to them

early and help them overcome their disadvantages. Let me reiterate

several programs recommended by the VESAA report. If the member for

Vancouver South, who grew up in Shaughnessy, were here to listen to me,

after asking me for some positive recommendations, I would be prepared

to give them to him. I'll send him a copy of the Hansard report of my

remarks and a copy of this report so that he can read them, and maybe

convince you to deal with these very real problems.

Here

are a number of the very positive recommendations that came from the

administrators of our schools: preschool for all four-year-olds;

parenting programs for the working poor; smaller classes to increase

quality of student-teacher contact; adequate health and counselling

systems; strategies to improve child care and community health

programs; in- service training for teachers and principals in the ways

of working with disadvantaged students; additional support for

classroom teachers, to enhance early intervention strategies such as

home-school workers and staff assistance.

I'm sure the

minister is going to say: "Oh, that's well and good. Those are very

nice programs. But where are you going to get the money? It's just

throwing money at problems." It's not throwing money at problems; it's

dealing with children who have very severe disadvantages, Mr. Minister.

What we're here to say today is yes, the cost of implementing these

programs may be high; but the costs of inaction are higher. The

Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' report estimates: "For

every $1 spent today to prevent educational failure, we can save $4.75

in the cost of remedial education, welfare and crime further down the

road." So go talk to the Attorney-General. the Minister of Social

Services and the Minister of Health about the big picture of the

government's bookkeeping, because that's where these expenditures are

so cost-effective, let alone the human reality of helping these young

people realize their dreams.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time under standing orders has expired.

MR. JONES :

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition has a lot more

to teach the Minister of Education, and I know the Minister of

Education will want to hear those lessons.

MR. HARCOURT :

I'd like to deal with a couple of other points. The fact is that

Vancouver lags behind other major cities in spending per student on an

annual basis. For example, it spends $300 to $1,200 less per student

than Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa or Toronto. As well, the

comparison between Vancouver and the cities of Montreal, Toronto,

Winnipeg and Regina regarding inner-city services funded under the

Ministry of Education shows that Vancouver trails the others in the

following areas: pre-kindergarten classes and staffing of

pre-kindergarten classes; size of primary-grade classes; number of

full-time, paid teachers' aides or assistants; school lunch programs;

in-service training.

There is one bright spot. It should be

noted that the one area where Vancouver is at par with the other cities

[ Page 4336 ]

deserve

full commendation. Although demands are being made for better funding

for ESL programs, it appears ESL is the only inner-city program being

recognized fully under the provincial government's fiscal framework.

[3:45]

What I'm saying on behalf of the New Democratic Party and my

constituents in Vancouver Centre, and the other inner-city schools, Mr.

Minister, is that our inner-city students deserve a fair chance. If we

do not fund programs that will equip these youngsters with the skills

that others gain in the regular curriculum, we limit their potential

and, what's worse, perhaps damage their future before they even get out

of primary school.

As I said earlier, the third area I

presented to the Sullivan commission on education is that of the hungry

schoolchildren in our school system. More than 500 children go to

school hungry in Vancouver every day. That hunger leaves them lethargic

and inattentive in class; they can't learn properly. This government's

answer to the problem of hungry schoolchildren was a search-and-destroy

mission on their parents as to why they weren't feeding them. Well, the

Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) said that he was going

to give the parents some counselling on how to spend the money they

receive, which hasn't increased in five years, on feeding their

children better; or take their kids away — that was the implied threat — if they couldn't feed their kids.

Instead of dealing in a

very unobtrusive, non-stigmatizing way with this easily doable program

of feeding children in the schools, which the hon. member for

Maillardville- Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) has laid out in a private

member's bill and has spoken to time after time, what happens? This

government has got to go and confront somebody who doesn't deserve it —

some poor people on social assistance. What a disgusting, moralistic

approach, which would rather blame the victims than solve the problem.

raise this concern because I believe it is a specific provincial

government responsibility that you have ducked over and over again as a

government. You could work with the federal government, with the school

board, with the city of Vancouver, who are trying desperately to deal

with this problem that you refuse to confront. The harm being done is

being done to children.

I look at the circles the school

board and the schools and the food banks and the city council have to

go through, and sometimes the silliness that comes out of it — the

tragic silliness, where the school board finally votes against putting

the dough into this program to feed these kids and bounces it over to

the city council, which only has the property tax to pay for these

programs. The city council votes on it, and they need a two-thirds

vote. When they get seven votes out of the 11 that they need, one of

the aldermen isn't there at night — and he said he would have voted for

it — so they don't get their eight votes. So they have to bring it back

two weeks later. What happens? One of the other aldermen goes home

because she's hungry. So they can't get the eighth vote for a second

time in order to feed these kids.

What a disgraceful

performance for our society! What a disgrace on all of us for this

government to put local school boards and city councils through this

kind of hooha on a search- and-destroy mission against low-income

parents, some of whom aren't on welfare; some of them are the working

poor. What a terrible solution at this point in the twentieth century

for 500 kids per day to go hungry still, because we're fumbling and

bumbling and not dealing with these poor kids.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying once again that we require a funding

framework that will build common purpose in education, not what we see now:

people fighting with each other; the negative politics of it all. We need a

formula that respects the initiative of the democratically elected trustees.

We need to do away with the current practices that place the community in a

hostile relationship with the school system and breed a lack of respect and,

yes, even contempt among the parties.

the member for Vancouver South had been here, I would have given him

some practical, positive proposals, which are put forward not to play

politics with the minister or this government, but because we're here —

hopefully, all of us — to deal with the future of our young people.

Those

proposals that I placed before the Sullivan commission I place, Mr.

Chairman, before this Legislature today. They are as follows: (1) more

equitable distribution of the tax burden between the provincial

government and school boards; (2) a fairer property tax for individual

taxpayers; (3) special attention to the needs of inner-city students

which will allow them to develop basic and essential language-learning

skills; (4) feeding hungry schoolchildren to give them a fair chance to

succeed in their classes.

Quite simply, we must ask

ourselves: can we give our children the tools to survive and flourish

in tomorrow's world if we don't establish a fair and adequate method of

funding their education today?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I

guess it's difficult to somehow or other equate the Leader of the

Opposition's opening remarks with the rest of his diatribe. He started

out by saying we're not here to play politics; we're not here to be

critical; we're here to talk about the good things in education. Then

he says he is interested in all children, as though he somehow or other

is privy to that emotion all on his own, when the total efforts of this

ministry are committed to those children, to try and get the best

possible opportunity for all children in this province.

goes on to say that we mustn't have confrontation or an adversarial

system, and then goes on throughout his whole speech to try and promote

confrontation and adversity by making statements such as that we

changed the working hours of teachers without consultation. That is

absolutely not true. I don't know where the member gets it, but he

says: "You've got to fight this horrible Socred government because

they've changed your hours without consultation." There is absolutely

no basis in fact to that comment, yet here we are, attacked by it.

says that we have made funding changes without any consultation —

again, without any basis in fact. I met with the BCSTA and the BCTF and

had many meetings with individual school boards, asking them where the

problems were and what the difficulty was. We had a fiscal framework

advisory committee that met, submitted a report to me and made

recommendations such as that we should include funding for substitute

teachers because it is a fact of life; that we should include increases

for clerical work; that we should increase the funding for statutory

and non-statutory benefits; that we should provide more money here; and

that we should really bring the funding up to currency.

The

school boards told me repeatedly that they could not plan their budget

in advance without knowing how much of the amount the government was

going to be putting up. For the first time in history, before they had

to prepare their

[ Page 4337 ]

preliminary

budgets and well before they had to finalize their budgets on May 1, I listened, and I went and said: "Here is what we're going to do. Instead

of this system where you don't know what you're going to get next year

and we don't know what you're going to get next year, because it all

depends on how much you spent last year without any relevance to any

base funding, any structure.... " Nobody could budget on that

basis. So we brought the funding levels up to currency.

They

said: "But we need to know what to budget for next year." We said:

"Okay. We will put up 2.8 percent, which is our best estimate, for

instruction costs next year, which involves teachers' salaries heavily,

and we will go one step further." We have a commitment from Treasury

Board and this government that next year, having established a rational

base and brought it up to date, we will increase it by an amount

determined by an index. Early in the game we asked the BCSTA, the BCTF,

my ministry committee and people from the Ministry of Finance to pick

the determinants of that index — not to set up the index but to say

that the index for increase for next year will be based on these

indicators, these salary settlements, this group, that group or

whatever, and that's what we'll put in for next year. I think that is a

significant accomplishment, a significant commitment by government to

say that whatever the rest of the world out there determines shall be

the increase next year, we will do.

For this year, we can't

put that program in place. We've gone to the Labour ministry, we've

gone to others and we've said: "What is the guess?" I notice that in

Alberta it's going up 2 percent. I notice that a teachers' group in

Alberta just settled for 3.5 percent over two years. I notice that

after five or six weeks of strike in Alberta, a teachers' group settled

for 5 percent over 32 months, less than 2 percent per year. What I did

say at the trustees' convention was that the provincial government

would bring you up to currency and we'll add 2.8 percent — our best

guess for this year — on top of that for next year. That's what we will

fund.

That member stands up in this House trying to promote

controversy and confrontation and says that I set the limit on teacher

salary increases at 2.8 percent. I did not. They said they needed to

know how much we would fund in the following year so they'd know where

they were at, if you like, in the colloquia end. I said we would fund

that much: whatever they agreed to, the province would fund 2.8 percent

of instructional cost increase. Yet that member stands up in this House

and says we changed the working hours for teachers, when we did not.

Instead

of reading his research — the editorial writers who feed on what the

critics say — if he would read the regulations, he would find that the

one regulation that was left in place was that teachers cannot be

required to give instruction for more than 5.25 hours per day at the

secondary level. That same regulation has been in place all this time

and is still in place. Nowhere in those regulation changes did it say

anything about teacher hours.

Somebody said: "Oh, my goodness, they intend to hit us with more hours.

We will assume that the regulations say that." Then the Leader of the

Opposition gets on that bandwagon and says, "How awful for the Socreds

to do this horrible thing," which we haven't done. Then you feed on

that, and you criticize us for that.

talks about the royal commission, and then stands up in this House and

says it is a farce: that we have already prepared the legislation that

we intend to put in place and we're just going to play games with the

royal commission. I resent that very deeply. I have not had any input

into the royal commission other than one thing. The ministry said:

"Here is what we see as the philosophical direction that education

should go." Would you believe that our critic said the minister and

the Ministry of Education in this province have no right to state an

opinion on education? Then you feed off that.

[4:00]

You turn around and stand up in this House and put on the record of

Hansard that the government has no intention of listening to the royal

commission, that the government has already prepared its legislation.

Mr. Leader of the Opposition, the rules of this House prevent me from

saying just how false that statement is. I have said, and I said it in

my opening remarks, that we have set aside in the budget this year

money to analyze, to assess, to look at the royal commission report as

soon as it is ready, as soon as it comes in so we can try to see what

can be implemented and what legislation needs to be changed.

have repeatedly said we do not intend to revise the total School Act.

We don't intend to do that until we hear from the royal commission. I

guess under the protection of this House, Mr. Leader of the Opposition,

you can stand up and implicitly call me a liar and say I have already

prepared all the legislation. All I can say, I guess, in defence, is

that it has not been done.

I guess for the first time in

the history of this House, when I put my hand up to my mouth, that

member puts it on the record that I'm sitting here sucking my thumb,

and says: "But I don't want to get personal."

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that that exchange was dealt with

in this House by joint withdrawals. I don't know why the minister keeps

wanting to inflame and escalate that. Surely it was dispensed with at

an earlier withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN : It was, in fact, withdrawn. Perhaps we can proceed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : It was withdrawn, but I wonder if it will show up in Hansard , or if it will be stricken from Hansard .

MR. CHAIRMAN : The withdrawal will be recorded in Hansard . I would suggest, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Therefore the member did not say it. Okay, I'll accept that. The member

did not make a personal, disparaging remark about me in this House.

Through the device of withdrawal, he has not done that. It's wonderful

what we can do with devices, isn't it?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, perhaps we should just proceed with the debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The Leader of the Opposition said that there is disparity among schools

in the Vancouver school system. Then he attributes that and says: "I

have a report and editorial comments that the Socred restraint program

has created elitism in those schools." He uses the example that some

schools don't have computers in them. Through the funds for excellence,

the Vancouver School

[ Page 4338 ]

Board — having the largest enrolment in the province — got $4.5 million over

two years, over and above what was put into the.... That was for

special funding — for discretionary funding. If they worked on the same

pattern as the rest of the province on the average, where about

two-thirds of that money went for computers, then they had something

like $3 million in two years for computers to put into the school

system. This year they've got another $1.2 million or $1.3 million for

computers. Again, it is the largest amount in the province. If the

computers are distributed unequally to the Vancouver schools when we

distribute that money by a formula that is fair and equitable in every

district, then I think the member might give some thought as to why

these computers are distributed inequitably in the Vancouver school

system.

I'd like to just touch on the issue that the Leader

of the Opposition has made so much of: the disgusting display of

whatever with regard to the hungry schoolchildren in the Vancouver

system. I have to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it had

to be considered as silly and foolish, and I have to look at the

motives. In the Vancouver system, they spend $200 million-plus per year

on education. They say: "We have some hungry children, and we think

they should be fed." They would have needed $200,000 or $300,000 to

do that quietly and effectively, and if the first concern was the

children, that would not have even shown up on a graph of their budget.

It could have been done effectively.

Instead of that, they

have chosen — with the support of the Leader of the Opposition — to

make a great, big political football out of that program and to say the

Social Services minister (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is uncaring; everybody is

uncaring. I don't know. There have been other school districts and

other schools.... I happen to know that when I was in the system, if a

kid didn't have socks or a sandwich, we just went ahead and did it. But

then, we weren't in Vancouver. We weren't in the position where you

tried to make a big bunch of political hay out of a few hungry kids; we

chose to feed them instead. That is my recommendation to the Vancouver

School Board — $300,000 out of a $200 million-plus budget. It isn't

worth the furor.

Now the city council, the federal

government and the provincial government are all involved, and

everybody is the bad guys except the guys who took a pittance in the

total scheme of things and tried to make a big political furor out of

it — at the expense of those kids.

MR. HARCOURT : I

note with some sadness that the minister refused to deal with the

substantive issues that I brought to his attention and to the royal

commission's: that of the unfair financing of our school system. He

didn't deal with the points that the Vancouver Elementary School

Administrators' Association brought up about disadvantaged kids. Then

he blames me for the hungry schoolchildren.

I've heard this

kind of twisted logic that he always seems to bring in. It's almost

like a rote formula, like the social studies teacher I had in grade 10

who used to write the textbook up on the blackboard for us to write

into our notebook. That's the kind of mindless response we get year

after year from this minister on the Education budget. I want to say

that if he doesn't consider what he did in February as interference

with the school boards and school trustees, God help him when he really

decides to interfere with our school system.

He then says

that he is not going to interfere with the royal commission. Don't take

it personally, Mr. Minister. I'm talking about your government. It

doesn't seem to worry about sending people forth to study what the

people of this province want, whether it's Bills 19 or 20, which they

put together in secret in the Premier's office.... You are going to

have this royal commission doing all the things they want. Who knows

what whim is going to come out of the Premier's office that makes it

totally meaningless — some decisions in the Poole room about what they

may decide to do, whatever the people of British Columbia want?

Look

what happened to decentralization, what the municipal councils

throughout this province are saying to this centralization in the

Premier's office. Look what happened when the Supreme Court of Canada

and our constitution had something to say about the abortion issue.

Your Premier didn't seem to let that interfere with his outlaw

behaviour on that issue. Who knows what is going to happen on the

question of gambling casinos? So, Mr. Minister, don't take it so

personally when I stand up and talk about the Social Credit government

and what it has done to bring to its knees an education system that

should be one of the best in the world.

then talks about

the Vancouver School Board and misses the whole point of what I'm

saying. It's not a question of your ministry having a budget for

computers and its being distributed fairly. You missed my whole point,

which is part of your problem: you don't get the point. I wasn't

talking about equal distribution of computers; I was talking about the

unequal opportunity for inner-city schoolchildren, and why they need

special attention from you. Instead, you just blindly forget about what

I said, refuse to respond and get off on some sort of mewing semi-yelp

about me being personal and political. You still haven't dealt with

those two issues — a financing formula and the inner-city

schoolchildren — and then you accuse me of creating hungry

schoolchildren. I don't

walk around with a case of Twinkies in my pocket to hand out to

children in the school system; that's not my job. It's your job, and

that of the Minister of Social Services, to deal with this problem.

I'm

not just talking about the Vancouver school system. I travelled to 110

places last year, and I got the same thing in Kelowna. I got the same

thing in a number of other areas of this province. It's not just in

Vancouver that there are hungry schoolchildren. There are other areas

where children are not being fed, and you won't deal with it. Your

Minister of Social Services won't deal with it, except to say that we

used to hand out shoelaces on occasion, or we used to deal with these

kinds of needs in a charitable, sort of Lady Bountiful way. That's not

a good enough response, Mr. Minister.

To say that there is

some plot between me and the Non-Partisan Association shows an

unbelievable lack of knowledge about Vancouver politics. My political

foes for 20 years, and you say I'm in cahoots with the Non-Partisan

Association. Of course, they are totally partisan. You know that; they

are the Social Credit farm team. Don't make me responsible for the

Social Credit farm team, which refuses to deal with this. You can carry

your criticisms of me to absurd limits, but that goes beyond even

Fantasy Garden absurdity. That is not something I will take

responsibility for, the non-partisan — or the totally partisan — Social

Credit farm team that runs our school system in Vancouver. You are

saying that they plotted with me to create this issue. I didn't even

talk to them about it. I didn't even talk to Ken Denike about this — the

Non-Partisan Association chairman of the Vancouver School Board. That's

who put this issue together, not me.

[ Page 4339 ]

When

are you going to deal with reality, with these problems, instead of

these puerile yippings that I hear out of you — or else you explode and

you say certain things, that I accepted your gracious withdrawal. I

wish you had done the same thing to me. I was getting angry with you

because you weren't listening; you weren't hearing, and your remarks

have just shown that once again.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I

guess Hansard will show that the member said I accused him of creating

hungry schoolchildren. Let the record speak for itself.

will also say, regarding the funding formula, that the province pays

about 80 percent of the cost of education from provincial revenues in

this province — guarantees 75-25. It varies from district to district.

Twenty-five percent is picked up by the local taxpayers.

The

increase. The opposition leader is very selective in saying that the

industrial and commercial tax was decreased. Over the same period that

that was decreased by $215 million, the funding from consolidated

revenue was increased by over $400 million. Any way you want to look at

it, the province takes in its revenue from industrial and commercial,

from sales tax and from all the other. The total amount the province

put in was greater than the sum of the two parts, year after year.

[4:15]

As far as the funding is concerned, interestingly enough, in trying

to determine an equalization of educational opportunities in this

province, we have an equalization formula which many other provinces

are looking at because it's considered very fair. The financial formula

is considered one of the best ones in Canada. It does provide

equalization of educational opportunities for the people in Atlin. The

member made one visit to Atlin, became an expert on the north and then

says that up there people said: "We're not getting our fair share." He

comes back and in defending the Vancouver position seems to imply that

they are not getting their fair share. It would seem that under any

equalization program, according to the Leader of the Opposition, nobody

gets his fair share.

Yet the budget, if the member would

like to take a moment to study and read it, shows that we're increasing

the amount of funding to small schools this year. We did last year, and

not without consultation: it was on the advice of a committee that was

set up representing all of the interests in education. They said that

in order to provide these opportunities we needed to provide a

different pupil-teacher ratio, more funding and a different type of

curriculum support. All that is being done in the small schools.

this province, I would think Vancouver gets the lion's share, because

It's considered one of the fine programs in this country, and it has

increased dramatically over the years.

Say that for the

funding formula.... All I can say, as far as the member's

distortion of what I said.... I guess we'll leave it to Hansard to

show that I did not say many of the things that the member accused me

of saying. Let Hansard speak for itself.

MR. JONES :

Sadly, once again we've seen the minister switch into rhetorical

overdrive when he couldn't get enough mileage out of the facts. We've

seen evidence that he went to the ad hominem school of debate, blaming

the messenger for his own problems. I'd like to keep trying with this

minister, because, as with the young people of this province, I have

faith, and I have faith that we can have a reasonable debate in this

Legislature on the important topic of education. I'd like to go back

and try the minister again on some of the remarks that I made earlier

and some of the questions that I asked, and see if we can have a

reasonable debate on this topic.

I said that I'd like to

deal with a few matters with respect to the financing of education,

because that's been a focal point of controversy for many years.

Certainly there are many other issues that are important for the

minister and this Legislature to participate in.

I did say

that finance is an important issue. It is a measure of the concern, the

priority and the caring of the government. I tried to point out to the

minister, in terms of per-pupil expenditure in particular, how over the

years we went from a very high place in interprovincial comparisons to

a very low place. I know the minister has prepared arguments and he

sees that statistic as lacking in credibility. I suppose he has to put

up some defence, so that's fine. But clearly the minister has seen that

slide and knows that we've moved very far down the scale.

did commend the minister for the funds committed to education this

year. The minister is aware that as a percentage of the provincial

budget we saw an increase in the order — let's not get hung up on actual

figures here — of 22 percent in Education between '82 and '87. But

Health was double that, and Social Services was almost triple.

want to help the minister get in there and fight for education dollars,

because I believe so firmly in the importance of our young people in

the future of this province. I ask the minister questions like: will

you get in there and act as an advocate? Will you use these

interprovincial and North American arguments in going after funding

from the Treasury Board? Do you agree that the trend is going the wrong

way? Where does the Minister of Education see British Columbia right

now in per-pupil expenditure? Where would he like to see British

Columbia in the future? Is there a motivation? Is there hope there on

the part of the province that we're going to move to improve our place?

Not that this is the only criterion; not that throwing money at the

school system is the answer; but can the minister give any hope for the

direction of education in this province relative to other provinces?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, I thought I had answered the member's questions. I do not

agree with his saying that the trend has been a steady decline in our

education system. I do not agree with it, and I can find no objective

evidence to support it. The member will take certain figures, per-pupil

costs or teachers' salaries, and by leaving out certain things it gives

the impression.... I've tried to say to the member: I can show you

that we have gone up in per-pupil costs in relation to most of the rest

of the provinces. But you don't want to hear that. You say: "Oh no,

that's not fair. You can't include the things that bring your numbers

up. You can only include the things that bring your numbers down."

That's the way you want to play.

I don't know; we can

discuss it indefinitely, I guess — forever if you like. I do not agree

that our funding for education is as bad as you say it is. I do not

agree that our educational system has suffered to the extent that you

have indicated. I can't find any evidence for it. When you ask

[ Page 4340 ]

where

we are heading in the future, I thought I had answered that very

clearly: we are heading for an improved education system, funding where

needed. He said the minister must go and fight for education. Once in a

while, to keep everything in balance, he will say, "I commend the

minister; however..." and for the next ten minutes you hear of all

the faults. That is the trouble. Our education system is basically

good. It can stand some improvements. We're working with the BCSTA, the

BCTF, my ministry, any of the schools I visit, all of the people and

all of the groups.... We go to a lot of trouble to meet all of them

and ask them where we can improve it. Don't just tell me it's bad,

because I see too many good things; I see too many professional

teachers doing excellent jobs out there. Don't tell me we've got a

rotten system. It irritates and annoys me.

If you say we

can improve our system, I'll agree with you one hundred percent. That

is where our effort is devoted. But if the member is simply asking if

we are going to move in the direction of spending the most money of any

jurisdiction in Canada, I will not agree. If the member wants to say

we're going to keep working to make ours the best education system in

this country and in North America, we're dammed near there now, and you

bet I'll try.

MR. LOENEN : I'd like to say a few

things about education, because it certainly is a very important item

in my constituency, Mr. Chairman; and I know that it is that for most

people in the province.

I'm sorry to see that the hon.

Leader of the Opposition has left. I was in the House earlier when he

remarked that we are increasingly putting a greater burden on the

residential taxpayer and on the municipalities, and we're doing less

and less for the homeowners out there. We can expect, I think, from the

members opposite that they be political, but we should at least be able

to expect that they do not misrepresent the facts. The truth is that

the trend is the other way. Increasingly, the province is picking up a

greater percentage of the cost of educating our children.

This

year the total provincial funding approaches 85 percent; it leaves

about 15 percent for the residents and some 5 percent from other

sources. That is a fact. In my own riding, School District 38, as a

result of this increased funding the taxes that are paid by the

homeowners will decrease this year; and I want to commend the school

board in Richmond for doing that. They've worked together with the

ministry in a non-political way. They don't make headlines like some

other districts. They don't go on the political bandwagon. They're

there to serve the interests of their community in a responsible way.

Because of the increased funding from the province, they were able to

decrease the burden on the homeowners in Richmond. I think that's

wonderful. Those kinds of success stories are there, and they need to

be told too, Mr. Chairman.

We continually hear that we're

underfunding, we're starving people, and we're not doing enough for

education. You know, Mr. Member, that last year there was an increase

of 11 percent in the Education ministry's budget; this year it's 8

percent. It's far in excess of the rate of inflation. Mr. Chairman, I'd

like the members to recognize and acknowledge this.

Please

stop playing games, and tell the people of this province that last

year's budget had an 11 percent increase and this year's budget has an

8 percent increase; that's 19 percent over two years. That is a very

good and responsible record. For you to deny that is to do a disservice

to the cause you profess to be interested in. You're not serving your

constituents. You're not serving the people of this province. You're

not serving the children and their needs by continually misrepresenting

the facts.

MR. JONES : The member for Richmond should

understand that when members on this side of the House rise on behalf

of the people of this province, and in particular the children of this

province, they're not perpetuating any particular propaganda or any

particular line. You don't have to listen to this side; listen to the

press. The press don't have any particular political agenda, do they,

when they say: "Who Will Foot the Bill for School Funds?" "Shift the

Burden of School Taxes." "Doing Sums with Socreds." "Superintendents

for More Education Dollars. "Socreds Starve Schools." "Business Tax

Break Costs Homeowners." "Property Tax Hike Needed Despite Schools'

Grants Rise." "Aid Hike Urged for Special Needs Pupil." "Quality of

Education Slipping, Commission Told." "B.C. Schools Financially

Underfed." "Budget Fails." "School's Health Rates Top Priority." Don't

take my word for it, Mr. Member for Richmond; listen to the people of

British Columbia.

The minister says that he has no faith in

the statistics on per-pupil expenditure. And if we really included all

those figures that the minister suggests we should, we would have the

highest per-pupil expenditure in Canada. But if we have in 1988 the

highest per-pupil expenditure in Canada, I wonder what we would have

had had we included all those extra things that the minister excludes

in 1978, when we were the second highest in Canada. We must have been

astronomical on the charts. The graphs wouldn't have had room to

include the B.C. statistics. I think it's amazing. Even if we accept

that silly argument on the part of the minister, that's one statistic

that the minister can look at. But there are so many, and it's so

depressing, I hesitate to mention them.

One of the

favourite expressions of this government is "ability to pay." If we as

individual taxpayers look at our own personal income, then as a percent

of personal income, the ability of this province as individuals to

contribute to our education system, British Columbia ranks tenth out of

ten. We contribute, as a percentage of our personal income, the lowest

of any province in Canada.

[4:30]

1 think that what happens is that when we look at the ability of

individuals to pay, it takes into account all that income on the part

of all citizens. If you think that having a large of seniors move from

the Maritimes to British Columbia is going to assist, then they would

have the greatest ability to pay. In fact, we have a great ability to

pay in this great province, and we have a lot of wealth, and in terms

of our ability to pay, we contribute the least of any province in

Canada.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As a

percent of the gross provincial expenditure, we contribute ninth out of

ten. We're not at the bottom on this one, but we're second to the

bottom. It doesn't matter if the minister adds all those figures in. If

we look at the percentage of personal income, if we look at the

percentage of gross provincial expenditures, if we look at the

expenditure per capita, we are again tenth out of ten. If we look at

the percent of provincial and municipal budgets, we are again tenth out

[ Page 4341 ]

ten.

I could go on and on. It doesn't require per-pupil expenditure figures.

If we look at all the figures for the factors that go into a financial

contribution on the part of the province to education, we're down

around the bottom.

There

is one I would like to look at for

which the minister cannot argue that we should add other factors in,

and that's probably a good indicator of service levels: the

pupil-teacher ratio. The only province other than Quebec that has

increased the pupil-teacher ratio since 1981 is guess what province.

It's the province of British Columbia, the only province other than

Quebec — and Quebec is way ahead of us in terms of pupil-teacher ratio

— that has increased since 1981. In fact, as of September 1986 the

only provinces that have a higher pupil-teacher ratio are New Brunswick

and Prince Edward Island. The minister can't affect these statistics by

saying that we should add in this, that and the other thing. A

pupil-teacher ratio is a pupil-teacher ratio, and can't be fettered by

the

Minister of Education.

I think it's very hypocritical of a

minister who is part of a government that has $7.5 million for a

Challenger jet, who can afford the overexpenditure on the Coquihalla,

who can afford the most expensive rapid transit system in North

America, who gives himself an 11 percent salary increase, who annually

gives away $600 million to the corporations of this province, who is

quite capable of finding lots of money for the independent schools of

this province and who can afford to fund loans to build schools in Hong

Kong, to have difficulty in suggesting to the people of British

Columbia that he will promise to make an even greater financial

commitment in the future to the children of this province.

The

Minister of Education should know that the people of this province both

misunderstand where we stand provincially and have very high

expectations of this province's performance in terms of its

contribution to schools. When the BCSTA recently did a public study of

the public's understanding and knowledge of education in terms of

per-pupil expenditure, the people of British Columbia indicated that we

rank third, fourth or fifth. As I pointed out to the minister even

though he hesitates to accept the figures of the Council of Ministers

of Education and of Statistics Canada, the people of British Columbia

are under the misapprehension that even after all those years of

cutbacks we're still in the ball park — that we're third, fourth or

fifth — when in fact, as I've indicated, we're right down at the bottom

of the pack.

It's important for the minister to understand

that the people of British Columbia want us to rank up there. In fact,

the vast majority of British Columbians want us to be first in terms of

our contribution to education, because they understand the importance

of education to the future of this province. A majority want us first,

and three-quarters of the people surveyed in this study want us to be

in the top three. Although the minister may suggest that we're already

there, I submit that, according to the reliable statistics of both the

council of ministers and Statistics Canada, we are definitely at the

bottom.

In terms of the survey and the amount spent on

public education in British Columbia, 6 percent of those surveyed agree

with some members opposite that we spend too much on education already;

22 percent indicated we are about right, and that seems to he where the

minister says we are — so 22 percent of those surveyed agree with the

minister; and a full 68 percent of those surveyed by the B.C. school

trustees say we spend too little on education.

There are

other indicators, other than financial, that we should perhaps get on

to, and at least for a brief time leave the finances, because we

certainly don't want to see the minister switch into rhetorical

overdrive again. There are other indicators and they are significant

ones. I would like to ask the minister about one of these. Perhaps the

minister doesn't agree that British Columbia students are really at the

bottom in terms of their participation in post-secondary institutions.

I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that we've got a

long way to go. The minister has even suggested that there are areas

that need improvement, and perhaps he would agree that this is one of

them. In a recent study from Brock University, P.J. Atherton indicates

that graduation and retention rates have fallen over the past few years

in British Columbia, and he sees this as a serious problem.

Post-secondary enrolment has gone from 8 percent in 1981-82 to 9 percent

in 1983-84 to 10 percent in 1984-85, and in 1985-86 it was down to 9

percent.

A question to the minister in terms of the areas

where he sees improvement needed: does he see an effort and leadership

needed on the part of the ministry in trying to find ways to reduce the

barriers to students attending post-secondary institutions, to

encourage them, to see our statistics climb from the bottom of the pack

to somewhere more appropriate and more like where the people of this

province would really like to see them, and that's at the top? Does the

minister see the participation rate of our students in post-secondary

institutions in this province as one of those areas he would like to

improve upon, and what are his specific plans?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

In answer to the member's question about whether we look for

improvement in the participation rate, of course we do. That's what I'd

like to get at in education debate: the improvement of education.

That's why we are meeting on a professional liaison basis with the

BCTF, the BCSTA, the school boards, anybody who will meet with us, to

say: what is making kids drop out of school? Is there some good reason?

Should we be aiming for 100 percent retention at any price, or is there

another way we could accomplish it? Those sorts of things. That's what

I would like to discuss, but I can't get to it with this member and a

lot of other people, because all they want to do is talk about funding,

funding, funding. You say funding is only one factor in education; but

every time you stand up, you are making funding comparisons.

You

asked if I would make a commitment to increase funding for the future.

How much plainer can 1 make it? I've made that commitment, because

government has supported me in making the commitment. We raised the

base this year. We put in what we consider a much better funding base,

and we are committed to increasing that by whatever index is generated

by the economic situation in British Columbia. You keep asking me if I

will commit to further funding. 1 think that's a rather remarkable

commitment on the part of government, which has to budget each year not

knowing what will be happening in the future. Only critics have a

crystal ball; the government has to do the best it can.

They

have said that if the index next year is 5 percent, we'll go up 5

percent. If the index next year in the rest of the world is 2 percent,

we'll go up 2 percent in the funding. Is that fair? Whatever that index

dictates.... This year we picked the index because we had no way of

getting that machinery in place. Even then, when we picked the index,

we said: "What was the average settlement last year? What are we

looking at realistically for next year? What's a composite figure that

makes the best sense?"

[ Page 4342 ]

Our

statisticians, the people we asked, the Labour ministry, said: "Try

somewhere between 2.8 and 3 percent." So we took 2.8 and said: "For

next year we'll commit whatever the economy of this province says for

rate settlements, other settlements and all that." I think that's a

pretty strong commitment for the government to say: "That will be our

funding increase in the future." School boards — you will know that if

the economy booms, your funding will boom with it. Is that not about as

fair as you can get?

To be repeatedly asked, "Are you going

to do anything? Are you going to commit to any future spending?" when

I've spelled it out as clearly as possible and the government has made

a commitment to the future spending.... The member says very

blithely that survey after survey showed that 68 percent of the

population want more money spent on education. I think that's

wonderful. As Education minister, I am delighted. If only I could get

them to say, "We would like to spend more money on education, " not,

"We want more money spent on education, but it shouldn't come from us;

it should come from them. " You know, that mysterious "them."

The

question has also been asked: "Would you be in favour of increasing

your taxes?" People have said: "Hey, hold it a minute. You guys put up

the money. We want to see more spent." I guess that's where my critic

is coming from. He wants to see much more spent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Take a Gallup poll; take whatever you like. There's a Gallup poll going

on in this province right now. School boards have said: