[ Page 4393 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Resignation of member for Alberni –– 4393

Oral Questions

Business immigration. Mr. Clark –– 4393

Privatization of highways maintenance. Mr. Lovick –– 4394

B.C. Hydro food services. Mr. Davidson –– 4394

Neighbourhood pub referendum. Ms. A. Hagen –– 4395

Provision of AZT to AIDS victims. Mrs. Boone –– 4395

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

On vote 23: minister's office –– 4395

Mr. Jones

Mr. R. Fraser

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Mercier

Ms. Smallwood

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LONG: In the House today I have some of my family: my mother-in-law Mrs. Doxsee, my wife Beverly, my daughter Brenda, and my brand-new grandson Brandon, who came here to see what goes on. I would like you to all make them welcome today.

MR. BLENCOE: Would the House please welcome a former MLA, a former cabinet minister, a former colleague and I believe...

MR. CLARK: A former New Democrat?

MR. BLENCOE: I wasn't going to get into that.

...still a constituent of mine. Would the House please welcome Graham Lea.

MS. CAMPBELL: I'm sure all members of the House agree that the presence of legislative interns livens up our life on both sides of the House. The members of our legislative intern contingent were in Ontario in the first week of this month, where they visited the legislatures at Queen's Park and in Ottawa. This week they are entertaining and returning the hospitality to a group of legislative interns from Ontario. I'd like to ask the House to welcome Bohdana Dutka, Doug Greenwood, Victor Nishi, Jerald Owczar, Laurie Stone and Kimberly Weslak from the Ontario Legislature.

MR. BARNES: I too would like to extend my welcome to the former member for Prince Rupert, and just ask him: are you enjoying your ferry pass?

In the gallery as well is a past president of Vancouver Centre constituency, and now vice-president of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, Mr. Ian Aikenhead. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

MR. STUPICH: In the gallery today are a couple of friends of mine. Herb said to my secretary just moments ago that on convention day he was wearing a blue ribbon. My colour was orange. They are still friends, and we're on the same side in the coming election fight. I'd like the House to welcome Naomi and Herb Bibbs.

MS. CAMPBELL: In the precincts today are a group of students visiting from Lord Byng Secondary School in Vancouver and their teacher, Mr. Robbins. Would the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the House today we have a lovely young woman. She happens to be the wife of my son. She thought she would take some time off from her three children and her husband to spend some time in Victoria and later on visit her mother: Carole Dueck.

MR. R. FRASER: On behalf of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and myself, I'd like to introduce two school groups from the riding of Vancouver South, the first being John Oliver Secondary School with teachers Frank Barazzuol, Anne Deitch and the department head, John Meyerhoff: and secondly, a group from David Thompson Secondary School with teachers Mr. Sandhu and Mrs. Parker. Included in this latter group is a student by the name of Laurie Shong, who last week competed in the world fencing championship and won that championship for people under 17. Would everybody please make these young students welcome.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR ALBERNI

MR. STUPICH: There is a desk beside me with the blotter removed. It is where the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has been a member for the past 16 years. He has served his constituents and this House well, and certainly on behalf of the opposition we want to wish him all the best in whatever lies ahead. [Applause.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly have had the opportunity of getting to know the member from Alberni over the last several years better perhaps than most. I appreciate what he stood for and certainly the way he has applied himself throughout his constituency, the province and in the Legislature, and we regret seeing a fine member go.

HON. MR. DUECK: I neglected to introduce another group which is visiting the legislative buildings today. They're somewhere in the precinct, and they are students from the Clearbrook Elementary School French immersion class. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

BUSINESS IMMIGRATION

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier said that the provincial government was not lobbying the federal government to relax the rules on business immigration, and further, that the province "did not lobby the federal government to change in order to bring about a means by which these investments could be guaranteed."

The facts are now clear: the province did lobby the federal government on this matter, and a member of the Premier's own staff lobbied the federal government to specifically provide financial guarantees for prospective business immigrants. In light of these facts, is the Premier prepared to reconsider his remarks of yesterday and set the record straight?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's encouraging to see that the research is still coming from the source in the Vancouver Sun or some like source, because I was certainly aware that this could come up as the first question during question period today.

For that reason, just to double-check, I again looked at Webster's dictionary just to see what lobbying really means. It means "to address or solicit members of a legislative assembly." I know this may be hair-splitting to some, but it seems as though others would like to go at whatever it is in order to drag on this particular issue in whatever way they must or would like to see it done. The negotiations and the bargaining between the staff of the government of B.C. and the federal government of B.C. is something that takes place almost daily on a wide range of issues. That does not constitute lobbying. That is taking place on a wide range of

[ Page 4394 ]

issues all the time, where there are ongoing communications. Certainly ministers or the Premier may not be, or need not be, aware of such discussions on an ongoing basis.

The government of B.C. has positions on a whole range of issues involving federal-provincial relations, and staff in every ministry aggressively and regularly argue B.C.'s case on issues with their federal counterparts. Such is the case, I am now informed, regarding the issue of business immigration, and discussions did take place at the staff level with the federal government.

If the opposition, as I said, wishes to split hairs and characterize such discussions as lobbying, in order to somehow score debating points, that's their business. But I want you to be aware that as a government we will not hesitate to continue to make our views known forcefully to Ottawa on any or every issue of importance to the well-being of British Columbians.

Again, on this particular issue, there was no request to have lobbying made by the advisory council or have lobbying done, nor was there any attempt to lobby by myself or others to politicians in the federal government. I discussed it with the Premier of Quebec, at his request, when I visited there last November, I believe it was. But as I said, that's not lobbying. If you wish to see the meaning of lobbying changed, you'd better start rewriting the dictionary.

[2:15]

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's credibility in this chamber wears thinner every day. To seek refuge in a technicality is extremely....

Mr. Speaker, a second question. Yesterday the Premier said that he first learned of Mr. Toigo's involvement in Tang Peacock Investments Ltd. on Monday of this week. The facts are that members of the media interviewed the Premier on this matter last Thursday. In light of this, will the Premier set the record straight and reconsider his answers of yesterday?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again, obviously things must be wonderful in this province when the opposition has nothing better to do than refer to a columnist in the newspaper and get their questions from there. It speaks well for what's happening in this province. I first recalled the hearing of the name or any involvement two days prior. I was reminded again by the columnist, as you were, that I had been questioned by the media a few days prior, but I get questioned about a lot of issues by the media. So big deal! What does that do? What kind of a case are you wanting to see built, because it isn't there, no matter how hard you try. Unless your sources become a little more informed than that of columnists in a newspaper, the NDP is in big trouble.

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. LOVICK: I have a question for the Premier that I think is a big deal. This question concerns the privatization of highway maintenance and the treatment of Highways department employees. The district manager in Kelowna was summarily fired because of specific actions and comments that demonstrate — and I quote — "a lack of commitment and respect for this ministry and its programs." It's very clear that the cause of the firing was the voicing of apprehensions about the privatization program.

My question to the Premier is just this: is there now another gag order on Highways department employees, that any disagreement with the privatization policies will constitute grounds for dismissal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, Mr. Speaker, it's the same research department that the member is referring to. Obviously this didn't come from a columnist; this was from a commentary made on the television news. If you can't do better than to get your research from what you see in the media, I'm afraid you're certainly, as I think most people would suggest, a very ineffective opposition — and lazy at that.

Mr. Redman was terminated justifiably, but as with all other internal personnel matters, no discussion of the circumstances will take place publicly. Mr. Redman is entitled to appeal or to seek redress as he deems appropriate.

MR. LOVICK: It's fascinating, isn't it, that the Premier has decided to use a classic red herring response, namely to challenge the research rather than the question.

A supplementary question. The district Highways manager who has been dismissed — without statement of cause, I emphasize — expressed his reservations in camera, did so privately and also did so to two Social Credit MLAs in private. A man with 24 years of experience and expertise meets with two Social Credit MLAs and gets fired. Is this the new means of treating criticisms of privatization?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's grossly unfair to Mr. Redman to have this discussed publicly. This will need to be dealt with in the normal fashion, as all personnel matters should be.

B.C. HYDRO FOOD SERVICES

MR. DAVIDSON: My question is to the Minister of Energy in his capacity as minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Can the minister confirm that, despite allegations to the contrary, the Office and Technical Employees' Union at B.C. Hydro personally made the decision without any management representation whatsoever to select ICL — a Peter Toigo company — to provide the cafeteria service?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Regarding B.C. Hydro food services, a public tender was invited, and a short list of four was selected on a low-bid basis. An employee committee of four. unionized employees, one engineer and one supervisor evaluated the bids, and ICL — a division of White Spot — was their unanimous choice. No management representation was involved in the selection process. Since March 31, under new management, there has been a marked improvement in the quality of the cafeteria service. Patronage has more than doubled, and costs have dropped by half.

MR. DAVIDSON: A supplementary question to the Premier. Can the Premier tell this House how he was able to influence the Office and Technical Employees' Union to select a Peter Toigo company for the B.C. Hydro cafeteria? Or could merit have played some small part in their consideration and determination?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I appreciate the question, but I can really only answer in this way: I think a good free enterprise company doesn't need lobbying with a union or anyone else. They can show for themselves that they can

[ Page 4395 ]

perform efficiently and do a more effective job than government.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB REFERENDUM

MS. A. HAGEN: To the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Yesterday the minister indicated that the plebiscite on the 57th Street pub was fair. In later public comment, the minister said that plebiscites are not like elections, implying that not everyone should have a chance to vote. Each day the minister gets additional information on this faulty plebiscite, and yet is refusing action. Will the minister order a new plebiscite for the 57th Street pub, a plebiscite in which the residents and taxpayers in the area all get a fair chance to express their view and record their vote?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, the answer to the member's question is no. Second, the investigation done by the Ministry of Labour as it relates to the referendum has at this point determined that the referendum was done in a fair and reasonable manner. We have always asked — and I have always said — that those people who are concerned with the quality of the referendum should come forward with their specific concerns, which were delivered to me yesterday in a news conference. We are in the process now of investigating those specific allegations. What we determine from that investigation will be revealed as time goes on.

MS. A. HAGEN: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General is looking into the question of the 57th Street pub and the faulty plebiscite. Would the Attorney General inform the House as to the status of his investigation of this issue?

HON. B.R. SMITH: That's news to me. I'm looking into it only in the sense that a lawyer in my ministry has been advising my colleague the Minister of Labour, who is in charge of liquor licensing. I have had a briefing also from that lawyer, so I'm aware of the remedies that the gentleman who objects to the pub process has. That gentleman's remedies include bringing information to the police, appealing to the commercial appeals tribunal — which he could do as an aggrieved person within the half-mile radius — and going to the ombudsman. I'm not conducting any investigation. It's in the capable hands of my colleague the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

PROVISION OF AZT TO AIDS VICTIMS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. The minister recently met with his AIDS advisory group, and I understand that this group has recommended that the ministry fully fund the drug AZT. Can the minister confirm this?

HON. MR. DUECK: I have not met recently with the advisory group.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Finance. The minister should be aware that AIDS patients taking AZT are likely saving taxpayers money. Doctors providing AIDS treatment and research at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver say that patients on AZT are spending less time in costly hospital care. Given the link between access to AZT and reduced hospital care, is the minister prepared to recommend that full public funding of AZT for AIDS patients be introduced as a sound and effective financial measure?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I have enough difficulty handling my own portfolio. I am an ambitious man, it's true. I can safely advise this House that my ambition does not reach as high as to attain the status of the Minister of Health in this question.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The Select Standing Committee on Tourism and Environment wishes to sit while the House is in session at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, May 16, 1988, and I would ask leave on behalf of the Chairman.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

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

MR. JONES: I'd like to pick up where we left off yesterday afternoon when we were discussing the ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education, the Sullivan commission. There were a few important questions raised at that time, and I questioned the minister on whether he had decided to in any way extend the royal commission timetable, whether he had a response timetable, and if there was any legislative timetable for the product of the commission on education. The minister indicated that he did not have one; he did not know, because he had not seen the report of the royal commission. It seems to me that that response indicates some lack of planning of educational change for the future of this province.

The minister described the ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education as one that determines the philosophical directions that education will take. He described it as "an image of the schools of the future." In pursuing my questions yesterday, I wanted, on behalf of the educational community and the people of the province, to try and get a view of the minister's philosophical directions on education and what he has in mind as an image for the future of education in this province.

[2:30]

The first question with respect to that submission was with respect to the school year. I inquired of the minister if he had a view in mind as to changes in the school year, and the minister indicated that we may do that. It may be used by pupils for different portions of the year. Whereas the minister says "may," the submission, in fact, did say "will." So I assume that we can expect legislation governing the school year which will be changed to make it different from that which it is now. I hope that any such changes will take place with the consultation of the public and the education community. I hope that if there are any changes to that legislation it will be permissive legislation.

The second question I asked the minister with respect to the ministry's submission to the royal commission had to do

[ Page 4396 ]

with a statement in that submission with respect to the utilization of contracted learning services and private tutors. At that time the minister gave an example of contracted learning services, and the example related to the work experience program. I'm curious as to what the minister meant by that. I'm wondering how that would work in the instance of work experience programs, and I wonder if the minister has any other examples that might clarify what was meant by the ministry's submission to the royal commission.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I found the member's opening remarks consistent with his negative cynicism, and, I guess, misinterpretation of anything that is said here. For that member to stand up and say that even though I have not received the royal commission report, which is not completed, that it's a lack of planning on my part not to have planned the legislation that might flow from that when I have no idea at this point in time what the royal commission may recommend.... From that, he attributes to me a lack of planning. If, on my part, it is considered a lack of planning to respond, react and plan implementation of items in a report which has not been completed or delivered, then 1 must confess that I am guilty.

Unlike that member, I like to have the information before me before I plan on it. I would guess that it's a continuation of this political interest that somehow or other my ministry and I are guilty of not planning how to implement the recommendations of the report long before we get it. I think maybe the member should read his comments sometime in the Blues and see what he actually does say.

As far as the extension of the school year, I said that I am not proposing that, I am not planning it, but I am not precluding any options for the future, including the school year change. I've got no formula up my sleeve that I plan to do, but neither am I going to say if someone comes forth with a good idea I'll say: "No, I promised my opposition critic that I will never consider a new idea. It may be good, but I made my promise to the opposition critic that I cannot possibly consider anything that you might suggest that may improve the effectiveness of the education system." I guess we go around that.

He says that I said we may consider the extension of the school year. The report submission says that it will. Our image of the school is that there will be changes in the school day, week and year. That's what we anticipate will happen in the future.

I think I've answered the member's questions. I guess you could call them questions — or accusations, whichever the member prefers. As far as other examples are concerned, I was trying to help the member.

He said: "What do you envisage there?" I had not envisaged anything in particular along those lines. There was a series of items stated there: work experience, tutoring, all of the things that should be considered in the future and probably will be considered. Many of them are being considered right now.

The member picks one and says: "Give me an example."

I try to give him an example; it might apply in the case of work experience. Then Sherlock Holmes says, "Aha, I have discovered a plot," and away we go. There is no plot. I hesitate to give any examples off the cuff to try to educate that member when all he is interested in is trying — through semantics — to twist it and make something out of it that is not there at all.

MR. JONES: A comment made by a government member last evening was that the minister must have been down to Seattle and eaten at Ivar's Acres of Clams because we certainly do not get much information from him.

The simple question that was posed to the minister with respect to timetable would have required a simple answer. The simple answer may have been something like, "Yes, the report is expected June 1, and therefore perhaps we will have legislation next fall or next spring or the following fall" — some indication that there is some planning or timetable there.

But no, the minister was evasive again and did not answer the question. What other conclusion can I come to than there is no planning? The minister does not answer a question, so there is no timetable, and I come to the obvious conclusion that the planning is not there. We get that kind of answer from the minister — blaming his critic. I am not your critic. I am the spokesperson for education on this side of the House, just as you are the spokesperson on education for the government. It's not personal; don't take everything so personally.

I asked the minister, and I will try again. The minister said yesterday in this Legislature that some contracted learning services may be in addition to it, or it may be a replacement of the work experience program. Perhaps the minister can educate me. That statement is a confusing one to me. I would like the minister to explain what that example meant, and if I can't understand that explanation, perhaps there are some other examples that will help me understand the minister in terms of how contracted learning services are going to operate in the future. In other words, what did you mean by the statement in the submission to the royal commission?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to respond to that. What did I mean by the statement in the submission? Exactly what it said. I hate to keep repeating myself, but that's what it said in the example that I gave. I picked an example to try to help the member, and I have not planned it in detail or designed it or anything of that nature. I said it might apply here. That's what I said. You're not prepared to take anything at face value, I gather.

The member says: "There is no evidence of planning." Perhaps some of the time, instead of working on your next criticism or your research from the newspapers, what you might do is listen to what I tell you. At one point in this House, Mr. Member — not just on Monday — you said your job is opposition critic. Now you say you're not the critic; suddenly you're the spokesperson for education.

MR. JONES: Not your critic. Don't take it so personally.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As far as evidence of planning is concerned, I said in my opening comments — and I have said it since — that in the budget this year we have allocated $1 million dollars to fund a response to the royal commission report when it is brought forward. We have set up in the ministry an executive committee to try and be prepared to respond, to look at it, analyze it, decide on the implications, and decide what the report recommends, as soon as we get it. I have said that. I have said it in the House; I said it in my comments. The member says: "Absolutely no indication of any planning." When you commit $1 million and the ministry is discussing how we are going to take a look at that report, how we're going to analyze it, how we're going to

[ Page 4397 ]

look at what the recommendations mean and how they can be implemented, 1 think that is good planning — and there's plenty of evidence of that. But if the member persists in saying that I haven't prepared the legislation that goes with the royal commission report, he's absolutely right; I'm going to wait until I get it.

MR. R. FRASER: I want to add a little positive note here. Mr. Chairman. I want the minister to answer a number of specific questions so that we'll get some idea of how well the minister is doing with respect to his portfolio in the province of British Columbia.

Question number one. How are students doing compared with other students across the country?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have said it repeatedly in public and in this House — I even commented on it yesterday — that on math tests, on science tests, on any tests where we are measured and compared against other provinces and other jurisdictions in North America, we come in at the top.

MR. R. FRASER: Question number two to the minister. We have heard from time to time that teachers in British Columbia are unhappy, although I happen to disagree with that. What kind of word do you get from the teachers with respect to their longevity in the teaching system, their ability to return to the teaching system? How many of our teachers are we keeping on an annualized basis?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the numbers ready for how many teachers have been teaching on an annualized basis. But I can say that most of the teachers in this province are continuing teaching. Many newcomers are coming into the teaching force, and we have people under the early retirement program that are retiring after 25 or 35 years. As minister, I've had the opportunity in the last year and a half to write letters of commendation for many teachers who have received excellent reports from their supervisors. I've also had the privilege of writing congratulatory letters to people who have been teaching for many years, and their communities have had a celebration in recognition of the many years of service. I'm always delighted to do that, because it is indicative of the appreciation of the community for the job that the teachers do. They do a good job in the schools.

MR. R. FRASER: Question number three to the minister. Can you tell this House in a general way. if not in a specific way, how the equipment in schools in British Columbia compares with that in other provinces?

[2:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In general terms. we are very proud of the equipment level in our schools. There are always changes coming, and it's a matter of keeping up to the changes. With textbooks and curriculum programs we're trying to institute a five- to six-year cycle for revision of courses. When we put in a new arithmetic program in the primary schools, we put money for the new equipment that was needed with it. Any new school that is built gets an allotment for supplies, furniture and equipment. That is always well used. I guess the funds-for-excellence program has provided much in the way of computer equipment. and as I indicated yesterday, in this province we have committed a five-year program with $15 million per year towards computer equipment in our schools, as compared with, say, Ontario. with three and a half times the population, who have committed something like $13 million per year for three years.

Once again, I think we in this province can hold our heads up with pride in what we are trying to do. We will never be there. because of the changing of technology. We will never be to where we would like to be or where the schools would like to be. But I don't think we need to be at all ashamed of what we are doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In order to keep an orderly flow, I'll recognize the member for Burnaby North, and in due course, I'll recognize the member for Vancouver South.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman. on a point of order, I always thought that in this House all members would take their seat when a member was on his feet, and then the Chair would recognize the first person who would rise to his feet after a member had sat down. and that it was not appropriate for a member to stand before his mike while another member was speaking on his feet. I would suggest that possibly the Chair should recognize that the member for Vancouver South was on his feet first after the minister sat down. The other member had been standing during the whole discourse by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. member for his remarks, and would the member for Burnaby North please proceed.

MR. JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to return to the ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education. In response to a question that I asked yesterday with respect to contracted learning services and private tutors, in which I asked the minister if those would be in addition to or in place of teachers in the school system, the minister said: "The answer is yes." Or what the minister called an answer was Yes to an either/or question. Then I asked which, and the minister said: "Both."

Later on the minister indicated that there may be some private tutors who will work with an individual student instead of a teacher. I'd like to ask the Minister of Education: will those tutors be paid tutors or volunteer tutors?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again. I don't know. It would depend on the situation. I said they may. Also it is a part of a long list of items there. That member asked: "Are they going to be in addition to or in place of?" I said yes, because they could be part and parcel of either approach. There are no definitive plans in place. There were not intended to be any definitive plans in place for any one of these items. They were suggestions — which the member can't seem to grasp — of the type of things that may happen, and not a plan, a fully developed program.

I suppose I could now expect him to say: "Why did you even mention the word when you didn't have a fully developed program in place?" Because there are suggestions that you make as the type of things that may happen, without having fully explored them. We expect that the commission will look at our suggestions and may or may not incorporate them into their report.

MR. JONES: The minister again switches into volume overdrive when he doesn't get enough mileage out of the

[ Page 4398 ]

facts. The Ministry of Education made a submission to the Royal Commission on Education, the first commission in this province since 1960. I made a submission to that royal commission, and I will defend definitively and explain fully any statement that I made to the royal commission. I'm asking the minister to do the same in this House.

The ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education said: "The school will recognize...private tutors...." The school of the future — that is, the minister's vision of the school of the future — will recognize private tutors. To my knowledge there is very little organized structure in terms of legislation and school organization and private tutors. I'm asking the Minister of Education what he means in this statement in his submission to the Royal Commission on Education? What does he mean by: "The school will recognize... private tutors...."? Are these to be part of the school system? Are these to be paid private tutors? Are these to be volunteer private tutors?

If the Minister of Education will just say that we really didn't mean what we said, that this is just a general idea and we were throwing out general ideas to the Royal Commission on Education, and that we had no clear-cut image in our mind when we made that submission, fine. But if the minister meant what he said, that in his vision the school of the future will recognize private tutors, I'd like to know what these private tutors are? Are they part of the school? Are they paid?

Are they volunteer? Will the minister either answer the question or refuse to answer the question, instead of playing games? I

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have answered the question several times. I have not said what the member wants me to say, so he again says I have not answered it. I've answered it quite clearly several times.

MR. JONES: The school of the future will recognize private tutors and contracted learning services. The minister says that there may be some private tutors who will work with an individual student instead of a teacher. It seems logical to me to ask whether those are paid or volunteer. The minister has not answered that question; he has not been willing to elaborate to any degree on any of the statements in his submission to the Royal Commission on Education. I wonder if that minister was serious in his submission to the Royal Commission on Education, and I wonder why he made such a submission.

The minister confirmed yesterday with respect to contracted learning services — which were also mentioned in the submission — that "the contracted learning services were not going to replace teachers with machines or whatever." Will the minister confirm that contracted learning services or private tutors will not impact on the school system by increasing the ratio of pupils to professionally certified teachers in British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 23 pass?

MR. JONES: I'll ask the question again, Mr. Chairman.

The minister confirmed yesterday with respect to contracted learning services, that those services were not going to replace teachers. I would like him to confirm whether contracted learning services or private tutors will impact negatively on the pupil-teacher ratio in the future. Will it increase the ratio of the number of pupils to professionally certified teachers in this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member repeatedly asks whether I will confirm what I said yesterday. I said in very general terms: we do not see these measures as replacing teachers. I cannot say that five years hence there may not be something that can be attributed to a change in class size or something of that nature. I can't predict that kind of thing, so that's why I can't give you that.

I can tell you this: since you are zeroing in on one or two phrases in this report, I am almost inclined — and certainly tempted — to read the whole report into the record, so that you see it all in perspective, rather than trying to dissect it and pick out a phrase here or there that you want to make a big issue out of. The total report is the important thing and some of the things we have suggested may happen.

I have said to the member: we don't see this as replacing the importance of teachers in the system. As a matter of fact, in our budgeting process and all our planning processes, we are looking at more teachers being needed in the system. I don't know exactly how many more. Some of that will depend on how many students there are and a lot of other factors, but I can tell the member that in general terms, we expect that the teaching force in place now will continue to be needed. There will be more teachers needed in the future, and exactly where, I'm sorry, I can't tell the member.

MR. JONES: In a plea to the minister not to read the whole report, I will concede that there are many excellent parts to the submission on behalf of the Ministry of Education to the royal commission.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Can you say that louder? I want to hear something positive from you.

MR. JONES: I'll even elaborate, unlike the minister. I would say that maybe over 90 percent of it was excellent work, and I would suggest that that stuff came from the Ministry of Education. The parts that I'm questioning probably came from the Premier's office, and I would like to get answers to some of those questions in that 10 percent.

The minister suggested, as I said, that there will not be a replacement of teachers, that he is looking to increase the number of teachers in the system. My question was a little different and the minister skated around this very simple question. Very clearly the minister understands my motives in asking these questions, motives which are to understand whether or not the things that you suggested in your submission to the royal commission are really going to change the teacher-pupil ratio. In my view, they are really going to have a negative impact on the future education of this province. Are we looking for cheaper ways to deliver the kind of service that I think will be an inferior service? Are we going to impact on the pupil-teacher ratio, with these tutors and contracted learning services, in such a way as to decrease the ratio of pupils to professionally certified staff in the schools? Will the minister respond to this question on the pupil-teacher ratio?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We have no plans for this to affect negatively pupil-teacher ratios. The member very carefully phrases it: "Can the minister guarantee that there will not be an effect on pupil-teacher ratios?" I tried to say the at time I stood up that there are a number of factors that affect it. Whether you can pick next year, one example of something where there was a change in pupil-teacher ratio.... If that is your intent, then I can't guarantee that

[ Page 4399 ]

that won't happen. I guess I try to guarantee only the things that I can deliver as guarantees. The rest of them, I have to tell you.... I assume that that will be the case. I've said to the member that we do not have any plans for this to be a way of affecting the pupil-teacher ratio; that is not our plan.

I can also tell the member — and I don't imagine he'll believe me — that we did not consult with the Premier's office in preparing this statement to the royal commission. As a matter of fact, I went over several drafts with the ministry. It was done primarily by the ministry staff, and I think they did a good job.

The member says over 90 percent of this report is good stuff, but he's going to concentrate on 1 percent where he thinks he can find a flaw. That's what disturbed me. If you spent your energy, Mr. Member, on trying to give me some positive suggestions about what we could do, and something of that nature, then I could start believing in your interest in education rather than your commitment to partisan politics.

[3:00]

MR. JONES: I had a very good feeling there for a moment, because I think the minister answered my question. He gave me the answer I was hoping for, and I was very pleased with that. Unfortunately, he finished his remarks by again being very negative to this side of the House, not understanding the role of the Legislature and the importance and purpose of the opposition.

I told the minister the other day: if he wants to have a love-in, go to St. George's, go talk to Michael Walker, go to the corporations of this province. This isn't the place for a love-in. It's my job to focus on that 10 percent. I think 10 percent of the minister's vision of the future of education is a disaster, and I'm trying to find out in this Legislature whether or not that's the truth.

If it is the truth — as the minister suggested a minute ago, and I accept fully that it is — that contracted learning services and private tutors, as the minister suggests in his submission to the royal commission, that the school will recognize and access and encourage those things.... If that will not impact in a negative way, as the minister says — and by that I hope he means that we will at least have in the future the same ratio of pupils to professional certified staff — then I'm very happy. I think that's what the minister said. Before I came in I had a shower and washed my ears, and I think I heard the answer I was hoping for. I'm very pleased about that. If the minister can give straight answers like that, things are going to move a lot more quickly.

The very next statement in the minister's submission to the Royal Commission on Education has a similar focus. It suggests that the school recognize home schooling as part of the future vision of education in this province; it's the direction in which education should go, according to the minister. I would like to ask the minister, with respect to home schooling, if he feels it prudent for parents to provide this kind of education; if he feels that parents can provide the full range of experiences that the children of this province need.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know the member tends to get up and ask a question, but prior to the question, there's a shot at.... "Well, we know that the minister doesn't know what he's doing: that was prepared by the Premier's office." You started out in this debate on my estimates by getting up and blaming me for everything that had happened five and ten years ago. You started out with a political diatribe, as did your leader, and you are continuing that throughout. When you start asking questions without the snide comments and without the misinterpretations, then I'm most delighted to have an educational discussion with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby North, on a fresh start.

MR. JONES: I withdraw any snide comments that I made. I wasn't aware that I had made any, but if the minister has interpreted any as being snide, I certainly withdraw them.

I would like the minister to respond to the question that I did ask. Does the minister see it prudent for parents to engage in home schooling? Does he believe that parents can provide the full range of experience in the home rather than sending their children to the schools of the province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Personally, I do not believe that parents can provide the full range of experiences that a student can get at school. I happen to believe in the public school system, but there are people in our society who believe that they can.... I suppose that as that member sees it, my job is that if I don't necessarily agree with everybody, it should be my will over theirs. I don't accept that. There are a few people in our society that are now providing home schooling. Our requirement generally is that the pupils are to come to school between the ages of 6 and 15. 

There's also a proviso in the public schools act that says somewhere — I don't know it by heart. but I do know that it exists — "except in circumstances where they can convince the board or the authorities that they can provide the proper education." That is in there. In some cases, in remote communities, people have no other alternatives. Other people have chosen to do that. There are some people who are strong advocates of home schooling. I am not one of them, but neither am I going to say that there is nobody that knows what they're doing unless I approve it. Therefore it can be part of the system. It is today, and it can be in the future. There are some people who are doing the home schooling. I might again put the phrase that the member refers to in context: "The school will recognize and access the resources available in the community that will contribute to the development of an educated person." I think the member will recognize that somewhere earlier in there we said that you can get some education even without being in the school. The years that you spend at school are not necessarily your total and complete educational experience. A lot of education takes place outside of the school. That's why I say you have to look at the report in total.

It says:

"The school will recognize and access the resources available in the community that will contribute to the development of an educated person: service organizations, work experience, contracted learning services, private tutors and home-schooling are examples of supports and alternative learning avenues which will exist and be recognized as providing the choice necessary to develop a society of learners." — We've defined "learners" as continuing learners — "All will be recognized as contributors to the development of the individual."

In that perspective, I see nothing sinister about any one of them by themselves.

[ Page 4400 ]

MR. JONES: I was very pleased at the minister's response, and I don't disagree with anything he said. I hope I can interpret from his remarks that the School Act will not change with respect to the regulations governing school attendance of children in this province, that the minister supports the existing legislation, and that change will not occur with respect to compulsory attendance laws.

While I was very pleased with the minister' response, I still find it very strange to see in a document that is the ministry's position on the future of education — that is, the philosophical direction in which education should go — a statement including home schooling. Of the thousands and thousands of aspects of education to mention in a submission to the royal commission, a statement on home schooling I find very strange.

In fact, I find the term "home schooling" a total contradiction in terms. The home is not where the social and intellectual aspects of the education system take place. The home is where other kinds of learning experiences take place. The school has its role and the home has its role, and we do have compulsory attendance laws. I was pleased with the minister's response, but very surprised to see a statement on home schooling in the minister's submission to the Royal Commission on Education.

I'd like to mention two letters I have which, to me.... Again, I'm concerned about the words "home schooling" being in the submission. I'd like to raise this matter in connection with two letters that I think reflect totally different views, although I was very pleased with the view the minister just mentioned. The two letters are from Ministers of Education. The first was from the Minister of Education in 1982 with respect to the home-schooling question, in which the minister says to parents: "I would encourage you to consider the whole matter very carefully, as there is much that is offered to the full educational and social development of children in the school setting." The minister was very seriously cautioning parents who were advocates of home schooling and wanted to teach their children at home to look very carefully at the opportunities their children were missing by not participating fully in the school system in this province.

I am sure the minister will accuse me of selectively reading sections of letters, and I suppose I am open to that accusation, but that's certainly not my intent.

I think there is a difference in attitude between 1982 and 1987. In 1987 this minister said: "It would appear that local authorities are currently much more accepting and supportive of home schooling than heretofore was the case. Where boards do take action, there have been serious concerns related to the adequacy of the education being provided to the children involved." The minister says he is an advocate for the system, that he is proud of the system; and yet, in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, he points out that boards are increasingly more supportive of the concept of home schooling, and that where those cases have arisen, the school boards responsible for education in that community have produced an inadequate service for those people.

The minister then says in this letter of June 26, 1987: "I expect that the topic of home schooling will receive attention during the current hearings of the royal commission, and as a result, there may be recommendations to government in this regard." The minister made sure that that came true, that the topic of home schooling was part of the royal commission hearings, that it did receive attention. The royal commission may well make recommendations with respect to home schooling because the minister says in his submission that the schools will recognize home schooling.

I would like to know what evidence the minister has that suggests school boards of this province are more supportive of the concept of home schooling. I am sure the B.C. School Trustees' Association would be very interested in this information, that they are, as a body and as individual school boards, more accepting and supportive of home schooling in this province. It seems to me that the initiation of this concept is in the minister's submission to the royal commission and in his letters to the Leader of the Opposition, and not from the public of this province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again the member takes two letters — one from 1982 and one from.... I didn't quite get the date. He continually accuses me of volume overdrive. He comes in with some pretty vicious attacks, but he does it in a soft voice, and of course, that makes it that much nicer.

However, in this instance I don't think there is much difference in the philosophical content of those letters. I think my letter of whatever date you quoted recognizes a reality that exists in the world today. There are parents who have made the case very strongly that they can adequately home school their students. When that student doesn't show up at school, a school board has the alternative of taking them to court and fining the parents for non-attendance of students in the school. Boards have taken those measures in the past. Some have taken them pretty recently. In reality, in many cases they were pushed into a situation of having the authorities drag the kids to school or fining the parents each day, neither of which would accomplish anything.

With the cautions that the minister put out in '82, with the cautions that I have expressed — that I don't think they can do the total program — we recognize that people have some individual rights. That may be contrary to the socialist philosophy, but according to my views and to the philosophy that I guess is on this side of the House, we may say this is the best route to take, but we still believe that individual families have some rights as to what they do with their children.

[3:15]

MR. JONES: As I indicated earlier, I was very pleased with the minister's response to my question with regard to home schooling. It sounded a lot like the minister's response in 1982; however, I was trying to point out with the minister's own words and not twisting them.... I read the last eight lines of the letter, so if the minister is upset, then he's upset with his own words. What I was pointing out — and I don't see it as vicious — was the statement about the inadequacy of he school system; that boards are much more accepting of his concept. There may have been more incidents of people pursuing this option, and they have that right under the law. The minister laughed when I said the legislation was not going to be changed. I hope he meant it seriously when he aid earlier he supported those sections of the School Act.

My concern is that we have a statement in the submission o the royal commission, we have the statement in the minister's letter to the Leader of the Opposition, and we have he words in the House, and there seems to be some disparity between those. Rather than putting the concept of home schooling in the submission to the Royal Commission on Education.... The minister must agree that putting that statement in there, even if the minister didn't intend it,

[ Page 4401 ]

certainly gives the appearance of advocacy. By putting that statement in there, it appears that the minister is an advocate of home schooling, not just as an option. Certainly with the legacy and the record that the ministry doesn't like me mentioning — the obsession with cost-cutting — people in this province of all political persuasions and all interests are going to interpret that as a cost-saving measure.

Surely the minister can see that putting that in there gives the appearance of advocacy, and that the reason for that advocacy is cost-saving. In his role as an advocate for the school system, and in particular the public school system — that system that is universal, that is publicly funded, and that provides equal access for all students — I would hope that the minister, as in his response to the member for Vancouver South, would express pride in our school system and not be pointing out that people are complaining about the inadequacy of the system. I'm very supportive of the minister when he expresses pride in the school system. I have that same pride; we share that. Although we may have some differences in terms of the philosophical direction in which we should go, there is a lot in common.

This is not the forum for that. I am telling the minister, even if he's not an advocate, not to give the appearance of being an advocate of home schooling in this province. I don't think that's the philosophical direction we want to go in British Columbia. I think we want to be proud of our accomplishments in the school system, in particular the public school system. But the minister can't have it both ways. He cannot be an advocate for home schooling and an advocate for the public school system. I suggest that the minister's role is to be an advocate for the public school system and to emphasize his pride in that system and the accomplishments of that system, and not be an advocate for home schooling, and not include that kind of concept in a submission to the royal commission.

MR. R. FRASER: Oh, you can.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You're wrong.

MR. JONES: The minister has agreed — if members opposite were listening — that, very clearly, individual parents cannot provide the full range of learning opportunities that the school can. I don't think that's in dispute. If members opposite want to rise in their place and debate that....

MR. R. FRASER: Last time you took my place.

MR. JONES: The member for Vancouver South — I think his tan is fading. Maybe he's been building some of the bridges that he burned earlier.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That is corny.

MR. JONES: Are we tired of that one?

Interjection.

MR. JONES: If the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) had said the line, he would have done it with much more aplomb and there would have been a much more positive response opposite.

I know the minister will be pleased; we'll leave the paragraph that dealt with contracted learning services, private tutors and home schooling, and go on to the next paragraph in the minister's submission to the Royal Commission on Education. I will leave a few words out of the paragraph, not for the purpose of distorting but to make it a little more succinct and to make it read better.

That paragraph suggests that the school of the future will make extensive use of parents and volunteers as well as of private agencies. So we're emphasizing parents, volunteers and private agencies. And the word is "will" make use of in the future. And I must add the last part, with which I think the minister would certainly agree: "...who may specialize in providing quality support services to select groups of children." Perhaps the minister could clarify the particular groups of children which are referred to in this paragraph.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, Mr. Chairman, we seem to run around in the same circles, with slightly different interpretations of what I said and what I didn't say.

Going back to the letter, the member says that I was advocating home schooling by the comment that I made in the letter. He has the advantage: he has the exact wording of the letter that I wrote over a year ago. But I know the intent and the gist of the letter. When I said in that letter that I expect that some submissions on home schooling will go forward to the royal commission, I think the member should know that I had been approached by a group in this province that said they believed that home schooling should be promoted. I said: "Don't tell me about it: go to the royal commission." I will listen to people. I've heard many groups advocating many things to me. I knew that they planned to go to the royal commission with that.

I point out that in the home schooling, it says: ....and home schooling are examples of supports and alternative learning avenues which will exist and be recognized as providing the choice necessary to develop a society of learners. " I'm including a number of options and of possibilities.

Then the member said something about, I believe, changing the School Act, or something of that nature. I didn't say I wasn't going to change the School Act. I said I was not going to change the School Act until I got some direction from the royal commission — until I had the report — and that I wasn't going to include some of these things in the School Act.

I guess the best way I can answer the member's comments about the last sinister plot that he sees somewhere in there is by the last paragraph. The last paragraph says: "The school will involve parents in the learning experience of their children. Through their better understanding of the purposes of schooling, parents will be active in the entire range of their children's learning needs." In the previous paragraph it says that volunteers and other agencies are all going to be taking part in the school of the future, which — if you read the report — we see as a school of the future, not confined to the four walls. The school of the future is a life-long learning experience.

MR. R. FRASER: I wish to pursue my line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, but prior to that I want to express a few opinions on the comments from our friend from Burnaby and I think there are about three schoolteachers here in the chamber.

One of the key things in education, as far as I'm concerned — and I stress it to all the young engineering students when I visit them at universities and schools in my riding —

[ Page 4402 ]

is flexibility, and the key to education is ongoing. The boundaries of the mind should not be contained by the walls of the school. If it talks about tutoring at home, learning at home, learning with computers, learning through distance education, television or satellites, it shouldn't matter one whit to us as long as they learn. The constant lesson that we have to provide to the children or the students in the school system — whatever age they might happen to be; they might be adults — is that those of you in school today will probably have five careers in your lifetime. The days of working for one employer forever are probably gone forever. You have to learn in your school years how to learn and with any luck, develop a will to reason, and then you are going to be okay.

The key is flexibility. We are talking about the mind. We are not talking about employing teachers or building schools and making contractors and engineers happy. We are talking about the filling of students' minds with information so that they can do something useful. That's education; bricks and mortar are not.

When we talk about things like pupil-teacher ratios, I know that they don't mean a lot to a lot of people. As far as I'm concerned, in many ways they are totally meaningless, because in the riding of Vancouver South, we have classes of 37 students and classes of 10 students, depending on the capacity of the students and the teachers and other combinations.

Would the minister please go into some detail in this chamber to describe how flexible the school system really is? Talk about learning assistance and learning enrichment programs and just how flexible it is, because we are trying to address the needs of the students on as much of an individual basis as we can. This is one of the ways that we do it. I think this chamber would like to hear more about those programs.

MR. JONES: The question that the minister referred to with respect to my comment regarding a change in legislation on the attendance laws was perhaps mistakenly made in response to the minister's support for that current legislation, as he described the legislation and indicated his support for it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

To the member for Vancouver South, very clearly, part of that legislation indicates that the parents who choose that method must be able to demonstrate to the courts that the children are being educated in a satisfactory manner. We already have taken care of — in the current legislation — the concerns of the member for Vancouver South.

I was referring to the next paragraph. I had asked as many questions as possible to try to get a clarification of the minister's position on home schooling, and he was very helpful in that. I was moving on to the next paragraph on page 9 of the ministry's submission to the Royal Commission on Education, which talked about the school making use of parents, volunteers and private agencies in providing service to select groups of children. The question to the minister was to have him clarify that. The first question was: what groups of children is the minister referring to in this particular section?

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know how to keep repeating answers in different ways, because I find it boring to say the same things. Maybe I will make a tape, and then I can sit back and relax, because I know the member will ask the same question at least a dozen times. I could make the tape and carry on like a broken record. Let me use an example to see how we interpret things differently. The letter that the member was so kind to send over to me.... Am I correct? Was the member saying that in that letter I was expressing my concern about the adequacy of the public school system? I'd like to be clear on that.

MR. JONES: The minister has the letter now. My understanding is that in that letter, where there had been cases where parents had gone to the courts in order to defend the right to home-school, the minister suggested in those cases that the parents complained that the reason they wanted to home-school was that there was inadequate education in those jurisdictions. That is my understanding of the letter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's why I wanted to get that point clear, because I thought that was what I heard when I read the letter of June 26, 1987. It says: "Where boards do take action" — and I am only aware of three incidents in the past 18 months — "there have been serious concerns related to the adequacy of the education being provided to the children involved." Where boards do take action, that means that they are not satisfied that the student is getting the correct home schooling. So the inference very clearly is that when the boards do not take action, they are satisfied that the home schooling is providing adequate education. Where boards to do take action to get the student back to school, it's because they are concerned about the adequacy of the education being provided.

If I take it from the member's interpretation, obviously they feel that the school can provide a much more adequate education than the parent can at home, so you can see how carelessly or carefully to your purposes you interpret the remarks when I read that. I'm going to send the letter back to the member to point out that if anything, I was saying that I'm concerned. I have said in this House I do not think they can cover the whole range of educational experience that children need. However, I went one step further than that member would ever be prepared to go and I said that I have to acknowledge that sometimes parents' rights supersede my views — and should, and I'll defend that. So I'll send the letter back to the member.

Now how to get back to this question, because I'm not quite sure what the member is asking. All throughout here, in a sense we've set the stage. Here is the educated person. This is what education is all about. This is what learning is. Then we said that we see an image of the school of the future. In this age, this school will be this; it will be this; it will be this. In his image, we see that.

I can tell you that I have had, during all my experience in the education system, dreams of what might be. Some of them were, I guess, way-out dreams. I guess I sort of went by he philosophy of not necessarily following where the paths may lead, but striking out into a new direction and creating a path. I couldn't always do it because I wasn't smart enough, but I certainly like to think of it because it hadn't been done his way; because the timetable had never been done this way; because an approach had never been done this way in a course, that that shouldn't preclude me, if I wanted to get the best education for the students in my school, surely I was allowed to use some imagination — even if I couldn't implement it, to dream.

[ Page 4403 ]

I think you could check with my ministry senior staff in some of the meetings that we have about some of the dreams and visions that I have of what the education system could be and how it could be perfected and meet the needs of individual students — some of the dreams that I express out there about how it might be done, in exploration; I'm not afraid to dream. Sometimes I'm sure they wonder what I'm smoking because anybody would say: "You can't do all that." I bristle when people say: "You can't." Thank goodness that when they said, "You can't fly more than so far above this earth," somebody didn't believe them. "You can't go to the moon. It's too far away." Somebody didn't believe them.

I think in education we've got to do a bit more of that. Why not dream? I know we have to take it in steps and I know there have to be changes, but what is so wrong with saying that we see a lot of things happening in the school system? You can be very glad, Mr. Member, that I didn't write this report, because I'd have put some wild dreams there and then defied anyone to say it couldn't be done. I still have some of those wild dreams, but I also have a practical streak, and I also know that certain things can and can't be done today, or that sort of thing, and to accept that it can't ever be done.

The school in the future will use community resources — public and private; it will ensure that individual students receive the attention and support they need; that they may involve extensive use of parents — "may" involve; and it may involve volunteers as well as private agencies who may specialize in providing quality support services to select groups of children — all of those things may well be possible. Quite frankly, I hope a lot of them will and that they'll come together in the best interests of the children rather than to say: "No, we've structured a system and that system must be followed. Anybody else's ideas have to be expurgated right now." I just don't believe that. I think that if anybody has an idea and says that they can do something, okay. Show me. Try it. Give me an example.

I don't know how long you want to spend on this, saying: "What did you really mean when you said that?" You are advocating that the commission.... "Do this; you are directing the commission." I'll tell you, I have a lot more faith, Mr. Chairman, in the integrity of the people on that commission than perhaps the member has. I believe they got something over 2,000 submissions. This was one of them. I don't think that the commission for one minute is prepared, at the price of its integrity, to take directions from this minister. And I hope they don't.

I think we have a right; I have a right as minister. We have a right as a ministry to say: "These are our views of how we see education in the future. " You said, Mr. Member, that you would accept over 90 percent of this report as good, but it's your duty to pick holes in a few portions of it, so pick away.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the minister's remarks. With respect to the letter, I can see that there are two possible interpretations, and since the minister was the author of that letter, I accept his interpretation and stand corrected on mine.

I also appreciated the remarks of the minister on his dreams as Minister of Education. The minister has described himself as a possibilitarian, and I think it's an admirable trait for a Minister of Education to have. That's the purpose of my questions here today: to understand those dreams somewhat, and in particular, those dreams put down on paper and submitted to the Royal Commission on Education.

To me, the ministry's submission is an eminent one among the 2,000 submitted to the commission. It is the product of the expertise of the ministry and it has, if not the total authorship, the direction and the stamp of approval of the Minister of Education, so this is a very important document. My purpose in asking questions is to better understand the philosophical directions that the minister suggests education is going to be taking — perhaps for the next 50 years. This is the document we have at present, and I expect, when it comes to legislation that's flowing out of the royal commission, we'll be doing exactly the same thing.

I have asked the minister twice to clarify the second last paragraph on page 9. The minister does not respond to the questions of which select group of children the minister is referring to in that second to last paragraph. The minister reads the section again. I would ask the minister: is he not willing to elaborate to any extent? Is he just going to reiterate the exact words in the submission, or is he willing to discuss his submission to the Royal Commission on Education?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think if I detected one question in there, the member is asking which selective group of children I was referring to. Am I correct in that? In general terms, that selective group of children could be a different group in September and in February, a group that might need extra help, a different group from year to year or from district to district. As much as you would like me to say which group I had in mind when that was written, I can’t answer that.

I had no specific group in mind. There will always be — there have been in any classroom — a child or a student who needed some specific or special attention. You're asking me in effect to tell before I get my class in September which kid in the room is going to need specific attention in reading, extra help in arithmetic or things of that nature. I can't do those things. Maybe with my analogy, my irritation is showing, because I've tried to say that that's what it says.

I've tried to say that it can be read in the total context, and you get a pretty good idea that I didn't have a specific group of students in mind. Neither did the ministry when that was written. Since I was involved, I went over the drafts with the ministry; there were several drafts. There were lengthier ones; there were abbreviated ones; there were all kinds of them. We tried to make sure that we did not try and give a specific direction to the commission. That was very important to us, not because I'm afraid to give a direction when I believe in it, but I think it was very important for us not to say to the commission: "You should come up with this conclusion." I have to be conscious that should they think it was the best conclusion. we'd be accused of writing the script for the royal commission. Even if they got it from 17 other sources, we'd be accused of having inappropriately influenced the commission. A lot of this report was very carefully edited to try and stay away from: "This is what you should do."

We've said that we still think there are things that are going to happen in the future. A much more comprehensive group of people will be involved in the educational experiences of children. Here are a few examples. Now we've been several hours. and which example did I have in mind when I did that? I've tried to say right from the beginning "not, " and so I've been accused of going into overdrive and of not knowing what I had in mind. You've accused me, on the record, by saying: "Obviously the minister didn't know what he was doing when he did this." And you wonder why I get irritated with some of this discussion. For two hours we haven't gotten anywhere nearer. At this point in time, after two days, I really don't detect from that member any concerns about education or about children in the school system.

[ Page 4404 ]

MR. JONES: What we're talking about is the future of education in this province, the Royal Commission on Education, which certainly will be the blueprint for the future of education, and the ministry's submission, a very important document.

I disagree with the last point that the minister made with respect to specifics. It seems to me that in the sections that I am quoting, there are specifics. I think home schooling, contracted learning services and more days of the year are very specific concepts. I'm trying to clarify with the minister the intent of his submission.

[3:45]

1 chose the second-to-last paragraph, and we did spend a good deal of time on the paragraph before that. The major difference between the two paragraphs was the question that I asked the minister. There is a lot of repetition between the previous paragraph and the one that we're discussing now. The major difference is that it talks about select groups of children. What the minister is really saying.... I don't mean to twist his words; let me try this on and see how you disagree.

There is a lot of similarity between the two paragraphs. The major difference is that the second paragraph talks about a select group of children. The minister accuses me of repetition. If there isn't a difference between the two paragraphs, then what is meant by select groups of children? What is the difference between the previous paragraph and the one we're discussing?

With these private agencies that are referred to, does the minister have any suggestion at this time whether these agencies would be licensed? What accountability mechanisms would we have for contracted learning services, private tutors, parents, volunteers and private agencies? Would we have any licensing? Would we have any regulations governing these organizations? What accountability mechanisms would we have to ensure that the children of this province are getting the kind of quality education that both the minister and I want for the children?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Comprehensive and the very best.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby North.

The first member for Vancouver South on a point of order.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I understand you're trying to be fair, but everybody in this chamber should have a chance to ask the minister some questions, and I don't believe that it's the prerogative of the official critic to take the whole time. I would ask your indulgence.

MR. ROSE: I think the member for Vancouver South is probably casting reflections on the Chair. I'm certainly rising here to defend the Chair, because the hon. member for Vancouver South was not on his feet at the same time the member for Burnaby North was. I stand and defend the Chair on this account.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank both the hon. members. I'm flattered indeed, and I'll now recognize the member for Burnaby North.

MR. JONES: The member who was first on his feet on both occasions.

It seems to me that what we have is two sections of the minister's submission to the Royal Commission on Education dealing with contracted learning services, private tutors, home schooling, parents and volunteers and private agencies, and the minister does not distinguish between the two. He says the opposition is being repetitious in asking questions about these two different sections when in fact they were put into his submission as two separate paragraphs with different focuses. The opposition was trying to clarify the difference between them. I think the minister has really refused to answer any questions with respect to the difference between those two paragraphs.

Let me try a different paragraph. The second paragraph on the next page: "The school will determine the most appropriate way of assigning its available educational resources to best serve its learners." The emphasis is: "The school will determine." As we have it right now, the Minister of Education is duly elected and appointed by the government, and his responsibility is for education. We have duly elected school boards in this province who have a similar role at the local level. It is their responsibility at this point to determine the most appropriate way of assigning its available educational resources. In his submission to the only royal commission since 1960 in this province....

I would very much appreciate an answer from the Minister of Education to clarify how he sees that responsibility being shifted to the school from the elected representatives at the district level and the provincial level, as it exists now. In the second paragraph we have a shift from the province, from the district, to the school level. Clearly, what we're talking about in this paragraph is school-based budgeting. I would like the minister to clarify his rationale for that kind of shift.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We seem to have only one document, and I'm not about to take the member's interpretation unless he quotes directly. So I do want to read the document myself. But it seems to say that the school will determine how to make the best uses of its available resources. I believe the member has been a schoolteacher, has been involved in the system, and to find something ominous about that statement is beyond my comprehension. Any school will use its available resources in the best possible way. That used to be part of my job as principal.

MR. JONES: The minister suggests that the statement in the submission to the royal commission is exactly what's happening now. I suggest to the minister that that is not what's happening now. The most appropriate way to assign resources is determined by the province and by the school boards. It is not determined by the schools. If it was, why would the minister, in his submission to the Royal Commission on Education, which is looking at educational change, at pursuing future directions in this province, submit something that already exists? Obviously, this is a recommendation for change. Does the minister not recognize that his submission is a recommendation for change in direction of education in this province? Did he just feel that something had to go in from the ministry, or does it have serious intent? Is the minister's own view of school-based budgeting not what is being referred to in the second paragraph on page 10?

I would very much appreciate a response from the Minister of Education. We can spend a lot of time in this chamber, or we can have some straight answers from the minister and move on to other estimates. We're having interjections from

[ Page 4405 ]

all over the place, and certainly it's every member's right. But there is a flow of business to this House, and this is an important process, an important document. As far as I'm concerned, we're dealing with the second paragraph on page 10, and I would like some response from the Minister of Education.

MR. R. FRASER: I in no way meant to be critical of the Chair, but I do want to take my turn from time to time and talk about this document referred to by our hon. friend from Burnaby. I in no way intend to be critical of the ministry for making a submission; indeed, the ministry, from my point of view, should take a leadership role in education. If they don't, who will? It's not a novel idea that the minister should understand what's going on and should guide the whole school system in the province of British Columbia — why not? — with the help of everybody in the province, with the submissions from the BCTF, from the teachers, and indeed even from the members of the House. Maybe a few parents would like to help.

There are such amazing things in the document from the Ministry, saying: "...we are witnessing a re-establishment of the cultural identity of the North American Indian population." We should be sensitive to their cultural values. That's not a bad idea, recognizing the ethnic mix of our province. I didn't hear the member complaining about that, but he probably would have if he'd read it.

Then we go on to the topic of literacy skills. That's a novel idea from the Minister of Education, that we should talk about literacy skills in our young people and indeed our old people in the province of British Columbia. Good idea. It's of fundamental importance, obviously. I've said to every student group I've talked to: "For heaven's sake, learn how to communicate, because if you have a great idea in science that you can't tell some other person, you don't have an idea." I didn't hear the member opposite complaining about that.

The minister's submission talked about intellectual development, social development, vocational development, human development. Of course the minister should take a leadership role. But education is not just the royal commission, or whether we've had one or two or a dozen royal commissions. Education is the stretching of the mind. It's like learning a second language; it's another opportunity. That's what we're talking about. Of course, we need literacy skills.

To go to this famous page 9, the second-last paragraph: "select groups of children." Maybe the minister should have said, "as the need arises," in order to help the member opposite, who can't seem to figure out that the select group would probably be the group that needed the help the most. But he should know; he was in the classroom. Maybe it's a good thing that he's here, not there. Maybe we need to help him. That's probably what we need to do.

"The school will determine the most appropriate way of assigning its available educational resources...." Policies set by the ministry, policies set by the school boards, funding set by the administrations — that's not too surprising; that's easy to figure out. The schools have a job to do, and they should do it.

Nor did I hear the member complain about this little item in the document: "Effective teachers should be well paid." I didn't hear him complain about that; that sounds okay; he liked that.

"They should be held accountable for student achievement." You know, we should talk about student achievement more. How well did you do? What was the measure of your success? What did you learn? Are you having difficulty learning this subject or that subject?

MR. JONES: What's the measure of your success?

MR. R. FRASER: How much time have you got? I've got lots of time for you, because you need a lot of help, and I'm here to help you.

We should get the students a measuring device, something to say, "Yes, I understand how to speak French, or I understand science, or I understand physics." and not this mealy-mouthed: "Let's go all the way through, and graduate illiterate." That's not fair to those kids. The minister has to be in a leadership capacity, and he has done that.

I've made a submission to the royal commission which you ought to read. You know, really, it’s amazing. It's very short, very simple: learn how to think, develop a will to reason, go somewhere in your life in this great province. Because if you can't think and you can't reason, you can't go anywhere. Distance education. Satellite education. Thinking education. Stretching of the mind.

Minister, I compliment you for putting in a submission. For heaven's sake, I think you would have been castigated if you hadn't done that. There's not a member here, including the man who wanted to hog all the time, who would say: "Minister, you shouldn't have done it."

Yes, we should be part of it. I'm not even sure we needed a royal commission, in fact. There are artificial boundaries all the time. It's not a problem. But it never hurts to do something innovative once in a while. What is so mysterious about education, anyway? It's not mysterious. When did we start learning? Little groups sitting around with an instructor thinking about things — philosophical discussions began hundreds of years ago, and so did science. It's not amazing, Mr. Chairman, that we would have a submission from the Minister of Education to the royal commission. It's necessary to demonstrate the commitment of this government to the children of British Columbia.

[4:00]

MR. JONES: Question: on page 10, paragraph 2, is the Minister referring to school-based budgeting?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That could be one of the things included. But let me give you a definition perhaps of the resources. Resources include the people in the school, the physical facilities, the books, the learning materials, the students, time, temperature and space — all of those things. I have some difficulty with the member standing up in this House and asking what the minister means by a statement such as: "The school will determine the most appropriate way of assigning its available educational resources to best serve its learners." In some cases it's school-based budgeting, where the school and the staff are dealing with that. That may be the case. It may or may not be expanded, but it will come as it makes sense. I don't see how you can possibly interpret that simple statement to mean I've got some intention, some motive to do some particular thing that occurs to you.

MR. JONES: Clearly the intent of the submission to the royal commission was to promote educational change. The minister describes what currently exists. I'm suggesting

[ Page 4406 ]

there is a suggestion of change here, and I would like to ask the minister: does he have a view on school-based budgeting? And would he elaborate on that view?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I do.

MR. JONES: Perhaps the minister is suggesting in his submission to the Royal Commission on Education that we had legislation last year that changed the role of principals, who are responsible for the school, and made them administrative officers. I suggest that the minister is promoting the concept of school-based budgeting, and if he is, then I would like him to stand up in the House and agree that that's what is being suggested in the second paragraph here. Clearly there are some serious problems with that concept, and I think the minister is aware of them. He is aware that we want to see the principals in the schools, and not as franchise managers for the school system. I don't think we want to supplant their role as educators. We want to keep the kind of role that principals have in the school now, and we want the democratically elected people in this province — the school trustees and the Legislature — responsible for the kinds of resources.

There are some serious problems with the concept of school-based budgeting. It's clearly a scheme aimed at promoting cost-cutting and not enhancing the education system of our province. It's a management system, not an education system. What we see through the back door, in this suggestion of school-based budgeting in the second paragraph on page 10 — just as on page 9 — is a ploy to bring more private contractors into the school system. This is the area where we contract out the custodial and maintenance services of the school districts of this province.

What we want is an assurance that this is not what is intended in the second paragraph here; that in fact the goal of the ministry is to maintain the standards and programs of maintenance and service that we have. We want those controlled by democratically elected trustees who are accountable to the public of this province. We don't want to leave it up to the school to determine the services and standards we have at the school level. I don't think that school-based budgeting is the philosophical direction of the future of this province. I hope it's not. I was hoping that the minister would give assurance that that was not his intention in this paragraph.

The third paragraph on that page has some statements that I would like to inquire of the minister. It relates to my previous comments. It says in that paragraph: "The school will provide tangible rewards for effective management...." I wonder if the minister could clarify what he means by "tangible rewards for effective management" that the school will provide.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I'm not sure what the member wants. Does he want a dictionary definition of "tangible," or whatever it could mean in anyone's mind, or....

MR. JONES: In your mind, I guess.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It could mean many different things in many different places. Tangible is something very real: that can be praise; it can be support; it can be extra equipment; it can be money; it can be any one of those things; it can be many different things. I guess I go back to the second paragraph, which the member wasn't about to leave alone. I had to make a concluding comment on it. I suppose all I can do is apologize for stirring up the thought that we should do some imaginative thinking. How someone can say this it is a back-door approach to advocate something, a statement that says: "The school will determine the most appropriate way of assigning its available educational resources to best serve its learners." And from that, somehow or other, that's a back-door approach to whatever the member conjures up in his mind.

I guess we're going on clause after clause in this way. And then he says that we say there shall be tangible rewards for effective management and for provision of quality education services to all professionals working there. More entrepreneurial processes will be used to develop resources and provide such rewards. I'd like to go on with the statement: these are not unrealistic goals. Indeed, there are many schools in the province whose teachers would recognize a number of these practices and principles as guiding forces in their schools.

MR. JONES: The minister suggests that the schools will provide tangible rewards for effective management — and that could mean anything. We have a submission to the royal commission, and that commission has the responsibility of interpreting the intent of the Ministry of Education. And if it can mean anything, then I'm sure the royal commission is going to have a very difficult task in determining the direction in which the Minister of Education would like to see education take in the future. I have concern about the statement, and the minister has done nothing to allay my concern.

I think one of the things that it could well mean in terms of tangible rewards is that we're going to financially reward the managers — what are now the principals in education — based on their ability to cut costs. I think it's a reasonable conclusion that resources would be made available. If there could be cost-cutting in schools, if we have managers in schools, and if they do save cost, then some of that cost could go to the manager. I think that's a reasonable interpretation of this kind of statement. I believe the minister is saying that it could mean that. Is that what the minister is saying: that it could mean that effective management means cost-cutting; and if those costs are cut, then a portion of those cut costs could go to the principal or to the manager of the school?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would think that effective management does concern itself about cost-effectiveness any time. But what the member is trying to seek out of this, I don't know.

MR. JONES: I'd like the minister to clarify the part he read; it's the second part of that same paragraph, which refers to entrepreneurial processes: "More entrepreneurial processes will be used to develop resources and provide such rewards." Rather than what I suggested a moment ago, perhaps the plan in the minister's submission to the royal commission is fund-raising kinds of things; perhaps work days; perhaps an increase in volunteer services. And through those cost-saving measures, then we would have financial, monetary rewards which we could provide for effective management. Is that what's meant by "entrepreneurial processes"?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman — certainly not his cynical description of entrepreneurism.

[ Page 4407 ]

MR. JONES: I appreciate that. The minister doesn't clarify what it means, but he does help with what it doesn't mean, and I am very pleased with that answer.

The member for Vancouver South raised the question of merit pay, and I was probably being very unfair to the member by suggesting that his pay had been cut through a merit pay system, having been changed from minister of the Crown to back-bench MLA.

I'm looking at the paragraph I just referred to as well as a paragraph on page 8. The part on page 10 that I am interested in receiving information on from the Minister of Education is that we are going to provide "tangible rewards for...the provision of quality education services to all professionals working there." And there is the paragraph on page 8 which suggests that effective teachers should be well paid and, secondly, held accountable for student achievement. I think that when we tie pay to accountability for student achievement and talk about tangible rewards for the provision of services to all professionals, we're talking about the concept of merit pay. I don't see any other possible interpretation of these paragraphs and parts of paragraphs. Is that what the minister intended in his submission?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I must admit I am enjoying this snakes-and-ladders game. We went to page 10 and back here, and then, by some mysterious juxtaposition, you say: "That's the only thing the minister could have meant." I'll read the paragraph on page 8: "Effective teachers should be well paid. They should be held accountable for student achievement." In my opinion, all teachers should be effective; and being effective, they should be well paid. Teachers should be held accountable for the achievement of their students, with all of the factors that go in there — the nature of the student, the subject and all of those other sorts of things.

I think we can expect that teachers, as professionals — properly trained, which more and more they are — should be effective, well paid and accountable for what they do in the classroom, in the achievement of their students. The ministry — all of us, 1 think — have to be accountable. Even the auditor-general said we should be accountable for the product that comes out of our schools — the learning product, not the mechanical product; the learner that comes out of our schools, the educated person.

[4:15]

We defined what we think the educated person should be. We have stated intended learning outcomes. More and more we are moving in the direction of saying: "This is the direction in which at this point in time we're heading, and this is where we think more people should arrive." We try to measure to what extent our program has been successful, and effective teachers are part of that. They should be well paid.

I suppose the argument will go on forever: what do you mean by "well"? It does go on in society. What is a well-paid hockey player, baseball player, lawyer, doctor or teacher? I can't seem to detect that everybody agrees on a certain figure. But I think that people philosophically accept that teachers should be well paid. We've said we accept and agree with that. And they should be accountable for student achievement.

I guess we weren't playing the same sort of snakes-and-ladders game as that member, saying: "We had better take a careful look at a word we use three pages hence, because that may affect the meaning someone could read out of this back here." That's what I'm suggesting, Mr. Member. I welcome you analyzing the document, questioning it and so on. However, I'm having some difficulty with some of the most vivid and imaginative interpretations you've managed to attribute to it.

MR. JONES: I certainly agree with the two ideas when they're separated, and I think all members of the House agree that effective teachers should be well paid and also accountable for student achievement. But when those two things are linked in almost the same sentence — only four words separate them in the paragraph — then very clearly we're linking the concepts of pay and student achievement.

I'm not trying to play word games with the minister. We can interpret it, Mr. Minister, that the Sullivan royal commission should not interpret this section in any way as the Ministry of Education and the minister promoting the concept of merit pay. These are just two separate concepts that happen to be in the same paragraph; there's no connection between them. The interpretation that the Sullivan royal commission should put on this paragraph is that there's no intention here of the minister promoting the concept of merit pay.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have not directed the royal commission, or whoever reads this, as to what they may or may not link or interpret. I can imagine that if I had said to that member, the opposition education critic, that you should not link these things because they weren't intended that way.... I didn't give an instruction sheet on which paragraph and which word you might link with each one of these.

We tried to develop here a comprehensive philosophical statement of where we see education going, where we think a variety of approaches may be used, what it should achieve and how it should achieve it, in philosophical terms. That's what we've put together here: a comprehensive statement, after much time and effort, putting together all our views in the ministry of the future of education. We did not direct the royal commission. I've tried to say that. I give them a lot more credit than you do. We did not tell them that because this is from the ministry, somehow or other it is superlative to anything else submitted to them and they must take direction from us. I would not be so presumptuous as to give that kind of direction to the royal commission, nor would I be so presumptuous as to say to them: "Please link these with this and them with those, but never these with that, because that was not intended."

I cannot tell people how to interpret something I say or something I do. I can only tell you that I say what I believe. I'm trying to convey my thoughts, perhaps not excellently at times. I know the member has spent quite a bit of time here saying: "This is what the minister really said." Take a chance, Mr. Member. that when I say something, that is what I said, not what you or the media or somebody else has attributed to me. Take a chance that I put in words the thoughts I have. Other people may see that as completely different from what I intended, but that's the risk you take. The only alternative would be to say: "Read it. Read it. It says it all." We could have spent a lot less time on this, but I'm sure the member would repeat the same question and say: "Would you like me to make a tape to go back over it?"

MR. JONES: It's really the Minister of Education who is not willing to take a chance. He's not willing to comment on

[ Page 4408 ]

school-based budgeting, when clearly that's been mentioned in his submission. He's not willing to comment on the concept of merit pay, when clearly that was in the submission. He's not really willing to comment on the deprofessionalizing and deunionizing that are clearly part of his submission to the Royal Commission on Education, a commission that has been systematically undermined since its inception by this minister.

We have had major legislation from this government on bargaining and the College of Teachers. We've had action teams running around the province, suggesting more cost efficient ways of running our schools. We've had suggestions from ministers of the Crown on such concepts as year-round schools, voucher systems and the county system. We've included the concept of decentralization and privatization in our school system since the inception of the royal commission. We've had such major initiatives as the Pacific Rim initiatives fund. We've seen the death of the fund for excellence in education. We've seen the introduction of Passport to Education, multi-year computer plans, and an index as a method of controlling teachers' salaries — all since the inception of the Royal Commission on Education, while that commission was trying to determine public opinion on the future directions of education in this province. These are not minor items that the minister has initiated; many of these are major.

I certainly don't expect the government to stand still while we have a royal commission, but some of these things were very major changes in our education system. It seems to me that the government has a responsibility, at least to hold off on major changes to the system while a commission has been appointed and has the very important responsibility that royal commissions have.

Clearly, the minister does not understand the purpose of a royal commission. That purpose is to secure information as a basis for legislation; or to educate the public or the Legislature — that is, even to pressure for legislation; or to sample public opinion; or to investigate the judicial or administrative function of government; or to permit the voicing of grievances on the part of the public; or, in some instances, to enable the government to postpone action on a politically embarrassing question.

Those are the six purposes for a royal commission. I suggest to the members opposite and to the minister that it was not appropriate. I have a real concern that we have not seen an arm's length relationship between the Sullivan royal commission and this government. We had the Ministry of Education make the submission to that commission in camera. First of all, it made that submission, and I think that is inappropriate. The minister has said several times that he feels it's a government's right. If we look at the purpose of the royal commission, which is a public process and to sample public opinion, I think it's totally inappropriate for the government to establish a royal commission and then have input to that commission that comes back to government. As the member for Vancouver South said, why have a commission? He doesn't see any need for a royal commission, and I think we have a constitution in this country that gives the responsibility for education to the government of the province. It's not the place of the government of the province to set up a commission and then try to influence that commission along very clear lines.

In the past few hours, I have suggested in this some very specific recommendations to that royal commission. Even the deputy minister — with all due respect to the deputy minister — has suggested that: "We believe it would be inappropriate for a government agency to advise the royal commission on specifics." I suggest, in fact, that is what happened — to advise the royal commission on specifics "that could then be included in recommendations back to government." That was the Deputy Minister of Education on October 29, 1987.

1 suggest that this submission was made. It did contain specific recommendations, and it was made in camera. It was made in camera for a specific purpose: so the kind of cross-examination in public that we've seen in the past few hours in this Legislature would not take place in an in camera submission to the royal commission.

Clearly, we have a problem with the government intervening in the public royal commission process — an honoured tradition that has specific purposes that I think the government has both undermined and intervened with.

With respect to the process as we proceed from here, I also have serious concerns about the $1 million the government has set aside as a response to the royal commission. I don't know what "respond to" means. I've asked the minister to clarify the timetable, the process and how he sees that. I've given him a great opportunity to clarify and to allay the concerns of the opposition with respect to the process after the royal commission submits its report. The minister has not taken advantage of that opportunity.

So if the opposition sees a nefarious motive here, it's quite understandable. The minister has not taken advantage of an opportunity to clarify what this $1 million is for and how we are going to respond as a province to the Sullivan royal commission. There's been no clarification on the part of the minister at all, as far as the follow-up process goes. How will that $1 million be broken down? What is the process? Is it really a process? The minister laughs.

I don't know, in the lack of such information, how the minister could.... The minister called me "Tricky Dick" yesterday. It seems to me that, if we've seen stonewalling and the siege mentality in operation, then we've seen it in this Legislature on the part of that minister. Certainly, if anybody has been a "Tricky Dick, " it's been that minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll have to ask you to withdraw that.

MR. JONES: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I was commenting on the minister's response in the Legislature on behalf of the government; it was not intended as a personal comment. I have no personal views about the minister whatsoever. It's his response as a minister of the Crown, in not responding to my attempts to clarify the important submission on the part of the Ministry of Education to the Sullivan royal commission.

Again I give that minister an opportunity to clarify the follow-up process. How was that $1 million to be used? Is that $1 million going to be used to manipulate the information that's presented in the royal commission? What is the follow-up to the public process that the government has both intervened with and subverted?

[4:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Once again, in a very soft-spoken way, the member has gotten quite vicious. I'm now accused of stonewalling, manipulating and all of these things. Would you believe, Mr. Chairman, that I'm accused of

[ Page 4409 ]

stonewalling my response to a report that hasn't been completed yet? And 1 don't know what it contains.

MR. JONES: Not specifics — the process. What's the $1 million for?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the member would remember what I said when I mentioned that $1 million, I said it was to analyze the report, to study it, to see its implications and to prepare whatever recommendations and legislation that might be done. We don't know exactly what we're going to do on day one, when the report comes out. We know that we've got people prepared to look at it, read it and study it.

MR. JONES: A million dollars' worth of legislation coming in.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have no idea. Maybe the report is not even recommending any legislation. You want me to specify what legislation, because your leader here — who made a fool of himself, when he was in here, with inaccuracies — stated that I have already prepared the legislation. He accused me of that and then walked out.

MR. JONES: On a point of order. Very clearly the Minister of Education has made a disparaging remark about the Leader of the Opposition, who is not here to defend himself. Id like him to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister withdraw that comment, please.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I guess when a person comes in here and makes all kinds of inaccurate statements, you're not allowed to comment on that. The Leader of the Opposition was performing up to standard, in the inaccuracies that he presented to this House, the accusations — the false accusations. He was performing to his usual standard.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Withdraw what?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll withdraw that the Leader of the Opposition made a fool of himself; I withdraw that.

Since that member has opened up some new territory and talked about inappropriateness, unionism and professionalism and accused the government and brought into the debate privatization and decentralization and all of these items, then it may be time to ask the member if he stands by his principles regularly. It's something that I hoped I would never have to do, but I think the public is entitled to know what has gone on here. I'm saddened by it, but I think it's very important that we do this. I'm going to start with the standard research format that you and your leader use.

First of all, the Blues. I go back to the reference to the letters that the Premier of this province sent out to all teachers and to others saying: "You should be in a position to understand this view of privatization." We had the following response from the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick):

"Everybody is aware now about the letter and the package of materials on privatization sent to teachers in the province. My first question to the Minister of Education is whether his ministry was approached directly by the Premier and asked if it was acceptable to send out that propagandic piece of information. 

My response was: "No, Mr. Speaker, although I was made aware of the letter going out." The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said: "Supplementary to the Minister of Education. Does the minister support this use of teacher mailing lists for this kind of effort?"
My answer was: "I...support the concept of disseminating information."

Later, the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) asked:

"I'd like to ask the minister a question regarding the use of these materials. Could the minister please advise this House how he sees these materials being used? Are they to form part of the curriculum? Are they to be used as the basis of discussion in classrooms in this province?"

My response was that the member was misinterpreting and that there was nothing in that letter that said it was to be used in the classroom. It was for the information of teachers. This was from the Blues of March 10. I said:

"Is there anything wrong with teachers and others knowing both sides of an issue? Should they just be subject to what someone interprets for them?"

It goes on.

There was a response in the encyclopedia for the Leader of the Opposition — that is, in the newspaper. There were statements by Ron Warder, president of the Sooke Teachers' Association. He said he found the letter incredible, incongruous. He said teachers had been getting unfair criticism about taking politics into the classroom, and here the Premier was recommending teachers do just that, even though he had not told them to take it into the classroom. "It's unethical for a teacher to take anything from a politician into the classroom," he said.

Charles Hingston, president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, said: "Putting out one party's policies as a preferred approach in classroom teaching strikes me as a very, very dangerous precedent." I agree. Elsie McMurphy, president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, said: "The Premier's action just sounds really weird." I guess some of the reason for the brevity of those remarks may come out.

The New Democratic Party said the letters were an attempt to pressure teachers to disseminate government propaganda into the classroom. "In a particularly noisy exchange in the Legislature, Brummet said the material on privatization sent to the teachers says nothing about using the materials in the classroom."

John Shields, the president of the B.C. Government Employees' Union, said he was offended by the letter. "It's an insult to government workers and a terrible waste of taxpayers' moneys." And so it goes on.

Let me tell you what has come to my attention recently, first of all, by people who said: "Has material of this nature been approved for use in the classroom?" I said: "What material? Not to my knowledge." "Well, it's very one-sided material." I said: "I don't believe it, because people are generally fair."

[ Page 4410 ]

What I found was that at that time a decision had been made, and on March 24 a directive went out from the BCTF to district resource centre co-ordinators, to social studies PSA executives, to local association presidents, to association profession development chairpersons, to Elsie McMurphy, Alan Crawford, Al Comes, George North, labour education committee, and labour affairs advisory committee from Lynne Macdonald, labour affairs program co-ordinator for the B.C. Teachers' Federation, on BCTF letterhead. It says: "Social studies resource package."

I might add that when this came to my attention about two weeks ago, I asked the BCTF, since this material was being suggested for use in the schools, if I could have a copy of it, in that my ministry and I had not been apprised of this. I have not heard a response. The letter of instruction to these teachers says:

"Please find enclosed a binder of resource materials designed for the social studies 11 curriculum section, 'Contemporary Canadian Society.' These materials were developed by a joint labour-education committee composed of BCTF members, social studies teachers, B.C. Federation of Labour education committee members and educational staff from the Canadian Labour Congress. Social studies teachers have piloted this resource package, and the results have been very positive.

"Please do whatever you can to promote this package. It provides badly needed material and lesson plans for the government curriculum....

"Enclosed with the binder is a copy of the video, 'Blankety-blank Unions,' which is an important feature of the resource package, and a class set, approximately 30, of some of the materials used in the unit. "

There are clear instructions for this to be taken by the social studies teachers and resource people into the classroom.

The part that concerns me is that there is a standard process in this province of approval of material for any curriculum. One of them is that it is to be approved by the ministry, by the government. The other one is that it may be approved by local boards. In this case I know it was not approved by the ministry — it was not even provided to the ministry — and to my knowledge it was not sent to school boards for approval. Anyone in the profession who gets a document that says, "This has been prepared by social studies teachers in this province; it is being sent to the resource centres in each district to be provided to the social studies course; it was designed for the grade 11 social studies curriculum; it has been piloted by teachers; it has been proven very positive," would certainly believe that it was authorized material. Quite frankly, I think it's an insult and a disservice to the professionalism of the teachers in this province. It's important to let the public know about the type of material that has been sent out, aside from the bargaining bulletins of the BCTF, the local labour council contacts in the province.

Let me read to you from the brochure that was put out with this material — and I'm quoting just in part here. "Education about labour has been provided by a joint B.C. Fed committee with BCTF and Canadian Labour Congress support." That's who has put it out, and in it it says: "It is our goal to continue to encourage and support the development and use of these and similar curriculum materials for teachers. Training will be available through professional specialists, association conferences and other district professional days. Teachers are urged to participate in the workshops." It goes on: "Training for union resource people will be done through local labour councils in conjunction with the Canadian Labour Congress." It says: "The unit ends in a role play of the organizing process." It says: "A suggested format for a union member to visit the classroom after completion of the role play is included in this unit to allow for a question and-answer period with a person who has firsthand experience with organizing drives." It says: "This is the use of current Canadian materials." It goes on to mention how they encourage students to attend the B.C. Federation of Labour convention. We know about that, and I guess if it's on a voluntary basis I have no problem with that.

It's important, because of the implicit dangers of this type of approach, that the public, this House and this Legislature be fully aware of what has happened in this case. If this kind of thing can be allowed to happen without challenge, then the implications are horrendous. "To the teacher: this miniunit on trade unionism was developed by a joint committee of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress."

I'm going to read you a few samples of this. It should "involve a trade unionist from the community in their social studies classrooms...." And: "The new grade 11 social studies curriculum covers contemporary Canadian society; this would be an appropriate area to introduce this unit on the labour movement."

One of the ironies of this whole thing is that the package contains a great deal of objective material that could have been approved, would have been acceptable and is probably included in the grade 11 social studies curriculum, among others, as valid material, but the approach and the process leaves something to be desired.

[4:45]

Under "Unit Objectives:" "To have students identify benefits gained by unions over the past century." That's real. There's nothing wrong with that had it gone through the proper process. Day one of the lesson plan: "Students articulate their own understandings of and feelings about unions. Results...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, but your time has expired under standing orders. Perhaps the Provincial Secretary?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate, and I want to hear some more from the hon. minister; he was doing such a good job. I would like him to continue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Thank you. I think we have to get some of these things out. I guess this is one job I.... It would be a lot less happy if it wasn't necessary, in my opinion.

"Students are to articulate their own understandings and feelings about unions." These results are to be given to a labour resource person who is to be trained by the labour congress and brought in to be an expert organizer. On day three, questions are to be reviewed and collected by the teacher for the union resource person.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Here is the type of objective question, which could work were different materials provided. Students are asked to

[ Page 4411 ]

strongly agree, agree, do not know, disagree, strongly disagree: "I think unions are too powerful today; if you don't like the way things are run in this factory or office you should get another job; if there were no unions, workers would be better off; employers can be trusted to protect the health and welfare of workers." For those who may have some experience with questionnaires or education, I think they can understand that given one perspective and then asked to answer loaded questions of that nature is frightening.

It goes on. For instance, "True or false: "The government gave land grants, mineral concessions and a free hand in development to the 'business barons' of Canada." A very objective question. Assignment to the students: "Discuss individual cases of government violence against workers...." Suggestions to teachers: "Employers have consistently opposed any increase in the power of unions, while workers, through unions, have consistently tried to defend and increase the control which workers have had over their own jobs." In this context, is that kind of statement calculated to educate or to indoctrinate? "Unions have become involved in all of these areas, because if workers' voices are not heard in shaping decisions, there's no guarantee that their interests will be protected."

"Resource material is to be returned to the binder after student use." Why? Here's one on group assignment: "Each member of the group must participate in the gathering, organizing and presentation of information. " Each member must participate. Next lesson: "...a union spokesperson will be coming to class...." — so have the questions ready for him. "Resource speakers will have had the opportunity to read this unit...." Remember who we're talking about here: the experienced organizer who is to be trained at a special meeting to come into the classroom as a resource person. The resource speaker will have had the opportunity to read this unit and/or have had a training session on the unit through the Canadian Labour Congress, the B.C. Federation of Labour or their local labour council.

One of them, "Current Economic Issues," asks the students to cite arguments for and against privatization and free trade. A very logical thing for senior students to have to look at. But remember the material. When the Premier said teachers should at least know about the positive aspects of privatization, we immediately were castigated by some of the representatives, saying: "How dare you put that propaganda into the classroom." Therefore that has to be excluded. I have read quite a bit on free trade and privatization from various sources, but this, these seven lessons on labour designed for the social studies of Grade 11 curriculum section, contemporary Canadian society.... Obviously this material has been selected.

Here are the type of things that we have in the material, where the kids are asked to respond objectively under Unions and Government: "The Government Giveth and the Government Taketh Away." A statement like that in it!

"The British Columbia government is a prime example of the new attitude in Canada. There, the right-wing Social Credit regime of William Bennett wants to balance the budget and increase productivity in a province notorious for labour unrest. Mr. Bennett believes that one way to these goals is to attack union power. The economic climate of recession and unemployment makes the timing right for such an attack. With thousands of jobs lost and members in the unemployment lines, unions are less able to put up a fight against the government.

"This year the Socreds are training their sights on British Columbia's big private sector unions. The head-to-head struggle is over construction of the Expo 86 world fair in Vancouver."

So that dates the article, doesn't it? It goes on to say:

"The Socred government's moves to clip union wings echo similar policies in the United Kingdom and the United States."

For people who know the influence that can be had over students in a classroom, here is a sign: one picture with that report, and the banner says: "Socred B.C. Bloodsuckers." Then it says to the students: "Please respond objectively." Here is a concluding portion, or one suggestion in the unit: "Instructions to the teacher. Form a group and tape 'Solidarity Forever."' It goes on. "Some of the words of 'Solidarity Forever' accuse the owners of being lazy and greedy. Do you think this opinion was exaggerated? Can you find evidence of this in our society today?" Another group may make up their own union song, record it and play it for the class.

A gentleman by the name of Ken Novakowski, who I know is in the BCTF executive.... "Currently the B.C. Federation of Labour is running a major boycott-Canadian Tire campaign which has been endorsed by the B.C. Teachers' Federation." And: "The strike is a basic action for fair treatment of working people." I think he has every right to say that. Whether he has the right as part of this selective material to go into the classroom is something that concerns me.

We have another one: "Though the CCF-NDP has never been strong enough to form a government in Ottawa, it has elected provincial governments in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and has greatly influenced the laws which have turned Canada into a welfare state. Both the big parties of the centre have stolen parts of its social democratic program." There are articles on paying the price; there are a lot of other things. I think I have to come as quickly as I can to this.

There is an article on job-sharing, a form a part-time work. There are a lot of articles and, as I said earlier, many of these articles are quite acceptable and would be approved if vetted through the committees. We come to the technological change, "Here are the facts" — those sorts of things. Under the section of current economic issues is the first article of resource material for the student to study: "Let's Make a Deal" — on free trade. "As negotiations begin, the possible effects of freer trade with the United States are being debated."

It's taken me a while. but I have read every word in this total package because I wanted to satisfy myself on just what was happening here. I had to get the package through other means. I will repeat that much of this material is objective material. It may not quite suit people who don't like unions or that sort of thing, but it's fair, honest and straightforward. But some of it here...and the process by which it has been introduced into the school is frightening.

Here are the sections, and I will just read you the headlines. It looks very much like what the B.C. Federation of Labour is going around the province with to public meetings — the same material. Fair enough. Those people are volunteers. They are not a captive audience; they are not a privileged relationship; people go there voluntarily. But these articles that the students are to study and then return to the folder are: "Privatization: It's Being Pushed by Vested

[ Page 4412 ]

Interest Against the Public Interest. None of the arguments put forward to justify turning over Crown corporations to the private sector stand up to close scrutiny." Again: "Here are the facts."

"Free Trade Fallacies" — the next document. "Here are the facts." Again, a cartoon with, of course, Ronald Reagan as the front end of the horse and our Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, as the back end of the horse. People have to know this material is designed to influence and infiltrate values in students. Another one: "Free Trade: The Notion That It's the Key to Economic Recovery is a Dangerous Myth. Here are the facts." Another cartoon, disparaging to Canada. "Privatizing Production: Why Crown Corporations Shouldn't Be Turned Over to the Business Sector. " This one says:

"The new Tory government is planning the biggest rip-off of public investments in Canadian history. Under the guise of getting government out of the economy, it intends to transfer billions of dollars of public assets to its business supporters at bargain basement prices. These are the facts. Democratization of public enterprises is the real alternative to privatization. "

"Privatizing Services: "The Private Sector is Intruding Massively Into our Health Care System. Here are the facts."

Another document: "Ten Good Reasons to Oppose Free Trade."

There are policy papers on a lot of other things here: the quality of working life, Star Wars, organizing.... There are a lot of policy statements here. There are documents that have come out before as notes on unions; there are about seven of them here. Much of the material is very objective , But we've certainly seen privatization, free trade fallacies.... Here are the "facts" that are to be taught to the students by teachers in the province, as advocated by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, without going through any of the formal approval processes. Mr. Chairman, I have said that I think this is an insult.

I'd just like to conclude, if I may — sum up. This is an insult to professional teachers, because I think most teachers wouldn't even touch that material in that form and in those directions. But it went out under the guise of being approved material, by reference to those processes which everyone understands. I think it's a sad commentary on the professional responsibility of the BCTF leaders — union leaders, which they now make no pretence about. I think it's a vast disservice to the many professional teachers in the province who take their profession seriously. It certainly confirms the view that the separation of the professional arm and the union arm — once the BCTF wanted unionism — has been confirmed. If this is indicative of the approach that the new BCTF, through its union leaders, is going to take — to insult the teachers and the students of this province — then, as I said before, it's frightening in its implications and ramifications.

I certainly hope that if this material is to go into the classrooms in this form, school boards would make a point of seeing it, reviewing it and trying to decide whether they should approve it, even if they don't agree that the Ministry of Education should have anything to do with the material that's authorized for school programs. I think, in fairness, that teachers and school boards would want a more balanced view than this and would want to go through the proper process. Hopefully that will be done.

[5:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members, I understand that everybody is anxious to get into the debate. I remind you that we should remain seated until one member is finished speaking, and then we will recognize the next member.

MR. JONES: I think it's very sad, when we were having a serious debate on the future of education, the first royal commission in this province in 38 years and the minister's role and responsibility with respect to that royal commission, that the minister avoided serious questions with respect to the commission and, I think, seriously lowered the level of debate.

What we saw was the minister using the valuable time of this Legislature to filibuster and to use the Legislature as a platform to continue the kind of confrontation that we've seen for years in this province. The minister knows full well that there are many avenues for him to express his concerns. I suggest to the minister that he try consulting with those people in the education community that he appears so angry at.

I look to the member from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley to raise the level of this debate.

MR. MERCIER: I have a few things to say that are relevant to the minister's comments. I think his comments were definitely related to the future of education in our province. I can give you an example of what happens when this kind of material is disseminated through other channels and the teachers in a school obtain it. I have no objection to their obtaining it, researching it and using it in a non-partisan way.

I can tell you that I went to New Westminster Secondary School on Monday last at the invitation of the social studies department to speak on free trade. It was quite an interesting morning, because one of the first questions I asked the class of over 100 — there were four classes assembled to hear the special presentation — was whether they knew the meaning of the initials GATT? Not one student in this assembly of high school students knew what the meaning of that word was.

The importance of this is that for me to have been invited to speak at that school would not have happened except that a few weeks earlier someone had come to present the negative view of free trade. In other words, an opponent of free trade had been invited to speak at New Westminster Secondary. The teacher who convened that particular session was asked after the negative presentation if it wouldn't be fair to also give a supporter of the free trade proposals the opportunity to address the high school class. This was requested by a small group of students, and if they hadn't persevered, I doubt very much if a proponent of free trade would have been invited to make a presentation.

That's fair enough. But I ask you: how much of a job did that particular teacher do in the classroom, when he didn't even take the time after having a full presentation two weeks earlier on free trade, to explain to those students that the general agreement on tariffs and trade was the fundamental cornerstone of the free trade proposals? I suspect — and there's no way I'll be able to prove it — that that teacher took the BCTF bumph that came through the unofficial channels, not through the curriculum channels that the minister has referred to, and fed it to the students without comment, and so the students had a totally one-sided view.

If you talk to me about the future of education in this province, you've got to tell me that the teachers are professional

[ Page 4413 ]

enough that they'll present both sides of every argument and rely on the students to do the right thing: to understand both sides of an argument and then at some time in their life, or as early as when they're students, make decisions based on full information. You can't tell me that when I go to a classroom of students who heard an opponent of free trade speak two weeks earlier, they were informed of both sides of the issue when they don't even know what GATT means — the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

After I explained to them the fundamentals in what I thought was a non-partisan way — because I wanted them, in fairness, to arrive at their own conclusions — I asked for questions from the classroom. The students asked some fairly interesting questions, but then the teacher asked a question that was designed to position me. I didn't mind that, because I don't agree with everything in free trade, nor should the students, but they should certainly hear both sides of the argument on free trade.

The most disappointing thing that happened was at the end of the hour when it was time for the teacher to thank me, as they would their MLA who represents every citizen. During the election we're party people; after the election we're more servants to our constituents. I'm sure these students would have wanted the teacher to simply say: "Thank you for attending." But because I am a supporter of free trade and took a position in support of free trade during my discussion and gave what I thought were rational arguments, the teacher said at the conclusion so that the whole class heard it: "I don't believe a word you've said" — and then — "but I thank you for coming."

I've got to tell you, I'd been out of politics for some time, but I was very surprised at that kind of thank-you. Maybe he was joking, but he certainly didn't give me the opportunity to say to that class a few things that I might have said if I'd realized I was at a political rally. I thought I was talking to a class of senior high school students who wanted to hear about the pluses and minuses of free trade. The reason that teacher took that stand, I'm sure, is directly related to what the minister was talking about. There's absolutely no reason for a teacher to be anything but an impartial.... A teacher convening a meeting like that has an obligation to be impartial, both when an opponent on a subject comes and when a proponent comes, especially when they're thanking you for taking the time to go — and we all have busy schedules, and I was pleased to do it. It was not necessary at the end of the presentation to say something like that. A simple thank-you would have been appreciated.

I would like to say to the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) that what the minister was talking about is entirely relevant. If we don't stop this kind of biased, partisan thinking in the social studies class, how is the student supposed to derive the proper information? If two weeks earlier there was a full presentation and discussion on free trade.... I don't care if it was a proponent or an opponent. But how did that class of over 100 high school students not know what GATT stood for and what free trade in general was all about? I won't get into the personality of that particular teacher. I'm more concerned about these channels of information. Those students have to have an unbiased and unfettered approach. They have to be given both sides of every argument. Let the students decide which stand they'll take, not after they've heard only one side but after they've heard all facets of the argument. I have a fear that the students in that particular class won't have a global view, won't think we can compete, won't understand how strong Canada can be, simply because they're cut off from half the information.

It was one of the biggest surprises of my political life to go to a function like that. I guess there was one other surprise.... The other day, I see, the school board in Burnaby passed a motion opposing the sale of the natural gas division of B.C. Hydro. Now that was a big surprise. I'll guarantee you the members on that school board did not read more than one page of any information on the privatization of natural gas. I'll guarantee you they don't know there are private transmission lines supplying gas all over North America. I'll guarantee you they followed a particular line that was put to them on an agenda of the school board.

So now we have a double whammy. We have a teacher in social studies who only gives one side of the free trade issue, and we have a school board in my own municipality, who should really not be involved in issues beyond their own mandate, taking a stand. I've asked them if they'll give me the opportunity to come to that board and tell them that there are some good things about privatizing the natural gas division of B.C. Hydro — instead of them making what 1 call a blind policy decision and endorsing a type of program they don't fully understand.

In conclusion, Mr. Minister, I thank you for bringing those things to our attention. I can tell you firsthand the effect in the classroom of the kind of biased presentation that would have been made, except for that small group of students who invited me to give the other side of the argument.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have to admit that after sitting in the House and listening to the last few speakers, I'm feeling a little anxious and a little impatient. In particular, I have some statistics in front of me that I have shared with the minister in the past. I think they really outline the desperate situation that exists for the kids in the schools in Surrey. I think the debate around the curriculum is a good debate, and I certainly welcome that. I think it's an important thing, not only for the House to discuss but for the education system as a whole to be dealing with. However, most immediately, I want to share some statistics again with the minister; appeal to him to consider the situation in Surrey; and, as a representative for one of the constituencies in Surrey, offer the House some insight into what the minister is trying to do and, indeed, how we can all help him address this problem.

First of all, Surrey is seventy-third out of the 75 districts in the province in operating costs per pupil. We only get $3,350 per pupil, which is $447 per pupil less than the provincial average. There's a bit of discrepancy in the amount of money that Surrey is getting for the kids. This results in larger class sizes and a lack of special services to the kids. In 1987 Surrey non-residential homeowners paid $208 million less in school taxes than they did in 1982. This is an indicator as to why the school district is having a difficult time: not only the phenomenal growth of the municipality and the stresses — because it's a young community and because there are so many families and children out there — but also the reduction in their ability to pay for the needs because of the reduction in their non-residential tax base.

One of the considerable problems in meeting the growth is the fact that we have over 200 portables in Surrey alone, at the same time that 36 percent of all growth in B.C.'s schools takes place in Surrey. So we have this pressure in the demand on the facilities, and we don't have the ability to meet the demands out there.

[ Page 4414 ]

My appeal to the minister, at this point, is again to recognize the unusual situation that the municipality finds itself in, the stresses that are put on the school system because of the growth. I ask the minister if he would consider, or has considered, looking at the situation and addressing it as a special case.

[5:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To respond to the member's question, the seventy-second out of 75 may well be true; I'll have to check that. But by and large, a low per-pupil funding in that sense is indicative of a district that has a high residential tax base.

I'll need to know exactly what you're referring to on those numbers. From the provincial funding, the districts that have the highest residential tax base are the districts that get the lowest percentage of funding from provincial revenues; and that is true because of the equalization concept. Low districts would get more money from the formula.

As for the pressure on facilities, we know that Surrey is a fast-growing community. We have been working and had very good meetings with the Surrey School Board. They're having difficulties keeping up with the population growth; we are. We're having difficulties staying ahead with the planning. I think we've made accommodations there in trying to acquire land, to get planning going, and to get the construction program. Of the construction program that we're in the process of announcing, now that we've had approval, Surrey is getting the lion's share, because they've got the greatest need, on top of a large secondary school approval last year, which isn't even considered in this year.

I know that they're getting the lion's share of funding; I also know that they can't keep up. We have asked them, and they have done, I think, some very interesting things in trying to accommodate the needs, to use imaginative approaches. Yes, Surrey is a fast-growing area. It presents certain problems. Together we are working on those.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to respond to the brief comments from my opposition critic, who has suddenly become very silent. I did say to him that he had stated his principles of not supporting propaganda material from one side to get into the classroom. I wonder if he now supports what the BCTF has done. I too am saddened by what has happened. He says that there are other avenues that could be used to deal with this. I have carefully considered that. I wrote. I asked: could I be informed about this? I was ignored, as were the government and the school boards, in the production of this material and getting it out into the classrooms — trying to get it out into the classrooms. I would suspect, knowing the professionalism in teachers, that not that much of it is out there. But I have to be very concerned, when under the illusion of the approval process that is generally accepted, it has gone out there without having gone through any of that process.

What are the principles? To avoid confrontation in education — which I would very much love to avoid — do I just simply say that I will meet on a professional level with anything, and anything else around the back door goes? So I challenge my critic. Does he support this type of thing that has been prepared and put out there? His party supports the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Labour Congress; they've got a "love-in" — a phrase that he likes to use. Is that with your approval that this material has gone out in this fashion? Do we just accept this type of thing? To me it's dangerous. It is dangerous when, under the guise of approval, this kind of material goes out. I repeat: it's an insult to the professionalism of the teachers in this province to ask them to indoctrinate students with a propaganda approach such as this, which has been advocated by the union leaders in the BCTE

MS. SMALLWOOD: I understand that the minister has his own agenda that he wants to deal with at this moment. I apologize for interfering with that, but there are at this very time children in Surrey that are not getting their fair share of the educational facilities that other children are receiving in this province. Again, I feel that it is important during the estimates of the minister to bring this to your attention and to ask for more specific responses about how the minister is dealing with this problem.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

Given the average size of the classrooms, which is approximately 25 pupils, this means that 5,000 of Surrey's 36,000 students face the task of learning in temporary, unequipped classrooms. There are approximately 200 portables in Surrey at this time. The situation is that when housing developments are planned in the municipality, when developers are going through the process of planning for the recreational and educational facilities in their developments, the school board cannot — because of the policies of your ministry, sir — buy the land. They cannot buy the land until such time as the development is complete and the people are moving in. That escalates the costs significantly for that land.

Again, I think the school board has talked to you about this situation, and I would ask the minister specifically whether he has considered some way of easing the burden on the municipality, on the school board, for actually buying land and developing the schools that are desperately needed for the children of our municipality. This is a young community. What we're talking about here is the future of B.C. We're talking about the kids who are getting an education now, who are going to be the workforce of tomorrow. We want to make sure they get their fair share. We want to make sure they get the education that their parents are now working and paying taxes.

Can the minister indicate to me what he is doing to deal with this problem? It's not a new problem; it has been ongoing for some time. You're not the first minister to have to stand in the House to answer the pleas of a municipality like Surrey. I'm hoping you have looked at the problem and have begun to develop policies to deal with such communities — communities that are experiencing such growth.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think it has been fairly customary to respond if more than one person speaks. Now that we're down to the member for Surrey, then we will deal with the member for Surrey's concerns.

Not only has the ministry developed policies to deal with the situation of inadequate school facilities, but we have actually worked out, on a cooperative basis, implementation. I have met with the Surrey council and school board and tried to make arrangements for acquiring land. We have set aside in this year's capital budget a great deal of money — I guess we can add up the figure; I would be happy to go over it with the member — for the building program, as quickly as we can, the land-acquisition program. To try and expedite these, we also suggested that the municipality, from surplus capital

[ Page 4415 ]

or whatever, could go ahead and acquire the land when they saw the need was there even though we didn't have the funding in place, but we would assure them that we would then compensate them as soon as the approvals came through. So we've taken quite a few steps to alleviate that situation.

I have a bit of difficulty. I know that there are many temporary classrooms there. I don't know why they should be unequipped. I have some difficulty with that.

Certainly I'm very concerned. The member wound up by saying that we're talking about the children and about the future of this province. That's what we're talking about too. We've done what we can. We've increased the funding, as I think has been announced. We've got basically a two-year commitment program now so that what we plan this year we know we can construct next year. Over the province, in total, we've moved up from $53.9 million and $50 million last year to $118 million committed for next year. Many of those projects are in Surrey, and others in some of the faster growing areas. We got behind throughout the province. I think we've taken great strides in the last couple of years under this government to catch up. We're doing the best we can, whether that will please the member or not.

I know that the Surrey district is a large district. A maximum amount of capital.... By capital I mean minor and major capital. That's the building program. That's the things that provide the facilities when it comes to computers and when it comes to all of the equipment. They try to do that on a formula basis. Surrey does get a fair share of the funding and certainly a lion's share of our attention.

MR. JONES: I'd like to ask the minister a question regarding the system of textbook buying, storage and distribution. Late last year the government had a plan to dismantle the central system that the province has long had for the buying, in particular, but also the storage and distribution of textbooks in this province. At that time a ministry official defended that proposal, and the rationale given was that school districts will be given more freedom to choose than they have now, something that school boards and the BCTF have long lobbied for. We know that the textbook branch is particularly vulnerable to this kind of proposal, simply because it is such a major portion of the minister's budget in terms of ministry operations.

The minister quite wisely decided to reconsider that proposal on December 10 and to strike a task force or a committee to review the proposal and to receive submissions from interested parties. I understand that as of April 18 this year, the minister indicated that he had received some 36 letters and submissions from individuals and groups on that subject. I have spoken with a number who have written to the minister on this proposal and who were not particularly supportive.

[5:30]

The BCSTA, at their annual general meeting, discussed this question. They passed a resolution that indicated that they expected the cost of textbooks to increase as a result of this proposal, that the local school boards will have difficulty negotiating the same price advantages as the Ministry of Education. They pointed out that there will also be additional clerical, freight and storage costs. They went on in their resolution to suggest that there will be an increase in both the administrative costs as well as the time to administer that plan. They further indicated that the responsibility for the provision of textbooks should remain at the provincial level, and they passed the resolution that urged the Ministry of Education to abandon its present plans with respect to textbook allocation and concentrate on improving the present system.

As I mentioned, the ministry official gave the rationale that this is what the BCSTA and the BCTF had lobbied for. I'm sure the minister is aware of the submission by the BCTF to the Sullivan royal commission which indicated:

"Functions performed by such bodies as the Provincial Educational Media Centre and the ministry textbook branch should be regarded as integral parts of the educational service provided to B.C. citizens. If parts of the integrated whole are hived off...." Then will they lose "the long-term accountability of the education service to its clients and to the integration of resource materials with curriculum?"

The rationale was that the BCTF and the BCSTA had requested the dismantling of the central system for buying and storing textbooks. I assume that many of the submissions that the minister has received were along a similar vein to what the BCTF indicated in their submission to the Sullivan royal commission, and as was approved by the BCSTA annual general meeting. Given that strongly stated position of the BCSTA and the BCTF, will the minister agree, as the BCSTA suggested, to abandon the present plan to decentralize the textbook purchase?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, it's difficult to answer directly a question such as "Will the minister abandon the present plan to privatize the industry?"

It's hard to answer yes to a question like that because there was a proposal that this be done. It was to be analyzed and studied, and we set up a task committee. We don't have a plan to privatize all of that. We are still looking at the three aspects of the publication services. 1 use that term because it includes more than textbooks, but it's heavily textbook involved. One of them is cost, as the member said. What effect would it have on decentralized — as compared to centralized — purchasing? We did look at the Ontario plan, and the plans in different provinces, and they have variations of that.

We've looked at that, and we've seen pros and cons. Cost is only one factor. The freedom to choose when boards are buying, making the decisions.... As I clearly indicated this afternoon, it should have approval of either the ministry or the board. I have no qualms about the rights of boards having the approval, but the material approved by the board would give them a lot more freedom with their teachers to choose materials that they felt were appropriate for that purpose.

The other one, of course, is the effect that it has on curriculum. As long as we are involved in producing and assisting in producing, along with the teachers who serve on those committees, a central curriculum — a course or format for any subject — then yes, we have an obligation and certainly an interest in maintaining, if you like, some control of that curriculum. If we do — using the extreme — get the intended learning outcomes very clearly established, and they can be monitored, and the route which students take to develop those skills can be monitored, then the routes become less important.

In the three areas of freedom, cost, curriculum — yes, we have looked at all of them. We've certainly got back the reaction. I think people would like more freedom, but they

[ Page 4416 ]

don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. They are concerned that if anything changes, it shouldn't be at greater cost; so are we. I don't know whether they are so much concerned about the curriculum aspect, but in those areas we do not have a plan to abandon our responsibilities. We do not have a plan to privatize all of that. There may be aspects of it; I don't really care who ships the books, as long as we have charge of who chooses them.

All of that is being looked at. I can't abandon a plan when there is no plan. I can tell the member that we're continuing to study that, and hopefully we will have a hard decision fairly soon which we can tell the boards. I might point out that, knowing we were getting into this, we said early that the same system we now have remains in effect for the next school year, so that boards could plan ahead and schools could plan accordingly.

MR. JONES: I know that the Minister of Education will not want to neglect the strong advice of the BCSTA and BCTF for the minister to abandon any plans to decentralize textbook allocation, and that the minister will take their advice and concentrate on improving the present system. It's a very efficient and effective system that we have right now. It's not perfect, but I know the minister will want to work on making it even better. I'm wondering if the minister would be willing to make public the report of the task force.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, you're talking about the task force on the publication services? I don't know that we had a formal report. I think we had recommendations brought forward about various options that could be considered. I think that right now there's sort of 90-10. If we allocate and the districts can add 10 percent supplementary that they can buy, and 90 percent is prescribed material, and the rest of it.... So there were various percentage options presented, from one extreme to the other, with some suggestions about the benefits of each option. But I don't know that we had that formalized into a report.

MR. JONES: I don't want to belabour the point. Perhaps I'm incorrect in assuming that there was a ministry task force — well, I know there was a ministry task force. I assume that when the ministry has such task forces, it culminates at some point in a report with recommendations to the minister. I hear the minister saying that that was not the case at this time, that there was not a report or specific recommendations. If there was such a report — and I think it would be natural that the culmination of such a process would be a report — I ask the minister: would he be willing to make public that report if there were one?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm going to have to hedge on that one, because the only written material I recall on that was the suggestion from them which put in the form of a cabinet submission, with options for cabinet to consider.... That puts me in a delicate position, because I don't think there was, as I say, any other formal report done up. I'll check into that, but certainly the various options, I think, we can suggest get out there. I hesitate because if it was a cabinet submission, then of course my hands are tied.

MR. JONES: I would just reiterate my point that I'm sure any cabinet submission would have taken the good advice of the employees and the employers in the public school system, the BCSTA and the BCTF; that the minister would have followed that advice in his submission to the cabinet, which would have lauded the virtues of our very efficient and very effective system of textbook purchase, storage and allocation; and that the minister will have suggestions for improving that system and not dismantling it.

I'd like to move on to another concern I have. Although the minister criticizes me when I ask for more funds for the children of this province, I know the minister, in dealing with the federal government, does exactly the same thing, and I laud him for it. I'm sure that he's been very aggressive in seeking funds from the federal government with respect to second languages and minority language funding.

Last year we had as many as 16,000 adults seeking either high school certification or upgrading programs, and as many as 8,500 adult English-as-a-second-language students in this province. The minister, I'm sure, is aware of tremendous concern on the part of many in the education community regarding a fear of loss of funding for these adult programs. I'd like to begin by asking the minister: what amount of financial assistance is provided by the federal government for language and skill training for adult immigrants?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sorry, I'm going to have to defer that question to post-secondary, because we don't directly get federal money for adult education in my ministry. We do get money for second languages, for French program startup, but once they're started up as French immersion, they're funded basically on the same formula as any students in the school system. 1 can tell you that in the secondary schools we do accommodate many people who would be classified as adults - you know, to get their grade 12 equivalency. They attend school, and if they attend school they're counted as enrolments the same as others. We're trying to improve on that. In other words, if the average cost per pupil in a district is $4,000, in round numbers, when a student comes in for grade 12 equivalency, it adds $4,000 to the budget, like it would with any other student. As we get into adult evening courses or extra courses, we basically leave it to the school districts and the college system to do the night programs. Many school districts have some excellent programs because there is no college system. In some areas the colleges do it.

Jurisdictionally, we try to stay with the pupils who are taking the school curriculum for grade 12 equivalency; then the extra programs are, I believe, basically funded.... In other words, we don't count those pupils for enrolment for funding in the fiscal framework, but they do benefit indirectly through the use of the facilities, which are generally not charged for by the teaching program. That's looked after by, say, federal assistance, post-secondary assistance, community funding, or fees paying the way.

[5:45]

MR. JONES: The figures I was quoting with adult students in terms of improving their qualifications, in terms of adult basic education and improving their language skills, in terms of learning English as a second language, were courses that are offered both day and night, but offered by school districts. My assumption was that there was funding for these kinds of programs. As I mentioned, last year there were some 16,000 registrations for high school completion and academic upgrading and some 8,000 for English as a second language offered by school districts primarily on the

[ Page 4417 ]

lower mainland that are excellent programs. I'm sure the minister would agree as to the importance and the necessity of assisting, with these kinds of programs, our immigrant population integrating into this country. I'm sure the minister would agree to the importance of these programs.

1 mentioned to the minister that there is a great fear.... I hope the minister doesn't accuse me of inflaming the situation, as he often does. I'm hoping that the minister recognizes the value of these programs. He wants to see them carried on. They are funded by school districts. I assume that the ministry shares in that funding. These are valuable programs, and they are particularly valuable when we combine the English language training as well as the skill and academic upgrading. It's also important that these things happen at the community level.

Can the minister say anything to assure me that we are going to see at least a continuation of these kinds of programs operated by school districts, primarily in the lower mainland in this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think I can assure the member that these programs will continue, because they are good programs. What we are trying to do — and we've sent out a bulletin to school districts now looking at next year — is to separate the funding jurisdiction so that it's more clear. Because these people have been in some cases neither fish nor fowl - as the member said, they're partly in the night school and partly in this — we have said that if they are taking part of their schooling for grade 12 equivalency, then why don't you count them as normal pupils? Don't leave them out, and they will be funded in the Ministry of Education fiscal framework budget.

If they are taking a program in night school or other, then by all means carry on the program in the schools if you wish — and many of them will. The sources of funds are often from the federal government directly. They don't funnel those through our budget. The people apply for those courses, and they are various.... There can be community funding, there can be federal government funding, I suppose funding from fees and from organizations that support them. We're trying to establish fairly clearly that if they're in grade 12 equivalency or, say, grade 10 courses, they count as grade 10 students and therefore they're funded by the ministry. If they're beyond that, then we don't get into the funding. It had been rather mixed, and we had some complaints about the schools doing it and there being no funding. I guess that's our answer to try and straighten it out. I'm sure that the courses will continue.

The other thing that's happening in communities, and I think it seems to be very interesting, is the community school concept which is developing. The school is being used more hours of the day — sorry to bring that up again — but in some places they are being used from early morning until 10 o'clock at night by the students, the parents and the community.

I'll give you examples. The Edward Milne Secondary School in Sooke is basically a full formal community school, where the scheduling involves the parent advisory group. There are other such schools which in many cases are informal. As I've travelled around, I've seen a lot of schools where parents are coming in the evening to use the computers the kids were finished with at 4 o'clock, and I think that's great. And that is spreading to other aspects. The community school concept is bringing a lot of people into the schools, helping them in courses, language and in upgrading skills that develop as the need is there.

MR. JONES: I don't think it's the minister's purpose to make me look foolish, but I feel a little foolish now because I've come to this Legislature with a very serious concern, and I don't completely understand the response of the minister, If I read what he says — and I don't want to do that — he basically said that I shouldn't have a concern. I hope that was the answer. The students I was talking about were not particularly day students, although they may participate in day programs. I was talking about students taking academic upgrading and high-school completion and these kinds of things. I was referring specifically to day programs that are really separate community programs but are carried out under the auspices of the school districts.

The minister referred to a bulletin that referred to the 1989-90 school year. I assume that the bulletin had in it some changes, and I think that's what has caused the furor. I have not seen the bulletin. I have had this concern raised from several sources. I strongly support these programs and want to see them carried out in the community. I want to see the adult basic education programs and those upgrading programs and the ESL programs handled in an integrated way in the school district in the community.

There's fear of loss or transfer of the funding so that somehow these things either will not be community programs or will not be funded. The bulletin suggests that there will be some transfer with the community college system. The minister referred to it not being in his ministry. I would hope that in the couple of minutes remaining in today's session the minister would help me with this concern. Either clarify the direction that the minister has indicated the bulletin suggested, or tell me my fears are unfounded.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We'll certainly make a copy of the bulletin available to you. It went out a little while ago. Primarily it tried to spell out the division line between where we'll fund students and where we won't, because there has been this mix. If they are completing their high school, if you like, in the simplest terms, we want them counted as students and funded, which kicks in the fiscal framework — the funding formula. If they're beyond that, if they're not in that program, then it should be post-secondary and other programs that fund them, and we support them.

We'll certainly send a copy of that bulletin, which was really trying to say that in future we're going to try and draw a better line to do that.

I was not aware that the member didn't have the bulletin. Mind you. some of the bulletins we send out directly to school boards. They are generally printed, and members seem to have no trouble getting copies of letters that I send out, A public bulletin doesn't raise any excitement, but there's no intent to hide that bulletin from you. We'll send that to you, and if you have any questions — even after my estimates — the member is always free to ask.

MR. JONES: Will the minister assure this House that there will not be a loss of funding for adult basic education programs or English-as-a-second-language programs now offered through the school districts, and that those programs will continue to operate at the community level, will operate side by side, and will not be transferred to the colleges of this province?

[ Page 4418 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I could not make that assurance unequivocally that this new arrangement isn't going to mean pluses somewhere and minuses somewhere else, so it will have to sort itself out. I can't say that it will not result in a loss of funding of even a single dollar in some areas, because as we rearrange the pupils as to whether they qualify for funding, then obviously it is going to have plus and minus effects. Hopefully, the education budget isn't going down.

MR. JONES: The minister has confirmed that the fears of the immigrant community of this province are not unfounded.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled a document referred to earlier in the sitting.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I want to introduce a man who has his hundredth birthday today — Mr. Irving Berlin. He is not here, but he is here in spirit and music. If you think of somebody who has been composing music for almost 80 years — everything from "Top Hat" to "White Christmas" and the many Broadway scores — who is still alive and well and living in New York City, who still likes carolers to serenade him on Christmas Eve.... He can do all that and still compose music, as he is today at 100 years of age, and this humble Legislature should recognize Mr. Irving Berlin.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to join the Attorney-General in wishing happy birthday to Irving. He didn't write "Happy Birthday, " but he did write a song in World War I that I think about practically every day, and that was "Oh, How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It was popular when I was young, yes. Anyway, I think Irving deserves a happy birthday, and I understand there is a gala performance at Carnegie Hall or somewhere to celebrate this great man — more than just an American, a world citizen who has brought all of us a tremendous amount of pleasure.

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.