| 394 | 395 | 396 | 397 | 398 | 399 | 400 | |||
| 401 | 402 | 403 | 404 | 405 | 406 | 407 | 408 | 409 | 410 |
| 411 | 412 | 413 | 414 | 415 | 416 | 417 | 418 | 419 | 420 |
| 421 | 422 |
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1 (a).
MR. ORLIKOW: Mr. Chairman, it's somewhat difficult to be critical of a department and a Minister who is bringing in a proposal for an increase in expenditure of the magnitude we have tonight. At the same time I do think there are a number of items in these estimates which should be given a good deal of consideration. From the point of view, Mr. Chairman, of the local school districts, the most important item, I think, is the item listed under Educational Grants. Now there can be no question, of course, that this item is substantially more than it was last year, indeed than it ever was in the history of this province. At the same time it seems to me that the grants as they are now set up have pretty important future implications for the local school district, and one which I know they are all concerned about. Now the Minister in introducing this bill originally--in making his speech on education at the regular session, said on March 18th - and I'm going to repeat what I said earlier in the debate, but the Minister didn't reply to the questions I raised, Mr. Chairman. The Minister said at that time and I quote, that "it," (speaking about this plan,) "will relieve in large measure the real property from the burden of school finance transferring the larger share to the tax base which we have in the Province of Manitoba". Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the province is paying substantially more for education than it did in the past, but is it really paying a larger percentage? I question it.
I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, during the last session, and we now have it confirmed by the budget which has been struck by the local school district, that in fact the money required to finance local school districts is up this year, and nearly every school district in and around Winnipeg has a larger tax rate because of the increase for educational costs. It is true, for example, in Winnipeg that we got $600,000.00 more this year than we did last year but as a result of the negotiations between the Winnipeg School Board and the school teachers, the cost of salaries in Winnipeg is this year $160,000.00 higher than it was last year. Next year the situation will be even worse because next year the grants to the City of Winnipeg will go up by approximately $50.00 per teacher while the increments which the teachers have negotiated with the City of Winnipeg will mean that the teachers will get either two or three hundred dollars each in the way of an increment. And what is true of Winnipeg is, of course, true of every municipality, certainly every urban municipality in the greater Winnipeg area, and I'm sure it's true of Brandon, it's true of Portage, it's true of Flin Flon and the other urban centres. So that the result is, Mr. Chairman, that for the next eight or ten years at least, the cost of education on the local taxpayer will increase both in total and percentage-wise rather than decrease as the Minister has said. Now I don't think that this situation is too serious this year - a tax increase of one mill or half mill or a mill and a half is not very serious but in the long range this is going to be of the greatest importance to the local taxpayer and I think, Mr. Chairman, that the government is going to have to revise the formula which they have devised.
Now it's true that the Honourable Minister may say that the grant schedule was set out in the interim report of the Royal Commission and that it said very clearly that the increment should go up $50.00 a year for 44 years, and if the local school districts want to make an agreement which permits teachers to go up to their maximum in 14 or 15 years that, that's their hard luck, their tough luck and they'll have to pay the difference. But Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it's completely unrealistic to expect the teachers to wait for 44 years to get to their maximum. After all we want teachers who are qualified, that means that we want teachers who have at least their B.A. plus one year in the School of Education. I presume that they would be on the average 23 or 24 when they had that. If you add 44 years to that and if they retire at 65 it's obviously impossible for them to ever get to their maximum before they retire. On top of that I think, Mr. Chairman, that the teachers would say with justification that by the time the teacher gets to the age of 50 or 55 and certainly to 60, that he is not at the maximum of his ability to make a contribution to the education of the young people; and so therefore to suggest that they wait till they are 60 or 65 to get to their maximum is completely impossible. And this is one thing which I think, Mr. Chairman, the government and this
Legislature is, going to have to look at, and look at very seriously in the next couple of years.
Now another item, Mr. Chairman, which I think is woefully inadequate is in the field of scholarships. Now I know that the Minister can say with justification that last year we only provided $69,000.00 for scholarships and this year we propose to provide $173,000.00 for scholarships. And in the Education Revolving Loan Fund, last year we provided $50,000.00 and this year we're providing $140,000.00 -- and this is a substantial increase, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate what I've said on other occasions both in the House and outside the House, that there is probably no country in the world - we used to say it was only true in the western world, but from what people like Dr. James and others who have been to eastern Europe are telling us, they are doing even more than we are - but there is probably no country in the world which is doing less in the field of education, certainly in higher education, than Canada. I'm not blaming this government, and it's not only true of this province -- every province is in the same boat, we are caught in the squeeze. We say that we can't provide the money - the Federal Government should do it, and the Federal Government says that because of the constitutional problem and probably also because of political considerations and the desire of the Province of Quebec to go it alone that they can't do it. But the fact is that there's probably no country in the western world which is doing as little to provide needed funds for students who haven't got the financial wherewithal to go on to University than this country. And I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the amount of $173,000.00 for scholarships and $140,000.00 for the Loan Fund is completely inadequate in the kind of society in which we live. If we're going to get the people who can use University and who can make a contribution after they go to University to go and to attend and to be able to take the courses which are available, then surely we ought to set it as our objective that no youngster who has the ability to meet the requirements - the educational requirements - should be kept out of University by virtue of the fact that they can't afford to go to University. And yet I'm sure the fact is that there are hundreds in this province and in every other province who don't go simply because their family can't afford it.
One other item, Mr. Chairman, on which I think I would like to say something. It's an item which the Honourable Member from Rhineland spoke on, and that is the requirements for the people who attend the Teacher's College. Now I know all the arguments that were used in past for not making the qualifications higher - we had a tremendous shortage of teachers and that's not completely gone yet; we weren't paying enough to attract the best people. One could go on and on and on and probably we will have a good deal of discussion on this item when we get to it. But we are now paying pretty substantial salaries to teachers. We are now, I think, that teachers, particularly those with qualifications, can now earn in the teaching profession, salaries comparable to that paid in other professions. And I want to say that as far as I'm concerned, and I think that I can speak for every member in our group, that we would like to see the day, and if it can't be done this year, then next year, when nobody should be able to attend the Manitoba Teacher's College, who has not at least got a clear Grade XII. I'm about 95% certain that this is the situation in the Province of Saskatchewan. You can't attend the Teacher's College in Saskatchewan unless you have a clear Grade XII. And my information - I wasn't able to check it tonight - but my information is that the same is true in the Province of Ontario. And I for one, am not satisfied with a situation which permits students who have Grade XI, and I saw a return which the Honourable Member for Burrows got last year, I think, which showed that a couple of years ago I believe there were people attending Teacher's College who hadn't a complete Grade XI. Now I don't know whether they just aren't permitting them in now, or whether they've changed the regulations, but that isn't good enough, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think it is good enough to say that if they have a Grade XI and two subjects, pass in two subjects in Grade XII, that they can get in to Teacher's College now. I think that we are now paying sufficient so that we can expect a good deal more from their teachers.
And the last item I would like to make some comment on, Mr. Chairman, is one which has very little to do with finances, at the moment at least, and that is in the field of curriculum. We are spending about the same this year as last year. I think, Mr. Chairman, that here again a good deal of work and a good deal of effort has got to be put in in the next couple of years. Because we have at the present time a very peculiar situation. I suppose about 70%
of the students attending high schools in Manitoba are taking the matriculation course. And what is a matriculation course? In essence it's a course which permits students to go on to University. Now if you look at the number who attend University, I suppose not more than 20% of our students who finished Grade XI go on to University. And because so many -- one of the reasons why so many attending don't go on to University - at least one of the results of this is that if they're going to pass, and of course if they don't pass we will all hear about it, and the principals will hear about it, and the School Inspectors will hear about it and the department will hear about it, - I'm sure the Minister will hear about it. If too many fail, there will be delegations to see the Minister. And so what do we do in order to get around this, we make the courses easier. Or else we say that 'x' percent only can fail, and if the pass mark is 50 and too many fail - the Member from Rhineland shakes his head but - the case is different depending on who you talk with. You talk to high school examiners, you get one story; you talk to university professors who have acted on the examining committees, you get a different case -- the fact is that the matriculation course is not doing what it ought to do.
Now there is an alternative. I don't think we ought to make the courses easier. I think the courses, the standards for those entering University ought to be made tougher. But the alternative is to provide a course for those people who are not going to go on to University. Now there are some cities, some provinces, which are doing this, for example, the Ryerson Institute in the City of Toronto provides a very excellent alternative to those students who are not going on to University. What I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is this, I would hope that in the next year or so that a good deal of time and effort on the part of the department and it's advisory in the University and whoever else they will use, and of the Minister, should be taken in looking at this whole question of curriculum. Because I think that unless the curriculum is revised so that everybody works to the best of their ability -- now I'm not one of those who believes that if a person can't manage the University entrance that they ought to be thrown out of school -- I think that everybody ought to have the opportunity to take the education which they can assimilate, but I think it is a waste of funds and effort and the time of good teachers trying to get students who are not going to go on to University, who are not able to pass the present matriculation course, to have them working at it when they should be at something else.
With these few remarks I am going to sit down, Mr. Chairman. I think that one would be mistaken and somewhat foolish to be entirely critical of a department which is expanding at the rate which this department is, but I think a good deal still needs to be done. I wasn't here when the Honourable Member for Rhineland was the Minister of Education. I'm not trying to defend the government -- I find it hard to follow his explanation that all that is being done is an orderly continuation of what he started. This is quite a continuation. I find it hard, for example, to ...
MR. MILLER: ... examine it.
MR. ORLIKOW: Well, alright, let's examine it and I'm sure the Minister can handle his own department, but I notice that the ... [Interjection] Yes, I know. He said that the University got everything which they wanted from the former government. Well, I notice that this year they are getting $700,000.00 more than they got last year. Now their sites jumped suddenly - I'm inclined to think that probably what happened was that the University (and they are probably doing it with this government, they would do it with any government) - they don't ask for everything they would like to get or for everything they need to get; they probably ask for a little more than they expect to get, and that's why they asked for a good deal less from the former minister -- and they got a good deal less, -- that's why they are asking and getting more now. And probably if we were in the government they'd get more.
MR. MILLER: May I interject, Mr. Chairman? I want to put the honourable member straight. If he will consult the previous estimates, he will find that in each successive year, very, very substantial increases were granted to the University, and I am entirely correct in stating that the University in the last few years got all they asked for. Naturally they increased their sites, time changed, I mentioned it this afternoon that costs increased, the enrolment increases and so forth. Naturally they get more.
MR. ORLIKOW: Well, Mr. Chairman...
MR. MILLER: ... all in the evidence.
MR. ORLIKOW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the evidence on this page. They are getting an increase of $700,000.00 this year. The total they are getting this year is $2,800,000.00. If you go back by $700,000.00 steps, you wouldn't have to go back very many years until they would have got nothing.
MR. MILLER: Again I want to - I want to list the services.
MR. ORLIKOW: I'll read it back, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MILLER: No, no. I just want to correct the information.
MR. WILLIS: Who's making this speech?
MR. MILLER: On the year ending March 31st, 1958, University of Manitoba general grant $1,500,000.00; the year ending March 31st, 1959, $2,157,000.00; non-recurring expenditures in the previous year '58 - $96,900.00; in the following year $115,000.00, so there has been a substantial increase and I'm sure the Minister will correct that statement when he replies.
MR. ORLIKOW: Well, Mr. Chairman, how shall I put it, the honourable member when he was the Minister of Education got his religion very late in respect to education. He learned very late.
Mr. Chairman, it is not my job - nor my desire to particularly defend this government. I think that the estimates show that a beginning has been made in a number of important fields. I've tried to point out some important matters in which I think a good deal more consideration will have to be given, and I can assure my Honourable Friend from Rhineland, and the members on the other side, that if we don't think they are giving the consideration to the items we think are important, that we will continue to remind them. I've tried to highlight a few. I'm sure as we gone on with the esimates, item by item, that we will come to other matters on which I am sure we will have some suggestions and criticisms to make.
MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q.C. (Ethelbert Plains): Mr. Chairman, what I am about to say has more or less been prompted by some of the remarks made by the Honourable the First Minister and the Minister of Education. I will try not to be critical; I will try to be factual in what I have to say. I would like to refer to the remark of the Honourable the First Minister when he was introducing the motion before the Chamber, and if you turn to page 242, I believe it is, we see this statement when he came to the Department of Education - "Manitoba citizens voted overwhelmingly for a change in the system of education". Well, whether that vote was overwhelming or not, I think is a matter of opinion. I feel that we have many more people than the 47% that voted that are interested in education, and it would be of some interest to know why so many people who are interested in education failed to turn out on that vote, especially after you consider the fact that there was a great deal of concentrated propaganda, a great deal of money spent, hundreds of meetings held.
And while I am on this subject, I think it would be of interest to the members of the House if the Minister of Education could give us all the approximate amount that that campaign prior to that vote cost the people in this province, breaking it down into advertising and transportation, and so forth. But with that tremendous propaganda, with the hundreds of meetings that were held, it is surprising that so few turned out to vote. And there may be a good and sufficient reason for that. It could very well be that the people of the province sensed that they were not being told the whole story -- and I don't think there is any question about that. We heard some criticism from the Minister of Education here the other day in which he chided some of the members of the Opposition for pointing out the disadvantages of the plan and I think the chiding was misplaced. After all is said and done, I think the people of this province who are paying the shot, are entitled to know the whole story, both the advantages and the disadvantages, because if the disadvantages are not told them, then of course we come back to that old adage that the "chickens will come home to roost". And I do believe that some of those chickens are winging their way to the government rookery right now. They will be roosting there not before too long and some of them, in fact, have just about alighted. And I believe it would have been wiser had the people been acquainted with both the advantages and the disadvantages. As to the Honourable Minister's chiding of the Members of the Opposition for pointing out some of the disadvantages, I don't think they can be blamed for it. The plan at best is only half-baked and I'm not altogether blaming the Minister for this. There is a long, long way to go yet before the plan will come anywhere near providing equal opportunity to the children of this province.
Now the Honourable the Minister made another statement that I didn't think was well
considered, and that statement appears on page 367 of the Hansard. He went on to speak about the high calibre of the trustees that offered their services to the school divisions and then he makes this statement, and I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I think that statement is ill considered. "That the success of the plan depends in a very large measure upon the way in which they are able" (and here he is referring to the trustees of the division boards), "in which they are able to conduct the business of the school division during the first year of operation." Well, Mr. Chairman, that looks very much to me as if the Minister is trying to pass the buck to the trustees of the board divisions. With a shaky foundation such as was provided to these division boards, how can you expect them to build anything sound upon that foundation?
Now all that is almost entirely due to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the government failed for reasons best known to itself to implement the main features of the recommendations of the Royal Commission: and one of these was the merit rating. As I understand the press reports, the trustees of the board divisions are somewhat concerned with the manner in which the secondary teachers salaries have skyrocketed. Well, there was a provision or a recommendation in the commission's report anticipating this possibility and the commission recommended that the increments be limited to 2-1/2 years immaterial of how many years of teaching any particular person had to his credit. If that ceiling had been placed on the salaries, the boards wouldn't have found themselves in the position that they do at the moment, nor would the Minister find himself in the predicament that he does find himself in. I can say quite sincerely, I can compliment the Minister and the government for having brought in the skeleton of a plan that they have -- but as far as the plan itself is concerned, it has too many weaknesses, very serious weaknesses that could have been overcome by simply following the recommendations of the commission, and this was not done. Now the grants have been considerably increased but the plan calls for considerably greater increases if we wish to attain or achieve the objective that the government has set for itself. The honourable member who just preceded me pointed out that the cost of education, in spite of the fact that the grants have been increased, the cost to the local taxpayer is still high percentagewise. And from what I see in the rural areas, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the additional costs are going to be placed on real estate in the way of municipal taxes - are going to be beyond the ability of the taxpayers to pay. And if anything of that nature should happen, this plan may die in its infancy, and I'm quite sure that none of us would like to see that happen. And I quite seriously, Mr. Chairman, recommend to the government, and in particular the Minister of Education, that they get themselves well acquainted with the difficulties that have arisen and that they prepare to meet those difficulties.
This isn't the session at which this particular plan is being implemented, this is the third session that we have had in which education has been discussed and no improvement has been made at all over the original plan that was inaugurated in the special session of 1958. And I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that these weaknesses were evident then and drawn to the attention of the government. Nothing has been done. I'm afraid that these troubles are going to pile up. They may pile up to a degree where the government will not be able to cope with them. And I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that something should have been done at this session to meet those very obvious failings of the plan. I would be interested to know, for one, what is the committee on merit rating doing? Can we expect a report from them before the session is over, or have they been dissolved and the committee no longer in existence? Because I do think, Mr. Chairman, that without some system of merit rating, and what we've seen happen in the last two or three months, is evidence enough that we must do something about it. There may be no easy solution, but we have ventured upon a plan and we must be ready to meet all the difficulties and obstacles as they come along.
Now Mr. Chairman, I know this is a difficult task. It's an enormous task. I've known the Honourable the Minister of Education for quite a number of years as a private citizen and as a public official in the Town of Dauphin. I know he is a hard worker. I know he is conscientious -- but I say to him in a friendly gesture, without any criticism, that he'll have to take a much more serious view in anticipating the headaches that he can expect from this particular plan. And I want to repeat in closing, Mr. Chairman, that he'll have to be ready to come out at the next session with a great deal more than he has to offer us at the present.
MR. E. GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Chairman, considerable concern has been
expressed in my constituency by both the school trustees and municipal men over the government regulations dealing with maintenance grants. I'll quote some figures from the Lundar school district to prove my point. In the Lundar school the estimated maintenance costs for a year are $5,000.00. Their estimated rentals, for this year will be $3,600.00. Now the policy of the government is that the School Board must deduct the rental from the estimated costs which is $3,600.00 from $5,000.00 leaving a balance of $1,400.00. The school is, therefore, eligible for grants 75% of the $750.00 per teacher or $562.50. Now if this school didn't, those three rooms, they would be eligible for grants - for maintenance grants of $2,812.00 or an increase of $1,762.00 over the present policy. The School Board feel that this is an injustice - that they are not getting the full maintenance grants that are being offered by the government in view of the fact that they are renting a number of rooms to the larger division. And they want this government to eliminate that regulation whereby they must deduct the rentals from the estimated maintenance costs.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I would like to express some opinions, more of a constructive nature rather than being critical of the Honourable Minister of Education. I don't think that at the present time we have any reason to be critical of the stand of the job that the Minister of Education has done in the past twelve months. As a matter of fact, I would say that it could be due to initiativeness, aggressiveness on the part of the Minister himself that I - that education definitely has taken a step forward which should have been taken many, many years ago. There's no question about it. Let's be honest about it. And I think the public is fully aware of that.
What I intend to say, Mr. Chairman, it's something that I have spoken before, there is something I might add to it. the previous years that I attempt to clarify the position that the teachers are faced with in the province, particularly in Greater Winnipeg, which I wish to reiterate today is that all that we've waited many, many years and we've read from time to time and I know that I speak for the fact that we on this side of the House for many, many years hoped that the previous government would go ahead and give that opportunity to the child whether they lived in the city or in the rural areas. Equality of education - it's a phrase that has been bandied a little too much. There's no question in my mind and in the mind of the public as a whole that I feel that the children in the rural areas possibly did not have those opportunities. Now why do I say this? Because we're faced with the same problem in Greater Winnipeg even up to the present time. Now the type of course we are offering to our students for many, many years, we have been, and still are, catering to the select few. We still are, in spite of the fact that statistics prove that for every thousand children that start in Grade I and by the time they reach Grade XII or supposedly finish Grade XI, barely 8% to 10% enter University. Even today, 1959, where the parents have the means - have the funds - and a desire to say, "my child should get the very best", but you cannot in many cases force your child to higher education unless they have the faculty and the ability. It's impossible. And yet in 1959 right across Canada, statistics prove that we are actually catering in the courses that we are offering today to bearly 10% of the people that will enter the University. And yet there is a big demand for these people. There's a shortage of geologists and doctors and research workers. We need those people. Other countries are attempting to do it on a mass scale. What I'm trying to say is this, Mr. Chairman, have we lost the sight of the fact that we've got to cater to the other 90%? That problem has faced me and faced many other teachers who have taught in this province for many years but I offer this, the one type of course to my students knowing that I can't give them anything else and yet we find that in many cases he cannot continue, he had to ... no ability to carry on in the particular courses that we offer. Now we do offer three types of courses. As a matter of fact in some towns they even offer a course in commercial training. We also offer a specialized technical course in some of the towns. But the bulk of our people - the bulk of our efforts - is for the select few. And as a result, we lose hundreds and thousands of our young people who are left by the wayside because we cannot offer them something else. Now I'm speaking about Greater Winnipeg. I think your problem in the country is probably just as bad. But for years I've asked and appealed to the government - the previous government - that they should also give the opportunity to the people outside of Winnipeg, anybody within easy range of a city of say 20 to 25 miles in which the daughter or son
can come in and take a vocational course. The City of Winnipeg fortunately has one of the finest vocational guidance schools on the continent. They have, there's no question about it. But can I turn around to a pupil in a suburb and say, "Son, I don't think it's desirable, or you cannot continue with the matriculation course". The only thing we can offer in many cases right now - at the present time - is a commercial course incidentally which was just introduced two or three years ago in the suburbs of Greater Winnipeg. And yet I cannot do anything about it. We keep that youngster in for a year or two and then it's inevitable, he's discouraged or else he gets into difficulties, he finds it a problem to cope with the work and he quits at the age of sixteen, seventeen. What have we done for him? Are we preparing him for anything? You can't blame the teachers. You can't blame the principal in charge because we have nothing else to give that youngster. And if I want to send somebody to Tec Voc and I'm faced with the problem continually then unfortunately the parents have to pay and the sum today is around $375.00 per child. That's a lot of money. I've asked from time to time, that I felt that the government should also build a vocational school probably in the suburbs - after all there's still land available - where all the people as I say within a range of 25 to 30 miles could go to that school and the government would then make some arrangements with the municipalities and they would subsidize it and the municipalities would come across and pay maybe 50% for the student that was attending that school. Now I'm speaking very sincerely because this is a problem that I'm faced with at the present time, and yet there is no way of finding any way of solving this particular problem. And I think it is the duty of the members of this House to realize that we cannot all be doctors, we can't all be professional men - it's ridiculous. If we took a survey of the members of this House here - I don't know how many are professionals here but I would venture to say possibly 25%.
[Interjection by a member]
MR. HAWRYLUK: Well, they're not professionals - a profession is a line of work but they're not professionals. But the question is that you have to remember that we have to give the unfortunate people an opportunity in this world of competitive jobs - an opportunity to make a living. Your son - your child possibly is in that position - will be in that position right here in the House because I venture to say that all of your children in this House here will not go to University and yet you have to give them some type of vocation - something that he will be able to benefit - something that his talent, whether it's with his hands - a diversified course - giving more of our people an opportunity than it has been up to the present time. Possibly the largest group plan that you have has come about, has been conceived - I know there is a lot of pitfalls in that - but possibly the fact that the largest school area might solve that problem in rural areas where you are going to set up vocational schools on a small scale. And I'm appealing for those people in Greater Winnipeg, that is in the suburbs of Winnipeg. We have nothing to offer our people. We offer shops, yes. But the kind of shops that we offer is just bare fundamentals. I'm talking about a vocational school where they can learn a trade. Our youngster goes there when he is seventeen, or a girl, she's got a trade. Something they can fall back on when they leave rather than looking for a type of employment that many of them can't get. Don't forget, a youngster going out seeking a job in this day and age and I have a lot of them come back - a youngster that quits in Grade IX, his chances of getting work today are very, very limited because competition -- for every Grade IX child or VIII child that attempts to get a job at age sixteen or seventeen, there are four or five boys and girls with Grade XI education, and they possibly would have preference. And I would certainly appeal to the government that you should give it a lot of thought. We lose too many of our young people who are left by the wayside and they are lost - they are completely lost and unfortunately our juvenile courts are littered with young people who have nothing to do - they are the ones that have quite - hang around corners, poolrooms and our homes are pretty well filled - girls' homes, boys' homes, filled with these youngsters. And I think society can take some blame to that - I think we should take some blame for that because of the fact that we aren't giving these people an opportunity in some other type of vocation.
May I say something now, very briefly, about one other aspect in order to raise the standards of our young people that we've got to raise those standards by setting a level where our young people in Grade VII, VIII, and IX and X and XI have to be prepared to do. What has been the policy for years? We have allowed many of our youngsters going in from grade
seven to eight, to nine, to ten on probation. Our records prove it. I've got the facts here for what we've allowed to get ... in the normal schools for the past five years - people with 'sups' in Grade XI and in Grade XII. But at least they have the Grade XI.... We actually have been encouraging youngsters to say, "Well, if I can get a 50%, I'm in." That's exactly what we've been doing for many, many years, possibly we're not the only province, possibly every other province has done the same because, mass production I would say. But, we have lowered our standards of achievement -- lowered the standards in the eyes of the youngster, for he has been pushed from one grade to another for years and he's always had two or three 'sups' hanging over his head, and he never has to worry about writing them off. It's a paradise, and with that attitude, is there any wonder that the results of the university level have been what they have in the past number of years? I think that the government will have -- the Department of Education will have to insist that any youngster going into -- I'm starting at the Grade IX level, that goes into Grade X -- and goes into Grade XI will have to get his supplementals off, in order to get a clear standing. You simply have to advocate that and you simply have to make sure that those youngsters will have understood that unless they get those supplementals off they will not have a clear standing and in some cases I would even suggest that they be penalized. You simply have to do that. They go in with a lackadaisical attitude and the result is "I'll go into University, I've made my Grade XI -- I've barely made it with a 51%" and he goes out to the University and the result is -- the results have been deplorable.
I would suggest that summer schools be set. But, a real summer school, something that has meat to it, where a youngster if he's ambitious or she's ambitious, then the parents would be compelled to pay a fee, a fairly good fee, because if a parent has to -- if the youngster knew that he had to go to summer school, and the parent knew that he had to pay for that, I can assure you that the parents would make sure that they would get after the youngsters too, but they take the same attitude - so my child got away with two or three 'sups' for Grade IX or X, why should I worry about it? And, the result is that the parents to some extent are to blame as well. I think that summer schools should be set up, and in various centres, whether it's in the rural areas, in the largest centres where the youngster is compelled to spend a period of a month or five weeks and pay for that, and I can assure you that the standards would go up within a space of four or five years.
I'll not go into details about supplements, I have some interesting figures here, that seem to fluctuate from one year to another. I'll just briefly tell you. Why is it that one year in Grade XI or XII you'll have 50% failures, another year you'll have 35%; social studies, one year it's 32.8, another year 19.6; physics 40.1, 23.4 another year; and so on. Now it might be due to the paper set, the type of examination questions asked, possibly the marking of the papers, and those are some of the factors that could be considered.
Now in some of the other provinces, - and may I say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that these criticisms are something that have been published in the papers from time to time, and at any teachers' convention they talk about this particular problem and they feel that something can ... For example, in British Columbia, the examination results are used as a guide to establish the lowest group in the province. And if for instance it was found that the long-term average failure rate in physics was 15%, that's possible, and it happens in Manitoba, the department fails the lowest 15% writing exams, not just those that happen to get less than 50%. I think, Mr. Chairman, that a provincial group of educators should be set up to advise, I know we have a board in operation now, and I don't want to be too critical, I don't think we are in a position to be critical of the board that is set up at the present time, and studying the current examinations that have been in operation for many years. But this is a suggestion that has been brought to my attention, in which this board would be set up, made up of the University of Manitoba representatives and some from the Department of Education, who would check and check the examination set-up and do some extensive research work in the various subjects.
There should be a survey made - now possibly this is being done -- I'm not going to question that -- maybe I'm repeating something that has been done, or is being done, and that a survey should be made in the province before an examination is set in order to determine the norms for this examination, and there should be more choice questions given which will enable the student to cover fairly that paper. I think there are certain types of papers in which they
cannot get too many options, but we find that sometimes the questions are given in such a way that they can have a great deal of amiguity. It's very difficult for the youngster to understand exactly what the core of that question is. There should be clarity.
Now, one more appeal to the Minister is this, I think it would be about time, Mr. Minister, that we should have an overhaul of some of the textbooks that are being used. Some of those textbooks have been used for a minimum, in many cases, of ten years if not more. And I would like to appeal the fact that I think that we have many Canadian authors -- we have some top-notch Canadian people that should be given an opportunity to have their books used in the various schools in Manitoba. I think we have many capable men and women who have published books in which I don't think we have taken advantage. We should encourage more of our Canadians, former students, former graduates, and I think we should use a great deal of their books.
Now, oh, a few months ago I read an article in the paper - whether this was done in jest or whether it was done in a sincere way by this particular person or persons on a general discussion -- you might have recalled that Mr. Minister, in which somebody said that each teacher should be allowed to given latitude to select his or her own choice of books to the classroom -- I think you might recall that. Now, I think that would be the biggest mistake ever, to allow each teacher in each classroom to take the book that she or he wanted to teach or use in that particular case. It would be the biggest mistake ever and I think that the curriculum committee that had been set up should continue doing the good work in choosing the best type of books.
The only thing I can say in closing is this, I think the fact that you've increased the number of inspectors in the province, is an excellent idea, because Mr. Minister, this is the problem, we've heard about merit rating as far as teachers, is a must, and I agree wholeheartedly with the person who deserves more pay should get it for the work they put into their work, but the job there is going to be a very delicate one and I think the fact that you will have enough inspectors, I think the bulk of your inspectors are going to have to be the central pivot point in which they are going to have to work with your principals and possibly with your superintendents and supervisors in any area in order to make this merit rating a partial or even a wholly successful venture. It's a very touchy problem, merit rating, because you are dealing with teachers, because it's not merit rating, based on qualifications academically, but on the ability of a teacher as a teacher. The only criticism I can say, Sir, is this: by the fact that we've appealed time and time again about accepting students into the teacher's college, I was very sorry to hear, to read in the paper that for this coming year that you were taking these students in with Grade XI standing and two clear subjects and any number of 'sups' in Grade XII. I think this is the only province in western Canada and that includes Ontario as well, if I recall, that are taking teachers -- future teachers into the teacher's college with those low standings. I think that Saskatchewan has eliminated that -- Alberta certainly did many years ago, so did British Columbia and Ontario, and unless we are to encourage more of our young people in, I think we should within a year or so accept no one unless they have a Grade XII as a standing, and with these words, Mr. Chairman, they have all been of a constructive nature and I can assure you that I speak from experience, I hope that the government will see fit to do something about some of the main problems that I have mentioned this evening.
MR. GROVES: Mr. Chairman, ever since the new schools plan went into effect, each time the session has met we have -- it has always been fair game -- everybody has chosen to snipe at this new plan and as we sit here today we hear a lot of backhanded compliments being paid to the Minister of Education, everybody gets up and says what a wonderful fellow the Minister is, how hard he is working, what a good job he's doing for education in Manitoba, and then they say but -- and then they start off with anywhere from half to three-quarters of an hour dealing with all the things in the Department of Education that are wrong and all the things that the Minister is doing that are wrong, and they're telling him that his chickens are going to come home to roost and this, that and the next thing.
Well, I've done a little bit of research in my own constituency. I made it my business to find out how things were standing education-wise in the constituency of St. Vital, since this new plan went into effect. A few days ago, the Honourable Member from St. Johns mentioned the fact that he had phoned the St. Vital School Board or School Division office, and they had told him that there was going to be a one and one-half mill increase in the school taxes
this year. Well, that is quite correct, Mr. Chairman, there is going to be an increase of a little less than one and one half percent in the school taxes in the St. Vital School Division this coming year. This coming summer, the School Division of St. Vital is building a number of new school -- two new schools and they're making substantial additions to three others. The contracts awarded for this construction work amount to $1,105,690.00. If you take into consideration the blackboards, and the furniture, and the fixtures that have to go into these schools, and the additions, the total cost of this building program will amount to $1,170,000.00. All of this new school construction was planned well before the new schools plan was introduced into this House. As a matter of fact, all of this new construction was planned by the old school board of St. Vital, prior to the government's receipt of the Royal Commission report. Under the old system of grants, the school division would have received a 40% grant on this new construction. Now, with the combination of the 40% grant on the elementary school and the 75% grant on the secondary school, they will receive approximately $600,000.00 by way of provincial grants towards this construction program, and the taxpayers of our school division are going to be on the current year's operation some $132,000.00 better off with this new plan than they would have been with the old. All of the members of the House will remember that the school divisions vote was not actually held in St. Vital. The vote was deferred pending the outcome of a referendum to be held in the municipality for the formation of a Municipal School District to consolidate the six existing school districts within the municipality. The Minister of Education, of course, had agreed after a meeting with the school boards in question and the council, to defer the vote until after the result of this referendum was known. The Municipal School District was approved by a vote of 10 to 1, and it was subsequently declared to be a division by the Minister. Now, even although the majority of the ratepayers knew that they were adding schools to the existing School District of Glenlawn that were not up to the standards of the schools in Glenlawn District itself, they did approve this by a very substantial majority. The School Division Board this year intends to spend on these schools that were added by way of maintenance -- not maintenance, but repairs and major alterations this coming summer the following amounts in the following schools: Mountbatten School - $8,565.00; St. Germaine School - $5,150.00; Lavallee School - $13,065.00; Vermette School - $10,020.00. This is a total of $36,800.00 in expenditures by the new School Division to bring up to standard these smaller schools from the smaller districts that were incorporated into our system by the Municipal School District Referendum. And I might point out that the Board is this year cutting down very considerably on the repairs and maintenance of the existing schools in the old Glenlawn District in order to better the facilities for the children in these smaller schools. And this is a very commendable action. In fact, it's one of the things which was mentioned quite often when the new schools plan was being considered. Because what we're doing is that we are taking away from those that have and giving to those who haven't.
I might also point out that this 1-1/2 mill increase is a 1-1/2 mill increase in the rate for the new School Division compared with the rate in the old Glenlawn School District. And we'll find if we analyze that situation that, although there is a 1-1/2 mill increase in the old Glenlawn District, there are increase of more than that in some of the other districts and also some substantial decreases. With the 1-1/2 mill increase that would make the school assessment this year 26.1 mills in all of the districts -- the old districts that now form the St. Vital School Division. In Glenlawn District in 1958 their mill rate was 24.6; this year it'll be 26.1 -- so there's an increase of 1-1/2 mills that the Honourable Member from St. Johns brought to our attention the other day. In Lavallee School District their mill rate in 1958 was 28.78; this year it'll be 26.1 -- so there's a decrease of 2.68 mills. Vermette School District last year 20.13; this year 26.1 -- an increase of 5.97 mills. St. Germaine School District in 1958 a mill rate of 20.48; this year 26.1 -- an increase of 5.62. Now, we have a very interesting one. Mountbatten School District - 38.98 mills in 1958; in 1959, 26.1 -- a decrease of 12.8 mills. Campau School District - 27.23 in 1958; 26.1 in 1959 -- a decrease of 1.13 mills. So we can see that although there is a mill rate increase of 1-1/2 mills in the larger of these districts, and there are increases of larger amounts in some that there are some fairly substantial decrease that we must take into consideration when looking at the overall picture. But the School Board isn't actually complaining, even although, I'm informed that teacher's grants in the new St. Vital
Schools Division will exceed the amounts that were set out in the schedule to the new plan by a fairly substantial amount. But, and the Board members tell me that they agree with this, the people of the province and of our school division were told at the time that they voted for the new school division, particularly in respect of the teacher's salaries, that the Government would pay in teachers' salary grants only up to a certain maximum that was provided for in the regulation. And I think that everybody, School Trustees and the general public, knew that if the School Board were going to pay teachers' salaries in excess of these maximums, that these excess salaries, if we could call them that, would then be a charge on the local taxpayers.
Although our school budget actually has not been approved for the year and is not yet public information, the estimates prepared by their staff and the Department of Education indicate that they will receive this year increases in Provincial Government Grants of a fairly substantial amount. And you can well imagine the situation this year had the new grants not been forthcoming. It would have been a very dismal picture indeed, I would say, for the local taxpayers. And I would like to emphasize that in my opinion none of the expenditures of our School Board have been increased directly because of the fact that the new schools plan came into being. Even with respect to teachers' salaries they were already paying good salaries that were attracting teachers from the City of Winnipeg, and I think that the action taken by the West Kildonan School Board in respect to teachers' salaries had more to do than anything else with the salary situation as it existed in Greater Winnipeg, particularly in the suburbs.
We must also keep in mind, I think, when we're discussing this new schools plan that this plan was implemented primarily for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunities in Manitoba. To guarantee to each boy and girl in the province a high school education and a decent school in which to receive that education. And there is every reason to believe that this new plan is going to see that this happens. And there's also every reason to believe that the new School Division Boards in the province are approaching this matter from this point of view, of putting the interests of the boys and girls of our province first. No speaker that I know of at any of the meetings that were held during the campaign to sell this new school plan, was foolish enough to make the statement that this was the cure-all for all of the educational ills in Manitoba. And I was privileged to speak at a good many of these meetings, that this plan wouldn't be a cure-all for education in Manitoba; that it was going to take time and that it was a big step in the right direction.
I'm sure that both the Royal Commission in recommending this plan and the Government in implementing it realized that municipal property taxes for educational purposes had reached a dangerous high, and it was my interpretation of this new system that it's prime purpose was the improvement of secondary education in Manitoba and the Government was prepared to bear the additional cost that was necessary to accomplish this. I'm sure that as the years go by, and the cost of education rises, as surely it will, that grants will have to be correspondingly increased to cover expenditures approved by the Department of Education necessary for the operation of a good system. But at the same time I sincerely believe that School Division Boards also must bear their share of the responsibility in this regard, and realize that if they are to spend money over and above the reasonable maximum and the reasonable approved operating expenses set by the Department, that expenditures for these purposes must be passed on to the local taxpayers. This then is a partnership venture of the Provincial Department of Education and the Division Boards; a venture towards the improvement of education in Manitoba and a venture in which both have their part to play and their responsibilities to shoulder.
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, I take advantage of this opportunity to recapitulate on some of the matters which were brought up during this sitting this evening, and in addition there might be one or two matters quite new and quite undiscussed thus far that I will raise.
The very first thing which I think should be pointed out to the Minister is something which already has been pointed out and that has to do with the situation as regards the tax on real property at the municipal level. Unfortunately a lot of people are not aware -- and this should be some comfort to the Minister -- a lot of people are not aware that even had we remained under the old organization, the old set-up in education, that the tax rate, the mill rate would have had to go up. Honourable members over in that group must be feeling, - they must be presupposing that teachers would have been content to teach for salaries as low as they were
before when they say that it's the Government's fault or when they do impute or infer that the rate or the rise in real property tax is a result of the School Divisions plan being put into operation. I would hasten to tell the Honourable Minister that it is true that there is growing dissention, at least I can speak for my area, there is growing dissention due to the fact that the mill rates this year that we're concerned with, has gone up, on the general levy from 4 mills to 11 mills. A rise there of 7 some mills. I try to tell the people and I suppose I'm being too kind as far as the government is concerned, I tell them whenever I have the opportunity that there would have been a rise in the mill rate regardless. And I would also like to go on record this time as being quite satisfied with the School Division organization as it's shaping up so far.
As the Honourable Minister knows last fall, this winter rather, when the campaign was on to sell the idea of the larger secondary division to the public, I certainly participated to the fullest extent I was capable of, and I feel very strongly on this point, that if there's going to be any great improvement in our educational standards in this province it will be thanks to the scheme which has been implemented. In that scheme or in that type of organization lies the greatest potential for education progress. Granted there are some problems and hitches arising; we can see them arise right now for that matter. But certainly I think it would be very unfair of any opposition member to criticize the government unduly on this score. Honourable members who say that the "chickens are flying home to roost", obviously forget that prior to the Conservative Government coming to office the chicken never even became airborne insofar as education was concerned. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if there was one thing that prompted me as perhaps a lot of other young men to enter into politics, it was the fact that there were a lot of shortcomings and a lot of things being left undone that should have been done in the field of education in this province.
My colleague from Burrows spoke earlier this evening. Many of the points which he raised I concur in. I perhaps do not feel as strongly as he does on some matters, but I do sense this, even though I'm a newcomer to the profession to the teaching ranks, I do sense this in education in the last two or three years, that there has been a continuation of policy of easing off on standards or easing the standards downward. I don't think that it should surprise too many people if it were stated that a good, in fairly many cases, bonuses are given on examination marks obtained by students. Now perhaps there's an argument that could be advanced for doing this, but in the long run it would seem that this is not in the best interests of education. I don't believe that it's in the best interest of the students affected because if they do graduate they graduate only as comparatively mediocre products of a mediocre educational system. Surely we owe it to students to try and get the most out of them for their own sake, and this can only be done by having an educational system that is quite demanding. That, of course, brings to light or reveals another obvious fact which my colleague from Burrows mentioned, and that is, what about those who aren't capable of competing or producing in such a demanding school system, or under such a demanding curriculum? Well, that of course, should immediately suggest to all interested in education, that we must take some greater steps to provide non-academic instruction. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to what the ratio is at the moment, the present, but surely at least half of all students entering into our high schools are not, academically speaking, capable of continuing. And so I think that we, the state, the government is obliged or should be obliged to provide adequate instruction in trade and technical education. And surely we all know, that in this modern day and age, the need is a crying one, that is to say the need for technicians, tradesmen. It is greater than it ever was. We're pitifully short of high pressure welders, steam fitters and men such as that. Some large scale construction provinces here, at least, construction companies, have to get these fairly skilled to highly skilled tradesmen from outside the country. So here is something that ties in and I do believe that here is an aspect or a particular phase that we can make some great strides in.
And while it is still in my mind, I think the time is appropriate to make some mention of the attitude which I seem to discern in the remarks made by the Honourable, the Member from Rhineland. He didn't actually say so but it seemed to me at the time that he was of the opinion that teachers' salaries were responsible for a good part of the problem which affects education right at the moment, and also the financial, the tax aspect of it.
MR. MILLER: Don't you read the newspapers?
MR. SCHREYER: Oh yes, I do, honourable member. It seems to me that as a teacher and as a newcomer to the ranks I would certainly have to say this, that teachers cannot complain of their salaries. They cannot complain any longer. However, I don't think that it is fair for any member in this Assembly to infer that they are getting too much; perhaps we have hit the right scale right now. In any case, in any case, Manitoba has always followed the other provinces, at least our western neighbour provinces as regards the paying of teachers. Perhaps for the first time in 30 or 40 years, this province is paying more - teachers in this province are being paid more. So this surely is no cause for complaint. I would say, and I'm speaking as a teacher now, that any further increases in salary might be unjustified. But up to now, I think it has perhaps been a very fair and happy situation.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to some more specific matters. There is the matter of language instruction in our high schools. As you may or may not be aware of, German used to be taught in city high schools, at least in eight of the city high schools, until some few years ago. And then because of the meagre government outlays for education - the teaching of German had to be cut in five of these eight schools. As a result, in this fairly large city, there are only three high schools that are able to provide instruction in German.
And then there is the matter of education or rather of examinations. I would just like to point out to the Minister that intermittently now for the last seven or eight years, (that's as far back as I would care to comment on), intermittently it's noticeable, very noticeable, we see grammatical errors and awkward sentence structure in the composition of the paper. I wouldn't say that the people that make up the paper are necessarily the ones to blame. I would like to know this, and if the Minister is in a position to answer, I would appreciate it very much. Does the department or the examination board provide that board or the staff making up the paper, provide them with a proof reader? - Someone to, in a formal atmosphere and in a formal way, proof read that paper - checking it for wrong spelling, for sentence structure, awkward sentence structure and for grammatical errors outright? Because, for example, here I have a grade ten science paper, and just to give you - I suppose some honourable member will think that this is trivial, but it is not because learning is a unity and there is no excuse for having wrong English usage in a science paper. Students when they sit down to write an examination, their minds are greatly impressed with the type of English used there. And if their mind fixes on awkward use of English, they are very apt to become victimized and use it themselves. And after all, we spend a great deal of money to teach students the proper use of English, for twelve years, during the twelve years that they go to school, if they do go to school that long, and then on the examination paper, perhaps the only paper that they really pay special attention to, -- there is improper English usage. And how much would it cost, the services of one proof reader for one day, perhaps for two days, to check all the papers? Surely this isn't a question then of an outlay of money. And I believe it should be done.
Here we have some awkward use of the language, for example, "Classify as to mixture or solution, milk, wine, concrete, ink". It's rather awkward. "Diagram and label neatly to show", there again rather awkward. And then we have a word spelled wrong, principle - there is an obvious misspelling, no need for that. And then we have a rather glaring example of awkward useage, "Give three problems in families which arise from the excessive use of alcohol". I mean, that is awkward. I just don't see why it should be allowed to happen. There are some other comments that I would like to make, but however I notice that they might more properly come under some of the specific items later on. Thank you very much.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, the comments which have been contributed to this consideration by the member for Brokenhead and the member for Burrows and others, in part, serve to emphasize the concern which I know they and all the members of this House have, and indeed all citizens, about the standard of excellence of our educational system. And this is not a new problem because I am quite certain that it has been the problem which has existed ever since we have had formal education, and no matter what standard we might reach, naturally and properly so, we should always desire to raise the standard. Of course we mustn't get this matter, particularly of examination results, out of perspective, and I would remind the members of the House that Sir Winston Churchill himself failed in some subjects in school, perhaps according to the standards that were set in those days and might even be now, he would not be counted a good student, but he certainly made a very fine mark, perhaps made one of the greatest contributions to the welfare of mankind - so sometimes we mustn't overestimate the importance of examinations or examination results. On the other hand, it is the standard by which we judge the effectiveness of an educational system. But, as I say, these points and these questions serve to underline the real concern which we have and that's good.
Now, I wouldn't wish the members of the House to think that we are unmindful of these considerations and I would remind the House that the -- we are on notice that the final report of the Royal Commission on Education will have something very definite to say concerning the matter of curriculum, standards, examinations and all of the related matters. And may I just point out that if we are successful in having the estimates of this department approved by the House, that we have plans made for a Director of Curricula and also for a Supervisor of Research because it is perfectly true, as the Honourable Member for Burrows has pointed out, that there is a need for constantly surveying the results, the effectiveness of the courses that are being taught, of determining the forms and the standards which should be applied, and we intend to pursue that matter with vigor, providing as I say that we have the necessary funds provided by the House to establish these positions. In addition to that, we have provided for additional grants for vocational and technical education. Now the suggestion that he made that there should be a technical or a vocational school established in the suburbs is certainly a most interesting one. I'm not -- wouldn't be prepared to say whether that would be the proper function of the Provincial Government as such, but we are not unmindful of the need for providing facilities and courses for boys and girls who cannot for one reason or another benefit from the strictly academic courses that are given, and it is quite true that there is need for providing these alternative courses so that those who can benefit from the matriculation course, the academic course, will have full opportunity to do so, and that we will be able to make the standards for those people as high as is reasonable, and at the same time make it possible for other students to obtain a good education, perhaps in a slightly different field and under -- with slightly different subjects. But we've made provision in our plans. We have increased the grants that are available for technical and vocational training and it is our sincere hope that many of the school divisions, indeed all of them, will be able to take advantage of that fact and to make considerable advance in that field.
And while speaking on the subject of technical education, and because it was raised by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, who asked the question, "What about the Technological Institute?" - It's still very much alive. We -- the plans under which we could share with the Government of Canada in the construction of an institute along the lines of the Ryerson Institute in the Province of Ontario were to have expired on March the 31st of this year. We were, however, able to arrange with the Minister of Labour and with those responsible at Ottawa to give us an extension of one year within which to prepare plans for consideration. Now it must not be misunderstood, no final plans have been made. We have that extension and we are working vigorously on the preparation of the plan to be submitted to the people at Ottawa for their approval. This of course will not be something that will take the place of High School instruction as such, because it is a method or it is an institution if it is established, which takes the place of the University and College for students who after Grade XI or XII do not wish or are unable to benefit from taking the courses which are offered at the University. It gives training of various types on the technical side as distinguished from the more academic aspect. I mention these things, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that we are fully alive - and I appreciate the fact that these points have been so ably presented here tonight - we are fully alive to the
problems which have been indicated and know that it is important that we get on with that aspect of our educational program, bearing in mind of course, that no matter what we do, it will never be entirely satisfactory, but we do have an obligation to keep pressing forward and to improve our standards as best we can. Turning, Mr. Chairman, to some of the points that were raised by other honourable members, and to deal first with a mathematical matter, that I call a mathematical matter raised by the Honourable Member for St. George, who referred to the school district with an estimated maintenance cost of $5,000, receiving grants of $3,600, net cost to them of $1,400 on which they receive a grant of 75%, and he said the school district would like us to eliminate the rentals in calculating the maintenance costs. I am quite certain they would like us to eliminate the rentals, but I would point out that we pay to the school division a maintenance grant on the $3,600, and I hardly think we could be expected to pay the grant to both the Lundar School District and to the School Division at the same time. I fail to share with my good friend and neigbor, the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains, his undying faith in merit rating. I'm not at all persuaded that it has the magic in it that he suggests. However, I want him to know that the Merit Rating Committee is still in existence and they certainly have my instructions to bring in a report and to enable us to determine what we are going to do about this important matter. As I have said before, I know that within school districts, and indeed within larger spheres, we do in effect merit rate teachers. The very obvious thing is when a school district or school division is going to employ a teacher, is to ask someone who has had some association with the teacher before about the teacher. Generally speaking, it's done by speaking to the inspector, and inspector or inspectors who have supervised the work of the teacher, and the report of the inspector is in effect merit rating of that particular teacher. We mustn't overlook the fact, of course, that all of this has a very large degree of - what shall we say? - differences of opinion that will arise among people, because some will regard a teacher as good while others would regard the same teacher as something less than good, and perhaps poor. But we do in effect have a system of merit rating, but we must not forget that the system of merit rating, the idea of merit rating, which was proposed by the Royal Commission, was a system of merit rating which would have affected the position of the teacher in relation to the grant scale, any place in the Province of Manitoba, and when one considers that, one must bear in mind that it would have to be such a system as would be fair, objective and one that would be accepted by the teachers and School Districts and School Divisions, because remember that a particular district or division might wish to have a teacher, might wish to employ the teacher at a certain salary, but if the teacher couldn't get a merit step in order to earn a larger grant, then we would not only have the teacher after us but we'd have the School District or the School Division, so that it underlines the importance of having any system of merit rating as one that will be accepted by all concerned. The Minister of Education, whoever he may be, is, generally speaking, reasonably busy, and the last thing I think he would want would be to have School districts and teachers coming to him to complain about some decision that had been made as to the merit rating of a teacher. But, one other thing with respect to what the Honourable Member has said here tonight. Merit rating has nothing whatever to do, or the lack of merit rating has nothing whatever to do with the system or with the position that now exists regarding teachers' salaries at the present time, because the grants that are payable in this year at least are all the grants -- the first grant, and the merit rating system that was proposed by the Royal Commission would have only affected future grants and have no bearing on the grants that would be payable this year, so that I would suggest to him that no difficulty has arisen this year for the lack of merit rating and maybe, maybe if we're fortunate we will have a merit rating system in effect by the time the grants, that is the increases in grants payable to School Districts come into effect from here on as the plan develops.
Now, the honourable member has warned us, of course, regarding the difficulties we may expect, and that is perfectly true that we may expect many difficulties. I think, however, that the Honourable Member for St. Vital has stated the situation in a -- certainly in a more optimistic tone and in a more realistic tone, because the fact, and I say this again, is that the School Division -- School Division Trustees have had a very large measure of success even at this early date in establishing themselves on a sound footing. They realize the problems, they realize the need of continuous application to duty, and that working together we will be able, I'm
certain, to make this plan work effectively. Not perfectly, indeed no one could claim perfection for this plan or any other plan, but I think with a very large measure of success. The Honourable Member for St. John's referred to the need for future increases in grants to School Districts and questioned whether the Province was paying the larger share that was suggested. Well, I think we all made it extremely clear when we were discussing the new plan, that so far as salaries and indeed the other items were concerned, that the grants only went as far as the levels established by the Department and by the Legislation itself. No system can be devised - no system can be devised to always take the larger share of the cost of education in any district or division, because it's perfectly obvious that a board could always keep ahead of the Provincial Government no matter how much money the Provincial Government might put in. We have to establish certain standards and if the board of its own initiative decides to go beyond that, then it obviously is their responsibility and a matter which they have to square with their ratepayers. But may I just remind him, that in two instances at least, in the case of the Town of Birtle we have a report that the -- there is a reduction of four mills with respect to their school requirements and I understand that in the Municipality of Minitonas, a reduction of some eight mills, so that it is not entirely a black picture and I haven't made any study of mill rates so far as the schools are concerned, but I mention these to indicate that the story is not entirely one-sided in respect of the local requirements for school support. As this plan progresses and because of the fact that additional grants are provided as teachers improve their qualifications and as they have further experience in teaching, because the grants and the provincial share of the grant increases, that will be where the increase will come. It would seem to me that as we go forward there will be a larger and larger part of the total cost of education which will come from provincial taxation, with the local taxation being related to the general levy according to the formula that is set out in the act.
With respect to scholarships, may I remind the Honourable Member for St. John's that a fairly large part, not the largest part but a fairly large part of the money that was spent last year for scholarships in the -- and when we use the term scholarships we are talking about scholarships and bursaries, was used to assist high school students, students in Grade X, XI and XII. Very little money will be required for that purpose this year because under this new system that we have every student is provided with books, there is no tuition to be paid because the student has the right to attend a high school, they are provided with transportation or alternatively an allowance to be paid on board and room. So that not only have we expanded the amount of money available for this total matter of scholarships but there is an important segment where it was necessary before that it will no longer be necessary and that in effect that we have added to the assistance in two ways, and I would just point that out for his consideration. The Honourable Member for Rhineland asked me to indicate to him where our differences of opinion were concerning education. He wished me to elaborate on these differences. Well, I said the other day I didn't think there was any very useful purpose to be served by thus engaging in that but I would just like to mention one or two matters where there is a difference of opinion and I make no criticism of his views, that he is -- quite is entitled to his approach to these matters as I or any member of this House. But I wouldn't have him think that there are no differences of opinion. Perhaps the largest difference is with respect to our views about the role or the duty of the Government in providing leadership in advancing our educational systems. Now it's quite true that the previous administration was in office when the legislation concerning school areas was enacted and the legislation concerning secondary school areas, but the attitude or the view was the Legislation is there if you want it, you can take the necessary steps to obtain it, but as far as we're concerned we're not going to take any particular steps ourselves to promote the adoption of the new plan. Now, when we brought in the new plan I said that we believed it was a good one and that we had a responsibility as a Government to ask the people of Manitoba to accept it. If we weren't prepared to do that then we had no business bringing it in. We brought it in and we did accept that responsibility of asking the people of the Province of Manitoba to accept the new plan, in other words to take a positive role, some say too aggressive, too hasty and other adjectives that are applied, but that is a difference of approach and indicates what I meant when I said we did have some differences of opinion. With respect to the University I know not what he -- what the relationship between the Government and the University was during the time that they had the responsibility for the administration of the affairs of this
Province and I am not in a position to question his statement that the University always received exactly what they asked for.
MR. MILLER: In the last few years, I said.
MR. McLEAN: Well, in the last few years ...
MR. MILLER: Not always.
MR. McLEAN: ...but, may I just tell the House that here again we took a somewhat different approach by going to the University and saying, "Tell us what you need, not only to get by on, but give us your plans for expanding your plants and establishment to provide the widest possible University education, the best possible University education for the young men and women of the Province of Manitoba." In other words, we invited them, we invited them to expand their operations and to tell us how we could help in that field, and I strongly suspect that perhaps that was a somewhat different approach than had been adopted before. The question was asked and it soft of suggests a mystery. Who asked for the report? The Interim Report, speaking of the Interim Report, and that question has been asked a number of times. Well, I'd like to answer that question simply by saying that nobody asked for the Interim Report. The Royal Commission had been appointed by the previous administration and after we came to office last year, very properly, I consulted the Chairman of the Commission and asked him if he expected that they would have their report for us and he said that they would like to give us an Interim Report, that they were not ready to bring in their full report and that they would like to present us -- present an Interim Report, and they did present an Interim Report -- and that's the answer to that question. Some of the times I -- sometimes since I wished that they hadn't brought it in but they did and they wanted to do it and we were prepared to take some action with respect to it.
MR. MILLER: Why did it take them so long to find the answer?
MR. McLEAN: Well, I -- I - Mr. Chairman, you know it's a good idea for any person who expects to have to do a little speaking from time to time to keep something back ...
MR. MILLER: Well, you sure did.
A MEMBER: You sure did! You sure did!
MR. McLEAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland referred to some press reports arising in the past few days concerning an address which I made to a group of trustees at Clear Lake and the press report is quite accurate although I think perhaps the headline sort of telescopes it a little bit, but he did refer to the duty and responsibility of the Minister of Education to have the trustees -- to get the trustees united. He said that it would be the Minister's duty to introduce the necessary Legislation. Well, I'm not so certain about the Legislation but ...
MR. MILLER: If necessary -- I said if Legislation is necessary.
MR. McLEAN: That's correct. But I'm happy to tell him and the House that we have taken some fairly positive steps in that direction and last night, that is, previous to last evening, I arranged a meeting of the executive of the two associations and that meeting was held last night at which time I informed the -- and when I say the two associations, I'm referring to the Manitoba School Trustees Association and the Manitoba Urban School Trustees Association, I informed them of my view that the public of Manitoba would be best served by one trustee association, and suggested to them that they might well consider the formation of a completely new association for that purpose, because I recognized the difficulties of endeavouring to, as it were, mesh in two organizations, and I'm not unmindful, Mr. Chairman, of the attachment which many people have for the Manitoba School Trustees Association and its long record of service in this province. Indeed, I am glad to acknowledge that because it was formed very largely as a result of the work of a citizen of my own community of Dauphin, the late Dr. Harry McNeil, who conceived the idea of the formation of such an association and was its first president and was the president for a number of years in its early times, and I have -- I'm aware of the history and the associations which that association has, but I do feel that perhaps the time has come to have a new association which can serve all of the interests of the different School Districts and School Divisions in the Province. It's even more necessary now in view of the fact that we have School Divisions which one can't necessarily classify as being urban, they're urban and rural and there is really no clear line of distinction between any one group. I offered to that group my -- whatever to do -- whatever I could through my office, to assist the formation of such an association and I hope that our deliberations and consideration will bear fruit in that direction, because I am satisfied that the -- it is important and necessary and will be
welcomed, not only by the trustees, but indeed by the teachers who recognize that it would be good for education if we had a strong trustee association prepared to sit down around the table with the Teachers Society in the Department of Education, to work in the partnership which all of us have in that field. With respect to the standards of admission to Teachers College, may I remind the House that we have taken one important step in improving the standards when we distcontinued the Permit Course at the Teachers College, and it would seem to me that that is a substantial step in the direction of improvement, but may I just say this, that, and I perhaps should have made this more clear when I spoke in relation to a news item which had appeared a short time ago with respect to the admission of teachers -- students to Teachers College. Actually, the standard is Grade XII. However, for a number of years it has been an understanding and has been so stated in the calendar, that while that is the standard, applications will be accepted from students with at least two -- with complete Grade XI and two subjects in Grade XII, but it must be clear that if, for example, we had accommodation for six hundred students in our teacher training institution, and we received six hundred applications with complete Grade XII under that ruling and understanding, we would take all of the Grade XII students, because we are not obligated to take those who have less than the Grade XII standing unless we wish to do so, and so what I did want to make clear only with respect to the news report that had appeared, was that we were still prepared to accept applications from students with Grade XI plus two subjects in Grade XII, reserving, of course, as the syllabus points out, the right to select above that according to our accommodation that we have.
MR. MILLER: No change.
MR. McLEAN: That is correct. When will the final report of the Royal Commission be in? I believe that we will probably have that report in September or October of this year. In the only discussion that I have had with the Chairman of the Commission to enquire what he expected in that regard, he informed me that in his opinion it would likely be in either the month of September or October. The Chairman, Dr. McFarlane, is here now spending his full time at the present time in connection with the report, and I believe the Commission is holding regular meetings in order to bring its report to a final conclusion.
One final word, Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Rhineland is worried about the format of the evidence. He has, of course, had much longer experience in this matter than I have and as a very poor student in mathematics, I find any format of this type very difficult to understand. However, I do believe that it is reasonably clear, and I would point out to him that a few years ago the number of appropriations or the number of items, if that's the proper term, was reduced from 27 to 6 under his administration, and we have now made a further reduction from 6 to 4. Everything, however, is here and I would hope that I would be able to answer all of the questions which I understand are going to be asked on the various items and will be able to explain the relationship between -- hope to be able to explain the relationship between the way in which the estimates are set out in the present estimates in relation to the way in which they were set out last year. And I will welcome the opportunity to explain any item and to relate it to the way in which they were set out last year. (Hear! Hear!)
MR. PAULLEY: Just before the thought leaves me, the Minister mentioned the fact of the possibility of the balance of the report of the Royal Commission on Education being received in September or October. I would like to ask him, Mr. Chairman, has the Government come to any conclusion as to how they will handle that report when it is received? Will it be released generally to the public, or whether we will have copies of the report for study, because I presume or realize that the matter will be up for consideration, possibly at our next session, and I'm sure that the members of the House would appreciate receiving copies of the report as early as possible. But I do think it's important if it's possible for the Minister to let us know how the Government intends to handle the report.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, it was my view last fall that any Royal Commission Report should actually be tendered in the first instance, that is, brought in or -- and made public only when it is tabled in the legislature because the Royal Commission should report to the legislature. However, the plans that I had in that connection got slightly off the track and after that experience, I think I perhaps would be inclined to adopt some different procedure. Let me put it this way, however, that while no decision has been made, indeed we haven't even thought of it, I imagine I'm the only one that has thought about it, other than the honourable member --
that if it were decided that the contents be released to the public immediately upon receipt of the report that arrangements would be made to provide each member of this Assembly with a copy as soon as it is printed. Now if on the other hand, the decision is to again try to have it come to the Legislative Assembly, as I think is the right procedure, that would be the procedure that would be adopted.
MR. MILLER: Just one word in explanation. I'm sure the Minister didn't want to leave the impression that because we a couple of years ago reduced the number of appropriations to six that we didn't sedulously list the sub-appropriations, and my only criticism is that he failed to do so in this new one, and I can point out if he wants me at the appropriate time, how that has been effected.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister be kind enough to explain the answer he gave to me on that point about maintenance grants?
MR. McLEAN: Well, the School Districts of Lundar has a school building in which they rent certain rooms to the school division -- I'm not certain of the name of the division at the moment -- $3,600 is the rent which they receive. The School District of Lundary has total estimated expenditures of $5,000 for the maintenance of the school building. From the $5,000 we deduct the $3,600 which is the rent that they receive from the School Division and the maintenance grant to the School District of Lundar is based on the remainder, $1,400. In the budget of the school division, they include as a maintenance item the rent which they pay to the School District of Lundar and they receive a grant on maintenance on that $3,600...that we pay, the maintenance grant on part of it goes to the School District of Lundary, and the maintenance grant on the other part goes to the School Division. Now I am assuming, of course, and if they haven't done so, that -- at least it's the responsibility of the School District of Lundar to make certain that the rent which they receive is proper in relation to the total cost of maintaining the building. But that's the answer that I had given to the honourable member.
MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Chairman, the Board maintains that if they didn't rent, they'd be better off in getting the maintenance grant because they would get $2,800 - that's roughly figuring -- and now by renting, they'll only get $1,000 in maintenance grant. [Interjection] That's quite true but isn't the Lundar School entitled to a fair rental in view of the fact that the people around Lundar are paying for that new school, not the division? Aren't they entitled to a fair rental for those rooms because the local people pay for that school?
MR. McLEAN: Well, it may be, Mr. Chairman, that the School District of Lundar is not charging a large enough rent. I've made no comment about that except to say that it's their - it's up to them to set the rent, and I presume they would do so bearing in mind the very factors that you have mentioned.
MR. GUTTORMSON: They're charging $120 a room now, and if they charge more they're punishing the school division.
MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer briefly to, particularly the Hanover School Division, and in general to the four areas in Manitoba which failed to vote for the school plan and therefore are not receiving this equality of education that is tossed around so freely in this House; because this is a matter of fact that these areas at the present time are operating under duress and will probably find it increasingly so rather than, a matter of opinion, where other areas might be having troubles of one kind or another, or where greater opportunities should be -- should be found and things like this. So, I would like to refer to the areas, but more specifically to my own activities in these areas, because they have been subject to some disparaging remarks by both the Minister of Education and the First Minister. And I have many, many times stated my position re the Hanover division, in particular, very clearly to the people of Hanover, to the people of La Verendrye, in public, in newspapers, the local newspaper. I have advertised my opinion very clearly, and of course during the campaign, and in addition, I have without -- I might say without hesitation, I have said the same thing in private to all persons that I have said in public at any time before the school election was held, at any time before the election - the provincial election, and at any time I have spoken about it before or since. And I would like to have that made perfectly clear now -- I can say it with complete free conscience, and in fact I'd like to go through some of the things I said then, I said during the provincial election, and will say now, because little did I know how right I was.
I was accused of being a false prophet, as you all know during the campaign. I didn't
realize that this was so wrong as it was because the things I said have so soon turned out to be true. [Interjection] ... The electors of La Verendrye passed judgment on that, Sir, and you noticed the results. They passed judgment on my opinion of the school division because I campaigned mainly on it, so I don't have to back on that one. [Interruption] I'm sorry they didn't have an opportunity to.
When I spoke to the people of the Hanover division, the parts that lay in the La Verendrye School Division, unfortunately the Minister of Education, as far as I know did not come into the Hanover -- at least my part of the Hanover Division, but the First Minister did on several occasions, and the Provincial Secretary did and I spoke with them whenever I had the opportunity. There were occasions when meetings had been changed, the dates and time and place of the meetings were changed, and I was not notified of it, therefore I did not appear at the meeting, but otherwise I appeared whenever I received advice that the meetings were to be held. And, the things I said at that time I would like to repeat now. I came out wholeheartedly in favour of the plan because it provided an equality of opportunity to the children of Hanover to go to school - and this was the first things I stated and these were the last things I stated - because I felt that any plan that offered an equality and opportunity for every child in the constituency of La Verendrye or the Division of Hanover to go to school, to the best school possible at no extra cost to themselves -- this was worth supporting. I also naturally was in favour of any plan that offered a greater portion of the cost to be paid by the Provincial Government, the cost of education, and at the time of course, offered the equalization of costs, which this plan is purported to offer. And, for these reasons, I supported the plan and said so. But I think it was my duty, and I think it was only right that I should point out the things about this plan that might -- that should be pointed out -- the things that should be expressed, the things that the people should know. They should know why they are voting for and why they're voting against, or what they're voting for and what they're voting against. They should know both sides of the story. They shouldn't just hear the propaganda thrown at them saying "This is wonderful, this is good, this is going to save you money, this is better education." They should also know what the other side of the story is, too. And, I have never at any time expressed any other opinions than the ones I expressed on the platform in front of the people, in front of the First Minister, and the Provincial Secretary on the different occasions.
And the first opposition I had to the plan, and the most important one, was this: That it offered no alternative. And then whoever the case might be, in answering questions later on, whoever the member of the Cabinet who might be present at that time -- whoever -- whenever the question was asked, "Is there no alternative to this plan?" They'd say, "certainly there is an alternative, if you vote for it, you get all these things, if you vote against it, you stay the same as you are now," which of course, we know now not to be true, because the people who voted against the plan aren't in the position they were before February the 27th -- they are far, far worse off. Because the teachers within their divisions, if they can hold them, are demanding thousands of dollars more money, and so they are not in the same position they were in. They are having to raise the money -- they are having the problem of holding good teachers, and the alternative to voting for this plan therefore was going downhill, not staying where you are now, and I think that that was only fair that you pointed out that this thing -- the alternative to voting for it was a drastic one.
Then the other thing that I always mentioned is that I felt it was unfair to some areas, or at least some areas would not receive a fair shake on this, was the sliding scale of construction grants, because the large portion of Hanover Division is a fairly sparsely populated Division with -- of necessity -- because the Minister said so, they said, you'll be able to have all the schools you want and wherever you want them -- would of necessity have two and three four-room high schools, would have to construct some of these, and they would only receive 40% construction costs paid by the Provincial Government, whereas large areas would receive 75%. And if this is true, I think I was only right in pointing it out.
And then the -- well, the Minister of Education denies that he ever said this, but of course, the First Minister, the Provincial Treasurer stated quite point blank that this would not cost the taxpayers any more money. And of course, we all knew that this wasn't true; that any plan that's going to throw another so many millions of dollars into the cost of education in the province is going to cost somebody some more money; and we might as well be fair about it --
it just doesn't come out of the sky. And then the fourth thing that I always mentioned was the fact that merit rating was left out and that's been thoroughly discussed today.
And on every occasion, I always encouraged the people to vote for the plan, that I thought it was right; I thought it was my duty; I thought it was the role that I should play as their elected member to point out the good parts, the best parts, and also the dangers of a plan such as this, because electors as intelligent people should be allowed to vote for or against a plan, knowing both sides of the story. [Interjection] I don't think that's true, I don't think that's true, because I made a great point of praising - more so than any of the government speakers - a great point of praising the equality of opportunity, the opportunity of every child in every district to go to school at no extra cost to himself or to his parents, and to go to good schools. And these things I praised, because I felt that this was the important part of the whole plan -- instead of that what do we get? A money talk. This will save you money. And then, so soon, so soon after the plan has gone through and the first tax notices are out, well we hear stories of increase in mill rates all over the province already. And a very interesting one from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities Convention at St. Pierre, a week ago tomorrow, June 24th, attended by 102 registered delegates to the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Judicial Districts of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities -- and they passed a resolution unanimously stating - I haven't got the exact wording here - this is out of a press report -- "that whereas municipal taxes for education have increased in 1959; and whereas the new provincial government policy was said to lighten education load on municipal taxes; therefore be it resolved the Provincial Government provide larger grants to education to relieve local taxpayers." So soon after it was said that this will relieve the burden on the local taxpayers. And so I don't think that I have anything to be ashamed of in my stand -- in fact, I feel only more right about it than I ever did, that I saw fit to, saw it as my duty to point out these things to the people before they voted. And I think that should be the case in any type of referendum that's held.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item 1. Administration.
MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, I have usually made it a point to deal with matters of this kind on the items, rather than on the general discussion, but inasmuch as my remarks too range over several different individual items, I perhaps might say a few words on them now.
I'm not concerned as some of the folks with giving a present opinion as to merits of this plan. I think the real answer will be given within a few years time rather than now, because the real answer is going to be whether there is an improvement in education or not. And that's going to be the proof of the pudding.
But one thing that I feel that I simply must say in view of some of the remarks that have been made here this evening is that I don't take exactly the same view as some of the honourable members who have spoken with regard to equality of opportunity in education. I even differ from some of the views expressed by members of my own group, because I think that I'm to quite an extent, a bit of a radical or still a conservative or old-fashioned, or whatever term you like to apply to the ones who hold the views that I do in that regard. But I do want to say once again--as I've said several times before, that I can not join with my honourable friends the members of the C.C.F. Party and some others when they insist on weeping crocodile tears over the plight of education in rural Manitoba. The part of rural Manitoba that I am best acquainted with--and it's been my pleasure in the last few years to become acquainted with a great many parts, to some extent -- but of course the local area best of all -- the parts in the well settled areas of Manitoba, in my opinion, did not need anyone from the City of Winnipeg or any place else to be concerned about the kind of education that they were getting. And I think it's time that somebody got up once again, and struck a blow for the good old one-room school--call it the little red school house on the hill if you want to, call it whatever you like. The fact is it was giving a lot better, and still is giving a lot better education than a lot of people give it credit for, and some of the ideas of the so-called experts in education about trying to urge on the people of Manitoba, that they adopt some system -- and that's called leadership, I know -- that they adopt some system that would get away from that school, is something that we need to still consider pretty carefully. And I just don't go along with my honourable friends when they attempt to take it for granted that the people in most of the rural areas -- and I know of course there are some exceptions, were not getting a fair deal on education.
I want to ask the Minister this question -- or the former Minister, or any of the other educators, how is it if things were so wrong with the one-room school, how is it that in practically every town and practically every city that you go to that the ones who had the high school classes are the ones who came from the rural schools -- from the one-room schools? And I'll bet you that if you cast your minds back, and you'll find that regardless of where you come from you find that's a fact. And how is it that the young lady, and I think it has been a young lady in each case, who has won the scholarship that the school trustees are responsible for out here at the Teacher's College, every year, that I remember, has come from a one-roomed school? And this idea that is so prevalent among the experts - so-called - in education, and accepted as gospel by my honourable friends in the C.C.F., that the people in rural Manitoba, have in some way been suffering under some second rate education, just isn't right, in my opinion.
And that leads on to some other things with regard to this whole program. I think about the only thing that my honourable friend from Burrows said that I heartily agreed with was that merit rating is a "must". I think that's right, but, I'll bet anything that if my honourable friend and I gave our definitions of merit rating, we'd find that there our agreement ended because I'm sure that he and his group have a completely different idea on merit rating to what I have. There is a great tendency again among the experts, and the people who are bound to reform education in this province, that merit rating, the qualification -- merit rating depends upon their so-called qualifications and among their qualifications two stand out as pre-eminent, -- academic standing and experience. And I say to you with the responsibility of a person who has had something to do with education, that I think that the other qualifications are equally important, and in many cases more important that those two that I'm sure my honourable friend would put up as the qualifications. I say that attitude, and aptitude -- those two things, are equally important with academic standing and with experience. And, if a teacher has no
aptitude for teaching -- and some of them haven't -- they get worse with experience, not better. And I'm telling you that a lot of these permit teachers that you have talked about, because they've been young people, young people with the right attitude, have gone out into the rural parts of Manitoba and have taken in one-room schools, all the classes -- all the grades from Grade I to Grade IX -- every one of them; and made a mighty good job of it because they had the right attitude, and a better attitude than a good many of the high-priced teachers right in the City of Winnipeg have had.
Don't run away with the idea that these qualifications are just academic and experience -- you can have qualifications that are just as important -- more important than those. And don't be too much in a hurry -- don't be too fast, and I know I have the reputation of not being too fast as a rule, but I counsel the Honourable the Minister and the government, don't be too fast in accepting the recommendation of all these people who say to keep on eternally raising the qualifications. Don't kick the people out of the Teacher's College until you're sure that you've got a sufficiency of teachers. Because I ask you, what is the need -- what's the need of a degree -- a University degree, and then a lot of extra training -- to go out and teach a rural school where they go up only to Grade VIII? What you need is, first of all, the right attitude, and the aptitude and a lot of enthusiasm -- it takes a good bit of it, I admit, but if you've got those things.... One of these teachers, much of these permit teachers have done a dandy good job, and while I'm in favour of getting rid of the permit teachers, I say don't make the mistake of letting these so-called experts raise their so-called qualifications so high that you weed out these young people that have been doing a great job.
So this matter of equality of education. We've had a lot more equality in education than the most of the people that I have heard speaking here tonight realize -- and don't set the clock back in that regard. One of the places that there has been inequality is the way, and you can say to me "Why didn't you correct it in the years that you were there?" But one of the places that there has been inequality is this matter of accreditation of some of the high schools and not others. And one of the reasons that the young folks have not been making -- the students have not been making the progress that they have when they come up against examinations, is because there has been a tendency by these so-called progressive educationalists to get away from examinations. There again I'm showing my old-fashionedism, I suppose, but the fact is that I think, and a lot of other people think, that examinations are a good thing, should be carried along through the years -- and no wonder these students that have not been exposed to examinations at all -- no wonder that they don't do too well on them when they first come up against departmental examinations.
Well, you'll probably ask about my qualifications to discuss these questions. One thing I've never wanted to do is to talk of personalities in a matter of this kind. I very seldom offend the rule of relating my own personal experiences, but I grew up in a rural school and went to the rural school, went all the way to Grade X, took Grade X at Flee Island school -- I'll get the name in again -- Grade X as well. And when I went in for the next two years to the Portage la Prairie Collegiate Institute, everyone of the top youngsters in that school -- and I wasn't one of them, I'm not personal in that regard -- but everyone of the top ones in the years that I remember, the two years that I was in there, were from rural schools. Every one of them came from one-room schools. Not one of them from the City of Portage la Prairie at that time. And that has been my experience through the years. Then I had a couple of years at Brandon College. I often think that Brandon College has a lot to answer for when it included on its role of scholars people like Tommy Douglas and Walter Dinsdale and Stanley Knowles and myself. At least you could say that it gave them a liberal education, I guess, or a broad one, or something. And I didn't graduate there. After that I saw seven of our own children go through, most of them, through the elementary grades in rural schools, then some of them in all the different grades in the Portage la Prairie School; and then all of them in some of the grades in the City of Winnipeg schools' and six out of the seven graduated from the University. The one who didn't graduate from the University graduated as a R.N. -- so I've at least been exposed to a good bit of education during the years. And I want to go back again and say that as far as the education that our youngsters or other youngsters got out in the rural school there was nothing the matter with it, just as good as what any younsters are getting in the City of Winnipeg today. And don't think that you can't have good schools out there if you've got the right kind of teachers
and that doesn't mean that you have to have one with a Unviersity degree either. But I am getting a little off the subject that I -- but I admit that I am old-fashioned about these things, but it rather disturbs me to hear my honourable friends from this corner particularly -- they've been doing it for years and I wasn't in a position when I was sitting over there where my honourable friend the First Minister is that I could speak as freely as I can now. They've been doing this same thing for years, assuming that the people in the rural parts of Manitoba have not been getting a good education. They have been getting a good education as my honourable friend the former minister said today "when our students went to other provinces, whether they were east or west, they were found to be not only on a par with them but ahead of them". And you ask your own friends who have made those moves - military people or others. Just ask. They will tell you that they were at least equal with the rest.
Well, to quite an extent that's a diversion. What I really got up to talk about was the same point that the honourable member for La Verendrye got to, and naturally you would know that I was getting to this question of cost. And when some of the honourable members of the C.C.F. Party said tonight that it was difficult to criticize a Minister who was expending so much more money than had been done before, I think that rather fairly represents their philosophy. So long as a lot of money is being spent, they assume that that's an improvement. But we're not criticizing the Minister and I'm not criticizing the Minister at all. I have a very high regard for the Minister. We criticize policies, not the people. The only criticism that I have to offer is that my honourable friends made the mistake of selling this program on a financial basis, and they went out to the parts of Manitoba and told them that this was going to save the local taxpayer money; real property was going to benefit. And as the Honourable Member for Brokenhead said, perhaps with the developments that are taking place, perhaps the mill rates would have gone up anyway because -- teachers' salaries would probably have gone up anyway -- maybe they would have been up against that same thing. But the mistake that my honourable friend made was in being so positive that because they were injecting a lot of the taxpayers money into this system of education that the local taxpayer was going to benefit directly. They didn't try to conceal the fact that he was going to pay his share of what the province was putting in, but they did certainly try to make the point that the burden on real estate would benefit. And one of the things that I said at the time was that I had seen so much of the increasing costs of education, seen the developments -- that while I realize that the government was putting a lot more money into this scheme, -- that I was very doubtful that the local taxes would stay down -- maybe they would for a year or so but not for very long.
And like my honourable friend for La Verendrye, I'm certainly not pleased to see that we have been proven right so quickly but the fact is that we have been proven right, because in the most of the municipalities that I hear from their taxes are already up, and I can give you as the Honourable Member for St. Vital did, some figures in that regard. And you would expect me to start with Flee Island. I got my tax notice just the other day as a taxpayer in the rural municipality of Portage la Prairie, and the special school rate is up in Flee Island. Oddly enough the very next district to it isn't up, it's down almost as much as Flee Island is up -- not quite but almost. But all the rest of the group, practically all the rest are raised here, and the proof of the pudding -- and this is the one that I think the honourable the member for St. Vital should have given us, and if he did give that figure I didn't hear it -- is that what happens in the municipality as a whole. The municipality as a whole in Portage la Prairie, their school costs are more than $30,000.00 up this year compared to last year, and that's why I say that my honourable friends made a mistake when they were saying -- as the honourable member for St. John's quoted the Minister last year when he said last spring "it will relieve in large measure the real property from the burden of school finance, transferring a larger share to the tax base which we have as the Province of Manitoba". The last part is correct; a larger amount from the tax base we have in the Province of Manitoba, I doubt, as someone else has said already, I doubt that it is in the light of the present circumstances, a larger share even. Certainly it has not in the most of the municipalities that I have heard of, relieved the local taxpayer. And that, Mr. Chairman, is the mistake that is made when any group of people do what my honourable friends did in this occasion and nailed their flag to the mast not only of improved educational facilities -- it is true they mentioned that -- but also the fact that it would reduce taxes in the local area. Well now, that has not happened in most of the districts that I know, and
so to go back to the statement of my honourable friend the Minister of Education the other evening, I think that - I can't agree with what the honourable member for Ethelbert has said - because I think that perhaps the Minister is right in saying that the success of the plan depends in a very large measure upon the way in which they are able, meaning the trustees, to conduct the business of the school divisions during the first year of operation. Then he went on to say, "I think a lot does depend because a great deal of the reaction of the local people to this will be their first impression of it and their first impression is not good as far as the financial end is concerned, and I think that that is apt to prejudice their outlook toward the educational end of it". Then he went on to say "the plan is working in a most excellent manner". Well, educationally perhaps it is; financially I am sure it isn't. Then he continues - "Many of the problems which people feared have failed to materialize and the operation of the plan is being accepted well - has not caused anything but favourable comment in all of the parts of the province where it was accepted. I am afraid that my honourable friend is going to be disillusioned in that regard, because it just isn't being accepted in that way, and I am afraid that the education advantages, that it has - and it certainly has some - not as many, at least I don't concede as many, as a lot of other people do because I still maintain my old-fashioned principles that centralization is not necessary in the way that a great many people think it is. I still think that the disadvantages of a high degree of centralization are outweighed - the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. And I think that the government was wise during the course of this campaign to play down very greatly the basis on which they had started off, and which the Royal Commission recommends, of a high degree of centralization and financial inducements. Because what my honourable friend from La Verendrye said is certainly true, as far as I attended the meetings, that it was a fact that when this question of centralization came up that both the ministers and the inspectors were quick to say that they could keep their local school if they wanted to do so; that that would be left to the judgement of the division board.
So I'm not criticizing the Minister when I mention these things, I criticize the government as a whole for the fact that they too hurriedly - and I certainly think that this plan was hurried. The honourable member for Rockwood-Iberville was taking me to task the other day for having said that we would have taken two years to have put this kind of a plan in. We probably would; I think it would have been advantageous if more time had been taken. This is an extremely important step. It's turning out to be a very, very costly one, and I think it would have been better, but that was the judgement of the government, and then having taken that step I think it was a mistake to emphasize so greatly the financial contribution that the province was making and what that would mean to the local taxpayers. Because, Mr. Chairman, in my experience it just hasn't worked out that way, and as the honourable member for St. Johns mentioned awhile ago, I can see nothing but a worsening of the situation. I was glad to hear him say, - I was glad to hear him use the term that the situation would be worse next year, because usually he's an advocate of the fact that if more money is going to be spent by any government body that's all to the good -- but for once he used the term worsening of the situation.
Well, I sympathize with my honourable friend the minister in the predicament that he finds himself in - but he will do his very best I am sure with it, and if he can't make a good job of it then I am sure that nobody else over on the first row there could, because I think I can do him the plain justice and of the compliment in saying that he has worked very diligently at his job -- that's the term he applied to the former minister -- I think he has been very, very diligent, and I think that the effort that he has already put into it, if continued, will lead toward an improvement in the general situation. I don't like to hear the honourable gentlemen advocating under the guise of leadership, still more and more direction of what's to be done in the local area, and even the knocking of the heads together of the two trustees associations. A lot of things that are called leadership these days are really just another name for dictatorship and I would warn my honourable friend while working so hard at this, to not develop a dictatorial attitude because this is a pretty difficult operation that he is attempting, and I sure he will need the goodwill of everybody and the co-operation of all these organizations in carrying it through.
MR. HAWRYLUK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to some of the remarks made by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. It's as usual the attitude of passing the buck; it has been going on for 10 years since I have been a member of the House. As far as I'm concerned
the C.C.F. party advocated a rise in raising the standards of the teachers of this province; we're proud of the fact they are getting something that's been coming to them for the past 10 years. I just want to read - I'm just wondering what the Liberal Government would have done if they had been in power and had received the Commission's report on Education advising all these drastic necessary constructive changes. I believe that the policy of the Liberal Government would have been to look it over and say it's going to cost a few hundred thousand dollars or a million dollars - we'll shelve it. That's exactly what the attitude would've been. Because if the Honourable, the Leader of the Opposition wants to go back to the horse and buggy days where the one-room rural school was being paid in 1958 an average salary of $2,639, then I'm afraid that you would have had a lot more teachers resigning from the profession. That's the average salary the teachers were getting in the one-room rural area in 1958 - $2,639 and you are actually advocating that you were satisfied and no one has ever questioned the fact that a one-room school has not given the best of education. The bulk of the teachers teaching on the city staff right now are people that were trained and came from the country schools; and they are the backbone of the teaching profession in this province or any other province across Canada. The bulk of our teachers in municipalities are people that came from the country, and if you were to check the records of the teachers attending the Normal School you will find that 80% of those are all people from the country.
MR. MILLER: Sure they are.
MR. HAWRYLUK: All right - nobody's questioned that. And at no time -
MR. CAMPBELL: It's good training for them.
MR. HAWRYLUK: All right, but don't say on one hand that we are advocating it and nobody else is. I can say this, that if we are responsible in making a government, and I know that there are 3 or 4 members that were sitting on this side of the House from the Conservatives agree with us because they voted time and time again for larger school areas, raising the standards of the education of the teachers, and also most important, to raise their salaries. And if you're proud of this record and that goes back to your regime for the fact that you were able to pay to the one-room rural schools an annual salary of $2,639 then as far as I'm concerned that is possibly the policy of the liberal government. I disheartally agree with you, Sir, when you claim that the C.C.F. are always advocating spending money. Does anybody in this House question the fact that the teachers have been working for miserable salaries in this province for many, many years, and the fact that the average salary might go up to about $3,300 to $3,500. When you compare the fact that these people are graduates, have spent 4 and 5 years at University level and compare them to other professions. I think that's ridiculous, really ridiculous. I think the people want good qualified teachers. No one has ever questioned a non-qualified or non-academic teacher. As a matter of fact the bulk of my teachers on the staff are non-academic tecahers and they are my best teachers.
MR. MILLER: And what do they teach?
MR. HAWRYLUK: They are teaching junior high, 7, 8 and 9. And I can say this, that as far as merit rating is concerned, at no time did we on this side advocate the fact that the most important thing was academic standing and experience.
MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, yes.
MR. HAWRYLUK: No sir-ee, I didn't say that. I never said that, and I didn't say that in the House tonight. We take that into consideration, their attitude, and aptitude. Why is it non-academic teachers in my district are principals of schools? Why?
MR. CAMPBELL: That's the main basis in the ...
MR. HAWRYLUK: All right then, in other words the recommendations of the, my recommendations, when I recommend a teacher to become a vice-principal or a principal in my district, it's because I figure that that teacher has the quality. I'm not looking at the fact that he hasn't a degree. And I think that everybody else takes that into consideration.
Well, I just resent the fact this idea of passing the buck - it's been going on for years and years. But I can readily see by the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition has taken the fact that if they had got the Commission -- it's obvious by his words, that they would have read it through and said "gosh, this is going to cost us a couple of million dollars, we might as well shelve it for the next ten years." And that's exactly what would have happened.
MR. WAGNER: Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry, I don't know whether you will ever get
tonight to Item I, but I will just change the subject - deface it a little bit. What is concerning me, I was watching that time if I were the honourable members, and if I was on the farm that this time we've been speaking here tonight I would have disced 20 acres on the land if it would have been dry, of course.
While I'm up, I would like to ask the honourable Minister a question, possibly I am out of order but I don't see in these figures any place where the Department of Education would supply some money for the building of roads. There is a provision in transporting the students, but I am very much concerned on what roads those vehicles are going to transport those students to school. And possibly the Honourable Minister will recall that I discussed with him just a few moments about the road program, and I must refer myself when there were spokesmen out in our area speaking about larger school area, that's very fine and dandy, but there was also discussion and the main source of discussion was roads. And actually we were told by some spokesmen that the roads will have to be built. I very well realize that it is the Public Works Department, yes, but if we were told that a road will have to be built to transport the students to school possibly we can tie a sum of money here under the Department of Education to build some of those main roads that we are going to transport our students.
MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it quite clear as I have always done, that the Department of Education has no responsibility in the matter of roads. I have a very good friend of mine who looks after that department and I think that's a good place to leave it.
MR. TANCHAK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few words yet. The Honourable Member for Burrows prompted me to get up. He says about passing the buck. I don't blame him for so vigorously defending what he was, evidently he is pleading his own case, and if I was in his position I would do the same thing, I suppose. Now there are others, several honourable members have spoken before this on this plan. I'm not up here to criticize the plan, because as I've said before I agreed with the plan, I still do, I did in the past, and never once did I say that the plan was no good. Several honourable members did speak, some of them were teachers and I'd say that they are very happy, they have reason to be happy. They almost convinced me that I should go back to teaching myself. It would pay. Of course I'm not going to say that the teachers do not deserve what they are getting at the present time, but we have to also consider at times who's making the most noise on this. The Honourable Member from Brokenhead suggested a few moments back that our educational - the former government with its educational progress wasn't even air borne. I could say only a few words to the Honourable Member for Brokenhead, and this would be a good...
MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, I said comparatively speaking.
MR. TANCHAK: All right, comparatively speaking or not it doesn't matter, but I'd say "stop, look and listen awhile longer." The educational progress was not even air borne. I'll say it's still air borne. The Royal Commission is still sitting. We haven't got the report. The present government probably took advantage of, I'll say, requested parachuted bundles and took advantage of that in the form of interim report -- and I say that this progress is still air borne. Look up and see. I'm very happy about the educational grants and we know that the educational grants have been increased year by year. I'm very happy about that. It's something in the neighborhood according, comparing these figures here, it's something in the neighborhood of 5 1/2 million dollars more this year than last year - I may not be exactly correct but something a little above 5 1/2 million dollars. And we know that when this plan was first discussed and when the ministers and other officials went out into the country and even the Honourable Minister himself was quoted by a former member from Hansard had said that this plan would lighten the burden of the local taxpayer.
MR. McLEAN: Quoting from Hansard, not from my speech in any...
MR. TANCHAK: From Hansard. That's what I say, quoting from Hansard, I'm sorry, the Minister -- well, I believe that if it's in Hansard that the Honourable Minister did say that, at least I didn't hear any correction made after the Hansard was printed, and I say that most of the people in the rural areas were under the impression, and they were led to believe that their tax burden will be lowered. A lot of them are disappointed at the present time. The Honourable Member from La Verendrye, my neighbor here, just read a resolution that was passed at St. Pierre. Well, -- if they were not disappointed we wouldn't have had this resolution. Now, I'll have to say a few words again in my defence. The Honourable Minister of
Education has stated that the only condition that another vote would be allowed in the areas that did not accept the plan, and I'm being treated as if the whole of my constituency did not accept the plan. I'd like to inform the members here that a considerable portion of my constituency did accept the plan across the river, accepted it overwhelmingly too, almost I'd say about 85%, but the rest did not, and I do not take any blame for that. True, I presented the advantages and disadvantages, and I think I was one of those members of the legislature, although I wasn't a member of the legislature during that time part of it -- I was, I was one of those that was not afraid to tell the ratepayers, the people, the truth, and now I'm being chided for that, for telling the truth. Now I have a copy of the disadvantages that I stated where the Honourable Minister of Education was present, and at one meeting the Honourable the Attorney-General attended, and I have no quarrel with the Attorney-General because of all the different speeches I heard, I think the Attorney-General was the best in stating the facts, because even when he was asked at that meeting by one of the taxpayers, "who is going to pay for this educational cost?", the Attorney-General did say, and he pointed to the man, "you are going to pay." So I give him credit for that, he didn't try to hoodwink the people, but there were two inspectors at that same meeting and I hope that the Attorney-General will bear me out, and when the question was asked, "Will not our taxes go up on account of this division?" and one of the inspectors got up and he pointed at some figures on the blackboard and said, "I do not believe that they will go up, in fact if anything your tax should be lower." That's one of the inspectors said at that meeting. I didn't participate in that meeting. I was asked by the Chairman if I had anything to say, and the only thing that I did say was that I thought that what the Attorney-General had said was defeating the purpose of the bill, because it was stated that centralization was not -- was not asked for, and that's all that I stated at that meeting.
Now here are some of the disadvantages that I stated and I'd like to go through them, and there are six of them, at the meeting. First one, the disadvantage. I said I did not believe that the taxes will not go up on account of the school division. That's one of my disadvantages. But at the same time, and I'm sure that the Honourable Minister, if he still remembers, will bear me out on this. I stated this, that even if our tax does go up, we should look at the value, and I believe that the value, the return for our tax dollar will be worthwhile and I said we should consider that. That's the way I presented the disadvantage.
Another disadvantage where the Minister took strong objection to, that Ridgeville when I mentioned that we may lose our own local school, but again immediately after I stated this I said, "but we should look at the other of the coin. Even if we do lose our school, supposing we had to go to Dominion City or Emerson, our students would have to go there, let us look at this. Would it be to the advantage of our children, and I believe, I said I believe it will, because we'll get broader form of education. That's the way I stated disadvantages. I didn't try to bear them out and then not to explain.
Another disadvantage where the Minister took objection to was, that I thought that the plan was being rushed too much, and I still say it was rushed, especially in our area. Why? It came at a time when the roads were almost impossible. There were many, many of the people out from the rural area, from the country where the roads were impossible at that time and they couldn't come to the meeting. Although it was in the press -- but you go out into the country, the remote areas of my constituency, many of these residents do not receive the daily paper. Some of them only receive the mail once a week, therefore they couldn't understand the plan. And I was right about the plan being rushed. It was rushed. He took objection to that, that was another disadvantage.
Another disadvantage that I stated there was this. After the Minister had said that we are not here to take away your local schools from you. We are here to expand the existing schools. In fact he says, I hope to see the day when I'll be here at Ridgeville, opening a twelve-room high school. These were the exact words of the Minister. We at the present time have a two-room high school. I do not think we could ever hve a twelve-room -- build a twelve-room high school at Ridgeville -- it is a very small hamlet -- but that's what was stated in there. This is the disadvantage that I told them. I said, "I do not see why we should, because we are smaller, why we should be penalized and only get a 40% grant towards construction, while the people who are large, say in the City of Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie and other districts, will be getting 75% construction." I did not think that was right.
Now the anxiety about transportation. I told them this may be a disadvantage. The students would have to be transported over rough roads or during the winter time; a storm may come up when the students are in school, the parents would be anxious about them. But again I told them that it only happens maybe three or four times during the winter. That's the way I presented the disadvantages.
And finally I ended up as I stated before, that the way I saw it, the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, and I do not see why the Honourable the Minister, the way he stated before that he has to have proof from us that we will show leadership. The Honourable Member from Brokenhead, although he does...
MR. McLEAN: I'm afraid I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman, I said that it was up to the Honourable Member to declare his position with respect to his attitude to the plan. I don't require any proof from him for anything.
MR. TANCHAK: Well, at least it was stated that was right what the Honourable Minister had said "proof" but at the same time we should show leadership. I think that was mentioned also in there. I do not think I have to make that declaration, I have repeatedly made that declaration in here that I wasn't against the plan and I'm not against the plan at the present time.
There was some suggestions that I would like to make, increased grants. Even though we are not in the school division during the election campaign all on the other side who campaigned against me promised a 50% increase in grants -- school grants. 50% increase. And although we're not in the division I think that our area is still entitled to a 50% increase in school grants. That's a suggestion that I think he should take, increase construction grants up to 75%. That's another suggestion that I would like to pass on. I see that I have taken more than my time, there's some other things that -- probably have another chance at, but I don't like to keep the Honourable Members any longer, therefore that will be all I have to say tonight.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the Speaker. The committee rise and report. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution and directed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again.
MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Roblin, that the Report of the Committee be received.
[Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote, declared the motion carried.]
MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, that the House do now adjourn.
[Mr. Speaker presented the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and declared that the House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until 2:30 tomorrow afternoon.]
Page revised: 13 October 2011
