[ Page 5673 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5673

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Davis

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Rose

Mr. Mitchell

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1985

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: There being no quorum, the Chair will leave until such time as there is a quorum.

The House took recess at 10:04 a.m.

The House resumed at 10:10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, usually we have introductions first. We seem to be digressing from the I would remind hon. members that it is a courtesy of the House for members to be in their places at the appointed time.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to make an introduction on behalf of my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who is unavoidably away today. In the precincts are members of the grades 5 and 6 classes of Kitchener Elementary School, together with their teacher Margaret Lemon. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought we were getting to 18. Oh dear.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the House Leader is in a bit of a hurry, but we do have a few other things we'd like to have a chat with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) about. I'm not going to prognosticate how long it will last, but I do say on behalf of the New Westminster situation that we also agree with many of the remarks of opposition members with respect to autonomy. When the whole education system in our province was set up, it was not set up as a situation that demanded full control from Victoria. It was set up in such a way that there were elected people at the local level who were provided responsibility, and that responsibility was to run a very efficient education system within their own school district.

[10:15]

Knowing the work that's been done over the years in New Westminster.... If any jurisdiction in this province pays its way, New Westminster is among the foremost. Until the time when the Ministry of Education confiscated the commercial and industrial tax base, it was quite evident that our tax base was over the amount required in our budget. Now the figures have been distorted because our industrial and commercial tax base is part of the Ministry of Education's contribution. That doesn't fool any of us that have been around for any length of time at all. We know perfectly well that we're paying our way, and as a result of that, we contribute to less fortunate areas in terms of their tax base. We're not unique in this regard, and as a matter of fact we don't put up opposition to that. What we do put up opposition to is the fact that the Minister of Education now dictates all of the parameters and gives absolutely no leeway.

Mr. Speaker, I've looked over the presentations both ways — that is, the presentation from the Ministry of Education to New Westminster School District and their presentations to the ministry — and it's obvious to me that the ministry is not sensitive to what's happening in our town. For just one small example, they're not sensitive to the fact that we have a very old school district and a very stable population, and as a result of that many of our teachers have seniority beyond that which you would find in any other jurisdiction in the province outside of Sooke.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sooke. I maybe misread it — but I'll go over it again — but I believe that our average salary is higher than any other except Sooke because of the seniority of the school teachers.

What does one do? In New Westminster, of course, there has been — just like in other jurisdictions encouragement for those who wish to retire. But in a free society like ours, we certainly don't force people to retire, nor do we force them to move to other school districts. They have their homes there, and they are running an efficient school district, in my opinion.

There is a disparity of virtually $1 million between what is termed the needs budget in New Westminster and the minister's budget, fiscal framework, or whatever the new jargon is; it changes from time to time. Even under those circumstances, even with the school district saying that their needs budget is $12 million or whatever, they still have a list of areas that are not even covered in their needs budget and which in my opinion are very important. But they recognize, as do I and everybody else in this province, that there are only so many dollars, so they're prepared to pull back. Items such as speech therapy, $63,000; adult crossing guards, $21,000; health services, $22.800; and on and on it goes — very special needs for very special people. And the very special people are the children, in this particular instance of New Westminster, but the children of our whole province.

If we don't think that the children of this province are our most important resource, then we are on the wrong track. This Legislature should be addressing itself to that very fact. We think of our minerals, of our forests, of all the material things, and at the present time this government has come to the conclusion that they're going to divest themselves of their responsibility toward the most important resource in this province. That, Mr. Chairman, speaks for itself. It's not as though I'm a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. I'm a voice that is being echoed, and I'm echoing other voices all over this province. People take this question of education seriously, and so they should.

There are organizations now that I didn't dream possible a while ago. As you recall, the home and school association, which used to be the parent-teacher association, was in limbo for some time. There are organizations springing up now in response to this government's determination to cut beyond the bone of education funding. They're speaking in outrage,

[ Page 5674 ]

and so they should. The minister should listen, and so should his colleagues.

When I say the minister, I'm not dealing specifically with the minister. We know perfectly well that he goes to Treasury Board, as do all the other members of cabinet, seeking his budget. He was handed a budget by Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is off jaunting around the world — to London and then to Tokyo, I presume trying to borrow some money.... He got that budget, and it's inadequate. He knows it, we know it, and even the heckler from Vancouver South knows it. He knows it, because I think he has attended one or two meetings where people have told him rather strongly their opinion of this whole question. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I feel very frustrated because of the fact that there hasn't been the kind of dialogue between my school district and the Ministry of Education, particularly the minister himself....

Later on in the day or later in the debate I would like to discuss the question of Douglas College. I would like to know whether the minister is drawing some conclusions from this debate that might make a positive difference respecting those school districts that are hurting badly. Now we have cut back on services to our children; for instance, one I gave you which is an obvious service that I think is absolutely necessary is school crossing guards. It is such a piddling amount, and yet that isn't even in their needs budget. We mustn't endanger children on their way to school and on their way home, and once they get to school we must afford them the level of education that is necessary.

If there is anything we should be putting our money into today it's education, because eventually we're going to live through this recession/depression, or however you want to describe it, and once having done that, we had better have our human resource as well educated and as well trained as is possible. Compared to the rest of this country, we don't look good at all. Compared to the United States and other jurisdictions, we don't look good at all. How then can we compete in the future with a world better educated than we are? And, Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that if this kind of thing persists, we will slowly but surely reduce not only our ability to compete in the world markets without heavy immigration but our ability to think. And that is a very important aspect.

Mr. Chairman, the green light is on. I would just like to hear a few words of encouragement from the Minister of Education respecting our school district.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the member for New Westminster rose in his place during my estimates last year and raised the same question with respect to the commercial and industrial tax base. That point is true not only in his school district but also in some other school districts in the province, where we have in fact found that the total residential and commercial levy would handle the cost of public education. But we all realize, and it is a matter of government policy, that the object was to share that base provincewide. I think there are some pretty good reasons for it. I don't really think the member is disputing the reasons for it when he considers the revenues from a number of other sources which make contributions toward the other social schemes in place.

Another item that was raised involves the average salary. I recognize New Westminster is probably one of the oldest, if not the oldest, communities in the province. I recognize that it is a very stable community. I recognize that the age of the teaching force is probably among the highest in British Columbia. In the school district in 1984, the average wage was just under $37,000. What it is for 1985, I can't tell you, but that puts it at at roughly $1,700 above the provincial average. I believe Vancouver has a higher average, if I'm not mistaken.

One thing we did do was acknowledge the actual salaries paid within the entire funding system. That's why we often find a discrepancy between the services provided when we compare one school district to another. Even though they are providing identical services, it may very well be that the cost per student will be higher in one area than another. One cause of that differential is the average teacher's salary. The important point is that it is recognized within the funding framework, and it's acknowledged.

Recently I made a policy statement — within the last ten days — saying that we would agree to the floor for average teachers' salaries within the districts so that if in fact school boards, together with their local teachers' associations, wish to make any variation with respect to income, it would not result in a reduction of the average salary. The only time this will ever come into place, I would think, would be where there would pretty well be a wholesale transfer — and I don't think that's about to take place in any school district in British Columbia — and the majority would be younger members of staff as compared to those who are at the top of the grid.

[10:30]

I cannot make any specific comment on the item on crossing guards, because I do not know. I received a telegram from the New Westminster School District within the last 24 to 36 hours expressing a concern on the needs versus the compliance budget, but everybody does know that I'm expecting, and I have every reason to expect, a compliance budget from all districts.

In New Westminster it's interesting to note that even over the last several years the variation in the number of teachers involved is very, very small. In 1982 there were 205 teachers; in 1983 there were 193; in 1984 there were 189; and funded under the 1985-86 framework are 190.5. So what I'm seeing is a school district which is at the funding level. There seems to be some consistency, certainly in 1983, 1984, and what will be generated under the framework for 1985-86. Again it's 193, 189 and almost 191. So I see some consistency here. Also, when I look at the average PTR in New Westminster — for what that's worth — it is projected to be 17.9 for 1985-86, compared with a provincial average of, I believe, 18.28.

I think with respect to the comments that have been made involving the interest of the community, certainly I recognize those concerns. I think that they have been evident in a number of school districts in British Columbia. They have been evident as a result of the control of public expenditures in public education, and I concede that as well. Government is not at all unsympathetic to what the people are saying.

I will always maintain that we have a first-class system in British Columbia, but we have to produce it at a reasonable cost. Now we're into the third year of a three-year program. Once that equity has been established between districts, we have an opportunity to proceed the way we have, certainly to a degree in the past prior to the advent of the interim education finance act and particularly with the capping of budgets as provided in Bill 6. I'm as interested as any other member of the House — I would venture to say on both sides — in concluding the program which was set out over a period of three years.

[ Page 5675 ]

I notice the revival of interest has risen, but I don't think it's just due to the fact that constraints were placed on budgets. I think in many cases it's a matter of a genuine interest in education and in some degree of change. That became evident when there was discussion on curriculum. It became evident when there was discussion on external examinations.

I know the reading assessment test.... When we start talking about quality of education, I presume everybody has his own definition of quality, but probably results are one indication of that quality. The assessments in both reading and mathematics have shown an increase in performance. The increase in performance in the last one was in excess of 2 percent. I am told by people in the education field, both within and without the ministry, that that was a very significant increase. This all occurred during the period of time when we have been exercising some degree of control over expenditures. Without any doubt, those results compare favourably with, and I would venture to say probably exceed, the performance in neighbouring provinces, and I have no question about the results in comparison with U.S. studies.

Let me digress for a moment. Last night on public television there was one of the most fascinating programs I have seen for some time. It lasted an hour, and it was a U.S. program involving schools and the concerns about the dropouts. The conclusion they came to was that there were four reasons for it. I think the biggest concern really reflected a concern which the schoolchildren themselves had as to whether anybody really cared. They attributed the huge dropout to four major items: lack of parent involvement or parent concern at all — a number of single-parent family situations; pregnancy — it almost staggered me when I found out the figures they are putting forth in the U.S., which are that one out of every four teenage girls has her school program interrupted as a result of an unwanted pregnancy; fear of failure or achievement within the school system; and alcohol and drugs. As a result of this the big push was occurring in what they called cities within cities, in the inner-city schools. I point that out because when I look at the items involved I don't think that they are all related to cost — when we're talking about pregnancies, parental involvement, the use of alcohol and drugs, and the fear of failure to achieve.

I raise that because I think the concern which the member raised is that we have obviously got to be prepared for the future. The numbers involved, at least south of the border, were very significant. It wouldn't surprise me to see some of that evidence spilling over and being found within parts of British Columbia, particularly in densely populated areas. I assure the member that 1985-86 is the last fiscal year under the program. After that, it is the desire of government to bring in a new bill and restore.... The method of restoration I cannot be sure of. I'm most interested, as I've said repeatedly, in the views of the public; and the views of the public have been very significant.

I will take note of the item with respect to the crossing guard in New Westminster. I'm just wondering if the member could tell me the location. Do you have one in mind — or would you like to send me a note on that? There are a number of guards, and these are heavily traveled areas, from Surrey over through....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, regarding the average salary figures and so on, Vancouver is only $36,076, according to the table that the minister recently gave out. That's their estimate for 1985-86 fiscal. New Westminster is $36,621. So that's $600 higher. Sooke is the only one that's higher, and it's less than $100 higher; it's $36,748. Victoria, which the member from South Vancouver talked about, is only $35,810.

You know, the minister talks about the number of teachers and so on, and says that we've been able to manage. Now he knows perfectly well why we've been able to manage. They've dried up all their surpluses. We're now faced with the dark reality of having to grind it in on the minister's fiscal framework. We got by in the past because we had been a very conscientious, hard-nosed school district. They're the ones that get beaten up. They're the ones that get taken to the cleaners by this sort of thing. It's always the best-run that wind up at the bottom of the heap in the kind of world the minister has before us.

Anyway, I'm delighted that this is the third and last year of this kind of program. But, Mr. Chairman, we've heard that before. We've seen sunset clauses come and go, reintroduced, and so on and so forth. I have a grave concern.... But meanwhile, back at the ranch, we've got to live through this year, and if we live through this year — routing more programs — then as far as I'm concerned.... You know, looking at a new dawn tomorrow doesn't undo the damage that's done today. So that's my whole proposition.

When I talked about crossing guards, I was talking about a number of programs that we haven't even got in our needs budget any longer. I just mention crossing guards as $21,000 that they've taken out of their own budget because they haven't got it. But they've got other programs, such as speech therapy, which is $63,000, and that's being divested by themselves, and on and on it goes. A number of what I consider to be very important programs have already gone down the tube, and we're not asking for that one in particular. I just used them as examples of what's been going on there in order to get the cost down as low as possible. When I say they've dug into the bone, that's precisely what has happened. So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that that's the kind of thing that will give the minister cause to respond in a more positive way than we've seen heretofore.

[10:45]

MR. DAVIS: The hon. Minister of Education has asked all the people of B.C. to "talk about schools." That's an important topic. I think it even more important to talk about the recipients of education, about how they receive education — in other words, to talk more about those who consume the product of education rather than about the schools themselves, the bureaucracy and the professionals who deliver education as a very useful commodity.

The tendency increasingly is to look at education from the top down rather than from the bottom up; to centralize the administration of the educational process rather than to leave it to the individual, to the family head, indeed even to the students, to decide what they want to receive in terms of an education. We've seen the top-down system taking shape and form more and more in this province, and it's no exception. It's happened increasingly in other provincial jurisdictions. It's happened generally around the world. Now we have budgets, school district by school district, substantially determined here in Victoria, not by the school boards in individual districts. They basically are being told what the total amount is that they can spend in any given year. Admittedly, they've been given an opportunity to use a local referendum, but that would be used in a limited way, if at all.

[ Page 5676 ]

So we have centralization occurring, and it's understandable. The opposite approach would of course be, in the extreme instance, the adoption of a voucher system: the equivalent amount of money that's now spent on, let's say, primary and secondary education would be turned over to the parent or parents responsible for each child's upbringing, and they would decide. They, along with the child attending school, would decide which school to attend, even what classes were preferable, and certainly what subjects they wanted taught.

If we had a voucher system in universal application in British Columbia, each parent or family would receive the equivalent of some $4,000 a year per child, and they would shop around and buy the educational service of their choice — the quality and nature of their choice. Let's say $1,000 a quarter. It would have to be in the form of scrip; in other words, it would only have a purchase value at a recognized school which qualified in every way according to strict Ministry of Education standards. The teachers would have to be fully qualified. Basic courses would have to be taught, and the standards would be measured through periodic examinations or otherwise. There would have to be an overall supervision of the system, and the moneys would have to go for educational purposes. They would have to be spent at the schools, but at the schools of choice of the parents and the children involved.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

That is the bottom-up system. The user or consumer of the educational service would make the choice. It would be a system that would have to respond to the evaluation by parents of the teachers, the principals, the excellence and suitability of the school and its teaching capability, and in some measure by the students, who would be reporting back home to their mothers and fathers as to what kind of education they were getting, what the discipline was like, how good a teacher was at getting his or her message across, and so on. The consumer would have a substantial say in the production of that service.

Admittedly, it would be an uncomfortable system for many in the profession in that they would be continuously judged as to their ability to teach or at least to get their message across and through to the family heads who had this scrip at their disposal. The voucher system is a bottom-up system. It's basically a democratic system. It's basically a system which gives the end-user a choice.

The voucher system has been much discussed but little implemented on this continent. There have been attempts, I think, in California, in New York state and in several other areas of the United States to put it into effect. I think it's operating in a few cases but certainly not generally, and not statewide anywhere in the U.S.A. It's employed in emerging — in fact, in highly successful — economies like Hong Kong and Singapore; but there, of course, education has been at a premium; educational facilities are limited. Perhaps it was the simplest and most effective approach to use in the early stages of the evolution of the educational systems in those countries. But it is being used in some parts of the world.

It is basically democratic. It takes the principal decision-making function away from the professionals and the bureaucrats, and puts it in the hands of the individual parent and, in some measure, in the hands of the individual recipient of the education, the child itself.

In British Columbia, and indeed throughout much of Canada, there has been a conviction that education should not be a charge on property but, indeed, that it should be a charge on ability to, pay; that education should not be funded through the property tax, even in part, but should be funded out of the general revenue of the state or, in this case, the province — in other words, that those who have benefited from the economy at large should basically pay for the education of the young, and they in turn, when they grow up and begin to earn, should begin to pay for a system which has benefited everyone; that property is not a good measure of ability to pay; and that property is a very narrow base on which to levy exceptional charges of this kind. These charges are becoming exceptional, because we are spending more and more on education. In this province we are now spending $4,000 per student in our primary and secondary schools. If you look at many family budgets, that's a big item. Obviously others, in addition to the family, have to pay.

The McMath commission of some years ago recommended, among other things, a shift away from property as the principal base for generating income for the educational process. The McMath commission recommended that 75 percent of the cost of primary and secondary education be met out of the provincial treasury, the general revenue of the province. We've reached that stage today: 75 percent of the total cost of primary and secondary education in this province is funded by Victoria. Admittedly, a part of that comes from a property tax levied on commercial and industrial property owners, but well over half comes out of the otherwise general revenue of the province.

Refining the 75 percent figure somewhat, 60 percent comes out of general revenue — income tax, sales tax, and so on; some 35 percent out of property tax, of which 25 percent is commercial-industrial and 10 percent is residential. The residential contribution, in other words, is of the order of 10 percent currently; and there's a remainder of 5 percent, and that 5 percent is provided by the province, federal government otherwise, for special needs, including the educational services to our native people and so on. Clearly the residential tax is now a minor contributor –– 10 percent out of a total of 100 percent. It's not a big item, relatively speaking.

I think the province was right in taking over property taxes on industrial and commercial concerns, because they tend to be located in some communities and not in others. By the province taking over property tax in that area, it has in effect been redistributing that wealth more generally — some might say more fairly — across the educational spectrum.

I want to make my point again. We're at that 75 percent point. I know some in opposition they wouldn't argue this way if they were in government ignore the homeowner's grant. But the homeowner's grant does come out of the general revenue of the province, and conceptually, at least, I think there are other arguments that support this. The homeowner grant goes to the individual so that the individual homeowners can pay their municipal taxes. So you could have a system whereby the homeowner grant was done away with and the equivalent amount of money was paid directly into the school districts. That's the kind of calculation I would make if I were arriving at a conclusion as to how much of the bill the province pays. It pays 75 percent because it collects the money, it distributes the money, in some instances directly to the school district, and in the case of the homeowner grant through the individual homeowner and back into the school system in order to defray the cost of education.

[ Page 5677 ]

Now I have a particular bone to pick with the ministry when it comes to North Vancouver School District. We have a weird and wonderful formula for calculating grants to school districts, and the formula does take into account the assessed value of residential properties. Municipalities with expensive homes or certainly high average home assessments are deemed to be better able to pay. The provincial grant to the school district in question is therefore less than to another school district where the average assessment is lower.

I'll have to return to this subject, because it's an involved one, Mr. Chairman. North Vancouver happens to be at the apex of a weird formula which somehow enables even richer municipalities like West Vancouver to get a special break and just because of the odd nature of the formula puts North Vancouver in the position where even though it has lower average assessment, it has to pay more out of local taxes in order to keep the system going. I'll return to this topic at the first opportunity.

[11:00]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, the voucher system has been raised on a number of occasions. I gather it may be appealing to some, coming from the bottom up instead of the top down, but I think that the administration of that system would cause a great many problems. It seems to me that if it really does have value, it would have been in place somewhere on a permanent basis. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour makes reference to, I think, the state of New York and perhaps two or three others. I am told that in special needs it may be used in the state of California, but it has been fraught with problems. While it is an interesting concept, I have to advise you that I don't have that on my priority list.

With respect to the statements on allocation of funding for public education, the figures for 1984 were about 51.5 percent from consolidated revenue, about 34.5 percent from commercial and residential, and about 8.5 percent from residential. The vast majority of residents in school districts in B.C., on average, after deduction of the homeowner grant, do not make any real contribution toward the education tax. As a matter of fact, it is reduced over four years: it has gone down from $187 million to $157 million. I don't know what it's going to be this year, but I suspect that it will probably be somewhere in the category of — I'm guessing — $160 million, and probably because of the expanded tax base as a result of new construction.

You know, I have had the argument put before me dozens of times and the suggestion of the opposition with respect to.... I believe that report was commissioned by the opposition when they were government, if I'm not mistaken. Seventy-five percent, yes. But if you'll note, the increase and the drift towards heavy taxation in the commercial-industrial area, and in particular of machinery and equipment, has now been checked. It's to be phased out over a very short period of time. The revenue generated from machinery and equipment, as I recall, is something in the order of $180 million, and the first phase alone of deleting that portion is going to increase the contribution from consolidated revenue by something in excess of $80 million. So I think we're moving in the right direction. The sums of money are so staggering that it would be almost impossible to bring in overnight what everybody may think desirable.

I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile considering the other side of the coin as well. As far as the residential taxpayer is concerned, when you look at what the net is on average, the contribution made by property owners and the residential base in British Columbia is really not all that significant. When you take the average amount paid.... When you look at it, it seems to me that the total removal of the residential tax for school purposes might often place school districts in a very difficult position — where the demands being made by the public on school boards.... "They're not our costs. We don't have to worry about it at all." It might in fact make the demands almost unbearable. So I'm not so sure it's such a bad thing that the residential property tax payer should be paying something towards schools.

The last item, though, which the member raises — which I understand is a bit of an anachronism as far as North Vancouver School District is concerned — is the amount of taxation paid there. We in the ministry are aware of that particular problem. I just asked one of my officials whether or not it is being addressed, and there is one particular person looking at it. His name is Mr. Barry Anderson. If the member wishes to discuss that issue with him, he should take that name. You might be able to make some suggestions which will assist us in clarifying that problem, because we do know that the difference between property values in the two school districts on the North Shore, North Van and West Van — at least from my observation, anyway, if my eyes do not deceive me.... I would think that the significant value would be in the area which is apparently not the recipient of the problem. But the area where I would expect to find a lower level of assessment is the area from which the member is elected.

So I leave that name with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. We are aware of it, and he may wish to add some more to it. But we are looking at it.

MR. DAVIS: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I would not argue for the total elimination of a local property tax for educational purposes, paid locally, with the funds going from the local property owner into the school board budget and spent within the school district in question. The main reason I would argue for some local property tax being used in this way is that when school trustees are elected they should have certain responsibilities. One of these responsibilities should be to account to the local taxpayer for the manner in which the funds were administered. Those who are taxed locally would take a particular interest because those funds would be administered locally. In a system in which there was greater local autonomy, that discretionary element in the system would foster accountability, would make the election of school trustees more meaningful and would give them a job to do.

I think, more important still, that, instead of their present role, in which they basically throw up their hands and say: "We're not responsible for taxation. We're not responsible for the gathering of funds from you, the taxpayers. We're merely the distributors of the funds...." There is a great temptation to talk only about needs and not about how the needs are met. In the evolution of our system, in which centralization in Victoria has become the fact, the school trustee now mainly has the role of distributor of provincial.... I won't call it largess, but provincially dictated sums of money.

I would argue that there should be some local taxation, and, because municipalities are limited by their tax base to largely taxing property, that means taxing property in some

[ Page 5678 ]

degree — but, I would say, taxing in a discretionary way, and taxing for what I would loosely call extras in the system rather than for the core curriculum, which I believe should be funded provincially, largely out of income, sales and other taxes.

To return to the plight of School District 44 — the city of North Vancouver's district — I'm quoting from figures supplied by the ministry. I see first that North Vancouver School District, along with a dozen other school districts, actually net pays into the school system. Otherwise, the remainder of the 75 school districts, net, don't pay anything in the form of residential tax. Admittedly, I am including the homeowner grant in my calculations. If you include the homeowner grant as a grant going substantially to schools and school districts for their administration, the vast majority of school districts in this province don't pay any property tax. They don't pay any tax levied on the local property owner. But North, Vancouver, West Vancouver, Delta, Richmond, Burnaby, Saanich and one or two others do in varying degrees. Those with the highest average residential assessment pay the most.

But lo and behold, a couple of years ago, because West Vancouver school tax, as dictated by Victoria, produced more revenue than was needed to finance their total primary and secondary school system, and because they were required to turn the surplus over to the province, it was decided to eliminate that particular nonsense. So a special formula was developed to somehow reduce the tax in West Vancouver. So today, where the average assessment in West Vancouver is 50 percent higher than in North Vancouver, the net cost of primary and secondary education in North Vancouver is $285 per home, and it's only $181 in West Vancouver.

So clearly a formula was developed to look after the very rich communities a couple of years ago. It's a formula which allows that sort of thing to happen; indeed, it is devised in order to make it happen. It is not equitable, not sensible and not rational. It's about time that formula was eliminated. I'm arguing on the one hand that there should be some property tax paid. I would argue for a system going back to square one, where the province paid so much per pupil to every school district and stood back. If the school district wanted to raise residential property taxes in order to supplement the educational system in that particular school district, so be it, but at least give the local school trustees that much autonomy and treat all school districts equally.

I think that the first thing we have to do is make sure that North Vancouver is treated at least as well as wealthy West Vancouver. Better still, let's treat all school districts the same and not have a very elaborate financial formula in place which very few people understand. I doubt if any of the MLAs in this House understand it, and I doubt very much whether many of the school trustees across the province understand it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the comments made recently with respect to the minister's estimates have been very far-reaching and quite interesting. It's an extension of the soap opera that's been going on for some months. There is a great controversy over education, always centering on dollars, always coming back to dollars. The arguments put forward by the school boards and by the self-interest groups always centre around dollars. According to them, dollars translate into quality. You can solve any problem in the world, apparently, with respect to education, if you pour more money in. That always seems to be the problem. The conversations I've had with self-interest groups in the educational field are primarily almost exclusively to do with the amount of money being allocated for school functions.

I had the opportunity of speaking with my school board in Richmond about their budget for 1985-86. We had some very interesting meetings with representatives of the school board, the trustees, representatives of the Richmond teachers' association, CUPE and people from the school district itself about the budget for 1985-86. Richmond School Board, in its stupidity, sent the Minister of Education what they referred to as a needs budget. I've heard different reasons as to why they agreed to that particular silly idea of submitting what they called a needs budget. It was about $59 million for Richmond.

[11:15]

The needs budget had a relatively short lifetime. I think it was a matter of ten days later, when I had the opportunity of meeting with them, that the budget had been pared to about $54 million. So $5 million had been found or eliminated during that period of time. A couple of highly capable people in Education reviewed the budget for me. The Richmond School District felt it still needed $1.975 million to meet its needs, and I had a very capable person in that field review the budget on my behalf. It took him about an hour to find the $1.975 million — no problem at all.

I again met with the senior representatives of the district a week later on the Tuesday morning and was advised by the superintendent that the previous night the school board had approved a budget of some $52 million, in compliance with the Ministry of Education's budget. So in about two week's time $7 million was identified, found or otherwise eliminated. It was most interesting to go through the exercise with the school district.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that the quality of education in Richmond is very high. Richmond has always been a leader in the education field. It was one of the first districts to introduce some very progressive concepts with respect to the education of the mentally and physically handicapped, and some other programs. Richmond is not a poor community. The budget has been high. It is somewhere in the middle, I know, on a per capita basis and per student expenditure, and has attracted a high level of educator for many years. But it was most interesting to look at some of the numbers, because we are constantly being told by the ill-informed that the system is underfunded. Everything is underfunded.

So we looked at some of the numbers as supplied by Richmond School District. The superintendent, who is a very capable man, receives a salary of approximately $74,000 a year. That doesn't seem to be out of line with the average for superintendents throughout the province — that is, if, you require the position at all. But in Richmond we have three assistant superintendents, and they're in at about $71,000 each. I have yet to find anyone in that system who agrees that we need three assistant superintendents in Richmond. Richmond is only 50 square miles. It has about 40-odd schools. I cannot believe that we need — and I can't find anyone who agrees that we need — three assistant superintendents for Richmond. In fact, I would argue that we could get by with a superintendent. I doubt if we need any assistants at all. I'm advised they're under contract till 1989, for some reason.

Other interesting numbers were provided to me. In conversation, again with educators in Richmond, I said: "Would you please let me know what a district curriculum coordinator does?" A couple of years ago they had ten of them.

[ Page 5679 ]

They now have five, and they're going to reduce it to three. I'm told they don't need any. They only cost $44,000 each a year. They used to have ten; now they have five and they're reducing it to three. There's a question of whether they're required at all — not that when they are working they're not performing a service, but whether they are required to be on permanent staff is a very real question.

Those are the district curriculum coordinators. In addition there are three part-time district curriculum coordinators who also teach. But then we have 68 curriculum coordinator teachers. That was very difficult to define. In effect, they suggested that these people are what you might refer to as a head teacher in that specific subject at a school, but it's a little difficult to define precisely what the added responsibility is that would provide those instructors, on average, about $4,000 a year. There were 68; the salary, $2.751 million. They are also teaching. So that money is not just for curriculum coordinators.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, they are also teaching.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, I don't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Comments should be directed toward the Chair.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have no doubt that in the school system there is a tremendous waste of money, as there is in almost every system.

Mr. Chairman, what annoys me somewhat, in speaking to the self-interest groups in the education system — that certainly is not the students — who are constantly complaining about lack of money, is that they're telling me, although not necessarily directly, that it's not lack of money in the system, it's lack of money in their pocket. I'm told by some educators in Richmond that they would agree to the layoff of 68 teachers if that translated into an increase for the rest. That's not the official line; I recognize that. That's the information given to me. Sure, lay off a few, then dump on the government and blame the minister for layoffs. But that's preferable to not getting an increase in salary across the board.

Increases in salary across the board: in Richmond we have 780 full-time equivalent teachers — average salary approximately $36,000 a year; our curriculum coordinator teachers — average salary approximately $40,500 a year; assistants to principals, of which there are 21 — $43,000 a year on average; vice-principals in junior secondary — $47,000 on average; vice-principals in senior secondary — an average of $55,000; elementary principals — an average of $55,000; district curriculum coordinators — an average of $44,000 a year; and as I said previously, the assistant superintendents — an average of $71,000 a year.

Obviously there are many other employees in the system who are not teachers. There's a great list of those people who are not employed as teachers, and the salaries vary: the secretary-treasurer as an example — $69,000 a year; the comptroller — $54,000; the assistant managers (maintenance), and there are two of them — approximately $40,000 a year each.

Mr. Chairman, I would argue that there is plenty of money in the system. I would very seriously question the manner in which it is spent — the priorities. I'm told by the teachers in Richmond and others that they are interested mainly in the in-classroom situation. The money should go to teachers in the classroom, and I wonder why, then, so much is going for non-classroom expenditure. I don't mean the maintenance men, and I don't mean those people who work in the Taj Mahal offices they have in Richmond — they're trying to rent out the top two floors now to somebody — but they spend lots of money, I can assure you, in Richmond and in other school districts.

Speaking of that, I'm sure the Minister of Education very soon will have a look at that ridiculous situation of having 75 school districts in a province of less than three million people. Cute little districts out there are fully staffed, with probably fewer students than in a major high school. However, it's jobs for somebody, I guess.

MR. ROSE: Now you're being silly.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, no. I know the Ministry of Education is moving on it, because there are rumours that there could be an amalgamation of Mission and Harrison, two of the larger school districts.

MR. ROSE: Mission impossible.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mission impossible is right.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of the noise that's happened over the past while, very carefully orchestrated — well, not cleverly orchestrated but carefully orchestrated — has come from certain school districts in the province who are highly motivated, not for educational purposes but for political purposes, and they are right in there making lots of noise. I'll tell you, I would very much like — and I can identify individuals I would select — to go in and have a good look at the manner in which some of these districts are operated. Not presupposing they're not operated properly, but, boy, I'd like a couple of people I could think of to go in and have a really good look at what's going on, to find out if there are any horses on the payroll and to find out if there are expenditures which are really not required, or whether there are a few little bits and pieces of accounts here and there that may be located, found or utilized — a really clear picture of what it's really about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We have these critics who come out and talk about British Columbia's relative position on a percentage of provincial product or on this, that and the other thing, ignoring constantly the amount of money spent per pupil in the province. B.C. ranks very well. We have people on the other side who say that teachers' average pay is the sixth lowest, and someone says no, they are the second highest — that must be Iona Carnpagnolo figuring out those relative positions.

The people in Richmond, I can assure you, after being advised of what money is being spent, where it's being spent and and how, are quickly running out of patience with that constant bellyaching about more and more money being required to be tossed into the education pot just so we can maintain this very high standard of living that some of these people enjoy.

[ Page 5680 ]

Richmond School Board is not that much different than any other school board in the province. When it comes down to cutting budgets, they go right where it's at. One of the first things they decided to cut last year was health services — the nurses within the school district. Now they've dumped the dentists, which is fine. But they go for where the real waste and heavy money is: the crossing guards, the speech pathologists or others, who have been providing good service to the students of Richmond. Because, I was told by a school trustee, they do not wish to affect teachers' salaries or the numbers of teachers. To them that was forbidden; they couldn't do that. They stripped down everything else. Don't pay any attention to reality, to numbers, and what's being paid.

There's a very carefully orchestrated network of complainers throughout the province, but they're not as effective as they thought. I wish every school district would provide to their local media a breakdown of what the costs actually are and then have the average income-earner in B.C. be asked how sorry they feel for all these people in the education system when they have a look at what kind of compensation they're receiving, and the person who's grossing perhaps $24,000 a year is being asked to pay more and more taxes to pump up a system which is already thick, not at the head but at the shoulders — in some instances, perhaps, at the head.

Mr. Chairman, I think we've worked well with our Richmond School Board. They've come in with a compliance budget, and I think every school district in the province probably could identify a tremendous amount of what otherwise could be considered surplus dollars.

MR. ROSE: Just briefly, because I have another speech to make on television, so I'll have to go and get my makeup on. I wasn't intending to speak, but I get provoked from time to time, especially by the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Neilsen), who I think might live to regret some of his remarks and his teacher-bashing, as if there's a great conspiracy here. Justified criticism of policies is considered self-interested bleatings, and the great conspiracy theory. It sounds like the theory of the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world that got Keegstra in so much trouble.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that demands have been excessive in the last three or four years in terms of teacher salaries. They've been effectively frozen, there's no question about that. If you want to know the per-pupil cost, we are sixth. I'm not suggesting that there's any reason why we should be first, but there's no reason why we should be last either. We have the same ability to pay as any other province, and more than some. Here's where we are. Number one, per pupil cost — this is also directed to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) — $4,695 per pupil per year in Quebec. Second is Alberta, our neighbouring province, a good right-wing province — $4,616; third is Saskatchewan, another Conservative province — $4,390; fourth is Manitoba — $4,301; fifth, Ontario — $4,027. So I don't think that we're out of line at all there.

If it's helpful to suggest that those employed as curriculum coordinators to organize and plan the math or music or other curriculum areas are somehow not valuable because they are not in the classroom every day, perhaps we might say the same thing about a lot of other people, including the members of the bureaucracy over there. They're a cost to education as well. They get handsome salaries, I'm told, far outstripping that of any MLA and maybe even competing with some cabinet ministers for the public buck that that poor average bloke making $24,000 a year is going to be so envious of.

But that doesn't mean that their work is not valid. It doesn't mean that they're not useful. Is it wrong to suggest that somebody should be coordinating the math program or the learning assistance program or some other program in an elementary school? I think that is ignorant criticism. It's close to demagoguery, and I don't think we need to accept it.

I hadn't intended to speak about this, but I did want to respond to the former minister from North Vancouver–Seymour on a couple of other things.

[11:30]

We do need choice in the public system. But I think it needs to be in the public system. I don't think we should be going outside of the public system for a lot of voucher-related privatization of the school system. It might work in Vancouver, where you've got a reasonable transportation system. How would a voucher system for various little schools work in Osoyoos? Under the present financial conditions, they can't even keep their high school open in Osoyoos. It was a full system; it no longer is.

Again, we have the independent school situation. We have their lobbyist in the gallery. There are all kinds of other suggestions about independent schools and criticisms by them of double taxation. Perhaps instead of giving them 30 percent of their average per-pupil cost, we could just return their taxation to them if they're complaining about being double-taxed. That would amount to about 8 percent of the costs of the schools, not 30 percent. So there are other ways of dealing with this.

Mr. Chairman, again, I have other fish to fry, but I agree with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) when he says there should be a formula that applies throughout in terms of taxation. The average West Vancouver homeowner pays 46 percent less school tax than the average homeowner in North Vancouver. That's unfair, especially when you have the higher assessed values in West Vancouver. I agree with what the minister says: we've got a centralized system. We've got an inequitable system, and he suggests that we should have a per-pupil grant and let the other be raised locally. There'd be some problems with that, perhaps, as well.

But those are really my few remarks. There are others I could make, and I will make them. But I think that uninformed criticism of the kind that is being levelled is just making the educational debate far more political than it needs to be. I don't know that we're going to gain a lot by that. I think that by all comparisons B.C. is not excessively extravagant in rewarding its staff or its teachers.

We're reaching a point where we're going to offer a limited fare, and I would have liked to ask the member, if he had stayed here.... Oh, here he comes. He's gone for his notes. He's back. I would have liked to have been able to ask him if he feels that learning assistants, who perhaps don't teach regular classrooms, are not a valid kind of service. We could go through the whole thing: programs that are being cut, planning and coordinating that's being diminished. I can go through a lot of those things, but I don't intend to do that now.

I did want to make those few points before I sat down. I'll probably be able to expand on some of them a little bit later, but I have another appointment. I'm sorry I have to be away for a minute or two, but I'll stay until the minister replies.

[ Page 5681 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Are you back this afternoon?

MR. ROSE: Yes. You want to reply then?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes.

MR. ROSE: All right. Thank you.

MR. MITCHELL: I find it fascinating when I sit here and I listen to two of the previous speakers, who tend to want to attack individuals. I think our NDP education debate leader was correct when he said that we can't afford this attack, this attitude that it's individuals who are causing all the problems. What I find so fascinating is that, if the education system is in the state that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) indicates, it's from 32 years of Social Credit administration. I think these are the facts that we have to recognize, plus the difference in priorities of this government. The government can find a billion dollars to build an ALRT in the lower mainland; that's a priority. But the education of this province is the most important function of this society.

It's not only we in the opposition saying that. I'd like to read you a part of a speech made by Bruce Howe, chairman of B.C. Resources. He's not one who could be considered as a left-wing person or a strong supporter of the NDP; he's a businessman. If there are any more right-wing businessmen who are not sitting on the other side of the House, I would say that he falls in that particular group. He says: "Business should be talking about the need to maintain a quality education system in British Columbia. The days are long gone when a grade 8 education and a will to work were enough to get you by. Today's business world already demands a high level of expertise and the intellectual flexibility to cope with constant change. Tomorrow's business world will make even heavier demands." This is what we are trying to get through to the government and the minister. The future of British Columbia depends on our education system.

We can't afford the pleasures of taking pot-shots at individuals. If any individual in the school system or any individual in the rest of the province is getting a wage that the Minister of Health feels is exorbitant, then you have an income tax system to level it off. But you can't keep picking out one group. We could pick out doctors who are getting exorbitant fees, we could pick out lawyers who are getting exorbitant fees and we could pick out politicians who are getting exorbitant fees, but the way of correcting the education system or the legal system or the political system is not by attacking individuals.

We have to build up from the ground. You know, we have to look at the total picture of where we are going to go in British Columbia. We've got to look at the new technologies we have. We have to plan and develop the people who are going to live in our societies. The Minister of Health attacks the needs budget as if it were some dirty word. What is a needs budget as defined by the B.C. School Trustees' Association. The metro branch of the BCSTA has defined a needs budget as follows: "...that the January-June 1985 budget be set at least at 1984 service levels plus an inflation factor." What is that? Was the education in 1984 so expensive? We don't even recognize that there is an inflation factor in the system.

If you are going to freeze teachers' salaries or if you are going to freeze school board funds, then are you going to freeze inflation and are you going to freeze the cost of living that is built into the system? Are you going to freeze prices that various companies put on the supplies that the school boards have to buy? I would like to get into a long legal discussion on the directives that are coming from the minister. Are they legal?

We have so many sections of the School Act that school boards must conform to in negotiations. There are certain other parts of different legislation that set a certain standard of costs. But above all that, when the school boards have to go through the hoops, they have to go through discussions and negotiations. They have to buy on the open market, they have to look at all the outside influences, and they have to set a standard of education that is needed in their area. But what happens? From the centralized office in Victoria the Minister of Education keeps on cutting the basic budget. He keeps changing the goal-posts. When you have this situation, you are going to have chaos. You are going to have the chaos that has evolved after 32 years of Social Credit mismanagement and trying to find a simple answer. The simple answer of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) or the simple answer of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), attacking individuals, is not the way to do it. There is no simple answer. There is a need to look at education for what it is.

I would like to discuss what's happening to the major school district in my riding, Sooke School District. What is happening is erosion, and I say there is no other word for what is happening to the standard of education in Sooke School District. I know the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) and the Minister of Health are going to say that I am using figures that may have been prepared by vested interests. I say that we in this House.... The minister has set his figure of 19-some-odd for the teacher-pupil ratio. The minister says that that figure really doesn't mean anything, because it takes in administrators and all kinds of other groups. If we are going to use a real teacher-pupil relationship, we should taake wht the real facts are in the schoolroom. That's the only place you can look. That is where the teachers and the pupils are together. That's the only relationship that you can use. You can't use some mythical figure that is pulled out of the air. When you take the schoolteachers who are in the profession, when they are dealing with it and they have studied it.... They're not a bunch of dummies, wasters or anything else; they're fellow British Columbians, fellow Canadians.

[11:45]

When they set a figure for grades 4 to 12 of 30 students per teacher, would the minister say that it is too low? When they say that for primary grades the ratio should be 25 students to every teacher, when they set a figure for kindergarten.... We all recognize, all of us who have been parents, who have watched our children start their education, that the kindergarten level is the most important section of a child's start in education. How he gets to learn to associate with fellow students and to relate to the teacher, to classroom discipline and to learning skills — all this starts in kindergarten. They have set a figure of one teacher to 20 students.

Special classes. I talk about special classes because I worked as a police officer with the people who copped out of special classes; the people who 10 or 15 years ago were the dropouts, because there was not special education for some of those who had problems. The end cost to society was far more than one teacher to every ten children in a special needs class. The end cost when they became criminals, or when

[ Page 5682 ]

they entered the criminal justice system, was far more expensive than the one to ten that.... I know certain people in the right wing would make broad statements that they're not needed. I say these are sound figures from people who work with students. They are part of the evolvement of the education system. The education system that I went through, or many people in this House, is not the same education system that we have today in British Columbia. We have a whole different economic development, job situations, technology. As Bruce Howe said, there was a time when, if you had a grade 8 education, a strong back and a will to work, you could get a job. But it's changing; I think we all recognize that.

What's happening in the Sooke School District? Certain standards have been established. They weren't pulled out of the air; they're not something that I think any one of us can get up and pick holes in. When you look at what's happening because of the cutbacks that have taken place in education in British Columbia, you find that the overall increase in class size is approaching a dangerous level. Classes over 30 are now common in 120 classes in the Sooke district. In the elementary classes, 48 percent, or 82 classes, are in excess of the guidelines set down by the education fraternity. It's easy to say 82, 84, 81, but there are students in every one of those classes who are not getting a fair, proper exposure to education. I mentioned kindergarten. This is where you start off to get your basic training for education, Forty percent of the kindergarten classes in Sooke are oversized. This is what's happening. It's easy to pick out somebody who is getting $40,000 and say he's to blame, but it's not.... It's the students who are the victims.

I see, Mr. Chairman, that the green light is on. I have a lot more to go through, but I would like the Minister of Education to give some answer on what he really feels the classes should be. He has a figure of 19-point-some-odd. Is that a correct figure? What does he really think the size of kindergarten classes and secondary classes in the school system should be?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Perhaps I could relate to some of the concerns the member has raised. I agree with some of your opening comments, if you know what I mean.

In Sooke the average elementary class is 24. In secondary it's 23.4. Now those are figures which I've made available; I'm sure all members have it for their classes. I don't think there should be any problem with 19.1. I've advised on innumerable occasions that that was a financial equivalent. It was the only service level available when we first started. It looks to me like the overall provincial average will be something in the order of about 18.28. Now this varies from district to district all over the province, and we know the reasons why.

Now I gather the House Leader would like to conclude this morning's session, but I would like to make one reference to the service levels to which the member has referred. The service levels under the framework are very clear. When it was under preparation.... I can tell you that after being assigned the portfolio, one of the items that I insisted upon in the preparation of the funding system was that the service levels prescribed for funding would be at least as good as or better than those which are prescribed by the BCTF, with one exception. That exception was kindergarten. There has been a view that the number of students in kindergarten should be 20. My position was 22.

With respect to secondary funding, for every 22 to 24.... It varies, you know, for the first 1,500, from then on up to a maximum of 24 for funding purposes. For elementary, including primary from 1 to 7, it is 25 to 27. Now, that's the funding which is made available. How the school districts wish to allocate that funding is entirely up to them.

If you wish to have an examination of the timetables in each of the schools, you will no doubt find that by design — I repeat, by design — many school districts intentionally develop classes which have 30 or more students, because that is their choice and that's the way they want it. This became clear to me when I met with a number of boards. Many school districts have already set their own policy as to what they think is the adequate number of students in a class. So we've really got a classroom teacher-student ratio. That's what they're talking about. That's the one that I subscribe to.

The other reason for the PTR and the average which we use is the different ways in which school districts approach the administration of their own schools. That's why we have to go back to that overall PTR. Many school districts may turn around and say: "Just a minute. We would much prefer to have 28 to 32 in a particular class." Others would say: "No, we want 24 to 27." So I have got to fall back on one constant. That's all that means. There's nothing else to it. The point was made Tuesday, when we started talking about the staff-student ratio. Your colleague, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), raised it, as well as other colleagues. I recognize it, but I think the important thing is that when we look at classroom averages they seem realistic. I know that when you go into a school you're going to find considerable variations. Some of that — probably most of it — is done by design.

The only area that gives me some concern is where I find them swelling to some degree in grades 8 and 9. That's the real problem that gives me some concern. The other one involves the splits in some school districts, in grades 4 and 5 particularly.

So those service levels were set, and they're within the funding framework. How the school districts wish to allocate their funds is entirely up to them.

MR. ROSE: That's not entirely true.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As far as I'm concerned it is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes.

I can hardly wait for your response, but I think we're going to have to wait until this afternoon, because I've got a direction from the House Leader.

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 11:57 a.m.