[ Page 3795 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Charitable distribution of food. Ms. Sanford –– 3796

Employment program cutbacks. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3796

Effect of government fiscal policies on unemployment levels. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3796

Post-secondary education. Mr. Nicolson –– 3797

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

On vote 15: minister's office –– 3798

Ms. Brown

Mr. Michael

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Ree

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Nicolson

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, seated in the member's gallery this afternoon is the accountant for Anthes Equipment of Burnaby, Miss Gail Zuccolini. I would ask the House to bid her welcome.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, the introduction I am going to make today is appropriate as we're on the Education estimates. Not too many school children get a chance to go on field trips outside the greater Victoria area. I would like to introduce 50 grade 11 Esquimalt Senior Secondary School students and their teacher, Mr. Don Taylor, who are seated in your gallery.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon is a constituent from Surrey, Mr. Lou Foret, president of Lou's Rent-All, I would ask the House to please welcome him.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, today I have two introductions from your riding, and one to follow. We have Mr. James Johnson, president of Sky-Hi Scaffolding Ltd.; and Mr. Palmer Ulvild, president of the Rental Association of Canada; from North Vancouver–Seymour we have Mr. David Angel, the managing director of SGB Jackson Scaffolding Ltd. They are here meeting the government today regarding the Builders Lien Act, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the beginning of the afternoon sitting on Monday last, the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order asking for clarification of a ruling given by the Chair on Friday, March 9. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition was concerned as to whether or not the admonition of the Chair relating to possible abuse of the rules amounts to "a matter of fact or a matter of opinion."

First, I wish to restate the obvious proposition that debate is not permitted on decisions from the Chair. If on any occasion any hon. members find themselves uncertain as to the interpretation to be given to a decision from the Chair, the Speaker would be pleased to discuss the implications of such a ruling with any member in his chambers. The matter at issue is no exception, and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to discuss this matter with me at any time.

However, I wish to make one or two general observations relating to applications under standing order 35 –– I do this so that members will not, however inadvertently, misconstrue the Speaker's application of the rules. Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, page 369, in commenting on this matter, provides a useful guideline: "The general meaning of the standing order may be set out in the words of Mr. Speaker Peel: 'What I think was contemplated was the occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or foreign affairs, but I do not think it was contemplated that a question of very wide scope, which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner, should be the subject of discussion.'" If one applies this very clear explanation of the rule to the subject matter of unemployment, it will be readily seen that it does not qualify. It seems to the Chair that there is a duty on hon. members who wish to discuss a particular subject, be it unemployment or any matter, to select one of the numerous occasions on which such matters can be properly debated within the rules. The budget debate, the throne debate, numerous areas in Committee of Supply, certain motions and much legislation all provide ample opportunity to discuss unemployment. Standing order 35 applications do not. To choose the incorrect forum to launch a discussion on unemployment seems to the Chair inappropriate.

Having examined the limitations imposed by the rule itself, I wish to touch upon the Chair's admonition to hon. members, which was intended to assist in avoiding unnecessary pitfalls. It has been historically the duty of the Chair to admonish members who abuse the rules, and in a true sense of fairness the Chair has from time to time attempted to warn members who are coming close to such abuse. This would seem the proper course followed in most jurisdictions and one that tends to be fair to all members.

The Leader of the Opposition has been present in this House on numerous occasions on which the issue of unemployment was brought forward under standing order 35. On each of those occasions the hon. member will recall that because of standing order 35 restrictions the subject matter of unemployment has not qualified.

Reference has been made to a decision of this House in 1974, wherein the Leader of the Opposition of that day asked leave to move adjournment of the House under standing order 35 for the purpose of discussing "the rising unemployment in the province and the recession in the forest industry and in the housing construction." The Speaker of the day referred to numerous decisions of this House dealing with similar applications under standing order 35. After stating his opinion that the application was not in order, he remarked further that his opinion was neither debatable nor subject to appeal. The Chair agrees with Mr. Speaker Dowding when he states that his opinion under standing order 35 is neither debatable nor subject to appeal.

Hon. members are referred to the specific wording of standing order 35(3) and Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 90.

The Chair believes this fully answers the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition. If there remains any uncertainty in the minds of any hon. members in relation to the application of standing order 35, or indeed any procedural matter, the Chair would be most pleased to discuss the matter privately.

If the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) would keep their conversation down, the Chair would be pleased to finish the ruling.

The Chair wishes to make two final observations. Firstly, each and every application under standing order 35 will be treated on its own merit. Secondly, the matter of unemployment is viewed by the Chair, and I am sure by all hon. members of this House, as an extremely grave issue, and the Chair does not suggest otherwise when ruling, as the Chair must rule, that the requirements of standing order 35 have not been satisfied. Other opportunities to discuss the issue of unemployment are clearly available to all hon. members. Any admonishment from the Chair on Friday last was simply to discourage continued attempts to use standing order 35 as a vehicle for debate in the face of so many rulings from the Chair that it was not appropriate to do so.

If hon. members feel that the present rules do not allow sufficient scope for comment or debate, then it is incumbent

[ Page 3796 ]

upon them to make the necessary recommendations for rule changes. But in any case, hon. members, the Chair suggests it is inappropriate for members to direct their feelings of frustration at the Chair when such energies would be more appropriately directed at changing the rules.

Oral Questions

CHARITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Since 1935 the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been involved in emergency food distribution aimed at improving the nutritional state of infants, children and low-income families. Given the unemployment crisis in B.C., why has the government failed to establish such a program here in British Columbia?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's a matter, hon. member, that perhaps deserves consideration. Thank you for the suggestion.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, here in B.C. the emergency food banks which have been staffed by church groups and trade union groups, as well as other volunteers are so heavily patronized that the food banks simply cannot supply the need. Has the government decided to give urgent consideration to purchasing excess food production from British Columbia farmers for donation to the emergency food banks?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: There is no funding established for that kind of a program, and so I don't anticipate it in the immediate future.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister just indicated that my initial suggestion about distributing food was, in fact, one that should be considered, but what he's saying now is that the government is not interested at this time and it will have to wait another year.

Mr. Speaker, the retail sales of fluid milk fell by some six million litres in B.C. In 1983 because unemployed families cannot afford to purchase the fresh milk. Is the government prepared to consider making up at least this shortfall — through the purchase of fresh milk — for distribution through the food banks?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The consumption of milk in the province of British Columbia is down by just a little less than 3 percent.

MS. SANFORD: I realize that. Mr. Speaker, he did not answer my question. I'm well aware that the six million litres represents about 2 or 3 percent. It also represents a lack of nutrition for many, many children and their families in this province. My question is: is the minister prepared to ensure that those milk supplies reach those families who need that milk at this time? The need is urgent, Mr. Speaker. People are going hungry in this province today, and I'm wondering what action the minister is prepared to take to meet the immediate food requirements of the people who are unable to have their food requirements met today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: There is no provision through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the kind of the program that the member is suggesting. However, there is increased funding in the Ministry of Human Resources not for the milk itself, but in which funding is provided to recipients who have needs in order to purchase exactly what the member suggested.

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM CUTBACKS

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. On June 30, 1983, the provincial government suspended the community recovery and employment-bridging assistance programs because "they met their requirements during the period of greatest need." In view of record levels of unemployment in British Columbia this winter, has the minister decided to reconsider that decision and to seek a renewal of joint federal-provincial initiatives for urgently needed reforestation and community development projects?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The bridging program wasn't suspended by the government; it was a federal program in which we participated. We'll be talking with the federal government, I'm sure, on an ongoing basis about ways in which we will continue to cooperate with the federal government over the years.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would tell us when the last conversation he had with the federal government about establishing joint programs was held.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd be happy to take that as notice, look in my diary and come back to you.

EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT FISCAL
POLICIES ON UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS

MR. GABELMANN: I have some questions for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in the minister's absence I questioned the Minister of Labour about the effect of government fiscal policy on increasing the number of jobless in British Columbia. In the face of tremendous suffering because of increased unemployment in B.C., will the minister advise if the government is now reconsidering its fiscal priorities?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent at question period yesterday, but I did read the Hansard Blues and noted the questions which were posed to my colleague the Minister of Labour. The answer to the question is no, the government is not re-examining its fiscal policies for the year 1984-85. Indeed, the whole purpose of the thrust upon which we have been embarked since we were re-elected in May of last year has been to encourage and expand the private sector in order that we may move out of the admittedly high levels of unemployment in the private sector. That was the thrust of the budget, of the debate of members of this party participating in the debate, and, sir, it is the road to recovery, rather than that which is proposed by the members opposite.

MR. GABELMANN: If in fact the government policies are designed to put us on the road to recovery, what explanation does the Minister of Finance have for the fact that B.C.'s

[ Page 3797 ]

experience is running counter to that of 59 other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States? B.C. alone is suffering increased unemployment during a period of North American economic revival.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is the responsibility of the opposition in a House such as this to examine the most recent statistics. While I was not here, I learned later of the reference to 59 other jurisdictions. But, Mr. Speaker, the word which has reached me, the Premier and our colleagues suggests that British Columbia is in fact showing the way toward…

MR. COCKE: …the soup kitchens.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I may conclude.

…showing the way toward recovery while others still have their blinkers on. I feel very comfortable in telling this House and in indicating to the people of British Columbia that I think we will see lowered unemployment levels. We will see higher employment levels as a result of the longer and mid-term policies of this government.

MR. GABELMANN: Does the minister feet comfortable with the fact that since the budget was presented in July 1983, an additional 91,000 British Columbians have become unemployed? Putting it another way, 9 1,000 fewer people are working in British Columbia as a result of the budget. Just how long-term is the budget in terms of its panaceas, as the minister would describe them? Is this long term to the 1990s or is it into the year 2000?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I expect that it will be much sooner than the time-frame that the member for North Island has indicated.

I also dissociate myself from that part of his question which suggests that the July 1983 budget is the root cause of the difficulties; rather it is part of the cure. Quite frankly, as we on this side of the House have observed previously, while one has to be concerned about the numbers of unemployed British Columbians, one also has to recognize that that is a number of people who are in British Columbia and who may indeed, in some measure, have moved from elsewhere in Canada in order to seek work. Mr. Speaker, the problem is not limited to British Columbia; the problem is nationwide. I can only hope that other jurisdictions in this country, including the federal government, will recognize that we are taking the kind of action which may not satisfy the members opposite next month or the month following, but in the months to come, and in 1984, '85 and '86. It is, indeed, a document for the road to recovery.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. The minister must be aware that young people in British Columbia are facing a staggering 25 percent unemployment rate, and career prospects are far worse than at any other time in our province's history. Given these circumstances, does the minister agree that our young people require increased, not diminished, education and skill-training to participate in a modern economy?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's hard to give a specific answer to a general question such as that, Mr. Speaker. I do note that there has been a recent request of graduates of the University of British Columbia that the government spend more money to provide them with jobs after their graduation. I think that hon. members can see the difficulty that the province will be faced with economically if it is urged to spend money on the one hand to provide additional educational opportunities and then further money to employ the graduates following the completion of their courses. The difficulties that we face are better addressed, I think, by getting at the underlying root problems of our economy, basically the overspending by government and the difficulty of those who would invest and provide jobs in the private sector in becoming established because of the baggage that they carry from the profligate spending of recent years. Of course, the government of British Columbia is addressing that fundamental problem, in sharp contrast to the federal government, which is currently spending our future away and compromising, more than any single institution in Canada, the ability of our young people to find employment in the future.

MR. NICOLSON: Does the minister believe that we should follow a short-term policy in terms of meeting the educational needs of our province? In other words, if only 25 percent of the engineering graduates at UBC last year got jobs, should we immediately curtail the level of graduates to 25 percent?

HON. MR. McGEER: No. I would say certainly not, Mr. Speaker, because I can't think of a better way in which somebody, unable to find work because of all of the reasons that we've described, could use that time to better their skills and their future opportunities. I think members can see the dilemma that we face if, on the one hand, we're told that spending money on education will solve — all the economic problems of the country, and on the other, discovering that there are not jobs for the people we are currently graduating. If it were only a question of spending money on universities and having people attend the various courses that were offered them, then the wealthiest place in Canada should be the Maritimes, because over the years it's concentrated on that particular activity. As members of this House know, British Columbia is one of those provinces in Canada that must continue to subsidize the Maritimes, as we do through our natural resource revenues to the less affluent areas of Canada.

Again I reply to the member that it's a complex problem, and I suppose all members wish they had an easy answer. But I'm afraid it isn't as simple as the question implied by the member.

MR. NICOLSON: Since the minister agrees that we should not follow a short-term policy that just reacts to the immediate downturn in the economy, I would point out that hundreds of concerned British Columbians have paid for a newspaper advertisement protesting the fact that the government has withdrawn $27 million from university funding at the same time as the federal transfers under the formula increased by the same amount. Has the minister then decided to at least reconsider this decision, and to restore federal funds to university operating budgets?

HON. MR. McGEER: Again, Mr. Speaker, no one in British Columbia wishes more passionately than I do that

[ Page 3798 ]

additional funds could be available for our universities, but we can't spend our way to prosperity. The federal government borrowing money on the one hand and using that money to try to force the provinces themselves to spend money which they don't have, as is currently going on in the health field, is really the path to ruin in Canada. I certainly don't approve of the way the federal government, not spending tax money but borrowing money abroad and pushing interest rates up and forcing the Canadian dollar to be devalued, will then use that borrowed money to try to coerce the provinces that are already running a deficit into borrowing still more money in order to match their overexpenditure. Surely members can see that this is a ruinous approach to the economy in the future.

Orders of the Day

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

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to complete some comments which I began before lunch on behalf of School District 41 in Burnaby and specifically to refer to the document, which they forwarded to the Ministry of Education, based on the impact of the budget on that particular school district. The part of the budget dealing with the critical policy decisions that had to be made in terms of financial strain....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'll wait until I get the minister's attention.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got it now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: But the minister was unable to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. Does the minister rise on a point of order?

HON. MR. McGEER: I thought the member was concluding. She said that she was finished, and I wished to make some remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the Chair still recognizes the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

HON. MR. McGEER: But when the member is finished, I would like to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member only halted for a minute because it was a little noisy here. My apologies, hon. member. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the school trustees were talking about being forced to reassign staff but being unable to assign resources to revitalize or to retrain. They also went on to talk about the state of the buildings and facilities that we have to work with. They say the buildings are old, poorly constructed and require constant rehabilitation, none of which is going to be possible under the existing budget.

The minister stated again that the aim was to bring the class sizes to the 1976 level in terms of pupil-teacher ratio. I pointed out to him that in Burnaby it looked as though we were beyond that because, when you take into account the integration into the school system of kids with disabilities of one sort or another and the special teachers and resources that had to be incorporated to go with them, you got a different picture altogether. All of the decisions about integration were imposed on the school district by the government, whether it was the phasing out of the Jericho Hill School or the general legislation dealing with the integration policy. They're not opposed to integrating disabled children into the school system, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, they think it benefits everybody — the teachers, the kids who are not disabled and the disabled children. But they would like to be able to afford the resources so that the quality of education is not impaired in any way by this action.

They talked about some of the things that are going to happen as a result of the impact. They say that teachers are now teaching in areas for which they have no special qualification. We have math teachers who are teaching social studies, for example, and social studies teachers who are being forced to teach physics or something else. In terms of dealing with the reorganization, the real skills and talents of teachers are being wasted as a result of this budget.

There's a reduction of safety for children on their way to and from school. Burnaby can no longer afford the level of supervision which it would like to see for children getting to and from schools. They've had to release a number of traffic supervisors and are now relying on children to do their own traffic supervision. That's not nearly as good or as safe as would be the case if an adult or adults were responsible for that.

The summer-school options are being cut back. There aren't the alternatives being offered to the students that they should have if we are going to continue to have quality education in that particular school district.

They pointed out that the reduction in the kinds of support services that used to come from the Ministry of Human Resources is beginning to show up in increased problems in the classroom, at a time when they do not have either the staff or the resources to deal with these increased problems. They're suggesting that rather than cut back, the school trustees and the board are in fact finding that they should beef up and add to their resources and their staff in order to deal with the cutbacks which are taking place in other areas.

They talk about doubling up in terms of programming. In one classroom they'll have two or three different typing classes, for example, taking place. That's not the best kind of situation for the students taking those courses.

They're talking about the teachers' hotline, which is reporting that the use of the hotline is increasing dramatically. They're finding that most of the calls coming through on the hotline are stress-related, and that they're having to do a lot of counselling. The morale of the teachers in the system is beginning to…. The anxiety is going up while the morale is going down. This is showing up on the teachers' hotline.

All of the re-entry programs in Burnaby have astronomical waiting lists, as I pointed out, at a time when an education

[ Page 3799 ]

is more important than ever, either to young people who have dropped out of school for one reason or another and find that they're unable to secure employment — we're facing an unemployment rate of close to 25 percent in that age group — or to the adults whom I mentioned earlier. They have a sort of catch-22 situation. By law children under the age of 16 should be in school, but because there is such a long waiting list for the re-entry program, a number of these children are not in school and are waiting to get on. There is no space for them in these programs.

The thing that's really tragic about this is, I think, that the level of taxes that Burnaby parents pay just about covers the cost of quality education for their children, yet this is not happening. In addition to their taxes, they're having to subsidize almost totally any kind of field experience or extracurricular programs that the children participate in. That means that the goal of programs shared equally by everyone in the school system cannot be met, because there are always some parents who cannot afford to subsidize these field experiences and extracurricular activities, which are such an essential part of a young person's education. Field experiences are not just fun and games; they really are part of the educational process. It's just that they're not covered by the traditional school budget. They used to be. It used to be possible for the school to pick up the tab for this, but that's not possible anymore. We're finding that inequalities are creeping into the system in terms of which children can afford to participate in all of the programs and which children cannot afford to participate in any of the programs.

I should bring to the minister's attention that we recognize there has been a declining enrolment in Burnaby. Over the last year, eight schools have been closed. The school district has moved to cut and trim its sails in order to try to live within its budget, and it's done this during a period of great uncertainty and insecurity. As you'll remember, Mr. Chairman, last year directives were coming out of the ministry every three months dealing with the budget changes, so a school district would never know from one three-month period to another how much money it had to deal with. However, because it is an excellent school board — we've always had good school trustees in Burnaby — they were able to meet the challenge. They've had to reduce staff by something like 150 teaching positions in the last three years. So we've done the things that had to be done as a result of declining enrolment. We closed the schools and the teaching positions are gone. That's no longer possible if we are to retain, maintain or even achieve for the students of Burnaby a level of education which we think they deserve, and certainly which their parents are paying for and which the teaching staff would like to be able to give them. I think the last figure we have is that the parents in Burnaby — or taxes anyway — pick up the cost for something like 90 percent of the school budget, but maybe the minister can correct me if that's not right.

We find that the province's contribution to the cost of education in Burnaby is going down. It's declining, as it is for the education of kids in most other school districts. Certainly the cost of education per pupil is among the lowest in Canada. That's something we're not proud of. Even though the minister speaks at great length about the percentage of the overall budget spent on education, the fact of the matter is — and I think the minister will agree — that that percentage has been declining over the years. It's certainly much lower now than it was, say, in 1970. From 1970-71 to the present date it dropped from something like 12.9 percent to something like 7.8 percent, and that certainly does not say very much for us when we realize that our young people are moving into a society in which they need skills, training and education much more than they ever did before.

I have a couple of questions about how the $12 million in savings from teachers' salaries as a result of the walkout last year is going to be spent. What was the point in spending nearly $1 million in terms of new curriculum initiatives when there isn't going to be any staff in order to implement those initiatives?

The media centre has been cut back. We find that $258,000 is earmarked for that. What on earth is going to be covered by that $4 million that has been earmarked for publication? As far as the purchase of equipment, such as computers and those kinds of things which we would welcome in the school system, they have to be accompanied by teachers to teach those courses. Just sticking a computer in a classroom doesn't really benefit anyone. Somebody has to be there to teach the course and to help those students deal with it.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the comments made by the school trustees are:

"In the short term, the loss of programs having to be cut while other programs continue at the normative level of staffing is serious. In the long term, the insidious message that the only productive place for a teacher is before a class, coupled with the assumption that the principal will manage the system with all its new complexities — thereby relegating support staff to parasite status — will recreate a mediocre, unresponsive system. Empathetic leadership, developmental and supportive activity have been squeezed out of legitimate existence at the very time that they are most needed."

All of this, Mr. Chairman, was in response to the sheet which was circulated by the minister's department asking Burnaby how it was going to deal with this incoming budget. I wonder whether the minister has had a chance to study those responses. Is he at this time able to give me some feedback on that, and also respond to some of the questions I've raised?

[2:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member was referring to notes which were appended to the budget submitted after February 15. Burnaby School District 41 had requested permission to file their budget, I think, following another board meeting held the first Tuesday after February 15, so I'm not sure when it arrived. I am advised that some of the questions to which the member refers are contained in the commentary portion of that budget. Those matters will all be looked at. All budgets being submitted are being reviewed. It's in our interest to find out exactly how they are able to cope with the restraint measures.

I'm advised that the Burnaby School Board is managing reasonably well under the conditions in which they must manage. Having said that, I will also say that I do recognize a number of the matters which have been raised by the member. The Burnaby School District posed a rather difficult problem. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds raised, there has been a declining enrolment, and Burnaby has had a significant decline in its enrolment. In 1976 the enrolment was 23,080; in 1982 the enrolment was 17,591. That's a decline of almost 24 percent, so we had a serious problem here, knowing full well that if the board were to deliver on the

[ Page 3800 ]

projected PTR without any phasing in over a period of three years, it would have encountered a great deal of difficulty. Now they will have over a period of three years in which to handle it. In 1982 the PTR was 16.79 to 1; in 1983 it was 16.75 to 1. I don't think that we can lose sight of that fact; nor can we lose sight of the fact that the drop in the budget was roughly 3.7 percent. It's gone from $60.58 million down to $58.35, which is a touch under $2 million.

Mr. Chairman, to give the member some comparison — I'll just use one year, 1984 — the provincial average had a cost per student of $3,259: Burnaby, $3,340; Vancouver, $3,305; Coquitlam, $2,948; Delta, $2,780. With the exception of Vancouver, the other districts are comparable in size. There may be a 3,000 or 4,000 student differential between Coquitlam and Burnaby, but it should give some indication of the difference on the per-student costs. The differential between Coquitlam and Burnaby is roughly $400 per student. I believe the makeup of those two districts is very similar, but there's a difference in cost of roughly $400 per student. It's something which has to be addressed, and it will, over a period of time.

I raise the PTR again. In September 1983 it was 16.75 percent. Points have been raised involving programs which have been removed out of the system in order to meet the budgetary requirements; I have to say that I believe that the member can be proud of her school board and the district who have been able to rise to that challenge. The evidence and information I have is that while there is some difficulty, the services are being delivered, for the most part.

As far as taxation is concerned, I think that we should raise this point. In Burnaby approximately 60 percent comes from consolidated revenue and non-residential tax and about $24.5 million from residential tax. That's understandable, because we know that the province-wide actual amount paid by residential property tax, after the homeowner grant, is about 8¾ percent. I think the point has to be made, though, that it's not a district one would think funds its operations on its own.

Another interesting fact has come to light. A number of school districts in the lower mainland: Richmond, Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby, North Vancouver and West Vancouver.... After advising the House of the significant decline in enrolment — by the way, the enrolment for 1983 shows a drop again from 1982 of 41 students down to 17, 552.... I want to make this point by drawing this comparison: with the decline, which is probably one of the largest declines in any school district in the province, the cost of the district in 1980 was roughly $47.5 million. In 1983 it had gone up to $60.58 million, yet the student population has gone in the opposite direction. It's something which we had to have a look at. In order to ease that transition, a decision was made where we would allow the phased-in amounts for 1984 and 1985 to assist. Secondly, the surpluses could be carried forward from 1983 to 1984. Now that's a very significant item. In the case of Burnaby, $605,581 was allowed to be carried forward. I'll tell you why I felt strongly about allowing that to happen. It provided an incentive to districts to manage prudently. I was advised, interestingly enough, by a number of boards that when surpluses could be spent, they would look at Christmas and say there were only so many more shopping days until Christmas, and the surplus would be cleaned out. Districts were doing that because they thought: "If we don't, and this carries forward, that will affect the grant portion we receive in the following year."

That didn't make very good sense to me, so we permitted it to be rolled over.

In addition to that, they have the allowable expenditures in auxiliary services, as well as any revenues that they generate within the district. So the actual amount of the board's budget, which I do not have with me right now, will be in excess of the amount which is set in the fiscal framework for 1984, which again is roughly $58.35 million. The actual budget will be more than that as a result of surpluses being carried forward and the other items we have addressed.

I am not going to pretend in any way, Mr. Chairman, that it did not hurt some districts, particularly those with a significant decline in enrolment, that they were not going to have to move out of some of the programs. I mentioned before that we have to establish priorities for, in my view, a good, sound, basic education. A number of the other recreational skills and life skills, which the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) also referred to, as did the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), are going to have to wait until there is an abundance of funds to address them. I don't question for a moment the inherent value in some, but I have to raise the fact that under our present environment we can't expect to request school boards to carry on all of those programs which they feel to be desirable.

The moneys which were saved because of the withdrawal of services have been broken down and are identified. I did issue a press release on that, and I went to great lengths so that the public would understand what those moneys were earmarked for. The commitment was made that those funds would remain within the education system. They have, and they are identified.

I think I've covered the main points. I recognize the concerns which the member has raised, involving a number of the programs which have a social impact. But I only had so much money to distribute, and the same criteria have been used in all school districts in British Columbia. Those which are feeling a bit more pinched than others are those which are experiencing a significant decline in enrolment. I have mentioned to you, Mr. Chairman, where those districts are. Interestingly enough, some of those districts seem to be coping a bit better than others. Why? That will remain to be seen. Anything else which I could say right now would probably be repeating myself. When we draw comparisons on per student costs in those districts, it seems that Burnaby is on the high end of the scale.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: Just a couple of responses, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I mentioned that Burnaby recognized the significance of its declining enrolment situation and moved immediately to deal with it by closing those schools, et cetera. I just want to read into the record a statement which I got from the school board on their planning process. It says: "The only reason that Burnaby has successfully avoided much of the trauma associated with current reductions is the board's ability to act in anticipation of, not in reaction to, imposed restraint programs. The effects of this posture on employee morale and its contribution to the education of children cannot be overemphasized." I wouldn't want to leave the impression that Burnaby is the top in terms of the cost per pupil. It is certainly not among the lowest, but there is North Vancouver, West Vancouver and New Westminster and a bunch of others that are higher. You picked the lowest when you picked Delta,

[ Page 3801 ]

but to be fair we have to say that Burnaby probably falls somewhere in the middle.

The projected decline is really what is sending the school trustees into a bit of a tailspin, because projected to the year 1986 Burnaby is going to continue declining in terms of the budget that is being allotted to it. This year it is 58 million and some dollars, next year it is going down to 56 million and some dollars, and by 1986 it is going to drop to 53 million and some dollars. The declining enrolment is not something that we anticipate is going to last forever, Everyone is talking about this bubble that's coming, the baby boom's echo, and I would imagine it's going to hit Burnaby the same way that it's going to hit everywhere else.

In addition, I cannot stress too strongly the number of students in the Burnaby school system for whom English is a second language. I would imagine that Burnaby is second only to Vancouver South in that. The minister can correct me if I'm wrong. The funding for that program has been very severely eroded, certainly for the adults who use the program, so it is impacting on the quality of education in Burnaby.

The second thing which we are very proud of, but which also is impacting on the program, is the large number of special-needs kids. As I said before, I wouldn't want them pulled out of the system, because I believe in integrating them into the system, but it's having a tremendous impact on the quality of education because the other resources aren't there. The special teachers are there to meet their special needs, but the other resources aren't there, If you permitted the school district to carry the surplus over to 1984 and you thought that was such a wonderful thing that you did — the halo is blinding me, quite frankly — why didn't you carry that through? Why aren't you going to do that in 1985 and 1986? If it's such a great thing, why stop now? Why not just keep on with it? As I said before, if we could put a stop to the projected decline in Burnaby's budget we would certainly appreciate that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Could I just answer that one question, Mr. Chairman?

First of all, I mentioned that Burnaby has addressed the matter, and you can be very proud of the board. It seems to me there were six or eight school closures, as I recall when I met with some of the board. They may have been unpopular at the time, but interestingly enough the public were very supportive of the board for what they did.

I cannot give the member a specific answer for ESL, but I can get the item and the funding for ESL for you, It will be involved under function 3, the special education category. I will take that question as notice — if one can do that in estimates — and see whether or not I can get an answer for you.

As to the surplus being moved forward, I must advise you, Mr. Chairman, that that matter is under consideration. It's a little premature to make any decision like that at this time. The object of the three-year framework was to give predictability to school boards over a period of time. That is something which they have always wanted. The unfortunate thing is that that concept was introduced at a time when there was a constraint placed on funding, and so it has been a little more difficult. The predictability and surplus issues are something which I am considering now.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I would just like to repeat a little bit of what has been said already. on behalf of my constituency. I have three points to pass on to the minister.

The first has been dealt with to some extent, but I believe that budget surpluses should be carried forward. I think it leads to and encourages good financial planning by school administrators — the superintendents and boards and secretary-treasurers — to have such a rule, as I think it gives them the required incentive to keep their operations as lean as they can, providing good education and knowing full well that the surpluses would be carried forward to the next year.

The second point has to do with the elections, I don't wish to get into a long discussion today on triennial and biennial elections. But if the municipalities are going to go for elections every three years, it would naturally follow that the school boards would do likewise. Failure to do that would lead to a very poor turnout in those off years for the election of school trustees. I'm sure the minister has that under control.

The third and perhaps more lengthy point I would like to pass on to the minister has to do with school administrators — onsite administrators. It is my view that school administrators cannot function in an appropriate administrative capacity while required to observe the restrictions placed upon them by the BCTF Presently the school administrator faces a conflict between the requirements of the School Act and the requirements of the BCTF in such areas as teacher supervision and evaluation providing management recommendations when budgets must be reduced, and responsibility for provision of educational services during labour disputes involving teaching staff. It is my belief that school administrators could function effectively and remain members of the BCTF if the legislation were amended to exempt them from restrictions placed upon them by the BCTF I believe that the minister should give serious consideration to presenting legislation to amend the act so that principals of schools, while still remaining members of the BCTF, will be exempt from the restrictions placed upon them by the BCTF when called upon by their employers to make management recommendations or perform necessary management functions. I would ask the minister to take that suggestion under consideration and look back over what's happened in this province over the last year or so. I'm sure that he will come to the same conclusion that I have — that that would be in the best interest of the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps just a comment. Committee of Supply does not allow us the opportunity to discuss the necessity of legislation, but I'm sure all hon. members can find other vocabulary to allow them to say the same thing.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to talk about the New Westminster situation — naturally. I guess most people in the House — on our side of the House, in any event, I presume — wish to talk about their particular school districts, which have been slightly mauled.

I've heard this government described as a government that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I think that's probably more a description of this particular portfolio than almost any other portfolio. The value of an education, the value of our human resource is at present being overlooked by this government. The minister is a prisoner of

[ Page 3802 ]

the Treasury Board. The minister hasn't been able to convince — if he's tried — the Treasury Board of the importance of education. However, even having said that, when we do the kind of across-the-board planning and programming from the centralized ministry which we have overseeing education in our province, we find that there are districts that are very badly hurt vis-à-vis others. It's the same thing in health. Any district that has maintained a very tight control and is a lowcost district in the first place.... When you have these sweeping changes that reduce the amount of budget based upon past experience, naturally those that had the tightest control in the first place are those that are going to be most badly handled in this respect.

New Westminster is a well-managed district, whether the minister likes to admit it or not. It is not a district, however, that is blessed, as some are, with all junior teachers. New Westminster is one of the oldest jurisdictions in our province. Going along with that, naturally, many of the teaching staff have come right to the top of their incremental situation in terms of salary and so on. It's a fairly stable community, so there hasn't been the coming and going situations that arise in some of the newer districts and the ones that are growing in terms of families and so on. There's no room or very little room for more in my area. We have a district that's six square miles and encompasses 40,000 or more people — I was going to say 40,000 odd people, but I don't think I'll say that. This year they have suffered a budget cut of 2.5 percent. That's bad enough, in the face of inflation and all the circumstances we face at the present time. However, because of careful planning, they've been able to place themselves in a position where the cuts haven't been utterly disastrous. That does not say, however, that that will not be the case next year or the year after — we'll come to that in a moment or two.

We have had a good deal of staff reduction by way of attrition, and we've had a number of early retirements, but with that, of course, we now have the complementary increased class sizes. The increased class sizes have been in the core programs, and those class sizes are unacceptably high ' Let me give you one particular illustration. We have a grave concern right now in the high school about the class sizes in the labs, because of safety. If you have an unmanageable size of class in the laboratories and you don't have the necessary supervision, safety becomes an increasing factor of concern.

We also feel that this new graduation program that has been foisted upon the school system is going to create an increased amount of budgetary pressure on our district.

That gives you a few of the areas of major concern.

[3:15]

Let me tell you some of the programs we have cut. Counselling has been cut back 50 percent. Isn't that marvellous, Mr. Chairman? Counselling has been cut back 50 percent in a time when counselling, if it was ever important in all of our history, is most important. For young people who are about to go out into a world that is alien to them, one that's producing 25 percent unemployment in their age bracket — and worse, in some areas — counselling is relatively unavailable as a result of the cutbacks. Naturally any school district will try to compensate and put teachers in front of classes, and when that's the case, then counselling has to be one of the areas that suffers. And it's suffering: a 50 percent cutback in my school district.

We had a coordination of both French and music not cut back but cut out. Therefore it's jeopardizing those particular areas of instruction.

Libraries. I realize that there are many Socreds who are bordering on a burn-the-books mentality.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member now heckling me is one of those who proves it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wasn't there. I have attended many of them. The fact that you were at a federation meeting doesn't mean that you have any great interest in books — at least, you certainly never expressed anything in this House that would make us feel that you were.

In any event, our library program has been seriously eroded. I believe that's a situation that none of us should be tolerating in this day and age. We no longer have a gifted and talented coordinator for the assistance of gifted and talented children. I can tell you right now that if Charles Barber, the former member for Victoria, were here, he'd speak for three or four hours on that one particular area alone. In any event, it is another curtailment that I think is seriously affecting good education coming out of our school system in New Westminster and elsewhere. However, as I say, we are living with what we have at the moment, but not with any semblance of glee. We're living with it because we have to, having been blessed, or cursed, with the Socred government that was recently re-elected.

What have they done to the future? If we think it's bad now, let's look at the next two years. I can see nothing but chaos. The minister talks about the three-year predictability of funding. Marvellous! Cutback, cutback, cutback; three cutbacks in a row. We're already down the tube, and he says we have to go even deeper. It's interesting to me that the sunset clause in that piece of legislation, which was sort of an afterthought, is all over just before the next election in three years. Just before the next election there will be announcements that "it's all over now, gang, you're going to have another good, great kick at the cat," and our kids will finally get back to a situation where they get their education.

The most deceitful and dishonest kind of thing that we've grown to accept from the Socreds....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It's absolutely true. Anybody who can persuade me that that government won its last election on what was yet to come in the July 7 budget.... You can't tell that to me or any other intelligent person in this province. Nobody even knew. Not even any of you back-benchers, you poor fellows, expected what was coming out of the minds of that treasury bench.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If you did, hang your head in shame, because you should have been out there on the platform telling the people exactly what to expect.

MR. REID: We did.

MR. COCKE: You did not!

[ Page 3803 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I'll ask the members not to interject, and I'll ask the member for New Westminster to address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Not one of them had the courage to predict what was going to happen in education. There was never a line in the paper. Never did they stand on the platform and tell the people of this province that they were going to cut back education three years in a row. Not one of them dared. You wouldn't have been elected even in Surrey.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Yes, he did," he said. You know, that little mouse of a man is like Two-Story Jack. He's got one story for Surrey and another story for this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The phrase must be withdrawn immediately.

MR. COCKE: What phrase?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was a personal reference to another member. I'll ask the member for New Westminster to withdraw.

MR. COCKE: Sure, I'll withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The withdrawal has been accepted.

MR. COCKE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I know he's feeling guilty. I know that his mind is just burning up, wishing that he could get back to his campaign and tell the public exactly what to expect. But he can't do that. He didn't do it then, nor did any of these other brave people who are so totally dedicated to what they call restraint. Restraint is a lash on our children. Restraint in this particular case is a choker for our most precious resource, and that's our human resource. Up to now we in New Westminster have done everything that's humanly possible to keep teachers in front of the classes. Those who don't know our district should maybe start thinking a few things about it. Every district is unique. That's why all these stupid formulas that don't take into consideration anything other than a minister's will to follow the edicts of a treasury board which is totally mindless in this case....

We're a special needs district. Twenty-five percent of the children in New Westminster come from single-parent homes. That is a particularly high level. I don't know if any other total school districts have a worse incidence of single-parent family situations. That is a more difficult and more transient group to cope with than just a normal group of children in the school system. And we have a significantly high percentage of children with special needs. Again it puts us in a position where it's very difficult to cope. As I say, if the minister changes grad requirements again in the future, it will be absolutely disastrous, especially with our budget cut to the bone right now.

What we in New Westminster have also done is maintain old buildings, feeling that that was proper. But those older buildings cost more to maintain. The capital cost, of course, is reduced, and that's responsible. But at the same time, those older buildings must be maintained. They must be kept.... The fire hazard must be kept reduced to an absolute minimum, and they must be maintained in such a way as to keep them functional. We've been living with that. Now we have foisted on us this new situation where we're having to curtail the maintenance of those buildings. Anybody who doesn't believe that should go and take a took at them.

I believe that this shocking, irresponsible attitude toward education must stop. The other ministers don't give a sweet darn, Mr. Chairman. They're not even in here listening. The Minister of Finance never darkens the door to any of these debates, yet he and the Premier, who sat here during question period today, full of himself in terms of restraint — the restraint he has vested in this ministry, the restraint that has taken this province into a situation of 15.5 percent unemployment.... Along with that, Education is the one that they sort out to suffer almost more than any other department.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In New Westminster we bring in, in taxes from our own community, 103 percent of our budget. Yes! Tell me sometime what you bring in in Surrey. In New Westminster our tax base has been dramatically impaired by the Socred government, but in spite of the Socreds we still bring in 103 percent of our educational budget. In other words, we bring in more than we spend on our children. And we make the right decisions. We have never fought equalization.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Listen, Mr. Member, you get elected as many times as I have and then you can make those kinds of remarks.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Just keep on going and see how long you last. I predict you're a one-timer.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: A last-timer, yes.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: He's a two-timer, they say. Mr. Member, I'll tell you what he did: he two-timed his electorate; he didn't tell them what was coming up in education, or anywhere else for that matter.

[3:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, getting back to this situation, we have never fought equalization; we feel it's just and it's right. But you know, if a school district goes over its budget, then I believe that it should be listened to a little bit more carefully and that it should not be placed in the position that we've been placed in. I don't want to go on too much longer, other than to

[ Page 3804 ]

say that in 1983 our gross shareable budget.... Look, we're facing inflation, they tell us. As a matter of fact, we're facing inflation to the extent that in the United States they've raised the interest rates, so that the Canadian buck is down and our interest rates and our inflation will go up correspondingly. Don't let anybody in this House tell me that every fiscal policy made by both Socreds and Liberals in this country isn't carrying us down the tube into more inflation. In any event, this year our gross shareable budget for 1983 was $12,614,655. You add for the unshareable and you get up to $12,714,346. Next year we get 97.93 percent of the 1983 budget; in 1985 we get 95 percent of that 1983 budget; and in 1986 we get 92 percent of that 1983 budget. In other words, as inflation soars, we continually reduce the dollars going into education in New Westminster.

Mr. Chairman, they haven't given any consideration to the echo boom that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was talking about. The beginning of the echo boom takes place next year. That's when the baby-boom children of the post-war period start having their children, and they start getting into the school system. No, in face of that, we're getting a continually reducing budget until…guess when? Just before the next election they'll take the chains off and say: "Okay, gang, we're ready for new horizons in education." That, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely despicable.

We haven't any possibility of adjustments for student population. We haven't any possibility of adjustments for increased wages, or anything. When I go back home and talk to school board people and parents, I'll have to go back and tell them that we've got a government that obviously knows the costs but has no idea of the values — none whatsoever. Having said that, I've said all I can say. I hope that there will be some repentance in the future. But the more I hear the catcalls and the more I hear the answers, Mr. Chairman, the less optimistic I feel.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll just be a moment or two, and I would just like to pass on a couple of comments with respect to a part of what the member has offered — and it really had some political overtones to it. You know, before going into the election in May 1983, we experienced both restraint 1 and restraint 2, and that was clear in 1982-83 in the Education budget. I don't accept for a moment that restraint was not an issue, and I don't accept for a moment that school districts and teachers were not aware of what was going on, because in my own experience, campaigning within my own riding, this was abundantly clear. After knocking on over 2,000 doors in my riding, I would candidly say that in about 50 percent of the homes whose doors I knocked on, where the home was occupied by a teacher, there was a divergence.... Believe me, they were either with you or they were against you.

MR. COCKE: Now isn't that something!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just never mind, Mr. Member. I listened to your diatribe for some time. All I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that the statement made by the member for New Westminster.... It was not an issue and was not raised during the campaign. It was very clear, at least in my part of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Where did you get that Fellini sweater?

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I never thought you'd notice, Mr. Member.

In the New Westminster School District we have another area in the lower mainland with a significant decline in enrolment. The enrolment in New Westminster has dropped over 30 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since when?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Since 1975. It's still going down. That's the problem. But there's hope. Interestingly enough, I think it's starting to plateau at the bottom level. I hope, for your sake, Mr. Member, that it starts to grow, because the formula and the framework take into consideration any increased enrolment. When enrolment rises, so does the injection to the gross shareable operating account.

When we start to talk about reduction in New Westminster.... I remember because I met some students from New Westminster. They came to my office and talked. I had a good meeting. There were a number of other issues. One raised the particular question: how is this…? They didn't refer to it as a framework; it was something new at the time, and they wanted to know. I said: "I think that probably something in the order of about $300,000 in New Westminster…." That was just about bang on what it is. I don't know what the surplus is that New Westminster had to carry over, but, of course, after today we'll find out what surplus they carried over from 1983 to 1984.

MR. COCKE: But they don't get to carry it over into 1985 or 1986.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That decision was made, and my explanation to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).... I can advise you that that is a matter which is under discussion right now. It's a little premature to start making those arrangements. The reason for allowing it to roll over from 1983 to 1984 was that it gave them the opportunity to manage and not turn around and spend those funds, to blow them out of the well because they feel they're going to get scooped at the end of the year and deducted from their grant.

In New Westminster in 1975 the PTR was 19.12. In September 1984 it's expected to be 17.98. The member doesn't feel that's acceptable. I don't see anything particularly wrong with that. And $300,000 out of a school district, not including surplus, if there was one and there probably was.... It's going to be, I think, adequate to serve the educational needs — perhaps not without some pain.

You mentioned old buildings, transportation, maintenance and operations. The figures used to generate the dollars within the framework were the actual expenditures which are incurred within the district. There was a three-year average in maintenance and operations. The amount of money required to look after some old buildings which they wished to preserve is already within the budget.

There are only two other items which I would like to make reference to. Yes, New Westminster has got one of the highest costs in the lower mainland per student. One of the reasons is an old stabilized teaching force. You mention, Mr. Member, that the framework used takes the average teacher's salary, and it takes into consideration the amount of money

[ Page 3805 ]

being paid. Why, then, is the average teacher's salary in New Westminster up here and in other districts it's down here? The amount of money injected into the framework for funding their account is at that level because that's their average teacher's salary. It's not province-wide; it's within the school district in New Westminster. Let's just remember what's in the system. There may be a wart or two on it, but that's certainly not one of them.

The other item which the member for New Westminster has raised before is the funds which are generated within the district so that.... New Westminster is really self-sustaining as a school district. Well, it all depends how you want to argue it. Yes, they have a non-residential base of some significance. But, you know, there are other communities in British Columbia which don't have that type of non-residential base. A particular area, whether it's in the lower mainland, on the coast or in the interior, has a major commercial and industrial base to tax, whereas many other rural, urban and suburban areas without that kind of base are entitled to the benefits of non-residential, commercial or industrial. I don't know why the people of New Westminster should be upset about that, because I don't know how many oil wells, gas fields or forest reserves we find at New Westminster, but there are mills and service industries there which live off those resources in the other parts of the province. Why can't we just share that? Or do you want everything to yourselves in New Westminster? I don't accept that. The thrust of the government is not to accept it. That's our policy and the only way they're ever going to change that is to change government, and that's never going to happen — not with a 13 percent response at the polls. It's silly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's what I was told yesterday.

It seems to me that it is only fair to everybody else involved that we turn around and spread the heavier assessments. Is it fair for one community with 300 or 400 people in it, but which also has a huge pulp mill or oil refinery, to suddenly get it all? Not on your life. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is not particularly interested in the response, so I'll....

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I have two different issues I'd like to explore with the Minister of Education.

One is to try to find out what the Ministry of Education is doing as far as the future of education is concerned — the changes in education that we're looking for. The member for New Westminster made reference to the future; he was looking two years in advance, but that's with his short-sighted glasses on. I think we have to look a great deal further than the two years ahead of us for education. We have nineteenth century education in this province, and pretty well in this country. What we need to do is bring education into the twentieth century, before we get into the twenty-first century.

The education system in Canada, and in this province, is no different than it was back in the time of Christ. Today we still sit around with a teacher and students surrounding him. Whether it is a classroom or an oval room, it doesn't make any difference. We have the same system of teaching going on. They talk in the budget of the ratio of students to teachers. We could have one teacher to 5,000 students, and probably still have a far superior education system than we have at this time.

We have gone through an industrial revolution, and we are well into a technological revolution. but none of this has been adopted in our education system at all. We are teaching our students how to operate new machines and computers in our schools, but we don't have these machines teaching our students, and these machines are perfectly capable of it. Probably the only technological advance in teaching in Canada has been the Knowledge Network, for which we can give credit to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). But that is used only by a select group of people within the province. It could be expanded to every student, whether he be in school, university or college. We can teach large groups of students with one teacher.

[3:45]

In the recent examinations we found great divergence between the quality of education the students in different schools and school districts had received. If we could standardize the methods of teaching to large numbers of students through the technological knowledge we have today, we could improve the standard of knowledge of all the students and people within the province. I would like to know from the minister what the province is doing to bring our education system into the twentieth century. We are spending 80 cents out of every dollar in the educational system on labour. That shows that our education system is the most labour-intensive industry in the country. Let's bring it up to date with new technology. With the money saved we can create other jobs in the technology industry. Teachers would not have to be teaching, and we would end up with motivators and counsellors. The member for New Westminster was saying we have to cut back on counsellors; we can have counsellors and motivators to motivate students. Students, with the technology available, will be able to learn at their own rate because the machines will be able to be programmed for the rate of ability of the student. I do not believe these things are being addressed in our educational system, and I think they have to be. We have to gear ourselves up to what is available. It's so simple.

There have really been no changes in the schoolroom at all in the last 2,000 years, yet I can remember when we didn't have television or these things to portray stills on screens, and what not, in our classrooms. I remember when the first television came in. We use very little of that in the classroom, when it is possible to use it. We are using certain changes, yes. I can go out to a store and buy a record to teach me how to speak French. That's a lot cheaper than going to a university, college or school class to learn French. It would save us tremendous amounts of money. I support people learning French or learning alternate languages — and I'm often amazed and worship people who can, because I can't — but we have a great deal of technology available to us that we are not using so that we would have dollars available for other social services for people. I ask the minister that question: what are we doing to bring our educational system into the twentieth century before we get to the twenty-first century?

The second item I have is more parochial, more related to North Vancouver–Capilano. We have a vacant school up there that used to be Hamilton Junior Secondary School. Up until two and a half years ago they had an excellent program at that school run by Bill Sulymka, the principal there. It was a very innovative program which helped a great number of students stay within the system who otherwise might not have. I was a

[ Page 3806 ]

great supporter of his program at that time. But our school board, in their lack of wisdom, decided this program should be scrapped. I don't disagree with them for closing the school, but they scrapped the program and moved all the students over to Carson Graham Secondary School. Since then Hamilton school has remained vacant. At that time, when I was averse to the scrapping of the program, I also voiced a suggestion that one of the main reasons Hamilton school was going to be closed was so that School District 44 could move their administrative offices into Hamilton school. Oh, that was terrible. The school board said: "Never. No way. We're not interested in moving our offices into Hamilton school."

At the moment there are some energetic people on the North Shore wanting to establish an independent school. They have gone to our school board and said: "Can we lease Hamilton school? It's vacant, it's costing you money at the moment, and you're having to maintain heat in it and maintain part of it. Can we rent that school from you? We will generate some additional revenue for you." After all, our school boards keep screaming: "We don't have enough money." We've got one of the most Cadillac educational systems in the province up in North Vancouver, but we can still obtain some revenue from renting that school out to the independent school people. But the North Vancouver School Board won't even meet with representatives of the independent school people. I know that's not within the jurisdiction of the minister, Mr. Chairman, but they won't even meet with them, and the reason they're giving is: "Don't bother meeting with us, because we're going to move the maintenance yard up into Hamilton. We can also move our school board offices into Hamilton school." They're saying after all that they're going to move the administration offices, when two and a half years ago they said: "No way will we go out to Hamilton school." That's what they're using as an excuse.

I, of course, am averse to the school board offices going into Hamilton school, which provides more accommodation than the present school board offices do, particularly when we have a diminishing enrolment of students in North Vancouver. The only thing we don't have diminishing in North Vancouver is the number of administrators in our school board. Everything else is going down. We have a diminishing enrolment, a diminished number of teachers, and an increase in administration. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to comment: if this comes to pass and our school board wants to move on the Hamilton school, what sort of inquiry, what sort of conduct, what sort of authority might he have in that matter? I personally am very averse to it and I think it would be a retrograde step in the educational system in North Vancouver. Our school board, except for two members.... We have two progressive members, but the majority of them are no more than the puppets of the administration; they dance when the administration pulls the string. Somebody's got to oversee that administration. We're spending $50 million a year in North Vancouver and something's got to be done.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's extraordinary, the amount of money that's being spent. North Vancouver is one of the districts, like West Vancouver.... You know, interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, the combined school population of West Vancouver and North Vancouver is really what North Vancouver was a few years ago. Maybe those two are great candidates for amalgamation too; I don't know. There's lots of that sort of thing bandied about, but maybe it's a bit too large.

On the matter of school property, I'm aware of the concerns expressed by both the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), but you've got to understand that if at all possible, one of the things we want to preserve, even through this difficult period, is the autonomous nature of boards. If the school board won't meet with a certain group of people, that's on their heads. Let them worry about that problem.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Because somebody in a particular area can't get along with the school board, they come to the provincial government and say: "We want you to do our work for us." I don't particularly need any more chores like that. The political problem with respect to the issue raised by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano is that obviously those districts don't want to lose any enrolment, because if they lose enrolment it's going to affect the driver increasing the funds to the district. There's not very much I can do about that problem in North Van with respect to the demand that they want to lease some property.

As far as what's coming in the twenty-first century, that's a large question. I don't know if I really have the ability to tell anyone what's going to happen in the twenty-first century, so why don't I just level with you, have a look at Hansard, and perhaps we'll try to get a response back to you. But I know one thing: they tell me, and I'm inclined to believe them, that television is not really the answer — to pipe in education, and everybody becomes a dot at the end of a ruddy tube. I just don't see that there's any great claim there.

Oh, here comes trouble.

MR. HOWARD: I want to pose a question to the minister relating to the master tuition agreement between the province and the federal government with respect to the education of native Indian people who have status under the Indian Act, and who attend public schools under the domain of the provincial government. First, what amount per student per year — if that's the way it's calculated — is paid under that master tuition agreement? In what way can it be determined or discovered? How does one go about finding out how that money is allocated to a school district, and how does it show up in the school district's books? In other words, if there are, say, 500 students of native Indian origin covered by the master tuition agreement and attending public schools within a particular school district, where do you find that 500 students times the per student amount of money?

I put this forward, and I'll tell the minister why. There are many, many complaints that they can't discover or find out, by an analysis of anybody's books, where the money goes. Does it come into the provincial government and stay there? Does it get lost in the funding formula? Is it transferred straight through? Is it dollar for dollar, and all you are is the conduit pipe that moves it from the federal government into the school district? Those kinds of answers are what I'd like to know, particularly the amount per student.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I personally do not know, but I will find out. The information has been given to me by one of my officials. I will give you that information.

[ Page 3807 ]

1 think what we'll do, if this is not adequate, is flesh it out, because I'm as interested as you are in the answer.

[4:00]

First, about the note you've given me: there is no master tuition agreement. The province has a financial agreement that recovers from the federal government the provincial average cost per pupil, calculated each year. The funds are allocated to the district in a ratio of the district's costs to the provincial average cost. The amounts, of course, in each district vary. I'll just expand on that. The federal government will advance to the provincial government the average per student cost province-wide. The province will then disburse funds in accordance with the school district average, because some are low and some are high. It is all in the books of the district as specific revenue to reduce provincial and local costs. We share that expense.

As I recall, the total amount of money — I'm going from memory on this — into the school system.... When we break down the cost overall, for example, I think it was 51.51 percent from consolidated revenue, roughly 34.5 percent from the non-residential commercial-industrial base, and roughly 8.74 percent from the residential base. And then there was a portion in there of roughly 4 to 4.5 percent, as I recall, which covered funding in the form of grants in lieu of taxes — moneys from the Department of National Defence and from the Department of Indian Affairs. I think the moneys are advanced to the province on a provincial average. The province disburses to the district on the student average within that district.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the minister could tell me, say, for a given year — he can pick the year out; the most recent one would be helpful — what that provincial average cost per-student year is. Is that the way they measure it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We've got that in a dozen places right now. The total cost per student in the province, everything included, is $3,937. I don't think, Mr. Member, that that's the figure you want, because that includes debt servicing and teachers' pensions. The per-student average cost in the district, as far as operating, is something in the order of.... I'll get that exact amount for you. I want that. It will take a minute to get, but we're going to get that.

MR. HOWARD: We'll get the precise figure, and then it will be on the record. For the sake of the argument that I want to put forward, say that it's $3,000. I think that's on the conservative side of looking at it. I mention $3,000 because $3,000 is the amount identified in a letter from a Mr. Jim Angus, who's the administrator of the Anspayawx — and that will require some spelling for Hansard when they get to it — School Society, which is a school operated in the Indian community of Kispiox, just north of Hazelton. Mr. Angus mentions $3,000; he's picking a round figure out of that. So roughly speaking, on the basis of Mr. Angus — and there are other bands who are in the same category; the Nimpkish band, I understand, is similarly operated — in the school district of Terrace that encompasses the Hazelton area, the school district for all intents and purposes receives, say, $3,000 per student-year for native Indian children who have status under the Indian Act. The school district gets that amount of money. The Anspayawx School, which is on a reserve, has students who are not of Indian descent attending an Indian-operated school. The amount of money that the Anspayawx School receives — and this is by calculation of Mr. Angus — per student-year from the provincial government is $750. That's the figure he gives me. So if you look at the situation here, Mr. Chairman, and ask the minister to look at this situation, we have a public school operated by the school district under the laws of the province of British Columbia to which native Indian students attend, and for that the school district receives from the federal government $3,000 per year per student — on the conservative side. We have the reverse situation where non-Indian students are attending a school under federal jurisdiction. There is no balance factor there; that school receives $750 per non-Indian student in attendance. That's Mr. Angus's figure. What he wants to know and what I want to know is: if $3,000 is an appropriate figure on the one side, why isn't $3,000 an appropriate figure on the other? Why doesn't the Anspayawx School get $3,000 for each non-Indian student who attends that school?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a side issue to the real per-student cost, but in 1983 when I look at operating budget only, the cost average in British Columbia is $3,263. Now I know that's not what you're after. What we've got here — is it a school federally funded and operated under the Department of Indian Affairs, or is it a band-operated school but funded federally? And what you have is non-Indians attending that school; the question then comes out as to whether or not there should be funding advanced to that school and whether or not there is authority for it. I think there is a question in here. I'm not trying to duck anything here, but I want to find out what the real problem is. I think I know what the problem is, but I'm not sure I have any ideas for the solution. The question you're asking is why we have an anomaly really one way. We have a minority non-Indian population attending an Indian school, and if those children are the responsibility of the province, why then is the province not advancing moneys to the Indian school? What they are doing is what we cannot; in effect that is what's happening in the field. I haven't got the answer to that, but we're going to find out.

I don't know if it's mixed up with independent schools. If it is, whether there is a grant that's given in that area and the funding then is on a group I or group II level.... And then of course the question comes in as to who is advancing those moneys. Is it the provincial government under the independent school legislation or is it a school district? Mr. Chairman, it's a very penetrating question, and I think it's worthy of an answer. I will come back tomorrow with some more detail, if I can get it, because I haven't got it here. There is some concern exactly what we're getting at with my two officials as well, but we're going to find out.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, a letter would be beautiful — one that's comprehensible, preferably.

Mr. Chairman, yes, there are some other factors. But the major fact is that the $750 per-student per-year figure to which I referred, and to which Mr. Angus referred in a letter, is an approximate figure. He is taking that out of the funding that he gets. It isn't a block amount of money. It’s not an average cost factor at all. It's a percentage figure, depending on the class in which they fall. It's a 9 percent level now, I think. In any event, he is saying that in working out the money that they get from the provincial government under the statutes of this Legislature, it works out to approximately

[ Page 3808 ]

$750 per student. On the other side, it's $3,000. The minister very succinctly put the question. We want to know why the disparity.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would appreciate the member forwarding to me, if he would, any correspondence and perhaps the letter he authored. If you want to take the time to do it and give me a full understanding of what.... You might have additional information which hasn't been raised in the House. The more I listen, the more it sounds to me that it's being funded under the independent school legislation, but we'll look into that. I would appreciate your material.

MR. HOWARD: In response to the question of the minister — and I'm glad to answer his question — if you look in the files of your predecessor, you will find correspondence without this. However, that's beside the point. I'll gladly send the minister copies of all of this correspondence that's been related to me with a short covering letter simply referring to the debate this afternoon. I think that might be satisfactory.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of short questions for the minister. One of them has to do with your policy today on capital financing. I'm particularly concerned.... The minister contends that a great deal of consideration has been given in your formula to have a mechanism built in to assist increasing enrolments which school boards may meet. The formula is supposed to take that into account, although as our Education critic has pointed out, we question that. I wish to discuss with you what your policy is for districts that have pockets of increased enrolment. In my own area of North Burnaby....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Forest Grove.

MRS. DAILLY: That's good. I pay tribute to this minister. He has an excellent memory, and to have him remember my school — the Forest Grove school in Burnaby North — is excellent.

They have experienced a tremendous influx of young people into co-ops, as the minister probably knows. These young parents are naturally very concerned. I know that you know all about it; you've received a number of letters. I did finally receive an answer to one of my letters I sent to you. Frankly, the answer did not give me or the parents much hope that there was going to be immediate consideration.

Mr. Chairman, even though the Social Credit government has embarked determinedly against all signs that this great restraint program is not working when it comes to education, surely this is one area that has to have some flexibility — particularly in capital — where you do have parents having to see these wee kids being bused early in the morning or doing a long walk. I really think we owe it to.... I'm not just talking about North Burnaby. I don't know what you're doing about your capital financing in other areas. Are you having great difficulty getting it through cabinet? I presume there's some block there. I'm really concerned. Would you tell us what your policy is? Have you frozen all new capital financing? Are you prepared to look at some very serious areas?

[4:15]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for raising the issue of Forest Grove. I met with the mayor of Burnaby and the former board chairman; I had discussions with another ministry. It is included within the 1984-85 capital requirements, as is Dease Lake School, which the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) referred to. I would have liked to have done something about it earlier. I have to advise you that capital expenditures in the education budget last year were something in the order of $20 million province-wide. That is not very much money. We are aware of that particular problem. We are aware that the Burnaby School Board — district 41 — has closed eight schools, through some good management, which were in catchment areas or pockets of the community where operating a school could not be justified. They, as a board of trustees, took it on the chin and, no doubt, were unpopular for some period of time. I think the amount of money is something in the order of $2 million, if my memory serves me correctly, that is shared. There was some problem or arrangement which I was hoping would be worked out, and may very well by now have been worked out, between the municipality of Burnaby and the school district, involving the disposition and/or leasing of some properties, which was going to assist in the funding.

There was the other matter.... Because Lands, Parks and Housing was involved in a development in the community, that development created a catchment area and generated some students. I think it was around 200 — is that correct? — students who really should be attending school in that area. These are grades 1, 2 and 3, and I'm not sure if kindergarten is involved, but as I understand it.... Or is it grades 1 to 4? I was hoping that something could have been worked out with them. It's still very active.

I have done what I can to try to advance the interests of a school which is required. There are a number of other schools, too, within the province which are putting forth the same position. But I will advise you that that has been incorporated within the 1984-85 capital expenditure program.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister. I would like to go on to another question to do with independent schools. I listened with some dismay to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who was asking the minister if he would consider what seemed to be, if I took him up correctly, this whole matter of the government exams as they apply to the private schools — certain religious ones. I gather he was even asking if you'd consider a separate kind of exam. What dismayed me also was the minister's reply. It seemed to me you said you'd be looking at it. I hope that I misunderstood that reply, because I really don't think the public of British Columbia, whom the minister has said in the past are in favour of these exams — and yet you and I part company on that assessment.... I don't think the public of British Columbia, including the people who have their children at parochial schools, who are all generally paying taxes, will take too kindly to a system with two kinds of exams. I think, actually, you're going to create a lot of trouble, Mr. Minister, that you don't need at this time. I wonder if you would answer for me just what you meant by stating that you were thinking about it or might look into it.

One more question on independent schools. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if in this time of restraint, when the Social Credit government is constantly telling the people of British Columbia that there is no money, that we have to cut back on public schools, etc.... I'd like to ask the minister a direct question: how can you accept the fact that in a time of

[ Page 3809 ]

restraint and cutbacks for public schools — or, you know, you admit it yourself; you don't have enough money to give them now.... How can you explain to the public of British Columbia that in a time of restraint, someone who has a large income and who can afford to pay $10,000 to send their children to a private school should be subsidized by the taxpayer? I'm referring particularly, as the minister knows, to the schools that charge these very large fees. I know you hear from these schools. Their only answer is: "Well, we do provide a few scholarships." To my mind that's irrelevant. The point is this: in a time of restraint, will the minister tell me how he can accept the fact that people who can afford $10,000 a year to send their children to a private school should be getting subsidized?

Those are my two questions — about the exams and that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Both are good questions, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the examination issue, I responded to the member for Omineca, who made the comment that the independent schools — that is, the federation of independent schools — were opposed to the external examinations administered by the province. I don't believe that to be the case. As a matter of fact, there is considerable support within the independent schools association for those examinations. There is one segment, the parochial schools, often referred to as Christian schools, involving an overall student population, under the umbrella of the independent school system, of roughly 3,000 students from kindergarten to grade 12. If we broke it down, I don't know exactly how many grade 11 and 12 students there would be writing the exams. I have been very firm on this matter with respect to examinations, and that has been most clear. However, there is a problem with one portion. They have agreed that they would go along with it, but I know that there is a great deal of resistance in that one segment of the independent schools association. It is a concern which I am attempting to address, and that's all I have said.

When you start talking about funding, first of all on independent schools, let's be clear on one item. It is the policy of the government to support the independent school system. That is a debate which has gone on for a number of years. The government, I think courageously, took the position to support independent schools, and I know it was the right decision. However, the funding which is advanced is at two levels, group 1 and group 2. I think group 2 funding is primarily the funding to which the member refers. Group 2 funding is based, again, on the average cost per student in the public education system within the district where the independent school is located. As an example, if the cost is $3,000 — we'll just use that for illustrative purposes — under group 2 funding the sum of 30 percent of that $3,000, or $900, is advanced to the independent school. That formula has been rigid for a number of years, and to my knowledge the 30 percent factor has not varied at all. What has varied, however, is the enrolment within the independent school system, which has increased. That increase accounted for the increase which was set forth in the Education estimates — the increase in enrolment is reflected there.

Secondly, we must remember that the independent school system is funded one year behind. As a result, when we had the great foofaraw last year and found that it increased from something in the order of $17 million to $21 million or $22 million, that came a year after, but it reflected the cost in the preceding year in the public school system. There was no additional funding given to them.

So to get back to the thrust of the question from the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) as to why we fund these schools when it is believed — according to the member — that those students come from families who can afford to pay, I'm not so sure that's always the case, although it must be in a number of instances. The formula is built in; it's constant. The enrolment has gone up, and we know that the average cost per student the previous year was higher than now. Next year under the budget we will see, I would think, a reduction in the amount on the 30 percent formula, but, of course, it may be adjusted, depending on what the enrolment is.

I don't know if I've adequately answered the question, but I think it's best that I've gone into some of the history and background of it. Again that's maybe where we part company, although I don't like that type of expression. But I think there is a philosophical difference between the policy of the party in opposition as compared to the policy of the party in government. Although I am told that some years ago there may have been some change by the members opposite with respect to the independent school system, I don't know whether that's true or false. But I don't know if they would ever be ad idem on it. The formula and the enrolment is there. I think you must be honourable and recognize that formula and that there must be funding according to it. It would be patently unfair for the government to turn around to somebody who has agreed with it and suddenly cut in midstream.

MRS. DAILLY: This will be my final comment and question, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the sincerity of the minister in his attempt to answer it. I wasn't at this time questioning anything to do with the formula. That has been discussed before. I simply want to make it quite clear to you that I am talking specifically about schools such as, for example, St. George's in Vancouver. Number one, it's a school for boys; number two, it has restricted enrolment. It's obviously a school where people have to have considerable means to send their children to it. It's good that they're in that position. I'm just saying that this government has been very cold, hard-hearted and harsh about cutting back on the people in the low-income bracket. Here is a chance to show that you're concerned about equality in your so-called restraint program. If you want to make cuts, I would suggest questioning whether you should continue to subsidize these wealthy parents. That is my question and my point.

[4:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The argument advanced sounds to me like this: if we have a group of students writing scholarship exams, and of the ten students who are awarded a scholarship we find that two come from very well-off families, should those students be denied that scholarship? I haven't got the right nor the desire to invoke a means test for any particular group in society, and I'm not about to discriminate against anyone, whether they're rich or poor. I don't think that's the job of government. In addition, those people who are sending their students to independent schools not only are paying, as the member points out, substantial sums in order to put their children there — as a result of freedom of choice, which is important — but also are contributing to consolidated revenue and property taxation. So do I really put that group of people in double jeopardy, establish a means

[ Page 3810 ]

test, and then — just to carry it to its logical conclusion — if one of them should be awarded a scholarship because he has a great deal of ability, deny that scholarship because he happens to come from a family that's well-to-do? I appreciate the concern advanced, and the necessity of restraint, but there are some times that we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

MR. REYNOLDS: I've just got a couple of short questions for the minister. One of them....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) had short questions too; he took about two and a half hours. I assure you I won't take that long.

The other day there was a letter to the editor in the paper that made statements about the provincial examinations for our students in British Columbia being printed in the United States. I understand that that isn't true. You see these things in the paper all the time, and this is the letter of the day. I would have thought that the Province, which usually does a very good job of checking facts in the letters-to-the-editor page, would at least have phoned the ministry and asked them. I would like the minister to assure the people across this province that those examinations were not only designed by his department but also printed here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That letter, which I think was in the Province, is like a number of letters which are forwarded to the editors of some of our daily publications. I suppose they mean well, but I often wish that somebody would make a telephone call and find out what the facts are. First of all, all of the exams were printed in British Columbia right across the street at the Queen's Printer. Secondly, the paper used for the machine-marked portion of the examination — that is, the paper only — was purchased in Minneapolis. The reason for it was this: it was the only paper which we could use to be assured of accuracy when the machine-marked papers were being marked. That's all there was to it: we bought a little bit of paper across the line. So I think that the writer of that letter should rest assured that we print, publish and mark exams in British Columbia.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure the pulp that was used in the paper probably came from British Columbia originally anyway.

I would like to also ask the minister.... In moving around West Vancouver–Howe Sound, I know my constituents keep on asking me when we're finally going to get the principals and vice-principals out of the Teachers' Federation, so that we don't run into the problems like we did last time, when the teachers walked out on their illegal strike, of principals being in a position that is really unfair to them if they are to be the chief administrator of the school in any business. That's why in most unions your management level people cannot be in the union, because they have to administer. I think it's impossible for a principal to administer a school when teachers are out on illegal strikes. I think that should also go for the vice-principals. I'm just wondering what kind of reaction the minister is getting from around the province on that issue.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: A brief answer would be, mixed reaction. I have had, I confess, a number of administrators who have quietly — and I must repeat "quietly" — advanced that concern. The reason why they have done so quietly is that it is a very difficult issue to address, whether or not administrators do or do not want to be members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. The problem is a very real one: it's a matter of mixed or divided loyalties. I think that administrators have a duty to the profession, to students, to the school and to their employer, because they in fact are management employees. On the other side of the coin, the argument is put on purely professional reasons: the relationship that administrators have with their staff is that they should be on the same side of the fence. One problem in this area is whether or not principals should have the right to write reports on the performance of their staff.

Mr. Chairman, if I could get the members' attention on the issue, one of the things that I think is very important on this item.... I think the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) might be interested in this point. A directive was issued by the BCTF which said — I'm going from memory now — in effect, that you as administrators should amend the regulations of your association so that you are bound by the majority decision of the local association and/or the parent body in the event of work stoppages. I know for a fact that that did not go down very well with the administrators — that is, the Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association. The concern that I have with that type of direction is that a professional organization is issuing a directive to a constituent portion of its membership suggesting that they should pass a regulation whereby they would be bound in the event of a work stoppage. Now we're treading on thin ice in here as between a professional organization and something which has the tinge or accoutrements of a trade union. That's really what it boils down to.

So my response is an honest one. From the field the answer is mixed, but there obviously is some concern by the administration. I think probably enough has been said, because the problem is now surfacing. Perhaps they're going to resolve it from within; I do not know.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'd like to make some comments about some previous comments made by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), who was talking about the North Vancouver school board. I certainly agree with his comments 100 percent, and would back him up on the treatment that the parents on the North Shore got from the North Vancouver school board. I think it's atrocious that the school board will not even meet with these people.

But I'll leave that alone and go over to West Vancouver. There I think we have a bit of a different situation, with a school board that is doing a nice waltz with parents who want their children to go to a private school that would be situated somewhere on the North Shore. These parents, for obvious reasons, are not happy with the system. They want more discipline in the schools. Some of them know their children will get through the system with an education that will get them into university, but they're looking for more than that. They're looking for a school on the North Shore that can compete with St. George's and other private schools around this province. A number of our students in that area are going to those schools, and these parents want to sort of bring them home into the North Shore area. My great concern in this whole area, and why I use the word "waltzing" or "dancing, " is that the parents of this area are getting very frustrated. They've been through, for the last couple of

[ Page 3811 ]

months.... People who have jobs and other concerns in their lives have been going to meetings just about every night, and they're extremely frustrated. Some of them are probably near the point of just about giving up. They say: "We can't beat this bureaucracy. It's like beating big government."

Here on the North Shore we have a number of empty schools that all the taxpayers of this province have paid for to some degree, and we don't have the mechanisms within government…the minister doesn't have the mechanisms whereby he can pick up the phone and say, "That school must be leased within 30 days," whether it's to this group or not. That school should not be allowed to sit empty for the time it's going to sit empty. We know that in West Vancouver the school board is going to give one of its schools — probably for $1 — to the municipality to use for a recreation centre. I support that. I think the school is ideally situated, and the municipality needs a centre for the arts and other things in that area. It's not going to be used as a school again because of the location. A perfect idea. Nevertheless, the school board in that area has seen fit to keep the dance going. They don't want to say no, because they know it's popular with a lot of the voters in West Vancouver, but they're afraid they're going to lose these students to the private school. Of course, then they'll lose the money that goes along with it, so teachers will lose their jobs. But that's the way the system works. Those teachers in West Vancouver who are so concerned about losing their jobs should maybe look inside and say: "If we were doing the job that these parents want, they wouldn't be looking at taking their children out of my school and putting them into a private school." Some of those teachers can take the blame, because it's the kind of education they're giving the children — the lack of discipline by some of them — that is forcing these parents to go somewhere else.

I would hope that sometime in the next little while the Minister of Education and his department can come up with a program that would ensure all the citizens of British Columbia that if there are empty schools in any district, the school districts can't play games with these buildings. To suggest that we're going to take a large high school in North Van and make it an administration building is nonsense. I know the minister would probably agree with that. To suggest that we would leave a school empty in West Vancouver and prevent some parents from starting up a new private school is nonsense. The people within these public fields must understand that if somebody wants to start their own school, they should be encouraged to do it. It would certainly cost the taxpayers a little less money because they don't get as large a grant as we put into the public schools; and they certainly should have the right to give their children the kind of education they want for them in this country. If we were in Vancouver, Richmond.... I know that even up in Squamish there are empty facilities that we could get easily, but in West Vancouver land is short, buildings are short. It's a tough situation.

I give full credit to the minister and his staff for the help they've given these people, but I know their hands are tied in a lot of areas and it depends on a decision of the school board. I don't want to interfere with the school board; it's their job to make those decisions. But I don't mind saying that I think they're wrong. I think they should be encouraging that group of parents to start up their school. Their prime consideration should be of the students. If the parents aren't happy with that education, the school board should be looking in that area.

In a lot of these meetings it is interesting to see the number of teachers yelling and screaming: "You can't let this happen! It's against democracy to allow a private school to start." Those same teachers go to the meetings all the time, and I'd suggest to them that they're part of the problem as to why these parents want to get their children out of the public school system and into their own private school. I'm not looking for a comment from the minister. I merely wanted to put that on the record.

[4:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to finish up by saying that I've talked a little bit here about the teachers in the situation in West Van. I've asked the minister the question of the principals and vice-principals. I bring that up because I think it's important that everybody know they're part of the management team and are there to protect our interest in the schools. When I look around in different areas of the province.... My friend and colleague from Surrey received a presentation that was made to the British Columbia government on behalf of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation; he received it at a meeting that he went to with his school district. Here is their list of priorities in that school district: number one, increment cost for teachers; number two, increased salary costs for nonteaching staff; number three, increased staff for increased students. That's what the teachers call quality education in this province? Their number three priority is to look after the students? The first priority is to look after themselves, and the second is to look after the janitors and other staff in the school and their third priority is the students.

Well, Mr. Minister, when I listen to our friends from the NDP here talk about education in this province and knock it, they should really be looking at where the problem is. The problem is not in the amount of money that this province puts into education. If they want to be honest about it and look across Canada and relate it to the cost of money we spend per student in this province, we're equal to just about anybody — within a few dollars. But where we're not equal to other provinces is that the other provinces aren't as strong.... I call it a union; they call themselves a federation. There's a bunch of unionists involved there. Guys like Larry Kuehn are out to destroy our system. Larry Kuehn is not out for the benefit of the teachers; Larry Kuehn is out to destroy the type of democratic system we believe in in this country. He's there to keep on jabbing and causing problems, putting out....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: I don't want to call him that. Everybody knows that anyways.

But he's putting out false information and creating dissent across this province. You know, I was very upset. I sent the minister a brochure that was delivered in my area to the Capilano College, and the headline is: "Why We Joined the Solidarity Coalition: The Capilano College Faculty Association Speaks Out." They have four pages of information. This was given to every student in Capilano College by the faculty, with a note on the back on how to reach myself and other members on the North Shore.

Mr. Chairman, this is where I think the minister has his problems within that department. You're dealing with these kinds of people. I mean, the first item on the brochure was on the Human Rights Code, the next ones were rental protection ended, social services cut, basic unemployment and taxes going up. They don't even get to schools until the fifth point.

[ Page 3812 ]

This is the Solidarity group from the Capilano College Faculty Association passing out absolute political information to the students in their college. It's absolute false information, filled with lies, probably given to them by Larry Kuehn and some of his other radicals, and that's what teachers are doing in this province — teachers who are out to destroy our system.

You know, it's so easy, Mr. Chairman, to lump them all into that boat. I don't even like to get up and say some of this stuff, because I don't want other teachers to think they're all like that. I have six children in the system. Two of them are finished. They've had great teachers. The majority of them started school in Delta, which is, I think one of the best-run school districts in the province. I look at their cost per student in that area and it's very low, but they got and are getting good educations.

I think a lot of teachers would agree with me when I talk about the radicals within their federation who are really not out for better education for your children and my children. They're out for better things for themselves. They put themselves first, as you can see in the book they put out. Increases for them is their main interest. It's not how well our children are doing. If we try to compare marks across the province, if we try to give examinations to see how they're doing at their teaching jobs, they yell and scream that that's unfair to children. I don't think there's a member in this House looking around that didn't have to write exams and compete in their classrooms. I know I'm 42 years of age, and I had to do it. We got marked on our percentages from one to 100. You got graded in the classroom. When you went home, your father knew whether you were first or whether you were forty-first. And if you were less than half, at least in my household — and I was pretty close to that all the time — you got treated pretty roughly by my father. There was strict discipline at home. We're losing that with the type of teachers that we have that lead some of these unions.

It's a frustrating situation for me as a parent to sit and see some of this political activity take place inside the school system. That's why I'm up talking about it. I think the minister has one of the toughest jobs of any minister, because education is one of the most important — if not the most important — ministry. Health is important, because people get sick and we have to fix them up. Human Resources is important if they need some assistance. But education, Mr. Chairman, is what makes the world go round. I think the minister's doing a very good job under extremely trying circumstances, and I just think it's.... We have to get up here and give some of the other side of the story, because we don't always get that from the New Democrats. They're playing their political games all the time, and they don't want to offend some of their friends in the unions — or if they want to call them federations.... So I'm glad to get up here and present some of the other side of the story — a side of the story that parents bring to me. It's parents who bring me those brochures that their children bring home from school, and I think it's shameful. Mr. Minister, I want to congratulate you for the job you're doing in trying to give our children the best education of any province in Canada, and I believe we are getting that in this province. Under the circumstances — with the worldwide economies as they are — you are doing a very good job, and I commend you for it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I just want to make one correction on something which I mentioned earlier in response to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds): the request to change was not within your own association, but a change in a regulation within the ministry, and that was with respect to a directive that was given by the BCTF to the Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association. That's what I want to make clear. I made a mistake earlier, and I think I'll leave it at that.

As far as the independent school in West Vancouver is concerned, I recognize the problem, and I don't want to make any comment on it right now.

MR. ROSE: I, too, would like to comment on the response that the minister gave a little earlier about whether.... He seemed to suggest that somehow the BCTF used a big, heavy hand and imposed their own view on the principals and vice-principals in relation to their duties in various districts should there be a withdrawal of service. I am informed that the directive that was discussed, which the minister has just withdrawn and has attempted to correct, was actually put together by a joint committee of the federation executive and the association of principals and vice-principals. So it wasn't something that was just thrust upon the principals and vice-principals, and I am glad that the minister has made an attempt to clarify that.

I really would like to thank the minister for trying to give a lot of straight answers to the questions. He's been here all day; I wondered sometime during the day whether he wasn't attempting to filibuster his own estimates. But I say that in sincerity — not that he was trying to filibuster his own estimates, but that he has attempted to give pretty straightforward answers. I didn't like some of the answers, but I agree that he has.

Now you take the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I must admit that he does tend to provoke me — not always, but today he did. I think that what is good for the goose — to coin a phrase — is good for the gander. He's talking about the destruction of democracy at the same time that teachers have every right to go to the schools and to public meetings, and make all the racket and all the presentations that they want to. I can recall busloads of people going around to various places to try to defeat the agricultural land reserve bill. The same buses that went to Delta, to Ladner, went all over the place — that's democracy, eh? If it's on your side, that's democracy, and it's known as anarchy or packing if you happen to lose.

Society, I would like to point out, through you, Mr. Chairman, is not the same simple situation that it was, with the kind of nostalgia that my friend here yearns for. Society once upon a time rested upon a consensus, and everybody pretty well believed the same thing; we don't anymore. Our schools today are facing all kinds of problems that we never faced and that the member never faced, and I think it's grossly unfair to scapegoat a group of teachers because society is not as disciplined as it once was. The broken homes that exist.... There was no question of marriage breakdown to the extent that we have in Westminster; 50 percent of the kids are from broken homes. You didn't face that kind of chaos before: the drugs, the opportunities for mobility, the complex metropolitan society. We didn't have that.

As far as propaganda in the schools is concerned, I can recall as a member of council in Coquitlam that we had a real keffufle because the chamber of commerce wanted to put its propaganda through the schools. Everybody thought that was right and proper, but the trade unions were denied an equal

[ Page 3813 ]

voice in the same kind of propaganda. So I think we have to be careful. Again, I'm sorry the member isn't here, because what he said was that the Surrey schoolteachers were really self-serving in that they wanted to talk about the schools, number one; staff — nonteaching staff — number two; and teachers, number three. And they wanted more money in every case; they didn't want to lose the resources. I don't know what's wrong.... Every self-respecting free-enterpriser that I know is trying to make as much money as he can; I don't know why he should criticize the teachers for that, if they were. Then he turns around in contradiction and says that Cap College wanted to talk about human rights and the rentalsman, and: "My God! They didn't get down to teaching until No. 5." You know, you can't have it both ways.

Anyway, I think the teachers have a right to speak out as much as any other group of citizens. People who are anxious to have teachers prevented from being on school boards.... You say that they're not objective. I'm not certain that that's the case. I think it's nice to have some enlightened people on school boards from time to time, even if they are teachers. Real estate people get involved in land deals. Does anybody suggest that they shouldn't be on municipal councils because they might have a pecuniary interest in some zoning matter or land? Is anybody suggesting that they are somehow unacceptable as school board personnel? That's another pack of nonsense. Why pick on one group of people and say that you can't participate in democracy, whether it's real estate people or schoolteachers? Personally, I don't believe that schoolteachers — I don't think they are or are allowed to be — should be permitted to be on their own school boards. But I think that if they live in neighbouring communities, they can make substantial contributions to both councils and school boards, the same as any other group of citizens.

[5:00]

1 would like to ask the minister directly.... I want to talk about colleges for a few minutes, but I've got two or three questions that I really need an answer for and one bit of information. I'll give the information first. I checked with Coquitlam about their $1.1 million surplus, which the minister used in response to my question about the closing of Brookmere Elementary School. Their budget is $70 million. The minister will agree that they are not allowed to go over their budget. So $1.1 million doesn't even amount to 2 percent of their total budget. They've got to be careful about that sort of thing. They can't come out bang on. I think it's a little bit unfair to suggest — if the minister was attempting to suggest — that somehow the Coquitlam School Board had no right to close a particular school, or shouldn't have, because they had a big surplus in their budget. We don't even know whether it's going to be carried over to next year. Unless they've got very crafty secretary-treasurers, school boards are not going to come out dead on target, no matter how hard they try.

Could the minister say in two or three words what he and his ministry, in the moves that they foresee, are really trying to accomplish in education? Can you say that in 50 words or less? The minister admitted that he couldn't see what the future was. Yet it seems to me that the whole educational system should be designed to prepare people for the future — whatever that may be. Even if you make a bum guess, you've got to be making some guesses. I wonder if the minister could tell me that first of all.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to attempt to answer the member's inquiries. To do it in 50 words or less really puts one at a disadvantage. I think the Ministry of Education ought to be involved in finances, curriculum, examinations, certification, deregulation and producing a White Paper for a new school act.

MR. ROSE: What are the goals, though?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: How can I conceivably answer that in 50 words? I don't think that's a fair approach, with all due respect, Mr. Member.

MR. ROSE: I'm always fair.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Almost fair.

I've given those five items about the direction in which we ought to go. We introduced something which you found refreshing this morning: that is, some comment on curriculum. I thought it was not a bad idea for 11 and 12 to get away from this concern and the fixation that we've all had to have on finances. Examinations. Philosophically we're apart on that, but that's a move. It seems to me that that's a direction. We examined the contents of the discussion paper on curriculum, and that seems to be a direction that's worthy of comment by the public.

As far as finances are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I thought I had made it clear on a host of occasions that in a difficult and very different economic environment it was absolutely imperative that the government attempt to pull the reins on the expenditure of funds. If you want me to recite it, there is a litany of information on accelerating school expenditures over an inflationary period exceeding by far the consumer price index. It was, I repeat, imperative that government address that problem and not have a repeat of what happened in the United States, and particularly in California. What was going to happen was that the ball would begin to roll and mushroom, and the cost would be so great that the politicians could never resist the appetite of the electorate to take some draconian measures. Preservation of a public education system is pretty important to me, and so is making it better so that we don't constantly have items coming up and the push from the competition outside in the independent school system. My job, I believe, is to encourage and improve the climate for public education so that the satisfaction factor among the public goes up. That's what we want to do.

With respect to the surplus in Coquitlam, I accept your comments, and $1.1 million is really not that much when you talk about an overall budget. But the fact is that when people are concerned about losing half a point — and we've heard of all the programs which have had to be discontinued as a result of losing 0.5 percent in a budget — it seems to me that carrying over a surplus of $1.1 million demonstrates not only good management on the part of the Coquitlam School Board but that it was capable of doing it.

MR. ROSE: I'm almost sorry I asked the question, because I really didn't get an answer. I got a diatribe about funding and saving the public education system and all the rest of it. Whenever there's a saving, and there's a cutback, the minister always says it's a challenge. The more you cut it back, the more the boards are challenged, and we want to congratulate them for meeting the challenge. Nevertheless, to be involved in curriculum and in standards is really not a

[ Page 3814 ]

goal for education. But we'll let it go and forget it now because you're right: goals of education are outlined usually in larger documents. But I think that some goals could have been stated rather than just saving it from destruction and preventing the independent schools from growing larger.

I have another question. The minister, I believe — and he can tell me if I'm wrong — at one point urged a number of the school districts to get involved in some kinds of agreements on seniority, layoffs and other matters, so that they wouldn't come under Bill 3. A number of the districts — North Van, Abbotsford and some of the others — have made those agreements with their teachers so that they are protected from the dangers of Bill 3. I would like to know whether the minister did in fact urge more to do it, since a great number of them haven't. What is the minister's position now? Is he further urging the boards and the teachers to seek agreements so that they will not fall under the legislation in Bill 3?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Of course we urge school boards and the local teachers' association to mutually agree upon contract language which will exempt them from Bill 3. The function of Bill 3.... If we wish to draw a parallel between Bill 3 and the compensation stabilization program, in the latter we have guidelines and regulations. The guidelines are voluntary, and if parties cannot work out a voluntary agreement with the assistance of the CSP office, its mediator and the commissioner, then the regulations are here. The regulations are tough; nobody denies that. All we were asking school districts and local teachers' associations to do was to enter into an agreement to secure an exemption of Bill 3.

There's one other matter which no doubt my critic will ask about, involving the issue when the exemptions were first being piloted throughout the province. There are about 20 districts right now who have not entered into that agreement. School districts are constantly calling the ministry seeking information, as they should do. We prepared a specimen which may have served to give them some guidance. In addition to that, there were others that had been prepared. Some districts have taken the cumulative advantage of all of these agreements and have attempted to work out — and in many cases have worked out — their own agreement. All we did was advance an idea and something that ought to be considered in response to the concerns expressed. I would urge all school boards and local teachers' associations to attempt to come to some form of agreement.

MR. ROSE: Thank you. I'm pleased with the minister's answer to that question.

I'm sorry that the member from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) is gone, because I had something I wanted to say to him, but we'll forget about that.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go on now to talk a little bit about the colleges and the cuts that have hit them — I think it's about 3.5 percent — and some of the intrusion into academic matters on the part of the minister. I want to talk a little bit about EPF — established program financing — a bit about TRAC and the vocational schools, and how this party views access to post-secondary education by students.

By that announcement I see I've cleared out quite a number of members of my own party. I hope that I can at least retain what few government members.... I notice they all I come in around ten after five, because they like to spend the declining hours of the day in the chamber. We never see them any other time.

I asked a question about goals, because we're getting questions like that. We knew that in the Smith apple report certain kinds of goals for education were articulated. We haven't heard that or a reaffirmation of those goals. Here's an editorial from the Province on March 4: "Does Gov't Have Education Plan?" It says: "Conspicuously absent from the provincial budget last month was any statement by the Bennett government of the type of society it is trying to shape in British Columbia. We have been left to wonder about the government's vision of the future." Maybe it's just a rescue operation to save us from ourselves and our excesses. It may be that and simply that. The article goes on to say: "If there is a broad plan for this increasingly technological age, how does cutting the B.C. Institute of Technology's operating grant by 10 percent fit in?" Then it goes along and asks a number of other questions having to do with the new formula penalizing BCIT by about 20 percent. It talks about what has happened about removing what seemed to be regarded by some as frills: "Sending instructors back to industry and business at intervals to keep up with the real world." It's suggesting this could be done at the colleges. "Using computers heavily in instruction" could be done. "Having a good technological library. Providing more laboratory hours. Helping to provide housing for students it attracts from all over the province." It's suggesting here that cutting down the post-secondary by 3.5 percent really isn't looking to the future and isn't equipping our people extremely well for the future. The minister may argue about that. He may say: "Well, we haven't got the money. We have other priorities."

We did a little survey around the province about what was happening. There were 11 colleges that we talked about.

Interjection.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: It was a little survey. We'll publish ours. We won't have the people pay for them and then keep them secret in the ministry. Anyway, we asked them questions. Twelve responded, plus PBI and BCIT. Eleven colleges reported a modest increase in class size in '83-84; the reasons cited were low enrolment, courses were dropped; where possible, as many students were taken, despite the lack of resources — that is, instructors.... The policy is to increase class size as a result of zero sum budget, which is going to be even less next year.

I'm not interrupting you two, am I? Am I bothering you? If I'm making too much noise for your conversation, I apologize.

[5:15]

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please address the Chair.

MR. ROSE: They talked about the increased cost to universities, reduction in choice of courses. Also, the number of full-time students has increased from part-time. That might have something to do with the conditions. It may also have something to do with the grants and loan formula that was changed this last year. They said there hadn't been much change over '82-83, because the cuts were made in the previous year, so the changes weren't there. But still seven

[ Page 3815 ]

colleges reported that course offerings were either reduced or eliminated during '83-84. We know that apprenticeship training and career vocational courses are cancelled.

They then talked about the cuts in number of positions, which many of them regretted. I have to say this. "Thirty term positions have been discontinued at PVI." I know that the government Whip, as a former bursar there, is very interested in PVI. We've lost 30 people there, in varying lengths. Seventy people were given layoff notices at BCIT; six faculty laid off at New Caledonia; one sports staff at Malaspina; two vocational staff in the Okanagan; four FTEs lost in the East Kootenays — those FTEs are people, in case anybody was wondering; approximately five FTEs in North Island; support and teaching staff at Selkirk, but we're not sure of the numbers. There were some general comments. Some were very, very concerned about this — the principals and presidents of these institutions. They think the new budget, the cutback to about 3.5 percent, is going to have an adverse effect. The provincial government now has direct control over the vocational program through Bills 19 and 20. We know that. Okanagan College, for instance, has probably the best two-year vocational course in early childhood education, and this is eliminated. More single parents than ever, and a very successful two-year course in early childhood education is reduced to a 10-month program. Major cuts amounted to 5 percent in absolute dollars if you consider the inflation rate. BCIT reports that they actually increased fulltime enrolment by 7 percent, with a decrease in government funding of 3 percent. How that works out I don't know. I think probably larger classes, getting rid of some counsellors — a number of ways. Anyway, they had to get rid of 30 people.

When you consider the large number of people unemployed, I think that's a very serious oversight on behalf of the government. I think they have money enough to operate a better program if they'd stop diverting federal money into other things. The money that Ottawa sends should not be diverted into other programs — roads and sewers and that kind of stuff; it should go to education. There wouldn't be a necessity to cut back if it did happen that way. Barber training: 90 percent of those people, some of them on welfare, got jobs after their program of barber training. That's been cut in Maple Ridge. I don't think that's satisfactory. I won't quote the man who is the president, but he says that by cutting training programs, young people are not getting the education required to become useful members of society. As new jobs become available and require the application of technology, there will not be trained people in the province to fill them. What are we going to do, steal them from other jurisdictions? That's been our habit over the years.

What are you going to do now if you want to be a barber? You go to a private hair-styling school. Instead of $32.50 a week here, you can have one seven-month program at a hair styling school for $150 a week. Many of the people who go there are single parents; many of them have been on welfare. You cancel the Maple Ridge barber training program and force these people into other schools at something like three times the cost. Philosophically you may favour the private programs. By that argument you could turn the whole school system over to private and get rid of the public school system. You could go back to what we had in Europe for centuries. I don't think it's satisfactory, but there's nothing to stop us from doing that.

Business courses: $32.50 a week. It's $360 at Pitman's for a four-week course. Average length: 16 weeks to six months. Sprott-Shaw business course, Victoria: $200 to $300 per four-week unit with a course requirement of six to ten months, depending upon the individual. This is what people are facing when they are pushed into the private training schools, whether it's business, vocational, barbering, hair styling, skin care or whatever. You can push them into Mary Kay and the Avon lady and other private things.

Here's a particularly interesting letter. I think it's a sad letter to some extent to the minister from one of his constituents; if not his constituent, certainly a constituent from an area very close to him — maybe the other Prince George riding. It's written by a Ron Kelly; I don't know where the man lives.

"I'm writing in response to another lightning attack to educational facilities in the central interior, specifically the plumbing and pipefitting apprenticeship programs at the College of New Caledonia."

So right in the minister's own riding lightning strikes again!

"Since I am a second-year plumbing apprentice living in Prince George, this closure will have a direct effect on myself and my family. I shall now have to go to a southern-based facility and be away from my family, as well as support accommodations for myself there."

That's unfair. The guy has to either quit his course or face massive costs or dislocation to his family.

Why do we need that? We don't need that kind of stuff in education in this province. But the minister has the power to do it, because Bills 19 and 20 gave him the power to go over the heads of even the appointed boards and pluck out or add courses at will. He talks about deregulation and autonomy. They lost their autonomy, and here's the result of it. I could go along on that line, but I don't intend to. The hour is late and other people want to get on, but I do have some other things that I need to say.

Here is a letter to the minister from the Langara branch of the Faculty Association of Vancouver Community College. It is signed by Martin Gerson, the president, and is written on their paper. Some people would say that they have no right to do this, but they have written to the minister. What they're concerned about is that the political government of the day is involving itself in details of educational offerings, for what seems to be ideological reasons, to a greater extent than is democratically healthy. The minutes of the faculty association quote a letter that the Minister of Education has written to the chairman of the board asking the board — now remember the minister appointed the board — to take steps that would result in the termination of aesthetics courses at VVI and a substantial reduction of barbering, hairdressing and business office training. Funding reductions will be determined at the program profile meeting of the post-secondary department. What it means is that the colleges can no longer decide whether or not they want to offer a course, even if it does have tremendous student interest and demand.

I want to talk now a little bit about the raging argument of whether or not the provincial government is diverting funds it gets from the feds into other areas. As everybody knows, under the established programs financing act, certain moneys come to each province as a result of that agreement. It can be argued that the feds cut back on it in 1982. I don't think there's any question about that. But that isn't the point of issue. If you check you will find that probably in over four

[ Page 3816 ]

years the feds have cut back about $8 million to all the provinces, compared to what they would have had to spend if they hadn't changed the act in 1982 from what it was in 1977. I was concerned about this and I asked the minister yesterday — and I quote from Hansard — if they diverted funds from the commercial and industrial base, and he assured me they didn't. I then called across to him and said: "Gee, I wish you'd do that with EPF, but more about that later." Well, now is later. And the minister said: "Good luck." In other words he's suggesting that my fishing expedition may not produce the fish that I hoped it would.

Anyway, not being too big a sucker, I've been waiting for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to come across and give us the answer to the same question from his point of view. He took a big crack at the feds — about Health mainly — during the budget. I'm not going to say anything about Health right now, or I might anyway. I phoned the director of the federal-provincial relations and social policy branch....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. ROSE: Why order? What's wrong with that? Did somebody say "order"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was not the Chair, Mr. Member. They probably made the comment because we're in the estimates of the Ministry of Education and not Health.

MR. ROSE: I'm not going to do that at the moment. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) looks healthy and contented, and I'm not going to bother him now.

But since I can't get an answer out of the Minister of Finance, who promised me one, I asked the question as to whether or not there is any evidence of diversion of funds. The answer I got from Mr. James H. Lynn, general director, was.... Remember I said the total had been cut down for all the provinces over what would be granted in the 1977 agreement, but we're talking about 1983-84 compared to 1984-85. In post-secondary education the tax transfer was $218 million in 1983-84 and $248 million in 1984-85 — estimated — and the cash transfer was $232 million in 1983-84 and $230 million in 1984-85. The difference in the two years is $27 million. Post-secondary education has been reduced by $27 million. We wouldn't have to cut all these courses if we didn't have a total of $27 million times 2 — or $54 million — withdrawn from educational funding. That's what has happened. It's being diverted. It's being diverted also in health care. I would ask the minister to tell me, or to contradict me on that one.

Mr. Chairman, I've got two or three questions on the TRAC program. I don't know if it's leaked, or what it is, but it's one done by James Whatmore. It talks about the TRAC program. Is the minister familiar with it? Has he read the report? Or has he been advised on the report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I haven't read it.

MR. ROSE: Nobody knows anything about it? Anyway, I think it's time the minister looked into it. While it doesn't attack the personnel in the program and commends them for doing an excellent job, I think that it's really quite a serious problem. I commend the minister to look into it. I won't go into it in a lot of detail, because I want to do something else before I sit down. But anyway, during the first year of operation 2,850 people were accepted into TRAC, but only 89, or 3 percent, graduated. Only 485, or 16 percent, proceeded beyond the common core. There's a lack of success because of improper screening, improper English, lack of counselling and the fact that many students can't study on their own.

[5:30]

The member who is now occupying the Chair tells us that we need to get into more teaching machines and all these other high-tech things, and that's going to solve our problems; the TRAC program's concept is a good one. There's a core of material, and then it expands as you specialize. But if the students aren't able to cope either with the learning material or the lack of self-discipline, or if they can't read, then the TRAC program is not much good to them, and needs a serious look. Less aggressive students don't seek counselling or assistance. It recommended two full-time increased instructors for that program. What a chance!

I'd like the minister to look into that. I'd be very pleased, if he hasn't got it, to give him my notes, because I don't want to take up much more time of the House. So I've got the program. The results have not been good. Some of them were even lost to the program. They even disappeared. Nobody knows where they went, according to this thing. It talked about 2,850 students starting. Some 589 were removed from the rolls; that leaves 2,200. There was a total in the post common-core of 396. The number of students apparently working on common-core studies and estimated to be actually lost — whereabouts unknown — was 1,115. That shows that there is something wrong; the learning materials are wrong and need to be revised. Again, I'm not attacking the instructors. I'm attacking the system that might have been too hastily introduced. So I wish the minister would look into that.

I want to conclude by talking a little bit about access. Access to post-secondary education is determined by a lot of things. Number one, where do you live? If you live in an urban area, you've got a greater chance. Number two, economics. If you come from a family that can pay your fees, you've got a better chance. If you've got to raise your fees, then you rule out a lot of people. If there are no professional schools in the area in which you wish to specialize, then you don't have access in your own province and there is some travel problem once again.

I would like to suggest in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that we're going to have to remove enrolment ceilings from universities. We've got to say to ourselves: "Look, we think that all those students who are competent should have access to our universities. Barriers of distance and economics shouldn't be major barriers to those students — we've got to get rid of that idea. We should be attempting to get more people into schools those who can profit by them — and not make the determinant of whether or not you go to university whether or not your old man makes $50,000 or $60,000 a year." That's very important, I think, as a principle. I was one out of two who went to university out of a high school class of 60, mainly because we were reasonably well off compared to many other people in our own community — not because I was the smartest, which, I think, everybody here would agree with, just listening to me today.

One hundred percent of federal funds should be siphoned into education, so we don't have to raise those fees. Removing the grant portion of the student assistance program and putting it all into loans is a barrier to access. For rural students

[ Page 3817 ]

— and my friend here who does post-secondary education can correct me if I'm wrong — the post-secondary participation rate is probably the lowest in Canada, except for P.E.I. But rural and urban areas show a vast difference. I think it's about 8 percent to 17 percent. So if you live in the urban areas, you've got a better chance. Living allowances and all those other things need to be considered, I think.

In conclusion, I wonder whether the minister is aware that the all-new loan business is going to be available to students who wish to go to foreign universities. I've got one example right here where a student has to leave to seek programs in the U.S. This is not unusual.

Those are a number of things. Perhaps they're not too well organized, hurriedly put together, but I think we want to finish the Education estimates today. I thank the minister again for his attention. He's put in a long couple of days as well. I appreciate that we're all getting tired, but I would appreciate his consideration of those things. I appreciate his listening, and I hope I can have some of the answers to some of those questions soon, if not today. I'll send him the stuff on the TRAC program.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have only got three little questions for the minister, Mr. Chairman. I would have a lot more, but the topics have been canvassed so thoroughly by my well spoken colleagues the members for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and on and on.

I was going to just get up and ask my two or three questions of the minister dealing with constituency matters and sit right down. But I have to admit, quite frankly, that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) did get on my nerves a bit. That member made allegations. He blamed the problems of the education system on teachers, the BCTF, their democratically elected representatives and leaders and the School Trustees' Association. He put the blame for these current problems in our education system on everybody but the government of which he is a member. He blamed the NDP as well.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't know why I get all this heckling when I get up. I've just got three little questions which I'm going to ask in a minute, Mr. Chairman. But that is a typical attitude of the people sitting here, particularly on the treasury benches. There are problems not only in education but in unemployment and all these other problems that are facing our province today. Blame the teachers, blame the working people, blame their democratically elected leaders, but never blame the government. I want to tell you that that member won't get into the cabinet that way. Oh, he's back in the House — I hope he heard what I said.

I want to get to my questions very quickly. I know that the minister has received a great deal of correspondence from around the province from students and parents expressing concern about the elimination of the student grant program, increased tuition fees and how these young people — primarily high school graduates — are going to attend university. I raise this matter in passing, before I get to my three little questions, because I think the actions the government is taking in this regard are very discriminatory. They discriminate against students in rural areas. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, and as the minister well knows — and I'm not asking the minister for a response, because the minister has already responded to this on numerous occasions during debate on his estimates; I'm canvassing on behalf of my constituents — not only do the students have to pay these increased tuition fees, which, because of the very high unemployment rate in the province today, particularly in my own riding, parents can't afford to pay, but there is the added expense of living in the lower mainland in order to attend a college or university, which are primarily located in the lower mainland. I just wanted to get that on the record. As I said, I don't expect an answer from the minister. I did hear your response to the questions posed earlier by my colleagues. Just to get down to it very quickly, here's my first question to the minister. The ministry has appointed Mrs. Marilyn Epstein on a temporary basis as acting director of Indian education. Does the minister have someone in mind…?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Let me answer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay, go ahead.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If the member for Mackenzie would talk to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I think he would find that a director by the name of Ellwood has been permanently appointed in that office. There was a statement made in the House, which the member for Atlin is very much aware of. If you recall, the previous director had left, so Mrs. Epstein acted in an interim capacity; she was really responsible for another area as well. A permanent appointment has been made and a press release has been issued to that effect.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the response, because the correspondence I received from the minister is dated December 1983. At that time no permanent appointment had been made and some concern was expressed by some members of the education committee on my Indian band councils regarding a permanent.... They felt that the Ministry of Education really was not interested in their problems.

This brings me to the second question, also dealing with our native Indian people. Rather than go into a long tirade, I think I'll just read two paragraphs of a letter of which you have a copy, and then I'll pose my question to you. This letter is signed by Betty Wilson of the Desolation Sound education committee. The Desolation Sound Tribal Council takes in four Indian bands in my area. The letter reads:

"On behalf of the membership of the Desolation Sound Tribal Council, we would like to express concern over post-secondary funding for non-status people interested in vocational training, and the amount of dollars available to students for university programs.

"The first concern is that there is little funding available to students interested in attending vocational programs. Also, there are students who are recent high-school graduates who are unable to obtain Canada Manpower sponsorship. We ask that you consider seeking financial assistance for these students.

"Can you request of the minister what help and assistance is available from the ministry, and what plans the ministry may have in regard to alleviating the financial situation for our young people?"

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What's the date of the letter?

[ Page 3818 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: January 20, 1984. I forwarded a copy of this to you, and I received a response from you which, unfortunately, I don't seem to have in front of me, but the response that you forwarded back to me, which I forwarded to the council at that time, was quite unsatisfactory, from their point of view. Perhaps you could take a minute to explain that.

Approximately a year ago, Mr. Chairman, I forwarded to the then-minister, Mr. Vander Zalm, a brief and quite a lengthy letter from School District 49, Central Coast, requesting assistance for a modest vocational facility in Bella Coola to serve the central coast. There are a whole lot of letters of support; you have all this stuff in your office. The then minister did respond. I'll just read one paragraph. "Ministry officials have reviewed this proposal, have deemed it to be desirable and are putting it forward for consideration by the federal authorities." The key sentence here is: "I will keep you apprised of the outcome of these deliberations." I haven't received anything since. You may not have that information. I'd like to know what's happening with that proposal, which is of come consequence to the people living on the central coast. You may not have that answer here this afternoon, which is fine. If you could make a note and get back to me on that particular topic I would appreciate it.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What's your hurry? You were away for a week and a half and you come back to this House, Mr. House Leader, and now you want to push these estimates through. We've got nothing but time. I've got till next August, so what's your hurry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the estimates, please.

[5:45]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Onward and upward, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make one more comment in closing. I think I've posed the questions I wished to, but I do want to mention a particular situation we have in School District 47. Partly because of declining enrolments and partly because of current government policy and funding problems, there will be two or possibly three more schools closing in that school district within the next year. I don't think that determination has yet been made by the school board. I understand that the schools that may be closing are the small elementary school at Lund, grades 8, 9 and 10 at Ocean View in Powell River, and the one I'm about to mention, grades 8, 9 and 10 at Texada Island. There is a real problem. I don't want to take a lot of your time discussing it, because the final decision by the board hasn't been made, but it's nip and tuck. There are enough students on Texada Island to keep that facility open, but because of financial difficulties that the board is facing, like every other school district in the province, they're talking about closing that high school facility and sending the young people over by ferry. There are about 90 children involved in total, which means that these people will have to leave home.... They have to catch the ferry that leaves Texada Island at 8 o'clock, so many of them are up and out at 6:30 in the morning and don't get home till 6:30 or 7 o'clock at night. Further, they have another major problem. That particular ferry, which the minister over here knows very well — the North Island Princess — is only licensed to carry so many passengers. The senior master on the vessel tells me that if they close that facility and all the children are on there, they're going to have to leave vehicles and other passengers behind. I don't expect comment on this. I've had correspondence from the ministry, and I have been working very closely with the school board. In the event that the school board is forced to close that school because of financial constraints, I wanted it on the record that I did raise the matter in this House and that you are aware of the problems. I'll be getting back to you on it.

MR. NICOLSON: And now for something totally different. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address the problem of student aid. I note that this year in the estimates there is a decrease of more than $2 million, from $16.9 million down to about $14.6 million. That's in the overall figure, less recoveries from the Ministry of Universities. It's a decrease in this minister's actual area of operations, although he really administers the whole program. For students, colleges and programs under this minister, it again represents a decrease of $6.2 million down to $5.2 million, roughly about 20 percent.

I'd like, first of all, to ask the minister how this figure relates to the stated intention of the ministry to change from a system of grants to a system of loans. These moneys were given to students as grants, usually after they had qualified and used up a certain entitlement to federal government loans. I'd like to ask the minister how the money in his estimates this year really relates in.... Does he intend simply to make loans in the same dollar amount as he formerly made the grants in, or will this be used to look after some of the finance charges and sinking fund charges against the moneys that will be borrowed? Could the minister answer that?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The funds in the Ministry of Education budget represent the money which will be required to look after the interest on the loan, as well as the administration of the system of student aid. That is the first item.

The criteria, which are still being worked on....

There are certain criteria which will remain: 80 percent course load — 80 percent of what is traditionally a full load — and a passing mark of 60 percent. There are roughly 14,000 students expected to take out loans, and within those loans we will be recognizing any increases in tuition and the cost of texts. The maximum is $2,400, and that is on top of the federal aid portion.

There is really a great similarity between the federal and provincial programs, and I think it is probably going to be important that we keep them reasonably close together. There are obviously going to be some distinctions, but for ease of administration I would like to keep them much more closely related, and this is in the process of being worked out now in the ministry.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister.

Mr. Chairman, one of the problems that arose last year was a change in eligibility criteria. The minister said that he intends the 80 percent course load to continue. He is going to demand a 60 percent pass mark, and I would ask if that is an average. For the record, the minister nods that the answer is yes.

First of all, let's look at what happens in the rest of Canada. Except for British Columbia last year, Canada

[ Page 3819 ]

agrees that a single student is considered financially independent, or a group B student, if he or she has no legal parent or guardian, has been in the full-time labour force for two periods of 12 consecutive months each, or has been out of secondary school for four calendar years. But last year new eligibility requirements were put out which would have meant, for example, that a 30-year-old student living at home, but paying $300 a month room and board while in his or her hometown during the summer, would now be deemed to be dependent on his or her parents. Can I take it, then, from the minister's response that right now the only divergence from the generally accepted definition of "dependent" is going to be that he is going to insist upon the 80 percent course load and the 60 percent average standing?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We recognize the issue which the member for Nelson-Creston has raised. There has been a problem with respect to criteria. The ministry is now working on that, and my advice from my official responsible for that area is that they are making considerable progress. I hope that some of those problems are cleaned up. As you recall, last year a number of concerns were expressed as to who was eligible and who was not, and there seemed to be a host of problems with it. We're addressing that matter; I hope it will be to your satisfaction.

MR. NICOLSON: Suppose that these two criteria which you've mentioned, the 80 percent course load and the 60 percent average — and maybe one or two others — are arrived at as being eligibility criteria after this review. Will those B.C. criteria apply to the students' applications for the federal loan program, or only to the B.C. loan program?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't know the specific answer except what I'm advised now, Mr. Chairman. The 80 and 60 is the portion which is obviously provincial; the other, I am advised, will be worked out between the provincial and federal governments.

MR. NICOLSON: Do you want to move adjournment? I really do have a lot more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carry on.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay.

That covers some of the questions I would ask about student aid, but certainly it should be known that students were actually prohibited from participating in the federal government loan assistance program, based on some of the criteria that were brought up last year. Also, of course, this is something that we pointed out during the sessions in the summer. We tried to point these pitfalls out — it's on the record — before school got underway in the fall, but it did get underway and I know that the whole program has been in a bit of a crisis. Things were not even clear as to how things were going to continue in this semester — at the university level at least — and the ministry is responsible for these programs at the university level.

On another topic.... I suppose maybe it's a combined topic. One is the Crane Library — production of talking books for the blind. The other is the programs being put on by the Western Institute for the Deaf. There has been a change in government policy this year; that is, instead of having some direct government funding — and of course they get their funding from two different ministries; some from Universities.... Some funding, for instance, for the Crane Library production has been in terms of more or less an understanding of a commitment that the government would demand so much service.

Yet I think it's a very sensitive area. It's a very important area, and I don't care if we're in a period of austerity, or what. I don't think that the sight-impaired people should pay such a price. They have been denied for so many years. I think they've been disfranchised in terms of fully participating at the university level, and certainly the Crane Library.... I think some questions were raised by my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) on this. Part of the problem, really, with the Crane Library appears to arise from the failure of the ministry to give an indication to the Crane Library of just how much work there will be — for instance, this year — in doing translations into braille. Crane really needs that information, because there is no latitude in the UBC budget to order materials or to allow staff to be hired and then have nothing to do.

Some of the problems that have happened in the past, and I've discussed this with many people at the university, are that there seems to have been a tendency by the ministry to ask for an estimate — "Okay, how much would it cost to do so much translation" — and for the ministry to then say: "Well no, we don't want all...." The ministry then highgrades their original requests, and puts the more difficult books, the longer volumes, and so on, and says: "Okay, we're only going to ask you to do just half of the books." I might be subject to criticism, because I'm not going to go into all the files I have on this. But that really does seem to be the basis of a lot of the objections: that the ministry has really demanded that the most demanding work be done at a prorated price that they had maybe quoted earlier. So they run into two problems.

Maybe the minister would like to think about this a little bit over the hour. I do want to get into something also with the Western Institute for the Deaf, so I think I may carry on a few minutes tomorrow.

[6:00]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.