[ Page 1095 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Education estimates.

Mr. Brousson — 1095

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1100

Mr. Lauk — 1102

Mr. Schroeder — 1103

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1105

Ms. Brown — 1106

Mrs. Webster — 1108

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1110

Mr. McGeer — 1111

Mr. .McClelland — 1113

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 45: Minister's office, $72,464.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is somewhat different from other years in the estimates of Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). In past years the Minister and I cooperated at times, or shall we say, agreed to an extent on some of the things we've said. I don't really think tonight I am going to have very much to say in the way of criticism. I hope perhaps I can make some constructive suggestions. Maybe I'll have some questions to ask the Minister for clarification.

I should point out to the Minister before she answers any of my questions, that very recently, about a month ago, my company moved its office to a new building and I just realized this afternoon, as a matter of fact, because this is my office not my home, that I am now, at least from the point of view of my business, a constituent of the Minister's. So she should be very careful about how she considers the answers to my questions.

I was pleased, Mr. Chairman, to an extent, with the Minister's announcement last December regarding scholarships and bursaries in the field of post secondary education. I think some of the questions I have raised along with one of my constituents perhaps, prompted some review of that subject. I think it is unfortunate the manner in which this release was made. The way in which it was handled by the Press has caused confusion in a number of people's minds.

To refresh your memory, Mr. Chairman, on December 12, 1972, when the Minister announced the new programme of post secondary scholastic awards, the point she was emphasizing was that the marks were to be recognized primarily in awarding of scholarships, but when it came to the programme on provincial bursaries this would be changed and the matter of need would become perhaps the most important thing.

Unfortunately some of the Press stories at the time gave the impression the whole programme was going to based on need rather than scholarship. I have had several phone calls and letters from people who were concerned about this. As a matter of fact the headlines said: "Government bursaries to be given on need rather than marks."

The difficulty here is that most people in the public don't understand the difference between bursaries and scholarships. I think the Minister might clarify this situation because as I understand it, she still very clearly means the post secondary higher education scholarship programme is based entirely on marks — on scholarship results on agreed upon examinations. Whereas the bursary programme is altogether different.

This is a special grant and it is given for a combination of things on marks plus need. But certainly in the way the story was written and the way the people have been commenting to me, there are misunderstandings here.

I would suggest the Minister might not only tonight in answering my questions, but perhaps later might make a more detailed release that would explain this very carefully to all the families and parents and young people concerned.

I does appear though, Mr. Chairman, when you examine the proposals the Minister has made here, or the policies she has announced, that the amounts seem to be greatly reduced. In the past, if a student, for instance at UBC, received a scholarship based on three-quarters of his full sessional fees, he received $321 or he might receive half, in which case it would be about $214. The Minister's new programme is only $200 per school year. So there is quite a reduction in terms of the proportion that the student might receive of his total cost of fees.

In other words, the total cost of the fees at UBC might be $428. If he gets half, he gets $214; if he gets three-quarters, he gets $321. But under the new programme he only gets $200 which is less than half.

In the past the policy was I think, and I stand to be corrected here, Mr. Chairman, but I believe the top 5 per cent, in the old days, received three-quarters of the fees, the top 6 per cent received half and the next 6 per cent received about one-third. That is a total of 17 per cent getting varying percentages of their actual fees.

Under the new programme the same 17 per cent all get $200. It is my understanding this is now expanded to include, I presume, BCIT, regional colleges and so on. The fact is, now we have the thing a little bit out of proportion. This is great stuff for the student of the regional college who receives nearly 100 per cent of his fees because in many cases the fees at regional colleges are only about $200 or thereabouts.

BCIT fees are much less than, say, the University of British Columbia. It seems to me when we get also into some of the more professional schools, again the fees get much higher at UBC or any of the univer-

[ Page 1096 ]

sities. The proportional system had some merit to it, taking a percentage of the fees at the institution the student elected to attend. If a student is attending a junior college with low fees, for the same marks he can earn almost the entire year's fees. Whereas at UBC for the same marks, he must get much less.

I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister has spread this across a broader spectrum of post secondary students. I support the idea of the scholarships for the regional colleges, for BCIT and that kind of thing. But I think the percentage programme had something in its favour.

I also very much support the Minister's announcement that a school like SFU that had the semester system allowed the student to get, let's say, $100 for the first semester and $100 for the second semester. In other words 50 per cent of the year. This was one of the inequities of the former system which the Minister corrected very properly and I am very pleased that she has.

Perhaps when she answers some of my questions she might expand on this thing and explain the system at greater length. Explain the difference for the benefit of the public, between scholarships and bursaries and the whole policy, because certainly there is confusion. There is confusion in my mind, there is certainly confusion in the minds of some of the people who have written me letters and given me phone calls to ask what it means.

Mr. Chairman, my main concern this year is in the post secondary field. The Minister's background, of course — and I am delighted that we have a Minister who has been involved in the educational process as a teacher, as a trustee — but her whole background is in the public school and high school field. I am concerned at what she is going to do therefore in the post secondary field, or perhaps she has less personal background.

I am very glad the Minister has appointed a separate senior member of her staff for the post secondary field to report directly to her. I think this was a step forward and I support it. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that personally I would support a separate Deputy Minister reporting to a single Minister of Education in the post secondary field. I am not meaning by this that we want two totally separate departments, but I would support the concept of a Deputy Minister specifically on post secondary education.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, it is out of order to refer to legislation that is presently on the order paper or on legislation that might come in, but I am sure it isn't out of order to refer to previous bills of past years, Mr. Chairman. I don't think you can find this out of order. I go back to the year of 1969, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about a past bill in 1969, when I moved a bill as an Act to Provide the Establishment of a Commission on Higher Education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would just draw the attention of the Hon. Member to the fact we are not to discuss legislation, period, but rather the administration of the department.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm just referring to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that four years ago I did move a bill of this particular subject and the way things are going this year, I may just present it again. That was the only comment I wanted to make.

I would commend the reading of this bill to you and to the Minister and to the Members of the House. I am going to make sure that one way or another, they get copies of this bill of four years ago.

My philosophy at that time, in talking about the establishment of a commission on higher education, Mr. Chairman, was to include not just the universities but also the junior or regional colleges, the vocational schools and the technical institute, BCIT, all in the sphere of post-secondary and higher education.

At that point four years ago, if people talked about higher education, most people thought only of the universities. I think that philosophy has changed, and I think the Minister approves of this philosophy, that these should all be brought under one roof and that we want to greatly emphasize the importance of the vocational and technical side of this for a great many reasons.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that in the two commissions that the Minister is appointing to study education in British Columbia, both have the same chairman. I don't know the gentlemen, but reading his qualifications I am sure he's very well qualified. But it seems to me that his entire background and experience is all in the public school field, elementary and high school area, and that his background and training and interests have not been in the field of post-secondary education. So I have a little bit of concern that he's responsible for both these areas.

I'm not questioning the Minister's sincerity in her approach to the post-secondary field. But as I've said, she does have little experience in this area herself and the chairman of the commissions she's appointed, as far as I can understand, has little personal background in the post-secondary field.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) again I think this afternoon have referred to various phases of the problems of a veterinary or agricultural college in British Columbia. I don't think, in the previous references to this subject that the House was told exactly what the problem is. I think that this is important enough that the Legislature should understand just why we have such a major problem in this field of veterinary medicine in British Columbia.

Under the programme as it is at present, if you wish to become a doctor of veterinary medicine in

[ Page 1097 ]

British Columbia, you go to UBC and you take two years of pre-veterinary programme. Then, if you are accepted, you take four years at the College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. But the trick is to get accepted at that western college.

The figures work out about like this, Mr. Chairman. There are 60 people elected each year — 20 come from Saskatchewan, 15 from Manitoba, 15 from Alberta, 5 from miscellaneous sources and 5 from British Columbia. Now those are not exact, but that's approximately the proportion each year, within one or two people. That's been the story as I understand it for some years.

Then we ask, "Why doesn't B.C. get a little fairer shake?" The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) mentioned this the other day when it came up in his estimates. He said, "We've just discovered from the files of the previous government that B.C. has only been allotting $2,500 per year to that programme," — I think that would be $2,500 per student — whereas the basic cost in Saskatoon is $9,000 per student per year. Again, those are round figures, but I think they're in the ballpark, Mr. Chairman.

It's quite clear why the Saskatchewan Western College of Veterinary Medicine is not accepting very many people from British Columbia. We have not been paying our fair share of the bus fare.

It was interesting last fall that there was a representative from the Saskatoon veterinary college who went to UBC and addressed the students who were interested in taking a veterinary medicine course. There were 150 young people who turned out to hear that lecture. Each year B.C. can only get five people into that programme and yet 150 were interested in learning more about it and had some interest in going there.

A young lady who's writing to me in this particular letter says:

"I've worked for a veterinarian for three years now, on weekends and on holidays. I've been associated with animals all my life. I've decided this is to be my chosen profession. I applied to Saskatoon with the completion of my pre-vet years at UBC and waited hopefully, only to face rejection. I decided to complete my bachelor programme."

She's taking at UBC the bachelor programme in agricultural science.

"It would be false optimism to hold very much hope. My only chance really is to move to Saskatchewan and complete my master's degree at the University of Saskatoon, although I really wouldn't be considered a resident of Saskatchewan for at least four more years. But only in this way will I be considered a Saskatoon applicant and increase my chances of acceptance."

Mr. Chairman, it's quite true that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) said that this was being studied and that something might be done some time in the future.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) raised this and asked the question.

I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we consider the young people who are in the position of this particular student. Quite obviously she wants to make a career in this field, and I think she ought to be given the chance. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that, without waiting for further studies by the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Education, something could be done right now for the session 1973-74, the one coming up in September, 1973 in Saskatchewan.

Let's ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if the Government will announce right now that B.C. is prepared this year to equalize contributions with other provinces in this programme and if, on this condition, the Saskatoon Western College of Veterinary Medicine will accept, starting in 1973, a larger incoming class from British Columbia, perhaps at least 15, not just five.

Beyond this, Mr. Chairman, I certainly feel, as I think has been mentioned in various ways by several Members, including the Minister, that we need to study what B.C. really needs in the field of agricultural training. This includes agriculture, the field of farming, animal husbandry, a whole vast area of training. Do we need only graduates with degrees in agriculture or veterinary medicine? Is there a place, for instance, for technicians? Should BCIT have a programme in this field, a two-year programme in the technical side of agriculture without the four or five year programmes of a university like UBC?

Could one or more of the regional colleges be involved in this kind of a programme? Is there room for a two year programme in agriculture or allied sciences at one or more of the regional colleges?

One of the great advantages of the name "regional colleges" — I used to call them junior colleges or community colleges — is that they do become identified with a specialty of a region. I know that Selkirk and Castlegar tried to do some particular things that were specialties for them and I think this has been true of each one.

Perhaps, just as a suggestion, Mr. Chairman — I don't think you can legislate these things — the Okanagan regional college might want to involve itself with some direction — encouragement if you like — from the Minister in the field of some special agricultural, vocational or technical programmes. I think a great deal of study could be done in that area. Maybe they could do some of the pre-veterinary programmes. Maybe they could do some pre-agricultural programmes for those that want to take agricultural engineering at UBC in the third or fourth year, and so on.

How about courses in the regional colleges to

[ Page 1098 ]

upgrade those people who are now in the farming business across the province? We've been talking a great deal in the last week or so, and I rather suspect we're going to talk a great deal more in the next week or so, and I rather suspect we're going to talk a great deal more in the next week or so, about the problems of the farmer. Maybe one of the things we might do for the farmer is provide some means whereby in short courses, in night courses, in some of these regional colleges, he gets a better chance to upgrade his skills from a technical point of view to be a little more efficient in what he is doing.

The key thing here is that we have to — and again the Minister mentioned it in a different concept this afternoon — survey the market. We have to study what the market is. Then we must do something about it in the educational system. I think the key words here, from my point of view, Mr. Chairman, are "study the market" and "market survey."

I'm a businessman basically, and I couldn't live in my business without doing market surveys — not always very sophisticated or very complex, but we try, before we make a product or decide to buy a product for resale, to study the market and see if there's a possibility of something happening to it. Or we do the reverse; we look at the market and say: what does it need, where can we find what it needs?

But we so rarely do this in education. Somebody in an ivory tower decides that a certain course ought to be given, and there it goes. Then the students come along and they look down the list and we wonder why they don't find relevance in all of these programmes. So we have to find out what the market will absorb, what the market wants and then provide the courses for the people that are there.

Mr. Chairman, this is the third year that I've been telling this House about the shortage of trained technical people in British Columbia. I've talked about the problems I've had in my own company and that my own people have had in getting people with any background whatsoever in our industry, which is a part of the construction industry.

Right now, we're participating in the federal government's TOJ, Training on the Job programme. I know that this comes as a tremendous help because we can't get people that are trained, so now we're training them on the job with subsidization. I don't want to knock that programme — it's a very fine one, it's a very good one. But I find that the educational system in British Columbia at the vocational school and the BCIT level is reacting very, very slowly in these areas. I don't think it should react overnight. I think there should be a certain delay while the thing is studied. My experience is that it takes four or five years to get the thing shaken up to the point where these programmes are changed.

Certainly, in my view, the amount of vocational and technical training that's going on in British Columbia lags far behind the demand for it. The Member for Chilliwack (MT. Schroeder) earlier today talked about the Chilliwack vocational school being cancelled. So far we haven't had any substitute mentioned for it, Mr. Chairman, and I suppose a year or two will go by before those facilities will be available, wherever they're going to be.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, I told the Legislature something they had never known before — the story of the $26 million of federal funds that were given to the Government of British Columbia, earmarked to build vocational schools. When I asked the former Minister of Education (Mr. Brothers) about that, he said, "Oh, don't ask me about it, ask the Minister of Finance." It turned out, Mr. Chairman, that it was the Minister of Finance that had the $26 million of those funds in his kitty that came from the federal government earmarked for one purpose only, to build vocational schools.

That's a hangover from the earlier programme, for originally the federal government offered to share dollar for dollar matching and things of that kind. It finally came down to the end of the programme and Ottawa said to British Columbia, "Here's your share left, $26 million. You take it, but all you can do is spend it for vocational school construction." I haven't been able to learn what the deadline is, but eventually the provincial government in British Columbia will have to spend that on some vocational school construction. But until that time, the previous government kept that in the Minister of Finance's pocket.

Now, I'd like to ask the new Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, where's that money now? Has she got it in her pocket, or has the Minister of Finance still got it in his bottom drawer? I'm glad you got in, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, last year, after some discussion on this subject, we went back and forth a little bit, and the former Minister of Education promised me across the floor of the House, twice in public and he confirmed it to me privately, a commitment that the Department of Education, the provincial government, would build a vocational school on the North Shore — I don't say North Vancouver because we are talking of all of the North Shore, North and West Vancouver — as part of or associated with Capilano College. This is part of the melding programme, only this would be a completely new structure. The Minister at that time, last March, made it very clear that he was committed to that. As I say, this was both twice across the floor of the House and afterwards, privately.

I don't want to go into a great deal of description tonight on Capilano College, Mr. Chairman. I'm very proud, I think all of us on the North Shore are proud of Capilano College. Perhaps, in British Columbia, it was the pioneer of the concept of the regional

[ Page 1099 ]

college, the community college that built itself in temporary quarters. You know the old folk song about little boxes. Capilano College built itself out of little boxes. They stacked a box here and put another box on top of it, another box on top of that and a few more. Out of those boxes piled up on the hillside along Mathers in West Vancouver, they built Capilano College.

They're now going into some larger premises. I think they're following the Minister's concept of diversification or spreading themselves out. They're going to work with a central campus which will provide the administrative headquarters and that sort of thing, but they're going to spread themselves from Squamish to Deep Cove at the other end to adequately serve the entire community. But they are going to, I hope, in the next year or so have their permanent headquarters.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Do they have some land?

MR. BROUSSON: They have some land now, fortunately. But, Mr. Chairman, in their planning at Lynn Creek, in the Two River area, there is certainly room there for the vocational college facilities, vocational school facilities that I've been talking about. I would like the Minister to say tonight if her department is prepared to honour the previous commitment made publicly by the previous Minister of Education to include vocational school facilities as part of Capilano College.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a final topic I want to talk about in this Minister's estimates, or at this time anyway. I want to make it clear, because of what I'm going to say, for those who don't know my chequered background, that I was at one time a teacher. In the past I was very much involved with the executive of the UBC alumni association, and up until last June, I was a member of the UBC Senate. So if what I am going to say is perhaps to some extent critical of the university establishment, I want to preface it with those remarks.

I was talking to one of the senior people in the university establishment, Mr. Chairman, about a month ago, and I asked him how things were going at his particular university. He said, "You know, I think the action has moved on." I thought that was a very significant remark, because, Mr. Chairman, there are a great deal of new attitudes today in these areas. I think we need to think about them a little bit, not because we're going to legislate directly on these things, but we're going to influence and we're going to give direction, and that's the way we do things in this area.

Certainly, there's a feeling today more than ever before that learning isn't just something that happens in an organized process up to age 18. It's a life-long process. Therefore, education should be and is being democratized to all levels, to all incomes and to all ages, Mr. Chairman. That's a new concept.

A friend of mine today on the North Shore, at a little over 65, is taking a programme in training as a day-care attendant. I had to give her some help to get her accepted — the people didn't think she'd be a very good prospect for day-care training. It turns out she's turning into a wonderful day-care teacher. This is the kind of new thing that's happening in that area.

Mr. Chairman, we've seen clearly in recent years how young people want a voice in the student affairs. A lot of people step aside; they leave their training very early in their university career, or don't even go to university. They go someplace else. They don't opt out. They step aside and maybe years later they will come back into the educational stream. So education becomes not only a preparation for life; it becomes a part of life.

Along with these, there are a lot of other changing factors — the increased rate of technical and social change, the necessity because of this for perhaps changed training for several different careers for many people. Women are returning more and more to the employment field, staying at home for some years to raise their families or whatever and then coming back into the employment stream, wanting to learn new things. People are looking for new values, because they've lost their interest in some of the older values such as religion and that sort of thing.

Because of all of this, Mr. Chairman, there's been tremendously increasing interest in the whole field of continuing education. This means a wide range of miscellaneous programmes. Some of these are credit programmes, and by "credit" I mean those that entitle you to receive a degree, a diploma, a certificate. Some of them, of course, are non-credit. Those are for the people that just want to learn something new for their personal satisfaction.

There are a tremendous number of people in these later years, past the age of 21, past the time when they can spend full time going to school, that do actually need, for a variety of reasons, to get that certificate. They need the degree, the diploma, the certificate, the evidence that they passed certain courses or have received certain knowledge.

This becomes more and more difficult for the student who has passed that early age when he can live at home and go to school pretty cheaply. So the university community, post-secondary school community, has reacted to this in a lot of different ways. They have made it possible for the mature student to go back to school, even though he doesn't have all of the grade 12 diplomas or whatever.

They have sometimes offered the daytime courses at nights and on weekends. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, little of this has happened in British Columbia. If you want to take the ordinary daytime

[ Page 1100 ]

courses at the university level at night-time or during the weekend, some time like that, in B.C. It's very, very difficult.

There is a variety of courses by correspondence. Again, we've sent lecturers away from the campus, to the interior and places like that. We've seen the open university experiment in other countries, where it's done by telephone and a variety of things like that. The University of London has an external degree programme. Some of the American universities have what they call the "university without walls." All of these are attempts by the university community to meet this new kind of need of the last five, six, seven years, perhaps 10 years at the most.

The question I want to ask and make some suggestions about and hope the Minister will comment on, Mr. Chairman, is: what can we do in B.C. to react to these needs and meet these situations? Well, of course, one would be to simply encourage the universities and colleges by policy statements in this direction. Or you could do it with financial means, such as Manitoba does. Manitoba has a programme where the person registered in a one credit course as a part-time student is counted as .35, roughly one-third of a full-time equivalent student for grant purposes.

In B.C., as I understand it, this is only .2. A part-time student receives credit for grant purposes only as .2 of a full-time student.

In Oregon they have a state-wide division Of continuing education, which acts as the director, if you like, as a bureau of continuing education for all of the different universities and institutions in the state and provides coordination and organizes these part-time degree programmes. Many states in the United States have programmes of this kind.

Perhaps there's something that in B.C. we might call the provincial university concept. This would be a university, Mr. Chairman, that would have no campus of its own; rather it would have only an administrative headquarters. It would be, if you like, a credit bank, where the student would bank his credits, whether he got them at this university or that regional college or some other university. It would be a credit bank to provide an advisory counselling service, to provide the administrative headquarters.

The students could take their courses anywhere, at any college in British Columbia. They might for some reason want to go to some other university or college, even outside British Columbia. But if they were residents of British Columbia they would have the opportunity here to bank their credits, as they got them in these various places, with our provincial university.

This is, I suppose, a little bit of the concept which in the States they call the "university without walls." It's a little bit of concept they call the "university without walls." It's a little bit of that concept.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that the present existing universities and colleges and so on could increase the flexibility to do some of these things. I must say it's my personal opinion, and the opinion of a number of people with whom I've discussed some of these concepts, that that isn't going to happen.

I think that unfortunately — maybe I shouldn't say unfortunately, because maybe it's a good thing that our academic institutions don't move too easily, and maybe they should be conservative and not react to these new ideas too quickly — you're too rigid and too conservative to go into some of these new things. I think by the time they react somebody else is going to have done it. I must say personally that I think the challenge of the idea of the provincial university concept would be something that we might well explore.

These are all possibilities, Mr. Chairman. I think the traditional role of the university, as it was in the dark ages, where it was kind of a repository, where the knowledge was preserved as the dark ages went by, is gone. But I think some of the universities haven't realized that they're being bypassed in this regard. I think we must find means for our institutions of higher education to be relevant to the 1970's and the last third of the 20th century.

While I don't think the Government should legislate how the universities operate, I think it must provide the leadership, the direction and, if necessary, the facilities for some of the other kinds of machinery, the other kinds of institutions that I've been talking about.

I hope the Minister will comment on some of these points, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I always appreciate hearing from the Hon. Member who just took his seat, because he certainly researches well in the whole field of educator. It's always a pleasure. I've never had the opportunity to answer before. I'm glad to hear you're in my constituency now.

MR. BROUSSON: Only my office.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I believe you brought up the matter of scholarships and bursaries. You were concerned that there isn't too much clarification on this. I think the Press release was fairly clear, but if you have letters of concern I'm certainly glad to clear it up here in the House right now.

We certainly haven't gone out of the scholarship field altogether. We still have a combination of scholarships and bursaries. Perhaps where the misinterpretation came was that we have decided that it's

[ Page 1101 ]

better to put the emphasis on the bursaries rather than the scholarships. In other words, we're putting more money into bursaries because after all the bursaries go to those who are in need. Scholarships, as you know, have been basically money for marks.

There can be a philosophical argument on whether one should go in just one direction entirely, perhaps just go into bursaries. But we at this time have decided to compromise. We still have scholarships, money for marks, but at the same time we have increased the money for bursaries.

My personal inclination is to assist those students who need the assistance economically to get into higher education. So I hope people out there will be quite aware now that for children who are able, as far as the marks go, their scholarships are available.

You also expressed concern…

MR. BROUSSON: Can we have a publication?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes. Actually, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, we're planning to put out a publication, which I think is sadly needed in the Department of Education, to pass this information out. It is needed.

You were concerned about the fact that there was a variance before in the money for a student going to college or university and now it's a straight $200. I think you would agree with me, however, that a scholarship is not based on need. Really that is the principle behind that.

You also know we've made it more flexible so that a student may use that money as he or she desires, which we consider is the way to go today. If the student wishes to take the money for travelling, so be it. That can be an educational experience also.

As you know, we've lifted what I consider the rather ludicrous restriction of the former government which made it a very inflexible use of the scholarship programme.

Now, one of your other points was that you did express some concern that I had just appointed one chairman and this particular person doesn't seem to have a particular background in universities — including myself. I would like to say why I have appointed one chairman. I think really that if you were consistent, Mr. Member, it follows your basic philosophy, too. Because later on in your remarks you mentioned that education is a continuing thing; it's a flowing procedure. From the time we're born and right to the end it should be continuing.

I feel, therefore, that if these commissions are to go in the right direction, there must be one person who makes sure there's continuity and continues that flow. That's the way we want to go from kindergarten right through to continuing education. That's why I feel it's very essential to have one person who is ensuring that we're looking at education completely, right through. I think that's really consistent with your philosophy.

The chairman in question perhaps may be better known for his innovations and work in public schools, but he is presently at Dalhousie and I think you will find that his background in universities will also be most acceptable.

I would like to point out that I really wasn't concerned in selecting the person whether we could say, "This is a university person," or "This is a public school person." I was looking for a person who would be a real catalyst, who could communicate, who would get out there and do some of the very things, or suggest and recommend with the help of his commission the very thing that you were mentioning at the end of your speech — changing the educational system, particularly in the universities, into a more open type of university system.

I'm sure that this chairman, who will be assisted by B.C. people who are knowledgeable in the post secondary institutions of British Columbia, will be able to create, I'm very hopeful, some needed changes in that area, in fact in all areas.

You also mention concern about the veterinary college. I must say too I was shocked to find out that B.C.'s contribution is lower than some of the other provinces. I only discovered that when I went back to a meeting of the four western Ministers of Education. They were delighted to see me there and said, "Welcome to Confederation," because of course they hadn't had the opportunity to have the Minister of Education attend too many, in fact, hardly any of those western conference meetings, which started fairly recently, but I don't think he had attended them. I find these conferences very helpful because we were discussing the very point you were bringing up. It was there I learned of course that — Saskatchewan naturally informed us that perhaps B.C. should be increasing the amount they pay per student. This is certainly going to be looked at, and I am sure that I will be recommending that this increase be made to this college.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you recommend this for the next session?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think there's quite a possibility of doing that, yes. Because, like you I don't like to see any students in B.C. denied this right. There has to be at least the same ratio, and just five coming from B.C. I consider shocking.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's right. Right. But I certainly don't see the point, and I hope you would agree with me, through you, Mr. Chairman, of building another institution, veterinary college, in

[ Page 1102 ]

British Columbia. This is one thing the four Ministers of Education decided we can do on a very positive basis, is sit down together as four provinces and let's make sure we don't have redundant expensive facilities. Let's work together and cooperate. Now this is established in Saskatchewan, I think if we pay our fair share, we should be able to assist our students to go there. So I find this cooperative meeting between the Ministers most helpful. I can assure you that we'll look into that particular problem.

You're concerned about some of the courses being perhaps too lengthy — four years. You mentioned this particularly. This was another concern of the Ministers. This is felt right across Canada, that perhaps some of these courses could be cut down from four year courses to two year courses, and they could perhaps be diversified into some of our other institutions. I can assure you, that since I came back from that meeting and found out that we're all in the same wave length on this, I'm discussing it with my own departmental officials, and with the college councils, and in due course — it really concerns the college councils and BCIT primarily — with the hope that we can perhaps drop down the length of time for some of these courses. I think through the years we have become rather bound into this traditional idea that you mistake the four or five year course for these specified subjects.

You also mentioned your concern about the matter of the technical and vocational capital assistance agreement, which is now defunct. You're quite correct. However, I would like to give you the facts as they exist right now under the new government. There was $25,601,080 which had not been claimed from Canada, you're quite right. This was prepaid to the province in 1971, and to date, only $12,230,151 has been expended. This leaves an unspent balance of over $13 million. I can assure you that this money is going to be used by the Department of Education to expand our technical and vocational facilities in the province. The deadline by the way is in 1975.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. DAILLY: I know, right. So this will certainly assist us in moving on these. You expressed your concern at how long it is going to be and the other Member from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) did also. This money being available is certainly going to be helpful in moving.

I think another point you made, Mr. Member — well generally you were speaking about the need for nighttime degrees…

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the vocational school on the North Shore?

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, your vocational school, right, on the North Shore. You mentioned that there was a commitment from the former government. This is a new government and you have a commitment from the new government that we will certainly move on the matter of a vocational division of the community college. It will be part of the community college. As a matter of fact, there are negotiations going on as you know, in your own area for the buying of land in that area which will certainly include vocational facilities.

I certainly agree with you on the whole matter, Mr. Member, of opening the universities up, and I like particularly the idea of the bank credit — the credit bank. You know, there's also talk about the academic passport, which is another term that some people use, that I think is an excellent idea. A person gets credits, not only formal credits, but credits for other things. All of this is written out — wherever they go, they can present it to whatever post-secondary institution and, hopefully, the post-secondary institutions will accept this as a credit for them.

So we have many exciting things to do, but we must do it with the co-operation of the universities and the colleges, and this is why I'm particularly very excited about the commission which is set up, which will be set up and named shortly. I think they will be able to get out there and be the catalyst and, in consultation with people such as yourself, I hope, Mr. Member, and other at the universities, we can really move into a new era. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You know, in every community of this province there are, groups of people who, for one reason or another cannot get out to social, educational or cultural events either by reason of age, or infirmity, or some handicap — or some groups of children.

I think that it's important that where we can find within a provincial government structure some departments that can contribute in a way that isn't directly associated with the particular work of that department, to the activities of a community, I think we should make every attempt to do so.

Now these people need transport. There are various organizations in communities, especially in rural ridings. I know I'm from a city riding, but we have largely a similar problem. These people need transport, they need to go on outings and field trips, and my suggestion is…the other day I was thumbing through the Public Schools Report for 1972, and I found that there were approximately 850 to 900 school buses. If my assumptions are correct, these 900 buses sit idle between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. during school days, and certainly might sit idle during

[ Page 1103 ]

the summer months.

I would suggest that we work out some sort of integrated programme to provide these school buses to local and community groups for their use in taking these people out to the events that I've described. I would ask the Minister to consider that — perhaps ask the local community groups to make suggestions with respect to how these buses can be used during those hours perhaps, or even in the evenings.

Now, you know there is a group of boys and girls from the West End King George High School and the teacher — I've forgotten his name for the moment — suggested to me and my colleague from thy riding that perhaps these buses could be more in use during school hours for senior students who, especially in the month of June, have relatively nothing to do. They've written their final exams, and it's really a holding operation. I think in most post-secondary schools everywhere it's more like a holding operation as I say — a sort of a senior day-care centre. If these students could get out and use this transportation to do so, perhaps on a subsidized programme of field trips, visits to museums, and so on, that would be a good way to integrate the school bus system.

And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Education wouldn't consider a full-scale subsidy for school children throughout this province to come to the Parliament Buildings and watch the House in session.

It seems to be an opportunity for many students in the lower mainland area to do so, but it seems that up-country — and again I know I'm from Vancouver where even there the King George students were telling me that it cost them $5 each for their transportation and so on — and I have the feeling that when I talked to a lot of them, that some students were left behind for economic reasons. I would hate to think that is the case, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the Minister of Education to perhaps look into that and maybe provide some sort of subsidy, a direct provincial subsidy to provide, to make available these trips to Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I listened with interest a few weeks back to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, when she gave us her major address. I believe it was in response to the budget. I welcomed at first the announcement that said, "We're going to keep scholarship examinations but we're going to do away with all other examinations." That is, at the conclusion, as I understood she meant it, of the grade 12 year.

I remember back a few years to the time when I was in the twelfth grade. I welcomed very, very much the scheme that was in vogue at that time — they called it "recommendation." I believe they still do. The fear of writing those examinations at the end made me work like a trailbreaker on a dogsled team.

I was fortunate enough at the conclusion of that year to obtain a complete recommend. I can see now with the announcement that this could be the joyful lot of everyone who finally gets to the end of the twelfth grade which, in the opinion of some, is the end of the educational road, but which, in the opinion of the rest of us is only about one-third of the way through.

As I stopped to think about the announcement, and as I related it to the entire educational process, I could see a severe problem. I know that the Minister of Education would not make a decision such as this deliberately, so I think that it was without enough foresight that she made the announcement — perhaps a little prematurely.

Let me tell you why, Mr. Chairman, and then perhaps, Madam Minister, you could run it through one more time. Here's the problem.

We have an ever-increasing number of independent schools in the province. I went to these independent schools to see whether I could find a thermometer as to whether or not the independent schools were increasing or decreasing in number, what the forecast for the future was. Shall they decrease or is it the opinion of those who are involved in independent schools that they are on the increase and that they are gaining more and more favour? I would think that in the next 10 years we'll see a fantastic increase in the number of independent schools.

Here then is the problem of the independent school as it relates to final examinations. As you know, in the Province of British Columbia we do not have either recognition of or funding for any independent school. I don't wish this evening to get involved in a debate that talks about whether we should have or shouldn't have either of these two. I just want to have the Minister, through you, Madam Chairman, recognize the problem.

Up until now those students who complete the twelfth grade in an independent school have one standard by which, if they measure themselves and if they succeed, they can gain a diploma and hence be recognized as a twelfth grade graduate. That standard is by writing the departmental examination as it now exists.

However, if the departmental examination is abolished, then all independent school graduates have no standard against which to measure themselves and hence they cannot gain a diploma of graduation, unless they wish to compete in the scholarship programme.

This bears an unfair pressure upon the student, because the examination for competition is not the same examination as the examination for graduation. Am I still coming through?

[ Page 1104 ]

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not she would consider retaining the departmental examination, particularly for those who are involved in the independent school system. I know that it would be condescending and I know that it would be giving a measure of recognition to their educational system, but I'm not quite convinced that that would be all so bad, Madam Chairman.

I think that we are creating a crisis by this abolition for which perhaps we'll be sorry a little later on and we'll have to deal with it anyway. I would say let's retain the departmental examination, if for no other reason than just to provide this standard of measurement for the graduates of independent schools.

I would love to have been seated and let the Minister answer as to her thoughts on that question. However, I find it so difficult to gain the floor that I think I'll just continue.

A second issue came out of that same…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: No. I'm trying to be very kind.

A second statement which interested me very much in the Minister's address was the fact that she said we should be very careful in our teaching process not at any time to let the student feel that he might be a failure. You remember saying that don't you, Madam?

I would like to say that life is not made up of successes only. The very fact that you have a word "success" presumes that there is a word "failure." Sometimes in life we have to learn to cope with failure, even if it's only at an August 30 election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even if you're in the Opposition.

MR. SCHROEDER: As I still coming through? (Laughter).

By the way, I agree 100 per cent that the education process is not locked into an 18 year period; nor do I believe that the education process is locked into a course of studies that says, "You sit for this many minutes in this classroom for this many days, and you are educated." I don't believe that for a moment.

However, I think that somewhere in the process of education, Madam Chairman, you must learn how to cope with this thing called "failure." I am not here to decide. It is up to the Minister to decide when it is that you learn about failure. But I'd like to suggest that the sooner the quicker.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the quicker the better.

MR. SCHROEDER: You got that, didn't you?

That was one of the disappointments that I noted as I listened to the speech of the Minister.

The other one was this: I was amazed to find that a lady who had been involved in the science of pedagogy, as I have, for many, many years, should have…

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that word?

MR. SCHROEDER: P-e-d-a-g-o-g-y. Have you never heard of it?

I couldn't imagine that someone who had learned the science of teaching as well as the Minister has should have missed this point. There is a security that comes with punishment. For someone to have gone all through the learning process, Mr. Member, and to have come up with a distorted opinion that says "punishment is equated with violence," is to admit sheer ignorance of the process of learning. I'm sorry I have to be that cruel on a beautiful evening like tonight.

I think that to equate violence with discipline is to misunderstand discipline in its entirety. I think to equate violence with discipline is to say that the greatest authority that we have as regards human nature, the greatest authority that we have in hand in a day like today, is wrong.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's the best kind of discipline.

MR. SCHROEDER: Well, when I give you the authority I'll let you be the deciding factor.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's too impatient.

MR. SCHROEDER: I read in the book of wisdom which, after all, is likely the best authority for human nature, since the author of the book of wisdom is also the creator of mankind. I think He'd be best in a position to know what makes us tick. It says this: "Punishment does not equate with violence but punishment equates with love." Now there's a big difference, Madam Minister.

As a matter of fact I read in the Book of Books that: "If a man loves his son, he chastens him betimes." It's an old-fashioned word but it just means sometimes; in my case it was often. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He still got the strap in school. And look how he turned out.

MR. SCHROEDER: Still did.

But I think that to equate violence with discipline is to misunderstand both discipline and violence.

I would say this, Madam Minister. If we wish to abolish the use of the strap in the classroom, we

[ Page 1105 ]

should leave that to the discretion of the teacher in the classroom. Because just in case the decision to take the strap out of the classroom was a wrong decision, we do not have the right as Ministers of the Crown to foist that warped opinion upon the entire population of a province as fine as British Columbia. I do not believe we have that right.

What I'd like to do is to give you an opportunity to respond to that. I'm just dying to hear what you've got to say.

MS. CHAIRWOMEN: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I'd like to respond to the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's right. Let's get back into the 21st century.

He had a good point on the use of school buses. I want to assure the Member for Vancouver Centre that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and I are discussing this whole matter of making far more use for the citizens of our province of the school buses. Many of them are only used for a very short period of the day.

As a matter of fact I will be proposing legislation which will create the flexibility for the school buses to be used for community resources. I think this is the very point you were bringing up. I think that was your main point, wasn't it? Right.

Mr. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), I think the first matter you brought up was expressing great concern about the matter of the examinations. The more you smile the more reactionary you become, Mr. Member. (Laughter).

Mr. Member, in the matter of retaining the high school graduation exams, I have no intention of retaining them. No intention whatsoever. I want to point out to you that when you made the suggestion that this was just done off the top of my head, I can assure you the departmental officials right here in the Department of Education have been studying this for three years in consultation with the teachers and with school boards. Your main objection, obviously, seems to centre around the independent schools.

We met with the independent schools and I agree they had a point here. They were concerned about what happens if the exams go. But the point we were trying to make is that every school is back to square one. The student is going to have to be assessed on term papers. I think you're trying to suggest now that the student just passes through blissfully without any evaluation whatsoever. This is not so.

The student will be assessed on the school's own term evaluation of the student as he passes through the years. When we discussed this with the independent schools, we decided that the best way around this, and we faced the fact that there is a problem there, is to start consultation, Mr. Member, with the universities. Because surely if it can be shown that these students who go to independent schools have gone through certain accredited subjects, I think it's up to the universities to accept this. It means dialogue between the independent schools and the universities. If we can assist them in this we certainly will.

To return to the examination, Mr. Member, after we've studied this for so many years, I think it would be a very, very foolish, reactionary move. I think that most of the schools in the province are delighted, because this gives them an opportunity for further decentralization, for further flexibility within their curriculum.

I think you and I both remember the days when you had teachers who taught from an exam and were delighted to find an old exam paper, and that's what we were taught from — the exam paper. I've had many teachers say to me, "This is great, because no matter how flexible I wanted to be in my teaching, I always knew that the government exam was sitting around there and there were certain things I had to gear my student to" — which might have been completely irrelevant to the very exciting educational experience they were having at that time.

With regard to the matter of success and failure, Mr. Member, I think you completely missed the whole point of my speech. Again this shows the complete difference in philosophy and you don't. There's something missing somewhere. (Laughter).

Mr. Chairman, the Member was very concerned about the fact that we have to go through life and we have to accept the fact that there is success and there is failure. Certainly. But I was talking in my speech about failing something and succeeding in something, which is quite different from considering yourself a failure. There is a very, very different precept involved in that. I don't think you really understand it. I don't think you understand it at all, Mr. Member.

On the matter of the strap, I know we could go on in this House all evening. You must have had many, many letters and I've had many letters on this. I admit there are a number coming in that agree with you and there are many that agree with my stand on it. May I also say that I did consult, Mr. Member, although you didn't bring this up particularly but others have, I've had a great many consultations with teachers and I mentioned it to parent-teacher groups also and with school boards. They were quite aware that I was considering this move and I listened to them and talked with them.

As I said in my speech, there are certain things which as Minister I do feel you have to make decisions on. Without the assistance of all of you

[ Page 1106 ]

here, I hope, and all the educators and the consumers of education out there, we can't move into a new era and maintain all the old rituals and uses, such as straps, that belong to the old era. We simply cannot move into it.

This nonsense about "when you strap a child it shows you like the child" — you know, I think this is more or less what you were implying. Also the point of the "love" relationship. Mr. Member, please, you can look up at the Press gallery when you're making your speech. I'd appreciate your looking over here just now.

The matter of the "love" relationship. I am sure you must agree that a parent and a child have a love relationship. But we can't accept the fact that that always exists between a teacher and a student. That seemed to be the premise for one of your arguments.

I want to point out something to you, Mr. Member. I didn't want to get too emotional on this strapping issue, but I don't know, it might have been good if you could have experienced and seen strapping take place in some of the schools in British Columbia. I have been in situations where I have seen little children of 8 and 10 being pulled off the floor crying, "Please, don't strap me. Please, don't strap me." All right.

I don't want to be in any position, I don't want to preside over a system where that can happen to one child in this province — not even one.

You mentioned the strap is not used very much. But there's an interesting thing in my research. You know what I found out, Mr. Member? In some schools you write, "never used." Then you look at another school. In a matter of three months there are 200 strappings, or 80 strappings.

Why should one child be thrown into a situation like that, where someone is using the strap, you must admit, in a most indiscriminate manner. Another child is in another school where it's not used at all. We can't condone that, Mr. Member.

I realize in removing the strap that certainly it's a challenge to the teachers. It's a challenge to all of us and those of us in government. We have to provide backup services. We know there are very difficult children in the classroom. But I'll tell you that those difficult children are the ones who have been strapped over and over again. They are still difficult. Strapping is not the answer for their problems. They're deep seated; they're emotional. The Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) and myself are the ones who really have a responsibility here to help those children. The strap will not help them.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you very much, Ms. Chairwoman. I finally made it.

I'd like to ask the Minister one question. And this has to do with women in education, not just women as teachers or women as faculty members, but women as students, not just in university but in high school as well.

On January 28 a group of women known as the Women's Action Group at the University of British Columbia released a document which had six findings in it:

(1) women make up a very small proportion of the faculty of the University of British Columbia;

(2) women are paid less than men in every academic rank;

(3) with the same qualifications as men, woman are lower rank;

(4) the work of women staff members is paid less than the work of men staff members;

(5) women do not occupy supervisory and administrative positions on the staff in the same proportion as men;

(6) the university educates fewer men than women and it educates them less.

One of the things that came out, for example, in dealing with the faculty and women, is that there are no women in the Faculty of Law, for example; there no women in the Faculty of Commerce; there are no women in the Faculty of Forestry. Even in those faculties where most of the students are women, they make up a minority. There are far fewer women in these faculties than there are men.

Because faculty rank is attached to earning power, what we have at the University of British Columbia is that men earn approximately $1,740 annually more than women do. This is with all things being considered equal. When every characteristic is the same except their rank, men earn over $3,000 annually more than women do.

When we look at the staff, and I recognize, Madam Minister, that you have nothing to do with the staff situation, we find there is an average of approximately $1,744 a year less than women earn than men. Part of the reason for this, of course, is that there are fewer women graduating from the university and we recognize this. What we have found is that in most faculties, in the professional faculties such as medicine, and law, which is improving this year, or engineering, forestry, commerce — these faculties accept far fewer women than men. Even though in faculties such as nursing and arts, there are more women graduating, they still do not make the top academic ranks of the university.

One of the strange statistics that came out of this was, on the whole, women perform better than men in the university.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

[ Page 1107 ]

MS. BROWN: It's true. What we find is that 10 per cent of the women in the graduating class in arts were in the top 10, whereas only 8 per cent of the men came in this category.

Of course, when you start to compare UBC with other universities in the province you find that it's actually quite far ahead of Simon Fraser, which is the university with which I am most intimate since I used to work there. What we have at Simon Fraser is the complete absence of women in the top ranks altogether. It is a shame. Of course the president is a man, we take that for granted now. All the vice-presidents are men, all the academic deans and directors are men. There is only one woman with top ranking at Simon Fraser University and she is in drama.

So the situation at Simon Fraser is really quite a bit worse than the situation at UBC. Here again we find in terms of men as professors, we have one woman at Simon Fraser who is a full professor. One woman in the entire university. And we have 70 men.

We have nine women who are associate professors and we have 109 men — this, despite the statistics which I read to you earlier, that is that women do better at universities than men do. More of them end up in the top of their graduating class than men do.

I haven't got the statistics for the Victoria University and I would be very pleasantly surprised to find that it was any different to the statistics I have from UBC or from Simon Fraser. This is not a situation which is peculiar to British Columbia, of course. The studies which I have which were done in Ontario, show the same thing; that the women are, for the most part, lecturers and instructors and some of them even become assistant professors. But the heads of departments, the deans, your full professors, usually those are men. This is also true in the United States.

What this means is that first of all, for any sort of change to come about, it is going to have to start, not so much in the university itself, but in the high school. One of the things I would like to ask you, Madam Minister, is what is going to be happening in our secondary schools? What is going to be happening in our elementary schools in terms of dealing with the image which young women develop of themselves? Is there anything planned for the curriculum in terms of women's studies. For example, the arts faculty at U BC has just approved a women's studies programme. I understand that Simon Fraser just turned one down, which is quite consistent with Simon Fraser.

We still have streaming in our high schools. We still have boys being streamed into working in shop and the girls being streamed into home economics. The reason being given for this still is that there isn't enough money — the facilities are limited so this is why the decision is made on this basis. Have you got any plans to ease this up in any way?

One of the things we have found in our research is the content in the text books which are still being used in our secondary and in our elementary schools. Jane is still sitting around watching Dick have all the fun. This kind of thing is still going on. She is still standing there with mother, as mother does the dishes while dad and the boys do all the exciting things that happen. When are these things going to be changed?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MS. BROWN: When is Jane going to have a picture of mother as a politician for example? This is what my kids keep asking me, Why not?

Then the whole business of counselling, Madam Minister. We still have in our schools counselors who are counselling girls to grow up to be ladies. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being a lady as long as you have the freedom to be what you want to be. But what the counselors are teaching and what the counselors are counselling the girls in our schools is that ladies go into nursing — girls grow up to be ladies who go into nursing, who go into teaching and go into professions like that. They do not go into agriculture and they do not go into engineering and they do not go into other things because that is where men are, and that's no place for a lady.

MR. BROUSSON: Ladies are where the men are usually.

MS. BROWN: Right — but not as their equals and that is the problem.

The other thing that I would like to bring to your attention, Madam Minister, is the statistics of the women in the secondary and elementary schools. We still find that although most of our teachers are women, very few of them become principals and I am not sure whether any of them every become superintendents of schools and this kind of thing. I wonder, are making plans to ease this situation too?

I was very pleased with the announcement of your commission and I was wondering whether this was one of the things our commission would be looking at? Would it be looking at the whole area of women in education? Would it be addressing itself to curriculum content? Would it be addressing itself to text books? To counselling? To the whole business of girls and boys and women through the system?

The second question I would like to ask you about is the whole business of tobacco and drugs in the schools. As you know the system that we operate under now is that you are not allowed in most schools to smoke. The children are advised that if they want to smoke, they will have to do it off the premises.

We had at our committee this morning, and you were there — the welfare committee when it met — a psychologist who told us that the students started

[ Page 1108 ]

smoking in elementary school because it was considered cool and because it was considered adult and mature. Usually by the time they got to grade 11 and grade 12, they had become reasonably addicted to tobacco and by then they found it was almost impossible to give up smoking. I would imagine this is probably the same thing that happens with the use of drugs. They start using them because it is cool and it is what all their friends are doing.

Are you taking this into account in terms of education in the elementary schools? I know there are a lot of films being shown in high school — of lungs rotting and this kind of thing. Since it has been brought to our attention that it starts much earlier than that, will you be thinking in terms of taking this kind of education into our elementary schools?

Thank you very much.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you Madam Chairman. I am very happy to be able to speak and address a few words to the Minister this evening I am also very pleased to know she has appointed two commissions on education with one chairman so that there will be a drive and new direction for education and that they can point as to where the direction for education should go. I would like to speak on a different problem this evening from what has been spoken on before. It relates mainly to the training of teachers.

As you know, Madam Chairman, over the last few years we have had a great shortage of teachers, and the school boards and the Department of Education has had to advertise abroad and we have gotten teachers from England, from other parts of Europe, from the United States and from Australia.

Suddenly, about two years ago, we were just swamped with teachers. As a result, we weren't able to place all those that graduated from our own universities; we found there were many unemployed teachers among the ranks. However, there is one area in which there has never been an oversupply of teachers and that is in the field of home economics.

I was looking through the public schools report for 1971-72 and the very last statement here is:

"The shortage of fully qualified teachers in home economics and community services has remained critical. Home economics departments throughout British Columbia are located in 272 schools. There are 747 teachers of home economics in British Columbia which was an increase of 76 over the preceding year. Of that total number of home economic teachers, degrees in home economics are held by 52 per cent."

Here is something I would like the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) to note: 25 men are instructing in one or more food courses. During the past 20 years there have been courses in home economics for boys. I am more concerned at present not with course content so much as with the actual training of home economics teachers.

I hope, Ms. Chairwoman, the Minister will consider some way of getting the message across to the commission that is going to be looking into education, particularly in relation to teacher training, that sometimes prerequisites for courses hold people from going into those courses. I have heard it said over and over again that one of the prerequisites that holds young people back from going into home economics is that there is far too much chemistry required.

Now I'm not thinking by any means that we should water down the courses that are there or do anything to destroy the standards that have been set by the home economics department. I realize that if we are going to have good research scientists in nutrition, in the field of home economics, that we need people with chemistry. If we want dieticians, they need a back ground of chemistry; but teaching home economics in the high school I think is entirely different. I don't think they require quite that much chemistry.

Not once during the past 20 years have the schools throughout British Columbia been able to get enough home economics teachers from the university to supply all the schools' needs. As a matter of fact, they very rarely are able to supply even half the number of teachers required; usually it is about one-quarter. According to this 1971-72 report, as I have stated before, there were 76 new teachers required — that is new openings — in home economics.

Of those that are now teaching, approximately 54 per cent are home economics graduates; 19 per cent more have a bachelor of education with a major in home economics; many of the other teachers in home economics are teaching on what they call a letter of permission.

Each year the school districts still have to advertise in the other provinces and abroad to be able to meet the great shortage that continues to exist. This year, for replacements and new openings, they will require 100 home economics teachers. But at the University of British Columbia they are going to be graduating 23 home economics teachers. That means they have to find 77 teachers from other sources as not every teacher who graduates from home economics goes into teaching.

While many of them are married before they graduate, they still may spend several years teaching before starting a family. But others marry and drop out of the occupational field because they want to be full-time housewives or because they go where their husbands find employment and there might not be employment for home economics teachers in that particular district.

Madam Chairman, for those home economics students entering university for the purpose of teaching later, I would suggest that the heavy prerequisite of chemistry might be dropped. I would like to make that as a suggestion for the Minister to

[ Page 1109 ]

carry over to the head of the commission on education. These are people who are not necessarily going to be specializing in advanced chemistry in relation dietetics or food or textiles. Their requirement is in a more technical subject as required for distinguishing nutritional standards and things of that kind.

I'm concerned with them being able to teach proper nutrition, to teach the quality of food, to teach the choice and the preparation of food, consumer buying and budgeting. I would suggest that the same thing is needed in the field of clothing teachers. The young people who take home economics in the classroom should be able to learn something about clothing selection; they should know something about the new materials. But they don't have to know the very highly technical applied science in relation to textile chemistry of food chemistry.

Madam Chairman, to be able to supply teachers in industrial arts where they have also had a problem of shortage, the industrial arts department, over the past 20 years or more, have taken journeyman tradesmen or men out of industry and trained them at the B.C. Institute of Technology or at the vocational school. They have used methods of in-service training. They have also used weekend seminars, summer school training and methods of that kind to be able to supply enough teachers throughout the province. They use approximately the same number of teachers as are required in home economics.

About 20 years ago, just after the war, there was a great shortage of home economics teachers. At that time they took married women whose families had grown but who wanted to get back into the teaching stream. They trained them through summer school and special courses. If they took two or three summers' training they would become fully qualified. That is the type of thing they probably should be doing again, or we should investigate new ways of training them.

I am quite convinced that right now home economics is one of the most important subjects in the schools. I was looking through a magazine just recently called Nutrition Canada of 1971. It gave a report of a nutrition survey that was made by two doctors throughout Canada, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sabry. They found that in Montreal and Toronto alone, in two hospitals they had over 400 cases of rickets. They were such serious cases of rickets that they had to be hospitalized and treated because they had led to serious eye problems and deformities.

Now this is 1967. We though that rickets was conquered as a disease in 1932. But some of these diseases are showing again. One reason why some of these diseases are starting to show again is because we're in a new world of technology. Many of the food products that we get are different from what we used to have. We can't depend anymore on the Canada food rules, for instance, because it's too hard to tell what is in some of the new foods.

We used to be able to think that if we got milk, eggs, cheese, protein foods, meat, fruit and vegetables and a certain amount of bread every day, we would have a good diet.

But now 17 per cent of the meals eaten by Canadians are eaten outside of the home, that is, in restaurants and cafes. A great number of people eat TV dinners or they have instant breakfasts. Many of the prepared cereals and prepared foods are synthetic. Rather than having juices, you will find they will say "drinks" — grape drink or orange drink. It probably contains ascorbic acid and little else but sugar.

Whether young people are going into the world on their own as businesswomen and businessmen and have to provide their own meals, or whether they have to provide meals for a family, I think that they should know a little bit more about nutrition and good quality of nutrition. I believe they also have to know a little bit more about consumer buying. That is another thing that most qualified home economists spend a great deal of time teaching to young people in the classroom.

These are problems and I think that that is something of exceeding importance. So often in the past we have heard of home economics being called a "frill". It's anything but a frill, Madam Chairman. Home economics is one of the most important subjects that can be taught to young people. We must try to prevent diseases. We must try to prevent malnutrition, and there is a great deal of malnutrition right now.

In the same article in Nutrition Canada, the survey showed that there are a great number of senior citizens too who are either undernourished or malnourished. They noticed that because of the change in diet, people tend to eat less potatoes and cereal. They eat more instant meals and snack foods. They're more inclined to eat out. They're more inclined to eat prepackaged convenience foods. Part of it is because of our whole change in pattern of living.

Another thing that they have to know something more about in relation to our technology in the newer type of food preparation is the type of food additives that are in foods, or the non-nutritive substances that are in foods. They should also know how to select any of the foods on the market.

When you buy pork and beans, for instance, you'll notice that the first item mentioned on it is beans. Sometimes it doesn't mention pork until way down. The reason is because the item that takes the largest part of that particular can of goods has to be mentioned first. In a TV dinner the item that is mentioned first is the one that has the most important part of that TV dinner.

These are the sort of things that they have to be taught. They have to be taught something about budgeting. On this we have to have well qualified home economics teachers in our schools, not only just for the boys and girls who are going to high

[ Page 1110 ]

school, but also probably in continuing education centres so that young married people can learn a little bit more about these subjects.

I think we are going to run into more problems of the same kind — of malnutrition and degenerative diseases of various kinds — in relation to poor diet.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if any consideration will be given to new methods or other methods of training teachers to be able to provide a good supply of teachers in these fields where there is a shortage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Young): Certainly I think we need to bring up the problem of discrimination in any form, particularly sexual discrimination, in the education estimates. This is certainly most pertinent and the place to bring it up because I think one of the areas where we're going to solve this whole problem of discrimination is in the field of education.

If we can start in the early grades with our young children, as you pointed out — start with the little boys and the little girls realizing that they shouldn't be placed in stereotype roles — I think that we can do much to create it later on. I know I've been trying for six years in this House to educate in this matter. Some people are pretty conditioned, so perhaps we will have to start — although there are very promising signs of changes anyway.

I know myself, as a Minister, I found discrimination. As you know, it certainly doesn't exist just in education. I recently went back to a Ministers' meeting and I was the only woman Minister of Education. The meeting was held in a men's club. They didn't quite know what to do with me because I don't think women had ever been in this club before.

These are just examples of discrimination that women run up against every day. I think we do have to keep bringing it to the attention of all people in our society.

The whole matter of women's studies — I think that report is excellent. I'll be quite candid. I haven't had time to read the whole thing in detail but I know that the women involved did a tremendous amount of work. I was talking to the chairman of the academic board and he told me that the university is actually discussing the report. This was my understanding. I know that the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) would not accept just discussion. I know you want to see action. I would hope that the university will take action on this.

As you know, as Minister it's rather a fine line I have to play when it comes to suggesting what courses should go into a university. Most certainly, I think the university knows how I feel about the matter of discrimination. I think this women's study is going to give an impetus, particularly to UBC, and I agree with you that it should spread to the other universities. I know that in other parts of Canada they have actually taken steps to eradicate this discrimination.

In the public schools system, I know that when I was on the school board in Burnaby, I was very concerned that there were no woman principals. Every time I asked why they would say, "No women applied." This is something I think you would also agree with me that we have to educate women themselves to enter these roles. We haven't got one woman district superintendent. I've asked our officials if they've applied and the answer is "no".

I think many women have become discouraged throughout the years because they think that if they apply, they'd never be accepted anyway. But times are changing. I would make a plea to the women out there in the educational circles — there are so many capable women — to put in your name for application for principalship; put it in for district superintendents. Times are changing but the names have to come in. They have to, themselves, show that they're willing to stand up there and take their chances. I know that women don't want special treatment but, as you said earlier, they want equal treatment.

On the whole matter of textbooks, I've said that if it is brought to my attention that there is any sign of discrimination in any form, I'll look into it immediately through the Curriculum Advisory Committee, who have already taken action when some of these have been brought to my attention already.

The matter of the discrimination with reference to women, of course, is a study in itself. I know that it's already been done by the women's group. So we have the material. All we have to do is give it to the advisory committee on curriculum and ask them to look it through for us. I think that all the points that you have brought up are very pertinent and, as Minister, I completely agree with you on it.

To the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster), you have brought up a very valid point. It's a ridiculous situation where we do not have enough home economics teachers. I think your point is again very valid — that we should look at the course structure. Is it necessary to have physics and chemistry to be a home economics teacher? I think this is something that must be reiterated at the Joint Board of Teacher Education, which I believe is a board combined from the three universities in which they discuss the problems of teacher training, et cetera.

I think it should be brought up very definitely with them; that there is a shortage of home economics teachers in the province and what are the universities doing about it. I think they could do something.

If they don't feel that they can lower their course requirements without watering down, I think then perhaps we could turn to the colleges and perhaps see some specialized courses set up there. Thank you.

[ Page 1111 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you "Mur" Chairperson. I don't suggest there has been any discrimination in this chamber this evening, but it's been really hard to break into this hen party.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Nevertheless I want to associate myself very strongly with what the Second Member for Vancouver–Burrard (Ms. Brown) has said and certainly greet with approval the response of the Minister of Education. The points are extremely valid and the Minister of Education does have ways — tangible ways — of correcting this.

The first of these is to see that women are appointed to this commission of investigation as an absolute requirement.

And secondly, "Mur" Chairperson, the Minister of Education can be certain that people who are on the Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser are women. This is quite within the cabinet's hands and they can take immediate action to see that the appropriate people are placed there just as they are in this chamber to see that these injustices — and they are very real — are corrected.

Now, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter). I would like to talk of some other problems that universities are facing, rather than just depriving themselves of the opportunities to have women take full responsibility for educating at higher levels. And I do want to associate myself with remarks that were made earlier this evening by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). (Laughter). I mean the Member who is undoubtedly at another meeting this evening. Just today there was a headline in UBC Reports quoting the President of the University of British Columbia saying that that university faces great financial difficulty in the year ahead. UBC is going to need to seek economies in all directions. That certainly applies to the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser as well.

Quoting from the president of UBC:

"'The money is simply not going to be available to do all the things that our faculty and administrators believe we should be doing'… 'We are now taking a hard look at all our activities to see where expenditures can be reduced.' The president noted that this year's increase in provincial operating grants of only $6.5 million is the smallest increase both in dollars and in percentage of operating grants since 1967-68 when the federal government withdrew from direct support of Canadian universities."

This is a disappointing thing, Mr. Chairman, to bring up. In one sense I owe a note of apology to my colleagues on the right because I was so often critical of the former Social Credit government. I accused that government of being anti-educational. I said that they were mean and penurious towards universities.

And yet, Mr. Chairman, even in my wildest nightmares I never thought the day would come when I would say that a New Democratic Party Government would make this group look generous. (Laughter). And yet, Mr. Chairman, that is the case today. All those speeches that were made in support of education and how important it was; when the day came for the opportunity to prove the sincerity of those in the Columbia riding or in the far stretches of the province, who are facing increases in room and board — because you have to pay the people who are on the staff more money this year because of inflation.

And so it's a sorry day for universities and a disappointment that this Government which held such a hope for so many people should have disappointed them in this most important regard.

The president of the university warned only today, Mr. Chairman, that it may not be possible to mount some proposed new programmes even though they have been approved by the university Senate and the Board of Governors.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what are some of these new programmes — and the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has told us what one of the most important of these is — a new programme on women's studies. And, Mr. Chairman, won't it be the irony of ironies if one of the programmes that must receive the chop this year for lack of funds is the women's studies programme.

Mr. Chairman, this increase in operating funds being the smallest in six years and one of the smallest in modern times to our universities means that in real terms the universities this year will have to reduce their programmes because the increase in dollars does not match the inflationary expenses that universities like everyone else have to face.

It was hoped this year, Mr. Chairman, in addition to women's studies, there would be an aggressive new approach to part-time students so that those who are working during the day would be able to come out and take their degrees in the evenings. It was hoped that there would be money for equalization for students that live in the north or south Peace, in the Columbia riding or in the far stretches of the province, who are facing increases in room and board — because you have to pay the people who are on the staff more money this year because of inflation.

It was hoped, Mr. Chairman, that there could be an increase in day-care facilities because, as the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and, indeed, the Minister both know, there's been a change in the make-up of students at our universities. More married students are going, some with children, and they need to put them in these day-care centres.

When the amount of money which is made available to the universities is so small in its increase

[ Page 1112 ]

that they can't even keep up with inflation, it only makes common sense that the universities don't expand and go into these new programmes but do what anybody would have to do in those circumstances which is actually to reduce their programmes. And this is the true situation at the University of British Columbia with which I am most familiar and therefore can quote with the greatest degree of assurance.

The deans of the university now must cut $4.2 million from the budgets that they had had approved by the administration and the Board of Governors. Those budgets, Mr. Chairman, had only been agreed to after they had previously been slashed by the university, before they ever came before the provincial government.

So what has happened is that the deans who have had to take what they wanted to do, slash them down so that the administration itself would be able to present a package to the government, then found that the government with all these moneys has cut them back further. So here they are today, given this budget, and no choice but to try and cut collectively $4.2 million from their programmes.

Mr. Chairman, none of us can say with assurance where those cuts are going to come. But it's fairly obvious that they must take place in those new and expanded areas, like women's studies, that were going to be added in addition to what these faculties had the previous year.

The Minister did say to the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) earlier today that she would be prepared to take a second look at the university budget. Mr. Chairman, I hope right now that the Minister is conferring with the Minister of Finance on that particular point. She did indicate that if the University of Victoria, at least, could establish that hardship would be worked on students — for example, women students — she would be prepared to sit down and take a look at that budget and perhaps adjust it to where it should be.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the Minister might be prepared to take that second look at the budget of the University of British Columbia; to sit down with the administration and the Board of Governors — the present one or a new one with some women on it, as there should be — and adjust this budget to the point where a proper job can be done. I'm just looking for a little nod, an indication.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to elaborate a little bit. I don't think it's enough for the Minister just to sit down with the university and try to repair the damage that is obviously being done to the limited plans that were set forward by the deans and the administration.

We have had decreases in university enrolment. I think everybody recognizes that. That's common knowledge today. Those decreases have tended to come in arts and education. But there have been increases in other areas such as agriculture, which should please the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and forestry, which should please the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

What it says is that the young people today are not do — nothings who are rejecting the work ethic. They're youngsters who are trying harder than any group in history to equip themselves and make their contribution. There are some faculties, like agriculture, forestry and business administration, that can expand and take additional people on. But there are other faculties which cannot do so until their budget is enlarged to provide the facilities. Mr. Chairman, these are the really critical ones.

We can talk about restoring, perhaps, the $4 or $5 million this year to make it tolerable for the university to operate. But that will not touch law, medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and some of these other professions where there are young British Columbians today lining up at the doors to get in. In medicine, which is the one I'm most familiar with, there are 10 students applying for every one who gains admission. There are four students applying…

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they have the standards?

MR. McGEER: Yes, over 250 would easily have the endowment to be fine doctors, who have the interest, the determination and the qualifications — no question — who will spend years preparing themselves just for that chance to be one of the lucky 80 who get in. Yet they find the doors are locked.

We deny to our young British Columbians this opportunity to enter a profession where they can make their contribution to British Columbia and enjoy the satisfaction of working hard and doing good for people. Yet they're denied this, Mr. Chairman — no question about it.

While this is happening — while we are graduating today only 60 and in the foreseeable future, only 80 — we are licensing to practise 300 doctors each year. That means that every single year that we delay the expansion of these facilities, there are 220 young British Columbians who are able to be doctors, who are being told "no".

The opportunities are being given to those from outside the province — and in many cases from outside the country — who are not as well trained as those from our own province and who, in the case of the foreign doctors, are more badly needed in their home countries than they are in British Columbia.

But thanks to a very fine programme introduced by the former government…and it is a fine programme. There's no question that it's extraordinarily popular with the people and it's doing its job. There are difficulties and we all know about those. But the point about it is that it's a successful programme. It places a demand on the resources of the province to supply doctors to carry it on into the future. Because of that, people do want to come here

[ Page 1113 ]

from all over the world. But they are needed in their own countries and we have ample of our children who want this opportunity.

None of that, Mr. Chairman, is touched in the financial amounts that I've described in my speech today. I just appeal to the Minister and to all the Members of the House to see this problem. It's your children and the children of your friends who are being denied this legitimate opportunity in the highest callings that we have in our province because of the foolishness of this House in not seeing that the facilities for their education are provided. We're the losers and they're the losers. The money is here in the provincial treasury. No way could it be better invested than this.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply disappointed that this year we've got such a small increase. Looking into the future, we're not able to grasp this opportunity. I would hope that we could appeal to the Minister this evening, Mr. Chairman, to give a second look at this budget and to seize the responsibilities and opportunities of her office — not just to see women in British Columbia come to the forefront, but all the capable young people of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the words we've just heard from the Member who just spoke, because I know he has spoken for many years on the cause of the universities. We too have in many areas.

The point we're trying to make in the budget allotted this year to the universities is simply that we do feel the time has come for justification of university expenditures. We don't feel that this has existed in the past. It's not a question of the amount of money, of course. It's how the money is spent. In the past under the former government moneys were given, to my mind, with no pattern whatsoever. I don't think any justification was asked for the expenditure. This is all we're asking for.

I mentioned to you earlier today that in the case of the University of Victoria, which feels that some programmes are going to be curtailed which will impede the progress of the students, we would be glad to meet with them and discuss it. As I said earlier, we're concerned with what happens to the students. The same is going to happen to the University of British Columbia. If they can come to us and show us that the students and certain programmes beneficial to the students are going to suffer because of their budget, we're willing to listen.

This isn't patchwork. This is simply preparing the universities of the province to come before the government, or whatever body will be structured for them to deal with, with a justification — a complete explanation of the programmes going on. Because I know that even you Mr. Member, who happens to be on the faculty at the university, must certainly agree that there has been waste in the university. Perhaps there are some courses that are irrelevant. Perhaps the universities must take a look at these courses. I think this is simply the message we're trying to put across to the universities.

We are a pro-university government but we're also a government that feels responsible for the expenditure of public funds. We feel very, very strongly that the universities have to take a serious look at themselves. This is one of the reasons we're setting up this post-secondary commission.

We've realized that there are many fine things going on in the universities of this province, and I don't want to downgrade them whatsoever. There are some exciting things going on. But as one of your Members of your party said just a few minutes ago, they have a long way to go in moving into a new open era of university life, so that we can truly open the university to all the public; so that we can provide programmes that are new and relevant.

I think the Member must agree that it is time the universities looked at themselves very seriously in this manner. The budget that has been put out here is simply to lay on that message.

But as I said earlier, if we find that any of the students of the university are seriously suffering and their programmes are being cut — the students' programmes which are relevant programmes, worthy programmes — we certainly are quite willing to meet with them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman I just have a couple of questions I'd like to ask of the Hon. Minister of Education. I was going to ask about the cutbacks in university but that's been adequately handled by our friend on the left. Well, a little to the left at least (Laughter).

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Minister of Education if she will, if not this evening perhaps tomorrow, to elaborate on her comments about experimentation in sex education for school boards. (Laughter). By school boards, pardon me.

I'd like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if there will be specially trained people available to the school boards…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter).

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Education has considered the possibility that I raised earlier that has been a factor in the discussions about sex education and family life education in California particularly — the problem of division in the community. There was a serious problem in the communities of California when this issue was first raised and I'd hate to see that happen in British Columbia. If there can be an orderly

[ Page 1114 ]

transformation here, so much the better.

I wonder too when we're talking about experimental programmes — and the experimental part is the thing that bothers me — do you intend to insist that the parents are consulted before a school board adopts any kind of an experimental programme whether it be sex education or any other kind of experimental programme of education?

Will there be, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity for the parent to have the right to opt out of any programme with which that parent objects, particularly in experimental types of programmes?

Mr. Chairman, is the Department of Education going to come up with any solution to the problem of performance evaluation among teachers in the classroom and the problem that now exists of virtual guarantee of tenure after a relatively short period of time with a particular school district regardless of competence? Is the Department of Education going to look into those problems and are they able to come up with any solutions?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask too if the Department of Education is going to consider any controls or education spending or will it be allowed to just spiral upward and upward and upward with no way to apply the brakes which ultimately will threaten the entire education system with bankruptcy.

This can happen quite easily. It's happening in other jurisdictions in North America right now notably in the United States. Many areas are facing bankruptcy in their school districts and it's a serious, hardship on the students, the parents and the taxpayers.

I was reading a story just today from Chicago, They're calling it the "Chicago crisis" in that education spending has gone so far out of control and cutbacks have now become necessary. Of course, the first things to suffer are the so-called frills in education. There, their music programmes have all been cut out. Arts programmes, drama classes and all of those kinds of things are about to be cut back from their education system. It's vitally important, Mr. Chairman to the Minister, that we consider the costs of education and that we consider some kinds of controls, not only on the actual spending on educational programmes but also on the problem of teachers' salaries.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister a brief question about a problem that exists in my constituency. That has to do with Trinity Western College. I'm sure the Minister is quite aware of the problem there. I think it's one of serious discrimination, in that an independent junior college is not receiving the same kinds of grants that another independent junior college in the province does receive. I understand that these are basically federal funds. Nevertheless, we have two schools of a similar stature, Trinity Western College and Notre Dame College in the Kootenays. One gets the grants; the other doesn't. I believe that's a case of discrimination and I wonder what the Minister plans to do about it, if anything.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like too to comment briefly on the problem of education as it relates to the community, and particularly community schools and the plans for the future are. I'd like to refer to an excellent brochure called "An Educational Plan for a Decade" put out by School District 35 in Langley. If the Minister is not aware of this publication, I'd advise her to get it. It's excellent. It's not new — it's a couple of years old — but the comments it has about the community school are more than adequate even today.

The opening sentence in the chapter about the community school says: "The time is indeed here when the public feels it can no longer tolerate in silence the duplication and underutilization of public buildings." Although that statement was made two years ago, it's perfectly valid today. The statement goes on to say:

"The need to serve all the members of the community, both young and old, with the same public facilities, efficient and economical service to the public, requires co-operative planning and organization among all public bodies, boards of school trustees, municipal and city councils."

I'd like to brag just a little, Mr. Chairman, and say that in our community of Langley a lot of that is happening already. But it's happening under very difficult circumstances, because the educational restrictions and regulations don't really allow it to happen. You have to kind of go around through the back door and make it happen that way. I'm talking about the joint use of facilities, such as parks and schools. There's the problem of buying land at the kind of prices that we can afford today. The school board isn't allowed to do it so the municipality does it — through the back door once again — and sells it to the school board later on. But still get that saving for the taxpayer, which is really what it's all about.

The problem is in the thinking of the education board, which doesn't allow us to pursue those kinds of programmes, which all of us know are necessary and all of us know will ultimately save the taxpayer money. I wonder what kind of a route the education department is going to approach to solve these kinds of problems?

The community school concept is one that has been pioneered, I guess in the States. Basically with privately funded organizations, they have at least been most successful — the Ford people in Michigan primarily. But it can work here. All it needs is a little help from the Department of Education.

Briefly too, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to ask the education Minister about her stand on the removal of education taxes from residential and farmland. One of the reasons I think there has been so much complaint from the public and municipal councils about this form of tax has to do with the increasing incidence of home ownership. I'd like to refer to another report about the increasing incidence

[ Page 1115 ]

of home ownership. The proportion of owner occupied non-farm dwellings has increased substantially since 1941. Between 1941 and 1951 the increase amounted to 40 per cent. Another 34 per cent from 1951 to 1961; 11 per cent from 1961 to 1966; and on and on and on like that, so that today two out of three B.C. households are faced with a property tax bill, which wasn't the case…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that the matter you're discussing now is not contained within the estimates before us. I think that it's a matter to be considered….

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the education Minister must obviously be very interested in taxes and how she is going to pay for her schools.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I do believe they are a consideration under the estimates for the Department of Finance, which have already been considered.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about …

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think that if the remarks are brief and relevant to the estimates, you may continue.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, they will be. I don't want to continue tomorrow. I'd just as soon finish and sit down and let the Minister answer and go home.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we're coming close to the closing hour. We need unanimous leave of the House to go past 11:00 p.m. Whatever the House wishes.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the House rules call for adjournment at 11:00 p.m. I don't want to change the House rules. I'm to be guided by the House. The House rules are 11:00 o'clock p.m.

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's fine. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.