[ Page 4419 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 4419

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

On vote 23: minister's office –– 4419

Mr. Jones

Mr. Guno

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rose

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. DIRKS: I rarely have the opportunity to welcome someone to this House, and it gives me great pleasure this morning to welcome two groups. First of all, travelling with Mayor Gerald Rotering of Nelson, I have Ald. Bill Ramsden and the city administrator, Doug Ormond. Would the House please make them welcome.

Also, from one of the fine educational institutions in Nelson, St. Joseph's School, we have the teacher, Mr. Bruce Laurie; a chaperone, Mrs. Gillis; and students Karen Hanson, Angie Noad, Adriana Cerone, Erin McDonnell, Andrea Gillis, Colleen Bell, Alana Watson, Rod Rushka and Chris Rizzuto. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. JONES: I'm always impressed by the kind of warm welcome both sides of this Legislature give student groups when they visit the Legislature. I have an opportunity today to introduce about 60 students from grades 4 to 7, and I think I will read all.... No, I won't read all their names into the record. I would urge that members of both sides of this Legislature give this group a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like the House to welcome Dick and Rose Gretzinger, very good personal friends who are now living in the Kelowna area but who were residents of Fort St. John for many years.

MR. JANSEN: Also in the precincts today is another group of students, grades 9 and 10 students from Vedder Junior Secondary School. I would ask the House to make them welcome as well.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Pelton, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, presented a report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as follows: that the preamble to Bill PR401 intituled Regent College Amendment Act, 1988 has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; that the preamble to Bill PR403 intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1988 has been approved as amended, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; that the preamble to Bill PR405 intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 1988 has not been approved and recommends that the bill do not proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted."

MR. PELTON: By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

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

MR. JONES: Yesterday was a very instructive day, certainly partly a very sad day. Instructive in terms of evasion, obfuscation and diversion. The diversion was that while we were having, I thought, an important discussion on the future of education in this province, in terms of the Royal Commission on Education, the Minister of Education chose that opportunity to use this debate as a platform to continue on his confrontation with the B.C. Teachers' Federation, I guess in a very timely way, realizing that negotiations are going on at this point, and that was his purpose.

The minister introduced into the Legislature certain instructional materials that he had known about for several weeks, materials regarding which his assistant deputy minister had written to school boards. The assistant deputy minister wrote to school boards suggesting that these materials were being made available, that it is really the responsibility of the school board to approve these kinds of things before they are implemented in the classroom.

What I am suggesting is that the normal processes of the Education ministry were working, were well in hand, and that the process is there to make sure the concerns raised by the members opposite yesterday in terms of balance were in place and are always in place in our education in this province. The boards and the teachers of this province are quite capable of selecting appropriate materials for the classroom and always introduce those with balance.

MR. R. FRASER: Did the school board approve those materials?

MR. JONES: Which school board?

MR. R. FRASER: Any school board.

MR. JONES: You'll have to ask that particular school board.

MR. R. FRASER: Do you support that stuff?

MR. JONES: I am glad the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) is here, because he talked about balance in the classroom and I think everybody in this Legislature and province wants to see a fair, open and balanced instruction, not indoctrination, not turning our children's minds in any one particular direction but giving them a variety of sources of information.

The introduction of that package of written material made by the Minister of Education yesterday was in response to another package of material that has been circulated in the classroom for some years. The package the minister introduced yesterday was completely in line with the comments of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds yesterday in a desire for balance.

What we had prior to that was a slick binder of instructional materials called "Project Business," a package of instructional materials that has been taught in British Columbia

[ Page 4420 ]

classrooms, not by teachers but by invited members of the business community who brought in those very expensive materials. The Fraser Institute was very instrumental in assisting with the development of these materials. Some $300,000 was spent annually on these materials. They were there to explain and promote the free enterprise and business of British Columbia. The directors of Project Business....

MRS. GRAN: We didn't ask him to sing solidarity and free enterprise.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I'm not disagreeing with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds from yesterday. I'm talking here about balance. Obviously the members opposite don't like to see balance. I'm suggesting that since 1982 we have had this package of materials with some $300,000 spent annually promoting one side of the issue and negating a very important other side. I'm sure that fair members opposite would agree that there is another side — the workers' side, the union side, labour side.

[10:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for Burnaby North has the floor and other hon. members will be recognized at the appropriate time if they have anything to say. Please continue.

MR. JONES: The people from Project Business suggest that it costs $65 for each student influenced in that process. The mission statement of Project Business — and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this in isolation, as long as we have balance to support another side - is to equip and encourage students to participate in, preserve and improve the private enterprise system they inherit. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not completely balanced. I think the Minister of Education and the member for Burnaby Edmonds yesterday, who was arguing in favour of balance.... The minister used this opportunity to inflame the situation, knowing full well that ministry officials had the situation in hand, that we had the opportunity for school boards to approve or disapprove these kinds of materials.

But no, when we were having a serious debate on the Royal Commission on Education, the minister sought to continue his confrontation with the BCTF and inflame the situation while bargaining processes were going on with the school districts of this province. I think it was a sad day yesterday for British Columbia, particularly for education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I know everyone is anxious to let votes go through, but I think it is important that I respond and not leave unchallenged some of the statements made by my critic.

Yes, it is a sad day when something like this is necessary. But I really felt that I could not leave unchallenged this particular joint attempt by the B.C. Federation of Labour and Canadian Labour Congress, in full endorsement with the B.C. Teachers' Federation in their new role as a union, to use the opportunity to indoctrinate students in the school system. There is a lot of balance. I have few, if any, reservations about the ability of professional teachers to provide a balanced educational program. I know that people take their responsibilities seriously and are professionals. I know that throughout the school system teachers will clip articles from newspapers and use them as study materials. All of that goes on in the school system, and the professional responsibilities of teachers are recognized. I maintain that they will go on, and probably many wouldn't use that.

Here we have a situation, if I may comment first of all, on Project Business. Material prepared by the chamber is not in the schools unless it's authorized by the school districts. Some districts have refused to allow that material into the school for whatever reason they choose; that is their right. This material might well have been approved by some school boards. This material might well have been found acceptable, along with other material.

The reason I could not let this go unchallenged is that we have here the potential for a pretty serious situation of indoctrination. When you have a full-fledged lesson package delivered with material only on one side, to say the attempt was to balance, then the proper process was there to let the ministry or the boards know about it and allow them to deal with this.

For the benefit of that member and all members of this House, I think I should read the Envoy message that went out to superintendents on April 29, shortly after I was sent some material from people who asked if this was approved material. I checked and it had not even been sent to my ministry or to the curriculum committee, so we thought it was important to send out a caution to all superintendents on the "Labour in Education" package from the BCTF:

"The ministry has received a number of inquiries regarding the status of the material as a supplementary learning resource. The purpose of this message is to indicate to you that the 'Labour in Education' resource package from the B.C. Teachers' Federation has not been reviewed by the curriculum development branch. The package was recently circulated to district resource centres and to a few teachers by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. We understand that other materials may soon be circulated from the same source. The curriculum development branch has not reviewed 'Labour in Education.' Districts are reminded that, as a supplementary learning resource, it should be reviewed at the local level and approved by the school board before it is used in classrooms."

I have not directed them to approve it; no one has. It said that before such material was used in the classroom, it should be approved by the school board, and that suggests that a school board has the right to look at it, review it and approve it or not.

MR. JONES: What are they doing right now?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If school boards approve this package, then there's nothing I can do about it.

MR. JONES: They're democratically elected. Trust them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Exactly. This material says: "Please ensure that this information is circulated, as appropriate, in your district." The reason I could not let this go unchallenged was that it was not sent to school boards for approval. It was sent to social studies teachers and resource centres with the instructions that: "Here is a set of lessons." It was sent out under the guise of authorized material. It said, "This material has been designed for the social studies 11 curriculum," and: "This material has been designed by a

[ Page 4421 ]

committee including social studies teachers. This material has been piloted in the school system and has been okayed." It had not been okayed by anyone. It had not been designed for the grade 11 social studies curriculum, unless you take the approach that if the BCTF as a union, with the Federation of Labour, says we have designed some materials, then it is somehow or other authenticated and authorized material.

I gather from my critic's comments that he supports this process and this approach. I recognize your close affiliation with the B.C. Federation of Labour and even your participation in this. I don't know whether the member had any say in this, but I certainly gather from his comments this morning that he approves of this approach of free unions putting together some material, and under the guise of authenticity putting it into the school program.

Why doesn't that member stand up and say that he approves it, that he supports this process? I recall that member immediately spoke when the Premier sent out a letter of privatization material to teachers and said, "You should know about this," with no direction to put it into the curriculum, no direction to put it into the schools. That member was incensed by that.

Now do your principles change according to the situation? Will that member let the public know whether he supports this type of approach, this type of a process, under the guise of authenticity? Is that member going to stand up and say he approves propaganda by an organization that he supports but he will rebel very quickly against anyone else putting material into the school system?

So perhaps we should ask that member if he approves of this kind of tactic by the new B.C. teachers' union. The teachers out there — it only involves a few teachers; but if something like this....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You can make all the sarcastic remarks that you like, but I think what you have to do.... Do the other members on that side of the House support this kind of indoctrination process to be put into the schools? Do they support that or do they not? The teachers in this province have been insulted by this type of approach. If this is what unionism means to the BCTF, then I cannot let something like this go unchallenged.

MR. GUNO: This morning I'm operating under a double handicap: I have a very sore back and I left behind my reading glasses. But after listening to the Minister of Education, I think I face a bigger handicap.

I want to focus the debate on issues of the north, where life is beautiful, more serene and more down to earth, but where education is still a very important issue. I have some very serious concerns, Mr. Chairman, about the neglect of northern education. This neglect, I would submit, takes several forms. The most insidious is the continuing lack of appreciation on the part of the Minister of Education of the particular needs and situations that northern people face in trying to provide the most basic education for their children.

I refer to the two districts that are in my riding, the Stikine and the Nisgha districts, which are probably the smallest in all of British Columbia, but which have some very unique problems which, I think, are lost on this government. In fact. Mr. Chairman, one example is the rather broad brush in establishing the fiscal funding formula, which I think has created an incredible situation in Stikine by putting the burden on a very few property holders to pay an excessive and indeed disproportionate share of taxes, just to meet some of the underfunding by the Education ministry for education in the north.

Two cost items that are very high in the north are travel and maintenance. In fact, the cost is becoming more and more prohibitive, yet each year we're facing less and less funding, so that now even in the best of times in the rest of British Columbia the students in the north are usually handicapped. In the worst of times, they are in an even worse situation. We're now down to the bare bones in terms of providing the most basic education. That they have totally ignored the north is. I think, very short-sighted on the part not only of the Ministry of Education but of this government. There is the perception that everything is concentrated on the lower mainland.

I live on the lower mainland about half the time, and I appreciate the quality of life there. But I also live in the north and I come from the north, and it's an incredible place. A lot of people would like to live there. but many of them just can't because they can't offer their children access to quality education. They have to move. In the long run, that is going to create a serious problem when we have a concentration of our population in one area. We ought to be providing incentives to have more people move to the north. I think education is one of the biggest barriers.

In the north, special needs are a particular problem because there is no access to such resources as psychologists and speech pathologists. To get students to these resources is prohibitively costly. We just don't have that kind of resource. Kids who are blind or have speech handicaps simply have no other recourse, and that is shameful. The funding formula does not take into consideration some of the unique situations that you find in the north. It fails to recognize that in many of the rural areas we have a fairly transient population.

[10:30]

I know this is true in Atlin. Many of our people move down to the coast to engage in commercial fishing and move back sometime in October. The problem here is that the funding is set on the basis of the enrolment as of September 30, so it fails to take into account this kind of transient population in the north. Because of the fact that these two districts in particular are so cash strapped, any additional costs that are not provided for become such a burden and, again, there is further deterioration in the education of our young people in the north.

Part of it is the assumption which one of the principals described as the "big aquarium scenario." In fact he had an interesting analogy where he stated that the assumption is that the system will absorb the cost and somehow it would not impact on the rest of the educational programs, but in the north that is not true. The analogy he gave is that you can throw an elephant in English Bay and it will cause hardly a ripple, but if you throw that same elephant in a small swimming pool, it will wreak havoc. That's quite a graphic illustration of the problems that many of our principals have to deal with in many of these northern schools.

The Nisgha School District, I submit, is a very unique situation and has particular needs that are not as important in other districts. One of the programs that they are concerned about is the continuation of the cultural enrichment program, the bicultural and bilingual program. The financing of that has been suspended for the last two years now, so there has

[ Page 4422 ]

been no development in that area in the last two years. I would submit to the Minister of Education that nothing is static. We have to be continually refining and fine-tuning these programs, and unless there are dollars, it just deteriorates from neglect. This is what is happening in the Nisgha district.

I want to get back to the phenomenon of the few property owners who are paying an excessive and sometimes disproportionate amount of school taxes in such communities as Dease Lake and Atlin. Last year there was a near revolt on the part of many property owners who were just getting fed up with having to pay such an exorbitant amount of money for an education that is inadequate. The problem here is that — and I don't know if this is a deliberate strategy on the part of the government — we have these property owners putting a lot of pressure on the school board to cut back — a school board that is facing the almost untenable position of having to cut back some very vital programs. These are no longer frill programs that they are having to deal with, but some very basic programs.

I would like to get some comment from the Minister of Education about what is being done to alleviate this particular problem in the north. Is there any thought of at least taking a look at what is happening in the north in terms of education. I want to deal later on with the master tuition agreement, but I'd like to just get some comments from the minister regarding these issues that I have presented.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll try and answer some of the member's questions as best I can. If that is not satisfactory, I'd certainly be open to any supplementaries.

I think the member opened with my lack of appreciation for the northern situation. I have to say that there is considerable appreciation on my part for what is happening there. I did visit the Nisgha school system and was very impressed with what they are doing there.

As far as the property taxes are concerned — to look at that one first — under the property tax system, the mill rate is based on the average assessment in any district. In both the Nisgha and the Stikine districts the average assessment is very low, so to raise any amount of local money puts a fairly high mill rate in place. However, I would like to point out that if we look at averages in the Nisgha district — I can only comment on the school districts in averages here — when people get their tax bill and it's their principal residence, the homeowner grant applies and they get $380 off those taxes. That leaves a balance to the taxpayer of $262. In other words, the average tax that someone is paying there — where minimums apply — is the difference between $380 and $262.

Basically, what I'm saying is that when the homeowner grant is considered, on average they don't pay any school taxes — none whatsoever. They've got a credit of $262. I think the average assessed value of homes in either the Stikine or Nisgha is around the $30,000 level. Where the protests are coming from is that if someone has a home that's assessed at $100,000, when you apply that mill rate they are getting hit fairly hard. If people, even at the $30,000 assessed levels, use the percentages idea that last year the taxes were minus $274 — in other words, a credit of $274 — then this year the credit is only $262. That can be translated into an increase, but it's not really an increase; it's just that they get less of a credit in that situation.

Because of that low tax assessment, under the provincial funding formula, the sharing ratio in the Nisgha district.... That's linked with the federal, but the government contribution is 97.38 percent. So in the Nisgha district they only pay 2.72 percent of their education budget. In the Stikine district the province pays 89.34 percent of the education budget. Again, in the equalization structure the amount that a local district pays varies from 45 percent to 97 percent in the Nisgha case, I guess, depending on the size of their residential assessment. The residential assessment there is low, so naturally the funding formula kicks in with 97 percent of the money and 89 percent in the Stikine district.

The other thing that is recognized in the fiscal framework is average salary. If it is higher, then we have funded on that basis. The cost per pupil in the Nisgha district is $6,859. It's high because it's small schools in both situations. In the

Stikine district it goes as high as $8, 626 per pupil, as compared to the provincial average of around $4,000. So a lot of recognition is given there, recognizing the low taxation base, the unique problems, the situations. In any of the other formulas.... In the fund for excellence we have always tried to have a minimum amount, regardless of the size of the district. In the new computer formula, for instance, we said regardless of the size of the school, they shall get at least eight computers in each school. In Nisgha you have the one main school and they've got $18,000 for computers alone, which should get them ten or twelve computers, and then the in service and other things correspondingly for a total of $24,370. If we went strictly on the basis of per capita enrolment numbers, they would have gotten a lot less than that.

We try to take into account and we recognize the special circumstances there. In some cases the anomalies are there because of the property tax system. When you have a low average and somebody has a high-priced home, they get hit very hard. That's where the protest is coming from. For most of the people, I would think they are getting a credit on their axes after the homeowner grant rather than anything else.

We recognize the unique needs there. We try and accommodate them in any funding structure we do. For instance, we have improved small secondary schools funding. We have improved funding for small elementary schools. Under a formula, without just doing anything willy-nilly, we try to favour the small secondary schools, the small situations, the rural situations. Dispersed schools funding is additional. Really, I think a great deal is being done by my ministry in applying this. I know my own philosophy is that we must recognize those small school and very rural situations. Also, my commendations to the boards in those areas, who really do a lot to provide the best education possible for students.

If there are some particular questions I haven't answered, would certainly be pleased to try again.

MR. GUNO: You referred to the average assessment. One of the problems in Dease Lake, and to some extent in Atlin, is that there are a number of BCBC residences which are occupied by various government workers. They are included in that average, but they are exempted from paying any school tax. It puts the whole assessment out of kilter. There are some high property assessments on very modest buildings. That is where the concern is: people who have homes that anywhere else would probably rate below $30,000 are being rated a lot higher, and therefore they have o pay an even higher tax.

The numbers aren't that small. When I was in Atlin the hall was packed — for Atlin — with people who were.... I

[ Page 4423 ]

have their tax notices, and I would be glad to provide them to you to show you the incredible rise in one year, for instance, in the assessment.

[10:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly agree with the member, as I tried to indicate in my previous comments, that in some cases where a person has a house or a property that is valued well above the average on which the mill rate is based, then any application to the mill rate hits him very hard. It's been brought to my attention that there are some government properties that are exempt from taxes which would add to the total pot in the assessment. It's my understanding that in many of those cases, the government pays grants in lieu of, and we're certainly looking at that to see whether that grant is adequate. I know that part of it is compensated by the high percentage that the province picks up of the education bill in both Nisgha and Stikine districts. If you added all those properties into the total pot, then perhaps that percentage would change. I don't know how much gain it would be to the district as a total. Certainly it would be a considerable advantage to some of the people who have the higher assessed homes and pay the dramatic taxes.

Until or if the whole system of funding on the basis of property taxation is changed, we're locked into it. We can accommodate whatever we can, but I don't know of any system. Theoretically it's the same as income tax: the more money you make, the more you're expected to pay. In property assessments, I guess the same principle is applied: if you have a higher-priced home, the assumption is that you have the ability to pay. It's not always true, because sometimes people build homes and years later, because of some factors out of their control, the assessment went way up. That is inherent in the basic policy of taxing — a flat mill rate based on assessed value.

I know the problem, I recognize it, but I can't do a great deal about it. I've written numerous letters of explanation. The person whose taxes went up $500 is not a bit interested in my explanations, but I can't do much more than that.

MR. GUNO: I want now just to focus briefly on the matter of the master tuition agreement. I raised this matter in question period a week ago. I think the performances of both senior levels of governments — the federal and provincial governments — in terms of working out this agreement without any real input from the Indian people on this important matter that has so much impact on the education of the young is troublesome. I think there ought to be recognition of this, and I want to put on record that there is a strong opinion that there is no really coherent policy relating to Indian education in British Columbia. One principal indicated to me that in his school, which has predominantly native students, there are no unique, identifiable programs to meet some of the particular needs of native students; that the special needs programs that are there are applicable to everyone.

I want to get back to the fact that there was no meaningful consultation, and not only with native leaders. In talking to some of the school district representatives, they felt they were not consulted adequately enough to at least have some input as to the working out of this agreement.

I think because of this there is no real feeling that the agreement you have meets the needs or the problems facing many schools that have native students. It does not provide for input from native people. You talk about local agreements, but there is nothing in the agreement that sets any parameters or provides the mechanism for arriving at those agreements. Both the school district and the province have complete veto over any local agreement that would be negotiated.

I think because of this native students in B.C. are being short-changed. I think that they, among all other groups, have the biggest problems, the biggest barriers to overcome. I think there is still an incredible drop-out rate among native students throughout B.C. Proportionately we are having fewer and fewer attending post-secondary educational institutes. There is a problem there. I think both the federal and provincial governments had an opportunity to deal with those problems when this master tuition agreement was up for discussion, but they chose not to and chose not to talk to the people. It could have given them some direction as to how to come to an agreement that would have been more effective.

I will give you an example. In Good Hope Lake, for instance, they have a problem in terms of transportation. The kids have to face over two hours of travel every day to get to school in Cassiar. For the older students that's not too bad, but for the young student, a six-year-old, it's a real problem to get up at five in the morning just to catch the bus to get into Cassiar.

This shows in terms of their attendance. I am told that the attendance in September and October is very good, and the performances are good. But around December it starts to fall off, and then in January it picks up again. So there is a clear indication that the kids are starting to tire after two months.

They have been trying to establish a school in Good Hope Lake, at least for the younger grades; but this has fallen on deaf ears. They're also concerned about the fact that, in spite of the money spent on their behalf by the federal government, there have been no programs to provide for special counselling for native students, who face particular problems in adjusting to a mainstream school. There is no cultural enrichment that would make the courses relevant for some of the native kids from Good Hope Lake. The only native topic that's often discussed is the Haida. The Haida are a very well-known aboriginal group in B.C., but the kids from Good Hope Lake would like to hear about the Kaska Dene, or the Tahltan. I know that it's impossible to do this provincewide, but if there were some local input, then those kinds of relevancy factors could be built in by this consultative process.

I want to elicit from the minister exactly what kind of local agreements he visualizes happening under this agreement. Also, what kind of evaluative process does he contemplate, and what kind of input would the native people have?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'd like to get on this, but it's come to my attention.... Of course, it's not finalized regarding the tax. Just a quick comment there, which may help the member a bit. Because of the new funding policy that we announced in February and the adjustments to various districts, it would appear that the local tax base in the Stikine.... My figures say there's going to be a 58.6 percent decrease in the local taxes. But again, I'm leery of figures, because if it's $2 and then it's $4, that can be a 100 percent increase. I just wanted to point out to the member that in both Nisgha and Stikine, with the new funding formula, and from the preliminary budgets we have, it seems that the tax rate might go down this year, and that might help a little bit.

[ Page 4424 ]

As for the master tuition agreement between the province and the federal government for funding of the education of native students, as of June 1987 the federal government announced that they were going to provide the funding to the native bands, and that they would no longer route it through the province. That went on, and negotiation went on as to how that could be done. Native representatives were invited to those meetings and were involved in that process. They were invited to all of the meetings, showed up to some of them, and what have you.

We ended up, towards the end of March this year, in the situation where, although some agreement had been made on improving it, no agreement between the province and the federal government had been signed, and they had no legislative authority to pay the money they owed to the province, which we in turn owed to the districts. So the districts had to borrow that money, in effect, to keep the system going, at an extra cost to themselves. We were in the position that by the end of March we would have had to put in something like $30 million to $32 million across the province, and the federal government would have had no way to reimburse us for that, because we were already a year behind. It became fairly imperative that we get an agreement signed. That agreement was then signed by the deadline so that they have the legal authority to pay the money that has been due to us in this regard.

Part of that new MTA.... I guess it will take some time to sort out, but one of the arrangements was that any local band may reach an agreement with their school board as to how the funding will come — from the federal government direct to the band and then for whatever services they contract from the school board. I presume that would be written up in the contract.

The one major improvement which should certainly.... It won't make that much difference, but the one major improvement is that in the Nisgha and Stikine districts, for instance, where the cost per pupil was high, under the new agreement it will not be funded on the provincial average. In the past we counted the total number of native students in the public school system, took the provincial average cost per pupil and multiplied it, and that's what the federal government paid us. Under our fiscal framework, of course, we've paid considerably more in the two districts that I've mentioned. But under the new agreement, the funding will be on the basis of the average cost per pupil in that district. In other words, in the Nisgha and the Stikine districts, the figures that I quoted you of some $6,000 and $8,000.... The federal government will now.... If we say there are 30 students in Cassiar that are qualified for the native funding from the federal government, it would be 30 times the district cost per pupil that would go directly. Until an agreement is in place the money will be routed through us, but we are just a sort of middleman; we pass it on to the districts. That's the arrangement.

[11:00]

I don't know what type of agreements will be formulated in the final analysis, because that's between the band and the school district. I'm assuming that built into, that will be that you can't change your mind month by month or week by week; the contract runs for a year. But that's all between the band and the school board. As soon as they sign an agreement like that, the money goes directly to either the school board or the band, whatever is in their agreement, and those students are deducted from what the federal government gives to the province.

So two things: funding at the level of the average cost per pupil that's built into the new agreement; the ability for bands and school boards to actually sign agreements between themselves — which makes it fairly interesting in the Nisgha district, because the band has been heavily involved there and basically constitutes the school board. Nevertheless, the money could go directly to them and they can disburse it.

The other thing written into the agreement that we have to take a really good look at is evaluating how our programs are actually bringing native students up to par with the rest of the population — or leaving them behind, and if so, why. I think the member and I are both well aware of some discrepancies. But an evaluation program is: what is the school system doing to upgrade, to bring pupils up to standard where they are not up to standard? We are definitely asking the native people to participate in that, because I think they can help us a great deal.

I think I may have answered the member's question.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

I guess the one thing we have put in this year.... It may seem minimal. We put $200,000 in the budget for language and cultural development for native people. It's a low amount, but we don't know what that program will develop. If it proves that we can do more, then certainly I would be quite amenable to going back and asking for more money. But it's a startup cost, and hopefully again we can work with people to say what can go in there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Langley requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. GRAN: In the house today we have the first of 150 students from my constituency. They're grade 10 students from Brookswood Secondary School in Langley, and they're here with their teachers for the day. I would ask the House to welcome them on behalf of the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) and myself. I'd also like to say that the school is in my neighbourhood. I have lived closed to that school for 14 years, and my children went to Brookswood Secondary. Would the House please welcome the students.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, my final supplementary to the minister. You referred to the fact that there was some urgency in terms of signing the MTA; there was no legislative authority to keep the system going, and so you had to sign. I just wonder why both the provincial and the federal government allowed the agreement to expire before they concluded this agreement. I would suspect that part of the strategy was to delay this so that meaningful consultation with the Indian people would not be possible.

I wanted to comment on your contention that the one big improvement is the variation on the funding formula. As I understand it, any overages as a result of that variation .... The province would not pay for the extra funding that would be required in implementing those variations. I want to see if you can confirm that.

In terms of the local agreements, I understand from reading the agreement that there are no provincial and federal criteria for the approval of these local agreements. And I just wonder if the minister can make any comment on that.

[ Page 4425 ]

I want to say finally that I think this matter has been handled very badly. Again, strictly from a paternalistic point of view, the governments have refused to allow any meaningful input from the native people. That is short-sighted, and in the end it's going to be more of a problem for both the provincial government and the federal government; but the biggest losers will be the Indian students who depend on this.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In answer to the first question — why was this agreement allowed to lapse — it was because a previous federal minister of northern and native affairs, Mr. Crombie, unilaterally announced some time during the 1986-87 year that the funding would go directly to the native bands as of June 1987, in effect saying that the agreement was cancelled. It was due to expire, and it would not be renewed. They were going to have a different system — a nice, noble-intentioned announcement, until people had to try to make it work. There was nothing in place for this funding to come from the federal government through the provincial government to the school board that enrolled native students.

There was a lot of meaningful input and a lot of discussion on what could be done. In the final analysis, I believe that some of the native leaders said the only way this agreement could be valid was if they signed it as well — the three parties: the province, the native leaders' organization and the federal government. If and when the constitution or the laws say that is the case then I have no problem with that, but at the moment the funding agreement is between the federal and provincial governments as to the disbursement of the funds.

Under the present circumstances we had to go ahead with an agreement signed by the only two parties that were legally authorized to sign it — I'm not getting into moral or that sort of thing, but legally authorized - in order for the funding to take place and this $30-some million to be transferred here. At the same time we have worked in and opened the door to individual contracts which can replace that, and to evaluation — those kinds of things that can be built into it now. For instance, suppose all the native bands — let's take that extreme — could sign agreements with the school boards in their area within the next year; then all of the money would flow directly to them from the federal government, and we would be out of the picture as far as that particular funding is concerned.

The member mentioned that the funding now is the average cost per pupil in the district. I don't know whether the member was saying this meant that in the past we kept overages of what the federal government paid us. I've checked the record back on that, because that statement had been made, and I can assure the member that every year in some districts.... For instance, the average provincial cost might be $4,000. That's the amount we got from the federal government. In some districts the average cost per pupil was $3,700; in another one it was $6,000. We then had the obligation, under our fiscal framework, to pay them their $3,700 there and their $7,000 over here. I can tell the member that all of the money that came from the federal government in any year went out to the school districts, and in several years more than what came from the federal government went out to the school districts. For instance, in the previous year all the money that came from the federal government went out to the school district, plus another $4 million that we had to do provincially for that particular account.

I suppose we can argue about what meaningful input there was. I also have to be pragmatic. This is the situation that was there. I invite the members to come and talk, to help us in the evaluation process, to try to deal with what programming might be done. To the extent possible, my ministry staff and I are willing to discuss this with them, but if they say the only meaningful input is if we agree that they are equal to the provincial and federal governments as a signing authority -that the only thing that makes input meaningful is if they sign that — I can't deal with that. That will have to be up to the constitutional experts.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to enter this debate on the Education estimates by talking with the minister about issues that relate exclusively to the Sooke School District, which is one of the two districts in my riding. I know that the minister was out the other day at Edward Milne Secondary School, and I know from the feedback I got from the community that it was much appreciated that the minister took a few minutes out of his schedule to attend Edward Milne and visit the fair.

I want to begin on a positive note and thank the minister for a number of good things that have happened in the riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, in particular with respect to the Sooke School District. I think that all too often in the confines of this chamber, the minister is not supported for things that have benefited the community.

What comes to light in my mind is when we were involved in these estimates a year ago, I was cajoling the minister to, expend some funds to save Jordan River Elementary School. I'm pleased that the minister saw fit to come forward with financial assistance, so that we can maintain that small school for that small community. That school is the centrepiece of what's left of that community. I can tell the minister that it's appreciated by me and by the parents in Jordan River. I want to thank the minister for that.

I know that in the past year we have also received significant funds for capital improvements at Belmont Secondary School. Again, that was much needed and much welcomed when the government chose to provide those funds.

The minister is aware that there was a need in the district for the provision of a new board office, and we're beginning to move in that direction again. I've been lobbying the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) for some time to establish a court facility in the Western Communities. I know that discussions are underway with respect to the possibility of using some of the government funds for the construction of a school board to allow for occasional usage in terms of a court facility, so we get the best bang for our bucks in that riding in terms of government dollars — whether they're from the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Certainly, we've seen additions at Saseenos Elementary and Willway Elementary School in the school district. We've also seen increased funding for roofing projects in the district, all of which are much appreciated by the trustees. It's important to put that on the record, so the minister knows I'm not going to be spending all my time going after him on a couple of issues. It's fair to say that I appreciate the work in that regard.

[11:15]

I want to make some comments with respect to the funding formula and how it affects my riding, and engage in a debate with the minister with a view to persuading the minister to give consideration to placing additional variables into that funding formula, so that the funding formula more

[ Page 4426 ]

accurately reflects the needs of school districts and plays a greater role in reducing the impact of tax increases on residential property owners.

I must say again — and I'm sure the minister knows this — that I haven't been party to the debate from the outset, not being the Education critic. If there is repetition in some of these matters, I apologize for that. I suspect that by confining it specifically to the Sooke School District, there will not be a repetition of matters.

The situation at Sooke School District causes me a great deal of concern. It's one of the more vexing political problems I see in the riding, in that it is pitting different elements in the riding against one another. I don't think that type of confrontation is a healthy thing, particularly when it's my view that the provincial government can play a stellar role in reducing the level of conflict that's happening. That conflict is caused largely by the fact that this year we are again seeing significant increases in school tax payments by residential homeowners.

The tax increases, as a consequence of the budget deliberations in the district, mean that the average homeowner in the community will be paying 19.23 percent more in taxes for school purposes than in the previous year. That figure is well out of line with inflation, and it has brought about a fair bit of debate in the community. In the last week alone, we've seen municipal leaders in the community question the school district for its actions in this regard. We saw some months ago a group formed in the riding which circulated a petition — 900-strong — asking for a referendum on tax increases. I don't believe that that's the appropriate way of handling the problem, and I'm sure the minister agrees with me. However, it is a manifestation of the problem in that people are getting incredibly frustrated with what's transpiring and are looking for some solutions. Towards the end of my comments, I want to talk about some solutions that I see, after I invite comment from the minister.

The interesting thing about that 19.23 percent increase in the Sooke district is that the bulk of it — by the way, that 19.23 percent translates into a $96 increase — is really going to the maintenance side of the budget as opposed to the need side. Of that $96, $70 is directed to the maintenance side of the budget and $26 to the non-maintenance side, if I can put it that way. About 70 percent of the increase is simply to maintain the status quo. It's not as if we're getting into new luxuries in the Sooke School District.

The government, if I'm not mistaken, indicated earlier that it had secured an additional $135 million — I stand to be corrected on that figure; I'm sure the minister will correct me if I'm wrong — province wide, the idea of which was to try to significantly reduce tax increases, in that the $135 million provincewide was designed to cover the bulk of last year's increases to cushion the blow to homeowners this year. Despite that allocation of $135 million, we end up in the somewhat obtuse situation in Sooke where again we're seeing $70 of that $96 going into the maintenance side of the budget.

It seems to me that the money the government allocated is not achieving its goal. In fact, in Sooke it's causing a particular problem. I want to elaborate on that problem, in fairness to the minister, and to invite the type of debate I hope we'll have on this issue by explaining what I see as the problem and seeking response from the minister.

The provincial government indicated last year that it had provided, as I said, an 8 percent increase province wide; yet in the Sooke School District, it did not translate into 8 percent more in funds. It translated, according to my information, into approximately 5.7 percent more in actual dollars accruing to the district. I know the minister has a sheet there in front of him, so if he's got some figures that contradict that, I think we should have that out.

That 8 percent really translated into 5.7 percent in Sooke. Interestingly — I put this information out at the outset for reasons that will become apparent in a second — it translated into an 8 percent increase in the Greater Victoria School District, part of which is also in my riding in the Esquimalt and View Royal communities, and into a 10 percent increase for the Saanich School District. So that 8 percent stood to give some school districts more money than the 8 percent and others less.

The net effect, as it pertains to the Sooke School District, is that it immediately put the Sooke School District at a disadvantage financially in that other areas were receiving funds in excess of 5.7 percent. Sooke was immediately behind Victoria and Saanich, the adjacent school districts. That meant that right off the bat, given the way the formula is drafted, the Sooke School District was behind. It wasn't at square one; it was at square minus-one. On a comparative basis, it had to catch up with the adjoining districts.

Compounding that problem — and in my submission, far more important than what I've said to date about the problem — is that the Sooke School District has a very low assessment base. In fact, the cost of raising $100,000 through taxpayers in Sooke means an increase of $3 per taxpayer. The cost of raising the same amount of money in Saanich means a cost to the average taxpayer of $1.65. In the case of Victoria, the cost of raising that $ 100,000 means a 54 cent cost to the taxpayer. You can see that, first of all, in that school district we're getting less than the 8 percent; we're getting 5.7 percent. Secondly and far more importantly, in order to raise money for those needs that we have, we have to charge the taxpayer more because of the low assessment base in the Sooke School District. That compounds the problem as it relates to the school district. As I understand it, the problem in that area is the overall budget. I was going to get to this later, but I'll say it now. The overall budget actually goes up 7.75 percent; the government allocation comes in at 5.7 percent. But to make up that 2 percent differential — I'm using approximate figures here — translates into a 19.23 percent increase in tax rates in Sooke, given the inequities in the formula, to start off with, and given the low assessment rate that we have in the Sooke School District.

Worse still, the problem then compounds on itself again, if one looks to next year. The way it compounds itself again is, as I understand it — and again I encourage the minister to correct me if I'm wrong on this — the government's allocation next year will be based not on the overall budget but on the government allocation. If it's based on the government allocation, which is less than what the budget increase was, it puts you again further behind in the overall scheme of things.

Further compounding the problem as it relates to the Sooke School District.... You see, it builds upon itself, and that's why we have this problem of the residents being outraged with the increases each year. I'm sure the minister would say that it happens everywhere. I would venture to say that it would be difficult to point to an area of the province where it's brought about the same extreme reaction as it has in Sooke School District.

Compounding the problem further — I think this is the second most important factor in compounding the problem,

[ Page 4427 ]

of the four that I've raised — is the nature of the teachers we have in Sooke, with respect to their experience. We have an above-average rate in the Sooke School District of teachers who are more experienced and have more masters' degrees or higher education than teachers in other districts. Because the formula tries to average out everything, the supposed 2.8 percent increase which is supposed to go to teachers' salaries in the Sooke School District translates into 1.13 percent. When the government says it's giving 2.8 percent, what it is really doing.... Mr. Chairman, I think my time is up.

MR. ROSE: I was an intervening speaker, but if the minister is going to respond here.... What would you prefer? Do you want to get back again?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes. He wants to unload it all at once, and have you respond later.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm trying to unload it, because I think in fairness I should give the minister the whole picture; then he can. comment. I'm almost finished giving him the whole picture.

As I was saying, that 2.8 percent increase actually translates into 1.13 percent, as it relates to Sooke. Interestingly, when you get into the Victoria and the Saanich situation, because their teachers are below the average with respect to salaries and experience, they get more money for teachers because their teachers are less qualified. It creates an obtuse situation, where the formula doesn't seem to recognize the actual pay grid within a school district, which is what I think the funding ought to be on — as opposed to trying to push down the salary component for the districts with more experienced teachers versus districts with less experienced teachers.

We have a further compounding problem in Sooke School District, in that the teachers are far more experienced than in adjacent areas, yet the adjacent areas get more money, despite the fact that on our side there is a greater allocation for teachers' salaries. Of course, we know that no one will settle for 1.13 percent; I think we can all fairly say that the wage settlements will be higher than that. That has its compounding effect, in terms of the extent to which the tax rates are increased to cover teacher salary settlements.

In the Sooke School District we have a situation where the funding formula doesn't take into account a couple of major factors: the low assessment rate and the level of experience of teachers. Also — if I can put them into major and minor categories — in terms of minor categories, it compounds the problem by having future allocations by government based on government allocations and not on the budget, and the fact that the 8 percent that we were to get this year does not equal 8 percent; it equals 5.7 percent. So you're starting out a little bit further behind. There is also a whole set of historical factors which I will get into after we get the minister's response.

I want the minister to also keep in mind that despite all of these problems, the interesting feature about the Sooke School District is that it has one of the lowest per-pupil costs in the province. It's not as if we're dealing with a fat board; we're dealing with a very good, efficient system in that area. We get a really good per-pupil cost, one of the lowest in the province, and yet we have one of the highest tax increases on a residential basis to the province because of this litany of compounding problems.

I would at this point ask the minister to comment on the problem itself as I have explained it, with a view, of course, to convincing the minister that the funding formula has to be changed to be more sensitive to these situations.

[11:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I do appreciate the member at least recognizing that we do what we can when we can, and also his seeking of specific information. You've covered a great deal in this, and I know it's all interrelated. Perhaps I can address the questions not necessarily in the order that you presented them. I am sure you will check me up if I don't answer them fully.

For instance, the member made the point that the fiscal framework does not take into account the higher salaries for the teachers. In September 1987, the base salaries for teachers, on which the fiscal framework was based, were $39,178 in greater Victoria, $40,658 in Sooke and $38,198 in Saanich. When we work out the number of teaching units, the fiscal framework says "times your average teacher's salary and your district. " In other words, the differential in teachers' salaries is already taken into account in the base funding formula.

Obviously 2.8 percent of funding of a $41,000 amount would be considerably more than on a $39,000 amount or a $38,000 amount. The percentage is there, and it does take into account much of the differential. The member said we all know that 2.8 percent is not going to be enough....

MR. SIHOTA: I said 1.13.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thought you said that on the wage settlements it wasn't enough. I was reading in the Times-Colonist the other day that the city council had said any increase over 2 percent in wages in this year would result in cuts in services or staff, so that's an indication. In other cases, they are starting negotiating at 3 percent to 4 percent. Maybe our 2.8 percent funding isn't that bad. Of course, districts may go above that and it would affect the amount that goes to the local taxpayers. If we were wrong, next year the index, which is determined on the settlements this year, would pick that up.

The other thing the member says is that there is a low assessment base in Sooke as compared to other districts. That's recognized in the funding formula. In the Sooke district, they only have to pick up less than 20 percent of the fiscal framework costs and the province puts in 80 percent. If you want the comparisons, Victoria gets 64.5 percent, Saanich gets 61.3 percent and Sooke gets 80 percent from provincial funds. That is because of the differential in the residential tax base. That is built in, plus the base funding, which already incorporates higher and lower costs — the percentage that we've applied was to their base salaries. A lot of these are already taken into account.

I might point out that I tried to indicate in the general comments to trustees and in my opening comments here in the House that last year school districts said the fiscal framework was not enough. They had the right to add what they thought was needed, and they added, across the province, $129 million.

We recognized some of that, and there were some increases, so we increased that shareable by $175 million.

[ Page 4428 ]

Provincially that translates into about $135 million. We put $135 million into the base budget when they said last year that they had to put in another $129 million in order to do that. Remember in '85 when they didn't have that option, they lived within the fiscal framework formula. I don't think education went to pot. Certainly there were things missing and that sort of thing; I'll acknowledge that. But it didn't just collapse. In '86-87, they had the right to go to supplementary and it just went like this, and it built up to $129 million.

In the Sooke district in the '87-88 year, out of their roughly $25 million budget, they said: "That's short by $2.16 million." So their supplementary was an 8.7 percent budget — in other words, 100 percent to local taxpayers, because a supplementary is paid for 100 percent by local taxpayers. The fiscal framework is paid 80-20. I think the member will agree that any amount in the supplementary is far more dramatic on the local taxpayer than in the fiscal framework; but it's accountability.

We moved in $1.82 million in the new formula, much of that to pick up some of these things that they said were not funded properly. That turned out to be a 7.3 percent increase. The member, I think, was using 5.7 as compared to 8 percent. The 8 percent, we said — the $175 million in the fiscal framework — works out to just over 8 percent as compared to the previous year across the province. It works out to almost 8 percent if compared against the provincial grant. So in effect, they got a 7.3 percent increase in their fiscal framework — $1.8 million to pick up some of that supplementary and other costs. What they have done, say, last year, was that they had a supplementary of 8.7 percent over the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework gave them improved funding, and this year they have added in almost $3 million in supplementary. In effect, the $1.8 million was absorbed into the fiscal framework.

Some of that is quite legitimate because their expenses carried forward. But the question then is that they went on an improved fiscal framework, on an improved funding formula. They said: "That's not enough," and from $2 million overexpenditure, they went to $3 million overexpenditure. Naturally that has a dramatic effect on the local taxpayers because what they spend over the fiscal framework is 100 percent picked up by the local taxpayers. That's why I was trying to caution trustees.

We've improved the formula. I know it gets pretty complex. This year their supplementary, which is over and above the fiscal framework, turns out to be 11.1 percent. Last year it was 8.7 percent. They have increased the extra spending by a considerable amount. That, of course, translates into the 19.3 percent increase in local taxes — on top of a massive increase last year, when they were allowed to raise the supplementary as they saw fit. And they were accountable to their taxpayers. They are still accountable. Yes, it certainly has generated some reaction in the Sooke district. I basically said that we've improved the fiscal framework, and elected trustees have the right to spend above that to any amount their taxpayers will authorize or accept.

Comparable figures. In the Greater Victoria School District — I read the paper too — before we improved the fiscal framework, they were publicly announcing an $87 million budget, which worked out to 10.5 percent. As soon as the improved funding came in, what they thought they could do for $87 million.... We put something like $6 million extra into their fiscal framework, and then they said they had planned on a 10.5 percent increase, so they bumped it up to $90 million. The public has accepted that — except the ones who write me and say: "Fire the school board because they are raising my taxes too high." They are accountable to their taxpayers. That was a strange one. They had already publicly announced that they could get by with $87 million. When we improved the amount that we gave them, they said: "Oh, now we can only get by with $90 million in the budget this year." I have a hard time when the taxpayers come to me and say: "You're the bad guy because you've increased our taxes." I say: "Hold it. It cuts two ways."

I don't know whether that answers the member's questions. It's fairly complex. I'll try, if you have any specifics....

MR. SIHOTA: No, it doesn't answer my question. It's obvious that when one engages in this type of debate, the minister, properly.... I don't want to get into an argument based on rhetoric on the Sooke School District.

The minister is going to try to suggest that there's more money going in and sort of point the finger of blame at the school district. The fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, of the $96 more that it's going to cost everybody this year, $70 is going into the maintenance side. To me, that says that somewhere along the line the province is not recognizing its obligations to the maintenance end of it, if the school district is finding itself further and further behind.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It's interesting because the school district got $1.5 million last year from the government. They needed $1.8 million, so it was almost the amount they needed for maintenance. It made a difference, however, of only $20 to the taxpayer. They still needed $70 on top of that in order to get to where they were before. It has the effect, because everything is one year behind, of allowing for payment to be a year late. The money is always a year late, and yet the school board has to deal with the reality of inflation and other factors, and the taxpayers then have to pay a portion from last year to deal with those realities.

It's fine for the minister to say that we're putting more money into the non- supplementary side, if I can put it that way, in the basic fiscal framework. I'm not too sure what his figures include in that fiscal framework component, and I don't know to what extent the formula has changed. Am I correct in assuming that minor capital improvements are caught up in those basic fiscal framework numbers that you just outlined to us?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I was looking up some information, but I understand the member was asking about the minor capital; $23.8 million is built into the fiscal framework, but in addition there's $55 million over and above that that had to get the approval. That is in there.

The member makes a point that $70 of it is the amount that is built in to carry forward what they have, and only $26 is an increase. I still have to say that an 11 percent supplementary this year on a much higher budget — 11 percent extra spending on a much higher amount — is a considerable amount, compared to 8.7 percent last year on a lower amount. Why, with improved funding, with a much improved fiscal framework, does the expenditure have to go above even what they were given last year?

[11:45]

[ Page 4429 ]

The member makes the point that we are a year behind. Part of that money this year.... We brought everything up to currency. They used to have to pick up the teachers' salary increases for one year, and then it became part of the fiscal framework. We brought that up so that we are funding them at the salaries for this year; that is built into the fiscal framework now. In other words, we picked up that year. They are no longer a year behind the local taxpayers. Now they are current, plus 2.8 percent funding that we will provide for next year. Then whatever they want to do in the way of wage increase.... They could increase the budget or they could decrease their supplementary amount, depending on what they do. We are no longer a year late. We have picked that up, which was recognized.

How can you budget for next year when you are a year late? Also, the Finance minister was quite concerned. How can he predict what to budget for education next year if all that happens is that he has to pick up the invoices that they send in a year late? Whatever they gave, it was only a matter of a year and then the province had to pick it up. So we had to rationalize it, but we are up to currency.

Interestingly enough, last year across British Columbia with the fiscal framework, which is fairly applied, districts managed to run all the way from zero percent above that to something like 18 percent above it. Remember, in 1985 they all ran on it, but given the authority to go above it in 1986-87, it went up, and by last year they ran all the way from zero percent of the fiscal framework to the fiscal framework plus 18.5 percent. Interestingly enough, in the proposed budget for 1988-89, on which the taxes are based, there have been some dramatic changes in the amount above the fiscal framework, but in total.... I guess the average was 10 percent over the fiscal framework in '87-88 and this year it's only 8.5 percent, so obviously some districts have managed to accommodate themselves within the fiscal framework. Others, through pressures or whatever, are saying it can't be done, and they have just bumped it up.

Again, you have a range anywhere from 18 percent above the fiscal framework to virtually zero. We're told here that the Sooke budget went up 9.7 percent this year. Inflation was about 4 percent. Of course, because a good portion of that is above the fiscal framework, then the tax bill, the 100 percent that the local taxpayer pays, goes up by 19 percent. But that's the choice of the trustees.

MR. SIHOTA: It's not simply the choice of the trustees. It's a case of the trustees having no choice. If they want to maintain quality education at a reasonable price, if they don't want to erode what they've already got, then there has to be an increase, in this instance $70 of the $96 increase incurred. If you just want to maintain the status quo you have to go up to that extent.

The minister says we've got this new, far more sensitive fiscal formula. Then he says: "I don't understand why it doesn't work." It isn't working, Mr. Minister, because the school trustees have no choice but to increase the amount of the increase to the taxpayer by at least $70 or 70 percent. They don't have a choice on that. I don't think that's all that debatable. I would think that's the case.

It may well be that some districts have benefited from the new fiscal framework.

MR. ROSE: The old one.

MR. SIHOTA: Or benefited from the old one, as the House Leader says. The Sooke School District happens to be one that hasn't. It is getting particularly hard hit. What I'm saying is that despite its refinements, your formula hasn't worked.

To go back to one of the opening comments the minister made, he said they got 2.8 percent on the wage end of it. They got 1.13 percent. You can give me all the statistics you want, but I know what the district got when it got its cheque, and that's all that really matters in terms of the percentages. I don't know how your officials figure out the percentages, but we all know what the bottom-line cheque was when it came to the school district. It assisted to the tune of 1.13 percent.

We also know what the bottom-line cheque was when you did your catch your $135 million, and understand exactly what you were trying to do in terms of catching up. I see the theory, but it just didn't work, because it had the effect in the Sooke School District of reducing the quantum of tax payable by $20. There was a $20 advantage, but it still didn't deal with the overall problem. If the school district did not charge the taxpayer for just the maintenance portion of the budget, they would have to cut $1.5 million from services to students. That's the reality of the situation faced by school trustees.

It hasn't addressed the problems that these types of districts have. It's compounded, as I said earlier, when you have the low assessment rate. The minister says that the formula takes into account the low assessment base within these communities. That may well be so, but it obviously doesn't recognize it well enough, when you have a situation in which in Langley, I believe it was, taxes went up by $35 — I don't know what that translates into as a percentage; and then you have a district like Sooke, where the increase was $96. It seems to me that the formula is far more sensitive to some areas of the province to the detriment of others.

Don't take that the wrong way. I'm not saying it's politically motivated or anything like that. I'm just saying that the formula you've got in place isn't working right. It's obviously not working right, because we have these problems in real dollar terms for the Sooke district. You're correct, Mr. Minister: the teacher's salary is now current. But the district still has to pay the bills from last year. That's the problem they find themselves in, and so they are behind. They're not catching us and they're getting worse in terms of their ability to catch up because of these other compounding problems. There are some solutions apart from dealing with the formula, but it's not working. It's not happening in the Sooke School District.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I see that the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) is now in the House. She is obviously delighted with the fact that in Langley it's only been a $35 increase, and she just thinks I'm moaning and groaning. I'll tell you who are really moaning and groaning: those taxpayers in my riding who are looking at a 19.23 percent increase, and that's only on the school portion of the budget. I think it's quite legitimate that they're moaning and groaning.

Let the minister answer, and obviously we're going to have to continue this beyond lunch.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just very quickly, we strongly believe - and that's supported throughout this province by many districts - that the fiscal framework does provide adequate funding for a quality education. Last year, for instance, Sooke had a quality education system. The member

[ Page 4430 ]

says they are getting further behind. Okay, let's assume that they had put what the fiscal framework allowed plus the supplementary. That was the total budget that last year they said they had to have to operate. To maintain, you would think that they could do that — hold that budget — plus whatever inflation was. Let's say, for argument's sake, that inflation was around 4 percent. So they had $10 million, if you like, plus 4 percent — I'm not using the correct figures. Ten million plus 4 percent should give them the money to operate this year. You say they are getting further behind. We took the $10 million and added 7.3 percent in the shareable, so that trustees had no choice about some increase in taxes, because some of it flowed forward. But we added 7.3 percent in the fiscal framework, inflation was around 4 percent, and their total budget has gone up by 9.7 percent. So I maintain they did have a choice between the 4 percent and the 9.7, and all of that is on their local taxpayers, so that's why the taxpayers are getting a 19.3 percent increase.

With that, so the member can digest that over the noon hour, I would like to ask the committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asks leave for some business.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: By leave, I wish to move under standing order 69(2) that Mr. Guno be added to the Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations; and that Ms. Marzari be substituted for Mr. Sihota on the Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.