January 1998

By HUBERT BEYER

VICTORIA – Wanted: Responsible government. The successful applicant must have experience in administering a province whose population hates politicians. A proven track record of reducing the annual deficit and accumulated debt is a definite requirement.

The commitment to fiscal parsimony notwithstanding, it is essential that the successful applicant increase funding in every sector, particularly health care, education and social services. Political doctrine is not an issue. Interested parties, please apply to: The average British Columbia taxpayer.

That just about sums up the schizophrenic attitude of most British Columbians and most Canadians, for that matter, towards their governments’ fiscal policies.

The business community, that keeper of the corporate profit flame, sees nothing wrong with demanding balanced budgets while, at the same time, asking for tax breaks. Cut spending, they say, but fork over those millions to save Skeena Cellulose.

Health care providers are all in favor of government spending cuts, as long as the budget for health care services is increased. Educators clamor for fiscal prudence, but want more money spent on education.

The public has bought into this mindset in a big way. Deficit is a seven-letter dirty word. The battle cry is: cut spending. But smokers complain about the high tobacco tax and consumers of alcoholic beverages bitch about the liquor tax.

The latest outcry by folks, most of whom undoubtedly subscribe to the don’t-live-beyond-your-means maxim, is over the effects that cuts in education spending are having on school libraries.

In Sooke, a small community about 30 kilometres west of Victoria, the school district is trying to tackle a projected $1.8 million deficit by eliminating the elementary-level librarians and library aides. The reaction from various quarters resembles a chorus of scorched cats.

Sandra Anderson, chief librarian for the Greater Victoria Public Library, says she fears that children will grow up without an appreciation of books. Susan Karushima, executive director of Project Literacy Victoria, worries about the cuts because pre-school and elementary grades are critical years for "developing library skills."

Really now, let’s not get carried away. The assertion that without librarians or library aides in our elementary schools, children will grow up to be illiterate, is ludicrous. And I would like to make my point, if I may, by citing my personal experience, and that of millions of other kids in post-war Germany.

The first school I attended had two big rooms, one for grade one through four, the other for grade five through eight. There was one teacher for each room and certainly no librarian. Yet, by the time I was eight years old, I was a voracious reader. So were most of my classmates.

We didn’t have a library in high school either and, therefore, no librarian. But by the time I reached the ripe old age of 15, I had been introduced to the great literary masters of the world, including Shakespeare, in English.

My question is: why have school libraries at all? Most communities have a public library, which invariably has greater resources and more books than any school library could hope for. Assignments in any subject can easily include the requirement to visit the public library.

And whatever happened to the parents’ role in the education of their children? Have we come to the point where parents are expected to abrogate any responsibility for their children’s intellectual pursuits?

If a part-time librarian teaching our kids "library skills" for what is probably no more than an hour a week for the individual student, were to make the difference between literacy and illiteracy, our education system is in big trouble.

And if we are really as committed to fiscal prudence, we should stop screaming every time government dares take on a sacred cow.

-30-