[ Page 4325 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4325

Oral Questions

Business immigration. Mr. Clark –– 4325

Mr. Rose

Pollution control in pulp mills. Ms. Smallwood –– 4326

Environmental laboratory. Ms. Smallwood –– 4326

Privatization of highways maintenance. Mr. Harcourt –– 4327

Cyanide-leaching permit appeal. Ms. Smallwood –– 4327

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

On vote 23: minister's office –– 4327

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Jones

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Loenen

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Rose

MONDAY, MAY 9, 1988

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: There are two very distinguished guests in our gallery today. First, His Excellency Jan Edmund Nyheim, the Ambassador of Norway to Canada. Accompanying His Excellency is Mr. Odvar Mosnesset, who is the consul-general of Norway in Vancouver. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

As well, we have the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Graeme Roberts, and I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: In the gallery today we have very special guests from the Commonwealth Games Association of Canada: the president of the Commonwealth Games Association, Ivor Dent, who is visiting Victoria with his wife, Ilene; and the secretary, Ken Smith, and his wife, Nancy. They have been attending the annual meeting of the Commonwealth Games Association which was held in Victoria over the weekend.

A great deal of credit goes to Mr. Dent and Mr. Smith, in that they are highly respected representatives in government and sports circles throughout the Commonwealth. They have been working very hard to bring the games to Victoria. On behalf of the second member for Saanich (Mr. Huberts), all members of the House, and the Speaker who hosted them today at lunch, would you join me in giving them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. REID: On behalf of the government, I would also like to make a special welcome to Ivor and Ilene and Ken and Nancy. I wish them good times in Victoria. Be the average tourist that everybody else is and spend $54 on average while you're here. Welcome to Victoria.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In our gallery today is a constituent and a good friend. He has been in Victoria studying our remarkable archives across the street. I would like the House to welcome David Trudel of Vancouver.

MRS. GRAN: Visiting the Parliament Buildings and the Legislature this afternoon are members of the Fraser Downs Thoroughbred Racing Foundation. Would the House please welcome Sherman Olson, who is president of the Horse Council of British Columbia; Rick Clough, who is president of the thoroughbred breeders of British Columbia; and also Tom and Isabel Ivanore and Jim Wallace.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House this afternoon two visitors from central Canada, from the city of Toronto: Bill and Ruth Alexander, who are with one of my good supporters, Mr. Blair Cafferky. Would the House please give them a hearty welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a great constituent of mine and an alderlady in Saanich, Vicki Kuhl, is here. I'd ask the House to give her a welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: Visiting in the gallery today is a very enthusiastic member of the B.C. Young Socreds. He is the Okanagan director. I'd like everybody here to give a warm welcome to Mr. Cory Pich, please.

HON. MR. REID: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today, from Lynden, Washington, Mr. Ben Mulder and his wife, Grace, chairman and co-chairman of Holland Days, the home of.... The champion wooden shoes runner in Canada and the United States is the hon. Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, a participant in their Holland Days last Saturday. Would the House make Ben and Grace Mulder specially welcome.

While I have the floor, I'd like to make a special welcome today to the wife of my deputy minister, Shirley Hayward, and his daughter, Nancy Hayward, who are in the Speaker's gallery today.

I'm pulling a Cowichan-Malahat. I have three more I would like to recognize while I have the floor. I would like to give a special welcome today to four of my constituents who were introduced earlier: Tom and Isabel Ivanore, Mr. Rick Clough and Jim Wallace. On behalf of my constituency, thanks for coming to Victoria.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We will be joined this afternoon at 4 o'clock by 21 young ladies of the 31st Guide troop from Kerrisdale in my constituency. Rather than interrupt the House at that time, I thought I would introduce them now and record it in the journals.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the second annual report of the Public Service Commission.

Oral Questions

BUSINESS IMMIGRATION

MR. CLARK: I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development in the Premier's absence and in her capacity as chairperson of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council. Will the minister confirm that at the second meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, the subject of the federal business immigration program was discussed and that a decision was made to support a provincial lobby of the federal government to allow greater flexibility in terms of administering this program?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I can't confirm that.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister confirm that the question of the provincial government's position on the federal program for business immigrants was discussed?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the minister. Will the minister confirm that several weeks after the second meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, ministry officials travelled to Ottawa to lobby their federal counterparts to allow syndicates to arrange with banks to offer guarantees of the principal plus interest to prospective business immigrants — in other words, that the provincial government was lobbying to relax the rules regarding business immigration?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that, so I can't respond to that question.

[ Page 4326 ]

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. A Mr. Peter Toigo attended the second meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council. Did Mr. Toigo declare that he was a major shareholder and director of a company called Tang Peacock Investments Ltd. that stood to benefit from a relaxation of the rules regarding business immigration?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I have no knowledge of a conversation like that.

MR. CLARK: Would the minister advise the House whether she was in attendance at the second meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I was there for most of it. I was away for one brief time, but I was there for most of the meeting.

MR. CLARK: It must have been a brief discussion on business immigration. Could the minister advise the House when the minister first became aware of Mr. Toigo's ownership position in Tang Peacock Investments Ltd?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am aware of a business arrangement that Mr. Toigo has with a firm called Tang Peacock, and that was through a personal conversation that I had — a business meeting in Vancouver several months ago. The member seems to be suggesting that there was some conversation within the policy meeting of the Premier's council on economic development. I'm not aware of any conversation there.

MR. CLARK: While the minister says that she's not aware, the Premier, on leaving that meeting, indicated to the press that the provincial government had a policy with respect to business immigration, and it was to lobby the federal government to relax the rules. So the minister must have been attending a different meeting.

Could the minister advise the House if she learned of Mr. Toigo's involvement with Tang Peacock Investments Ltd. before or after the second meeting of the Premier's Economic Advisory Council?

[2:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I couldn't tell the member that, because my recollection of that and that knowledge is simply done in the sort of social talk at a business meeting. I don't have any recollection of the date, nor would I need to have a recollection of that date. There would be no need for me to even commit that to memory.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary. Could the minister, in her capacity as chairperson of this advisory council, advise the House whether minutes were taken, and is that information public information or private information?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm co-chairman of that committee, and the meeting that the member speaks of I was away from for a short time on other business, so I can't confirm any of the questions that he has asked. As far as minutes are concerned, I don't believe minutes are kept of the meeting. The business sessions that we have had — and they've been very constructive — have been overall policy, gaining information from those people at the table who have both international and national business experience just to get ideas from them as to how we can do a better job in terms of addressing the economy of British Columbia. They've been very useful meetings, and all of the people around the table have contributed greatly.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary. The minister says that information is exchanged. Quite clearly, some kinds of information are used for personal benefit and not just for the benefit of the public. Could the minister advise whether or not, during the time that she attended that advisory council, Mr. Toigo at any time ever declared that he had an interest in Tang Peacock Investments to those who were discussing these matters?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Never in my presence, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: I have a supplementary too. In contrast to the minister's usually vivid and accurate memory of things that go back a long time, I wonder if the minister would assure the House that she would be interested in looking into the minutes of those meetings and reviewing the facts with others who were in the know, and taking the questions that she was unable to answer as notice for a later day.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The questioner, the hon. second member for Vancouver East, did not ask me to take them as notice, nor in my answers have I suggested that if I did take them on notice I could find the answer. So my suggestion to the members of the opposition and the House Leader and the member for Vancouver East who spoke is that the question should be directed to the Premier to answer, as was suggested by the hon. member in the first place, who suggested I was to answer them in the absence of the Premier.

I want to say too that there was a statement made which I'd like to respond to, and it is in response to people around that table who sit on the Premier's Economic Advisory Council, using the council for their personal benefit. I can tell you that I have never known that to happen around that table. And I'm pleased that that committee does its job as well as it does.

POLLUTION CONTROL IN PULP MILLS

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Eighteen out of 22 pulp mills were found to be consistently in excess of pollution control limits in the province, yet no charges have been laid in 1987. Can the minister tell this House why it is these polluters have not been charged?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've heard that story through the media. I will respond at a later date, Mr. Speaker, and take the question for now on notice.

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

MS. SMALLWOOD: A new question to the Minister of Environment. How can the minister justify selling the Environmental Lab when there is such a problem with industry in this province? Can the minister explain if he has completely abandoned his mandate to protect the land, the water and the air of this province?

[ Page 4327 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Number one, the Environmental Lab has not been sold as yet; it has been offered for sale.

Secondly, I want the House to be aware that we are putting in place a six-member group within the Ministry of Environment who will be a data standards group, retained by the ministry to collect, check and analyze a stream of environmental data flowing from private laboratories and provide contract administration.

We will be asking B.C. Research, who are an established, independent and respected organization, to do audit procedures for us. This will be paid for by those who are submitting samples to them. We have no right to question the ability of B.C. Research to do a comprehensive and independent audit of materials as they're submitted to them. I think every protection for the people of British Columbia will be in place by the highly competent and independent staff of B.C. Research. So I have no concern whatsoever.

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Over the last four months 85 municipalities and regional districts have passed motions opposing the privatization of Highways operations. They've asked this government to stop and listen to their concerns and undertake a comprehensive review of the impact of the Highways privatization, not only on public safety but also on the service levels and cost. Is the minister prepared to listen to the grassroots of this province, to their call to halt the privatization of the Highways maintenance and undertake an independent review of its impact on British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, members of this government are always prepared to listen to submissions from the grassroots. And if the Leader of the Opposition wants further information on privatization of the transportation sector, he should address his questions to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers).

MR. HARCOURT: We've already done that, Mr. Minister. As the minister in charge of privatization, I thought you'd be willing to take responsibility for it, even though I don't blame you for not wanting to take responsibility for privatization.

Is the minister aware that almost 600 public employees, with a payroll of $16 million, are providing important services such as highways maintenance and health care in the area of Penticton and Grand Forks? Can the minister assure this House that his government's privatization scheme will not result in job losses or reduction of payroll in these important areas of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS: One of the objectives of privatization is to do a better job at less cost to the provincial taxpayer, and the other is to involve employees as much as possible, and I think we will achieve both those objectives.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: I wonder if Pavlov's dog rings a bell with some of the thumpers I hear.

As the minister is aware, good, safe highways are important for tourism growth — which I'm sure interests the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) — in many areas of this province, particularly the South Okanagan. Can the minister table any studies that prove that under privatization highways such as 3, 97 and 33 in the South Okanagan will get better standards of maintenance?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the proof of the success of privatization will follow privatization. Several studies have been carried out under a previous minister of the previous government. We could certainly make results of those earlier studies available. They all indicated that there would be economies for the taxpayer, and that service would not deteriorate. I'm sure that the actual experience resulting from full-scale privatization will bear the studies out.

CYANIDE-LEACHING PERMIT APPEAL

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Environment. In the Grand Forks area, a permit was issued to mine gold using a cyanide-leaching process. The permit was appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board, which made issuance of the permit conditional on studies such as contingency plans, water flow and closure. Those studies were to be made available to the community. The minister subsequently overruled the Environmental Appeal Board and denied access to that information by the community. Can the minister tell us whether this is his policy now to overrule the Environmental Appeal Board, and if so, what's the point of having an Environmental Appeal Board in the first place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, it's not my policy to overrule the Environmental Appeal Board. It's a fine group, and it's in place for a very good reason — for people who have concerns with permits issued by the Ministry of Environment, or decisions taken. If the members of the public or any specific group want to have that permit or an action of the ministry investigated, then the Environmental Appeal Board is the body set in place to hear that type of appeal. So I feel confident that the work they do is well done and well prepared and acts in the best interest of the people of British Columbia.

In terms of the specific question you asked, I'll take that on notice. We'll respond to you tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 23: minister's office, $211,618.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It has certainly been an exciting year in education, and I anticipate that we will continue to have challenging and exciting times ahead. I mean that in a very positive sense, because for all the discussions that seem to have conflict or protagonism as the root of the reporting, and that sort of thing, I know that as I get around to the schools and see the education system in operation, it's a very exciting time looking ahead to very positive changes that we can anticipate in the education system.

Before going much further, I would like to recognize my deputy minister, Sandy Peel, who is with me here; and also somewhere handy is Wayne Desharnais, my assistant deputy

[ Page 4328 ]

minister. These two people will be with me, and others may join me as required. On behalf of all of us and the people of British Columbia, I would like to recognize the work that these people do in keeping the education system operating. This is a remarkable task with many problems to face and to solve. They are a very helpful group.

[2:30]

I would also like to recognize the many times these members of my ministry and also my own office staff are called on to go beyond what might be anticipated in the way of duty. It is not unusual when I'm travelling to run behind schedule. Sometimes that means getting back two or three hours late in the interest of continuing meetings or having the opportunity to visit schools or discuss things. I would like to recognize the work that they do.

Something seldom acknowledged is the contribution of their spouses, who may have planned dinner at a certain hour and don't even get a phone call to say that dinner or their evening plans might be delayed. I would like to recognize those people who aren't in the direct line of fire, but who in their own way — with their tolerance, if for no other reason — make a considerable contribution to the education system and the people of this province.

I might mention a few points. The Royal Commission on Education will be reporting out soon. In this world of rapid change, we hope that they will be able, from all of the material they have been given, to give us a pretty good road map of where to go in the future. It will certainly be a major help in determining the directions that we go into the next century.

I'm also very pleased that in this year we've had a substantial increase to education funding. The Ministry of Education budget of $1.97 billion provides for an 8 percent increase in grants to school districts for the 1988-89 school year, which could well be the highest increase in Canada, from what I see happening in other provinces. The $175 million in the shareable operating budget for this year means that the provincial government has recognized current instructional costs in the framework and has further provided 2.8 percent for increased instructional costs in 1988-89 –– I think we will get to more of the particulars as we go through my estimates.

Bringing the funding up to date to create a more logical base required $72.4 million in the shareable operating budgets. We've provided an ongoing automatic increase of $21 million for established salaries and benefits, operations, maintenance and transportation funding and enrolment increases. Improvements to existing service levels amount to an increase of $30.4 million. Finally, the government is providing $51.2 million to support services not recognized previously in the fiscal framework and funded entirely by residential taxpayers in the past. In doing this, we had in fact moved into the shareable operating budget a great deal of the money that last year were expenditures that were justified by the school districts in supplementary — that is, over and above the fiscal framework. By moving it into the shareable operating, we anticipated that the increases in the supplementary or certainly the need for continued spending above that limit would be reduced.

From a look at the preliminary budget, very little has happened. It appears that that has been absorbed into the shareable operating — the fiscal framework — and almost an equal amount has been added on as additional spending once again. With that before them, taxpayers in increasing numbers are starting to question why the taxes must go up so much this year after a considerable increase last year. I'd like to point out that we have moved in additional funding.

Fifteen million has been provided for computer technology in addition to the sum of $42 million that was provided for at least two-thirds of that, according to our estimates — two-thirds of the $42 million in the past couple of years for computer technology into the schools. As I go around to the schools, I see a great deal of productive use being made of the computers, and I anticipate that that will go on. As has been indicated, the $15 million that we have put into the computer program this year is year one of a five-year plan to move in that direction.

Passport to Education is well underway. Students this year will be the first to be able to take a credit to their post-secondary institutions. Of course, it will grow in years to come.

The Pacific Rim program is exceeding all our expectations in terms of interest it has generated. The student exchange and the teacher exchange programs for this year are well underway, and a great deal of interest has been shown by the Pacific Rim countries to work with us on that. Also well underway is the teacher training and the program development necessary to provide some of the Pacific Rim languages in our school system and to bring people in to assist with that.

I did mention the Royal Commission on Education. We have worked into the budget this year an amount so that as soon as the report is brought forward we can look at analyzing it and whatever steps can be taken to implement it as quickly as possible.

There's a small starter fund set aside for native Indian languages development in the school programs.

A major move that we have made is in the capital budget area. There we have again announced the first two years of a five-year planning process to meet the school construction needs. Last year, as people may recall, we had some $50 million with a commitment for this year so that the planning done last year could go forward this year. This year we have $53.9 million committed for major capital projects and a commitment for $118 million next year, so whatever is being planned this year can be constructed next year and completed as soon as possible. Again, it's a very significant increase both in the level of funding and in the prior commitment so that the planning process can be better rationalized. In addition, $55 million was committed to minor capital projects for this next coming year, with a much earlier announcement so that boards and maintenance staffs can get started on it; plus another $23 million in the operating budget itself for the type of things that used to go into minor capital projects.

All of this means that school boards can plan ahead and set their summer work schedule because of our earlier announcement and because of the firm commitment of what will be funded. I might point out that the specifics of exactly which projects are approved are now in the works and should be made known to school boards very shortly.

As far as administration, we underwent a major reorganization this last summer with two specific purposes in mind. First, there was a need to consolidate the financial function in the ministry to ensure enhanced financial effectiveness with the resources available. Secondly, the ministry needed to ship substantial resources to the evaluation function in order to increase, in a major way, the work of evaluating the level of achievement in the public school system in British Columbia. As a result of this restructuring, there have been significant

[ Page 4329 ]

accomplishments in the ministry during the past year. In the '86-87 annual report, we outlined four goals and six attributes of the education system as well as an image statement of the educated person. All ministry activities are now linked to the mission goals, and constant efforts have been made over the past year to communicate the mission and goals to the school districts.

In the school district funding area, standard costs have been established for teachers' salaries and instructional costs, and work continues on the development of standard costs in the area of school operating costs and student transportation. I might just point out that if we can get a standard cost, we can plan and budget ahead in a much better way. That's what we have done this year by bringing funding up to the standards. We can then look ahead in some respect as to what we need for the following year. We can also anticipate better what might be needed in the future. We've moved to a five-to-six-year review cycle for curriculum. All new curriculum materials include detailed learning outcomes that school districts are expected to use as standards of learning and achievement. Major efforts are underway to provide more information in the annual report on cost effectiveness of the education system and, where possible, measurement indicators for the education system's success in meeting the stated goals of education.

There are a number of ongoing ministry programs. The child abuse prevention program has gotten a lot of attention for the child abusers who have been found and dealt with. But I think it's a measure of its success, really, that these people are being weeded out of the education system. With the attendant publicity, hopefully there will be no child abuse left in the school system. The coordinator has done a great job in that regard.

As far as small secondary schools are concerned, we are continuing our commitment to see that a quality education is provided to students attending those schools. Creative new approaches are being taken which combine correspondence courses with strong technical support from audio and video materials, computers, etc. I think it's vital that students in small rural schools receive an equally fine program of studies as is offered elsewhere across the province. I would like to extend my commendation to the people in the small schools who have come forth with many very positive suggestions about what might make it possible for them to offer better equality of opportunity to the students in their schools.

I want to thank the many teachers, students and school boards who have invited me to see their schools over the past year. It has always been a pleasure for me to visit the schools because I see many imaginative, innovative, positive things going on and great things happening with the dedicated, committed people working with students in the school system. I am sometimes perplexed when I still hear in some schools: "Why are you putting down teachers? Why are you putting down the education system?" I defy anyone to find where I have put down the work that teachers do in schools and the work that's going on in the education system.

As a matter of fact, I have taken the opposite view. I think they are to be commended for the work they do, and I have constantly believed in positive reinforcement. If we talk about the good things going on in the school system and build on those, I think we can accomplish a great deal more and get a great deal more support from the community, the taxpayers and from everyone. People are very much more inclined to invest more money in what they consider a basically good system that needs improvements than they are when they are being told that it's an inadequate system.

I'm not just being emotional about that. In any comparison we make across this country in objective tests, our students come out very well. My commendations are to all those at the school level who make that happen and certainly to the board members who devote a great deal of time to bring about an improved education system to deal with the many concerns and problems that they are faced with — far and above the weekly or monthly meetings that some people think is all the trustees do. Many of them work on committees, and they do a great deal of work on those.

Again I would like to thank all those involved in the education community for providing me with advice, assistance and ideas. Many of the ideas now incorporated in the Ministry of Education — in our programs, policies and curriculum development — started a few years ago by someone who said: "I have a better idea, and I'd like you to take a moment to hear me out."

We can — as a partnership with the teachers, school boards, taxpayers and students — have an improved education system, and we have a pretty good one now. With that, I welcome any questions that people may have, and I know the questions will be strictly in the line of support for the education system we have in this province.

[2:45]

MR. JONES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister and his deputy. It's a pleasure for me to rise and assist the minister in his very important task of ensuring that the young people of this province have a bright future through the education system, to make constructive suggestions to the minister aimed at areas where I think he needs to focus his attention more on certain inadequacies and to encourage him to work even harder on those areas where we have made progress.

I would like to thank the minister for his view of the world, although I am sure it is not completely shared by all British Columbians. There were some areas that I would like to commend the minister for mentioning. He did mention that the school system in British Columbia is an exciting place, and I certainly agree with that. It's always made more exciting in British Columbia with the Social Credit government which makes education a political football.

He also mentioned — and I commend him for it — the sacrifices of the many families in this province who contribute their time and effort, often at great sacrifice to the family, to all those long hours of work that go to make British Columbia a better place through the education system in this province.

I would like to begin by putting our system of education in 1988 in British Columbia in context — in a historical and Canadian context. I don't have to remind the minister, and I'm sure the minister doesn't want me to remind him, of some of the tragic legacy that he must carry with him in his role as Minister of Education. I'm sure I don't have to remind him of the years of restraint and cost-cutting that really have created a distortion in our public school system that has diminished the overall quality of education offered to B.C.'s children and to some degree has damaged the morale and sense of common purpose among administrators and teachers in this province.

It's unfortunate that the minister does face this legacy of confusion and mismanagement, much of it caused by lack of

[ Page 4330 ]

consultation, lack of careful planning and lack of commitment to the goals of public education on behalf of the government of British Columbia, and in particular caused to some degree by an excess of distrust for those who teach our children in this province. I hope through my remarks to deal with some of the issues that may help the minister break with this legacy of the past, this legacy of mismanagement, and help him in his job of providing for the children of this province the kind of quality education that we all want to see. I think the minister is well aware of that historical legacy.

He's also well aware of the Canadian context in which we operate in British Columbia. The question of finance of education has always been at the heart of controversy in this province. I'd like to spend some time dealing with the financial aspects. The minister certainly raised them in his introductory remarks. The financial contribution, support and effort of the province of British Columbia under successive Socred administrations has certainly been a focal point of controversy. I think this contributes to much of the malaise that the minister, at least to some degree, glossed over in his remarks.

The minister did mention the Canadian context, the interprovincial comparisons, at a recent BCSTA annual general meeting. Quite properly, in his remarks the minister said that it would be improper for a government to pride itself on higher costs of education as a major criterion in judging that system. However, I think it would also be foolish to pride one's government on looking at lower costs as a major criterion of the success of a system. We cannot neglect the fact that the financial effort is some measure of a province's concern, priority and caring for its education system.

Certainly there are many other measures that we should be looking at in addition to the financial contribution. Many of those are not as easy as counting the cold, hard cash contribution of a province. We should be looking at the withdrawal rates, the participation rates in post-secondary institutions, and the attitude of the public towards the government's contribution to education. We should be looking at other attitudinal kinds of things such as the desire of the young people of the province to become teachers of children.

We all know that the Canadian economic climate in every province faced a downturn in the eighties. Many provinces suffered worse than British Columbia did. But what we have seen exacerbating the problem in this decade in British Columbia is a systematic underfunding, relative to other provinces, under successive Social Credit administrations. At the annual general meeting of the B.C. School Trustees' Association that I mentioned, the Minister of Education spent a good deal of time in what I think was a futile attempt to discredit the interprovincial comparisons — those comparisons put out by Statistics Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, of which the minister is a member, and those figures the minister does not hesitate to include in his annual report. So I think they certainly are credible enough.

The minister indicated, with respect to interprovincial comparisons, that if he included all kinds of other things — capital expenditures and those kinds of things — then the minister could credit British Columbia with the highest per-pupil spending in Canada. That is certainly not a valid argument, and I'm sure that ministers across Canada would be interested to hear that the Minister of Education of British Columbia believes that B.C. spends more per pupil than the other provinces. Even if that argument, as futile as it is, were true — and it's not — it would still not be valid in the sense that what we've seen, even with those figures, is a continual annual slide of this province's contribution to education down to the bottom of the pack in this decade.

The minister at that same meeting described the provincial contribution as being at the middle of the pack. Well, last year I indicated to the minister that our per-pupil spending was the lowest west of New Brunswick. I'm sad to say that I was wrong, because at the time I was speaking we had slipped even lower in per-pupil spending. The situation, according to the latest Statistics Canada figures, shows that in terms of per-pupil expenditure we are now the lowest west of Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, according to the latest StatsCan figures, have moved ahead of British Columbia in per-pupil spending. Two provinces, with some 155,000 pupils in them, are the only provinces with less financial contribution per student on behalf of their provincial governments in Canadian dollars — less money in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island than in British Columbia — so that suggests that that 3.5 percent of the Canadian student population represents the only students who live in a province whose government contributes less. The minister says British Columbia is in the middle of the pack; we're right at the bottom of the pack, except for that 3.5 percent of the student population.

The slide I mentioned has been systematic and progressive. In 1978, in terms of per-pupil spending, we were second behind Quebec. In 1982 we were third; we'd moved behind Quebec and Alberta. In 1984 we were sixth — keeping in mind that every province in the eighties suffered the difficult economic times of that early part of the decade. By 1987-88, as I mentioned, we were eighth, behind Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island — two very clearly identified have-not provinces in this country.

In terms of per-pupil expenditure in that year the province of British Columbia contributed only 84 percent of the national average, and less than the American national average — considering all the American have-not states. That American national average had just increased its spending per pupil. Because they recognized the importance of the education of their children to the future prosperity of that country, they had just increased, as a national average in the United States, their contribution to the tune of $250 per pupil. So not only have we slipped in terms of the Canadian context; we've slipped in terms of the North American context. We had the lowest percentage increase in the years '81-87 of any province in Canada, and half of that of some other provinces.

I'd like to commend the minister for his contribution this year to putting an end to that trend. However, I suggest that those moneys that were quite rightly put into the education system in this budget were those moneys that were promised to the school system as part of the funds for excellence in education. Those moneys were part of the $600 million that the province of British Columbia promised to the education system of this province in 1986. A vast amount of that $600 million was unspent. Where did that money go? I would like to commend the minister for that contribution, but I suggest to him that it was underspent money from the funds of the excellence in education program — part of a previous education promise to the school system in this province.

[3:00]

As I've said, we've seen the continual slide in contribution. I suggest that this year's contribution — as welcome as it might be — is not going to stem the tide, is not going to reverse the trend, and in fact, is going to be part of the

[ Page 4331 ]

continual slide in terms of interprovincial and North American comparisons. I would like to ask the minister where he sees the future position of British Columbia being for per-pupil spending across Canada.

I'd like him to promise this Legislature that we'll see the end to the slide. I'd like to ask the minister if he uses these compelling arguments of interprovincial comparisons and comparisons with other jurisdictions in North America when he goes to Treasury Board to ask for funds on behalf of the people in British Columbia. Perhaps I'll leave it there and ask the minister to respond to those three questions.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess we've just heard the member sum up his approach of: "Improvements are being made, but let's not talk about those. We've got to go back over last year, two years or three years ago." In other words, there is no way that he can bring himself to say that maybe we've turned the corner, maybe we're spending more. There's no way that the member can acknowledge the larger amounts of money that we've been putting into education in the last two years for operating, capital, minor capital. There's absolutely no way he can acknowledge that without saying it's not good enough; it's too late; it should have been done years ago. It wasn't.

Don't go back in history; we're moving at this point. I think he agrees that education is not necessarily to be judged by "let's see who can spend the most to get the job done." He doesn't say that, but then his whole argument revolves on who has spent more to get the same job done. I suppose that will be ever the case.

If we were at the top of the heap, I suppose with the negative approach that the member must take, he would be wondering how we're wasting the money in education. As long as we're somewhere else.... I don't know what figures the member uses; they certainly don't compare to the statistics I get about us being down at the bottom of the heap.

MR. JONES: StatsCan.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: StatsCan. I don't know what figures they are using, because I get certain figures from them, and we don't seem to be down at the bottom of the heap. Even they will acknowledge that the homeowner grant, which other provinces don't include — that is, it's not included and worked into our per cost per pupil — makes quite a difference.

That's what I've said to the member: what are you comparing? I do know this: all the provinces and all the ministers have realized the inadequacy of the basis for comparing. It wasn't that much of an issue when people took it as a comparison. Since it has become the whole determinant for educational quality by the opposition and by critics, therefore there should be a degree of accuracy built in. The Canadian Council of Ministers of Education has set up a committee, working with Statistics Canada, to see if we can make valid comparisons.

When I add in the other costs that are not included — and they vary from province to province, year to year — everyone agrees that you cannot do a valid comparison of per-pupil costs, because different things are included. I can use our figure for last year, anywhere from $4,000 to $4,600, depending on what is included. The opposition critic says that's not true. I could show him the figures. It just depends which columns I include: statutory benefits, non-statutory benefits, pension contributions, homeowner grant, commercial or non-commercial property. Just change the statistics — if it is so important that he judges education strictly by the amount spent per pupil.

I'm more inclined to think and I think a lot of people might agree with me: is the job being done? Whenever we compare the quality of education, the quality of our students being turned out in British Columbia, we measure up at the top of the heap. But the member ignores those statistics; he doesn't want to talk about those. He says: "Let's talk about the amount of money." It's apparently irrelevant to the critics whether the job is being done. How the costs compare is the only argument we seem to hear.

As far as this total controversy about financing, since the member has decided that we're the bad guys, I would say it has been to his advantage — and to the advantage of some of the critics — to keep a constant controversy going on financial matters by selectively using figures to say it's awful, when we could be dealing with educational issues. A tragic legacy, he calls it. Our pupils have done well through the '80s in educational terms. Our teachers have done well in educational terms, and in financial terms. Yet the member says we have a tragic legacy. I would suggest that this whole confrontation, this damaged morale.... If you listened to the member's comments in response to my comments, his whole focus was on saying how bad everything is. So it's politically in his interests, I guess, to try to maintain the perception — false, in my opinion — that our education system is a disaster. In that way he can keep capitalizing on it and saying we just need to put more money into it. Never mind what the results are.

I have difficulty with some of the arguments that the member makes. For instance, he says we must look at the withdrawal rates. He uses Ontario as one of the higher spenders in education on a per-pupil basis. Guess what? Their withdrawal rate is higher than British Columbia's. There is no definite correlation between amount spent per pupil and the withdrawal rates in the education system, yet somehow the member seems to say we don't spend enough, ipso facto our withdrawal rate is bad. Across this country you can't find a positive correlation — not across the board. You might find one if you compare two provinces against each other, but you cannot find a consistent comparison of withdrawal rates relative to the amount of money spent.

In answer to the member's question — which somehow or other I think I've lost in all his negative comment — I can assure the member that we are committed to keeping the education system a high priority, as we have been doing. But to ask me, regardless of the results, regardless of any other reasons, whether I will commit to saying we are going to work to be the highest spenders in education across this nation, no way. I want results, not just high costs.

MR. JONES: The minister accused me of looking selectively at figures. I think the minister is guilty of selective hearing. I said very clearly that I commended the minister for his efforts in terms of funding this year. I don't blame him for wanting to forget the legacy that is his albatross. Certainly if I was Minister of Education and I had that kind of tragic history to bring with me, I would be very anxious to forget that as well.

The minister seems to want to come in here and have a love-in. If he wants a love-in, maybe he should go to St. George's or the Fraser Institute or the corporations that have

[ Page 4332 ]

had their taxes reduced tremendously in this province. But if he wants to come in here and debate education, then be prepared to do so, and be prepared to listen to the kinds of things that I said. I said very clearly to the minister that the funding aspect.... We're going to be here for a little while, and I thought I would get at what has been at the core of problems in this province for this decade, if not before, and deal with some of the funding questions — get those out of the way and get on to some of the more educational things. I said very clearly that this is not the single priority, that being the highest spender in the country is not the objective of this side of the House. I said one measure of a government's concern, effort and priority is its contribution to education.

I did say we should be looking at other things, and we will have a look at things such as withdrawal rates, participation rates, the attitudes of the public and the desire of young people to become teachers in this province. Don't twist what I said. I said very clearly that those statistics are valid. They have been valid for years. They can be made more valid. I'm sure, as part of the Council of Ministers of Education, you'll do your best to make them more valid. They have been used as a basis of comparison, but suddenly the minister has just discovered these statistics that he has been printing in his annual reports. Now he wants to discredit those statistics because they make this government look bad — very bad — in terms of interprovincial comparisons across this country.

I'd like to suggest that we see virtually no members on the opposite side of this House, particularly the Premier. I'm sure the Chairman has noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has been an active participant in all the major debates in this Legislature; he has made his contribution to this province through his full participation. The Leader of the Opposition would like to say a few words about financing, about some problems of inner-city schools. I'd like to relinquish my spot and have the Leader of the Opposition say a few words in debate to the Minister of Education.

MR. HARCOURT: I am pleased to say a few things about the education estimates. I regard it as one the most important areas of activity in the province, if not the most important, to the point where I was prepared to put a brief before the Sullivan commission on the education prospects for our young people, as we approach an uncertain twenty-first century. For those reasons, I wanted to reiterate some of the remarks I made to the Sullivan commission presentation at Notre Dame School in the east side of Vancouver.

I had three areas in particular, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to address to the commission. I'd like the minister and his deputy to hear them too, because they are three of the key problems that the education system is facing in the public school system throughout British Columbia. In particular, I want to talk about some of the problems that the constituents in Vancouver Centre — and the other inner-city schools — are facing.

The three areas that I will be talking about are: first, the funding formula; second, Vancouver's inner-city schools, and an education system for the rich and another one for the poor families in our city; and third, the problems of hungry schoolchildren, which you'll be hearing more about from the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), who has presented a bill to the Legislature to address that particular issue.

The minister, in response to our able education critic from Burnaby North, stated that the critic kept saying that the education system is a disaster. I didn't hear him say that at all; I heard him saying that what's happening in this province in education is not good enough. That's the point. We're not here to score political Brownie points — whether we like each other or not, to say good or bad things. The main reason we're here is stated very well in this brief that was also presented to the Royal Commission on Education by the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association. It's a quote. Although we may not like this particular trade deal, we certainly are free traders in ideas, and I'm quite prepared to quote from a great poet from among our closest friends and neighbours to the south of us, in the United States, Carl Sandburg, who is at the introduction to this brief from the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association to the Royal Commission on Education called "The Future is Theirs. " On the cover is a picture of children of every ethnic community that makes up the mosaic of which we're very proud in British Columbia. That's really why we're here, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister and your deputy.

[3:15]

Carl Sandburg wrote: "There's only one child in the world; and the child's name is all children." That's really what it's about: a future for our young people; that they're properly educated, trained, able to go into the job market, able to be enriched citizens of our fortunate, democratic society. I don't make these remarks as the leader of the New Democratic Party and of the opposition to play Jimmy Chicken — that this government is a disaster; their policies are a disaster; what's happening is not good enough for these children. These comments about the financing formula, the problems of the Vancouver inner-city schools, of 500 schoolchildren per day coming to those schools hungry.... I make them for those children, because that's what we're here for. We may have different priorities: whether we should be wasting $500 million on the Coquihalla or investing a few million well-invested dollars into the education system.

The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) talks about areas in the education system suffering difficulties, and one of the areas has been that of confrontation. That has been one of the most unfortunate benchmarks of the last few years in education, because the education system has been fraught with confrontation, to a large extent by the misguided policies of this and the past government, a government that is out of touch with the real needs of our communities, which differ from area to area throughout British Columbia.

These policies in a government that is out of touch have created an adversarial environment in which each of the players find themselves pitted against the others. We have the government pitted against school boards, school boards against taxpayers, teachers against parents, and all the combinations in between. This isn't just the normal give and take and different interests that I've observed in 30 years — more than that, back to the age of four — in the education system in this province, as being extreme and exasperating. That's why, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus, I put in some remarks to the royal commission: to try and transcend the short-term problems that our education system is having.

Although, as the minister says, you don't want to throw money at problems or throw money at systems, we're not suggesting that. We're suggesting that those jurisdictions that are prospering are the ones that have made education their primary area of investment, whether it be Massachusetts, California, Washington, Japan, or some of the European countries. They've made it their primary area of investment.

[ Page 4333 ]

Brain power — creativity and imagination, the ability of our young people to adapt. This adversarial system squeezes us away from that emphasis on the big picture and the need of a good education for our young people.

The unfair nature of the financing formula we have in British Columbia right now shows up in the confrontational approach of the minister On February 21, the Minister of Education announced that teachers' salaries for the 1988-89 school year would be limited to a 2.8 percent increase. That is total interference with the collective bargaining process; an unnecessary restriction on school boards. Anything negotiated beyond the 2.8 percent would force the school boards to reach into the taxpayers' pockets and increase residential property tax. It's exaggerated even more because of this unfair, overall investment in education and the focusing of any increases on to the residential property tax. This is not the way, Mr. Chairman, that a responsible government should be dealing with our education system.

We understand that governments should be budgeting carefully, but that should come only after consultation with our school boards and respecting the fact that our school boards understand the needs of our communities throughout the province. That kind of respect and consultation doesn't come from what the government is doing now, aside from arbitrarily and unilaterally setting that 2.8 percent increase on teachers' salaries. It doesn't come by redefining the duties of teachers and their hours of work without prior consultation and without regard for the bargaining process.

What we have is a government that is confrontational; it doesn't consult. Its actions show that they are not interested in consultation. It's a front, a cover for their own agenda, which belittles our own educational system.

I want to draw to this House's attention this major problem which I put before the Sullivan commission and which that commission is coming to terms with. Hopefully, they will put a full report before us, not at the government's hurried pace of June 1 but when they are able to put a comprehensive and full report before us, because they have received 180 extra submissions as at the close of submissions at the end of March. I want the minister and this government to allow the commission to have the opportunity to digest those 180 reports and submit a full royal commission report on the future of our young people as soon as possible — not some artificial deadline that is governed by already prepared government legislation and game plans in secret for our education system.

What I said, Mr. Chairman, at the Sullivan commission I'll repeat today: the present funding formula is simply unfair. It treats school districts more or less equally and, secondly, it generates artificial cost assumptions that don't correspond to reality. For example, if a district is compact, with schools close together, its budget may be adequate, but if it is in a rural area like Atlin, which I visited last year, where the schools are scattered and the local economy is weak, it's badly hurt by the design of the funding arrangements.

Person after person that I spoke to in Atlin made that point — the desperation of their school district's financial situation because of these artificial assumptions of financing education in rural areas. In other words, we need a funding formula that the minister doesn't laugh at. I'd laugh about it too if I was the minister of mis-education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm laughing at your comment.

MR. HARCOURT: I would laugh too if I was putting these poor people through that kind of squeeze just so their kids can get a decent education. I can see that the minister doesn't take education very seriously at all when he laughs at the comments being given in good faith in this Legislature to help him finally see that what he is doing isn't good enough for the young people in this province, and to try to stop his giving us his rote: "Negative, doubting people, you're just offering disaster scenarios; you don't know what you're talking about; you're mixing up your figures; you're distorting the reality...."

I've heard it from you time after time, Mr. Minister. When are you going to get serious about education in this province? Why don't you look at a financing formula that allows for a more equitable distribution of the tax burden between the provincial government and school boards, provides fairer property taxes for individual taxpayers and builds stability into our education system? I see that some of the heckling is coming from the past Minister of Post-Secondary Education, who basically said when he was the minister that if you don't have wealthy parents, tough on a post-secondary education. I can see why he would be heckling. I'd be embarrassed, too, if I had that kind of a track record as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education.

From 1972 to 1975 we took seriously a royal commission on education, and we asked an outstanding British Columbian by the name of Bob McMath, who has decades of experience in the education system and was a well-respected alderman in Richmond — I am sure the member from Richmond will agree — to look at the financing formula in our school system. That commission, after extensive presentations, recommended that 75 percent of B.C.'s education costs should come from provincial funding and 25 percent from property taxes.

MR. LOENEN: We've done better.

MR. HARCOURT: Yes, you have. You have expropriated the property tax from the commercial and industrial people and taken away from the school boards. That's the Social Credit view of doing better — expropriating unilaterally the source of revenue from school districts. As a matter of fact, in 1982, after the provincial government did that, they'd been lowering the amount of tax recovered from commercial and industrial sources. Commercial sources have dropped from 35 percent of total funds for education to 21 percent.

While it's laudable that the provincial government's share has increased from 51 percent to 59 percent during those years, the tax burden on individual taxpayers has not dropped correspondingly. The reasons are that this Social Credit government and past ones, by controlling the commercial tax rates and keeping their own share unrealistically low, have forced school boards to go to the homeowners and tenants to seek additional residential taxes to fill the gap in the education system.

While school board budgets have risen only 10 percent since 1982, those school boards have been forced to increase residential taxes 77 percent to make up the shortfalls. As the minister has disputed the figures that have come from the very able critic on education from Burnaby North, I would like to let you know that during that five-year period I've just referred to, the figures I have confirm what our education critic has been hearing — which you refuse to hear — that we

[ Page 4334 ]

have fallen from near the top to the bottom in Canada on school district expenditures per student. According to Statistics Canada, only the Maritime provinces spend less per student than B.C.

In fact, in B.C. we have increased our expenditures only $375 per student over the last five years — far and away the least of Canada's provinces. Those are the facts, Mr. Minister. You may not like them, as our critic from Burnaby North has said, but those are the facts. If you are of the school most of your colleagues seem to be from, of "Don't confuse me with the facts; we've already decided to mistreat education, " then so be it. But those facts are in stark contrast to the provincial government's own 1985 budget which promised that the decrease in non-residential school tax revenue would be fully compensated for by an increase in contributions to school districts from provincial general revenue. That hasn't happened. What has happened instead is that by forcing school boards to go to individual taxpayers for more money, the provincial government is playing politics with the future of our children.

On February 18, 1988, after the minister's interference once again with the collective bargaining process in setting that artificial limit on negotiations with teachers, the Vancouver Sun said: "It's an old game that has been played for a long time in Victoria. The provincial government shortchanges the education system but sees to it that the school board gets the blame." What they do is create a hostile and divided relationship between those parties who should be working together for a healthy education system. It drains the energy of school boards, teachers, parents and people involved in education away from the primary purpose of educating our young as well as possible so that they may play a full and meaningful role in British Columbia.

[3:30]

The present funding formula is not workable. It leaves a legacy of unfairness. We must find a realistic and equitable method of funding education, and we hope that the Sullivan commission, after listening to the hundreds of representations around this province, will give us some further guidance in updating the McMath proposals. It's only through sufficient additional funding that school boards can accomplish those programs that British Columbians want and expect, such as bilingual schooling, programs for the disabled and English as a second language, to name a few.

This inequity in school financing shows up very starkly in my riding, Vancouver Centre. Because of the quality of the people in the system who refuse to roll over and quit and be cynical, and because they are prepared to say that the future is theirs — the children of our province — and to put a brief in to the Royal Commission on Education, I think it's worth listening, Mr. Minister, to what the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association has had to say about the problems of inner-city schools in Vancouver.

Their position paper prepared in January 1988 states that there are 10 to 13 elementary schools in Vancouver that can be classified as inner-city schools. They base that number on eight characteristics which are contained in the brief, and I'll summarize them for you: (1) proximity to a core industrial area; (2) lower income or lower socio-economic status; (3) high unemployment; (4) higher student transience and absenteeism along with social and emotional problems; (5) higher levels of immigrant or English-as-a-second-language parents; (6) poor and overcrowded housing; (7) a lower level of education on the part of the parents; and (8) poor interaction between parents and children.

What we're talking about is the poverty of circumstance, those kinds of circumstance that increase the likelihood of failure in a regular school system. These inner-city children from deprived backgrounds lack the basic skills and aptitude assumed by the regular curriculum. They come to school without the advantages of a lot of children in this province. In other words, these children are not starting from the same point as their more fortunate peers.

I think it's worth quoting from the Province newspaper article that just came out on the weekend: "School Elitism Hits City Kids." Andrew Ross, the staff reporter, reports what we've been seeing through the media, which many of us, whether we're politicians, educators, parents, journalists or concerned citizens, can tell you about the Vancouver school system. This is what the article says: "Vancouver schools are getting better for the rich and worse for the poor, educators say. They charge that Socred restraint policies have created a more elitist school system than B.C. has ever seen."

One of the offshoots of relying on the financial resources of the parents of the children in the system is that more and more schools are having to rely on fund-raising activities for "extras" like computers, like extra-curricular activities. At a school like Shaughnessy Elementary, the parents raised $20,000 at a circus bazaar. At some of the inner-city schools, the parents don't have that kind of money. The parents are doing this not out of a sense of adding to the quality of education for their children, but out of desperation to give their children the quality of education they deserve. From the basic funding that should be there, fund-raising is now a desperate way of life for most of these schools and most parents.

I quote the article again:

"Fund-raising is a direct result of five years of government restraint and has led to a two-tier system of 'have' and 'have-not' schools,' says Noel Herron, principal of Strathcona Elementary.

"And it's not much different in the suburbs.

"We've got schools with more computers than others because of better fund-raising capabilities,' says Coquitlam school trustee Louella Hollington."'

Obviously, Mr. Minister, you're not prepared to listen to my research. You're not prepared to listen to Noel Herron, the principal of Strathcona Elementary School. You're not prepared to listen to all his colleagues listed here. You're prepared to sit there and make snide remarks, showing your distaste for your job. I don't blame you. I'd feel my job was distasteful if I were doing it the way you are. You're not prepared to listen to Noel Herron of Strathcona School, Gail Sear of Moberly School, Stanley French of Queen Elizabeth, Allan Garneau of Maple Grove, Graham Nixon of Kitchener, Dennis Jantzi of Emily Carr, and about another 30 people who were prepared to put this brief together for you to read, instead of sitting over there sucking on your thumb.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member!

MR. HARCOURT: Oh, his thumb wasn't in his mouth; it was just beside his mouth.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would suggest that that really isn't....

[ Page 4335 ]

MR. HARCOURT: I withdraw that remark. It looked like his thumb was in his mouth, and it wasn't.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my name-calling of that member. It was on impulse after his very reasonable description of me.

MR. HARCOURT: And I withdrew my remark. You were not doing what I said you were doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I see the first member for Victoria out of the comer of my eye, standing on a ....

MR. G. HANSON: I was about to rise on a point of order, but I think the minister has withdrawn.

MR. HARCOURT: If the minister is prepared to listen, I'd like to let him know about the....

Why don't you go out and take a breather, Mr. Minister? It may improve your situation. If you don't like to hear these kinds of things, if you can't stand dealing with anything other than a fantasyland education system, please leave. I know you're not going to listen to these things that parents and educators, people in the media, people on this side of the Legislature, say need to be done in our education system. You don't want to hear it. You don't really care about these kids that I've had to work with for 20 years. But I'm going to tell the record about them, because there are things that we're going to be dealing with when we very shortly get to be government in this province, Mr. Minister.

What the administrators, parents, media and interested citizens in our city have to say about these children in the inner-city schools, for example — I'm glad to see that your deputy, at least, is writing this down, and I hope he's read the report — is that there is a direct correlation between success in reading and school achievement, and that inner-city children are often deficient in basic language skills. I'll read from the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association report, which states: "Lacking the language development, the peripheral, attentional and motivational skills and the positive self-images of their non-deprived peers, these children seem to fall increasingly behind." The gap between students at inner-city schools and others is there when they arrive at school, and it widens with time. By grade 4, many are an average of two years behind their peers; by grade 7, the gap may be unbridgeable. Mr. Minister, these children need help. Starving the education system means insufficient funding for remedial programs, creating a burden that falls more heavily upon the poorest of students.

The Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association report describes these children's special problems. They are, first, delayed development of basic skills relating to language use, and second, poor auditory and visual discrimination. I was very pleased, when I was the mayor of Vancouver, to be able to help the health department at our city hall, along with some very fine citizens, put together a mobile unit that could go out and test schoolchildren for auditory and visual discrimination, and to add a second vehicle able to do that. That's the reality of our school system in the inner city, and those are the kinds of resources that those children deserve and need. The third area of their special problems is delayed concept formation, which, I'm sure the minister and deputy minister will remember, is the ability to categorize, classify and express abstract ideas.

Without specific programs to deal with these problems, those children will never have a fair chance to fulfil their potential and realize their dreams, Mr. Minister, and are instead doomed to be underachievers. B.C.'s education system must get to them early and help them overcome their disadvantages. Let me reiterate several programs recommended by the VESAA report. If the member for Vancouver South, who grew up in Shaughnessy, were here to listen to me, after asking me for some positive recommendations, I would be prepared to give them to him. I'll send him a copy of the Hansard report of my remarks and a copy of this report so that he can read them, and maybe convince you to deal with these very real problems.

Here are a number of the very positive recommendations that came from the administrators of our schools: preschool for all four-year-olds; parenting programs for the working poor; smaller classes to increase quality of student-teacher contact; adequate health and counselling systems; strategies to improve child care and community health programs; in- service training for teachers and principals in the ways of working with disadvantaged students; additional support for classroom teachers, to enhance early intervention strategies such as home-school workers and staff assistance.

I'm sure the minister is going to say: "Oh, that's well and good. Those are very nice programs. But where are you going to get the money? It's just throwing money at problems." It's not throwing money at problems; it's dealing with children who have very severe disadvantages, Mr. Minister. What we're here to say today is yes, the cost of implementing these programs may be high; but the costs of inaction are higher. The Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' report estimates: "For every $1 spent today to prevent educational failure, we can save $4.75 in the cost of remedial education, welfare and crime further down the road." So go talk to the Attorney-General. the Minister of Social Services and the Minister of Health about the big picture of the government's bookkeeping, because that's where these expenditures are so cost-effective, let alone the human reality of helping these young people realize their dreams.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time under standing orders has expired.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition has a lot more to teach the Minister of Education, and I know the Minister of Education will want to hear those lessons.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to deal with a couple of other points. The fact is that Vancouver lags behind other major cities in spending per student on an annual basis. For example, it spends $300 to $1,200 less per student than Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa or Toronto. As well, the comparison between Vancouver and the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Regina regarding inner-city services funded under the Ministry of Education shows that Vancouver trails the others in the following areas: pre-kindergarten classes and staffing of pre-kindergarten classes; size of primary-grade classes; number of full-time, paid teachers' aides or assistants; school lunch programs; in-service training.

There is one bright spot. It should be noted that the one area where Vancouver is at par with the other cities is English-as-a-second-language training. Those responsible

[ Page 4336 ]

deserve full commendation. Although demands are being made for better funding for ESL programs, it appears ESL is the only inner-city program being recognized fully under the provincial government's fiscal framework.

[3:45]

What I'm saying on behalf of the New Democratic Party and my constituents in Vancouver Centre, and the other inner-city schools, Mr. Minister, is that our inner-city students deserve a fair chance. If we do not fund programs that will equip these youngsters with the skills that others gain in the regular curriculum, we limit their potential and, what's worse, perhaps damage their future before they even get out of primary school.

As I said earlier, the third area I presented to the Sullivan commission on education is that of the hungry schoolchildren in our school system. More than 500 children go to school hungry in Vancouver every day. That hunger leaves them lethargic and inattentive in class; they can't learn properly. This government's answer to the problem of hungry schoolchildren was a search-and-destroy mission on their parents as to why they weren't feeding them. Well, the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) said that he was going to give the parents some counselling on how to spend the money they receive, which hasn't increased in five years, on feeding their children better; or take their kids away — that was the implied threat — if they couldn't feed their kids.

Instead of dealing in a very unobtrusive, non-stigmatizing way with this easily doable program of feeding children in the schools, which the hon. member for Maillardville- Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) has laid out in a private member's bill and has spoken to time after time, what happens? This government has got to go and confront somebody who doesn't deserve it — some poor people on social assistance. What a disgusting, moralistic approach, which would rather blame the victims than solve the problem.

I raise this concern because I believe it is a specific provincial government responsibility that you have ducked over and over again as a government. You could work with the federal government, with the school board, with the city of Vancouver, who are trying desperately to deal with this problem that you refuse to confront. The harm being done is being done to children.

I look at the circles the school board and the schools and the food banks and the city council have to go through, and sometimes the silliness that comes out of it — the tragic silliness, where the school board finally votes against putting the dough into this program to feed these kids and bounces it over to the city council, which only has the property tax to pay for these programs. The city council votes on it, and they need a two-thirds vote. When they get seven votes out of the 11 that they need, one of the aldermen isn't there at night — and he said he would have voted for it — so they don't get their eight votes. So they have to bring it back two weeks later. What happens? One of the other aldermen goes home because she's hungry. So they can't get the eighth vote for a second time in order to feed these kids.

What a disgraceful performance for our society! What a disgrace on all of us for this government to put local school boards and city councils through this kind of hooha on a search- and-destroy mission against low-income parents, some of whom aren't on welfare; some of them are the working poor. What a terrible solution at this point in the twentieth century for 500 kids per day to go hungry still, because we're fumbling and bumbling and not dealing with these poor kids.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying once again that we require a funding framework that will build common purpose in education, not what we see now: people fighting with each other; the negative politics of it all. We need a formula that respects the initiative of the democratically elected trustees. We need to do away with the current practices that place the community in a hostile relationship with the school system and breed a lack of respect and, yes, even contempt among the parties.

If the member for Vancouver South had been here, I would have given him some practical, positive proposals, which are put forward not to play politics with the minister or this government, but because we're here — hopefully, all of us — to deal with the future of our young people.

Those proposals that I placed before the Sullivan commission I place, Mr. Chairman, before this Legislature today. They are as follows: (1) more equitable distribution of the tax burden between the provincial government and school boards; (2) a fairer property tax for individual taxpayers; (3) special attention to the needs of inner-city students which will allow them to develop basic and essential language-learning skills; (4) feeding hungry schoolchildren to give them a fair chance to succeed in their classes.

Quite simply, we must ask ourselves: can we give our children the tools to survive and flourish in tomorrow's world if we don't establish a fair and adequate method of funding their education today?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess it's difficult to somehow or other equate the Leader of the Opposition's opening remarks with the rest of his diatribe. He started out by saying we're not here to play politics; we're not here to be critical; we're here to talk about the good things in education. Then he says he is interested in all children, as though he somehow or other is privy to that emotion all on his own, when the total efforts of this ministry are committed to those children, to try and get the best possible opportunity for all children in this province.

He goes on to say that we mustn't have confrontation or an adversarial system, and then goes on throughout his whole speech to try and promote confrontation and adversity by making statements such as that we changed the working hours of teachers without consultation. That is absolutely not true. I don't know where the member gets it, but he says: "You've got to fight this horrible Socred government because they've changed your hours without consultation." There is absolutely no basis in fact to that comment, yet here we are, attacked by it.

He says that we have made funding changes without any consultation — again, without any basis in fact. I met with the BCSTA and the BCTF and had many meetings with individual school boards, asking them where the problems were and what the difficulty was. We had a fiscal framework advisory committee that met, submitted a report to me and made recommendations such as that we should include funding for substitute teachers because it is a fact of life; that we should include increases for clerical work; that we should increase the funding for statutory and non-statutory benefits; that we should provide more money here; and that we should really bring the funding up to currency.

The school boards told me repeatedly that they could not plan their budget in advance without knowing how much of the amount the government was going to be putting up. For the first time in history, before they had to prepare their

[ Page 4337 ]

preliminary budgets and well before they had to finalize their budgets on May 1,  I listened, and I went and said: "Here is what we're going to do. Instead of this system where you don't know what you're going to get next year and we don't know what you're going to get next year, because it all depends on how much you spent last year without any relevance to any base funding, any structure.... " Nobody could budget on that basis. So we brought the funding levels up to currency.

They said: "But we need to know what to budget for next year." We said: "Okay. We will put up 2.8 percent, which is our best estimate, for instruction costs next year, which involves teachers' salaries heavily, and we will go one step further." We have a commitment from Treasury Board and this government that next year, having established a rational base and brought it up to date, we will increase it by an amount determined by an index. Early in the game we asked the BCSTA, the BCTF, my ministry committee and people from the Ministry of Finance to pick the determinants of that index — not to set up the index but to say that the index for increase for next year will be based on these indicators, these salary settlements, this group, that group or whatever, and that's what we'll put in for next year. I think that is a significant accomplishment, a significant commitment by government to say that whatever the rest of the world out there determines shall be the increase next year, we will do.

For this year, we can't put that program in place. We've gone to the Labour ministry, we've gone to others and we've said: "What is the guess?" I notice that in Alberta it's going up 2 percent. I notice that a teachers' group in Alberta just settled for 3.5 percent over two years. I notice that after five or six weeks of strike in Alberta, a teachers' group settled for 5 percent over 32 months, less than 2 percent per year. What I did say at the trustees' convention was that the provincial government would bring you up to currency and we'll add 2.8 percent — our best guess for this year — on top of that for next year. That's what we will fund.

That member stands up in this House trying to promote controversy and confrontation and says that I set the limit on teacher salary increases at 2.8 percent. I did not. They said they needed to know how much we would fund in the following year so they'd know where they were at, if you like, in the colloquia end. I said we would fund that much: whatever they agreed to, the province would fund 2.8 percent of instructional cost increase. Yet that member stands up in this House and says we changed the working hours for teachers, when we did not.

Instead of reading his research — the editorial writers who feed on what the critics say — if he would read the regulations, he would find that the one regulation that was left in place was that teachers cannot be required to give instruction for more than 5.25 hours per day at the secondary level. That same regulation has been in place all this time and is still in place. Nowhere in those regulation changes did it say anything about teacher hours.

Somebody said: "Oh, my goodness, they intend to hit us with more hours. We will assume that the regulations say that." Then the Leader of the Opposition gets on that bandwagon and says, "How awful for the Socreds to do this horrible thing," which we haven't done. Then you feed on that, and you criticize us for that.

He talks about the royal commission, and then stands up in this House and says it is a farce: that we have already prepared the legislation that we intend to put in place and we're just going to play games with the royal commission. I resent that very deeply. I have not had any input into the royal commission other than one thing. The ministry said: "Here is what we see as the philosophical direction that education should go." Would you believe that our critic said the minister and the Ministry of Education in this province have no right to state an opinion on education? Then you feed off that.

[4:00]

You turn around and stand up in this House and put on the record of Hansard that the government has no intention of listening to the royal commission, that the government has already prepared its legislation. Mr. Leader of the Opposition, the rules of this House prevent me from saying just how false that statement is. I have said, and I said it in my opening remarks, that we have set aside in the budget this year money to analyze, to assess, to look at the royal commission report as soon as it is ready, as soon as it comes in so we can try to see what can be implemented and what legislation needs to be changed.

I have repeatedly said we do not intend to revise the total School Act. We don't intend to do that until we hear from the royal commission. I guess under the protection of this House, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, you can stand up and implicitly call me a liar and say I have already prepared all the legislation. All I can say, I guess, in defence, is that it has not been done.

I guess for the first time in the history of this House, when I put my hand up to my mouth, that member puts it on the record that I'm sitting here sucking my thumb, and says: "But I don't want to get personal."

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that that exchange was dealt with in this House by joint withdrawals. I don't know why the minister keeps wanting to inflame and escalate that. Surely it was dispensed with at an earlier withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was, in fact, withdrawn. Perhaps we can proceed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It was withdrawn, but I wonder if it will show up in Hansard, or if it will be stricken from Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The withdrawal will be recorded in Hansard. I would suggest, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Therefore the member did not say it. Okay, I'll accept that. The member did not make a personal, disparaging remark about me in this House. Through the device of withdrawal, he has not done that. It's wonderful what we can do with devices, isn't it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps we should just proceed with the debate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The Leader of the Opposition said that there is disparity among schools in the Vancouver school system. Then he attributes that and says: "I have a report and editorial comments that the Socred restraint program has created elitism in those schools." He uses the example that some schools don't have computers in them. Through the funds for excellence, the Vancouver School

[ Page 4338 ]

Board — having the largest enrolment in the province — got $4.5 million over two years, over and above what was put into the.... That was for special funding — for discretionary funding. If they worked on the same pattern as the rest of the province on the average, where about two-thirds of that money went for computers, then they had something like $3 million in two years for computers to put into the school system. This year they've got another $1.2 million or $1.3 million for computers. Again, it is the largest amount in the province. If the computers are distributed unequally to the Vancouver schools when we distribute that money by a formula that is fair and equitable in every district, then I think the member might give some thought as to why these computers are distributed inequitably in the Vancouver school system.

I'd like to just touch on the issue that the Leader of the Opposition has made so much of: the disgusting display of whatever with regard to the hungry schoolchildren in the Vancouver system. I have to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it had to be considered as silly and foolish, and I have to look at the motives. In the Vancouver system, they spend $200 million-plus per year on education. They say: "We have some hungry children, and we think they should be fed." They would have needed $200,000 or $300,000 to do that quietly and effectively, and if the first concern was the children, that would not have even shown up on a graph of their budget. It could have been done effectively.

Instead of that, they have chosen — with the support of the Leader of the Opposition — to make a great, big political football out of that program and to say the Social Services minister (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is uncaring; everybody is uncaring. I don't know. There have been other school districts and other schools.... I happen to know that when I was in the system, if a kid didn't have socks or a sandwich, we just went ahead and did it. But then, we weren't in Vancouver. We weren't in the position where you tried to make a big bunch of political hay out of a few hungry kids; we chose to feed them instead. That is my recommendation to the Vancouver School Board — $300,000 out of a $200 million-plus budget. It isn't worth the furor.

Now the city council, the federal government and the provincial government are all involved, and everybody is the bad guys except the guys who took a pittance in the total scheme of things and tried to make a big political furor out of it — at the expense of those kids.

MR. HARCOURT: I note with some sadness that the minister refused to deal with the substantive issues that I brought to his attention and to the royal commission's: that of the unfair financing of our school system. He didn't deal with the points that the Vancouver Elementary School Administrators' Association brought up about disadvantaged kids. Then he blames me for the hungry schoolchildren.

I've heard this kind of twisted logic that he always seems to bring in. It's almost like a rote formula, like the social studies teacher I had in grade 10 who used to write the textbook up on the blackboard for us to write into our notebook. That's the kind of mindless response we get year after year from this minister on the Education budget. I want to say that if he doesn't consider what he did in February as interference with the school boards and school trustees, God help him when he really decides to interfere with our school system.

He then says that he is not going to interfere with the royal commission. Don't take it personally, Mr. Minister. I'm talking about your government. It doesn't seem to worry about sending people forth to study what the people of this province want, whether it's Bills 19 or 20, which they put together in secret in the Premier's office.... You are going to have this royal commission doing all the things they want. Who knows what whim is going to come out of the Premier's office that makes it totally meaningless — some decisions in the Poole room about what they may decide to do, whatever the people of British Columbia want?

Look what happened to decentralization, what the municipal councils throughout this province are saying to this centralization in the Premier's office. Look what happened when the Supreme Court of Canada and our constitution had something to say about the abortion issue. Your Premier didn't seem to let that interfere with his outlaw behaviour on that issue. Who knows what is going to happen on the question of gambling casinos? So, Mr. Minister, don't take it so personally when I stand up and talk about the Social Credit government and what it has done to bring to its knees an education system that should be one of the best in the world.

He then talks about the Vancouver School Board and misses the whole point of what I'm saying. It's not a question of your ministry having a budget for computers and its being distributed fairly. You missed my whole point, which is part of your problem: you don't get the point. I wasn't talking about equal distribution of computers; I was talking about the unequal opportunity for inner-city schoolchildren, and why they need special attention from you. Instead, you just blindly forget about what I said, refuse to respond and get off on some sort of mewing semi-yelp about me being personal and political. You still haven't dealt with those two issues — a financing formula and the inner-city schoolchildren — and then you accuse me of creating hungry schoolchildren. I don't walk around with a case of Twinkies in my pocket to hand out to children in the school system; that's not my job. It's your job, and that of the Minister of Social Services, to deal with this problem.

I'm not just talking about the Vancouver school system. I travelled to 110 places last year, and I got the same thing in Kelowna. I got the same thing in a number of other areas of this province. It's not just in Vancouver that there are hungry schoolchildren. There are other areas where children are not being fed, and you won't deal with it. Your Minister of Social Services won't deal with it, except to say that we used to hand out shoelaces on occasion, or we used to deal with these kinds of needs in a charitable, sort of Lady Bountiful way. That's not a good enough response, Mr. Minister.

To say that there is some plot between me and the Non-Partisan Association shows an unbelievable lack of knowledge about Vancouver politics. My political foes for 20 years, and you say I'm in cahoots with the Non-Partisan Association. Of course, they are totally partisan. You know that; they are the Social Credit farm team. Don't make me responsible for the Social Credit farm team, which refuses to deal with this. You can carry your criticisms of me to absurd limits, but that goes beyond even Fantasy Garden absurdity. That is not something I will take responsibility for, the non-partisan — or the totally partisan — Social Credit farm team that runs our school system in Vancouver. You are saying that they plotted with me to create this issue. I didn't even talk to them about it. I didn't even talk to Ken Denike about this — the Non-Partisan Association chairman of the Vancouver School Board. That's who put this issue together, not me.

[ Page 4339 ]

When are you going to deal with reality, with these problems, instead of these puerile yippings that I hear out of you — or else you explode and you say certain things, that I accepted your gracious withdrawal. I wish you had done the same thing to me. I was getting angry with you because you weren't listening; you weren't hearing, and your remarks have just shown that once again.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess Hansard will show that the member said I accused him of creating hungry schoolchildren. Let the record speak for itself.

I will also say, regarding the funding formula, that the province pays about 80 percent of the cost of education from provincial revenues in this province — guarantees 75-25. It varies from district to district. Twenty-five percent is picked up by the local taxpayers.

The increase. The opposition leader is very selective in saying that the industrial and commercial tax was decreased. Over the same period that that was decreased by $215 million, the funding from consolidated revenue was increased by over $400 million. Any way you want to look at it, the province takes in its revenue from industrial and commercial, from sales tax and from all the other. The total amount the province put in was greater than the sum of the two parts, year after year.

[4:15]

As far as the funding is concerned, interestingly enough, in trying to determine an equalization of educational opportunities in this province, we have an equalization formula which many other provinces are looking at because it's considered very fair. The financial formula is considered one of the best ones in Canada. It does provide equalization of educational opportunities for the people in Atlin. The member made one visit to Atlin, became an expert on the north and then says that up there people said: "We're not getting our fair share." He comes back and in defending the Vancouver position seems to imply that they are not getting their fair share. It would seem that under any equalization program, according to the Leader of the Opposition, nobody gets his fair share.

Yet the budget, if the member would like to take a moment to study and read it, shows that we're increasing the amount of funding to small schools this year. We did last year, and not without consultation: it was on the advice of a committee that was set up representing all of the interests in education. They said that in order to provide these opportunities we needed to provide a different pupil-teacher ratio, more funding and a different type of curriculum support. All that is being done in the small schools.

Of the total amount spent for English-as-a-second-language instruction in this province, I would think Vancouver gets the lion's share, because they have a lot of people there who need English as a second language. It's considered one of the fine programs in this country, and it has increased dramatically over the years.

Say that for the funding formula.... All I can say, as far as the member's distortion of what I said.... I guess we'll leave it to Hansard to show that I did not say many of the things that the member accused me of saying. Let Hansard speak for itself.

MR. JONES: Sadly, once again we've seen the minister switch into rhetorical overdrive when he couldn't get enough mileage out of the facts. We've seen evidence that he went to the ad hominem school of debate, blaming the messenger for his own problems. I'd like to keep trying with this minister, because, as with the young people of this province, I have faith, and I have faith that we can have a reasonable debate in this Legislature on the important topic of education. I'd like to go back and try the minister again on some of the remarks that I made earlier and some of the questions that I asked, and see if we can have a reasonable debate on this topic.

I said that I'd like to deal with a few matters with respect to the financing of education, because that's been a focal point of controversy for many years. Certainly there are many other issues that are important for the minister and this Legislature to participate in.

I did say that finance is an important issue. It is a measure of the concern, the priority and the caring of the government. I tried to point out to the minister, in terms of per-pupil expenditure in particular, how over the years we went from a very high place in interprovincial comparisons to a very low place. I know the minister has prepared arguments and he sees that statistic as lacking in credibility. I suppose he has to put up some defence, so that's fine. But clearly the minister has seen that slide and knows that we've moved very far down the scale.

I did commend the minister for the funds committed to education this year. The minister is aware that as a percentage of the provincial budget we saw an increase in the order — let's not get hung up on actual figures here — of 22 percent in Education between '82 and '87. But Health was double that, and Social Services was almost triple.

I want to help the minister get in there and fight for education dollars, because I believe so firmly in the importance of our young people in the future of this province. I ask the minister questions like: will you get in there and act as an advocate? Will you use these interprovincial and North American arguments in going after funding from the Treasury Board? Do you agree that the trend is going the wrong way? Where does the Minister of Education see British Columbia right now in per-pupil expenditure? Where would he like to see British Columbia in the future? Is there a motivation? Is there hope there on the part of the province that we're going to move to improve our place? Not that this is the only criterion; not that throwing money at the school system is the answer; but can the minister give any hope for the direction of education in this province relative to other provinces?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had answered the member's questions. I do not agree with his saying that the trend has been a steady decline in our education system. I do not agree with it, and I can find no objective evidence to support it. The member will take certain figures, per-pupil costs or teachers' salaries, and by leaving out certain things it gives the impression.... I've tried to say to the member: I can show you that we have gone up in per-pupil costs in relation to most of the rest of the provinces. But you don't want to hear that. You say: "Oh no, that's not fair. You can't include the things that bring your numbers up. You can only include the things that bring your numbers down." That's the way you want to play.

I don't know; we can discuss it indefinitely, I guess — forever if you like. I do not agree that our funding for education is as bad as you say it is. I do not agree that our educational system has suffered to the extent that you have indicated. I can't find any evidence for it. When you ask

[ Page 4340 ]

where we are heading in the future, I thought I had answered that very clearly: we are heading for an improved education system, funding where needed. He said the minister must go and fight for education. Once in a while, to keep everything in balance, he will say, "I commend the minister; however..." and for the next ten minutes you hear of all the faults. That is the trouble. Our education system is basically good. It can stand some improvements. We're working with the BCSTA, the BCTF, my ministry, any of the schools I visit, all of the people and all of the groups.... We go to a lot of trouble to meet all of them and ask them where we can improve it. Don't just tell me it's bad, because I see too many good things; I see too many professional teachers doing excellent jobs out there. Don't tell me we've got a rotten system. It irritates and annoys me.

If you say we can improve our system, I'll agree with you one hundred percent. That is where our effort is devoted. But if the member is simply asking if we are going to move in the direction of spending the most money of any jurisdiction in Canada, I will not agree. If the member wants to say we're going to keep working to make ours the best education system in this country and in North America, we're dammed near there now, and you bet I'll try.

MR. LOENEN: I'd like to say a few things about education, because it certainly is a very important item in my constituency, Mr. Chairman; and I know that it is that for most people in the province.

I'm sorry to see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has left. I was in the House earlier when he remarked that we are increasingly putting a greater burden on the residential taxpayer and on the municipalities, and we're doing less and less for the homeowners out there. We can expect, I think, from the members opposite that they be political, but we should at least be able to expect that they do not misrepresent the facts. The truth is that the trend is the other way. Increasingly, the province is picking up a greater percentage of the cost of educating our children.

This year the total provincial funding approaches 85 percent; it leaves about 15 percent for the residents and some 5 percent from other sources. That is a fact. In my own riding, School District 38, as a result of this increased funding the taxes that are paid by the homeowners will decrease this year; and I want to commend the school board in Richmond for doing that. They've worked together with the ministry in a non-political way. They don't make headlines like some other districts. They don't go on the political bandwagon. They're there to serve the interests of their community in a responsible way. Because of the increased funding from the province, they were able to decrease the burden on the homeowners in Richmond. I think that's wonderful. Those kinds of success stories are there, and they need to be told too, Mr. Chairman.

We continually hear that we're underfunding, we're starving people, and we're not doing enough for education. You know, Mr. Member, that last year there was an increase of 11 percent in the Education ministry's budget; this year it's 8 percent. It's far in excess of the rate of inflation. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the members to recognize and acknowledge this.

Please stop playing games, and tell the people of this province that last year's budget had an 11 percent increase and this year's budget has an 8 percent increase; that's 19 percent over two years. That is a very good and responsible record. For you to deny that is to do a disservice to the cause you profess to be interested in. You're not serving your constituents. You're not serving the people of this province. You're not serving the children and their needs by continually misrepresenting the facts.

MR. JONES: The member for Richmond should understand that when members on this side of the House rise on behalf of the people of this province, and in particular the children of this province, they're not perpetuating any particular propaganda or any particular line. You don't have to listen to this side; listen to the press. The press don't have any particular political agenda, do they, when they say: "Who Will Foot the Bill for School Funds?" "Shift the Burden of School Taxes." "Doing Sums with Socreds." "Superintendents for More Education Dollars. "Socreds Starve Schools." "Business Tax Break Costs Homeowners." "Property Tax Hike Needed Despite Schools' Grants Rise." "Aid Hike Urged for Special Needs Pupil." "Quality of Education Slipping, Commission Told." "B.C. Schools Financially Underfed." "Budget Fails." "School's Health Rates Top Priority." Don't take my word for it, Mr. Member for Richmond; listen to the people of British Columbia.

The minister says that he has no faith in the statistics on per-pupil expenditure. And if we really included all those figures that the minister suggests we should, we would have the highest per-pupil expenditure in Canada. But if we have in 1988 the highest per-pupil expenditure in Canada, I wonder what we would have had had we included all those extra things that the minister excludes in 1978, when we were the second highest in Canada. We must have been astronomical on the charts. The graphs wouldn't have had room to include the B.C. statistics. I think it's amazing. Even if we accept that silly argument on the part of the minister, that's one statistic that the minister can look at. But there are so many, and it's so depressing, I hesitate to mention them.

One of the favourite expressions of this government is "ability to pay." If we as individual taxpayers look at our own personal income, then as a percent of personal income, the ability of this province as individuals to contribute to our education system, British Columbia ranks tenth out of ten. We contribute, as a percentage of our personal income, the lowest of any province in Canada.

[4:30]

1 think that what happens is that when we look at the ability of individuals to pay, it takes into account all that income on the part of all citizens. If you think that having a large of seniors move from the Maritimes to British Columbia is going to assist, then they would have the greatest ability to pay. In fact, we have a great ability to pay in this great province, and we have a lot of wealth, and in terms of our ability to pay, we contribute the least of any province in Canada.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As a percent of the gross provincial expenditure, we contribute ninth out of ten. We're not at the bottom on this one, but we're second to the bottom. It doesn't matter if the minister adds all those figures in. If we look at the percentage of personal income, if we look at the percentage of gross provincial expenditures, if we look at the expenditure per capita, we are again tenth out of ten. If we look at the percent of provincial and municipal budgets, we are again tenth out of

[ Page 4341 ]

ten. I could go on and on. It doesn't require per-pupil expenditure figures. If we look at all the figures for the factors that go into a financial contribution on the part of the province to education, we're down around the bottom.

There is one I would like to look at for which the minister cannot argue that we should add other factors in, and that's probably a good indicator of service levels: the pupil-teacher ratio. The only province other than Quebec that has increased the pupil-teacher ratio since 1981 is guess what province. It's the province of British Columbia, the only province other than Quebec — and Quebec is way ahead of us in terms of pupil-teacher ratio — that has increased since 1981. In fact, as of September 1986 the only provinces that have a higher pupil-teacher ratio are New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The minister can't affect these statistics by saying that we should add in this, that and the other thing. A pupil-teacher ratio is a pupil-teacher ratio, and can't be fettered by the Minister of Education.

I think it's very hypocritical of a minister who is part of a government that has $7.5 million for a Challenger jet, who can afford the overexpenditure on the Coquihalla, who can afford the most expensive rapid transit system in North America, who gives himself an 11 percent salary increase, who annually gives away $600 million to the corporations of this province, who is quite capable of finding lots of money for the independent schools of this province and who can afford to fund loans to build schools in Hong Kong, to have difficulty in suggesting to the people of British Columbia that he will promise to make an even greater financial commitment in the future to the children of this province.

The Minister of Education should know that the people of this province both misunderstand where we stand provincially and have very high expectations of this province's performance in terms of its contribution to schools. When the BCSTA recently did a public study of the public's understanding and knowledge of education in terms of per-pupil expenditure, the people of British Columbia indicated that we rank third, fourth or fifth. As I pointed out to the minister even though he hesitates to accept the figures of the Council of Ministers of Education and of Statistics Canada, the people of British Columbia are under the misapprehension that even after all those years of cutbacks we're still in the ball park — that we're third, fourth or fifth — when in fact, as I've indicated, we're right down at the bottom of the pack.

It's important for the minister to understand that the people of British Columbia want us to rank up there. In fact, the vast majority of British Columbians want us to be first in terms of our contribution to education, because they understand the importance of education to the future of this province. A majority want us first, and three-quarters of the people surveyed in this study want us to be in the top three. Although the minister may suggest that we're already there, I submit that, according to the reliable statistics of both the council of ministers and Statistics Canada, we are definitely at the bottom.

In terms of the survey and the amount spent on public education in British Columbia, 6 percent of those surveyed agree with some members opposite that we spend too much on education already; 22 percent indicated we are about right, and that seems to he where the minister says we are — so 22 percent of those surveyed agree with the minister; and a full 68 percent of those surveyed by the B.C. school trustees say we spend too little on education.

There are other indicators, other than financial, that we should perhaps get on to, and at least for a brief time leave the finances, because we certainly don't want to see the minister switch into rhetorical overdrive again. There are other indicators and they are significant ones. I would like to ask the minister about one of these. Perhaps the minister doesn't agree that British Columbia students are really at the bottom in terms of their participation in post-secondary institutions. I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that we've got a long way to go. The minister has even suggested that there are areas that need improvement, and perhaps he would agree that this is one of them. In a recent study from Brock University, P.J. Atherton indicates that graduation and retention rates have fallen over the past few years in British Columbia, and he sees this as a serious problem. Post-secondary enrolment has gone from 8 percent in 1981-82 to 9 percent in 1983-84 to 10 percent in 1984-85, and in 1985-86 it was down to 9 percent.

A question to the minister in terms of the areas where he sees improvement needed: does he see an effort and leadership needed on the part of the ministry in trying to find ways to reduce the barriers to students attending post-secondary institutions, to encourage them, to see our statistics climb from the bottom of the pack to somewhere more appropriate and more like where the people of this province would really like to see them, and that's at the top? Does the minister see the participation rate of our students in post-secondary institutions in this province as one of those areas he would like to improve upon, and what are his specific plans?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the member's question about whether we look for improvement in the participation rate, of course we do. That's what I'd like to get at in education debate: the improvement of education. That's why we are meeting on a professional liaison basis with the BCTF, the BCSTA, the school boards, anybody who will meet with us, to say: what is making kids drop out of school? Is there some good reason? Should we be aiming for 100 percent retention at any price, or is there another way we could accomplish it? Those sorts of things. That's what I would like to discuss, but I can't get to it with this member and a lot of other people, because all they want to do is talk about funding, funding, funding. You say funding is only one factor in education; but every time you stand up, you are making funding comparisons.

You asked if I would make a commitment to increase funding for the future. How much plainer can 1 make it? I've made that commitment, because government has supported me in making the commitment. We raised the base this year. We put in what we consider a much better funding base, and we are committed to increasing that by whatever index is generated by the economic situation in British Columbia. You keep asking me if I will commit to further funding. 1 think that's a rather remarkable commitment on the part of government, which has to budget each year not knowing what will be happening in the future. Only critics have a crystal ball; the government has to do the best it can.

They have said that if the index next year is 5 percent, we'll go up 5 percent. If the index next year in the rest of the world is 2 percent, we'll go up 2 percent in the funding. Is that fair? Whatever that index dictates.... This year we picked the index because we had no way of getting that machinery in place. Even then, when we picked the index, we said: "What was the average settlement last year? What are we looking at realistically for next year? What's a composite figure that makes the best sense?"

[ Page 4342 ]

Our statisticians, the people we asked, the Labour ministry, said: "Try somewhere between 2.8 and 3 percent." So we took 2.8 and said: "For next year we'll commit whatever the economy of this province says for rate settlements, other settlements and all that." I think that's a pretty strong commitment for the government to say: "That will be our funding increase in the future." School boards — you will know that if the economy booms, your funding will boom with it. Is that not about as fair as you can get?

To be repeatedly asked, "Are you going to do anything? Are you going to commit to any future spending?" when I've spelled it out as clearly as possible and the government has made a commitment to the future spending.... The member says very blithely that survey after survey showed that 68 percent of the population want more money spent on education. I think that's wonderful. As Education minister, I am delighted. If only I could get them to say, "We would like to spend more money on education, " not, "We want more money spent on education, but it shouldn't come from us; it should come from them. " You know, that mysterious "them."

The question has also been asked: "Would you be in favour of increasing your taxes?" People have said: "Hey, hold it a minute. You guys put up the money. We want to see more spent." I guess that's where my critic is coming from. He wants to see much more spent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Take a Gallup poll; take whatever you like. There's a Gallup poll going on in this province right now. School boards have said: "Our people want to see more money spent on education than the provincial government is putting up. I have said: "If your members support you — wonderful. But they write me letters saying: "Why are you letting those guys spend money without controlling them?" The auditor-general says that we're doing a great job with the funding we have at our disposal, but we don't have enough control over the increasing costs.

[4:45]

As long as people want more money spent.... I have said repeatedly that I think we can spend more money on education. Education is a good investment, and we can convince the people to give us more money for education if we can convince them that education is a good investment. I have trouble saying that education is a good investment when I'm surrounded by these critics who continually knock it. There are things to knock. There are improvements that we need, but for goodness' sake, we need to have some recognition that the quality of the product of our school system ranks among the top in North America. That, to me, is a far greater determinant.

The member points to all the editorials and says: "The press doesn't do this and the press doesn't do that." Well, let me give you one example. When I spoke to the trustees about the new funding formula, I said: "In Vancouver we're going to change the stepping funding, so Vancouver will get funding for the equivalent of another 70 teachers." The chairman of the board went out, and maybe in fairness — because it is fairly complex — the press said to him: "What do you find wrong with this?" He said: "Well, they're making us hire 70 more teachers and not giving us any more money." "Oh, how dastardly of them!" Editorial after editorial, critic after critic, fed on that particular statement.

The fact is, the reality that you love to talk about is that we said: "We're going to make the funding fair for the bigger districts, so we will give you funding for 70 more teachers; you have the decision as to what you do with it." The first person misunderstands it and says: "You're making us hire 70 more teachers without giving us more money." The editorials flow one after another from that, and nobody seems to want to check on whether that is fact. When people checked, it quieted down immediately.

That has happened time and again where an erroneous impression has been left. Look at the regulations for teachers, where we changed the regulations to bring them more into line to allow that. The first critic said: "They're forcing teachers to work longer hours." The attack was widespread as to how dare we, without consultation, force teachers to work longer hours. So there were many editorials, many statements that you could clip about people attacking us for forcing longer working hours on teachers without consultation. It was a wonderful debate, except that it was all based on something that wasn't done. But it generated a lot of press. It generated a lot of discussion, didn't it? It still generates discussion. Your Leader of the Opposition said today.... Your own leader still thinks that we put longer hours on, because he hasn't updated himself. He only shows up periodically, as you were so prone to mention. Isn't it wonderful, the interest that the Leader of the Opposition has taken? He comes, throws a bit of mud and takes off, and that's the last we see of him for quite a while.

MR. JONES: It must be really rough to be a Minister of Education in British Columbia. You've got all these critics on this side of the Legislature, all the editorial writers and reporters and public opinion polls, and they all disagree with you. You know you're doing absolutely the right thing; you're right on track. There's no problem and you're doing a fantastic job — yet nobody appreciates the poor Minister of Education. I don't know how you stand all the pressure. It's a really rough job. Maybe you should give up the controls and turn it over to this side of the Legislature. I think we could do a better job.

I asked the minister a question on participation rates, an important concern. The minister said he's concerned about it, but somehow he can't get to it because all these critics are getting in the way. We can't get on to the important educational issues. We can't solve these problems. We can't provide the leadership of a government that is capable of providing leadership. We've got all these critics that keep getting in our way. Every time we try to do something positive, they twist it to make it something negative.

The minister mentions the auditor-general's report and says the auditor-general said the province didn't have enough control. I don't read it that way. What the auditor-general says is that the province doesn't have complete control. It's a darned good thing there are school boards out there that have some ability to move this province in the right direction in terms of education. I think there were some important statements for the minister in the auditor-general's report. Clearly the auditor-general is there to look after the public interest. He doesn't have a political axe to grind, does he? He's not one of those critics, is he, who's picking on the Minister of Education? He's out there, in the public interest, looking after our tax dollars, making sure they're economically and efficiently spent, and spent for the purposes intended.

That auditor-general indicated — and perhaps the minister could comment — that the fiscal framework only funds to

[ Page 4343 ]

that level which the ministry, rather than the school boards, believes appropriate. At the BCSTA annual general meeting, the minister said the shareable operating budgets were enough for the school districts to operate, and the auditor-general said the fiscal framework is only a means of distributing funds rather than of determining what funds are necessary. To me, the auditor-general appears to be saying that the minister should be sitting down with boards to decide what a quality basic education is, and, through that consultation process, determining the funds.

The minister says he sits down with the boards and teachers of this province. I think he even indicated that there was some process in place, and I would be very anxious to hear about that. Perhaps the minister could explain to all but two boards in this province right now how they can operate on the basic shareable operating budget that the Ministry of Education provides to them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have the little fund discussion, and we could spend a lot of time on the auditor-general's report, who quoted one thing. The member can quote another part of it. Yes, all of us, as well as the auditor-general, have to consider the taxpayers. The member, when he stood up previously, said: "As we on this side stand up to represent the people of this province...." Well, we on this side also stand up to represent the people of this province — the taxpayers as well as the spenders. We represent them. According to the last election results, we have a greater claim to representing all of the people in the province than they have. Anyway, those are the asides.

As far as explaining to the school boards of this province, I tried that. I said that we've increased the funding to cover most of the things that you said had to be covered by extra amounts above the fiscal framework last year. We've granted a lot of that money. Therefore there is some increase built in that already for your taxpayers this year. With that increase already built in, you should be able to hold down the increases. I did not at any time, as was reported by some people, say that we were going to reduce the taxes this year. I don't see how you can, just to hold the line.

There was a significant increase already built in. We said that since we have picked up a great deal more of it in the shareable operating — most of the things you said were extras — then you shouldn't have to keep going up. Across the province, those extras are now part of the fiscal framework and the same amount of extras have been added. Going to the local taxpayers and saying that the reason we've had to do this is because the province hasn't given us enough money....

I suppose if you will start supporting increased taxes: sales tax, all kinds of other taxes...

MR. JONES: Corporate tax. I'll support that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: ...corporate tax, by all means. At what level? As a socialist, you believe that you could tax the corporations completely, ease off on the others and create employment. You seem to think that the corporations will come here and pay whatever the socialists demand of them. We're saying you've got to balance it. You've got to try and keep a company in business if you want to get some revenue and some employment. You don't accept that. So I guess we can't settle on that.

If you want taxes increased, then by all means....  We can spend it. As Minister of Education I love to spend money.

The only trouble is I also have to, in fairness, account for where I get it and to what level we spend it. Whatever you like.... Maybe at some point in this debate you will show an interest in some educational matters, and I'd appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, I'd like to remind both the minister and the hon. member of the rule of relevancy. We've had some latitude.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer the Minister of Education, who indicated his role in representation of the public. The school trustees of this province also represent the public, and they particularly represent it in education. The Minister of Education said that he tried to persuade them that the shareable operating budgets were sufficient in which to operate their school districts. Does the minister anticipate that the democratic elected school boards of this province are going to agree with him and not raise taxes to the level that he fears?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, I don't get the gist of your argument. I said to the trustees, as the provincial government representative in the educational scene, that we have made some great strides. We're going to spend that much more in education, and that's what we will put into the formula. As elected trustees, you can spend anything more that you wish, as long as you have the support of your local taxpayers. In other words, with representation comes accountability. You and I, presumably, are accountable for what we do to the people who elect us, and I would think that local trustees are accountable. In some districts, if they've made the point to their taxpayers that, "We want to go with this; we want to do this: we want to go well beyond what these other people are doing, and please let us do it; it will cost you so much, " put the cards on the table, and if the people say yes, then by all means.... I haven't told them to cut their spending. I have simply said to them that the demand for taxpayers to have a vote on every bill will decline or expand depending on how they see you, whether they support you or whether they feel you're overspending.

You may spend all you like. When the total spending went up in this province in 1984, the provincial government said: "Here's what you can get a quality education system for." Incidentally, somehow or other the results didn't go down that badly that year. Then the people said: "Oh, no. Why won't you allow us to spend more if our taxpayers want to spend more?" So the government of the day said: "Okay. Go to your taxpayers. If you want to spend above the fiscal framework, you may do so by referendum." Nobody went to the referendum.

That piece of the pie on spending above the fiscal framework stayed very small. They said: "We're elected. We shouldn't have to go back for every decision. You guys don't, provincially. " We said that was a reasonable argument. "Since your people elect you, you should be accountable to them. Spend whatever you like." All of a sudden, the "above the fiscal framework" went from here to here to here in two years. The new funding formula.... We said there are some things that have been left behind, so we moved the fiscal framework up to here, way up high. It balanced out. They said, "Thank you very much," and the extra spending went up.

Yes, the amount that local taxpayers are spending now, the piece of the pie, is a higher percentage than it was back

[ Page 4344 ]

then, because that amount, that hundred and some million dollars, has been used to expand the total pie. If you take any part of a total and then take one portion of it, expand it dramatically and say it shouldn't have any effect on the percentage.... By all means, it's going to have an effect. That's exactly what has happened.

For that member to stand up and say that since they're elected by the people in a democratic system and that I'm saying they can't spend any more money.... I am saying you can spend all you like, but you must be accountable to the people who elect you. I think that's fairly fair.

[5:00]

MR. JONES: I suggested to the minister that the auditor-general was recommending that the minister sit down with school boards and work some of these things out. The minister suggests that he tried and was unable to persuade the school boards. He doesn't say to them: "Do your own thing." What the minister says is: "You're irresponsible." The Minister of Education calls the superintendents of this province irresponsible, and he calls school trustees — who spend to some limit above his stepladder-reaching position — irresponsible.

Very clearly he has said that. He said that in the Legislature on April 26. He said he hoped that they would act responsibly, and "responsible" means "spend how much the Minister of Education suggests you spend." Responsibility, Mr. Minister, is to their taxpayers and to their electorate, and I think the school boards of this province are quite capable of making these decisions without suggestions of being irresponsible, without threats of referenda, without the intimidation which the minister innocently proclaims he has no part of.

Maybe it's even unconscious on the part of the minister, but that is the reaction of the school trustees of this province — that they are being threatened on these matters. The minister says: "I don't threaten." But we know that perception is reality, and the perception of school trustees is that they are threatened. I don't think it's any accident that these things are happening.

The referendum concept is not coming at the behest of taxpayers. We know the history of referenda in this province. We know that in 1985 the Social Credit administration of the day tried to introduce that system. However, every school board in this province rejected it, and quite rightly so, because they are responsible and they are elected.

This spring we saw certain householder questionnaires sent out by members of the government side promoting — or at least asking the question with respect to — referenda. That was the first incidence that I saw of the question of referenda — in householders sent out by Social Credit MLAs. The question asked was: "School boards should seek increased spending power only by referendum: agree; disagree." That was in the early spring of this year.

Then, on March 18 of this year, the Deputy Minister of Education — this is with all due respect to his role — spoke to the new trustees of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. He said that if boards increase their overall budgets, "it will give significant strength to the increasing number of taxpayers who are calling for local referenda over budget increases." So we see it introduced by Social Credit MLAs; we see it introduced by the deputy minister.

Then on April 21, 1988, the minister, speaking to the annual general meeting of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, in almost exactly the same words as the deputy minister, said: "I am getting increasing demands to institute a referendum system." After that speech, ignoring the vast amount of polling information to the contrary, the minister indicated that he had received 50 letters last month from people. He did not say they were asking for a referendum; he said they were "demanding more control over their school taxes." The minister knows that the polling information suggests that the vast majority of people in this province feel that the schools are underfunded, and certainly there are going to be some people who do not feel that society, or they as individuals, benefit from our education system. But the minister knows better.

Five days later in this House, the Minister of Education said: "I'm getting an increasing number of letters from taxpayers saying: 'If we must foot the bill, then we want a vote on it."' The minister, at that time, said that he didn't want a referendum and that there "are many negative aspects of it." He said he doesn't believe the government, of which he is a part — in fact, a member of the cabinet — wants a referendum system.

The history of the question of a referendum in 1988 doesn't seem to be coming from the taxpayers of this province. It seems to be on the part of the Ministry of Education, the deputy minister, the minister and certain Social Credit MLAs. That's the history of the referendum in 1988 in this province. I think it's really unfortunate that the government is so desperate to control education costs.... As the auditor-general says, they don't fully control them, because we have democratically elected school boards that share in that control. So via a variety of manipulative means, the minister threatens these boards. "Threaten" was the word used by the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association in response to the minister's speech. Not only are they threatened, but they are called irresponsible if they don't fulfil the kind of expectations the minister has in terms of their discretionary spending.

I know the minister is anxious to respond to the question of referendum, and I would love to hear his response.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess that is the game that member plays. He quotes me as saying: "I would hope that trustees will budget responsibly." Is that substantially correct? I think you said that in my speech in the House I said: "I would hope that trustees would budget responsibly this coming year." At least that's what you said today. Then you go on to say: "No wonder the trustees get mad when that minister calls them irresponsible." I did not call them irresponsible.

MR. JONES: What did you call the superintendents earlier this spring?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I called the leader of the superintendents irresponsible for his erroneous and ill-timed statements. That's on the record. Don't tell me that because I said I would hope....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's a silly political debate that we're having here. I keep getting sucked into it, when what I'd like to do is talk about education. But I can't let these irresponsible, erroneous statements from my critic go unchallenged, when you distort something.

[ Page 4345 ]

I believe that the deputy minister and I went out and said: "We are getting an increasing amount of demand from people saying: 'If our bills are going to keep going up like this, we want a say in it. We want a referendum."' That is true; we said that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The deputy minister and I, and most of government, agree that a referendum is not generally or necessarily based on a rational vote. Nobody votes higher taxes for themselves. Yet we are going to need more money spent on education. We don't want to see a referendum. But would it be responsible of us to go out and say: "Don't worry about it. Everybody is fine. We're not getting any letters or any demands"? I've had letters and phone calls: "This school board raised my taxes. Fire them. " I say to them: "That's not my mandate. They are elected by you people." Now you are going to tell me that I shouldn't mention that, that it's erroneous for me to mention that people are saying they don't want their taxes to go up. You stand there and you blame it all on the Social Credit government.

I'm saying that we have budgeted responsibly. I believe we have put money in there to run a good-quality education system. We have also said that should people believe that is not adequate, they are at liberty to spend more, as long as they are accountable to the taxpayers. I guess that's hard for that member to accept.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You want the figures? In 1987-88, the supplementary amount — the spending above what the fiscal framework allowed.... That reminds me that the member said that all they used the fiscal framework for was to provide the funding. I'm astounded that he picked up on that, that a funding formula deals with how the money is disbursed. That's well done. If we could get off that, maybe we could talk about some educational issues. If you want to say that the fiscal framework is only a formula by which money is distributed, you are dead on, Mr. Member. That's what a funding formula is. And I will not apologize for a funding formula being how you distribute money.

Above what the province said in 1987-88, there was $162.6 million — the district said they had to spend that much more in order to give a quality education system. For the 1988-89 year, we said: "You've made some good points. There are things that you are paying for that we haven't covered, so we are going to increase that by $164.6 million." You would think that if you were spending $162.6 million more and then you got that covered by $164 million, something would be accommodated in there, and you wouldn't have to go $152 million above that.

MRS. BOONE: I'd just like to ask some further questions with regard to the supplementary budgets, which is the area you have to go to the taxpayers to get funded. A good portion of the supplementary budgets that are going to the taxpayers.... Some of it is stuff that came out of the Excellence in Education Fund, and some of the areas in the Prince George district, for example, that are in the supplementary budgets are things such as special education aides — clerical support for that. That's an area that is a concern to us because the Prince George district is one that draws from other areas, and we seem to be drawing in from other districts.... Although special funding does come from the ministry for those pupils, it's found that it doesn't cover the necessities — computer, music adviser, learning assistants. Those were covered through the Excellence in Education Fund, and if they need to keep those right now, they are going to have to go to the taxpayers. The whole idea of computers, which the minister has talked about in terms of added funding.... I understand the funding is sufficient to cover the purchase of those computers; but then you need some expert advice to work with them. Once you have those people....

[5:15]

Something that is of grave concern right now — and I think the minister should understand this and have some compassion for it — is extracurricular busing. A resolution was passed by the northern interior branch of the BCSTA, and the BCSTA itself, regarding the funding for that extracurricular busing so that they can hire professional drivers. That came as a result of the accident on the Hart Highway with students from the South Peace area.

That is something that's of great concern to the people because, as you know, if students in our area need to travel for any kind of extracurricular.... It involves extensive travel usually involving either car pools or busing. The BCSTA and the districts would very much like to see this covered. In the Prince George region, that comes to $225,000 that they are going to the taxpayers for this year, in order to provide professional, qualified bus drivers and to make attending extracurricular activities safe for all our students.

I'll sit down now, because I'd like the minister to respond to some of those things included in the supplementary budget, which are areas that I think we should be providing enough money for in the general budget, so that we don't have to go to the taxpayers to pay for these things — in addition to the other budget.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't find it quite as easy to distinguish between taxpayers who pay taxes at the local level as distinct from those who pay provincial taxes. Whichever way you route it the taxpayers are paying for it. However, in the budgeting this year, we did add $1,000. 1 think the member understands the fiscal framework, to some extent, where we take the number of pupils, then divide it by the pupil-teacher ratio, which gives you a teaching unit, if you like. For each teaching unit, certain things are applied. Clerical aids, teaching aids — those sorts of things — are all funded. I suppose I could take an hour — maybe I should — just to explain some of the things that are funded. Perhaps if I just refer to some of the things the member has said.... For clerical, they said that wasn't enough. So we said we would fund from.... In the programs where we fund, the cost factor for clerical went up from $18,000 last year to $19,000, and from $20,000 to $21,000 in the different clerical programs. So we've added some money for that.

We've put $1,000 per employee for non-statutory benefits, to make them equivalent with government employees; that's up from $900. This year we said that for each teaching unit you will get $500 to pay substitute teachers, which is roughly based on the average five days sick leave that teachers have. That wasn't in the formula before, so we added that. If you have 100 teachers times $500, we put in $500,000 extra to pay for substitute teachers. So quite a few of those things have been done.

[ Page 4346 ]

Tidying up the formula to put more money into the budget.... We didn't come up with 8 percent and then made it work. We topped up here, we put this amount, and it happened to work out to 8 percent of the budget. So much emphasis is on the 8 percent. I can give you the figures: for statutory benefits, $2 million; enrolment increase, $3 million; operations and maintenance, we've added $13 million this year; transportation and housing, $2 million; local programs, $2 million, and on it goes. The big ones are: curriculum implementation, $10 million; instructional support equipment, $5 million; substitute teachers, $13 million; minor regular and recurring capital allowance in the budget, $23.5 million — that's for fixing up things. So a lot of things have been added in.

To get to your issue of the extra-curricular busing, that's one that we're looking at. We're very concerned about it. We'll have to look at whether it should be part of the base operating budget for all districts. Should it be part of the fiscal framework formula as a necessary funding in education, or should it be an add-on — an addition? I don't really know the answer to that at the moment, but the budget allocated for this year and the fiscal framework and funding formula in place for the school district at this point says that we're switching to another system. They have the right to do that, and then the province must fund every district accordingly, because we have decided to switch to this system. It makes it pretty complicated.

What will happen next year? Maybe the fiscal framework advisory committee, the boards, the BCTF or all of these people will say that all extracurricular busing should be funded by the taxpayers of this province. If the taxpayers of this province in effect say it's a great idea, if we can get the money in our budget, fine and dandy.

I have some concerns about that, because then a lot of things start happening that never happened before. I have some concerns too that one incident not even associated with the school system can trigger all of this. I am waiting for the final report. I try to do my research a little more in-depth than from newspaper reports — on what triggered that funding idea.

MRS. BOONE: With regard to the minister's comment that we're all taxpayers, of course we're all taxpayers, and it does come from the taxpayers' money. But when the government took away the industrial tax base from the school districts and put that into general revenue, they placed a much higher burden on the local taxpayers. By saying that money is not going to be coming from general revenue, you are in fact eliminating the necessity for the industrial tax base to cover any of those things, and placing a much higher tax burden on the small homeowners. In fact, it makes it more difficult in areas where you have high assessment values or a low population or any number of different things.

There is a considerable difference between taking something from general revenue, where people are taxed according to their income, where you have an industrial tax base, and placing it on the homeowners, the local people. There is a difference there, and I'm sure that the minister can see the differences.

With regard to whether or not extracurricular busing should be paid for, I guess what one has to establish first is whether one supports any extracurricular activities. If one supports extracurricular activities, I think you do have to look seriously at the funding of that busing, particularly when you come to areas such as yours and mine, where people have great distances to go. If you are constantly going to the local taxpayer, that means that our students would not have the same access to competition or to any type of curricular things with other schools, as compared to those areas in the urban lower mainland, where it doesn't cost a lot of money to transport people and where they have access to the transit system, which we don't have. So I think that when you're looking at these things, you must first consider whether you support extracurricular activities, and if the ministry does support them, then I think the extra busing is an absolute essential to ensure that all our students have safe and equal access to the curricular activities they have.

On a different note, something that has been of concern to us is the smaller schools. In some of the small areas, the school districts are having to close schools. There have been a lot of school closures, particularly when they get to around 25 students. There's a lot of unrest in some of our areas, and there are a couple of schools within the Prince George region— Bear Lake school, Giscome school — where it is thought that they may close; they are hovering around the questionable area. These schools provide schooling to a whole community, and that community life is threatened with any thought of a school closure. Any idea that they're perhaps not going to have a school there runs chills throughout the whole area and in fact stops people from moving there and makes people want to look elsewhere to live. If a school were to close in an area such as Bear Lake, I think that would probably end that community; that community would very strongly consider moving into the urban centre.

I would like to see a commitment from this government to the small community schools that those people living in those communities have a right to have their children educated there and that they believe in the concept of the community schools and what they bring to that community — because those schools provide the facilities for many activities, and you've got them used as a community centre in many cases. Can the minister please comment? I'm sure you must have a lot of smaller schools within your area. What do you see the trend being if those schools are decreasing in size? What kind of a commitment should the government have towards keeping rural schools open?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As far as the industrial-commercial tax is concerned, I repeatedly get that we took it away from the districts. That money was taken into the central pool when the government moved up to 75 percent funding of the education system. The industries and the commerce did not distribute themselves equally. To use the classic example, the pulp mill might be on this side of the school boundary and all of the people who generate all the kids may live over here. So the kids go to this district but the pulp mill is located so that the taxation goes over there. That's the classic example. It was felt that geographic location of a particular industry is determined by more than where the school districts are and where the kids are. That's the rationale behind taking it and cutting it into the total pot. Then the total amount of money went up. I can tell you this: the $450 million or $500 million-plus that the government gets from industrial-commercial tax goes into education, plus a lot more from consolidated revenue and others. I don't know how we get that.

Speaking as MLA, I'm appreciative that for students to compete in our area in the north, they have to travel greater distances. If you can get your leader to back off this pressure

[ Page 4347 ]

about how the heavily populated three-quarters of the lower mainland is subsidizing the rest of the province for educational opportunity, then I'll be delighted to get more money for our northern communities from where all of the industry, building and all of these wonderful things like Expo are going on. It seems like Expo brought most of the money to the lower mainland, and the lands that Expo generated are now bringing all of the rest of the commercial and industrial development back to Vancouver. They're quite concerned that they shouldn't be supporting us up there. As my people and your people say, let's cut off the trees, the gas and the hydro and see how they like it. Maybe we should double the price of hydro in order to exchange taxes. You can get into that kind of thing.

[5:30]

The basic thing is that the industrial commercial tax is used. You try to do an equalization of educational opportunities. I can well remember when some MLAs fought for it being proportionate to the mileage — the lottery travel grants — and we won that one and got it proportional to the distance travelled. Before that, every school got the same amount of money, so the schools that were two miles apart got $50 travel grant and our schools got $50 travel grant.

I guess we made some progress there. We said it should be proportionate to mileage. They're still saying they are being unfairly treated, even though the costs are different. But that will ever be. Again, if you can get your leader to believe in equalization, I'm all for it as our people would benefit particularly in extracurricular travel and that sort of thing.

As far as school closures, that is a difficult one, I agree with you. Nobody wants a school closed in their community. We don't go in and tell people to close schools. We try to stay with a formula that if there are 100 kids in a school system, we don't say you must put them all in that school. In other words, we fund for 100 kids divided by teachers, and add all the supplies, units and everything else that goes with it.

The decision is best made at the local level. We have situations in this province where it's costing school boards more money to keep, say, five schools open in the neighbourhood, when really the school population could fit into two. Busing and a lot of other factors have to be considered.

When we get into an area like Bear Lake, as you say, yes, that school is a very integral part of the existence of that community. I think the locally elected trustees have to be very conscious of that, and should be. What happens in the funding formula is that we have what we call dispersed schools. There is more money provided for that school if it's more than 30 kilometers from the board office, so by keeping it open the school district gets funded not entirely but certainly more than they would if they closed it down and brought the kids in.

We've tried to improve that formula, incidentally, this year, particularly for dispersed secondary schools, to try to get the pupil-teacher ratio.... We fund at 11 to one in those schools, whereas we fund 17 to one or 20 to one, give or take, where the population is more concentrated. So yes, I think we're very supportive of that. We recognize that.

We generally ask school boards, even if they request the right to close a school, if they have gone through a certain process — that is to say, public meetings so the taxpayers know exactly what's happening — and we want evidence of that before we'll even approve the closure. We don't recommend closures of small schools. As a matter of fact, we take some pretty strong precautions so that they're not made willy-nilly. We ask them to go through certain hoops. Most of the boards know the procedure. They go through it, they have the public meetings, they get that input, and then they come to us with all that evidence. So I guess we approve most of the requests for closure, but we have turned down some. We've said: "You haven't done your homework. Go back."

It's a long answer to your question about small schools, but I feel very sympathetic — not necessarily to keeping schools open that are adjacent to each other in a heavily populated area where it's a matter of walking one block or three blocks; I guess I'm not that sympathetic there. But certainly if it's a case where it's the only school, the only educational opportunity in that community, then I think every effort should be made, and most people do. Unfortunately, whenever a board even looks at, "Well, we'd better take a look at the total situation here, " then some of the paranoia starts in and — fair enough — people say: "Well, my gosh, if they're even thinking about it, we had better fight now before they've made the decision." So you get a lot of that going on. I have no problem with these people fighting for the right to maintain their schools in the smaller communities. We fund at a higher level; we're very supportive of that; we try and help in every way possible to give them the ability to stay open. Hopefully, they can do it.

The concept then extends to all the neighbourhood schools — like in town everybody wants the school in their block. That one is a little tougher to rationalize than the further-out one. But again, if the board goes through the proper process and convinces their taxpayers or their people in that community, who am I to say: "I'm much wiser than your people"? So we make them go through the process, but we don't ordain school closures.

You probably picked up some of my sympathies, which I don't dare put into practice; I have to go by the book.

MRS. BOONE: I hope the minister goes a little less by the book sometimes here. I'm not talking about the urban schools where you have communities, and I think the minister knows that. My concern is for the small rural schools that are the only access to a community, such as Bear Lake and all those other areas. The idea of closing neighbourhood schools is a very emotional one, and one that certainly gets people up in arms; but it does not have nearly the impact that closing a community school does when it's the only community for 1,500 miles. That's the concern we have.

What happens to those kids is that the whole busing procedure, getting up at six in the morning, getting on buses and trooping off.... I taught some of those kids. I can remember one time in Williams Lake when kids just disappeared, and little kindergarten kids put their heads down on their desks and went to sleep in the morning because they were up so early. I was trying to find one of my students at one point, and he was asleep on the stage. The whole busing process is very difficult for kids, and it's hard for them to learn under those circumstances.

I guess what I would like to see is some kind of a commitment from the government. I know the school boards go through the process; I know they go through the public meetings and all of these things. If a public meeting shows that the whole community is strongly opposed to the closure of a school even though they've gone through that process, the school board still can go ahead and close that school. But if that public meeting generates enough anti-closure ideas

[ Page 4348 ]

and thoughts, and the minister has those thoughts communicated to him, would that influence him to turn down the closure of a school?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Member, you're getting me into difficulty. I can get into enough trouble without having a school board go through the process of meeting with the taxpayers, of reaching their decision — that presumably means the taxpayers in that community — and then if you don't like the decision I should step in and say: "All of that doesn't matter." That's what I was trying to say to you about.... I think you pick up my sympathies, but I still have to go by some protocol. I don't think I should have the right to go and say: "You made the wrong decision."

Yes, I might do a little arm-twisting unofficially. My ministry would very much want to be satisfied that this isn't doing damage to that community. But gosh, if you ask me then to overrule a board which has gone through all of that process and said, "We met all your requirements, we met all the conditions, and we, the locally elected people, have made this decision, but there are some people who don't like it, so step in...." At its extreme, I have been asked to fire school boards because they didn't do what the people wanted. I can't do it.

Let's put it this way: I can assure the member that we want pretty good reasons and satisfaction that it is not going to destroy a community before we'll approve the recommendation to close a school. You only have to have eight pupils to keep it open, and we don't count them every day. I can't go much further than that, other than to say that yes, those are pretty important. Where we lose that, everybody loses, and you might have two students. Do you open a school for two students? We say you have to have ten before you can open and eight to keep it open the following year. During that year it might drop, and we don't insist on closing them. Some boards urge families with pupils to move in, and then we go to correspondence or whatever else. So we do try to keep those communities.

I've travelled enough and know the area well enough to know what it means when you are 35 or 40 miles away and the school is the centre of the community. Take that school away and the parents who live there are going to move, then travel to work and so on. Yes, I'm very conscious of it and will do what I can, short of overruling the democratic process.

MRS. BOONE: One of the things that is clear, though, is that at some point or the other, school districts are losing money in keeping the smaller schools open, because of the dispersion factor — and I understand and congratulate the minister on improving that, because it has made substantial increases. Four or five years ago it was very bad. It was a real drain on the school district to keep the smaller schools open. Still, when it reaches down to.... Our district has a 25 number. Then the money has to come from the urban schools in order to keep the rural schools open. I would like to see a commitment from the minister that where the schools are such an integral part of the community, the government will recognize the need and will fund those schools enough to keep them fully funded, so that they are not a drain on the other schools, pulling those dollars away, and that the government is not going to close them down. The member from Vancouver South says "forever." The minister has said that they keep them open for eight students and that's what the guidelines are. I think they should be fully funded so that they are able to stay open at that point.

MR. R. FRASER: What do you do when the students move away?

MRS. BOONE: When you have this constant problem in those areas — I'll mention Bear Lake — people sometimes are now not even moving there, because families look in terms of: "Should I move there or shouldn't I?" They're not moving out there, because they can hop on the bus and take the bus into Bear Lake — the employees that are working there. That's a sort of death-knell for the....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: No, the employees, I'm saying, catch the bus from Prince George and go to Polar Forest Industries or what have you. Therefore the families aren't moving there. It's a self-fulfilling thing. When the school district says, "Look, we're going to close this school when it gets below a certain number," parents are sitting there saying: "Jeez, I'm not going to move out here." That's a problem for that community, which is a very vital and thriving community. I'd like very much to see it remain a good community with a school that's going to be there and for everyone to know that it's going to be there. When you've got this sort of threat over your head all the time, it's, as I said, a self-fulfilling prophecy there.

MR. ROSE: Perhaps I could join the club here, because my question was quite similar. We welcome the minister's statement that he doesn't want to intrude on a decision made by the board. I applaud him for it, because if you believe in local autonomy, you believe in local autonomy. However, I think the minister should recognize the point made by my colleague: a lot of these closures have nothing to do with whether they're eight or ten, but have everything to do with the budget in the district. The board is forced into making some of these closures because it's budget-driven. These schools cost more to operate.

There was a perfect example of this in the community of Powell River about a year ago. There a was a great outcry from a suburb which was once a separate community called Cranberry, where they were going to close the school. They didn't want to close the school particularly. The residents and the kids didn't want the school closed, but because of budget restrictions, for one reason or another, the closure went through. The community was really robbed of its centre. The schoolchildren went off in different directions to be bused elsewhere. It's a little bit like the closure of the rural post office and what that means to small towns.

Maybe in the short term there might be some recognition for districts that have a lot of rural schools and the economics associated with them if you do not have flexibility in the formula. I hope the minister will counter it by saying: "Yes, we do have flexibility in the formula." I don't know about that, and I'd be interested in his.... Because I haven't looked lately, for a couple of years.

[5:45]

Salmon Arm is the same. There are a lot of small schools, and widely scattered. That's one side. The flip side of that same thing has to do with busing, which might be an advantage in some urban centres. We've got new schools required in certain areas, but they never catch up with the development in my riding. We have certain areas in School District 43, part of which is in my riding and part in the

[ Page 4349 ]

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam's (Mr. Cashore), which are virtually empty and closing down. Yet in the new subdivisions there, with massive growth and young families, we can't build schools fast enough to catch up with it.

So it might make some sense under some conditions, if it's agreed to by the parents. They'd rather have the kids walking up and down Eagle Ridge for the three miles they'd be forced to do it on because of the attendance areas, than to make some kind of arrangement on a temporary basis where there could be some busing permitted or encouraged.

Now the minister will say: "Well, it's permitted now." I've got no problem with it. Well, the boards have a problem with it, because in the urban areas we've come to expect that we'll have the service in the neighbourhood schools. In the short term, while the government and the board seek approval, and the government goes through all the necessary details to decide whether or not we should grant the expansion or the new school, sometimes as much two years elapses.

I know there's computer stuff day to day or month by month: how many people have moved in — statistics that enable the department to make their decision a lot faster. The fact is they can't keep up with the development. Maybe some districts, in the short term, might come to the conclusion that busing is cheaper than schools, and building schools and school construction. I think it's worthwhile examining. I certainly hope I don't get a headline in the local paper: "Rose Advocates Busing." I'm not advocating it at all...

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Somebody said that only 35 percent of the citizens have children going to school anyway.

I think that where buses work very well in the rural areas in many cases, there are definitely some downsides to them. I think they shouldn't necessarily be restricted to rural areas, because there are conditions in many urban areas where, not on the basis of segregation in terms of colour or caste or creed, but just because three miles or two and a half miles under certain conditions in urban areas is just too far for little kids to walk.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sure by this time, Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) will see what I mean: two miles is too far to walk where the streets are lit and all of these.... You see, I can play games: the sidewalks are there, and stuff like that. But it's not too far to walk — it's different — in the rural areas. You see the trouble we face in the north.

However, the member makes a good point. I think, as we move into base funding, I would like to see and encourage far more flexibility in school districts, so that we fund on a certain basis, and then the school board, if it can do it at a lesser cost by busing rather than building schools.... A lot of these things make perfectly good sense to me. Right now we fund busing within certain parameters, by a certain formula. We fund building schools when we see the whites of their eyes, and that sort of thing; we try to keep up. We built the capital program. I think there are a lot of suggestions out there. I think I have yet to have a board come to me and say: "We have found a less costly way of doing it, and we would like you to agree."

If anybody comes to me with that, they will find me most receptive. But most of the requests I get are: "We have found a more costly way, and are you going to be rotten enough not to give us more money?" But if anybody comes to me saying, "We have found a better way to do it, a less costly way to do it, " I'm very receptive. As a matter of fact, if anything, I would certainly like to encourage boards more and more to come in and, instead of saying, "The act won't let me do this and this won't let me do this,  say: "We've got what we think is a better way to do it." Some schools have varied hours; some school districts have varied busing; some school districts have done all sorts of things. They've varied the way they run their buses. A lot of good ideas have come in. But on a general scale, I think people can get far more imaginative — ourselves included. I think it's great.

As far as small schools costing more, the member raised that point. Of course it costs more to put a $30,000 a year teacher with ten kids than it does with 20 kids; it's just simple arithmetic. To keep a school heated for ten kids compared to 40 kids on a per-pupil cost, of course, costs more. We acknowledge some of this in the ministry funding formula; in the fiscal framework, we expect them to acknowledge some more of it.

There's no way.... I shouldn't say that, because I'm always careful. I was going to say there is no way you can run a very small school on a per capita cost on the same basis you can a big one. You'd be amazed at what some people do. As soon as I said that, somebody would prove me wrong. By and large, on a per-pupil basis, it costs more to run the small school. We recognize that to some extent. We expect others to do it.

I'll finish off by saying let's have more encouragement. Let's have more ideas come in. I hate to turn down good ideas.

MR. JONES: In the few minutes remaining, I'd like to try and wrap up a couple of loose ends that I think were left over from earlier discussion. Firstly, could the minister tell the House how many letters he has received either this month, or this year, from taxpayers who specifically requested a referendum vote in determining tax increases in their school district?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't. I know that it has gone from nobody asking for it to quite a few people asking for it. I don't know the specific numbers, because I haven't made a point of keeping track of it. I don't think it's an issue, unless it keeps increasing. I am hearing from other surveys, from people who are apparently signing petitions that they're protesting. I don't have a number of specific letters. I don't know whether it was one more or one less, or whether that would be the critical factor. I don't really know.

MR. JONES: The minister had a number a couple of weeks ago after the annual general meeting of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. He told reporters that he had received 50 letters in the last month from irate taxpayers concerned about the increasing school costs. He knows how many letters he had in the last month expressing concern about increased school taxes, but he does not know how many letters he got specifically requesting the referendum mechanism.

I suggested to the minister earlier that it's members of the opposite side, Social Credit MLAs, who are sending out questionnaires to their residents and householders, drumming up this kind of concern and asking the householders and

[ Page 4350 ]

residents if they prefer this method of determining school tax. That's where the idea is coming from. I think that's a good way of.... If the minister says he doesn't support a referendum, then it's rather strange for back-bench Social Credit members to be promoting this concept. In fact, asking the question, as the member for Kamloops knows, is a method for promoting a concept.

Perhaps the minister could comment on the second member for Richmond's (Mr. Loenen's) earlier remarks about the increase in the budget last year being 11 percent and this year being 8 percent.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As far as your last question is concerned, a lot depends on what you compare. I know the figure of 11 percent was bandied about. It might be 11 percent of the book against the book; it may be that some of that was incorporated last year. I don't know. The member, I guess, wishes to be precise on the percentages. I guess it depends on whether you include the funds for excellence or whether you don't. That can change the percentage right away. It seems to be very critical, you know, hanging on these numbers.

I have said and I know very definitely that this year, if you compare the total shareable increase against the total shareable budget, you get about 8 percent. If you compare the government portion of it to the government portion last year, you get about 8 percent, no plus or minus. That I can definitely comment on. I haven't got the base against something that was compared from the past.

The member makes a big issue of the 50 letters. I guess I got into the same situation as the member is here. How many letters did you get? I said: "I don't know. I didn't count them." "How many letters did you get?" "I don't know. I didn't count them. I know I'm getting a bunch of letters." It was the same thing in that press interview after the statement. They finally said: "There must be a number that you got in the last month." I said: "Say around 50, if you've got to have a number." That gets reported as: "The minister has received only 50 letters exactly. " Not 49, not 51, but exactly 50. Now you're playing that game as well. "How many letters did you get?"

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am not going to send my staff to the files to dig out all of these letters that have come in over the last couple of months just to satisfy your penchant for exact numbers. If you want some exact numbers, I'll give you how many letters I get tomorrow, but I am not going to send staff to the files to start counting exactly how many letters.... Some of the letters refer to about six things, and one of them is referendum. Which category do I count it in for your satisfaction?

MR. JONES: I'm pleased to see that the Minister of Education is confused about his own figures, because I think that confusion reigns. I think what the second member for Richmond was quoting was that the expenditure by ministry last year was reported as 11 percent and this year is 8 percent. The point being made is that despite all the hoopla, it appears from the estimates that the funds are decreasing in terms of an increase.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.