[ Page 3757 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Unemployment. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3758

Quintette Coal Ltd. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3759

Reforestation. Mrs. Wallace –– 3759

Aboriginal self-government. Mr. Passarell –– 3760

Tabling Documents –– 3761

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

On vote 15: minister's office –– 3761

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the House a group of young university students from the forestry faculty who are visiting the precincts today. With them is their chairman, Rob Laisley, who is accompanied by quite a large group, including two who are spokespeople for the group: Sally Aiken and David Pond. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair for clarification of the Speaker's decision last Friday, wherein the Chair said: "Bearing in mind the number of occasions on which matters of unemployment have been raised under standing order 35 and have been turned down as being inappropriate, it could well be considered that continued application of a like nature constituted abuse of the procedure of this House." Mr. Speaker, I want a clarification from the Chair as to whether or not the admonition about abuse of 35 is indeed a matter of fact or, rather, a matter of opinion, and as to whether or not a ruling has been made from the Chair to that effect over the issue of unemployment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly the ruling of the Chair was made, and, in the opinion of the Chair, the explanation speaks very clearly for itself.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the House can only be governed by decisions in the chamber, rather than by opinions from any comer, including, in my opinion, the Chair. An expression of opinion from the Chair does not constitute an order in itself. What I am requesting from the Chair is clarification as to whether or not it was the Chair's decision or just a verbal opinion that unemployment is an inappropriate issue to discuss under 35. Is that a ruling or an opinion?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is a long-standing ruling; it is based on over 600 years' experience of parliamentary activity, and that is how the ruling was brought before the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, without being facetious, there was no attempt by the Chair to interpret 600 years of rule interpretation to mean that we can't raise unemployment under standing order 35. It is a current issue, with 200,000 people in this province out of work.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking for a ruling.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, not at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members, it is a long-standing rule of this House that when the Speaker stands in his place, any member who continues to talk, or who interrupts in any way whatsoever, is immediately asked to leave the chamber. I remind members of that for the final time.

Hon. members, while I am on my feet I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that a ruling brought in under standing order 35 was brought in on Friday. That ruling cannot be challenged today on a point of order. The time to challenge the ruling was on Friday, when members should have been here. If it is a member's intention not to be happy or pleased with a ruling of the Chair. the time to bring that to the attention of the House or to challenge the ruling is at the time it is brought down, and not to recanvass or to enter into debate on a matter that has already been discussed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member we're not on a....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: When does an opinion by the Chair constitute a ruling? That is the basis of my original point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly, the ruling brought in on Friday dealing with the standing order 35 which was raised by the member at that time, was addressed at that time. The ruling is clear. The opinion of the Chair is brought forward, as is needed under standing order 35. Hon. member, in fact, I believe if you will read the decision carefully, you will find reference made to a ruling by previous Speakers, and I would be happy to supply the Leader of the Opposition with similar rulings at similar times.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is not going to enter into debate on this matter.

MR. BARRETT: No, not debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor.

MR. BARRETT: The question I raise, Mr. Speaker, is of the Chair expressing an opinion, not a ruling, and the opinion is that it could well be considered that continued application of a like nature constituted abuse — not a ruling but an opinion. What I was asking on the original point of order is: is that opinion a ruling, or is it an expression of opinion about what is appropriate for debate?

[ Page 3758 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, when the Chair brings in any ruling or opinion, it is based upon the fact that a member may or may not bring a request forward in a parliamentary method, either under the basis of asking for genuine assistance under 35 or, as often happens, possibly under political considerations. The Chair tries to accomplish both by bringing forth an opinion often other than a ruling to try to soften any feelings that might otherwise be affected.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I know of no order in the standing rules that governs the feelings of members. We deal with facts. An expression of opinion has been made by the Chair, and I would ask the Chair to state clearly whether this opinion is indeed a ruling. Opinions could be interpreted by some members who have sensitive feelings — as described by the Chair — as being an attempt to limit, ahead of time, what any freely elected member in this chamber wishes to raise. The point that I'm sticking to, Mr. Speaker, is strictly this one: there is an expression from the Chair around an issue, unemployment, that it could well be considered that continued application of a like nature constituted an abuse. In my opinion, that is inappropriate for the Chair, unless the Chair is stating clearly that the Chair tells the House it will no longer consider a section 35 if the subject matter is unemployment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, just so we may put this matter to rest, the Chair will undertake to review both what was said on Friday and the points that were made in the last few moments, and will undertake to bring back a more clear analysis for the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Questions

UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. GABELMANN: In view of the obvious emergency in the province, if not in the Legislature, relating to unemployment, may I ask the Minister of Labour a question, in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Statistics Canada reported on Friday that British Columbia has now reached the second-highest unemployment rate in Canada following two consecutive regressive budgets. In the face of this further evidence of the suffering caused by the past two budgets, is the government reconsidering its fiscal policies? I ask the Minister of Labour that question as he is the minister responsible for employment in this province.

[2:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps after question period the member would table the comment from Statistics Canada regarding regressive budgets. I would be interested to see that. I doubt very much whether Statistics Canada used that language. He made it up again.

Mr. Speaker, no, we are not reconsidering our fiscal policy.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the minister's hearing is impaired today. I said that Statistics Canada has reported that British Columbia now has the second-highest unemployment in Canada. "As a result of the regressive budget" were my words.

I have another question for the minister. The unemployment rate in British Columbia is as high as or higher than during the worst part of the recession two years ago. Is the minister now prepared to admit that the recovery in the rest of North America has passed British Columbia by?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to admit that at all. This government is gearing all of its policies to developing employment projects to put people to work. Today the Premier and a number of other people announced an important job creation project with the extension of the ALRT across the Fraser River. I understand, although I wasn't there, that Solidarity was there and booed the creation of jobs for people in British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia now has 91,000 fewer people working than it had when the budget was introduced last July. Is the minister prepared to consider other job creation initiatives to get them back to work?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, of course we are considering other job creation projects. The announcements that I made myself in the last couple of weeks with the youth employment program to be continued during the summer.... The Solidarity boos and the NDP laughs at programs to put young people to work. That's where their priorities lie, Mr. Speaker.

This summer there will be $10 million for youth employment. We will be putting 9,000 young people to work directly as a result of that program. We've also put together a program whereby we hope 10,000 or more young people will create their own jobs by starting their own businesses with guarantees for loans from this government. We'll be announcing a lot of other job creation programs as well. Expo 86 is starting now to put people to work in this province, this year, next year and the year after. This province will have the best reputation for job creation in Canada if it doesn't have it already.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, even if we accept the minister's figures of 19,000 jobs for young people in British Columbia this summer, there will still be well in excess of 200,000 young people without jobs this summer.

What explanation does the minister have for the fact that British Columbia's lack of performance runs counter to the trend in all of the 59 other jurisdictions of Canada and the United States?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think British Columbia's situation is easy to explain. Our resource sector, as everyone in this province and around the country knows, has been very seriously hit. Metal prices are still down; markets are still down. The forest industry has come through its most disastrous time ever, and unfortunately is not yet responding. But I hope that very soon the current dispute in the forest industry will be out of the way, and that that industry will then start to recover — certainly as housing starts increase in the United States. I just hope we get this dispute over as quickly as possible and that our people bargain to a successful solution quickly, in order that we can take advantage of what is a window that will begin to improve employment rates in British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: None of my figures includes the people who are locked out at the present time in terms of

[ Page 3759 ]

unemployment. Obviously, the fact that similar economies in Oregon and Washington are not having the kind of downturn in employment that we are in British Columbia tells us that it's the result of the government's fiscal policy.

Will the Minister of Labour advise why the ministry has not published the February 1984 labour force statistics?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's part of a reorganization of our ministry. Those statistics are not our statistics; they are put out by Statistics Canada. They are readily available in a number of other places. In the interests of saving taxpayers' money I felt — and my ministry feels — that if you can get them in at least four other places, what's the point of just sifting over the Statistics Canada figures and putting them out in another form? That's really all they are.

QUINTETTE COAL LTD.

MR. GABELMANN: The real answer is that the minister doesn't like what the figures say. It doesn't cost much to print a mimeographed booklet like that.

To the same minister but on another subject relating to employment in British Columbia. I asked questions along this line last Monday; I'm going to ask some different questions because the minister failed to deal with the issue. Article 13.1 of the comprehensive agreement between the province and Quintette Coal requires Quintette to cooperate and work with the Ministry of Labour to develop and maintain employment plans covering construction and operation of the Quintette mine. Will the minister advise whether this provision in the master agreement has been observed and whether Quintette has worked with the ministry to develop such a manpower plan?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On the basis of the last question, one other comment. Those figures must be available, because the member quoted from them extensively today, and he obviously got his information either from the newspapers, where he usually gets it, or from Statistics Canada, where it's available free.

MR. NICOLSON: You're jealous because he can read and you can't.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that is a very unkind cut, coming from a member who is known for throwing his rule book at the Chairman of this assembly.

I have no evidence to the contrary.

MR. GABELMANN: My question was, has the ministry worked out a labour plan with Quintette?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My answer was, I have no evidence to the contrary.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, that answer is as useful as the government's policies.

Will the minister advise whether Quintette and the ministry reached an agreement under which Quintette sends recruiters and advertises for heavy-equipment operators and heavy-duty mechanics in Ontario and Newfoundland?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. GABELMANN: Is the minister aware that many heavy-equipment operators and mechanics in British Columbia have been refused employment by Quintette Coal at the same time as Quintette Coal is running ads in papers in St. John's, Newfoundland, for these positions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I am not aware of that, but I would be extremely happy if that member would provide me with that evidence to help me in taking this question as notice to provide him with further information at some other date.

REFORESTATION

MRS. WALLACE: My question, in view of the absence of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), is addressed to the Attorney-General, who I understand is his stand-in. In view of the serious unemployment situation in British Columbia, will the minister advise why he has failed to conclude a new federal-provincial agreement on intensive reforestation? This would result in $120 million of additional reforestation expenditure in the 1984-85 fiscal year.

HON. MR. SMITH: In my capacity as acting minister only, I can inform the member that British Columbia has offered a renewal of the program and has put that renewal before the federal minister. The federal minister apparently announced today in the House of Commons that they are studying that renewal proposal. It's the hope of this government that we will shortly be able to conclude such an agreement.

MRS. WALLACE: It has certainly taken long enough, because the federal government had given up ever being able to conclude with you people. Two years ago the forest and range resource fund report recommended provincial government spending of $165 million on planting and caring for trees. Will the minister advise why the government has cut back to $99.7 million at a time when the future of our forest industry is at risk?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll take that question as notice for the minister.

MRS. WALLACE: I'll try again with another question. Prof. Jack Walters of the UBC forestry faculty says that up to 100,000 new full- and part-time jobs could be created if the government did its duty on reforestation. Why is the government cutting back and impeding work in this area"

HON. MR. SMITH: Along with the somewhat dubious premises, I'll take that question on notice, too.

MRS. WALLACE: It's very difficult, Mr. Speaker, when you have to deal with a minister who obviously knows nothing about the ministry he's standing in for.

A group of 200 forestry students are in Victoria today protesting the lack of funds for forest renewal. Has the government decided to respond seriously and favourably to the concerns of these students, who are desperately trying to ensure that their future is ensured along with our forest resource?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes.

[ Page 3760 ]

ABORIGINAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

MR. PASSARELL: I direct a question to the Premier. Will the Premier advise this House why he ruled out support for the principle of Indian self-government at the first ministers' conference in Ottawa?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government of British Columbia did not rule out support for the principle, but could not support putting words into the constitution until such a time as was defined what form that government would take and how it would be implemented. If the member had been there, he would have understood — as I'm sure he does — that many of the native groups have different forms of government which they wish to see implemented. Some are not supportive at all. Many know that in British Columbia we have a statute on the books allowing native bands to hold a vote to achieve municipal status. One vote was taken many years ago at Cape Mudge. At that time the requirement to achieve that was 75 percent. Just over 70 percent was achieved. Since that time the legislation has been amended to allow that to happen with a 60 percent vote. That's one form of government that would work under provincial jurisdiction.

The member's got to know that different native groups take positions as extreme as the Mohawks did at the conference. They consider themselves a sovereign nation and not part of Canada. Some of the proposals called for sovereignty similar to that requested by Quebec, where they would not be part of Canada but would be sovereign nations. I think many of the people I talked to were looking for a more workable form. So we support the principle. What is, from any governmental point of view, a foolish thing to do is to put words into a constitution when you don't know the way and where such words will lead you. I think the Canadian people and most of the native people of this country are looking for workable answers. I think most of them are tired of words; they want solutions, and that's what we were there for.

MR. SEGARTY: On a point of order, earlier, before question period, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) got up on a point of order to discuss a ruling by Mr. Speaker on Friday last. I'd just like the Speaker to take into consideration a similar situation that was brought up in this House on November 1, 1974, and a ruling by Speaker Dowding on the question of unemployment in British Columbia, when the mover asked the House to propose discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely rising unemployment in the province of British Columbia and the recession in the forest and housing industries in our province.

Mr. Speaker, without quoting the full text of Speaker Dowding's remarks, it's interesting to note that Speaker Dowding at that time subsequently ruled: "I am bound to follow the precedents I have recited, and in view of that, in my opinion, the matter does not fall within the scope of standing order 35."

When Speaker Dowding was....

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Inasmuch as the Chair has undertaken to bring back a full and comprehensive decision on the matter.... I appreciate very much the member's point. The Chair is familiar with the ruling to which the member is referring.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to conclude by saying that Speaker Dowding ruled that the question wasn't subject to appeal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I thank you for the observation.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. The Chair has undertaken to bring back a more comprehensive analysis, and that concludes that particular issue. We're not going to engage in a further debate.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, very briefly on the point of order raised by my colleague for Kootenay....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We are not engaging in a debate at this time.

MR. D'ARCY: I don't wish to debate his point, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to point out for clarification that in '74, when the issue was raised under the good management of the government at the time, unemployment was 5 percent, not 15 percent as it is now under that government over there.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would ask the House for leave to give a brief obituary, if I could.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to say a few words of tribute. I know that my friends opposite will forgive me if I'm doing this, because he was a friend. Walter Young passed away on Sunday, and he was a good friend of this assembly. Walter Young was head of the political science department at the University of Victoria for a number of years and during his time there worked on introducing the intern system into this body, which has flourished and been entirely successful. He had a distinguished academic career. He was president of the Canadian Political Science Association. He was a biographer of M.J. Coldwell. He was a co-founder of the publication BC Studies. He wrote in Vancouver Magazine and a number of other journals. He was a very distinguished political scientist. He was a British Columbia Rhodes scholar in 1956 and president of the student council at Oak Bay High School. He was well known in this town as an absolutely superb teacher of political science and particularly of the class of Political Science 200. His students have gone the breadth of Canada and the world. He was a very fine teacher. He was a good companion to me, although of the opposite political stripe. During election campaigns I used to step over the orange sign on his lawn and go in and take tea with him quite regularly and keep my flagging hopes higher than they otherwise might have been. He died on Sunday after a lengthy illness at the age of 50. If Ernie Hall were here today, he probably would have paid this tribute before I did. I'd like the House to pay tribute to him and also send wishes to his widow and family.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Attorney-General for a very gracious statement about the passing of a prominent British Columbian who was partisan and never hid his partisanship but who separated it from his scholastic work. The Attorney-General speaks correctly

[ Page 3761 ]

when he says that Walter Young, while a political scientist of definite political opinions — i.e., a supporter of the New Democratic Party — never shaded his professional work with his political convictions in any way.

In the midst of political turmoil in this province, it is essential for people in this province to understand that there are genuine friendships beyond temporary differences of opinion on political philosophy. One of those people who was able to have permanent friendships in all political parties, regardless of the times, was Walter Young. Walter was a good son of British Columbia. He was a proud academic and we, as British Columbians, were proud of him. He leaves a distinguished career behind him and warm memories of his work throughout the academic community and in the general population as well. Unlike a lot of academics, Walter was part of the general population, rather than separating himself in an ivory tower. He will be missed by active politicians, by political observers and by friends and family. It is a deep loss, and I'm most appreciative of the statements of the Attorney-General. We wish to agree completely with the sentiments of the Attorney-General and hope that the appropriate message is sent to the survivors in the name of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if it is the wish of the House, the Chair will undertake the appropriate message from this chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the report on the Cowichan Estuary Plan Implementation, as produced by the Ministry of Environment in March 1984.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 15: minister's office, $186,000.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it wasn't too long ago that a few comments were raised with respect to last year's estimates. In the interests of time I'll be brief, but I think it is probably important that we quickly review some of those reasons which have led to the concerns that have been expressed not only by members of the opposition but by a number of others having a particular interest in the community. By the way, Mr. Chairman, two gentleman have just come into the House: my deputy minister Jim Carter, and my assistant deputy minister Jack Fleming.

I hope the House will refresh its memory on the costs of education. The expenditure over the last seven or eight fiscal years has moved from something like $900 million up to $1.9 billion. I think we should just keep that in mind. It's not for me to say whether this is too little, too much or just about right; what is important is that we be able to fund the education system within the ability to pay. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the cost per student in that same period of time has gone — I'll use rounded figures — from roughly $1,735 to $3,935. At the same time, enrolment has declined. As a matter of fact, by September 1984 we expect enrolment to be something in the order of 478,500 students. That's a drop from a high of 525,344 in 1976.

As well, I think it's worth noting the cost of funding teachers in British Columbia. We are among the highest if not the highest paid in Canada. Our administrators in the school system in British Columbia are certainly the highest paid in Canada. I raise that for only one reason: I don't dispute what any of them are earning, or anybody else, for that matter. Like government, all these people did was to exercise their rights in the system that was in place to secure the best deal they could for themselves. Nobody is taking issue with that.

For the last year and a half the issue has been the fact that taxpayers generally don't have the money to send to government; nor do they have the money to absorb the inflationary impact that taxation — that is, residential and non-residential taxation — is having upon their properties. It should also be noted that contributions to teachers' pensions have gone from something in the order of $29 million to $109 million. That has been revised downwards so it is somewhere in the order of about $103 million to $104 million annually.

The framework introduced last July caused considerable concern. It's understandable that it would cause some concern, because it's a change in the system. Instead of budgeting, as they had done historically, using previous budgets as the guide, what we in fact did was start again at the beginning. We set out, for everyone to review, certain rules and regulations in order to try to calculate the budget. We succeeded in doing that in most districts. There are half a dozen in British Columbia right now that are still offering some resistance. There may be some good reason for it, but it is also something that we must address as we go into 1985. Most budgets for 1984 have been filed, with the exception of one or two that I know of. I think a quote from somebody intimately involved in the system is worthwhile repeating. As a matter of fact, his reference is to when the system first went out: "The new system, ignoring the obvious shortage of money, is an excellent start in establishing a more meaningful budgeting and costing basis for British Columbia's school districts."

We have worked closely with school districts ever since last July. We produced a number of tentative budgets and the final went out in the middle of January 1984, allowing school districts to submit their own. It is important, when you compare the actual expenditures for 1983 and the budgeted amount for 1984, to note that the difference in the gross operating budgets for all school districts is something in the order of $20 million less. The figures are $1.573 billion for 1983, and $1.553 billion for 1984. So there is no misunderstanding, it should also be recognized that that which is being paid for in 1984 is more than that which was paid for in 1983, because, if you will recall, in the spring of 1983 there were five fewer instructional days in many districts.

We can raise something about the PTRs later on, after my critic has the floor, because no doubt he will ask me questions about that, and I don't want to take up too much time now.

I did want to make one comment about one particular report which caused some concern at the time, and it involves employment for teachers. If you recall, allegations were made that the system would knock out about 3,000 teachers. That proved not to be the case, if you recall, and there was a headline in one of the local newspapers to that effect. But as a matter of fact, in computing the actual number of teachers

[ Page 3762 ]

who lost jobs between 1981 and 1983, the figure was something in the order of 250, and during that period of time there was a reduction in enrolment of 10,000 students.

I am not only interested in the budgets which are coming in, but also in the previous budgets which are being audited now. They must be completed by March 15 and filed with the provincial government by the end of March. It is going to be interesting to compare the audited actuals with the actuals set forth in the budget. It is then that we start to identify the matter of surpluses; in a number of areas where many people were hollering for more money it is interesting to note that a surplus was established.

[2:45]

Something has to be said about the compensation stabilization program as it affected schools. We should remember that the increases for the three consecutive years of 1980, 1981 and 1982 were roughly 9.5 percent, 13.5 percent and 17.5 percent respectively. With the first effect of the compensation stabilization package in 1983, we were looking at an increase of roughly 3 percent, and in 1984, although all districts did.... The local teachers' associations as well as the school boards must be congratulated on recognizing that there is an ability-to-pay problem. While they did recognize that and came in at a zero rate of increase, increments were acknowledged. You should be aware that the impact of increments — that is, the contractual responsibility between the board and its employees — was worth, I understand, about 2 percent on the budget. That is a significant sum of money. Because the ability to pay was not there — and the object was obviously to preserve what employment we have as much as possible and share those resources which we have — it seems to me that the government ought to be congratulated on facing a serious problem head-on with the CSP program and its effect upon everyone within the public sector, although the opposition may not be very fond of this particular message.

I will conclude by advising you, Mr. Chairman, that we are now working on a commitment to produce a new School Act, in the form of a White Paper which I hope will be delivered by June.

We have made a commitment to everyone on deregulation, and I hope that we will have something to offer in that area within the next several weeks. A number of people who are involved at the technical level are working on this particular proposal.

Exams have taken a fair amount of time in the ministry. I offer my congratulations to those people who were involved and who put in rather extensive hours over a long period of time. And we're getting prepared for the June examinations.

The issue of amalgamation may come up, and is something that I am quite prepared to address.

In the college system, Mr. Chairman, for the most part, things are going reasonably well. The budget states a reduction of the actual portion to colleges and institutes of about $9 million. However, incorporated within that $9 million are a number of items which will not have an impact on the colleges themselves. All I can say on that is that those officials in the ministry who have been working on it have done a commendable job, because the formula funding program has got the support of every college and institute in the province, to my knowledge, with the exception of one. Interestingly enough, we saw a letter published in the paper the other day by the principal of Vancouver Community College who felt that basically we've gone a considerable distance, and it's an enlightened method for distributing funds.

I think with those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared now to field those questions which the opposition critic may wish to advance at this time.

MR. ROSE: I welcome the minister's remarks, as I welcome his officials. I'd be interested to know, though, just on a point of order, on what grounds the minister is allowed to have advisers in here. Is there any standing order relating to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a practice of this House.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if that practice allowing strangers in the House ought to be accorded also to the opposition, which obviously hasn't got the same back-up as the ministry, and should be permitted, as well, to have advisers here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's a point that's well made. I think I have observed in times past that staff members of the official opposition have been present in the House, but I will undertake to bring a more definitive answer to the member.

MR. ROSE: I just wondered, Mr. Chairman, since there are people here to assist the minister, and he has all that great departmental backup. If I need help and I don't have anybody....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What's the member for Vancouver South saying about his own minister? Obviously he needs all this high-priced help and brainpower to assist him.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver South doesn't need the help of a microphone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will undertake to bring a definitive answer to the member's question, which is legitimate. Now if we could pursue the estimates, the committee would be well served.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: If the member for Little Mountain would stop bleating I might be able to get on with my speech. But I take that as a welcome permission, that if we need to have somebody in here to assist us and provide us with statistical details from time to time, there would be no objection either from the minister or from the Chair. I'll assume that's true.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the minister's remarks. He talks about a number of things that I can address in general here, in a brief way, because I'd like to go through sequentially what he had to say. I just made a few notes about that. Then I'll get on to the major part of my own remarks a little further on.

The first thing was something to do with the ability to pay. I'm not certain I agree with the ability to pay here. Ability to pay, really, is a political decision. If you decide to spend your money on railroads, for instance — I see the Minister of

[ Page 3763 ]

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is here — instead of education, that's a political decision. You can easily say you have no money left for education because you've decided to spend it on something else, or you don't have as much as you had at one time. So I don't regard that as final in a form of democratic government. I think that the ability to pay is really determined by your desire to pay for one thing as opposed to the other. So I don't find that particularly convincing. It may wash for those people who think that governments should be run exactly like a business, but government is not a business. It doesn't run like a business, and it never will, no matter if it's being run by screaming left-wing radicals or right-wing conservatives of the Reagan persuasion. So I don't agree with that.

The minister talked about the costs of education going up. Yes, they have. But I don't think they've gone up any faster than the costs of government. I don't think they've gone up any faster than the price of eggs or cheese or anything that we spend money on. The cost of houses, for instance, went up. Nobody came in and put legislation on to hold down the cost of housing two years ago. The minister says: "Well, there's only so much property tax that can be spent on education." The point is that the portion of property taxes devoted to education has gone down over the last three years, not up. If we were California, where the total educational budget is funded out of property taxes, that would be a different thing. I don't wonder that they screamed about proposition 13. But they've changed their mind a little bit about that. They say they can't throw money at problems any more. Well, the Americans are throwing plenty of money at educational problems, because the American teaches are not among the highest-paid, as the minister said; they're among the lowest-paid in North America. There's no question about that. Their quality is suffering, and the Americans are concerned about it. No matter whether we like what the Americans have done or not, certainly their technology and their system of education has produced probably the highest technical advance in education and technology anywhere in this world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Without throwing millions at it.

MR. ROSE: By throwing millions at it, yes, on the secondary, elementary and college levels — through one way or the other; even through defence contracts.

The minister says that the teachers are the highest-paid in Canada. So what? So are our doctors. Why shouldn't they be? So is property here in B.C., compared to Toronto or.... So are house prices. Everything the teacher has to buy is going to be among the highest in Canada. When he has to go to the doctor or to the dentist, if he doesn't have a dental plan, those people are among the highest-paid in Canada. We have a high-wage province, as everybody knows, and to some people's regret. I don't think it's....

The minister is proud of going back to dealing, for instance, with the business of zero-based budgeting. I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily. I'm not going to criticize the fact that the minister is trying to bring some kind of order or formula into budgeting of schools. I don't think that's something we should just reject out of hand. What I object to is its imposition. They really had no consultation; it was just imposed on them, in the same way that the minister imposed changes in the colleges act. Did anybody from the school districts demand that? No, they didn't. It was just imposed on them. The minister prattles all the time about his act of consulting. If there's one thing the minister has been consistently criticized for — and there have been many — it's the fact that he has not consulted. There have been bureaucratic impositions from on high, unilaterally, and there hasn't been the consultation.

That leads me to another suggestion. He talked about the drop in Ed budget. He said the Ed budget's going to drop 2 percent or 3 percent. In the next three years, if the minister isn't halted in his madness, it's going to drop 25 percent on average across British Columbia. We're already now getting into the horror stories. I can name some: Jaffray, B.C. There's a horror story: kids going 30 miles to school, grades 9 and 10, in an area that's growing in population, and they're going to be sent to an area that's failing in population because of the collapse of the coal deals. There's a horror story. Surrey is a horror story. Where are the members for Surrey? They've probably gone out to stick their fingers in the dikes. It's a problem there. Coquitlam is a horror story. Prince George and Kwantlen College is a horror story. North Thompson is another horror story. Due to what? Due to the formula we're so proud of.

To his credit the minister agreed, about a month ago when we did these estimates before, that the formula was tentative and that he would be looking at it for anomalies and situations that caused hardship. Well, I hope he has a good look at it. Drop in education budget, all right; when this goes through in the next three years, it's going to drop 2 percent per year. With a 6 percent inflation rate, if it doesn't go higher — and the way the dollar's falling and the interest rates are going up it's going to go higher — that means 19 percent compounded, the average 25 percent. The minister says it's only 2 percent, but in real dollars in three years it's 25 percent. I'll examine why the formula's doing these things to Surrey and Jaffray and some of these other places. I'll talk about that a little later.

So there's not only going to be a drop in the budget; there's going to be a dropout rate in the schools. As these schools limit the number of options and limit the opportunities for people of differing skills and interests, schools will be less a home for those people not academically capable. You may think you're going to raise some standards. Yes, you might, but you're also going to chase a lot of kids out of school who desperately need the options they're not going to get. If you can be proud of that, I think there's something wrong with you. I think there's something wrong with the whole kind of orientation that would encourage that kind of thing — not only tolerate it, but almost be happy about it, cheer about it.

"We're really raising standards." One of the ways to raise standards is to chase out incompetents. That's how you raise standards: that's how the private schools do. Many of the independent schools do it that way all the time: they only let in those people who are good, who have academic competence. They have entrance screenings. So if you only let in the ones who are any good academically, naturally your averages are going to go up. That's obvious. That's terrific. But if you leave the public schools to collect all those people who are not able, academic cripples unable to function in a highly academic environment — and that's the only place they can go — of course it's going to look like the standards are lower. Anybody can manipulate that stuff anytime. So there is going to be a higher dropout rate.

[3:00]

Teacher employment. The Premier once said to me that he didn't think it was his obligation to hire every teacher or

[ Page 3764 ]

plumber who was turned out of a trade school or a college in this province. Maybe it isn't. I happen to think it is the obligation of government to provide for as much employment as it can. I don't believe it should be left up to the unseen hand; that an invisible hand is suddenly going to come around by some means and create employment; or that it's nobody's fault, or that nobody should care about it if it doesn't. Why do we have colleges of education? Why have we encouraged people to invest their lives in a career if there aren't going to be jobs for them? It's absolute nonsense. If I had my expert sitting behind me at the marble wall over here.... I've got a list of unemployed teachers in every part of the country. I was frantically searching for it, but I can't find it. But I'll read it into the record, since the minister brought it up.

Formula funding. Well, we said that we'd agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, I think you know now that I really find the minister very affable. He's a nice fellow. I don't think he beats his wife or....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Do you know something I don't know?

I'm sure he came on with a lot of high expectations, certainly in the profession. My gosh, he replaced another one who was a real hard-liner, Bill the Hammer. He came in there all smiles and affability — wonderful personality — but he lost it. Mr. Minister, you piddled it away in about eight months. It's gone. I think he'll end up being considered not the saviour of education but the saboteur of the educational system as we know it. He might tighten it up and make it leaner and meaner, and spend fewer bucks on it. I know he might get away with that.

One of the problems, I think, is that he's broken faith on about three occasions. I say this more in sorrow than in anger. I want him to write these down. I did this the last time I got up here. I just want to remind him. I'm not going to go into the details. Before he went on his junket to Germany, he said that if the boards could only come up with an idea for a positive use of the $12.5 million from the three-day withdrawal of service, he would consider giving it to the boards. They all went home and worked like mad at some kind of task, some way that $12.5 million could be used for educational purposes. My own suggestion is that it be considered a voluntary pay cut for the teachers who took three days off, so that the firing of the 23 or 30 or however many Surrey teachers at the end of the spring break could be avoided, and the layoffs at Christmastime as well. Did he do that? No. He got back, and on a Friday afternoon just before Christmas he didn't get up and say.... He announced — through Dick Melville, the PR man, I think — that no, he wasn't going to use it for that purpose at all; that whatever the board thought up wouldn't be any good anyway — he knew they wouldn't, so to heck with it. You lost a lot of friends there, Mr. Minister. I may not have that precisely the way it went, but that's the way it appears to some of us. I hope I'm not being too unkind when I say that.

Another thing he did, after assuring the David Thompson University Centre people only last fall....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The minister says no.

Only last fall he said he thought that place was good for a long run. I'm not going to bore you by reading Marjorie Nichols' article and all this other stuff that reviews the tortuous contortions of the government on David Thompson, and the fact that the Prime Minister, as his father used to like to be called, was roughed up a little bit there. Maybe that might have a retaliatory kind of slant to it. I'm not suggesting that. I don't know about that. That's what was suggested here in the article. The point is that people came down, headed by the mayor, desperately prepared to offer any kind of positive help they could in order to save their community and their university. He said: "You've got ten days. You go on back and figure out ways that you can make this thing a little bit leaner, if not meaner, and we'll consider it." What happened eight days after that? We get the word. He phones the people in Nelson. They have to have a hurried meeting in the community hall or in the mayor's office, and it's absolutely gone. So I think that has hurt the minister's stature. No matter whether or not there's an adequate explanation for it, it seems to indicate that when the minister gives a commitment, it's really not a commitment. I think that's unfortunate. That's the appearance of it.

Finally — and there are probably others, but I hope there aren't too many — is the whole exam bit. I have a letter here from the BCTF. I was going to deal with it a little later, so I'm not going to deal with it in detail now. It's to the minister, and it says: "During our meetings in Victoria and subsequent meetings between Mr. Carter and Mr. Bowman, you agreed to the establishment of a committee with appropriate terms of reference attached to review the provincial assessment program." That's what Kuehn says. The minister could say to me: "I didn't agree to that at all." He could very well say that. Maybe he didn't. That's what the BCTF thinks, and they're the ones who welcomed you.

The BCTF were most anxious for you to take over from a minister they felt was too harsh and inflexible and thought mainly about shovels and things like that. So they welcomed him, and what has happened now is that the BCTF thinks that the minister had broken faith with that group. So that's the third one. The first one was the $12 million. The next one was the DTUC — promising ten days to review it and only eight days later, bang, gone, zap, you're frozen! You're finished.

Now the exam business. Unilaterally, without by-your-leave to the BCTF, you suggested that it had been constructed by teachers. Well, I'd like to know who they were. The evaluation agreement had happened. What happened after that? Unilateral. No consultation. It was unilateral imposition without any reference to the profession. Imagine something going on in a medical way without reference to the medical profession. I couldn't feature that. I don't think that would happen. Maybe medical doctors have a little more clout than school teachers. School teachers are made, since I was born, to kick around. Maybe they are actually masochists. I think they might be.

I am concerned, Mr. Minister — and again I say this more in sorrow than in anger — because I think it is the minister's job to fight for education. If a minister turns out to be coconspirator at the destruction of education as we know it, then I don't think that's a proper role. If he believes in what he's doing, then he has to do it. If he is just doing it because he is getting some pressure, then I think it is up to him to make a statement that he doesn't believe in this and, therefore, that he has to resign or ask for another job.

[ Page 3765 ]

We wouldn't want the case where the teachers are beginning to yearn for Vander Zalm. He's beginning to look good. You know what he said the other day in the Sun. On March 8, 1984, Vaughn Palmer said:

"The last straw came when Mr. Vander Zalm was Education minister, not long before last year's election. He thought he had a deal with the teachers and the school trustees guaranteeing that they would accept a wage freeze in exchange for government agreement that no teacher would be laid off. But he realized that Bill Bennett's government might ignore its part of the bargain: 'I had a sense that the commitment was at risk. Had I been there [after the election] I would have been in an awfully awkward position.' "

I don't know if that's true or not, but I know another guy who was in an awkward position. Gary Begin ran for the Social Credit in Burnaby. He was the head of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, and he has said — and it's on the record — that if he had known what you were going to do to education, he wouldn't have run for you. He has told that to a lot of people.

As far as the salary cuts to save jobs are concerned, Williams Lake tried that. Did they get a better deal from the department? Did they get a better deal from the minister? They did not — not at all. Those people just got the same hammering everybody else got.

I'd like to know what the strategy is. Somebody said to me: "This debate is not about education at all; the debate is about money and politics." Why? Is it really just to save money, or are we trying to set up a dual system to so discredit the public system by exams and by cutting its throat or tightening its belt that it can't produce anything, and then come along and say they're not producing and, therefore, they're no good? There are all kinds of little Machiavellian stunts that are possible. I'm not suggesting that the minister is Machiavelli, but I am saying that there are all kinds of things, because we don't know the goals.

I went through a lot of lengthy, tedious and boring questions last time to find out the current goals of Education. I suppose they'll come out in the White Paper down the road somewhere — like the Smith "apple" report from teachers. I didn't mind that. I thought that was a pretty good set of goals and objectives, but that's obviously gone now — at least we haven't been told that it isn't. So we are going to be asked what the new goals are in Education, and I suppose we'll all have what the member from Revelstoke used to call "input" into the decision, but we'd like to know about that.

I'm afraid that people are beginning to get concerned. I said it the last time I was up, and I'll say it again: this education stuff is a sleeper issue. The people of Jaffray know it's not a sleeper issue. The people in Coquitlam, who know that the Brookmere learning centre is not going to have any housing, know it's not a sleeper issue. The people in North Thompson and the people of Kwantlen College, who haven't got their their welding any more, know it's not a sleeper issue. But it hasn't dawned on most people yet — especially those people who haven't got any kids in school anyway. That accounts for 70 percent of the people in B.C.

So I think the government is actually mistaken in what it's doing as far as public support for this. The minister has all the polls — the government is constantly sampling. I don't think they would even go to the restroom without sampling to find out whether it was propitious to do that. The public money is being spent on constant polling. I'm reminded of what Diefenbaker had to say about polls — he said they were for dogs. But I know that there's a constant feedback.

I'd like to quote some polls here from the BCTF. This wasn't done by the BCTF, but it was done under their financing. They didn't find that people wanted the schools hammered any further.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Just a moment. We can often, in the way we shape questions, learn what we want to hear. We do that all the time. I'm quite sure that if you're paying for the polls you'll get what you want to hear. Is that right? Is that the way you feel about the integrity of Martin Goldfarb and Allan Gregg and all these great brains that you hire?

AN HON. MEMBER: The NDP pollsters?

MR. ROSE: We can't afford polls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You can't afford the results of your polls, that's your problem. You can't even see the polls. You don't want to see your polls.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, you're going to have to protect me from....

When the minister was up there pontificating, there was hardly a word said here. All of a sudden, because I'm up here with little or no protection from these wits — if there were two of them over there he'd be a wit.... While I'm up here getting all this hammering, I am attempting to proceed with my speech as best I can.

[3:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you survive so long in Ottawa?

MR. ROSE: By being witty and skilful and knowledgeable.

One of the BCTF questions asked of the 500 or so respondents was: "Overall, how would you rate the quality of education provided by the public schools in your area?" They go from 1972 to 1984. Eight percent said excellent; 41 percent said good; 31 percent said satisfactory and 10 percent said poor. I think that's not a bad record for people who are discredited all the time. They can't even teach kids to pass exams. That's how bad they are. I think they'll improve in that, though.

It asked about Education Minister Heinrich, who has been in the news frequently. "What is your general impression of the statements and activities of the minister of B.C. education?" Six percent said very positive; 28 said somewhat positive: and a total of 34 said that they thought he wasn't doing a bad job. They said at least he was somewhat positive. Some said he was somewhat negative — 22 percent; very negative — 17 percent; no opinion — 28 percent. The reason for the high "no opinion" part of it was the fact that most of the people were unaware that he was the Minister of Education at all. They thought that Bill Vander Zalm was still the Minister of Education.

Mr. Chairman, I don't....

[ Page 3766 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Did you take all the heckling off my time, Mr. Chairman?

I won't read them all. I may go back to them. They were asked to add up the positives and the negatives about the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Even they were given 42 pluses and 45 minuses. You notice I don't just read the good news. I think that the public doesn't like the conflict. They don't like teachers marching in the streets; they don't like the teachers being hammered either. They don't like the conflict in education at all.

They say in number 4: "...the provincial government reduced its financial support for the public school system. Do you support this reduction strongly...?" and so on right down the line. Strongly and moderately, 39 percent; moderately opposed and opposed strongly, 57 percent. So you're flying blind now. You're like the Korean aircraft. You're flying blind because you don't have the public's support — unless your polls indicate that you do.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'd be quite pleased to have the member get up and make his own speech, if he doesn't have to read it. The only time he doesn't read something is when he's heckling.

"Regardless of how you feel about the cutbacks themselves, do you think that the provincial government has carried them out in a fair or unfair manner?" Fair, 30 percent; unfair, 57 percent; and 13 percent had no opinion. And here's a very important one for the minister, who said just a moment ago that it was a matter of ability to pay. Here's what the public says. "It would take an increase of 3 percent in the B.C. government spending on education in 1984 to maintain the activities and services at the 1983 level. Do you agree? Do you support it?" Seventy-five percent did, and 22 percent opposed it. Even the Tories, bless their little old hearts, want to get away from you. Even they don't want to be associated with your policies. I'll give you a clipping about that a little later.

In the meantime, I don't think the minister is a villain. He may be a victim. But if he's a victim.... He's maintaining that he's a victim, that he really doesn't want to do this. Then he should tell us why he's doing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the minister, the question was raised earlier by the member for Coquitlam-Moody about assistance from staff on the floor during committee debate. The courtesy of such assistance to a minister is a practice allowed during committee stage of a bill or in estimates. The courtesy is extended since it is expected that in committee a wide variety of topics and technical details will be questioned. The courtesy of staff is in order to assist the committee. The practice is not extended to members of the opposition, as it is presumed that these members have ample opportunity to prepare their questions in advance; also, they do not have a ministerial responsibility to the committee. That has been the practice in this House for many years.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that the member happens to be on the other side of the fence, I have to confess that I enjoy him very much as a critic.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We all do.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He's got a great sense of humour. I think he had to have that to survive the few years that he spent in Ottawa, but even someone with good humour can't last there forever.

On the issue of ability to pay, I don't think there's any question about a decision being made as to which direction the government is going to move. Nobody is disputing that, Mr. Chairman. Do we just throw all of the funds which we have into the education pot, or look at some degree of equity through all portfolios and all social requirements? You're not going to tell me that the way the school system was financed didn't require some assistance — and a little bit of guidance, to be very candid. Why was there such a discrepancy between many districts, some of which are neighbours, on the cost per student? Why is there a $1,000 difference per student between New Westminster and Delta? It's something we have to address. Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, that is a matter which we were asked to address by a number of chairmen of school boards. I received a telegram shortly after assuming the portfolio, asking me to please address this particular issue. There is nothing wrong with that. We did.

You're also not going to tell me, Mr. Chairman, that.... We found that many school districts had, in my humble opinion, excessive administration in the district office, when doing comparatives as to enrolment within comparable districts. It was something that had to be addressed. Remember, the provincial government pays a substantial portion of every school district's budget. If we have to put a lot of money into one particular district where the cost per student is much higher than in an adjoining district, they're getting more money. Is that fair? It's not fair at all, and we addressed it. I don't deny that it took a little bit of political courage and a devil of a lot of heat, but that's always the way in British Columbia if you want to make a bit of a change.

Cost of living. You tell me that the cost of eggs and bacon went up as well. Well, it sure did go up. But I presented a graph. I know that you must have a copy of it. One of the first things I did when I came into the portfolio was to get the number-crunchers available so that we had one set of statistics. There's the difference in here: the consumer price index going up and right above that — a substantial differential — is the actual cost of education. So there was a difference.

Property tax. You make reference to the poll which was done by the BCTF. They have no objections to another 3 percent going in. Well, that's fine. The residential component of taxation in British Columbia is a net contribution of 8.74 percent. The rest of it must come from somewhere. All I'm saying to you is that the taxpayers generally said: "We can't afford to pay any more right now." The way increases were going, it had to be addressed.

Mr. Chairman, the member makes reference to U.S. policy. I keep getting a lot of figures in that area, and we draw comparisons. In the United States this particular book, A Nation At Risk, said something about the average across the U.S. being $17,000 per year. Forget about that. Let's go to the west coast of the United States: I think there's some similarity between British Columbia and the states of Washington, Oregon and California, where the average is about $20,000. Another thing that came out, and I constantly heard criticism, is the amount of money which the state of California injected into its education budget in the second week of January this year — something like $900 million. Of course,

[ Page 3767 ]

the critics and those who write columns in the press keep making reference to the U.S. precedent. With a teacher's salary averaging $20,000 or $21,000, with $300 million of the $900 million going into capital, plus putting a bounty on the heads of students.... If the county, which is responsible for the school system in California, were to increase its instructional days to 180, roughly 10 days less than in British Columbia, it would then get a bounty of $35 per student. That's where some of this money is going.

The only reason I referred to teachers' salaries — and I made it clear at the beginning that I don't blame them, nor do I blame anybody else, because the rules of the game permitted it; all we did was say that it's time to make a check — is that the opposition, the BCTF and those who are opposed to restraint constantly refer to a percentage of personal income. These statistics come in every publication. The last one came from the Surrey Teachers' Association. What did it have? A percentage of personal income. Then they draw comparisons with other provinces. They always put British Columbia at the bottom of the pile. Here are the five western provinces. British Columbia ranks second among the five western provinces. This comes from the pupil operating costs reported to the Council of Ministers of Education for 1982, the most recent year available. British Columbia is $3,399; Alberta is $3,548; Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario are estimated at $3,112, $3,244, $3,161, respectively. Even then, we never know whether these are accurate, because sometimes you just can't compare. Are we comparing apples and oranges or are we comparing apples and apples? It's hard to try to get a handle on it. All I'm saying to you, Mr. Member, is this: the statement as a percentage of personal income is not accurate. It really doesn't divulge the true cost in each province across the land.

Imposition of the fiscal framework. Many districts were looking for it. Interestingly enough, just about everyone has gone to bed and is reasonably happy about what happened. There are half a dozen which are causing some problems, and we've given them some problems. Maybe this can be worked out. It wasn't imposed. It came out in July, and the people in the ministry worked extensively with every school district in the province. We got constructive criticism, and that's what we asked for. There were a number of adjustments made. The only problem was that we only had so much money, and we had to distribute it equitably among all of the districts.

Coquitlam. The member represents part of the Coquitlam School District. I keep hearing about the terrible things that were done. To my knowledge their budget was filed, because the information which I've been able to compile for the very first time, as a result of the new system, shows that a surplus was carried forward from 1983 to 1984 in School District 43 in their own budget submitted to the ministry. Do you know how much it was? Have you any idea? It was $1.1 million. I compliment that district, because they have recognized the problem and have been prudent managers in being able to bring some funds over to help out in the year of 1984. What is wrong with that? It seems to me that the schools are open, the kids are going to school tomorrow, the teachers are going to work tomorrow and instruction is being delivered. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

[3:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member raised the issue that he believed it is the duty of the government to employ every teacher who wants to work.

MR. ROSE: No, I did not.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, that's what I heard over here. You made reference to the Premier making a statement that he felt it was not the function of government to employ every teacher or plumber who graduates or serves an apprenticeship. That's what I heard you say. How can government be responsible for employing every person who happens to have a ticket in a profession or a trade? It's very difficult.

MR. ROSE: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order?

MR. ROSE: No, Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege.

The minister is putting words in my mouth, the converse of what I said the Premier had said. I didn't say it was the government's obligation to employ every plumber or teacher that was produced in the institution. I said that the Premier had said that, and I also said that there was some obligation for governments to create employment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, a point of privilege can be exercised when a member finishes his portion of debate. Rising on a point of order is in order, but a point of privilege is not appropriate at this time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I accept the member's statement. If he didn't say what I thought he said, I'm the first one to say I accept; no problem there.

Regarding the matter of, if I may use the expression, "broken faith." I have responded to that allegation on innumerable occasions, The problem really is that I said something they didn't want to hear. The same answer applies to the David Thompson University Centre. Just prior to the first day of December I sent out a letter to every school district in British Columbia. It was sent to every chairman, secretary-treasurer and superintendent. I said that we would be interested in receiving a proposal, but under no stretch of the imagination was that to be rendered as a commitment that those funds were to remain with the district. I made that clear, Mr. Chairman. And in the decision which was made they then had a period of two weeks-plus in order to work out any proposal they thought would be acceptable. Dozens of proposals came in, and I can advise you that it was my considered opinion that none of them were acceptable. They had two weeks in which to do that. I was not in the province for a period of three weeks from December 2, and when I returned those proposals were in and a decision was made. But I made it clear in advance, and it is a matter of record and is stated in the correspondence with David Thompson.

I met with the people a week later, and they asked me if I would please take it back. I told them it was my duty to take it back, because that was what they were requesting me to do. When, on review, a decision was made, instead of leaving them dangling we communicated with them as quickly as possible by telephone, telegram and hand-delivered letter. All I did was deliver back to them news they didn't want to

[ Page 3768 ]

hear, but instead of leaving them out there and playing politics with the issue, we responded to them.

I really regret how the issue of exams unfolded. I concede that point. Firstly, a decision was made by government that examinations for 1984 were to be implemented — one which I very much support and encouraged. Secondly, we requested the BCTF to participate on the board of examiners. It's a matter of record that they do not wish to participate and they did not send anybody to sit on that board, although it was open for them and they were requested to do so. I regret that they have not, because I think the BCTF had a great deal to offer.

I think I would like to conclude with one last question which concerned me that the member raised: that is, the allegation that the framework was in fact imposed on school boards. I know I can't talk about legislation in here during the estimates. The B.C. School Trustees' Association made the following statement which was submitted to the government when they were requesting an amendment to Bill 6: "We do not quarrel with the appropriateness of the provincial government's authority to set provincial spending limits for education." They went on to say: "However, we would just as soon you not be involved in the allocation process; that as a lump sum is assigned to the board, they will allocate as between the functions." We acknowledged their request, and you'll recall that the appropriate amendments were filed, in addition to putting in a sunset clause for 1986. The point I wish to make is that the boards did not dispute the appropriateness of the provincial government, at this time in our economic history, setting the limit on spending. That was clear.

I think that covers most of the major points which the member has raised, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROSE: I'm well aware that the B.C. school trustees accepted the imposition of budget limitations. I think you had them over a barrel; I don't think they wanted to. The government was making sounds that there might not even be a B.C. School Trustees' Association any more because they were spending $2 million and providing statistics that maybe the government didn't like very much, and if they didn't knuckle under there they'd be gone. That's what the problem was. They didn't accept those limits. They got crumbs. They lost all their autonomy when they agreed to have a budget limitation. The minister talks about paying the lion's share. Sure, the government pays the lion's share now, because the government stole the commercial-industrial base from the boards. You're pretty close to the McMath formula of 75-25 now; you're around 70-30, if my figures are correct.

The minister never wants to hear that the measure of ability to pay for education should be based on personal income of a particular province. We're dead last. We're paying 7.6 percent. He doesn't want to use that. Okay, what about a percentage of the gross national product? We're second to the last there. This province can afford expenditures at least equal to those of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and places like that. Of course we can. All this cheap, chintzy hand-wringing about not being able to afford it is, I believe, just a ruse to get people to believe that we're throwing all that money at some schoolteachers who probably aren't doing a very good job anyway. That concerns me, because I think it's scapegoating. I'm not going to go over all that stuff again. I've done it before. I've gone through a whole series of statistics about it, and I don't intend to go through it again — which will be a great relief not only to the minister and his officials but also to the people in the gallery,

The minister has never said what he really stands for. Just the tax-salary settlements that happened in the past.... What happened last year? They took a zero increase, and then they get a crack at them in the budget, something about discipline and how we just can't keep throwing money at education. I think it's scapegoating. The minister is the Minister of Education. I'd like to know how it would go over if Henry Ford got up and attacked the Ford Motor Co. The minister's supposed to be fighting for education, not fighting teachers. That's the way it looks to many of us, and I wish he'd cut it out.

As far as the cost per student is concerned, of course there's a variance within the districts. Some districts, like Richmond, have a lot of young teachers; some, like New Westminster, where I've taught, have a lot of teachers at the higher salaries. You can explain it by a number of things. In Jaffray, the bus cost is 30 cents more per kilometre than in other districts. I happen to know that. I'm sorry that the member for that area is not here as well. I think that's got to mean something. There's no point in the minister and I going through a whole list. He's got the power, the government, the votes, so what he does stands. But it's up to us to make certain that he justifies what he's doing, or at least that the public knows who's doing it to them. I don't want the people of Surrey and Jaffray to blame their boards. The minister should get the blame, not the local board. If you've no control over your own budget, and if you can't even have a local referendum, then how on earth can you be responsible? The boards aren't responsible. They are only sounding boards for the dissatisfaction of the general public about what's going on with school closures and the like.

There are all kinds of things we could talk about. If I haven't lost it completely, I've got some material about what happens when you have low spending per pupil. Mississippi is a perfect example of that. But before I do that, Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about teachers and whether or not they would lose a thousand a year. I haven't totalled this up, but there are some pretty big figures in here. I didn't say it was the obligation of the government to employ every teacher or plumber or engineer who happens to be turned out. An unemployed engineer is sitting right over there, very close to us. I don't think we should make a special effort to employ him. After this job, if he ever has to go back to work, maybe it would be a terrible shock to his system. Nobody talks about closing down engineering schools.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, you've got two jobs. I see. It's like a lot of lawyers; they have two jobs too. They've got their own practice and then they've got the MLA job. Nobody talks about closing down engineering schools because there happens to be a plethora of engineers. I think 25 percent got jobs last year. So we're going to open another engineering school. Pretty soon we're going to hear about cutting back on education schools because we happen to have some extra teachers.

Here are the teachers who are on UI. I don't know how many have given up looking for jobs and therefore don't appear on this list. University teachers, 84; university related, 147 — I guess that's college; elementary and kindergarten, 1,312; secondary, 490 — what a bunch of broken dreams; college and vocational, 291 and more to come. Are

[ Page 3769 ]

we going to be lean and mean! We're going to have a great education system: fire lots of teachers. Fine arts teachers, 124; post-secondary teachers, 266; teachers of exceptional children, 31; officers in training, instructors and training officers, teaching related and not elsewhere classified, 820. There are at least 3,000 there. The concern, besides the human dimension — it's like the old song, "The Boulevard of Broken Dreams" — is that it's not practical. It's something that could rebound against us. That's the sad part of it all.

[3:45]

Here's what happens. The Americans are in a crisis because of low pay. There's a high drop-out rate, a rising tide of mediocrity, higher teacher salaries. The lowest average teacher salary is in Mississippi, and it's got the highest dropout rate. There may not be a causal relationship, and I'm not asserting that there is. Minnesota, with the lowest drop-out rate, has a pupil-teacher ratio of 17.1. The minister wants to get his up to 19.2, I believe. Surrey is already at 19.5. He wants to get it to 19.2. Why not get it even larger? We've got the new domed stadium down there. We could hire one teacher and have her sit in the middle of the domed stadium to conduct her classes.

It says here that President Reagan's criticism of education started a major political battle. This prevented him, for example, from axing the U.S. federal education department. "The B.C. government should not be too surprised if its own education restraint program boomerangs." Well, I won't be surprised. I think people are going to get uptight, I don't think they're going to be convinced by the minister when they start losing schools, start getting loaded classrooms, when they start getting all those things.... that they thought they had forever — that is, an outstanding education system.

Look what the Victoria chairman says: "We sure wish minister Jack Heinrich would start listening to people." Chairman John Smith said: "The White Paper apparently indicates the Education ministry wants more compulsory courses, not fewer. There is difficulty seeking consultation with the ministry." The minister makes a plea here, saying that he's consulted with everybody from the grade 1 teacher to the chairman of the largest board in the province, and they say they haven't. Then he talks about the fact that there's going to be a narrowing of the curriculum. He ends up with this article in the Times-Colonist, February 28: "A student who has to take consumer education in the final year has to drop something, and that may be the only elective he has room for in his timetable."

"Tories...Urge Education Policy." Here's the president, Jim McNeil. He doesn't want to have anything to do with you guys. Even the Tories won't come near you. Hear that, Mr. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds)? The Tories won't have anything to do with this government's education policy.

"The provincial government, in spite of the expensive and slanted pamphlet it sent to all British Columbians, still has not clearly defined its policy objectives for education, let alone other ministries. At best we have been given glimpses of an overall plan, if one exists, that seems to hint at these directions."

This is what the Tories say about you: "More centralized controls" — of course they don't believe in that — "less local authority." That's contrary to conservatism. "Fewer expenditures for social services and more on Crown corporations or megaprojects. More government by edict" — like the imposition of the things I've been talking about in education — "and less through the Legislature. While my party has for years agreed that the size and cost of government can and should be reduced, we object strongly to the confrontational approach at the time when we need genuine consultation and statesmanship." Well, anyway, there's a lot more to be said on that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Jim McNeil, President of the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: The provincial party.

MR. ROSE: The federal party, Brian Mulroney's party, doesn't want to touch you either. They said: "Not us! We're not going to do that. If we get in there, we're not going to have anything like that. My gosh, we can promise you that we Tories are going to be big spenders. We're not going to cut and restrain and cut back and cut social services. Not us fellows. No, sir. There are no cutbacks here." If you go along and knock on any Tory door, the answer is: "Nobody in here but us chickens." They're not going to come out and embrace the Minister of Education. I would think it would be unseemly if they did. Especially in public. I wouldn't want them to do that.

I want to talk about a few horror stories here. This horror story about the formula was predicted. The horror stories were actually predicted by Dr. Armstrong last August. I know you've fiddled with the formula a little bit. This is what he said. Well, he was predicting his own demise a little while ago, too; I heard that one. He said that the two major elements drive the new formula in the opposite direction that it should go. He said the average teacher's salary in the district and in the province, if your new budgets are based on that, is going to be driven up. How your average teacher's salary.... The greater number of square metres of floor space, the greater entitlement for the district; this creates inflationary pressures. He goes through a number of examples here. I think that in essence he's saying that if you don't have some kind of early retirement schemes to humanize the attack, the savagery, that you are vesting on education, then people are going to hang onto their jobs. Which ones are going to keep their jobs? The ones at the higher salary. Because the young teachers are the ones you're going to fire. They are the ones who are going to be let out first on a seniority basis. I have no objection to that, but as long as it's based on a per-pupil ratio, then it's bound to work out that way.

Now if it weren't on that basis, if it were, for instance, on this one.... Suppose a district could encourage through incentives of one kind or another, even surpluses, some 60 year-old school teacher like me to retire, and instead they could get two 20-year-olds at $20,000 each. That might not be a bad idea. It might appeal to a lot of people. It might be good for education. You know, get the old cobwebs out of there; get young, new, bright ideas — lots of vigour and energy. But that's not going to happen. You see, the way it is now, on a per-pupil basis — on a PTR basis — the people who are senior are going to try to keep their jobs, and the others are not going to get in or else they'll be first fired. That's what happens. This was predicted.

[ Page 3770 ]

We have a problem in Surrey. I don't know if they got a $1.1 million surplus, but anyway, they've got some problems. After the spring break, 39 teachers in 30 schools are going to go. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine the massive disruption if 30 schools are affected? Well, 39 classrooms are probably going to be affected. So after Easter all those kids are going to have to be shaken out of where they're comfortable and put in another classroom. That doesn't sound like a reasonable thing to me. Why is that happening? That isn't the worst, though. They are going to lose 28 more in June, and they are already at the 19.5 PTR now. Right? The deputy minister nods his head. How does this happen? This is how it happens.

It happens because the new formula does not account for growth. Now Surrey anticipates growth. The formula is an interesting one — it's 1/22 times the average cost of one teacher plus 10 percent of the average teacher's salary based on data available last July. Here we have Surrey, which is a growth area. I'm not going to bore anybody with going through how the calculations work for elementary — they work differently for secondary — but they are purely arbitrary. Whether you divide by 22 or 27 has nothing to do with it. It came out of the hat like the rabbit. For grades 8 to 12 you divide by 24, but the rest of the formula is the same. Here's the problem. Let's take 8 to 12. One twenty-fourth times the cost of one teacher, which is $34,715, times 10 percent of $33,593 and you get $1,586.43. But Surrey is a growth area, and for every student who comes into Surrey it costs $2,412, because that is the instructional cost accorded Surrey in 1983. So for every kid who comes in and registers in a growth area such as Surrey — or any other growth area; there are six or seven in the province — they lose $1,000 per pupil. That's what's wrong with the formula, right there, in that instance. For grades 1 to 7 they lose about $1,000, and for kindergarten.... There are a lot of young families in Surrey, because housing prices are a little lower there. Will the Surrey real estate board please take note; I don't want any commission for that little promo, that little ad. I think it is $1,700, so it's a little less. In other words, the formula delivers more there.

This is the problem. Who is going to get into all the trouble? Not the provincial government. Not the Minister of Education. The local Surrey school board. The minister promised in a response to my question that he would be quite prepared to review this, and I take him at his word. I know he will do this, because he doesn't want them to go to 19.5 by June 1984. He doesn't even want it to get to 19.2 by June 1986. So naturally he is going to have to have a look and adjust his formula a little bit more.

That is one horror story. I could go into greater detail than that, but I don't intend to do this. Let's talk about Coquitlam. The minister has repeatedly told the House that his new formula is fair and equitable to all concerned and that its results are predictable. Some school districts in the lower mainland are allowed $541 a student, but School District 43 is allowed only $440 for operations and maintenance. Why is this? In the district of Fernie, for instance, the average is $608. The district of Surrey is in the same category — the same function, $579. Coquitlam, $441.50. Abbotsford: we will have a little bit to say about the Mount Lehman school, and how your policies are going to destroy a community there if you close down the school. "Destroy" is not too pejorative a word, I wouldn't think — I used it, so naturally I wouldn't think that. Why, if the formula is so fair and equitable, Mr. Chairman, is Coquitlam allowed $85 less per student than neighbours, and Surrey is $177 less than Vancouver and $96 less than Victoria? The operation and maintenance function needs to be reviewed.

What has that meant? It means that Brookmere Elementary School has to be closed; its learning centre has to be shut down, even though it is something that is desired in the community. Brookmere Elementary School has got the Glenayre centre for the handicapped — 21 young children who can't go into normal classes or be mainstreamed. The Ministry of Human Resources funds it, so that's what's going to happen there — It could be argued, as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) argued the other day, that it's up to the school board. "They could have closed another school down. They should have closed another school down. The local school board are big meanies."

I don't know what options are available to them. I know that the operating and maintenance budget is behind this in that district, and probably in other districts. It is true in Abbotsford and probably true there as well. What else is Coquitlam doing? Closing down its hot lunch program. That's gone. God knows how many other schools are going to have to close down. And who is going to get the heat? The local school board. That was predicted a year ago when we first started dealing with these things.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, let me now talk about the Mount Lehman situation. But let's first put it in its proper prospective. What is Mount Lehman anyway? Who has ever heard of Mount Lehman? It is one of the oldest communities in the lower mainland. It is a somewhat isolated, growing rural community. Much to my own chagrin, since I represented the area at one time, it is very conservative. But aside from its political complexion, it is a very important community. A quote from the Province of March 5 says: "Family School Faces an Axe." Mount Lehman has had that school for 100 years. It has been there a century. What else is around Mount Lehman? What are other facilities there? It's got an insurance office, a credit union, a post office, a store, the regional library service and a fire hall. But look ma, no school! People have come there because they wanted the amenities and the rural life around there, and now they're going to lose it. By consultation? Hell, no. No consultation. It's just gone. Zap, you're out of there!

Mr. Ron Price, whose father was well known to this Legislature as a cabinet minister in the W.A.C. Bennett government, has criticized the educational cutbacks. You're getting it from your own, which should be more useful and meaningful than getting it from me — I'm supposed to be prejudiced. I am told that Mr. Ron Price has said that property values will fall. Here is a school, used every night by the community, that is going to be cut. You say that it's not your fault and that the local board made that decision. Yes, you can hide behind the decision of the local board if you wish. You can hide behind anything else you want to. You are free to do that. What are you going to do with those kids? You're going to bus them someplace, I suppose. Why?

Here's Abbotsford. Abbotsford got an extra hunk of dough. I don't know how much it was — $100,000 or $200,000 anyway. I haven't researched it. The average cost of operation and maintenance for buildings in the province is $608.93, and that of Mount Lehman is $23.40. They don't have the same opportunity built into their budgets to fund that Mount Lehman school. I regard it as an arbitrary imposition of

[ Page 3771 ]

an unfair and discriminatory operation and maintenance budget. That is something else that the minister might be interested in examining. Abbotsford School District is not noted for the lavishness with which it bestows its goodies on its teachers. It is probably one of the most parsimonious areas, in terms of school costs, in the whole province. I'm saying "probably" because I haven't researched it. But even a district that has done all it can for productivity and efficiency is being hosed. Why? Ask Dr. Armstrong of the BCTF. Because of a lot of rural schools, a lot of space and not enough money for operations and maintenance. The deputy minister looks at the ceiling. I don't know if I'm right. I'm asserting that, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't have all the figures, and I haven't looked it up.

I want to talk about another horror story which I alluded to a little earlier, and which happened in Jaffray, B.C., a Social Credit district. This is in the riding of the very distinguished Social Credit member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), whom I always enjoy when he's around because he keeps me going and provokes me a little bit. I always welcome him when he's here. They are going to close a lot of schools up there; well, they're going to close at least two things. I think it is fair to remember that you've got five board members in Fernie, or the northern part where the coal isn't being dug, and the growth part in the south is where Jaffray is. We've got a little problem there because they can't afford to keep the 9s and 10s in Jafftay. They've just spent a substantial amount, in the hundreds of thousands, on a new gymnasium, and now the proposal is to take those kids and bus them 40 miles to Fernie in the winter over those roads, because of the formula and the population decline in the northern part. That's taking the guts right out of the junior high school to ship those kids to Fernie. The minister is very proud of himself for cutting these costs and keeping education lean and mean. He should think about that.

In 1983 Al Stables said that the Fernie School District was underfunded by at least $100,000. In October Mr. Starling, director of school operations, reported that the district was underfunded by $174,000. Now if they're underfunded and these people are making predictions like that, why is it that that community is asked to face that kind of disruption? As if that weren't enough, the Elko school's intermediate grades — 13 or 14 students — are going to be bused 11 miles to Jaffray. This is what's happening: small schools and community schools are closing. I can't see how that is going to be good for anybody. I think that it's penny wise and pound foolish.

I'd like to go on and talk about people at Crescent Park in Dawson Creek, Prince George and other places like that, but I understand that I've only got a minute left. I would like to give the minister an opportunity to respond to my perorations.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, going back to 30 minutes ago, there was some reference made to stealing the non-residential base. The purpose of bringing those funds in was so that they could be distributed equitably throughout the province. That's the point. Surely the non-residential base.... In some parts of British Columbia it probably represented 90 percent of their base, because there was one major plant. But what about the other parts of British Columbia, which are primarily urban and residential? It seems to me that everybody in British Columbia has got some stake in industrial development. When there is an assessment and taxes are paid, some of it ought to flow back and go out equitably throughout the system. I'm not going to dwell on that particular issue, because I don't think the member really meant what he said.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: My prize heckler has arrived.

I never made any statements with respect to the dissolution of the BCSTA or to doing something the thrust of which would be to dissolve the BCSTA — ever.

MR. ROSE: They were afraid of it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: They may very well be, but I do not know why. It seems to me that it's doing reasonably well. Because they happen to have some dissatisfaction with their operations, which is being raised by their membership.... According to the last little missive which has been circulated, I would think that the members could address that problem. That's not for government to do. It was a four-page epistle, and it contained some revealing information. But that's internal. That's housecleaning, and that's for the trustees to address.

Let's make reference to Surrey, Mr. Chairman. The member has raised a number of items. First of all, it's not 19.5 percent. They believe that they will be at 19.2 percent in September 1984....

MR. ROSE: June.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's based on the enrolment for September 1984. That has been verified already as a result of the delegation which was here last week — last Monday, I think.

Now with respect to those teachers who in fact are to be laid off after Easter, do you know, Mr. Chairman, that that was the subject of a written agreement between the board and the local teacher association? It was made some time ago — the agreement that this is what would happen. They were well aware of that at the time.

With respect to the maintenance and operations budget, that's exactly the formula used to determine the amount of money. It was exactly the amount it had cost them previously, and it was based on their own information which they had advanced to the ministry. Of course it's incorporated within their 1984 budget. It's based on the information and their direct costs some time ago. The note is this: they got what they spent on the three-year average, with the first two years inflated to current dollars.

One other item that we might consider is this: the service levels to which the member refers and about which he has made some points. I think that we must go back and look at the service levels which were originally established when the framework was being prepared. The service levels were those levels prescribed by the BCTF in all categories but one, and that category was kindergarten. As I recall, the BCTF suggested 20 students, and we felt 22. So every service level, when I look at the district averages, is better than the standards set by one organization which has a great deal of interest in the matter.

[ Page 3772 ]

The comment by the chairman of the Victoria School Board that you raised had something to do with curriculum. There has been discussion. That paper has not yet been released, but it will be released very soon. The purpose of preparing the paper was to assimilate it throughout the community so that those people interested in education will have the opportunity to advance their views. So when you talk about consultation on curriculum, it's a bit premature. I can't stand idly by and accept that type of criticism when the issue raised by the board chairman is not yet a fact.

Often references were made to the Progressive Conservative Party. Make all the references you want. Whatever they say, we had the courage to make restraint an election issue. We talked about it in April....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We made that an issue from day one, and we went to the public on that issue.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Don't discriminate against minorities, Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're discussing the estimates of the Minister of Education. Back to the estimates, please.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would just like to remind the member that as I recall the campaign and the five weeks preceding May 5, the particular issue of restraint in all levels of the public sector was of some moment. It was raised almost on a daily basis, and of course it really became an issue when the Leader of the Opposition decided that the public shouldn't be interested in restraint and that he wouldn't support it. I remember that very well.

MR. ROSE: That's not true.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, then, I guess we'd better bring all the evidence in here to show that it was.

So I'm saying to you that it seems to me that the columnists I read now are saying to everybody that if other leaders in this country would have the courage to face the electorate on some fundamental issues like we did, they would probably come in with substantial majorities. We certainly proved it in British Columbia.

On the issue of early retirement, the member raises a valid point, and I wish....

MR. ROSE: I get one valid point every speech.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You're doing well. I want you to know that the issue of early retirement is being actively pursued now within the ministry. The point is a valid one. We've recognized the concern, and we hope to do something about it.

MR. COCKE: I hope it's you.

MR. ROSE: He's going to get his reward, but not in heaven.

[4:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I tell you, I didn't come all the way from Ottawa to hope that the portfolio would arrive, Mr. Member.

On the comments you have made with respect to funding and some critique which was advanced by the executive director of the BCSTA, some of those comments were raised, but they were raised shortly after the framework was introduced. Many of them were recognized. How many times have I said that I'm interested in constructive criticism? I've repeated in this House on a number of occasions that we wanted that type of debate and help and some good ideas. They came from all districts, and they came from the BCSTA as well.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH. We certainly did. The paper to which you have made reference, Mr. Member, is a little out of date. The changes were introduced long ago. Many of the observations made in the summer were implemented in November, so that criticism which is raised now has really not too much value.

I will also make some reference to..., and this is a paper which we prepared in response to some of his concerns. "The analysis is overly concerned with the likelihood that the framework will be used to control the internal allocation of spending by boards. It misses the major purpose to determine a level of spending which would enable each board to deliver a sound basic education." I quote again: "The idea that the system is inflationary is nonsense. All one needs to do is look at the budget projected to '86 to see that the degree of inflation accepted by the system is a matter of policy, not of factors intrinsic to the system."

The item on average district teacher salaries in particular was addressed as a result of the concerns raised by the BCSTA. We looked at it.

You've often raised the matter of Jaffray. As I recall, Jaffray is in an area where there is quite a decline in enrolment. But when you get up into Sparwood and Elkford, that's another issue. You've raised the point, and it's something that ought to be looked at. As far as Abbotsford and Mt. Lehman are concerned, I take note of what you have said; but you must remember that the school district is the body which has to make difficult decisions sometimes. I'm not questioning the historical reference which was made, but it may very well be that those who were elected in the Abbotsford school district have had to make some hard decisions, and this may very well have been one of them. But I will attempt to find out more information for you, and return to the House on it.

I have one concluding comment on those items that have been raised. I make reference to a statement issued by the Conference Board of Canada entitled "Share of Social Services" — which include education, health and welfare — "in the Total Budget for 1983-84." I think you should know, Mr. Chairman, that as a percentage British Columbia ranks number one. In the information given to us, the social service expenditure for '83-84 was $5,617.6 million.

Interjection.

[ Page 3773 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I take issue with that particular remark. The critic has reflected repeatedly that.... We're talking about money for education. He has repeatedly made reference to personal income. I'm just saying that the amount of money which British Columbia has spent in those three areas, according to the statistics from the Conference Board of Canada, places it at 66.5 percent — in the first rank. Isn't that of some value? It seems to me that with the funds which we have, compared to all other provinces we're doing a good job distributing those funds into three social portfolios: Health, Education and welfare. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) can take umbrage at that particular statement, but it seems to me that something coming from the Conference Board of Canada, with nothing from the government or the opposition side, might lend some credence to the statements we're making with respect to the funding.

I think that covers most of the items, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROSE: I'm reminded of the old one about the.... The minister gets so angry and upset about this. He has in his notes: "Argument weak here; shout louder." Of course you've spent more money on welfare; you put everybody out of work. You've got 200,000 people out of work. Of course your welfare budget is going to go up. What are they going to do — eat at the soup kitchen? Where are they going to go — down to the food banks that are nearly empty all over town? You should be ashamed of yourself, in a rich province like this, for putting people through the mill that way. What are you going to do when all the volunteers and the charitable people and the churches run out of food? Are you going to take what they got in food off their welfare cheques? Is that going to be the next move? That's the one I heard. People have a right to be upset and outraged about this. We aren't talking about some abstraction; we're talking about people who are suffering. I don't know anybody who wants to take the prize for being a terrific government just because they cut the throat of all the safety nets that we've developed over the last 25 years. What do you gain by that? I don't think that's anything to be particularly proud of.

I said before that education is a sleeper issue, and it's going to hit everybody. I'm pleased that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is here. We have a letter here from Avola, B.C. They're concerned about losing their school, and they're dumping on the local school board. I don't know why they're doing these things, but they're losing them. That's the North Thompson one. Here's one here from Crescent Park, South Peace. It's hitting every district. It's not something that we can laugh off or just say that the formula is perfectly fair. Certain rural areas are going to get their throats cut, and other schools have to be closed in urban areas. Sure, you fiddle with the formula. I know you fiddle with the formula. You've fiddled with the formula, but you haven't prevented the schools from being closed — unless your objective was to close the schools and gut the community. I know you've done that. I'm not the sharpest guy in the world, but in about six months I usually find out a few things — ultimately anyway.

The business of taking over the commercial and industrial business to smooth it out over the province because some districts had none and others had a great deal has some relevance, but to many people it was considered an out and out grab of those funds. How much of those funds are ultimately distributed into education? We don't know, but we do know that the percentage of property tax going to education has declined. This government said that they've been very open. They're gutsy. They have the guts to tell people on restraint....

Our leader never said that we were opposed to restraint. I said myself that we couldn't continue to always solve our problems..., that no government has an unlimited supply of money. I agree with that. But getting rid of Ed Peck and being opposed to restraint are not the same at all. They are not, as they say in the math class, congruencies. I think the minister should know that as well.

He said the columnists are all in favour of him and that other governments should take up on this. What columnists? Richard Jackson? Richard Gwyn? You're reading the wrong columnists. You probably only listen to certain economists, like Milton Friedman. You don't listen to anybody who might disagree with you. To be fair, I suppose we're all guilty of that. But just remember what John Crosbie said. Six months after you did this, he said: "If we told the people what we were going to do, they wouldn't vote for us." You didn't tell them what you were going to do. Nobody knew the extent of your butchery. You didn't tell them.

I want to talk a little bit about exams. I passed a few of them. I'm a bit of an authority on them. I passed some, and I know what they're like. I know that as far as I was concerned they weren't life or death. I admitted I had a little problem with one subject one time, but I said that the last time and I don't intend to repeat it. I don't think it's going to make any difference what I say, because I think the ministry has embarked on this. It's a commitment. It's a decision they have made, and of course they wouldn't have a second look at this. They're going to spend $2 million a year on this on the ground that they think that most people want it. They think it's a good thing — that it's going to improve discipline, it's going to improve scholarship and all those things. So I don't think anything I say is going to change anything very much.

I at least want people to know that the arguments are not all one-sided, and there isn't a totally, completely, overwhelming argument pro-test. I'm not even convinced that they shouldn't form part of an assessment from time to time, although maybe not every year. I also believe that there's no particular reason for asking every kid in the province to take a test, even though he's had As, Bs, and Cs all through his high school career, unless you want to throw money away. I think the system of accreditation worked not badly for a great number of years. If the public wants tests and hurdles to screen out the incompetents or to somehow find out which of the kids are going on to university — I believe it's something like 10 percent or 11 percent, 17 percent from the urban and 8 percent from the rural — it seems like a lot of money for screens that the university should be providing. We know full well that all the research that we know of up to now has indicated that the best way of finding out which children might succeed at universities — besides the fact that their parents have more money than those people who don't go to universities — has to do with teachers' assessments rather than external examinations. I say this from what I regard as a professional point of view. I used to profess this at one time, and it would be terrible for me to suddenly admit that for my whole life I was wrong. At least I've had an opportunity to think about the subject a little bit. I can’t stop you from doing what you are doing. I don't think it's the ultimate headlong destruction of everything we hold dear, but I think it is certainly open to some question. I hope its aim is not to

[ Page 3774 ]

discredit teachers, because the recent headlines make me think it might be.

Again, in an attempt to be fair, the minister doesn't write the headlines, the press does, so I can't blame him for that. I've got two or three recent ones here. Barbara McLintock, Victoria Bureau, the Province, March 6, headline: "Failures Raised to Pass." The Sun, the same day: "Marks Scaled to Cut High Failure Rate." "Ministry Helps out on Exam Marks." These are hardly designed to make the ministry look bad; they are very kind to the ministry — exceedingly kind. That nice old Minister of Education comes along and helps all those poor kids who have flunked because they have incompetent teachers. Look what he did: he came along and gave them a real boost. I think he gave himself a real boost. What do the stories say? "Minister Jack Heinrich also took a shot at 'soft' marking by teachers because scores didn't come nearly up to the grades the teachers had awarded on the term's work. He said this forced his ministry to upgrade the actual marks...on the exams 'to avoid unacceptably high failure rates.'" That's McLintock.

[4:30]

Here's a little segment from a story in the Times-Colonist of, I think, around March 6. If Hansard wants to know, I'll provide it to them. "The minister also said it was possible to look at the examinations as tests of teacher competence."

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I didn't say that.

MR. ROSE: It's not in quotes, but you are apparently quoted, without the quotes. "The minister also said it was possible to look at the examinations as tests of teacher competence. But he cautioned people not to read too much into the results." Here you are quoted: "Let's not draw too many conclusions the first time round." That's fair. I hope you didn't say it was a test of teacher competence, because that's what a lot of people think they're for. I hope the minister will get up and say he does not believe that provincewide exams are now, ever have been or will be a test of teacher competence, because the good teachers in the old days were the ones who could make those kids get through those exams. It didn't matter what else they taught them. If they taught a narrow curriculum and caused a higher percentage to pass exams, then that was regarded as a good teacher. If a teacher had somebody in his class whom he considered a dud, he encouraged him not to write the exam: "You can't write the exam." I can remember kids counselled into the general program because the school was so concerned about their percentage of passes on government exams that they encouraged the kids to enter some finger-painting class or something like that, and not the classes which required a higher degree of competency.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know. You named the school, but I know there were a number of them.

Isn't that great. "Marks Scaled to Cut High Failure Rate." "Ministry Helps out on Exam Marks." Beautiful. "Failures Raised to Pass." Boy, isn't it nice to have such a thoughtful, kind-hearted minister. What was never asked, though, is whether or not the exam was too tough or really covered the curriculum; whether or not the people who actually constructed the exam knew anything at all about what they were doing. Why did you bother to scale the exams? Why didn't you leave them where they were? Why don't you make the exams tough now and easy in June? That will prove, to some people at least, that the teachers have suddenly become more competent, and that also providing more exams gives greater discipline, greater scholarship and greater attention to their studies. That inference could be drawn from that, anytime you wanted to. You can do anything you want with the exam. You can make it tough or easy, you can make it cover the course or irrelevant to the curriculum; you can do whatever you want to.

I want to have all the information as to how the exams were scaled, a full disclosure: raw scores, scaling process and everything. Allen Garr says you've softened it now. It's going to be 50 percent of the result of your exams. Now it's only going to be 25 percent, because you've scaled them and changed the basis for them. You don't even have the same faith in your own exam to leave it where it was and let the chips fall where they may. Gutsy. Real gutsy. Lots of guts there.

Who produced the exams? How long did they take? Were they subject to any kind of internal validity or reliability? Did you do the split-half on any of them? Sure, there were some people who thought that maybe the physics exam, the math exam or the science exam were pretty good. Those are easy; the answers are either right or wrong. But exams in social studies and English, which call for value judgments, are much, much more difficult. So you can look pretty good on the technical stuff.

Have there been any conclusions drawn about the exam? The minister says we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I hope you haven't. What kind of pattern have they set? What allowances have been made by those examinations for kids whose first language is not English? Forty percent of the young people in the Vancouver school system have English as a second language. This is what happened in the United States. Down in the U.S. of A., the Supreme Court of California ruled in 1974 that it was unconstitutional for schools to place non-English speakers in regular classes without aids to overcome the language. In the Netherlands, elementary grades are taught English. All secondary school pupils must take English to graduate. While the Netherlands may be the leader in foreign language instruction, that country is not unique. Countries throughout Europe offer other languages. But I think the point is that if the California school board requires kids whose native language is not English to have special concessions in classrooms, wouldn't it follow that kids whose native language is not English should have special concessions and considerations in provincewide exams? I think it would be. I think it's only humane. I don't know if that was considered either. So that's another important sidelight that I think we should look at.

What's the retention rate in schools these days? The last time we had provincewide exams, I believe, was in 1972. Is the retention rate higher or lower than in 1972? I would suggest to you that it's higher. If it's higher, it means that more average kids are staying in schools longer. Probably they might not do as well on exams, and maybe that's why some people who are required to face the exams didn't do as well as they might, even if the exams were all right, and that's why the minister had to scale them. Scaling isn't new. Scaling has been going on as long as we've had exams, that I know of.

[ Page 3775 ]

Scaling has always been practised, because the fact is that some examiners set exams that are too difficult. So we have the old bell-shaped curve about a certain percentage of people who are predestined to flunk. There's really no way, unless you replicate that exam over and over until it becomes "a standardized test" and has norms and all the rest of it, that it can be reliable without scaling. The minister didn't do anybody any favours by scaling those exams. Recognize reality, that's all. Don't make a virtue out of necessity. I think that's what happened here.

What did it all cost? Who did it? The minister said in one article that it was done by members of the BCTF. It was, all right. But it wasn't done with the active cooperation of the BCTF. They offered that. There was an agreement. It was ignored. I don't know what you call these people who did it at the behest of the ministry. They might have been BCTF members, but they certainly didn't do it with the BCTF's blessing. Had the BCTF had anything to do with it, I think that there would have been a much better kind of exam result. I hope that if we're going to plunge down this road, some of those questions — I'm not the only one who's ever thought of them — will be met and dealt with.

The committee that was going to be formed from the BCTF — the minister said he'd like to have their cooperation — agreed on these things. What modifications should be made to the assessment program? It should be more than an exam. That's not a quote. Given that the government is committed to a system of provincial exams, what alternative should be considered by the ministry in implementing a long-range plan in effect in June 1984? Well, it wasn't in June 1984; it was in December or January 1984. These are the major questions. These are the issues that should be considered.

First is the purpose of the provincial-wide assessments and provincial exams. What are you doing it for? Are you screening for colleges? Are you trying to compare teachers? Are you trying to provide minimum standards all over the province? Why are we doing it? That's got to be considered.

Secondly, there is the relationship between what is tested and the goals of education. We don't know what the goals are, Mr. Minister. We knew what they were under the previous minister, but we don't know what they are any more. The White Paper may address some of them; through the White Paper you may do, through consultation, something that is more than merely echoing what the people want out there. I hope that you have some goals and objectives, and that you are going to be rigorous in terms of your own integrity in these matters. Don't be like the French general and find out which way the troops are marching and then rush in front to lead them. I think there's more to it than that.

What about the graduate requirements and the program offerings in schools? Are they going to be considered, or are you going to have the five holy ways to knowledge: English, social studies, math, science and a foreign language? If you can do those you can go anywhere. But most people can't do those at all — not successfully, not at the high-standard level.

What's the context of evaluation and the total school program? What percentage has to be done" What methods other than testing should be considered, other than just multiple-choice questions? Public and professional expectations in dealing with provincial tests....

I do hope that the minister and the BCTF and the ministry will get together on these matters, because I think.... I could give you lots of quotes and newspaper articles about people who take these positions, but I would like to just close off by saying that I think that the BCTF and the B.C. School Trustees' Association — because they have some competent people there too — should get together and decide on criteria, such as were agreed to earlier, and cooperate with the development of, I think, probably more adequate evaluation material and procedures than we have now. What we do now is teach kids how to write exams in the same way as we teach them to swim — by throwing them off the diving board.

There is a lot of criticism that could be levelled at the whole thing, probably, that l haven't mentioned. If the ministry is determined to proceed, then there's nothing we're going to do about that, but we want to do everything we can to make sure that the exams are fair, that they cover the course and that they don't unnecessarily screen out people because they haven't covered the material that was taught.

MRS. DAILLY: I just want to follow along with the discussion and debate that has been taking place here on one major subject, the matter of the re-establishment of provincial exams in British Columbia. There are many other things one can discuss in education that are equally important, but I know that our education critic has been doing a fine job up to now in posing many of those questions, so I want to deal with just a few that concern me at this particular time.

It was my privilege to have had the opportunity when I was minister, years and years ago, to preside over the removal of provincial exams, so therefore I feel that I couldn't let this time go by without discussing with the minister the reasons for his re-establishment of these exams.

[4:45]

The first thing I'd like to say is that when I arrived in office as minister, the matter of the removal of the exams just happened to coincide with my own philosophy. But I'd like to point out to the minister that many months of work by the departmental officials preceding my arrival as minister had gone into the preparation for the removal of provincial exams. In other words, the former Social Credit government, under the minister at that time, obviously had been looking very closely at the true value of provincial exams. I cannot be sure, but it seems to me that even if a Social Credit Minister of Education had come along in 1974 and been presented with all the material I was presented with by the department officials, he too might have considered the value of removing them. As I say, it happened to coincide, however, with my philosophy.

So my first question to the minister is this: what preceded your decision to establish exams once more? I'd like to know, and I think all those interested in the province — people who have children in school and people involved in the educational establishment — have a right to know what kind of studies this re-establishment of exams was based upon. To date I haven't heard any detailed explanation from the minister, except that we're going back to standards and discipline. These generalized statements, when it comes to the major policy move of re-establishing exams, are, I think, not sufficient. I think the minister owes it to the House and to others to tell us exactly how much study preceded this and what studies you based it upon. Would you give us your philosophy of why you think it is actually going to be better for the students?

As the education critic for our party stated, you are the government. When we were government we had the right to make moves, I suppose, in that direction — even though it

[ Page 3776 ]

was the opposite. I feel that we made that move only after a great deal of study. I'm a little concerned that the move under the Social Credit government to restore provincial exams is strictly a political move, with very little basic educational philosophy behind it. We keep hearing: "It's going to lift standards. It's going to restore discipline." Speaking of the restoration of discipline because one returns to the writing of provincial exams, I noted with great interest that a high school principal from Mount Douglas here in Victoria said a most interesting thing: that young people in our schools are beginning to act differently after years of budget cutting and the onset of exams. So it is not a minor move that this minister has made; this is a real turn in the philosophy of education in this province. Some people claim he has no philosophy, but I claim that the return to exams is a return to a philosophy which we see permeating the whole United States right now. It's a very simplistic approach: if you've got problems in education, find some simplistic answer that will appeal to the public. It's so easy to get up there and say: "We're going to bring in exams. Your kids are all going to be better in school." We want to have some reason for this. How can he prove this? If he can't prove it, then why did he even embark on it?

This principal went on to state that he's getting concerned about the change in attitude because of budget cutting and the onset of exams. I think I have a perfect right to quote from a principal instead of from myself, who might be somewhat partisan; I don't think we can consider this person to be partisan. He goes on: "The combination of exams and the changing attitudes as teachers prepare them for the exams have started the kids developing what I call the warts of years gone by. There's a little bit of vandalism showing up now." We've always had some, but obviously he notes it more in his school.

There's difficulty with discipline. These kinds of things from the past are beginning to surface again. Because of this government's policy of budget restraints, the return to the old ways and bringing back examinations, this principal says a very interesting thing: that we're going to end up with more discipline problems. Do you know what is going to happen? The Social Credit government is going to say: "Well, we're going to have to bring in more in the line of provincial exams because discipline is getting bad again." Yet they themselves, with the very policies that they are bringing in, are creating the atmosphere for poor discipline and, as this man states, even vandalism.

To go back specifically, I've asked one question of the minister: would he explain what was behind this move? We would like some details — and not, I hope, generalized statements. While he's considering that, I would like to tell him of something that specifically happens. Any of us who have been school teachers in the past know — the education critic, who taught at UBC, knows — what exams can actually do to some students. These exams are supposedly to raise the standards, to improve education. I picked out an interesting article from the Province, Sunday, March 4, which reported what one student said after he had written an exam: "David Wan knows the score when it comes to final exams. 'The best thing about them is that you can fool around all year and pass on a good exam.'" Mr. Chairman, you and I both remember, even though I went earlier than you to high school, some of those very bright kids — maybe you were one yourself; I was not — who didn't have to study and could still pass an exam. "The carefree Wan sauntered into the exam room last January with a D average in history. This week, with 8,600 other students, he received his results, worth half the final grade." It's another what I consider stupid decision that has been made. "Wan scored better than 70 percent, pulling him up to a pass." So there he is. The bright kid goes in there, fools around all year and can walk in and pass the exam. That's really setting him up, isn't it — creating great standards of work habits and so on in that student. Then on the other hand we have "Mary Fong, an A student until she wrote the finals. 'Oh, no,' she wailed at the sight of her low percentage marks, which dragged her down to a B standing." To her that's being dragged down. I think, to many, dragging down to a B would be pretty good. I'm sure some of the pages are listening to this, and I think they know what I mean. "'Students were really afraid,' Templeton counsellor said...., of the first compulsory government tests in ten years." What I'm trying to say is that there are students who freeze at exams and yet they're bright students, and that's going to lower their marks. There are other students who go in there without any work.

Can you honestly tell me what this provincial exam is really doing to improve the learning environment in a classroom? Isn't that what we should all be concerned about? A teacher now is going to have to teach to that exam. I well remember teachers I had in high school who couldn't teach worth anything. All they did was sit with old exam papers, put the questions on the board and ask us all to study them. I'm not saying the teachers in our classrooms in 1984 are going to do that, but now their classes and how they do in these exams are going to be watched, so naturally even good or conscientious teachers, which I hope most of them are, are going to have a tendency to not be as creative in their teaching any more. They've got to go back to teaching for that exam. The point I'm trying to make to the minister is, I consider it a retrograde step in the progress of education in this province. I could go on at great length with other arguments against it, but I would like to hear from the minister: why has he done this?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the example which the member for Burnaby North has given and the article which was in the paper, why do we devote our time to two or three sensational items you find? Isn't it interesting to note that the young fellow in there scores — the challenge finally came. I look at it the other way around. I'll get into the substance of what you're talking about on those particular items, but surely.... Here is a young student who hasn't done very well. You advise me that going into the exam he was failing but he did well on the final — the external exam. I'm just saying there's some merit in that. Surely there is.

MRS. DAILLY: You're missing the point.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Rise to the challenge of it.

Before I answer some of these questions that have come up I want to make reference to an article. The author is John Currie. It was published in a newspaper, I don't know where it came from, but I understand it's British Columbia because he's referring to some players in the game in the educational community: the president of the BCTF, the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the executive director, I guess, of the College Institute Educators' Association, Jack Finnbogason. This is two paragraphs from this particular column.

[ Page 3777 ]

"Both Larry Kuehn of the BCTF and Joy Leach of the B.C. School Trustees' Association hit the nail on the head when they pointed out that the current storm in education is due to opposing philosophies and not the result of a group of good guys fighting a group of bad guys.

"People outside the system are asking if we should continue trying to raise the masses and reform society through education, or is it time to admit that this social experiment, as Jack Finnbogason of the College Institute Educators called it, has failed, and adopt less lofty and more specific goals. The answer from the general public seems to be a resounding aye, but unfortunately the education establishment does not seem to be listening."

I pass this on to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the House, because this particular article seems to identify a few of the concerns.

I'm wondering if....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Is there peace in our time? I never thought I'd see that happening on the floor of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not a bunch of automatons like you are.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Get your book and throw it, Uncle Lorne.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, if the member wishes to speak, would he please take his place at his chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member wishes to talk to me when I'm not even speaking. He was addressing me, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I wasn't talking....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I will admit that it is disorderly for a member to interrupt from his seat, and even more so when he is not in his seat. But I think for a minister who holds the floor to start heckling a member who isn't even in his seat is absolutely the poorest of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your point of order is that the Chair should be addressed. Is that correct, Mr. Member?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I was addressing the Chair, but there was a commotion over there and some apparent disagreement, so I sat back hoping they'd get over it. I think they have and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the minister for bringing it to the Chair's attention.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

[5:00]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) raised a point with respect to the non-residential tax base — whether any part of it was going into education. I would like to make it abundantly clear that all of the money which is collected — $662,657,731 is collected, and an additional sum of $10, which comes from consolidated revenue, is added on — is sent out. So every dime which is collected is sent out, plus $10 to keep the account open in consolidated revenue.

MR. ROSE: Gee, I wish you'd do that with EPF. More about that later.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Good luck.

As far as the examination issue is concerned, when we reintroduced provincial examinations — external exams — reference was made to wanting to ensure that there was adherence to the provincial curriculum. The former Minister of Education is aware of that curriculum and of the adherence to it. I want you to know that there was considerable, and I mean considerable, thrust from the post-secondary community — from the teachers and administrators in our post-secondary system of education — who wanted examinations reintroduced.

There was the issue of mark or grade inflation. We suspected that marks coming in from various schools throughout the province were in many cases questionable. It became evident to those in post-secondary institutions, whether colleges, institutes or universities, that the performance at school level was certainly not reflective of what was happening when they arrived at their institute. At the time that the decision to reintroduce examinations was made, I raised the study which was conducted by the University of Victoria on the subject of mathematics, where results from a number of schools were taken and analyzed. It was found that a B or an A from one particular school didn't in any way offer similar results in a post-secondary institute. But a C from a school even within the same district was almost a guarantee of passing. When a student makes application for entrance to a post-secondary institute, it seems to me that he has the right to rely upon the marks which are assigned to him. We talk about standardization, and I think equal opportunity is of some consequence — also comparison of school to school. There is something else that we shouldn't forget: it's a public education system, and the public ought to have some say too. It's not the private preserve of those people in the education community to constantly tell everybody what to do. That is why I made reference to the statement made by the executive director of the College Institute Educators' Association.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He's a member of Solidarity. I strongly suspect he's probably a member of your party. Fine. But what's interesting about it is that he said this: "We've experimented really through the sixties and the seventies, and the public has said 'that's enough.'" The input from the public is that they are looking for this. We're prepared to pay

[ Page 3778 ]

that kind of money per student throughout the system, but we want the student to take advantage of the tremendous opportunity that they have. I cannot be persuaded otherwise, when it comes to the interest of the public, that what we did by reintroducing examinations was wrong. I absolutely assure you that the public has expressed their view on innumerable occasions: from their point of view, this is a move that should have been made. The comments were made: do they believe in examinations, provincial examinations or in some other way of testing?

I want to set the record straight about the allegation in the newspaper article with respect to teacher competency. When the marks came in and were graded — I will get into the detail on that, because there were some questions — there was some evidence of mark inflation at the B level. There was also evidence of a higher failure rate. Members of the press are obviously directing their questions at a sensitive issue. The sensitive issue they raised was: is that not a reflection on the calibre of teaching in some schools in some districts in parts of the province? I made it clear at that time that these exams were, under no circumstances, introduced for the purpose of determining teacher competency. When that question was put to me down in the press theatre when we announced the results, I made it very clear: "You cannot jump to those conclusions, members of the press, at all." How can you turn around and make a judgment that some student failing is directly attributable to a teacher? That's patently unfair. That's why I said: "Don't you start jumping to any conclusions at all." Please believe me, there are a number of witnesses to the statement I made. How those examination results are interpreted by (1) members of the press, (2) members of the teaching profession, or (3) members of the public is something over which I have no control. If they want to make those statements, so be it. But you know, there is risk in everything we do in life. We take shots in our constituencies — all politicians do; some of them, I believe, are patently unfair and unsubstantiated, but we take them because it goes with the territory, that's all. I don't think everybody should get carried away with a large dose of paranoia.

To the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), with respect to the examinations, I do believe they have a salutary effect with respect to discipline, attitude and opportunity. Although those may be my beliefs, I would just as soon rely on the classroom teacher; that's who I rely upon. There is a large silent majority of teachers who are most supportive of provincial examinations. Because their parent organization, the BCTF, is against provincial examinations.... The publication B.C. Teacher, which I raised, had a number of articles in it which were primarily opposed; as I recall, there was one in favour — mine and one other. There may have been another one, but I can't recall. The primary thrust of the BCTF and of much of their leadership is against this. I don't know whether or not this issue of examinations has been clouded to a great deal as a result of the restraint measures, some layoffs and generally an upsetting concern. I am not sure, it may have had something to do with it; it may have had nothing. But I am of the view that those examinations are something which are very important.

On the preparation of the examinations, I wish to advise the members that prior to releasing the marks publicly on a provincewide basis, they were issued to the schoolchildren. They were entitled to them, and we tried to keep our commitment to the date which was given. I think we were two or three days late. For a first run I think we did a reasonably good job. I did not want these results announced provincially until they were accompanied by a technical report to explain how the exams were prepared and all related matters, right down to the time of marking and publication, because I thought it was only fair to the schools, the school districts and the students — not to mention the teachers, who are certainly entitled to every consideration — that before the press went with those reports, I had at least done my duty and made available the background of those exams to members of the press. I got into some flak from some school boards for doing that, because they felt that they ought to have had the information earlier. But out of concern for teachers and students, I thought it was important that we go the route that we selected.

Some questions have been raised with respect to the preparation of the examinations. I quote from page 1 of the report which was issued with the press release. First, to ensure fairness and reliability of the examination, a system of checks and balances was established whereby each examination paper was checked by a variety of committees before being accepted. For each subject there was the following:

1. The preparation committee. This was composed of experienced teachers of the subject being examined who produced a first draft based upon a table of specifications derived from the prescribed curriculum.
2. The second committee, which was called a technical committee, was a committee of measurement experts. They conducted a technical review and produced an edited revision, which became the second draft.
3. The third committee was an external editing committee, which consisted of specialists who reviewed the content of each examination in terms of suitability and curriculum validity.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

After those exams had gone through those three committees, they were then returned to the preparation committee. That's the first one to which I made reference. They prepared the final draft of the exam. In addition to the process described, three further steps were taken after the examinations were written to ensure the fairness and validity of each examination. First, before commencing the marking process, each marking committee, composed of experienced teachers, examined the paper. Each item was considered in terms of appropriateness, clarity and curriculum validity. Where appropriate, each committee recommended either the deletion of an item or double keying — that's important — where a question might be answered correctly in more than one way. Then we had an outside body, commonly referred to as the ERIBC, which is the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia, which is partly funded by the provincial government, conduct a further item analysis, checking particularly for psychometrically unsound items. This agency was also responsible for producing the various printouts of the final scores. Finally, the examinations were submitted to the provincial board of examiners. In the light of the markers' reviews, the statistical analyses and suggestions received from teachers, the board of examiners deleted 13 out of 1,103 items. That's 1.1 percent.

[5:15]

I'd like to raise just two little items with respect to the board of examiners. Some comment was made in the press on Sunday, I am told, that the board of examiners is not public. The fact is that they are appointed by order-in-council, and I

[ Page 3779 ]

thought orders-in-council were public. Secondly, there was a comment made that we went outside British Columbia to receive the paper and have the exams printed. The fact is that the exams were printed by the Queen's Printer. That piece of paper, which came from Minneapolis, was of a particular quality which was required and was used as the answer sheet, because it was inserted within the computer operated by ERIBC. That was all.

I'm sure that the members have a copy of this technical report. I don't know if there is much value in going through....

MR. ROSE: I've got it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's good enough for me. Well, my point is that, while the first run may have had some warts on it — and I don't question that there were some problems in our first three introductions — the fact is that we did go to great lengths to try to ensure that the system was fair and that those exams were all right. There was one exam — the biology exam — where five questions out of the 13 were deleted. There is also some question as to whether or not the exam had other problems in it. I want to tell you right now that for the June exams, these committees who are involved in each subject will have learned a great deal from the first application.

So I think it's important, in concluding my comments with respect to those questions that were raised.... I think it's a matter of a philosophical thrust. I honestly believe that. I personally believe it. I am personally committed. Our government is committed. The public is committed. There are too many people in the educational community, both high school and post-secondary, who believe that this is the right route to go in. I firmly believe that the challenge and the opportunity for that challenge ought to be made clear. I'm convinced it's going to have the desired effect.

I would like to conclude by making one reference. I note that Alberta has done them. I'm not prepared to take any potshots, but just remember something. It was very interesting. There was a lot of opposition in Alberta to the exams when they came in. Finally they got the support of the Alberta Teachers' Association — by the way, not only support, but there was an agreement to the weighting of 50 percent as well. That's the information we have from Alberta. That's old news, as a matter of fact.

References are constantly made — and the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) made some to what's going on in the United States, but I think it would be worthwhile, if you ever get an opportunity, to read the speech given by Governor Spellman of the state of Washington, immediately to the south of our border. I think you will find a number of things of some interest in that state. I think you're going to find a lot of that across the U.S., probably for a number of reasons. I don't think they have a system as good as ours, by any stretch of the imagination, in high schools. But I notice that maybe it's a little more imminent, and what they're doing should be expedited. But I would make reference to something you might be interested in getting. It's a new bill and the title is Education for Excellence Act, 1984. I won't go into this, but it makes for very interesting reading. I'd be quite prepared to xerox a copy of this and give it to my critic and anyone else who might be interested.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his detailed and lengthy explanation. I thought I made it reasonably clear when I spoke, as far as examinations were concerned, that I didn't particularly object to them on philosophical grounds at all. I objected to them on professional grounds, on the grounds that they didn't seem to work very well. Whether the BCTF opposes them or is in favour of them has little to do with how I feel about them personally. It has nothing to do with that. I think I also said, if the minister will recall, that I can recall a time when we did have accredited schools. It seems silly to put a lot of kids through a lot of hoops who perhaps didn't need it. But there are dangers in that too, and any kind of assessment that the minister contemplates is going to have some warts, as he said, on it. Of course it is. But the point is that when you're doing assessments you should be doing as many as possible, so no one is critical in terms of a student's future, whether it is the member for Burnaby North's example of the kid who could walk through the exam with no preparation at all, or whether you're talking about some kid who's just barely making it over those hurdles and screens.

I would just remind the minister — and I hope I don't sound too pompous about it — that the purpose of education is to help learning. It's not to screen out the incompetents. Too often that's what exams have been used for. The minister ended up talking about Alberta. "A study starting in the University of Alberta...." I'm quoting Dan Birch from UBC, in the B.C. Teacher. He said: "....the correlation between high-school and university grades has inevitably shown improvement. In other words, teachers' grades at the high-school level would appear to be somewhat better predictors of grades at the university." Well, if you've already got that, and all you're really concerned about is whipping the teachers into line, then I think you're going about it in a very cumbersome and expensive way.

I have one or two other points, and then I'll sit down for now. I've got a note here from the Western Institute for the Deaf. I talked about the fact that in the States you've got to have special provisions in classrooms for those people whose first language isn't English; I suggested that maybe that should be done on our provincewide test as well. But, anyway, the Western Institute for the Deaf said that the Association of Educators of the Hearing Impaired expressed concern over the provincial exams. They said many of the hearing- impaired have English as a second language, and they'd like the Ministry of Education to guarantee these students the service of an interpreter provided during the provincial examinations. If they can't guarantee them the service of an interpreter, perhaps there's some way that they could bring along their own interpreter without leaving it open to terrible abuses, so the interpreter's the one who knows the answers and the students themselves don't. So I ask the minister to look into that.

Just one other point, I think. When the minister talks about how much money we're spending on health and welfare and he adds it into education, it's true that the sum totals add up, but it's because of the extreme totals of spending on health and welfare that it tends, when you add them together, to inflate the education picture. I think what we really should be doing is looking in the book and seeing how that relates to the total provincial GNP, in order to have a meaningful comparison.

That's all I'll say at the moment. I'm going on further, but not today, because others want to speak. But so the minister

[ Page 3780 ]

will know what I'm about, tomorrow if we start in the morning bright and early at 10 — if the minister's going to be here — I'll be talking about colleges and access, and that sort of thing.

MR. PASSARELL: First I'd like to talk about the provincial exam, and then get into some constituency problems.

Mr. Minister, I remember when I started teaching, back there in the 1800s, and some of the cultural questions. There used to be a listing of how they based the schools in regard to the test scores from the year before, and I remember when I came into Good Hope Lake from Kitimat it was a little thing the superintendent had used. I'm just referring to a statement you made about how it would be unfair to use the testing against the teachers. I remember coming into Good Hope Lake, on these provincial exams, and how it was ranked so low. And it was at that time, and that was used against the teachers as well as against the school. I remember one of the original questions on the exam was a mathematical problem about a child who got on a subway and went down Yonge Street, and had to buy a couple of transfers to go off to another part of metropolitan Toronto. The students at Good Hope Lake had never heard of a subway, let alone knew what it was, and it had thrown them off. The concern I have with the provincial exams is that sometimes without having cultural indicators in the exam, it can throw off students in the far north, particularly native children who take the exams and find that they can't relate to some aspects of the exams.

In regard to native education, I'm very pleased that there has been a change in the ministry, with a new regime in there. I think that was a good move by the government; it should have been done years ago. I'm glad that it's moving under new directorship on native education.

When we did last year's estimates a few weeks ago, I raised a number of questions for the minister. The minister did send me a reply in regard to the native education program, particularly the native language program in School District 92. It said that there won't be any cutbacks in that area, which I was pleased at. But I'm wondering if the ministry has any type of long-term forecast — let's say a five-year forecast — in regard to native education, particularly native language programs. I would be pleased if the minister could talk about native language programs.

Another aspect I brought to the minister's attention in his last year's estimates was regarding the Dease Lake school, and he said he'd take that and get back to me. I haven't heard anything yet, but I'm sure that when he gets up he'll be able to give some indications on that. The facility, as the minister knows, is in a dilapidated building with problems with plumbing. It's three trailers that are set up in Dease Lake. There's a need for a permanent structure in the community. It's the last community in district 87 besides Lower Post that hasn't had a new facility, and I'd be pleased if the minister could give some indication in regard to a new facility for Dease Lake.

Another question I have for the minister is in regard to the new federal school built in Iskut and some of the programs that are being branched out by 87 regarding the federal school in Iskut. Does the ministry have any plans to take over the Iskut school and bring it into district 87? I know there was some talk about it a few years ago, but I notice that the school district has been very positive in helping out with the Iskut school. I was just wondering if there are any indications of the provincial government taking over the Iskut school.

Another question is in regard to the Tahltan language program that's been in existence for a year in Telegraph Creek. I was talking today to the United Tahltan Association about the need to bring a Tahltan language program into Dease Lake, with its high percentage of native children.

One of the successful programs that we've seen when it comes to native languages has been in district 92. The Nishga program works very cooperatively in the community, even one like the camp of Nass, where the children come into New Aiyansh. While Nishga isn't their native tongue from Nass camp, the parents and the school district have been able to work some cooperative program where parents can opt out — if they find that they don't want their children to take the native language program. But most parents, from what I've learned, would like their children — white as well as native — to take more native language programs.

[5:30]

The fourth issue is not a constituency issue; it's more of a personal nature. I'm a graduate of Notre Dame — I think the minister and I graduated at about the same time from university — and I've seen what happened to Notre Dame. I'm seeing it almost secondly with DTUC in Nelson. Some of the correspondence that has come across my desk, as well as that of the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) in his fight to save DTUC, was an interesting little program that was presented by the community regarding buying the facility. I would like the minister's response on that. I'm sure my friend from Nelson-Creston will be elaborating on this issue.

That's a number of constituency questions. I would like the minister's response to these, particularly the constituency issues. As a teacher I oppose the provincial exams. I've heard the minister give his logic, but I oppose this particularly because of areas that I taught in in the far north, and the issues that have been associated with cultural problems when it comes to provincewide testing.

I would like the minister's response to the questions I have directed to him.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to all of the points the hon. member raised on constituency matters, I'll send a copy of Hansard over to the director to look after. As far as the five-year program is concerned, I'm prepared to raise that with him. As you know, he's reasonably new in the field, but it sounds to me like a pretty good challenge.

Dease Lake school is in the '84-85 submission for capital expenditures; that's where it is right now. You've raised that with me on at least two occasions that I know of in the House. It seems to me that was last fall and at the end of January. It's in the '84-85 submission for capital expenditures, along with a number of others. I concede that the Dease Lake school is in a very difficult plight, and I recognize the circumstances and the message, which has been brought to me by more than one.

On the Iskut matter, I don't know if we've ever approached.... I've asked my two deputies and it doesn't ring a bell, so I'm wondering whether or not anything has come this way.

On the Tahltan language program, I can't give you any specific answer to that as I don't know anything about it, but I will find out something about it. I did mention to you that a copy of Hansard will be put into the hands of somebody who is responsible for making recommendations to us.

[ Page 3781 ]

On the provincial matter of David Thompson, I think that is clear. If we get into it later on I am going to be repeating what I have already said. Yes, I recognize that the proposal has come from the city of Nelson, and it has been received.

Does that cover the concerns? Dease Lake school; the Indian language five-year program — the Tahltan language program; we know nothing about Iskut. Does that cover your matters?

MR. PASSARELL: A further question to the minister. I've raised this in the House before with regard to the Iskut School District, prior to the two ministry officials that you have.... No, you weren't the minister at the time, but it has been directed to it.

One of the problems we have is that there are very few federal native schools left in the province. If I'm not mistaken, I think there are only two left that are similar to the Iskut school. A new facility has just been built there this year, Klappan school. It is a growing area, and I've had numerous letters directed to my office, particularly from the community of Eddontenajon, which is four miles south of Iskut, regarding parents' concerns about their children going to a federal school and wondering why, when they are paying taxes, their children can't go to a provincial school. I can give the minister some further data on that, some correspondence regarding the Iskut school and some of the concerns of the parents — not particularly from the community of Iskut but the surrounding community. There are quite a few parents who live up and down Highway 37. With some of the new mining development in the area it is growing considerably. Some of the parents and companies that are moving in there have questions regarding the need for the government to have a provincial school in the area and not allow the federal government to continue running the education in the community of Iskut.

I appreciate the minister stating that he will come back on further questions to me. With regard to the five-year program. I hope the new director of native education will use the Nishga people for advice when it comes to native education in this province. They are experts in that realm. I would hope the minister would seriously look at a five-year native education program in this province. I appreciate the comments, and he will get back to me.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it clear that I intend to bring up many subjects during these debates, not the least of which is the David Thompson University Centre. But let's get back to provincial government exams so that we can maybe tidy up that area.

The first thing I would like to do is peruse the document put out by the learning assessment branch in January 1984, "Provincial Examination Program Summary to Schools." I think one of the telling things in it is the number of individuals who wrote certain exams. For the courses in which more than 100 individuals wrote, the lowest participation rate was in Physics 12 — 501 students writing; the next lowest were English Literature 12 with 639 and French 12 with 981. Of course, everybody had to write English 12. It's not really an elective. Algebra is hardly an elective, and it had the next highest frequency, with 2,710 students writing. One could ask: why do 501 students write physics and why do 1,700 students write biology, both of which are electives and both of which are sciences? That very question was asked about 30 years ago — I think when Dr. Conway was in the Ministry of Education — and it was discovered at that time that the reason that a lot of people were not taking physics was that we were administering a so-called bell curve to determine the pass or failure rate. The students who were A and B achievers in other courses were getting failing marks in physics because physics tended to.... It therefore became more and more selective. I might say that the same thing would probably be true of French. French tends to discourage all but the best students, so there is a tremendous natural selection process that goes on.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I would ask the minister if he could clear up the discrepancy between two documents put out by his ministry. One which I refer to is the "Provincial Examination Program Summary to Schools," and the second is the press release and attachment put out.... I guess the entire thing is a press release — no, it is an attachment to the press release entitled "Provincial Examination Results," issued on March 5, I guess. There is on that a table called "Proportion of Students in Each Letter-Grade Category Based on Examination Results." In one piece of material, "Provincial Examination Program Summary to Schools, " the first table over from the letter-grades is called "school marks" — and then there is "examination standards," "examination marks" and "aggregate marks." I would ask the minister to explain why he has changed terminology between these two papers. What he called examination marks in this paper are not mentioned here as exam marks. Instead he has taken examination standards and put it in there. Why has he changed the terminology? What does he mean by "examination standards"? Could he explain that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm trying to follow that item. Attached to the press release where it says "exam marks," I suppose you could shove in examination standards as well. The examination mark is the mark which was assigned after scaling, so on an item next to the document attached to the press release entitled, "Proportion of Students in Each Letter-Grade Category Based on Examination Results," where it states "exam marks" you can insert, if you wish, "exam standards, " because the examination mark on the document attached to the technical paper is the scaled result. If you look to table 1, it says: Algebra A, school marks 10, examination standards 7, examination marks 8 — aggregate 8. If you look at the column under "examination standard," it’s exactly the same as the column under "examination mark." That's an error on our part in the release.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like the minister and his deputy to consider this question, looking at the physics marks under "exam standards." I dare say that one can set any kind of an exam. Normally in physics, even at the university level, exams tend to measure the top group, and separate the top group, and the average and the bottom are all sort of bunched up. Was any consideration given, in deriving the rate of scaling, to the kind of achievement that those students had exhibited in grade 11 and in grade 12? In other words, what kind of a letter-grade average or grade-point average did that profile of 500-odd physics students, or 900-odd French students...? What kind of a profile did they have as a group, and were the letter grades administered relevant to that kind of a distribution?

[ Page 3782 ]

[5:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I cannot give a specific answer to that, and I will take the question as notice and return tomorrow with a detailed answer. I think the member's entitled to it, because he's getting into something that is a matter of concern. I just can't give it to him right now.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I am shocked that I cannot be given the answer to that question at this particular time, because if that is the case, it means we have not gone back to the situation that existed in 1974; we have gone back to a situation and a type of.... If the answer isn't even known, and if the fact is that the teachers simply made up an exam, and if this distribution simply represents raw scores, and scaling was not done on that kind of a basis, it means that there is a type of discrimination here which is going to see that the number of students taking physics, French 12 and other disciplines that tend to be a little bit tougher.... It will mean that in a couple of years there may be 200 students writing, where there are 500 today. There will maybe be 300 students taking French, where there were 900-and-some-odd today. In other words, they will be taking the courses that they find a little bit easier. Looking at either the raw scores or the final scores in biology.... For instance, according to the school marks, 36 percent of the students scored an A or a B in biology 12; according to the exam marks, 35 percent scored an A or a B in biology. Would the minister suggest, then, where the exam marks indicate only 23 percent in physics 12, that there must be an elite of students, or a very select group of high achievers, in biology as opposed to physics? Would physics tend to have the lower achievers and would that explain this disparity?

Prior to the Chant royal commission, which perhaps the ministry should dust off, it was the case that in examining the participation rate of students in certain courses — particularly in physical sciences like chemistry and physics and also, I think, in French — they discovered that by applying some kind of a bell curve or some kind of absolute standards they were discriminating against students who were high achievers in other areas. At the time, I believe, the provincial government then used IQ tests to perform.... I'm not saying that IQ tests are very helpful when they're applied to an individual, but IQ tests do have a use if they're applied to a group. If one were to look — and I would be willing to bet $100 on this — at the IQ profile of the students taking physics and put it up against the profile of the whole group taking biology, one would find that the physics would be higher. If that wasn't the case, it would mean that a very serious change has taken place in the last few years since we've done away with government exams. That certainly was the case before, and part of the scaling process was to look at the likelihood of these people being high achievers.

I think, frankly, that rather than using IQ tests it is better to use their high-school achievement in grade 11 and grade 12 to establish some sort of a grade-point average — not to determine what the individual should get but to determine what that group should get. I'm elaborating on this so that, when the minister does take as notice this question which I pose to him, he will bring back the kind of answer that I'm looking for tomorrow; that is: has the ministry looked at the profile of these groups based on a grade-point average, on a letter-grade average, on an IQ average distribution, and have you tried to fit the marks into the kind of curve that that shows, from previous experience, particularly one discipline compared to another?

Quite frankly I find that this business of saying that 35 or 36 percent of the students in biology are A or B students and 23 percent in physics are A or B students, on a test where you had to throw out about five of the items.... Imagine the reliability of that test. Students had to puzzle over not one item that didn't make sense but five items that didn't make sense. I understand that even in the biology test there were items using terminology that hadn't been seen in biology since I was a high-school student.

That is the major concern that I have in this particular area of testing, and I don't speak as a person who is categorically opposed to some sort of standardized achievement test. I used to mark government scholarship exams, and I have a little bit of knowledge of what goes on, or used to go on, on those marking teams. Certainly one good aspect of it was that it brought teachers together from all over the province in a collegiality. So if there's any dispute about the effect on the students, you could at least say that it had a positive effect on the teachers, when they got together and were able to compare and argue over different standards and over various questions that might be right or wrong.

I would hope that the minister has the question very clearly, because I think it is a very fundamental question. I think that unless the ministry wants to phase out courses like French 12 and physics 12, I suspect that you will find that a lot more of those students are deserving of As and Bs than you will find in some of the other courses offered.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question, as I said, we we will dig into that tonight and tomorrow. I don't know whether I can have an answer for the member by 10 o'clock, but there will be an answer coming back.

I think it is now close to 6 o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and that it would be appropriate now to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.