[ Page 8001 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) On vote 16: minister's office –– 8001

Mr. Lockstead
Mr. Michael
Ms. Brown
Mr. Gabelmann
Mr. MacWilliam

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 16: minister's office, $211,280.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank my colleague who was supposed to speak at this time, and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), who within 20 minutes has to attend the same committee meeting as I do. So I will try to be brief and give him a chance to speak.

Mr. Chairman, we are debating the spending estimates of the Minister of Education. As you are aware, I have three whole school districts in my riding plus parts of two others. I will deal briefly with the three districts in my riding.

Mr. Chairman, one gets up in the estimates and reiterates the same problems that have been discussed by member after member in this House. The problems in School Districts 46, 47 and 49 are really no different than those facing every other school district in the province in one form or another.

I guess what we are really talking about here is the competency of this government to administer a school system throughout the province. As members we have received information from our research, from newspapers, from school boards, from teachers' associations, from students, from parents. The fact is that the government has been found wanting in the ability to properly administer the education system of this province.

However, my purpose in getting up for a few moments this morning was to very briefly talk about my three districts, starting with School District 46, which encompasses the Sunshine Coast, as the minister well knows, Mr. Chairman. That school district has sent a message to the government, and their message is: "Bluntly, we need more money. Complicated fiscal framework is supposed to be equitable, but is not. Fiscal framework is no longer creditable or valid, but merely a political tool." That one paragraph speaks volumes about the administrative ability of this government and that ministry. The fact is that local decision-making has to a large degree been taken away from school boards. School District 46 is an area that is growing. It is one of the few districts that is increasing in terms of school population. I know that the minister will get up at some point and quote teacher-pupil ratios, which really aren't valid, because they include the administrative staff, and we have in many instances classrooms that are above the recommended limit. How can any single teacher teach 38 children properly in a grade 2, grade 3, or grade 5 classroom, or whatever? It's a babysitting job. They can't properly teach those children, so the children start off on the wrong foot in those primary grades particularly.

School District 47 also sent a message to the government. School District 47, which takes in the Powell River regional area, passed a motion for a return of the industrial tax base to allow boards to have more control over their own financing. That in itself, Mr. Chairman, speaks volumes. The House will recall that approximately three years ago the government confiscated the industrial taxation base for all school districts in British Columbia. You expect school boards to carry out certain functions; then you take away their tax base, and as a result we've had cutbacks in the number of teachers in some areas and cutbacks in programs. At the current time we have teachers all over the province taking job action — working to rule.

Just as an aside, you might be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, that currently the teachers in School District 47 are on a work-to-rule campaign, and a couple of weeks ago there was a large protest by students in that district. The students — 700 of them, and my daughter was one of those students taking part in that demonstration — weren't protesting the actions of the teachers or the school board. They were protesting the political actions of this government. The teachers were not taking part in extracurricular activities. Therefore these students were not having their after-school and evening sports, such as volleyball and basketball, school dances, field trips, whatever — the whole thing. The school teachers aren't doing anything illegal.

I think the government is using its great powers to bring on these events, and in my opinion, it's probably doing it on purpose for political reasons. There are some people out there who think that school teachers get too much money, that things are too lax at school, that classes are too easy, that children nowadays don't have to walk 15 miles to go to school, and on and on and on. I think the government thinks they have a good political issue here. But I think they're wrong, and when they call the election — and I hope it's soon — that will be driven home to them at that time.

One more word about School District 47. I get the minutes from the various school board meetings, as they are held, and I do read them. I'm just going to quote from a very recent edition of the Powell River News. They have reporters at every one of the school board meetings. It's quite concise. It says here:

"Last year the provincial grant was $9.8 million for School District 47, with the remaining $2.3 million raised through local taxation. If the grant remains the same this year as it was last year, and the board decides to keep the budget at its current $12.2 million, then an extra $400,000 will have to be raised from the residential sector, or more than $40 per property."

The actual figure, for the benefit of the minister, is $434,000 of additional funds that will have to be found, just to maintain last year's level of education. That's not increasing the number of teachers, the various curricula, or anything like that — just to keep even. In other words, there is a shortfall of $434,000 this year, which means a tax increase of $40 per property.

The article goes on to say that 53 of the 75 school boards in B.C. have submitted preliminary budgets to the ministry that would have gone beyond the fiscal framework amounts.

[10:15]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It's 68 now, my colleague informs me. Well, that's incredible.

Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is listening, but I'm going to get the same answer to these questions that he's

[ Page 8002 ]

given every other member, on both sides of the House. I knew that before I got up. But I do feel I have a responsibility to the children, the teachers and the school boards in my riding.

One more school district. This is quite a special case, Mr. Chairman. School District 49, Central Coast, has a very small tax base. Let me put it more succinctly, if I can. A budgetary shortfall of $200,000 in that school district is anticipated for this fiscal year. The school board feels that their backs are against the wall and that they will have to have a deficit. I hope the minister can answer this one for that school district particularly, because it's very, very important. Communities up in that area are isolated and currently have very poor transportation services — something we hope to improve should we become the government. The children in those small communities that are isolated by large bodies of water don't have the intercommunication that perhaps school children in Courtenay or Powell River or other places have. They don't even have access to field trips to places like Victoria or Expo or other communities.

School District 49, which I'm talking about now, plans to apply for $200,000 from the Excellence in Education to cover operating shortfall. That is, once again, to at least maintain last year's level of education and curriculum, not to increase salaries necessarily — hopefully for the deserving teachers that matter will be resolved separately. Last year's levels were not adequate in many school districts, and some of those school districts are in my riding.

They, too, have a message for government, and I'll read this into the record. The message is that government should really raise fiscal framework to meet operating costs, particularly in those kinds of school districts. It's having a terrible toll on teacher and student morale. That's the message to government from School District 49.

With that I'll take my seat, and hopefully the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) will have a chance to say a few words as well before our meeting.

MR. MICHAEL: It's indeed a pleasure to stand in the House during the Ministry of Education estimates and pass on some messages from my constituency to the minister. I suppose if there was one thing that I would like to see happen in the next year, between now and the next estimates, it would be for the Minister of Education to get together with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the B.C. School Trustees' Association and agree to each name two or three persons to get together once and for all and agree on statistical base data.

In looking at statistical data from the ministry and looking at statistical data from the B.C. School Trustees' Association and the BCTF, I wonder if we're all in the same province or the same world, because they certainly seem to be all over the ballpark. It would be a very gratifying thing, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, if he could take the initiative to invite those other two organizations, along with people from his ministry, to sit down and get the data base agreed on as to where British Columbia stands in relationship to other provinces and indeed neighbouring states, in relationship to pupil-teacher ratios, in relationship to the amount of dollars per student that it costs the taxpayers in British Columbia, whether it's in the public school system, in post-secondary costs, and in other things such as per capita costs. All those kinds of things are very relevant in looking at what's fair and what's not fair in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not suggesting for one minute that British Columbia should be first among all the provinces in Canada in money spent on education. I'm not suggesting that at all. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to agree on a set of figures. It's no different than entering into negotiations between an employer and a union. You've got to know what the true costs are before you can enter into any meaningful dialogue. So that would be my one wish between now and next year, Mr. Minister, if you could get those parties together to come up with a composite set of numbers.

The other thing in my constituency — and I'm talking about School District 89 now, and the community of Salmon Arm…. It seems it's been going on now for years: trying to settle down and come to grips with the speech pathologist problem in one of my communities, Salmon Arm. There are, in the employ of School District 89, speech pathologists — I believe there are four of them employed by the school district. Unfortunately the person who was working for the Ministry of Health quit her position and moved to Vancouver Island. This has left the preschoolers and the post-schoolers without speech pathologist services in that community, and they have had to go to the neighbouring community of Vernon to get service.

It would seem to me that between the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, surely there should be some manner in which the two ministers can work together and agree on one group of speech pathologists. Whether they are employed by the school district or the Minister of Health I don't really care, but there should be one group of speech pathologists to service the entire community, whether they are school-age children or whether they are not school-age children.

So I would ask the minister to please have his staff work with the Minister of Health and try to come to grips with this problem and solve it once and for all, because the problem has been drawn out far too long. The last I heard, which was just in the last two or three weeks, was that there has still not been a resolution to the problem.

Another point, Mr. Chairman, is this. As a former school trustee and a former school board chairman, it seems to me that one of the weaknesses in the system is the trustees' knowledge of the inner workings of the accounting, business administration and budget drafting field. That entire field is very difficult for the average trustee just being elected, whether the trustee is a housewife or a carpenter or an engineer or whatever. It is very difficult to come to grips with, and sit down and be a part of, the budget draft process, and knowing whether the people you represent are getting full value for their dollars or whether they are not.

Perhaps the ministry could be a little bit more encouraging to the trustees that there are technical people available in the ministry who could come to the board of school trustees, examine the way the board are spending money and perhaps give some additional opinions and some alternatives in the way they are managing their budget. I think this is a fairly important factor, and I am sure you would find it would be welcomed with open arms by the trustees through most of the school districts in British Columbia.

Let me also tell the minister that we hear a lot of talk about administration, control and some of the conflict-of interest problems concerning school boards and school teachers. If we have one problem in the province of British Columbia in the field of education, to me it is the evaluation, the measurement, of a teacher's competency to teach in the classroom. I am not suggesting for one minute that there are any great number or any great percentage of teachers who are not

[ Page 8003 ]

competent, but I am confident that there are a percentage, however small it might be, who do not deserve to be in the public classroom.

Mr. Chairman, all one has to do to prove my point is to look at industry or any management team, any management structure. You will find that there is a continual weeding out process, a culling process where those that are not suited for the position are removed or transferred or released. You will find in any management team or any industrial society that there is a culling process. I challenge you, Mr. Chairman, to look at any school district in the province of British Columbia and bring back a report to this House as to how many teachers were released from their employment for not doing a good job.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that if there is one thing that needs to be addressed in the management structure within a school or within a school board, it is the fact that principals are members of the same unions as their subordinates. All principals, vice-principals, administrative heads and teachers are required to belong to the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I am not that upset with compulsory membership. I am not that upset about that, but I am upset that the leader of the team, who is the principal, is required to belong to the same union as the people who that person is required to lead and direct and manage.

I find this really an impossible situation when it comes to my point about the weeding out process. If we are going to be able to do an efficient and proper job of evaluation, a proper job of discipline, a proper job of measurement, then we can't expect to have the principal a member of the same union as the rank and file — or the department heads. I think the minister should have a very serious look at this problem. I think it should be corrected. Everybody in this province knows.... All you have to do is listen to the kids, listen to the students. They know which teachers are doing the job and which ones aren't. We also know from our own experience that the kids don't mind a firm hand or a strict teacher. They don't have to be nice and stroke them. The children respect and like a teacher who's doing a good job and teaching them something, instructing them properly. But they do not have respect for those who aren't doing their job. And there are those in the system who aren't doing their job.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I think we've got to set up a process of evaluation and measurement of teachers' performance. They're getting very good money, and that's fine — no complaints there. Pay them a good wage, but expect a good job. And the only way we know they're going to be doing a good day's work for a good day's pay is to have a measurement process, and a manager in the system — who is logically the principal — to give a report to the board of school trustees or the superintendent that a certain teacher is not fit for that vocation, or perhaps should be transferred to another field within the system. Maybe he or she would make a better industrial arts teacher, stenographer or custodial worker, rather than teaching children in a classroom and wasting everybody's time. Those are the messages that I would like to pass on to the minister for his consideration today.

[10:30]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to deal with the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), who has had to leave to go to a committee meeting on the selection of, I think, an ombudsman, I thought I'd just record my response to his question in Hansard so that he may read it later. He mentioned that the provincial government was "doing these things on purpose for political reasons." He was referring to the fact that we were inadequately funding local school boards. Well, I'm repeating what I said yesterday, but it's worth repeating: the easiest thing for any politician to do is say yes to all the demands of those groups that come to him, particularly in this case when it means additional funds in school budgets. It would be nice to say yes and give them what they want — keep peace and quiet in the system. We're elected two or three times, serve our time, don't concern ourselves about any deficit we leave, and end up retiring, collecting our pension and leaving a mess for somebody else to clean up. That is what the member across would probably do if he were part of government, but that's not the way this government addresses the problem of finances in this province.

There's no question that we have challenged school boards and other levels of government to ensure that they are efficient; it isn't just an open-ended supply of money; there is a formula which addresses the needs, and the school boards have to live within that — or they have the ability to go to their local taxpayers and tax them if they feel the need is essential. With that ability to go to the taxpayers, as I said yesterday, goes accountability to the taxpayer. I'll repeat myself again: if the school boards are going to go to the local taxpayer, the residential property owner, to increase taxes in order to pay increased salaries to teachers — after they've had very firm notification that the provincial taxpayer and the provincial economy are not going to pay for increases in salaries to those who are already working, that our main thrust is to create jobs — then they are accountable to the taxpayer, who is the voter in their school district. I sincerely hope that instead of a 19 or 20 percent turnout for school board elections, as we've had in the past, maybe 60, 70 or 80 percent of the people would turn out and express their opinion. And if they support the actions of the school board, then the school board can feel justified in their decision. But I can suggest to you that it's pretty tough for an unemployed logger, or a businessman who's just surviving, to see his taxes increasing to increase wages to public servants at this particular time in our history.

I'm not against teachers — I'm not bashing them — and I'm not against education. I and my colleagues are just trying to be realistic and face the problems we have in this province, dealing with the recovery of the economy, as opposed to spending more and more as a government, loading more and more taxes on the taxpayer, and in the end crippling our industries so they cannot compete with other industries around the world in the world marketplace.

The Central Coast School District receives $6,361 per student in its total budget, compared with $3,863, the average for the province. Again, repeating what I said yesterday, the fiscal framework does identify those rural school districts that have problems with distances, with dispersion, with small schools, etc. We identify that and attempt to resolve it at the school district level by providing additional funding under the fiscal framework. If we fail in any area, Mr. Chairman, it is because we may need to fine-tune that formula; and we have a committee set up to do that each fall. My staff tell me that in past meetings there has been about an 85

[ Page 8004 ]

percent acceptance of recommendations from that committee, who have identified areas of fine-tuning required in the fiscal framework.

To deal with the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) — a committee from the BCTF, BCSTA and Ministry of Education to have a common data base for statistics — I can't agree with you more. We're just overloaded with statistics, all appearing to be in exact opposition to one another. There are attempts by the organizations, I'm told by my staff — meetings at staff levels to get a consensus on the data. That may work, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not sure. I've only been minister for three months, the Education ministry has been around a long time, and nothing has been accomplished to date. I'd suggest to the member that maybe when we look at the new School Act we identify in the regulations certain base data required for statistics-gathering by the ministry, the BCTF and the BCSTA, so that when we do pull a document from any one of those three offices we know we're talking about the same statistics. We may look at that, and I may address that with the committee.

The member also mentioned comparison figures with other provinces. Yes, that's a good point, provided the data base is similar. I'd only suggest, however, as I think he did, that we would use that information as a tool, but not as a guide to say that we've got a rank of number one, or number three or number nine in the ten provinces, but we use it as a tool to establish what is relevant; and secondly, we also have to take into consideration our ability to pay for education.

Speech pathologists. There is a resolution to that. As of this date, I've advised school districts around the province who have written me, and teachers and principals as well, that the present system will be retained. I didn't want to get into that area as a new minister, so I've advised them that we are not making any changes with the school speech pathologists, although I know there appears to be some overlap and some concern about having an education speech pathologist and a medical staff person who serves the community as well. I'd like to hear both arguments before I make any decision. I'm not sure that just having a speech pathologist to serve both schools and the public would be in the best interest of the students, because you're looking at a different situation in the classroom as opposed to the general public, and the adults as opposed to the children.

New trustees' orientation on the fiscal framework. I can tell you that the BCSTA has an orientation seminar for new trustees. I just mentioned to my deputy minister that I think it's a great idea. I would like to see us have an orientation for new school trustees by the Ministry of Education, to explain to them, since they're charged with the responsibility of administering that school budget, how the fiscal framework is designed and how it works, so that when they sit at the school board table to make the decision on budgets, they will at least have some understanding of how the fiscal framework works, rather than just getting the information from their secretary-treasurer once a year. I think I'm quite prepared to accept that recommendation, and we'd be quite prepared to have such a seminar.

Evaluation of teachers in classrooms and the membership of the principal in the BCTE. I agree with the comments of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Evaluations are needed. I'm sure there are some at the present time. However, maybe that's an area that we can also address jointly. I don't want to see a system directed at just saying the teacher is incompetent. I would like to have a system addressing the fact of where the teacher is weak; is there assistance that can be given? These people are earning their livelihood; they've had their university education; maybe they have some weaknesses. I would hope that our system would involve a method whereby they can increase their strengths, or improve on the weaknesses that they may have in the classroom, and hopefully not end up by losing potentially good teachers because at a certain point in time we've determined that they were incompetent. If they are incompetent, they shouldn't be there. But let's make sure the evaluation is fair and just.

Principals as members of the BCTF. It's a difficult problem because I consider the principals as management and having them as members of the TF would create some problems. I'd like to see local management at the local school level; in other words, maybe each school having that responsibility, as opposed to the school district, and maybe the school district providing funds to each school on an envelope arrangement. Mr. Chairman, before everybody gets off track, I'm brainstorming somewhat here, but I think there may be a germ of a good idea here. Maybe you could see it working, where a school district determines what is available, provides the envelope and then looks to efficiency in schools — principals to vice-principals to teachers — and as a result there's a form of evaluation there. And that school that performs well — good management, good staff.... It could be a method of evaluation of each school and how it performs within the district. It's not a bad idea; possibly it's something to be explored. However, changes don't come overnight, as members know.

I think I answered the questions, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope that before the minister gets carried away and starts implementing his brainstorming, he'll subject it to some intelligent scrutiny from the population at large who are paying the bills, because I'm not impressed with the ideas coming out of that brain at this time. I think I speak for quite a few people, who recognize that you don't deal with measuring quality education and quality teaching in exactly that way. And certainly the member for Shuswap, who suggested that students should decide who the good teachers are, made the most bizarre recommendation I've ever heard. What we would have is a profession of panderers, if they had to suck up to their students in order to get a good rating so that they could hold on to their jobs. So I hope that those ideas swirling around in the government benches just swirl there until we get some of the intelligent people out there — the taxpayers — to look at them and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

I just wanted to carry on where my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) started yesterday, and fill in until my other colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch) takes his place in this debate, because, as my colleague from Burnaby North pointed out, the three of us met with the School District 41 school board at the unconscionable hour of 8 o'clock on Saturday morning when everyone else was in bed. Our school board dragged us out to a meeting with them, and gave us a message to deliver on the floor of this House. They're phoning every now and again to check to see that we're delivering the message, so I'm bringing in my share.

AN HON. MEMBER: The report card.

[ Page 8005 ]

MS. BROWN: Yes, the report card. And this is a most effective one, because they not only work in the district but they also vote in the district, so they really do rate us at the ballot box, which is the most democratic place to rate anyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was Elwood at the meeting?

MS. BROWN: Yes, he was. The member for Burnaby Willingdon, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, gave a commitment that the minister and the deputy would be meeting with the Burnaby school board in the very near future. In case my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon is unable to take his place in this debate, I just want to bring the message to the minister that that commitment was made on his behalf and that the Burnaby School Board will be getting in touch with his office at the earliest possible moment after his estimates are over to set up an appointment. They want to speak to the minister and his deputy themselves about the ways in which School District 41 is being penalized for their fiscal responsibility, because they have done their job well and have tried to deliver quality education to the students of Burnaby and do it within the constraints of the minister's constraining fiscal policy. The students of Burnaby and the administrators and the teachers have all been penalized for this. They want to talk to the minister face to face and explain the ways in which they see themselves being hurt.

[10:45]

However, here are a couple of comments they made about the Excellence in Education funding. They would prefer some direct relief in terms of operating costs, rather than to have to go through the kinds of hoops this Excellence in Education fund puts them through. Also, the fund doesn't give them the flexibility to deal with some of the important programs which we need in Burnaby and which we are going to lose, such as the multicultural program, because there just isn't the money there to continue to finance important programs like that. So they're asking for direct relief in terms of operating costs, rather than this new formula, in terms of the Excellence in Education fund.

The right to levy taxes is another request which they have in terms of the right they used to have to commercial and industrial taxes. Because when they had that right they proved to be responsible and did not abuse that right, they feel that they're being unduly penalized by having that right removed from them. They've heard all of the stories about wanting to treat all school districts equally and wanting to be sure that the rich school districts didn't have it all and the poor school districts lost. They were a part of an equalization formula which they thought worked quite well, and they would like that to be explored again rather than the present system.

My colleague the member for Burnaby North talked about the teachers, and maybe there should be some explanation about why there's such a heavy cost on the Burnaby School District in teachers' salaries. Incidentally, there has been no increase budgeted for teachers' salaries in this year's budget. They are presently in negotiations, and those negotiations are very tense, because the teachers deserve and have earned an increase, but there is no money in the budget for such an increase. There's a lot of tension presently between the school board and the teachers who are in negotiation.

The problem that we have in School District 41, which is also a blessing, is that our teachers don't quit. There's no such thing as attrition, or there's very little attrition, and there's very little moving around. Because it's such a good school district in which to work, 80 percent of the teachers who come into the system stay until it's time for them to retire. So what we have is an above average percentage of teachers drawing their maximum salary.

MR. ROSE: The framework affects the total budget too.

MS. BROWN: That's right. As the debate leader pointed out, the framework affects the total budget too.

We're at a disadvantage in that respect, fiscally, in terms of salaries. There are very few young teachers coming in at the bottom of the scale, and there are a large number of teachers at the top of the scale. So there is some kind of imbalance there. They're skewed, and that explains to a large extent the problems that we're having even now in negotiating increases with our teachers.

Despite that, we manage to maintain something like the second-lowest administrative costs in the province. We also manage to have one of the best pupil-teacher ratios in the province, and we still manage to protect the quality of education.

There are a number of other things which affect the budgeting in Burnaby too. One is that we have the second highest number of kids in the category called special needs in our schools. Special-needs students don't need just special teachers; in many instances there are additional costs for special furniture, special building adjustments and changes that have to be made to accommodate those students. So the impact on the budget is considerable, and I think the minister has to take that into account.

The school district, it is true, raises some additional funds through rental investments and those kinds of things, but the option that it used to have, to use those additional funds, has now run out. They can no longer use the additional funds raised through renting empty schools and school equipment in order to meet their operating costs.

I want the minister to bear those two things in mind. The minister also talked about the decrease in population. While there may be a decrease in the population going into the secondary schools, let me tell you that there has been a virtual explosion of kids coming into the kindergarten system. We don't know whether it's the water or the weather or what it is, but people in Burnaby are multiplying, and the pressure on our kindergarten classes is really quite outstanding. What we were told is that first of all we can't meet the requirements of our kindergarten students, but that in fact in the next two to three years, as they move through the system, there will be a levelling off and we will be back to the regular groove. It has been predicted that we are going to have a shortage of school space even for our secondary school students within the decade. The old argument about a decrease in population in the schools and an increase in funding doesn't work for Burnaby.

We've had a 4.7 percent decrease in the number of kids at the same time as we've had an 8 percent increase in inflation, and that's just over the last four years. The old arguments about fewer kids and more money aren't working, and aren't going to work for Burnaby. Part of the reason, of course, is that Burnaby is still developing. As long as the city of Vancouver had room to grow, Burnaby and the surrounding areas pretty much remained stable in terms of housing starts and those kinds of things. But with the development that's

[ Page 8006 ]

now taking place in the Simon Fraser area, and the development that's scheduled to take place when the George Derby lands become developed, and in other places in Burnaby South and even around Metrotown, in the constituency of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch), we are going to have real problems.

As I said, we are beginning already to have real problems in terms of meeting the kindergarten needs of our students. The arguments about that certainly don't operate. We've managed to decrease our cost per pupil from 1982 to 1985-86 and still protect the quality of our education, but we can't continue to do that. We are not going to be able to decrease the cost any more and still protect the quality of education of our students.

I want to repeat the statistic which I got from the ministry's comparative and analytical data for 1985-86 school district budgets: namely, that in terms of percent we are the fourth highest in instruction, which is on page 4 of the ministry's report. If the minister will turn to that page, he will see that School District 41, in terms of the actual cost of educating our students, is in line — one of the best in the province. Sorry, it should be the other way around. On page 4 is the instructional cost of our students, and on page 14 is the administrative costs, which come in at something like 3.81 percent, much better than the administrative costs for hospitals or municipalities or universities and colleges, or even the private sector. It's the second lowest in the entire province, and that's on page 14 of the ministry's entire budget. It's in the analytical data, so the minister can check that.

I want to deal with two special programs which we are in danger of losing as a direct result of the constraint program of the ministry, which is interfering with the budgets of the school board. Burnaby has, again, the dubious blessing of having something in the neighbourhood of 30 percent or more children in the school system for whom English is their second language. Now I know when we compare ourselves with Vancouver, there is no comparison: most of the immigrant community and most of the immigrant population settles in Vancouver.

But ours has been increasing in terms of the population; it's up to 29 percent of our population and rising. But in the school system itself over 30 percent of these children who are in our system are from different cultures. Now they....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the time is up.

MS. BROWN: Oh. Can I get up and down?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you can, if there is an intervening member in between.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm finding this impassioned discourse on behalf of the education system in Burnaby most enlightening, and I hope the member sees fit to continue.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and surprising unsolicited comments. That's right. I appreciate that, and all of Burnaby does too.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

But the kinds of ways in which the students of different cultures impact on the school district is not simply in terms of language and not simply that we need more teachers who can teach English as a second language but in other ways too, in terms of the relationship between the families of these children and the educational institutions, the whole bridging of cultures that has to take place, and takes place best really through the school system.

I don't believe that this is the exclusive responsibility of the educational system by any means, and neither does anyone in Burnaby. As a matter of fact, the multicultural society has been receiving some of its funding from the Vancouver Foundation and some of its funding from the federal government. It has actually appealed to the municipality for some funding too, but some of it has to come through education.

The problem that we are finding is that there is absolutely nothing in the school budget at present to deal with this. My perception of the multicultural society is that it should eventually fade away as the whole question of integrating these kids into the school system is mainstreamed into the educational system itself. I think that is possible. It will happen, but it takes time. What we are talking about is a kind of bridging funding. It is needed and it isn't there, not just because the money isn't in the budget itself but because the school district doesn't have the flexibility within its mandate to deal with the kind of funding which is necessary at this time.

If School District 41 were to fund the multicultural society, it would be breaking the law. Under the act as it now stands, it is not permitted to do that. It is that absence of flexibility which is creating some problems for us in School District 41, because we are going to lose the multicultural society because the funding from the federal government was timed to run out this year. The funding from the Vancouver Foundation was just seed money, and while the scramble is on for funding from the municipality, the school boards says: "You can't do it by law. It is just not possible." It has to be mainstreamed into the system, and somebody else has to take up the cost of that mainstreaming.

[11:00]

So what they are asking for is flexibility. There has to be more autonomy. The school board has to have some more responsibility in terms of making decisions on what is in the best interests of the students of Burnaby.

The other issue I want to raise is one which is very familiar to the minister, and that is the cost of educating students with dyslexia — that fancy word — at the Kenneth Gordon School in Burnaby. Again as I pointed out earlier, these are very special needs that we are beginning to understand. We are also beginning to understand the cost on society of not educating these students who have what we call dyslexia or reading disabilities or learning disabilities or whatever.

Kenneth Gordon School is doing the job and doing it very well and very inexpensively, but it is still too expensive for the parents of these children to bear in terms of the subsidized costs. A lot of letters have certainly come across my desk, dating back to June 1985 and right up to the present date, between the Ministry of Education and parents of some of the students in that school about some relief for the cost of having kids in the Kenneth Gordon School.

The final point that I want to raise has to do with the indemnity which is paid to school trustees. I do not know any other group of people who work as long hours or as hard for as little money as the school trustees of our school districts, probably with the exception of women in the home....

[ Page 8007 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Except possibly women in the home. We are probably the only group....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You know, the school trustees, I think, make $4,000 a year. As I say, they meet and they cogitate, and they work so hard. They figured out that in fact they are actually earning something in the neighbourhood of 22 cents an hour. I would like to make a plea for the school trustees, that hard-working little group who try to protect the quality of education throughout this province. Surely they are worth more than their present indemnity. Surely the minister has been looking at that indemnity with a view to increasing it.

I know that for the most part it is voluntary that they run for school board because they care about education, they care about the students, and they would do it even if it were free, and for many hundreds of years did it for free. But since we have decided to at least pick up the cost of their child care and other expenses, I think that it should be somehow pegged to the cost of living or something so that it remains realistic. And 22 cents an hour in this day and age is not realistic.

HON. MR. HEWITT: To try to respond to the questions members raised, the Kenneth Gordon School is an independent school and receives independent school grants. It is not part of the public school system. Also, Madam Member, many of the urban school boards offer similar programs with similar results, at less cost. So they are funded, but they are an independent school.

With regard to English as a second language — and the member mentioned that Burnaby has over 30 percent of the student population — the way the fiscal framework works is that the school board advises the ministry of the numbers who should fall into function 3, which includes ESL funding; the numbers placed in the formula, which relate to the number of teacher units or teacher aides, come from the school district. So they generate the input to the formula to get funding. When they have an increase in English-as-a-second- language students, they have an increase in numbers. Then they advise us in their budget material, and they get additional funding in that area.

Let's see if I can cover some of the other areas. This year Burnaby, I understand, has $8.9 million in function 3, which is a special program fund. In last year's budget they had $6.5 million. So there has been a substantial increase in funding in that area, because they've identified need in the particular area of special education and special programs.

I think that answers, to a great extent....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, the meeting. I appreciate that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) has committed me to that, and I have said in this House that I will meet with each school board around the province as time permits. At this particular point I'm sure they can appreciate that I'm on my feet in the Legislature and required here until my estimates are over. But I'll do my best to meet with them as quickly as possible after that.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to be brief, so the minister can meet with the Vancouver Island North School Board very quickly, as they and, I'm sure, a lot of other districts have requested. But I'll just remind the minister now that he does have a phone call from me, from a few days ago, asking that the meeting with Vancouver Island North be held as soon as possible.

I want to talk about a few things. First of all, I think it's important in the climate that has developed in British Columbia in the last little while to say something about teachers and what they do in our schools. They are probably the most maligned group of people in our society at the present time. It used to be an honour reserved for lawyers and politicians. But you know, at the present time if you were to ask the public, I think teachers would be found to be more unpopular than even MLAs — perhaps not than cabinet members. It comes from a deliberate, in my view, attempt by members of the government to paint teachers as something other than what they really are: to paint them as being greedy, as not working very hard, and to use them, as they attempt to use some other groups in our society, to create political divisions which they hope will redound to their own benefit. I have to say that, because I believe it, and most teachers I talk to believe it.

I'm going to talk some more about what teachers actually have to do these days to earn the money that they do earn. But I want to reflect very briefly on some comments made yesterday by the minister with respect to school boards establishing in their proposed budgets a zero figure for salary increases in order to demonstrate to Ed Peck that there's no money and therefore no ability to pay. If Ed Peck allows himself to be conned by that kind of inane reasoning, then he certainly doesn't deserve to have that particular job. The ability to pay in the public sector comes from the total amount of money generated from taxes and other revenues. No one questions the ability to pay for other projects. Mr. Peck could say — and should say, in my view — that the government has an ability to pay. It has made choices that are wrong with respect to what it's doing in terms of public sector salary levels. When it makes a choice to build a highway, pour money into a coal development or spend millions on Expo-related activities, then clearly there is money available and there is an ability to pay. So it doesn't matter, it seems to me, what amount of money school boards might put into their budgets for salary-related increases. The ability to pay is not determined by an artificial number entered into that budget by school trustees. And for the minister to say that that somehow is going to determine whether there is an ability to pay demonstrates, I think, the whole fallacy of the entire CSP.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to say one more thing about it; and this is not a CSP debate, so I won't get too far into it. But we're told that this is a government that believes in the marketplace; this is a government that believes in free enterprise. If so, why is it using socialist instruments of control to regulate the marketplace? The government doesn't argue that the price of bread should be fixed and determined by a commissioner, nor the price of eggs, nor the price of other essential elements in our society, because it says it believes in the free market system. If you believe in the free market system for goods, then you need to believe in it for services too. If you don't have the confidence in your own ability to negotiate, then you should get out of the job of being government. Because if you can't negotiate tough and hard conditions, then you obviously don't belong in those positions of

[ Page 8008 ]

power and authority. When you need to enter into the marketplace like that and at the same time argue that you're free enterprisers, I think the whole fallacy of that program comes clear.

I'm not going to pursue that. I think we need to have a CSP debate at another time. But I think the minister should know that one of the important impacts of year after year of a frozen salary is an increasing frustration and an increasing inability to be enthusiastic about teaching, because the pressures of the job, the amount of work and the tensions have increased, and at the same time there's been no recognition, even token recognition, that the job should pay what people think it's worth. In my view it is an appalling comment on the government that they do not believe that teachers should have the same rights as other workers in our society. It might be the right to negotiate a zero percent increase, but they should have the right to do that.

[11:15]

I want to make a few comments about what teachers are actually doing. One grade 11-12 English teacher in one of the Campbell River high schools has calculated that a 60-hour week is 11 minutes per week for each child. That English teacher not only has to prepare courses, not only has to take the hours involved in teaching those courses, but also has to mark some 200 essays, papers or whatever, every week. It's not physically possible to do that kind of thing in our education system; 11 minutes per kid at a grade 11 or 12 English level is absolutely unreasonable. That's what it works out to. I happen to know this teacher. He is at school early, far earlier than starting time. He works every night and every weekend — usually both days on the weekends, but occasionally has one day to spend with his own children — in order to try to give some decent educational levels to these kids. That's one of the results. In his teaching career, between 1969 and the early 1980s, he's averaged about 130 kids at any one time. That's how many children he's teaching. He's not trying to teach 200. There's no way that he can give the kind of time and attention needed to marking essays. You can't read them properly, much less mark them and think and make comments about them, given that kind of time. It's just totally inappropriate.

Read an excerpt from a letter from a grade I teacher in the Campbell River district: "I'm a grade 1" — grade 1, the most important year in school — "teacher with a class of 30." Thirty! She accentuates it. "Buses for field trips have been cut, library time has been reduced to one half-day, Monday to Thursday, in a school of 275 kids. There is insufficient aide time for my three non-English-speaking students and my two learning-disabled students." This is in a class of 30: three non-English-speaking students and two learning disabled. "At Hallowe'en there was no black construction paper." This is for grade 1. "The paper cutter needs sharpening." Little things, but the kind of things that drive teachers mad. "The roof in the gym leaks, and the water has damaged the hardwood floor." Think about that in terms of costs in the future. "The principal is teaching much of the time, so is unavailable for administrative duties," and the list goes on. That's an excerpt from one letter that I have from a grade I teacher.

Mr. Chairman, in Vancouver Island North, the district I talked about at some length yesterday, one of the teachers provided me a chart based on September 30, when schools were not as full as they are later in the year. I think this is important. An elementary school — grades 2 and 3, 24 kids; the same school — grades 3 and 4, 23 kids; grades 5 and 6, 28 kids. That elementary school has all split classes: 24, 23 and 28 kids in September. The numbers are higher later on. In another elementary school — this is in fact the school I referred to yesterday, Cheslakees — grades 4 and 5: split class, 32 kids. You cannot give proper instruction to 32 kids when you are teaching two different grade levels.

In another elementary school, kindergarten – two classes, 44. So you get 22 kids in the kindergarten class. All you can do then is try to be a traffic cop when you've got that number. Grades 2 and 3, 22; grades 6 and 7, 32 – that's similar to the other one I mentioned. And it goes on. I'm not going to read them all, but the numbers are really, in my view, appalling: an elementary school – grades 2 and 3, 30 children; another elementary school – grade 5, 36 kids.

Mr. Chairman, I've said many times in these estimates that I think the elementary grades require far more attention than the senior grades in some respects. That's the time when the kids need particular and individual attention, and all you can really have in those situations when you don't have teachers' aides and you don't have people in helping you and you've got those kinds of numbers is to try to give some very basic general education. You can't help the kids who are on the brighter end, and you can't help the kids who are having trouble on the other end. All you can really be is a traffic cop, and that's not what education is about.

I was going to talk in some detail about the fiscal framework. I've been trying to understand the fiscal framework, and I must confess, Mr. Chairman, I haven't yet come to understand it. It's something that I think would require full-time attention, and I know some trustees who claim that they still don't understand it either, after years of serving on school boards. This comes back to my points about....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's our problem.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the formula is, first of all, too complicated. It's too complex a process for people who are doing volunteer work to master. These trustees are volunteers. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) talked about how much remuneration they're given, but in effect they're volunteers. They do it after work. They do it after their other duties are fulfilled. They're having to deal with a very, very complicated system.

I just tried to understand, since I have a brief here which is — I don't know — 13 pages, some of the problems that affect one of my rural districts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Green light.

MR. GABELMANN: I see the light, Mr. Chairman. It's really difficult to do. Let me give you one example out of this: the fiscal formula provides a certain amount of money for travel to schools. It's based on kilometrage — mileage, as we used to call it — which is totally inappropriate for some rural districts. For example, from Kyuquot the fiscal formula provides an amount of money. The actual cost is 3.5 times more, in terms of the travel from the board to the school or from the school to the board office. That's 3.5 times more actual cost, done the cheapest way, than the formula provides, because the formula is based on mileage.

You don't have mileage when you're having to charter a plane or rent a boat to get there. If you drive through the

[ Page 8009 ]

logging roads to get there, you can actually save some money on airplanes, but you cost the board in another way: you cost two days' wages to get in and out of this one school. An official of the board who goes there has to give up two days' work in order to do it. These kinds of costs in remote districts are not counted. Psychometric testing in an ordinary district would cost — oh, I don't know — in the range of $200 to $250 per student. In one of the larger schools in the district of Vancouver Island West, psychometric testing costs $525, double.

I have a few more comments after the minister responds.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, for the record, although the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is not here at the present time, I've been provided with the figures on trustees' indemnities: the chairman receives $6,000 per year; vice-chairman, $5,000; trustees, $4,000. I think that is the maximum they can receive, but a decision, of course, could be made for less than that at the local level. With regard to the member for North Island's referring to School District 85, Vancouver Island North, he mentioned yesterday and again today that classes are not as large as of September 30 as they are later in the year. I've asked staff to get statistics on that, and we've got them from the school districts. I believe this would be September '85 through to the present date: September, 2,996 — I won't go into half students; October, 2,971; November, 2,955; December, 2,948; January, 2,938; February, 2,918; March, 2,907. I'm not sure where you got your figures, Mr. Member. These are right from that school district; I gather that between yesterday and today they've been obtained.

In regard to class size — this teacher who has a class size of 30 — I can appreciate there are class sizes of 30, particularly in some of the elementary schools. For an elementary school the fiscal framework provides one teacher, plus the support for that teacher, for every 25 to 27 students. I don't know why we don't just pick a figure, but we have that range of 25 to 27 students. If the teacher that the member speaks about is handling 200 students — I gather that's 200 through the day, because of changes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Week, I see. Per week.

It is because other teachers are allowed to teach fewer numbers of students, so it balances out. You have some with more and some with less.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a very quick reaction from a college instructor from North Okanagan who is very informed about these matters and is concerned I might identify that students come in little boxes of 25 and 27. Mr. Member, I am quite aware of that, and I am quite aware that they have age factors in here where you have more students at age eight than you might have at age 12. We can't put them in little boxes, and I can appreciate that.

So you're going to have some large classes, but at the same time if you look at the fiscal framework, you will have, based on one teacher per 25 to 27 students, the funding at the school level. It evens out in the sense that you have not taken the pupil-teacher ratio or anything else; you've taken an average figure, and you can appreciate that sometimes you have more, sometimes you have less, and sometimes that's how you have a split class. Correct? If you have only 16 students in grade 3, 16 in grade 4, maybe you'll have a class size of 32. Those are the decisions that will have to be made.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity, however, to get back to the "maligned teachers." I have said in this House a number of times now that I am not teacher bashing. I am not against teachers. But there are problems out there, and in my opinion they relate to this organization which is called the BCTF.

The member for North Island talks about teachers' rights. Interesting. Teachers' rights. Mr. Member, I pose the question to you: why is it compulsory to be a member of the BCTF, if you are so concerned about teachers' rights? Should it not be the right of the teacher to determine whether or not he belongs to that organization, Mr. Member, if you talk about teachers' rights? Let me give you some reasons for the teachers' rights being abused, in my opinion.

Through compulsory membership, a teacher will pay anywhere from $275 to $550 a year in fees, dues to the BCTF. Is it within his right to say no to a funding of $140,000 in 1984 to the Operation Solidarity movement? Is that a right that he should be able to express, to say no, he does not want to do that, or he does not want to belong to the organization who spends money on such an organization as the Teachers' Federation? Is it his right to determine whether he does or doesn't want to strike because he is a professional? He doesn't want to be classed as a union member; he wants to be a professional. He will stand on his credentials and his performance in the classroom but will not take job action for salary adjustments. He should have the right to determine whether he belongs to that or not.

Teachers' Federation. Is it a right to determine that economic sanctions should be brought against South Africa? Maybe there are teachers who feel that is wrong and unfair to the people of South Africa, the blacks who are concerned. Economic sanctions, as we all know, may attack a government but may hurt a people. Is it a right to be required to be a member of an organization? In the resolution book at their last convention, that organization determined a resolution that says, and I quote: "That the BCTF develop a system of penalties for members who, by their deliberate action, wilfully contravene a decision of the majority of the federation and/or local association with regard to any job action."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Is that a right? Should it be a right of a teacher to say: "I don't want anything to do with this organization, because I do not believe in strike action. I am here to teach the students; I'm not here to go on a picket line and stop those students coming into the school for their education." I would suggest, Mr. Member, that it should be a right that a teacher could say to that organization: "I do not concur with your philosophy, with your actions; I therefore will not support you financially." But the teacher in this province does not have the right to say yes or no to membership. It's in the act.

[11:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The minister is then suggesting amending legislation, which is....

[ Page 8010 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Chairman, I didn't suggest that at all. Not at this time, I didn't suggest it. I may at the proper time. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm using the member's own words regarding teachers' rights.

Let me give you another one. Resolution 129. "That in instances where members owe allegiance to more than one organization, the constitution policies and procedures of such other organization will not be used by members to hinder or obstruct the implementation of decisions made by local associations or the federation to achieve resolution of contract disputes." Can you believe this?

We talk about rights, and this organization says: "Hey, you belong to another organization. You have no right to take their stance; you must take ours." It says, out of their resolution book: "One of our members, a team coach" – now we're getting down to coaches of teams of students....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm attacking an organization called the TF. I'm defending a teacher's right is what I'm doing, Mr. Member, defending the rights of teachers.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You're attacking people.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm attacking people? This resolution attacks students.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Is there any resolution in there about students? More confrontation. We've had enough confrontation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Let me carry on. Mr. Chairman, the member opposite says we've had enough confrontation. Well, maybe that's why I'm standing here defending the teachers who should have the right to make a decision.

Let me finish this quote. Page 40, resolution 129 of the BCTF's resolution book. "One of our members, a team coach, threatened coaches in other districts who wished to support our action with legal penalties under the constitution of the B.C. School Sports association." It's another organization that deals with students and their education in sports, and he threatened these legal penalties if they refused to play his team. Can you believe this?

Here's a coach who wants to take a group of students to compete in friendly competition with another group. Some of the supporters of the TF said: "We aren't going to play you," or maybe the TF gave them direction not to play these students in competition, and this coach, on behalf of his students says: "I'm going to threaten you with legal penalties if you refuse to play our team." Isn't it a shame that he has to go to that extent. At the very least these other coaches would have forfeited the game had they not played.

Mr. Chairman, if you want to talk about teachers' rights, let's talk about teachers' rights, but let's not get hung up in some organization that is not allowing for free opportunity to belong, but direction from the top down to those people who have no right to make a decision whether they want to belong or not.

Mr. Chairman, just to finish up on this topic, because I know the opposition will want to respond, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) mentioned that principals and vice-principals shouldn't belong. That is a whole other area of discussion with BCTF. I am saying, in responding to his comments and in responding to the member for North Island talking about teachers' rights, wouldn't it be great if the determination as to whether you belong was a personal choice? Wouldn't it be great if 100 percent of the teachers belonged because they believed in the organization? But why capture them by mandatory membership, saying: "You have no choice. You want to teach in this province, you must belong. And on top of that, if you don't agree with us, and you want to cross a picket line to go to work and teach the kids, we're going to penalize you." Talk about heavy-handed, big government. Good grief! I would have thought your organization would be promoting a change in policy regarding mandatory membership.

Mr. Chairman, I'll sit down now and listen to the response from the members opposite, because I am quite prepared to carry on this debate all day.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the minister condemns the BCTF for requiring mandatory membership. As you know, it is the government's own law that requires compulsory membership.

I haven't seen any amendments presented, Mr. Chairman. It is the government of British Columbia that requires compulsory membership in section 140 of the act. If the minister believes what he says, he would introduce legislation to that effect. Right? I recognize we can't talk about it.

Mr. Chairman, on the general question, the government has been introducing legislation in other areas this session, setting up laws that require mandatory membership in various professions. One after another, we're getting amendments to laws in this province for countless groups — for doctors and lawyers, and I expect legislation for dentists in soon. Before long we will have the RNABC — a whole list of people in British Columbia whose memberships are required in their organization. If the government wants to talk about this kind of issue, it has to make up its mind. If the teachers' federation is to be a professional licensing organization, as the law requires, as so many other groups are, then so be it; but if it isn't, and the government says, "No, that's not what we want; we don't want them to be a professional group," then let them be a trade union. Give them the choice. It's one or the other. Put them under the Labour Code. Do with them what you do with the janitors and the custodians and everybody else who works in a school; put them under the Labour Code. But if you don't want to put them under the Labour Code, then allow for a professional association. If you say that doctors have to belong to the medical association, or the college, or dentists have to belong to the College of Dental Surgeons, or — soon to come, no doubt — nurses have to belong to the RNABC, etc., why single out teachers? The minister says he's not teacher-bashing. Why single out teachers?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Because they're easy to kick around.

MR. GABELMANN: Because they're easy to kick around, as the member says, and because the government sees the political benefit in attacking teachers, because they have been made unpopular by government activity in the last few years. The government hopes desperately that if they can

[ Page 8011 ]

get the public mad enough at Indians and teachers, maybe they'll survive another election. That's what this is all about: nothing more, nothing less. It's an attempt to get re-elected; there's nothing more to it than that.

Mr. Chairman, in this discussion there's talk about principals: they shouldn't be in the BCTF. Why not look at it the other way around? Why not abolish the whole idea of principals and have head teachers? Why not require that everybody who works in a school in a teaching capacity actually has to teach? Maybe only one course during the year, because you've got administrative responsibilities. But let's look at some of those solutions too, perhaps. That might be far more appropriate than saying that these people are managers. They're not managers. They don't have the right to hire or fire; the school board does that. If you want to set up a managerial structure along the industrial model in schools, it won't work. It's the wrong structure. Bill Vander Zalm talked about that when he was minister. It didn't last long as an idea because it won't work. What you need are educators running schools, not administrators or technicians. You need teachers running schools.

Now back to some North Island issues. The minister quoted numbers. This is perhaps why the suggestion from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is a good one. The numbers don't always jibe. I'm told that the full-time equivalent numbers for 1985 on Vancouver Island North are 3,138. The minister comes back with numbers that are in the 2,900 range. l don't know who is right. I get it from the same source he gets it from.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, sure, I appreciate it. The obvious difficulty isn't an argument over the numbers; the obvious difficulty is that there is a disagreement. We need to get some standardized ways of reporting these kinds of numbers. Full-time equivalent is different from, obviously, the numbers. It should have been the other way around in terms of how the numbers work, and I just don't understand that. When we don't understand what we're talking about, and I admit that in this case, then we've obviously got a problem. And those of us who spend some time trying to understand have a leg up on a great chunk of the public who don't ever get at some of these questions. How are they to make informed judgments?

I'm going to let all of that go and ask one final question. I wonder if the minister is satisfied with the current educational techniques designed to deal with dyslexic children? Is the minister satisfied that the systems of education currently in place to deal with dyslexia actually work? I'm not sure they do, and I wonder what the minister thinks.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member opposite can appreciate that three months into the portfolio, the question as to whether or not I am satisfied with the education of dyslexic children.... My staff advise me that we do have three centres that are partially funded in the province

MR. GABELMANN: Within the schools themselves.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, I see, within the schools themselves. Mr. Member, can I take that question on advisement and look at it and see whether there is a need for improvement. I'm sure we can always strive for improvement in areas where we're dealing with handicapped children. I take your comments as comments of value, and I can assure you that I'll ask my staff to give me a report on it and what they think should be done.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, listening to comments that have been made within this legislative chamber, both today and in previous days, gives me a very solid indication of what this government thinks about the education profession. Repeatedly I've heard the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) refer to the profession in tones which are not at all enlightening, and...

MR. ROSE: Contemptuous.

MR. MacWILLIAM: "Contemptuous" is the word.

...suggest that I, as a former professional educator, have never had a real job. I think that reflects very poorly upon the integrity and dedication of members of the teaching profession. Just a few moments ago I heard the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) talk about salaries: "They keep getting more money." That member doesn't realize that many teachers throughout this province have not had a salary increase for some time. As a matter of fact, some of them lost money over the five-day work stoppage. Those members don't realize that when they're talking about salaries, they're actually talking about salary increments which have been implemented as statutory obligations.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: You know, teaching is probably the only profession in this province that has an 11-year apprenticeship program. However, I'll get back to those points briefly.

Mr. Chairman, there's an old Chinese proverb, and it says that if you're planning for a year, plant rice....

Interjection.

[11:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I realize the member is often foaming at the mouth. However, we can't help that.

There's an old Chinese proverb that states that if you are planning for a year, plant rice; if you are planning for a decade, plant trees; and if you're planning for a lifetime, educate people. I think that this current government has continually and repeatedly demonstrated its ignorance of this simple fact. Since 1982, when the Socred-style restraint program was brought in, British Columbia has experienced a significant decline in educational funding. When you take into account inflation, we're looking at an across-the-board 25 percent reduction in educational funding. Education has been victimized by the misplaced priorities of this administration. This government is spending just as much money as it ever has, but when you look at where it's going, we find that it's not going into those priority programs. It's going into the glitzy projects instead of into the areas where it's needed, such as education.

Interjections.

[ Page 8012 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order. And we are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Education, not the budget debate.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Looking at what's happened over the last four years, it's clear to me and clear to most British Columbians that education, and teachers in particular, have become whipping-boys for the province's ills. The government has simply responded to political polls that told them just how much they could squeeze from the system before people started to raise their voices in concern.

I think it's also clear that the government recognizes that now it has gone too far. In the process of squeezing blood from a stone, as we might say, we've taken what was a firstclass education system in this province and seriously harmed it both today and for the future. We see it in the newspaper reports that are coming out all the time now. The teachers are moving out of this province. We see that the state of California is up here recruiting teachers who are looking at greener pastures elsewhere. To be quite specific about it, we're experiencing the first signs of a brain drain here in British Columbia, both from our schools, our public education system, and from our colleges and universities. We are losing the talents and the thousands of hours of training that our tax dollars have paid for in developing the expertise necessary to teach our children.

I want to refer to an article that was in the Vernon Daily News just recently, a local paper up in my constituency. This is one individual who really doesn't want to teach in California, but he has applied to two districts in California around the San Francisco area. He says quite bluntly:

"I applied because my job is simply not secure. It really bothers me to have to make a drastic change and contribute my talents to an area that had no part in nurturing me."

He goes on to say:

"The attitude toward learning and education in British Columbia is on the way down, while in the U.S. and in California that attitude is on the way up, and people are becoming much more aware that education has a future payoff. This devalued emphasis on education will have a devastating effect on the wellbeing of British Columbia."

Now that is a statement from a young science teacher in the Lumby area who has seen the handwriting on the wall. It is going to take years to get back the talent that leaves this province as a result of layoffs at all levels in the education system. They are going to California; they are going to Ontario; they are going to anywhere they can get a job because there are no jobs available here in British Columbia.

What makes it worse is when you look at the people who are leaving. It is the youngest and the brightest, the ones with the most energy, the ones with the talent to give to their profession, the ones that have the least seniority. More and more the boards are being forced to lay off teachers, and as a result of the seniority clauses, the first to go are the individuals who have the most to offer.

Just recently School District 22 in Vernon received the budget allocation as a result of the calculations in the fiscal framework. It was reduced by about half a million over last year's budget. Now apparently, as a result of that initial allocation and the concerns about the funding shortage, they did receive an extra $168,000 to account for teachers' salary increments. But even though that extra $168,000 has come in, the board has still found it necessary to raise the local taxes in order to cover the shortfall.

The budget drop, I might add, is due in part to a student enrolment drop that exceeds 300 students in the district. I'll recognize that fact. But that doesn't excuse the government. The government can't say, well, it's because of reduced enrolment and that's the only reason that the budget allocation is lower as determined by the fiscal framework. That's no excuse, because you have to look at why there are 300 fewer students going to school in the Vernon area: because there are fewer families in the area. The reason there are fewer families in the area is that there are no jobs in the area. There are no jobs in the area because this government's program for job creation has been an unmitigated disaster. Unemployment in the area is still in excess of 17.5 percent. As people move out, the students have to move out; they have to go with their families.

That's part of the reason for the reduced enrolment, I grant you that. But it is still no excuse. Vernon School District 22 has taken a stand to preserve what excellence remains in the system. I want to read a recent quote from the board chairman, Mrs. Shirley Spiller, a very responsible, pragmatic individual who I think has really had enough of what's been happening. She says: "What has happened in the past is as much as we can tolerate, and unless we stop the reduction of services we could be looking at an education system beyond an easy means to effect recovery." Those aren't my words, Mr. Chairman; those are the words of the chairman of School District 22.

What are the final outcomes of a series of cutbacks throughout the province in the past few years, as reflected in School District 22? As of April 25 that school district, which has had about 450 full-time-equivalent staff members, issued 91 layoff notices to teachers. Now I grant you that some of them are going to be rehired in the fall, because they don't know the exact numbers they're going to have to lay off. But the school board has had to give out 91 termination notices. What does that do to those individuals who have worked so long and hard in establishing themselves in the district? These aren't part-time teachers or teachers on temporary appointment — they won't be returning either. There are 22 teachers on temporary appointment in Vernon School District whose appointments will not be renewed. That's above and beyond the 91 layoff notices. What we have are permanent appointments who are being told that their jobs may not be renewed as of June. The notices have gone out.

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: My colleague and critic for Education has just mentioned that his daughter is one of those individuals in Vernon.

Ninety-one layoff notices have gone out. Even though some of those individuals may be rehired, what are they thinking? What are they planning? Can they plan for a stable job in the future? Or are they going to start making decisions and looking around? Are they saying: "You know, California looks pretty good"?

I know one individual, Mr. Chairman — and I think I can speak with a good deal of accuracy, because I know this individual very well. He's probably one of the finest English instructors the Vernon School District has ever seen, a man with impeccable credentials and considerable talent. This individual, although he has spent a number of years in the

[ Page 8013 ]

school district, has received his layoff notice. I might add that every teacher with less than five and a half years' experience received a layoff notice — the youngest, the brightest, the most talented, the most energy to give.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the lower-paid, too.

MR. MacWILLIAM: And the lower-paid. This particular individual is one of the best English instructors that the Vernon school district has ever seen, and I was talking to him just the other day. His response is: "I've got to start all over again, and I'll be damned if I'm going to do it in British Columbia." That's what he said. He's going back east; he's going back to Ontario.

MR. REID: He'll be back.

MR. MacWILLIAM: He won't be back, because he knows he has a steady and stable future back east and he doesn't have that guarantee here.

What happens to the morale of the teaching staff when they see these pink slips going out? Do you think that it builds staff morale, that it encourages that extra little bit of energy that you put into your job when you're feeling good about yourself and your students and your job, when you see people going down the tube left and right? It has an absolutely devastating impact on your own outlook to the job and those around you.

In view of the hour, I will sit down. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.