[ Page 3177 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 85: minister's office –– 3177

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Davis

Ms. Brown

On vote 87: government telecommunications services –– 3181

Mr. Nicolson

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3181

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Rose

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS
(continued)

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

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I guess it's a bargain, or a very modest sum, one might say. We had quite a lecture yesterday from the minister on what is provincial and what is federal responsibility under what was the British North America Act. But if post-secondary education is the responsibility of provincial governments, then it is something that should be done responsibly. If we look at what has happened since Well, we could look at various years, but the last time a decline started was fiscal year 1976-77, when university operating grants were about 4.8, 4.9 percent as a percentage of provincial government expenditure. In fiscal 1983-84 this has dropped to almost 3.5 percent in terms of a percentage of provincial government expenditure. I know that one can play games with this kind of statistic, because if government expands programs, if the role of government expands, then naturally everything drops as a percentage of provincial government expenditure.

Looking at the growth of new programs since 1976-77 and at what has happened here, we see university operating grants dropping as a percentage of provincial government expenditure by a fantastic relative amount, from about 4.8 percent to 3.6 percent, in just a very few short years, indicating the extent to which we have fallen behind. We're falling behind in a time when the world is becoming more technologically complex and when it is very possible that the actions of this government are going to take this province to the stage of a pre-industrial society in which it would appear that we are trying to create a climate such as is found in Third World countries: no human rights, no trade unions, and also no real prospects for employment, no prospects for upward mobility. Prospects for upward mobility is the symbol of a middle class, and a large middle class is usually the bellwether of a stable nation. The actions of this government are destroying the middle class. This government is opposed to the middle class, let alone to other classes. In fact, the middle class today are those people who aspire to have their children enjoy something a little bit better than what they themselves have struggled to achieve — people who would try to improve the lot of their children, who would hope to see something better for their children. I think most surveys today show that people are very pessimistic about whether their children are going to enjoy a better style of life. And when I say style of life, I don't say it in the same disparaging terms as those used by the minister yesterday in talking about style of public spending, as if university education was some kind of an entertainment, rather than a means to full realization, not just for those who attend but for our whole nation and for our whole society together. Mr. Chairman, the priority which this government has given to education shows that we are not pulling our weight, and that the government is not responsible in terms of our obligation to Canada as a whole.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, British Columbia is not pulling its weight as a province which has had one of the three strongest economies in the country over the last couple of decades. We have allowed our province to slip to number eight and number nine in terms of per capita spending for post-secondary education — in terms of participation, in terms of university degrees being granted, in terms of professional degrees being granted. In almost any way that you want to slice it, we have seen a tremendous erosion, particularly since the years 1976-77 or maybe the height in the 1975-76 fiscal year. We can see what has happened in terms of other programs, why we have fallen off.

If we look at a base of 100 in the year 1972-73, we see that for instance the University of Victoria operating grant per weighted full-time equivalent student has dropped to a current base figure of about 83 percent, whereas the B.C. average weekly wage has risen to about 107 or 108 percent in that same time. British Columbia hospital expenditures per patient-day have risen up to the range of 150 percent, Mr. Chairman. But we have seen that the responsibility to build for the future.... We are really mortgaging our future. Just as surely as we are mortgaging our future by not adequately restocking our forests, we are also not adequately restocking the intellectual energy of this province, and we are going to pay the day. We are living on borrowed time. We are living on expertise which is being stretched to the limit and which will get older and more tired and more outdated, and we will fall behind.

[10:15]

If you feel, Mr. Minister, that the way to bring this province back to recovery — and it would appear to me from your actions, from the draft piece of legislation which we saw, the Technology Assistance Act, that what you want to do is make the political atmosphere of this province...make the people of this province so subservient and so obedient that they will respond like the people in emerging countries such as Korea, Indonesia and El Salvador, where we see a lot of these chip factories. If you feel that the road to recovery is to reduce this country to a Third World nation so that we can somehow then rebuild through exploitation, I say that's wrong, because those countries are already losing a lot of that labour-intensive industry. Already the chip industry has been automated. Already the assembly of computers, televisions, computer printers and all of the boards and so on has been automated. The chips are being assembled by machines now, not by rows of people in surgical gowns in sterile conditions. The assembly is taking place using robotic technology. So we aren't going to see that. That was a little burst of activity that lasted ten or twenty years, depending on when you want to

[ Page 3178 ]

start and stop it. The industry is being repatriated, and if Dynatek goes ahead, that would be an example of how the industry is perhaps going to be repatriated to North America. But it is going to be fairly de-skilled work or a professional level of work. It will be either de-skilled work, where the person who is operating the machine gets one or two weeks' instruction to operate the machine.... There will be no technologists. There will either be engineers doing the design work — creating, retooling, setting things up.... There will be nothing in between. There won't be the trades level of skill, there won't be the technological level of skill and there certainly will not be that massive type of labour intensity, because the so-called high technology, the computer chip technology, has itself become automated.

It would appear, through the Technology Assistance Act proposals which came to light sometime back, that the theory of this government is that we have to reduce the size of the middle class, reduce the number of people who are informed and confident and questioning and probing. We have to reduce them to a very manageable number, and we have to leave the vast mass of people uneducated, unquestioning and obedient. That is the only rationale that I can see for the government's present policies — if there is anything that links the actions of the various ministries with the actions of the Minister of Universities and his conception of the directions we should be taking in this province. If there is any rationale that I can pick out of all of that, that would be the direction. The reasoning would be that somehow we recreate ourselves as a Third World nation, and then we can exploit labour as in El Salvador. I can look on the back of all the little chips of the 74LS00s or the 7493s, which are decade counters and things like that. I know what they are, and I know where they come from. It would seem that is the route the government is taking, if there is any kind of rationale behind it at all, unless each and every ministry, and this minister in particular, are just taking wild shots in the dark. I totally disagree with that approach. I believe that we are paying right now and will continue to pay, if we try to shortchange post-secondary education in all of its fields, whether they be liberal arts, whether it be technology.

There are several other things which I would like to bring up. I won't take too much of the committee's time this morning. I will get back to these in one moment because I have had a request from a member of the opposite side.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REID: It is with extreme pleasure that I would like to introduce to the House today Mr. Shields and 27 grade 7 students from the Kensington Prairie Elementary School in Surrey. Would the House bid them welcome.

MR. DAVIS: I want to address a few remarks to the question of foreign students at our universities. Recently a study was completed by the Commission on Canadian Studies based in Ottawa. It indicated that there were some 65,000 foreign students currently in Canada, perhaps in the order of 35,000 at our universities. It went on to say that the cost of educating those foreign students at our universities, over and above the fees they pay, was in the order of $250 million or $300 million a year. I mention those statistics because they are at variance with some of the figures we hear from our universities here in British Columbia. I find it difficult to reconcile the numbers: say I 000 to 1,200 foreign students at Simon Fraser, fewer than 500 at UBC, say 300 at the University of Victoria, a total admitted foreign student enrolment of 2,000. Canada has 35,000 foreign students at our universities. I suggest that there are 5,000 to 6,000 foreign students at our universities here in British Columbia, but that several thousand, at least, are not admitting to foreign status. Indeed, they're not really seriously asked whether they're foreign visa students or not; they're simply attending our universities.

I believe that foreign students should pay average costs that they shouldn't pay the low fees that our own B.C. students pay. If we feel that foreign students should be attracted to our universities, we should have a scholarship or bursary system which attracts those in need, attracts those who can come or will come anyway. The Commission on Canadian Studies points to the fact that the great majority of foreign students come from a few places, principally Hong Kong and Malaysia. They come well-financed. They are, in the main –– 90 to 95 percent — from well-to-do homes. The majority of them, indeed, come from homes where one or both parents have university degrees. So clearly the foreign student who is coming to Canada nowadays is coming first because there is no room in the relatively small university establishments in other countries. They are coming here for North American exposure. They are coming here also, I think some of them, because our fees are among the lowest in the world. They are, in other words, 90 percent subsidized when they come here. They're subsidized the same way British Columbia students are.

In this current period of relatively high unemployment a lot of young people, indeed people of various ages, are going back to school, back to college, back to university. Some, if not all, of our courses are filled up. So there is, in some instances, a case of our own people being displaced by foreign students, who can well afford to be here, or at least can well afford a university education.

I would urge the minister to look into the statistics. Statistics Canada tells us that there are some 12,000 short-term and long-term foreign students here in British Columbia right now. How come the universities can identify fewer than 2,000? We don't know the whole story. If you visit any one of our universities, it's obvious that there are large contingents of foreign students. I contend that they should pay average costs. I'll repeat that if we want to bring foreign students to our universities as a matter of policy, we should have the whole matter upfront. We should provide scholarships and bursaries, and they would then come on the basis of ability and need, and not merely because they can afford to be here.

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

First, it is our policy to give autonomy to universities in British Columbia. It's our belief that the institutions will do a better job without politicians attempting to run their affairs for them. The points made by the member with respect to foreign students we will pass on to our universities. They have to account to the taxpayers, just as we do. They are overly dependent on government grants. Our institutions have available to them the same sources of income as do Harvard, Princeton or the other great universities of the

[ Page 3179 ]

world, which can charge any fees they wish, accept any corporate donations they wish, accept any alumni bursaries they wish. In addition to all those sources that Harvard University has, they get another government grant that equals about 85 percent of their cost. This is not a bad position to be in, to accept responsibility for the actions that you take. There is no reason why our institutions could not charge a foreign differential fee. There is no reason why the universities could not set up a bursary program so that people from Trinidad who could afford to pay their way would do so, while others who were poor but deserving in an academic sense would be able to come and receive that scholarship support. The institutions could do that. Indeed, I would say that they should do that.

[10:30]

But the question is, would the removal of autonomy from our institutions, by imposing political will upon them, be in the overall best interests of our universities and, therefore, of our province? I say not. It's my belief that the universities are not perfect; we should not attempt to impose what we feel are improved policy decisions upon them, but instead should tell them that they are autonomous and ask them to take full responsibility for their actions. In this particular case there is some movement toward the philosophy of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, and I am sure he will take a great deal of satisfaction in that.

With respect to the remarks of the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), he suggested — in fact he stated — that British Columbia was not pulling its weight. If there is any province that pulls its weight in this nation, it is the province of British Columbia. There is no doubt that when it comes to nationhood, British Columbia gives more than it takes, and it will continue to do so in the future. The principle we don't even quarrel with is that there should be equalization. That means that when there is a pipeline to Ottawa of taxes raised from the citizens and the corporations in this province, that pipelines of taxes, when it gets to Ottawa, is divided into two streams: one stream goes to other provinces in Canada and the other smaller stream is turned back to British Columbia to run our health, education and welfare systems, which take up over 70 percent of our budget. We know that over the years this pipeline has been continually adjusted so that less comes back and more is directed to the less prosperous provinces in our country.

We pull our weight. But by a similar token, when the wealth-producing sources in British Columbia dry up because of world markets, it is provinces like British Columbia and its activities that permit those provinces that benefit from our taxes to bring all those imports in. The province of Quebec is not supplying the exports for Canada that allow us to bring in all those Japanese television sets and American computers; it's the exports from western Canada that permit the rest of the country to import. Therefore, when our industries can no longer satisfy a demand on world markets because their economies are shrinking, then it does become more difficult for us to carry activities like health and education.

The difficulty, as I see it, with our colleagues opposite in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is that they simply cannot understand the hierarchy of jobs and the production of wealth. It doesn't matter if the pulp mill, the sawmill or the chip factory is automated. Each of those automated factories will be producing for export and for the ultimate wealth of British Columbia and Canada. What counts is not the jobs in those primary factories; what counts is their existence and their output. You can go ahead.... Oh, the people are laughing. They already think that's preposterous.

The reason why we have to cut jobs in government is that those jobs all ride on the backs of primary production, and when we don't have the primary production we have to cut back. Nobody can provide more jobs than government — frequently they brag about it — but no government produces wealth. They create jobs, but the jobs suck off wealth. The more of those that we attempt to create, the higher the debt we build up and the more we impair that primary production. But the member opposite suggests that....

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

HON. MR. McGEER: No, no. I'm only saying there is no hope if we have an NDP government. That's what I'm saying, and that's what the people said in 1933. They said there was no hope in 1937, they said there was no hope in 1941, they said there was no hope for the NDP, or the CCF then, in '45, they said it in '49, they said it in '52, they said it in '53, they said it in '56, they said it in '60. They didn't get the message over there, so the people said it again in '63, they said it again in '66, they said it again in '69. Mr. Chairman, that dreadful mistake....

AN HON. MEMBER: Never to happen again.

HON. MR. McGEER: Never to happen again. They decided in '72 to find out for themselves. And oh, what a lesson, Mr. Chairman. It wasn't theory any longer. They put their economic ideas into practice, and what happened to all our primary production in British Columbia? Despair in the mining industry at a time of world-record prices. That's why the province was set so far back. That's what turned Liberals into Social Crediters.

Then came '79 and common sense in British Columbia. Then came '83 and common sense in British Columbia. That's what we're pursuing — economic common sense.

There were some other matters, just very briefly. I can't agree with the member's economic points, but neither did the people of British Columbia.

With respect to his contention about the universities in terms of the total wealth of the province getting less, of course it's perfectly true. In terms of the relative standard of the universities, the income of the professors — they have done less well than the teachers of British Columbia. If one looks at the greatest increase in costs relative to the increase in the gross domestic product of British Columbia, the two largest increases are payments to doctors and payments for schools. The universities have gone down, relatively speaking. This is the interesting thing that should cause us reflection, not for our universities but for some of our other sectors in British Columbia: when one compares how our professors have done with those in other parts of the world — remember that the academic pool is an international one; people in the university system are not a local pool, they are a world pool — ours have done relatively well, among the very, very best. If they are discontented, and many of them are, it is because they can see that here in British Columbia the escalation has been so enormous in the school and medical fields that they have been less well treated. And they have. But when we're looking for those aberrations in our province that are taking away the

[ Page 3180 ]

wealth, these are the areas where you need to look. Our objective with medical care is to help the sick, not to make medical personnel wealthy. Our objective in education is to teach children, not to make the educators wealthy. That's the principle that we've got to try to operate from in government, because our objective is to get the taxes to the individuals we want to benefit, not to have them all taken away somewhere in between. So I just put down, Mr. Chairman, that I think we are getting our university resources out to the people themselves. I'm not so sure it's occurring in other sectors and I suggest that's where we should look, not into funnelling more money into our university system when we don't have it at the present time.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief I really had not intended to participate in this debate, but I am so tired of the unrelenting attack by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) on foreign students that I thought maybe I should give a different perspective on this whole issue, because I myself came to this country as a foreign student, as did my spouse, and because I know a little bit about what Canada, through its foreign student program, has done for the rest of the world.

I want to talk specifically about Third World countries and I want to talk about them specifically, even though I know that this is not just a Third World issue. If you travel through the Caribbean, Africa, Nigeria, Ghana — any of those countries — their lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, nurses and nutritionists are graduates of Canadian universities. Canada has enriched the lives of other nations and other countries through its willingness, in the past, to open its universities and training schools to students from Third World countries. Is that something for us to be ashamed of? Have we become so self-centred and so selfish at this time that we begrudge that? Is that something we want to put an end to, the fact that there are other parts of the world that benefit from the wealth of education which we are able to give in this country?

The University of the West Indies was brought into this world by McGill University, and McGill continued to be its mentor until that university was able to stand on its own feet. For a number of years the graduates of the University of the West Indies were graduates of McGill, in the same way as the graduates of UBC were graduates of McGill. It's not just a matter of Third World countries; there was a time when B.C. was considered a Third World province, and it benefited from other universities — from Dalhousie, McGill, the University of Toronto. Now we are in a situation where we can help and continue to share, and be a part of and enrich the lives of people in other parts of the world, but instead of being proud and happy that we can do that, we are continually subjected to letters to the editor, to speeches on the floor of this House and in other forums by that small-minded member for North Vancouver–Seymour who continues his unrelenting attack on the university system in this country which is proud of the fact that it has been able, through that system, to help other parts of this world.

If you travel to Europe you have the same experience. I've been to Italy, France and other parts of Europe, Mr. Chairman, and there I've run into McGill graduates; there I've run into graduates of Dalhousie, UBC, the University of Toronto. And we're ashamed of that. We are now, through this member, having to deal with the fact that we're so selfish and so self-centred that we no longer want to share. Do you know what else we find when we travel outside of North Vancouver–Seymour? We find Canadians in other universities around the world. In many instances we are the foreign students; we are the foreign students in the West Indies, Europe, Great Britain and the United States. This is not a one-way street. But even if it were a one-way street, even if it were simply a matter of having Canadian universities, training schools and institutes open to students from other parts of the world, it's something we should be proud of, something we should be happy, glad and grateful that we are able to do, rather than something we continually pick away at and are critical of.

I've never before had an opportunity to respond to that member, Mr. Chairman, because as I said, usually he writes letters to the editor or waits until he is in some forum where he knows that no one can respond to his comments.

[10:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MS. BROWN: Well, it may be baloney, but the fact remains that as long as that member remains a minority in his opinions about the use of Canadian universities and the opening of the Canadian educational system to foreign students, then I think Canada and Canadians can be proud. When his opinion becomes a majority opinion, then we will be in serious trouble indeed. I hope that day never comes.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Pray, be seated, Garde.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is a sort of recidivist when it comes to seeing the error of his ways. He shows that he has failed to defend himself in this debate by resorting to the famous W.A. C. Bennett speech about the history of the NDP and CCF. But I would like to leave the minister with one other thought, and that concerns the participation of university freshmen, as percentages of grade 11 populations in preceding years. While the participation rate of urban freshmen has gone up and down, but remained anywhere from 15-point something percent up to about 17.5 percent, for people outside metropolitan areas — and rural members should take note of this — the participation rate, which hovered around 10.5 percent from 1971 through to 1976, has been in a steady decline down to 7 percent. I think it's a tremendous waste of our greatest natural resource, and that is our young people. If that participation rate was not 7 percent, but was up in the 16 percent range, it would mean that more than 1,000 more students would be participating from those rural areas. It means that there are 1,000 people who are being disadvantaged because we have not made it possible for them....

The minister concentrated on the salaries of university professors. Well, that doesn't excuse what the government has done to students and student assistance. While student assistance is divided between the Minister of Universities and the Minister of Education, but administered more by the Minister of Education, that doesn't excuse a minister not showing leadership, because that is probably one of the reasons that students have been so disadvantaged. Back in 1975 $30 million was spent for student summer employment. This government has seen that dollar figure go down, even in absolute dollars, let alone in constant dollars, and has taken away that opportunity for people to work and earn their way

[ Page 3181 ]

for their school years. They've also decimated student assistance, and are now contemplating doing away with grants altogether and putting more and more of the onus on the federal government. Indeed, they've even deprived students of federal government loan assistance by the new criteria they've set up. We'll go into that in the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. Heinrich's) estimates. But the performance of this government has been an erosion of opportunity. It has been an attack on upward mobility. It has been an attack on the opportunity to participate in our society. I find it very lamentable that a university academic has had the stewardship of university education for so many years and has left it in a worse state than that in which he found it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put one or two things on the Hansard record for our system. The greatest priority that we should have, in terms of educational opportunity, is to equalize the chances for education for people living in our rural areas. This is why we vigorously pursued, when we were first government, the setting up of a number of provincial institutes, the building of community colleges throughout the province, the establishment of the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network, which now plays into over 90 communities in British Columbia. We carry that on by our PEETS grants, to make sure that people can receive educational opportunities in their own homes. We now know that the Knowledge Network is watched by a quarter of all British Columbians, one of the most popular television networks in British Columbia. So we are vigorously pursuing the bringing of education to the farthest reaches of our province. Of course, giving opportunity for those to come is a matter that should be equally vigorously pursued.

I would throw that out as a challenge to the New Democratic Party, because at the time they were in power they promoted a massive backwards step in our institutions by bringing in a system that took away student employment. We spend an enormous amount of money at our institutions employing people to do jobs that students could do, and the old way in which students began to earn their way through college, when they helped to run their institution and gained work experience, was pretty well thrown out when the NDP came to power. I would like to suggest to our colleagues opposite and to our institutions to restore with full vigour the former system whereby students helped to run their own institutions, got income from doing that and through that method helped to pay their way through. It would tremendously reduce the cost to the public purse. It would give our students the type of experience they need to have for the world of work afterwards. It would improve their pride and would bring greater spirit to the institutions themselves.

Vote 85 approved.

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

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

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to ask the minister a question in terms of telecommunications. Does he plan to take any kind of action with Ottawa in terms of the very insidious practice that appears to have started of computer-activated voice solicitation over telephone? This is tying up telephones. You can't hang up on them for 75 seconds. We read about it through Nicole Parton, and I give her full credit for bringing it to light. It has tied up doctors' telephones when there was a malfunction and the computer would not ring off. Has the minister decided to take any action on behalf of B.C. consumers?

HON. MR. McGEER: I thank the member for bringing the problem to my attention, and I assure him that I will took into it. As members know, B.C. Telephone is under the jurisdiction of the CRTC. The members should know that in B.C. we have launched a legal suit against the federal government in the matter of telecommunications generally, because it is our view that the federal government is stifling technology in Canada and pursuing the most retrogressive possible policies — no better illustrated, Mr. Chairman, than in the legislation introduced in Ottawa only this week, which would attempt to outlaw antennas on the roofs of apartment buildings and motels in this province. Why was that law introduced? I hope that the Parliament of Canada has the common sense to throw it out. It was introduced to benefit Home Box Office in the United States — a subsidiary of Time-Life. Can you imagine Canadians hiring a battalion of RCMP and outfitting them with sneakers and little back-pack detectors to run around the northern reaches of British Columbia hunting for some poor devil who has put a television antenna in his attic to receive satellite signals? How counterproductive! How shameful! What are we doing this for? We are doing it for the vested interest in the United States. When the Minister of Communications in the Parliament of Canada is acting as a lap-dog for the successors of Henry Booth Luce, it should be time for all of us to hide our heads in shame.

Vote 87 approved.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If I may be permitted, I would like to say a few words before the critics rise. With me on the floor today, Mr. Chairman, is my deputy minister, Jim Carter, and my assistant deputy minister, Jack Fleming.

I think I could review a number of the things which have come to pass in the few short months I've had the portfolio. I recognize the contentiousness of the bill which was introduced, but it seems to me that over a period of time and with a great deal of consultation with the trustees and those involved we really did successfully conclude the ability to place a limit on school board budgets, and also the sunset clauses reintroduced to 1986.

The fiscal framework and funding program for all school districts has caused a great deal of concern. When it was first introduced last July, it was with the distinct request to all of the players in the network to submit as much as they could in constructive criticism, and I have to advise the House they did. For the most part I think it has worked reasonably well. The overall gross operating budgets for school districts will be in the order of about $20 million less for this coming year than the previous.

[ Page 3182 ]

The introduction of examinations. The only schools which have administered those exams are those which are semestered; however, I think they have worked reasonably well, and I think with the reintroduction of examinations after a period of 12 years, any problems we had will certainly be worked out.

It's no secret that we are looking at some revisions to curriculum, particularly in grades 11 and 12. I've made a commitment — and we've been working on this for some time — to finally introduce a White Paper on a new School Act, which is something I understand Ministers of Education and governments for the last 10 or 12 years have made a commitment to.

We in the ministry are also looking at deregulation. There are something in excess of 150 regulations, many of which I believe are dated and totally unnecessary. Frankly, I would like to remove a number of them, because I think they really cause a number of problems between the ministry and the school districts and have cost impacts on the ministry and government as well as local government.

[11:00]

I think probably one of the reasons we have had to take the position we did with respect to school financing is reflected in a lot of numbers. Over the last seven or eight fiscal years we have found a decline in enrolment of significant proportions, dropping from a high of roughly 525,000 to something in the order of 482,000. I am advised that as of September 1984 enrolment is going to be in the order of about 479,000. It's still declining. There are some school districts, but I have to advise the House that they are very few, where there in fact have been increases. Costs have gone up significantly over that period of time: something like $900 million in 1976 to a total budget of $1.9 billion, all things included. So when you reflect on the problems we have had, they are always related to the control of funds, which are not really available in the quantities we have become used to. Revenues to the province have been drastically reduced, and it must be remembered that 51.5 percent of the budget does come from consolidated revenue. Roughly 34.5 percent comes from non-residential sources, roughly 8.5 percent from residential, and the balance of something under 5 percent from grants. With the decline in enrolment, we were finding substantial differential cost-per-student figures in various districts, even neighbouring districts. Something had to be examined.

I think it would probably be best that I close my few comments at this time, Mr. Chairman, and allow the critics to raise the concerns they have, most of which I presume are very well founded. I would hope that we keep in mind that the object is to serve students with the funds we have available and to ensure that there is some degree of province-wide equality.

MR. ROSE: I welcome the minister's remarks. I thought it was a nice touch that he introduced his deputies or experts, who are undoubtedly going to sit behind him and whenever necessary provide him with the answers he needs, because I think there will be a great number of questions from this side of the House. I notice the Premier is here. I welcome him back to the House. I am certainly pleased to see him. I'll have a number of remarks to make about him as well — not personal, mind you, but certain observations.

I was intrigued by some of the things that the minister said, and I will go into it later. I was particularly intrigued with his discussion of consultation. To my knowledge, most of the consultation arrived after the fact and not before it. I have some documents that indicate it. Most of his actions and changes came as a complete surprise, not only to the profession but also to the trustees. I've spoken before about how we have been centralizing authority within the Ministry of Education. How that squares with deregulation is beyond me. There are more regulations being applied to school boards as far as their budgets are concerned than there has ever been in the past — in the recent past, in any event. His White Paper on deregulation will be eagerly awaited by many people here.

I think it is fair to say that the atmosphere, if not the schools themselves, is chaotic at the moment. There is a general malaise and uncertainty — a concern, the minister said. I think it is more than a concern. I think it's a sleeper issue. I don't think it's a big issue at the moment. I don't think, in spite of the fact that it is in certain areas, that people really understand what is happening in education. I don't think that people realize that what we've set out to do is cut educational funding by as much as 25 percent over the next three years. People say: "How would you get that? We're only going to cut it by 2 percent per year." But if you have an inflation factor of 6 percent per year, you've got 19 percent compounded right there. I don't know how that squares with your 1976 enrolment figures. If you add inflation — indications are that inflation may not be 6 percent for the next three years — then it amounts to a savage, if not criminal, attack on our education system.

We can't afford it, you say. That may be the case. I'm not certain about that, because I'm not privy to the income sources, as is Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). All I know is that what has happened in the United States for the last ten years is that they have starved their schools. They've had several commissions, and the answer has been that if you've got a problem, you'd better throw some money at it. That's what's going to happen three years from now, just in time for the next provincial election.

Here are some of the things that we're concerned about that there's uncertainty about. We don't really know what the final new budget or formula will be. We don't know those things. They change about every two months. Some people are winners, some are losers. Some districts get more, some get hacked even more severely. We don't know whether, if there is a surplus in a district, it will be able to be carried forward. We don't know those things now. That is a political decision, we're told. We don't know what courses are going to be cut in the future. Are we heading toward a 1950 school system, with a few computers thrown in to make it look modern and to satisfy the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in his concern for chips? We don't know how many people are ultimately going to be cut out of the school system. Roughly a thousand teachers a year — even more in terms of cleaning and maintenance people? The Minister of Universities said a little while ago that he'd like to see the university students go back to sweeping the floors of the school. Does he want to fire a few more CUPE workers? He wants them all to become waitresses. My daughter was a waitress at UBC. I don't think it hurt her particularly, but I think the job of the students is to study, not sweep floors in the gymnasium or the cafeteria — that's not their job.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 3183 ]

We don't know what health and safety risks we're taking or whether or not school boards are going to be forced to take adult crosswalk attendants away and leave it to some child. We know what happened when we had a bus tragedy a week or so ago. There's a great interest in busing, bus safety and maintenance and in auto testing. What happens when an injury or death occurs on an unattended crosswalk? Boards can't afford to have adults at those crosswalks. We're concerned about a lot of things like that.

There's a rumour about cutbacks and closings — even in colleges of education. I know that the government feels they have no obligation to employ every teacher turned out. I agree that they don't have any obligation to employ every teacher turned out or graduated from a university or institution. But we have been begging, crying for and stealing teachers from every other jurisdiction in Canada and the western world in the time that I've been a teacher. It may be that some of our people will have to be employed elsewhere. But when you're thinking about population and enrolments, don't forget that there's going to be an echo to that baby boom. There is an echo coming, and we've got to have the personnel for it. If we start shutting down things holus-bolus — training institutions.... If we discourage children from going to school, graduating from school and going on to college to become teachers, then we have a serious risk.

Lunacy seems to prevail. Here at a time when we haven't got jobs for students, more and more kids are pounding on the doors of educational institutions, especially post-secondary, and this is the time we're cutting back. Here's the time when we want to have a pool of trained people so we can take advantage of any world recovery when it comes. And it's going to come, because these things go in peaks and valleys; it's called capitalism. You have a boom, and then you have a bust, and then you have a boom again. We're in one of the troughs right now.

Should teachers now readjust their teaching strategies? It's another question that they're asking themselves. For the last ten years we've felt that we were aiming towards a broadly educated populace. Should we now start teaching for the test? Should we take away those teachers who were teaching broadly and interestingly, with information that the kids needed to know and wanted to know? Shall we turn out a whole army of cramming experts? I went through those times. I taught for the tests. I know that all you had to do was remember for about five minutes and you could forget it. The things I really needed to know were seldom ever tested.

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

MR. ROSE: I hesitate to go for your bait, but you don't have one iota of proof that the general population reads or writes less well than they ever did. As a matter of fact....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Don't name members of your own family, please. You don't have one iota of proof of that, and if you have, what you should do is get up and make your own speech. I hope you will.

I think the basic competence in language is probably higher than it ever was, because more kids go to school. They're retained in there longer. Sure, maybe some people don't speak as well as they once did. Some people say "ain't, " too. But I think the level of literacy in Canada is higher than it's ever been. I don't think there's one shred of evidence.... When I started university in 1941, do you know what they had? They had upgrading tests for English. You had to have remedial before you could get into English 100. You don't know what you're talking about. Every time you open your mouth you reveal an appalling mountain of ignorance. So get up there and speak when you've got something to say.

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

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

Anyway, teachers want to know: are they to readjust their styles? Are they to throw out the window now what they've been trying to do for years: to develop broadly based, socially aware students who can reason and think? Or are they to become technicians, skilled at getting kids to pass exams? I went through the system. I know some people over there who didn't. But I know some people who were very successful at cramming for exams, and made it. I was one of them.

We've gone from a point of view where we had given the professionals in the business an opportunity to behave professionally. Now Big Brother from Victoria is going to watch them through exams. And what will happen? Enrolment will drop even more, because the role of the school is to teach students, not to screen them out for universities. Are we going to go back to the time, academically, where we teach the best and shoot the rest? What's going to happen to the dropouts if this persists? I think you're on a crazy course. And I think you can afford to do better. If you can't demand more funds, or at least a maintenance of the funds, then I think we should have a minister who believes in education, because I don't think you people do over there. There is no bottom line. There's a contempt for education.

I'm afraid that in the future our colleges will be open only to the academic elite. One hundred percent of British Columbians pay for those universities; 5 percent of them go. And you've put more impediments in the way of student access in the last three months than we've done in the last ten years.

[11:15]

Mr. Chairman. my colleagues in our research department phoned 51 school boards over the last two weeks. They talked to school officials: superintendents, principals, trustees, secretaries-treasurer — how's that for English? — and they found these results. Fm not going to bore you by reading them all, because they are numerous. I'm quite sure you could find somebody out there who thinks you've done something good for the schools, and I'm sure you've probably got those quotes in your hot little hands. I hope you have, because we didn't find that and we didn't go looking particularly for negative comments. I certainly wouldn't emphasize the negative ones, because it's not part of my case; it's my job to oppose what you are doing. My job is to oppose and constructively suggest alternatives, and I intend to do it.

Here are some quotes. "The potential negative impact if teachers are laid off with seniority as a primary criterion will reduce the effectiveness of the education system." All right? Well, we already know from Dr. Armstrong that it is not to any board's advantage to lay off senior teachers, because if they do, with your formula, they change the budget, because the formula is based in part on your total salary package. So it isn't the number of teachers per pupil. Supposing a teacher

[ Page 3184 ]

who is my age, and who could retire, retires. That will mean that you've taken a $40,000 salary — depending upon his level; that is, preparation — and replace him, say, with a young teacher with a $20,000 salary. Do we get two young teachers for the old guy? No, sir. So even if boards do reduce their salary package, they're not going to get any benefit from it; there is no benefit there.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: "Anything extra will be reduced," somebody else says. What are these extras? Trips and that sort of thing — hobbies, physical education, extracurricular activities.

"An unsettled situation is stressful. Teacher absenteeism is higher due to frustration; there is staff tension, teacher burnout and staff morale." Do you like to do these things? "Increased class sizes equal emotional difficulties." Another: "Many programs crucial to an education will be cut, such as music, visual and performing arts programs." This is what you're doing; this is how you're paring the school and its offerings. There is also repetition here: "Larger classes and fewer options may affect the quality of the educational experience." If you develop the kind of academic elitist program that you plan for the high schools by reducing the options of the less intellectually competent, what are they going to do? They're going to drop out. You'll reduce enrolment all right, and you'll reduce school costs, too, but you'll dump these kids on the street, because the school will not be able to provide the options that these kids need. I went through a school system where kids were in grade 5 and 14 and 15 years old, but they didn't go on; they had Grade 8 entrance exams then. Boy, we were really rigorous then. Only about 10 to 20 percent ever got through high school. I think it's very important that we have high retention in school; our society needs that sort of thing. You can't dump them in the street to be ditch-diggers because they happen to flunk one test or some other stupid arrangement of hurdles and screens.

"There will be more negative effects on education because of reduced funding, coupled with provincial exams." "Low staff morale is an impact on the total academic quality." "Senior management is under unjustified criticism given about budget cuts and increased workloads." "Rural students are being hit hard." You know, they can't stay afterwards for busing, and that's another problem. "Fewer options for secondary students will have an adverse effect." "There is a negative impact already on extracurricular areas." I wouldn't blame the teachers for working to rule. I know that teachers spend thousands and thousands of hours on extracurricular stuff — whether you're talking about sports, music, trips, bands or whatever it is. I wouldn't be surprised if teachers said: "The hell with it; I'm going to work to rule. I'm going to teach them to cram for those exams; I'll be considered a good teacher, because my kids will go on." That's what a good teacher is: one who can get kids through exams. That's what a good teacher used to be: the exam specialist.

"Larger classes and reduced support aides, administration, library services." Oh, we're back where the students in the university are sweeping out the gymnasium again instead of CUPE workers. You want to reduce staff to the point where you have volunteers coming in and sweeping out your schools. You don't want any organized workers in there who might cause you trouble, who might speak up. Get a few mothers in there to sweep up every afternoon; you'll save a lot of money. Of course, they won't be reliable, but you'll save a lot of money, because that's what your aim is. "We anticipate discipline problems due to reduced counselling staff." Larger classes contribute to that. I could go on and on. "There are lots of frustrations, " another remark said, "because of not knowing what the government's policies and plans are or will be in the future." We don't know what they are, aside from knocking education. There are all kinds of other ways money is spent that are probably more wasteful than what we spend on education. What this member is suggesting is that somehow we're frittering away public funds on kids. We've got to stop frittering away public funds on children. "Professionally, staffs are starving. Professional-development workshops allow teachers to exchange ideas, to gain new insights into teaching techniques and concepts, and get their batteries recharged. Loss of professional development, coupled with depression and tension, has serious effects on the classroom. We now have reduced options for children. We have larger classes." Mr. Chairman, counselling services, larger classes, reduced options — that sort of thing is mentioned over and over again.

It's a depressing picture you've got out there. Will they get over it? I don't know; I guess you get over everything. People go through wars too, and some of them get over it. Some of them don't but some do.

We don't know what the policies are, and that's the problem. We don't know if the policies.... I know we're going to have these White Papers, and they'll be welcome, but we've had several White Papers, you know. There was a report on education by the previous Education minister. There are some interesting things there. The now Attorney-General, Mr. Smith, had a report on the philosophy of education. We don't know whether they're the same now or not. How are we to know? All we know is that without adequate consultation the axe fell. In marched the minister with a lot of new problems and new techniques for reducing, I think, the quality of education. It isn't just a case of staff and teacher jobs, although certainly people who spent their lifetime preparing themselves to work in the schools will feel surprised that all of a sudden they're not needed or are redundant. Tell that to any group of people, and you're bound to get a reaction.

I'd like to ask the minister some specific questions on his policies and the proper future policies. I'll call it "the Smith report." Where is the plan for education, I'm asking. The Smith report had this to say: "I believe it is the responsibility of our society to provide adequate educational opportunity for all individuals." All individuals includes those people with learning difficulties, linguistic difficulties, emotional difficulties and those people out in the boonies who don't have proper transportation, whether they be in university or the elementary schools. Okay? I would like to know if the ministry still supports that policy: "I believe it is the responsibility of our society to provide adequate educational opportunities for all individuals." Does the minister still believe that? If he does, how can he reconcile that with large cuts in such things as ESL and special ed, or mainstreaming or larger classes or all those factors that tend to obliterate differences and educational opportunities for all individuals.

[ Page 3185 ]

We know that the government has a pretty good idea of plans for money, but I'd like to know: what is the government's long-term objective for education? Where are you going, beyond your three years?

Another quote: "Parents are entitled to have some say in shaping the educational services provided for their children." Does the minister share that view? Does he still believe that parents should have some say? I don't know if he does. All I know is that there has been lots of criticism about lack of consultation. There is also a desire on the part of parents, certainly in one district I talked to, to make up the differences that the school can no longer provide, through fees and through other services instead of through their taxes, because they're not allowed to raise the money through taxes any more. The autonomy and consultation has been removed. They're told to raise what they're told to raise, and that's it. Where's the consultation?

Here's another quote: "I believe that all students, no matter what their talents or special needs, are entitled to the kind of services that would enhance the development of their potential and preserve their sense of dignity and personal worth." How does that happen if you flunk them out on some exam based on one test? Fifty percent of the marks of your exams are based on one test. How does that help them if they don't get proper training and they're linguistically incompetent? How does it help a child if you take away the counselling services that might help him? How does that help him to achieve a sense of dignity and personal worth? How does it help him if you flunk him out? What does that do to his dignity?

One of the problems with us here is that most of us are winners in this world. There are damned few losers here, so we really don't know what it's like to lose very much. But the losers know. Maybe we should find out what the losers think of the school system. I don't think it's going to help them very much. It's not going to get better for losers. It's not going to get better for kids from backgrounds of poverty, family upset, broken homes and that sort of thing. School is not going to get better for them, it's going to get worse, it's going to get tougher. We'll be back to the system that we had 50 years ago. Why do we need it? Can't we afford it? Is it a failure of our financial system? It's flopped, has it? Is that why we can't?

Does the minister agree that we should enhance the development of their potential and preserve their sense of dignity and personal worth? Mr. Smith did — the Attorney-General did, when he was minister. Here we have the elimination of itinerant French, the cutting in half of teacher-aide services, school closures, elimination of schools, wiping out summer school — these are all draconian policies, hidden by the excuse that we can't afford it. I don't think that's true at all. I think it's because there is a contempt for education over there because many very successful people over there have had very little education. So they don't feel it, they don't know it; they haven't experienced it so they don't understand it.

Another thing I believe is that it's an opportunity to get back at some of the teachers. Perhaps you didn't like their political views — a little retaliation, a little punishment here and there.

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

[11:30]

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't be surprised.

Does the minister share the view that the primary purpose of schooling — quoting again from the report of the former minister — "must surely be intellectual development, the cultivation of minds." Is that still the view — the cultivation of minds? How does the minister and his department square that with making them jump through hoops and with standardized exams that were condemned as long ago as the Putman-Weir report of 1925? External exams were condemned out of hand as far back as 1925. What are we doing this for? We've got to close schools, close classrooms, cut back on educational funding — $20 million this year — but you’ve got to go out and spend $2 million on exams that nobody wants and nobody needs. If they do want them, they don't know what they're talking about. They can't. There is no intellectual basis for approving those procedures that you're spending money on. The public may feel it's a good thing. I don't deny that. But I'd like a shred of proof of any kind, proof based on any kind of adequate research, that that final hurdle of an external exam is going to increase the kids' knowledge. There is none that I know of. Maybe you have it.

Anyway, I'd be interested in knowing about those things. I know that Smith's report says: "I agree to the desire of local boards to represent their constituents by maintaining control over local educational policies." Has that gone out the window too, Mr. Chairman? I think we've had a complete turnaround in attitude and I would be interested in having the minister respond to some of those questions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the member's first comment on how to square that centralization with deregulation, deregulation is not, I think, going to be a paramount problem. The fact is, there are a number of things which I think government has gotten involved in over a long period of time and which are no longer necessary. As far as centralization is concerned, the only issue that came up was the matter of budgets and access to the residential tax base.

MR. ROSE: That's two.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I agree, and I agree that those two items, with respect to the framework at the time it is now in.... I agree that being pre-empted from the residential base is an erosion of local autonomy. There isn't any argument with that at all. But the fact is that revenues were declining rapidly on the provincial side. In addition, taxpayers were saying to us: "We don't have any more money to give you." That gave us a serious problem. How do you address the shortfall of funds on both fronts and still attempt to come in with a system to give equality of opportunity to every student within the province, recognizing in advance that there are many school districts that have been exposed to significant declines in enrolment, and yet their budgets were increasing on a historical pattern, by going to the previous year's budget and saying: "We need this much more"? In fact they acknowledge again and again that there was much that they could do. What happened is, and throwing everything aside, that a little encouragement was required. Now we agreed....

MR. ROSE: Encouragement?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right.

[ Page 3186 ]

MR. ROSE: You added regulations, not encouragement.

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

MR. ROSE: Compulsion.

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

MR. ROSE: Certainly we do. Shoot.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You talked about cutting funding, and you're saying 25 percent. Overall it's a little over 2 percent — $20 million roughly, from $1.575 billion down to $1.553 billion. I think it's somewhere in there. That's not very much money. When you look at all of the budgets which you've got — and I'm sure you have a copy as well — the total amount.... On the last one that came out it's 98.7 percent. So I was wrong when I said a little over 2 percent. In fact, the way it's worked out after all of the discussions which have taken place since last July, the total amount will be 98.7 percent of the 1983 budget. I admit that on top of that there is the fact that the salary settlements for this coming year were zero plus increment, with three or four exceptions. That obviously had a tremendous impact.

Of course, you're concerned about inflation. But it seems to me that the inflation was taken out, as a result of what I feel to be a program which has assisted us all through very difficult times: that is, the compensation stabilization program. That may be debatable, as far as members of the opposition are concerned, but I will suggest to you that in the public sector something had to be done. In the private sector we've got the whips of the marketplace. Yes, we have a lot of mills and plants closed down, and an unacceptable unemployment rate. That is a fact. But in the public sector, the whips of the marketplace did not come into focus the way they have in the private. So the CSP has had a desirable effect, because the object was to attempt to preserve as much employment as we could and keep those who were working still working. But I admit there have been some layoffs.

The member made reference to the U.S. system. I was wondering if you would raise that. I want to raise just a few items. Do you know what happened in California? There is an article in the New York Times entitled "California's Bankrupt Schools," published in July 1983. If you wish a photocopy of the article, Mr. Member, I'll be glad to send it to you. But the opening shot in the article states as follows: "It has been five years since enactment of California's Proposition 13, which slashed property taxes by 57 percent and placed a cap on future property tax increases." Well, we know what the effect was. It decimated the school system. Throwing away all of the rhetoric, our objective was pure and simple: to prevent our system from exploding we wanted to exercise some degree of restraint, and it was important to do it now.

Much has been made of California's recent budget, where something in the order of $900 million was just committed within the last month. But you can knock $300 million off the $900 million for capital expenditures. Then the incentives are coming in. We want to increase the number of school days to 180. Of course, when we look at the U.S. document called Nation At Risk, and look at the average teachers' salaries across the United States, $17,000 per year is the average salary. All I'm saying to you is that it is fine for us to say that something the U.S. is doing...and make some comment with respect to funding, but I think.... This is one figure that might be of some importance. It was published January 16, 1984. The text is Education USA. Spending per pupil in California is $2,427.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I heard the comment made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and he is quite right — it shows. I'm not sure we should take the time of the House to dive into what was disclosed in Nation at Risk. Your colleague is right on target.

We want to look at British Columbia. In 1983 the B.C. total cost — we know that — was $3,937. The gross operating cost per pupil for 1983 was $3,809, and if you deduct teachers' pensions, it was $3,575 per student.

MR. ROSE: You're using both Canadian and U.S. dollars?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suppose, when you and take into account the differential in the exchange rates and the cost of living here as compared to the cost of living in California, you're obviously going to come out with something similar. I would think that we would probably find it somewhere within $100 on either side of the margin. I'm not so sure that I'll accept everything that is said about the U.S., particularly what I've read.

I think it is important to remember that the object of this exercise was not to say that too little or too much is being spent on education. There is another factor that has significant impetus, and that is the available dollars.

The member also mentioned that many concerns were raised in his telephone contacts with a number of school districts in the province. First, the number of budgets. Just exactly where do we stand? We know by statute that each school board must submit its budget by February 15. We introduced the first documents and the figures for each board in July. Since July, as a result of discussions with all of the districts within British Columbia, those figures were revised in November and revised again in January, all of which was done on a cooperative basis. I'm not saying there wasn't some hardship or some pain suffered by some districts. The fact of the matter is, the final budget doesn't have to come in until February 15.

The member made reference to the cyclical nature of enrolment and counted peaks and valleys. In 1983, according to the figures we probably both have, more babies were born in British Columbia than at any other time in the province's history. We know that there will be an effect five and six years down the line. But I have to point out that the funding

[ Page 3187 ]

formula, primarily enrolment-driven, takes into consideration any increase in enrolment. So it's not, as the member is saying, that there won't be any funds. Funds are going to be generated based upon the number of students who are attending school in that particular district — that's a fact.

Now with respect to examinations, I guess my immediate challenge to the member is: are you for or against external examinations? I would gather from your comments right at the very end that you think it's been bad policy since 1925 to have them — according to the authors you adhere to. But I leave it: are you for or against examinations?

[11:45]

Let me just recite to you an interesting dialogue which took place last week at a conference of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals — an international organization — and it was held in the U.S. There were a number of Canadian participants, They relayed a very clear message to me. The topic of conversation among all these educators was that examinations must be reintroduced into the system. In those schools — which they refer to in the U.S. as "lighthouse schools" or "exemplar schools" — where there has been some rigid control within the school, they found the following: discipline has improved immeasurably; attendance has improved immeasurably; the attention of the students has improved immeasurably; most important of all, the number of dropouts has decreased.

I am passing on to the House the observations and conclusion of a number of educators in the U.S. and in Canada as a result of a forum in which they were involved last week. Why did we introduce examinations? I happen to believe in them for those reasons in part. In British Columbia it is not a secret. The only problem in British Columbia is that sometimes people are reluctant to tell the truth because it may hurt. Frankly, I find it a lot easier now because I don't have nearly as much to remember if I do. It seems to me there was a significant deviation from curriculum in various districts province-wide.

How about equal opportunity for all students in all districts for admission to post-secondary institutions? How about grade inflation? It was rampant. Marks assigned to students varied from district to district. I'll tell you, push came to shove in the post-secondary institution when certain levels of performance coming from a school district at the low end were almost certain to achieve passing marks in a post-secondary institution, but those with higher marks were having a great deal of difficulty. Why? the kids asked those questions. I'll tell you, our students are entitled to an answer. All I can do — as a mechanic, in many ways — is try to see if we can overcome that problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Are you hungry? The member asked me some other questions, and I feel that I must respond to some of them.

One of the questions you asked was about layoffs. Remember, teachers negotiate terms of severance with their boards. This involves seniority, qualifications and whatever else they happen to put into their document. But you raised one other point involving the average teacher's salary. We recognized last summer what the problem was with respect to that average. We worked on it in the early part of the fall, and we made a decision to look at September 30. That's one month after school starts. The average at that time will allow someone who wants to take early retirement to be replaced by two younger teachers. The funds would be there, because the date of September 30 is critical.

With respect to larger classes. the funding formula is again based upon enrolment. What figures did we use when we created the formula? The figures which we used and which you raised were those prescribed by the B.C. Teachers' Federation as to class size, with one exception: kindergarten. They thought 1 to 20 is what it ought to be, and we believed and used 1 to 22.

Among the short snappers that came at the end of your speech, you referred to a basic or adequate education as set forth in the document which my predecessor had prepared. I would suggest, to you, Mr. Chairman, the very plan on which the funding formula and the framework is based is an adequate education.

Public view with respect to curriculum. I have told you on a number of occasions that that is going out for discussion and debate.

Elimination of schools. Yesterday we read in the paper that in the Surrey School District there are two school closures. One school had 14 students, and by closing that school they would have to go one block further down the road.

MR. ROSE: Not Manning Park, was it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's what the press had. But there's another one. There's another school where there are 150 students and they've got to go one kilometre.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The pangs of lunch seem to be bothering members on both sides, so I....

MR. ROSE: In the remaining two minutes or so before we satisfy the inner man, or woman as the case may be, I wanted to reassure the minister that I really didn't want to get into all the details about exams and that sort of thing. I was just in my introduction.

I'd like to make a few comments, though, on what the minister bad to say on a number of points. When I talked about the 25 percent reduction, it's the 2 percent the minister imposed in one year plus the 5 percent inflation rate.

Multiply that by three and you've got 22 to 25 percent, depending upon the inflation rate. The minister said he solved that through Ed Peck and his compensation commission — he beat inflation. You don't beat inflation if you're paying rent. The teacher or the worker or whoever doesn't beat inflation just because Mr. Peck is around. The cost of living continues to go up. What you do is effectively reduce the person's salary, whether it's public or private. The fact that he has a job is important, of course. Inflation is tough, but it's not as tough as it is if you are unemployed. I agree with that. I'll talk as well about the multiplier effect of unemploying teachers, and I'll cite the example of Qualicum when I deal with that.

The other point was about exams and lighthouse schools. Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't have exams. I'm suggesting that the imposition of province-wide exams that count 50 percent in the first year was a precipitous move that has caused a certain amount of anguish and trouble. Sure, you're going to have certain schools like lighthouse schools that attract the academically competent. You win both ways, you

[ Page 3188 ]

say, because these schools have a rigorous set of academic competencies, so naturally they're going to attract those kids who want to proceed and are more able academically. And yes, they'll do better on exams. If you've got a school such as St. George's, which has a restrictive entrance capacity, and you pick only your best students, you probably could prove that the independent school is a far better institution, whether it's a parochial school or whatever; and you can extrapolate from that that it is somehow a better school. Sure, give me the opportunity to fill my class up with only bright kids who are really good, and I can get tremendous records on exams too. That's exactly what I think is happening down there. I'm not saying they don't help; I'm suggesting that to have 50 percent of a kid's final mark riding on an exam — I'll get into the exams a little later — is precipitous, hasty and won't accomplish what the minister hopes it will accomplish, regardless of what the lighthouse schools say.

He talked about teachers scaling marks. Did the department never scale marks? I remember that there were hard tests and easy tests, and if a certain number of people didn't pass that test, the department scaled marks, and it did it so for years and years and years. Certainly that's an important factor. If you want to know about the various schools and whether or not universities feel that what we used to call matriculation examinations are predictors of success, or even good screens for university, you'll probably find that those too are wanting and lack any kind of research to back it up.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.