[ Page 1787 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Future of Emily Carr house. Mr. Barber — 1787

Hospitals strike. Mr. Gibson — 1787

Extended-care charges. Mrs. Wallace — 1788

Funding of UBC hospital. Ms. Brown — 1788

Community Recreational Facilities Fund grants. Mr. Nicolson — 1789

Treatment of young U.S. visitors. Mr. Wallace — 1789

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Gibson — 1790

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1790

Mr. King — 1791

Mr. Speaker — 1791

Mr. Gibson — 1792

Mr. Speaker — 1792

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1792

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Mr. Wallace — 1792

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1796

Mrs. Dailly — 1797

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1798

Ms. Brown — 1799

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1799

Ms. Brown — 1799

Mr. Wallace — 1800

On vote 40.

Mrs. Dailly — 1803

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1803

Mr. Macdonald — 1804

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1804

Ms. Brown — 1804

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1805

Mrs. Dailly — 1806

On vote 41.

Mr. Gibson — 1806

Mrs. Dailly — 1808

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1808

Mr. Gibson — 1809

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1809

Mr. Gibson — 1809

Ms. Sanford — 1810

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1812

Mrs. Dailly — 1812
Ms. Sanford — 1813

On vote 42.

 Mrs. Dailly — 1810

 Ms. Brown — 1810

 Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1810

 Mr. Nicolson — 1810

 Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1811

 Mr. Gibson — 1811

 Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1811 

On vote 43.

Mrs. Dailly — 1812
Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1812

Mrs. Dailly — 1812

Ms. Sanford — 1813

On vote 44.

 Mrs. Dailly — 1813

 Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1813

 Mr. Gibson — 1814

 Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1814

On vote 45.

Mr. Gibson — 1814

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1814

Mr. Gibson — 1814

Mr. Wallace — 1814

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1814 

On vote 46.

 Mr. Wallace — 1815

 Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1815

Department of Environment estimates.

On vote 48.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1816

Mr. Lea — 1817

Statements

Premier's meeting with governors. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1819

Mr. King — 1819

Mr. Gibson — 1820

Mr. Wallace — 1820

Clarification on status of Mincome. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 1820

Mr. Levi — 1820

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House the Hon. Murray Hill, Member of the Legislative Council from Adelaide, Australia. Mr. Hill is here with Mrs. Hill and their daughter Elizabeth. I know that all sides of the House would bid them welcome and a pleasant stay in British Columbia.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, sometime this afternoon in the gallery will be a group of approximately 20 women from the Social Credit Women's Auxiliary Group in my constituency. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce in the House Mr. Mel Hickman, who is a visitor to Victoria from Portland, Oregon. He has come here this afternoon in order to see the British parliamentary system and how it operates, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): This afternoon in the gallery we have a distinguished guest from Vancouver South, a world-famous aviator. I would ask you to welcome Mr. Donald Brenner to these premises.

Oral questions.

FUTURE OF EMILY CARR HOUSE

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I have one question in two parts to the Hon. Provincial Secretary. First, can the Provincial Secretary confirm a report that the Emily Carr Art Centre is to be evicted from the Emily Carr house located at 207 Government Street in Victoria?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I cannot confirm that, Mr. Speaker. I have no knowledge of it but I'd be pleased to find out and to report back to the member.

MR. BARBER: While the Provincial Secretary's inquiring about that perhaps she could inquire about the second part of my question which is: can the Provincial Secretary confirm a report that the government intends to remove the roof from the Emily Carr House of All Sorts, contrary to the express wishes of Emily Carr herself?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take both questions as notice and bring the information back.

HOSPITALS STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Provincial Secretary in her capacity as House Leader, in view of the increasing community suffering due to the hospital strike, if she would agree to call immediately this afternoon the estimates of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) or the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in order that this House may have an opportunity for debate.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, it is an entirely proper question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Members. The request to the House Leader to call estimates out of order can be considered by the House Leader. It doesn't mean that it would necessarily follow that you would consider the estimates out of the order that has been presently called. Although I think the question is proper in question period, if the minister wishes to reply to it or take it as notice, that's her prerogative.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the order of the business will be discussed among the Whips and the House Leaders and will not be replied to in the question period.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House Leader just how much evidence of suffering she wants before she'll agree....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is an improper question.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health with regard to the hospital strike situation, and particularly with regard to statements made by Dr. William Jory, the new president of the BCMA, and pediatrician Dr. Roberts, among others, that certain patients requiring medical help aren't being admitted to hospitals because of the strike situation, if he has received any report from his monitoring personnel to the effect that certain patients — and in particular I'm concerned with one example of one single patient with a brain tumour — who should be in hospital are not being admitted because of the strike situation.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health):

[ Page 1788 ]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay, the answer is no. Our monitoring personnel would have a difficult time obtaining that information since they're monitoring inside the hospitals. The instruction that they have is to ensure that patient care is being maintained inside the hospitals.

I might say that I have had no direct communication from Dr. Jory, from the pediatrician you mentioned, or from anyone from the British Columbia Medical Association at this time. If I get that communication from them I'll certainly consider it immediately.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I respect the minister's frankness. His answer recognizes the fact that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure the cases that perhaps should be in hospital since the monitoring is confined to in-hospital patients, and on that basis could I ask the minister, in the light of that answer and the facts as we all recognize them to be, if he has made any request of the Minister of Labour to designate as essential personnel all the employees who would be necessary to maintain the full regular schedule of cardiac surgery operations for that very same reason that it's difficult to measure the effect of patients on the cardiac waiting list who otherwise by this time would have been in the hospital had not the strike occurred?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member again, we haven't talked about that specifically. However, the whole range of problems that are obviously building up in the community is under discussion at the present time. The Minister of Labour and myself met this morning. All I can say is that we're assessing the whole situation. As I've said right from the beginning of the strike, if the assessment between all of us involved reaches the point where we feel that patient care is no longer being maintained at an acceptable standard, then we have to take some other kind of action.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's comments then, and the particular fact that he has not heard from the B.C. Medical Association, would he be willing to listen in conjunction with the Minister of Labour to that kind of specific request that I've outlined in respect of cardiac surgery or patients who would otherwise have been receiving treatment had the strike not occurred?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Of course. That's the kind of information we'd welcome from the community whether it be from the BCMA, from yourself, or whomever. We need that kind of information if we're going to do a proper assessment and we're happy to listen at any time.

EXTENDED CARE CHARGES

MRS. B.C. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Health and it's further to the question I raised yesterday in connection with charges for extended care. At that time the minister indicated he had replied to my question. The reply I have is dated April 14, when he said: "We're currently developing regulations that we hope will assure no person, particularly families with young children, will suffer further hardship because of the government's action." My question is: inasmuch as there are now only 14 days left until June 1, when does he propose to announce these regulations?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I'll announce them when those regulations are in place. I assured this House in question period that there wouldn't be any hardship for people in special circumstances. I've told this House on two occasions now that those people who cannot afford to pay will not have to pay, and that those people in special circumstances would be looked after in a special way.

The member, I hope, will understand that it isn't just as simple as doing something ad hoc. We want to do it right. I've told the member that the announcement would be made before June 1 in letters to her and in letters to many other people who have sent in requests. I wish I could give you an answer this minute, but I want to give you the right answer and I want to make sure that we have it covered so that no one will suffer, Madam Member. That answer will be forthcoming before June 1.

FUNDING OF UBC HOSPITAL

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Health transferring Department of Health funds previously allocated to improving maternal health hospital care to the building of the new hospital at UBC?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I don't quite understand the question from the member. I don't know of any transfer of funds. Certainly there are no funds allocated in this budget which is under consideration now to any project that the member refers to.

MS. BROWN: If I can clarify it, Mr. Speaker, there were funds for the improvement of maternal health care in the province. What I am asking the Minister of Health is whether these funds are being transferred into the building of the hospital at UBC, which will have no obstetrical beds, and, if so, how much.

[ Page 1789 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In answer to the member, I don't know which funds she speaks about. When we took over this government, the government was bankrupt — there were no funds left. We have committed $30 million to a new children's hospital in Vancouver which will be started this year. A hole will be dug and the building will be underway. We have committed the rebuilding of Grace Hospital to look after high-risk maternity cases. We have committed millions of dollars in our first four months in office, Mr. Speaker. What else can you ask for?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There are no funds transferred. There is a lot going to happen in the field of health care in the greater Vancouver area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In replying to the question, Hon. Minister, in future would you please confine yourself to the question that was asked? That was a suggestion of a transfer of funds from one application to another.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental, the minister indicated that the former government was broke. If that were the truth, it would still be totally irrelevant because those are borrowed funds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your question?

MR. COCKE: Those are borrowed funds, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I ask the question: is the minister saying that there was no commitment from the prior government for the children's and maternity facility? Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious there was no commitment of money. The government was not only bankrupt of money, it was also bankrupt of ideas. This government has lots of ideas.

MS. BROWN: Supplemental. Mr. Speaker, I didn't get a response to my first question so I am going to try and clarify again. The maternal and health facility was supposed to be integrated with the children's hospital, but the decision made by the previous government has been changed. Would the minister explain to me why the decision was made to rip off the maternal facilities from the health facilities? Were those funds transferred into the building of the new UBC hospital which is not going to have any obstetrical beds? Can he answer this without giving me a political diatribe as he did on the previous occasion?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. It is my observation that political diatribes have come from both sides of the floor in matters of question period.

MS. BROWN: I just asked a question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES FUND GRANTS

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. It has been the custom that applications under the Community Recreational Facilities Fund be announced quarterly. As an announcement would normally have been expected around April 1, has the minister yet reviewed the current applications with her staff? When will she announce the next round of grants?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the Community Recreational Facilities Fund was overexpended when I took office by $2.8 million. Very many applications had been given approval just prior to the last provincial election. My department is looking at those very many applications which were given approval in that month. The whole community recreational fund situation is under review. There will be an announcement made in the near future as to the disposition of funds in the future under that fund.

TREATMENT OF YOUNG
U.S. VISITORS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Human Resources a question with regard to his stated plans to limit the provision of funding to persons coming to Vancouver for Habitat, and with regard to his statement that young visitors from the United States without money will be given bus transportation to the border at Blaine. Could I ask the Minister if similar plans will be implemented to bus young Canadian citizens between the ages of 16 and 25 to the nearest provincial boundary?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member: we have no such plans as yet.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm a little fearful of the "as yet" part of the answer, but in light of the minister's statement that immigration officials at the border have not been as cooperative as they might be, has the minister held discussions with the federal department of

[ Page 1790 ]

immigration asking them to take action at the border to ensure that those individuals from the United States with no funds not be allowed entry to British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, a meeting is being arranged with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Andras) in Ottawa for early June to discuss this very subject.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver-East): Stalag '76!

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period, hon. members.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, under the terms of standing order 35, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance.

The matter is new evidence coming to light in the hospital strike, now in its 15th day at Vancouver General and in varying amounts at other hospitals, clearly illustrating examples of public suffering, inconvenience and danger. To illustrate the urgency, I'll briefly cite examples relating to Lions Gate Hospital in my own constituency.

    (1) Friday night, apparently as a result of a misunderstanding, a woman, an HEU employee, because of the strike circumstances and the picket line felt unable to visit her mother in the hospital. She arranged for someone else to visit and that night her mother died. The death was not due to lack of medical attention. The inability to visit was not due to official picket-line policy. But the incident shows that even with the best will in the world, tragic accidents of this kind can take place during such a strike.

    (2) Volunteer workers are operating large and complex laundry machinery in the hospital. As a result of a shortage of supervisory help there have been three serious near-accidents involving high-speed extractor machinery and possible steam scalding.

    (3) Representations are beginning from constituents or their relatives who require exploratory surgery — with respect to brain damage in one case, apprehended cancer in another and other grave illnesses — made impossible for the time being because of the strike, and causing severe emotional stress.

These instances of community suffering will certainly increase rather than diminish. It is submitted that this subject is a matter of urgent public importance requiring the immediate attention of this House.

Attached is an article giving further specific instances and an excerpt from Hansard giving the views with respect to urgency by the present Premier when he was opposition leader in August of 1974 in a similar circumstance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member forward the urgency motion to the...?

MR. GIBSON: Somebody's going to die one of these days, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Read what your own Premier said on August 9, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has raised a matter under standing order 35 of this House, asking for adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. He's raised it at the correct time within the proceedings of the House, and it would seem that his request for the motion is based on new evidence coming to light about the hospital strike, now in its 15th day at Vancouver General and varying amounts of time at other hospitals, and clearly illustrates examples of public suffering, inconvenience and danger as a result of the hospital strike continuation. I would take that to be the nucleus of the matter which he has put before me, and that is that he is now suggesting that new evidence has come to light which would, in itself, allow or qualify the member's request for a debate.

I would first of all like to refer the hon. member to Beauchesne, 4th edition, at page 90, and draw to the attention of the hon. member and all of the members of the House the position of the Speaker in trying to determine the urgency of debate. An urgency, within this rule, does not apply to the matter itself, but it means urgency of debate when the ordinary opportunity provided by the rules of the House does not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately. It is therefore the Speaker's duty to determine not upon the matter itself — because I think all members of the House on all sides will agree that it is a matter of grave concern to all of the people in the province of British Columbia when a hospital goes out on strike — but to decide whether sufficient grounds have been put forward by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano for an emergency debate. In discussing and considering that, I must take into consideration a number of things, one being the fact that the hon. minister today, and on several previous days, has indicated to this House that people within his department and within the hospitals themselves are continually monitoring the situation with respect to the health of the patients that are in the care of the hospitals. It's a matter that he has said repeatedly

[ Page 1791 ]

is under close and intensive investigation.

Now it may be argued that the matter is not under intensive enough investigation, and it may be argued by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano that situations have occurred or are about to occur which are detrimental to the health of patients in the hospital. In that respect I would draw your attention to page 365 of Sir Erskine May, 17th edition.

It has been held that such a motion as you wish to propose has not been acceptable when facts are in dispute, or before they are available. It is also recorded on page 365 of the same edition. The fact that new information has been received regarding a matter that has been continuing for some time does not, in itself, make the matter one of urgency.

In considering these things, Hon. Member, I must say to you that your request for an emergency debate does not fall within the narrow confines of standing order 35, particularly since it is a known fact — by all of the members of the House — that the Department of Health has been closely monitoring the situation, that the minister himself has indicated close liaison with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in this particular situation, and I must therefore respectfully say to you that the request for a debate under section 35 is not admissible on the grounds that I have quoted you.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am at somewhat of a loss to understand the meaning of rule 35. It was my impression — and I would welcome some clarification from the Chair — regarding the issues which can properly be considered by Mr. Speaker when this kind of motion is put.... It was my understanding that the urgency of the issue was a proper assessment for Mr. Speaker to undertake consideration of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member state his point of order? We cannot become engaged at this stage of the proceedings in a full debate on what constitutes a proper motion under standing order 35. It's for the Speaker to determine if the motion as put to him qualifies under section 35.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm seeking clarification from you, sir, in terms of applying the rules of this House so they are understandable to the members. The point I wish to make is that it is my understanding and my position that it is improper for the Speaker to consider the adequacy of positions which the government has taken, or is about to take, or may take, in terms of dealing with an emergent problem. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the only proper point for your office to take into consideration is whether or not a public emergency does exist relative to the issue raised by the hon. Liberal leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is quite incorrect, hon. Leader of the Opposition. It's quite incorrect. It's a matter for the Speaker to determine if the request qualifies under standing order 35, together with the references that we have available to us in May and Beauchesne. I cannot predetermine the result of a request for a debate under standing order 35. I can only deal with the matter as it's put before me, and I can only say to the hon. members of the House that if you review the Journals of this House you will see examples which clearly show that on occasion the Speaker has ruled in favour of a debate under standing order 35.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The old Social Credit government voted him down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

It is also very clear that the Speaker has denied a debate on many occasions under standing order 35. This is a matter of record. It is a matter of record in this jurisdiction, under the responsibility of many Speakers prior to my own election to this chair. So I do not intend to try to predetermine a matter before it has been placed before the House. All I can do is deal with the matter as it is being presented, and in so doing I've quoted to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) the authority, the provisions, the things that have happened in this House. I have said to that hon. member that his request for a debate does not meet the test of standing order 35, and therefore fails on that basis.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, to conclude my point of order, if I may, I think you've misunderstood my point. My point is that you, sir, gave us, as part of the reason for your decision, the fact that adequate attention and adequate remedies were being proposed by the government. I am submitting that there is not a proper foundation upon which to make that judgment.

I submit, and suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the only allowable criterion is to the question of whether or not a real emergency does exist in the community surrounding the issue raised by the leader of the Liberal Party and whether or not an opportunity exists to debate this matter, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it has not obtained prior to this point.

MR. SPEAKER: I just refer the hon. member to page 364 of the quotations from Sir Erskine May, 17th edition. It is true that facts may be in dispute, and there is more than one side to the specific problem, but when they are in dispute it is clearly pointed out in Sir Erskine May that it is not an acceptable matter for an urgency debate, under standing order 35. So I refer you to that reference, sir.

[ Page 1792 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to your ruling and with respect and based on my different interpretation of the state of the world, I would respectfully appeal the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no appeal to the ruling.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, there is.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course there is.

MR. SPEAKER: I would refer the hon. member to Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 90: "Speaker's ruling on a matter of urgency is not appealable."

MR. GIBSON: Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, I would challenge that ruling.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a proper challenge then. Shall the Speaker's ruling be upheld?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 18

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(continued)

On vote 39: minister's office, $126,940 — continued.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, one or two issues that I'd like to raise with the minister if I can be sure of his attention. I'd like to ask the minister a question in regard to semester courses in our high schools. I've had it drawn to my attention by teachers in Oak Bay that the provincial curriculum is designed for a total of 120 hours per course at the senior level for most subjects.

Under the semester system about the best number of hours that can be made available is 100 hours. The result, of course, is that the teachers chop and change the topics covered as much as they can to try and ensure that an adequate number of hours is provided to the students in these courses. It's particularly hard in competing for scholarships inasmuch as some of our students at Oak Bay are competing against students elsewhere who are not on the semester system, who might have had as much as 140 hours on certain subjects.

I wonder if the minister could let us know in the matter of designing the core curriculum if this inequality, or this lack of uniformity.... First of all, is he aware of it? If he is aware of it, what proposals, if any, does he have to put forward?

Many schools are on the semester system but many are not. It would, in fact, be rather interesting, if the statistics are available, to see what the scholarship...where the majority of the scholarship winners are educated. Are they being educated under the semester system, or are they on the former traditional system?

I'm glad to have the support of the Attorney-General on that one.

There's another issue, Mr. Chairman, that the minister could perhaps comment upon fairly briefly. It's the very severe lack, at least in Oak Bay, of access to equipment in teaching computer courses. I don't know how often in this House in debates we refer to the tremendous importance of computers in our day-to-day living, and it would seem that since it is a relatively new technique our curriculum again should be emphasizing courses in computer technology and the overall way in which they should be used.

I gather again that in the case of the greater Victoria school district, and particularly in Oak Bay, there's not only lack of courses but there's some difficulty in obtaining consistent access to computers to do the actual training — to do the teaching, rather.

My information — and the minister can correct this or confirm it — is that no funds are provided by the Department of Education to any school district to buy or lease computer hardware for instructional

[ Page 1793 ]

use in the schools. On the contrary, I learn that in the province of Ontario there are six or seven courses developed by the Department of Education and also funded by the province.

It is very interesting that just yesterday the minister talked about us being the wealthiest province, or perhaps the second-wealthiest province, in Canada. I find that comment most interesting because it seems that in many respects we like to brag about being the wealthiest or the second-wealthiest province in Canada, but when it comes to providing some of the services to the people of British Columbia, there seems to be a consistent cry — as there was during the throne speech debate — that we're just so short of funds that education and health are going to suffer in this province for many years.

I'd just like to quote from Hansard of Friday, March 19, when this same minister, when he was talking about financial problems, said as follows:

"These losses — and I say this particularly to the member for Oak Bay who had so much to say about this heartless government — must be paid out of current taxes; they will be general taxes. As the Minister of Education I don't welcome funds being used for today's taxes that otherwise would go to education. I don't welcome funds being used out of today's taxes that would otherwise go to hospitals.

"But, Mr. Chairman, this is going to happen this year, next year, the year after and until this debt is paid."

He is referring to the debt of ICBC.

Mr. Chairman, I just don't think you can have it both ways. In one voice yesterday the minister is telling us we are the wealthiest province in Canada; in another breath, we are in so much debt that we can't properly provide education and health services. Of course, in a point that I want to raise in a minute, the proof is right there: the tax structure that the minister is proposing for the present fiscal year in regard to the added burden that is to be passed to the municipal taxpayer to pay for public education.

I am just making the point that even in a specific, such as this teaching of computer technology in the schools, we are far behind in British Columbia — certainly far behind Ontario. Yet as I say, we are told yesterday that British Columbia, if not the wealthiest, is the second-wealthiest. I presume the minister might have been referring to Ontario as the wealthiest. We talk so frequently in this House about providing adequate education and opportunities to our young people, but surely if there is one new field of employment that has flourished in the last few years, it would have to be the field of computer technology. But at least in Oak Bay there is a shortage of funding, a lack of courses and no departmental provision to allow schools to acquire some of the hardware that is so essential to teach these courses.

I don't want to talk at great length about the family-life programme, which other speakers have touched upon, but I would like a clarification of the kind of contradictions for which this minister is rapidly becoming famous.

I happened to see the minister's interview on television last Tuesday evening when he was asked about family-life programmes. He said: "No, we are not phasing out family-life programmes." But I happen to have here, Mr. Chairman, a circular from the instructional services of the Department of Education, dated February, 1976. I'd just like to read what that circular says. The heading across the top is: "Family-Life Education."

"Provincial policy in respect of family-life education programmes has been reviewed in the context of developments at the school district level. The acceptability of family-life education programmes has varied considerably between school districts. Under these circumstances the Department of Education will not continue to engage in programme development work at the provincial level."

If that isn't a very clear-cut statement that the department will not continue to engage in programme development work, I don't know what else any of us could deduce from that statement.

The next part of the statement goes on: "Accordingly, the publication 'Family-Life Education: Guidelines For The Development Of An Elementary School Programme' is withdrawn and will not be reissued."

I agree that family-life education programmes should be very much the choice of the local school districts and, more particularly, of the parents of the children in that school district. I'm completely agreed on that point. But it seems very unusual to have the minister making a categorical statement on television that the department is in no way withdrawing from the area of family-life education when back in February we've got this very distinct statement to that effect from the instructional services circular, dated February 24. I wonder if the minister could tell us just exactly what the department's position is in regard to family-life programmes.

I wanted to touch on the question of the local taxpayers' problem in paying school taxes this year. I have a list of the figures dealing with the situation in Oak Bay where the average homeowner will be paying somewhere around $100 to $150 more in Oak Bay this year and about two-thirds of that will be because of the increased cost of education.

I'm very sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) isn't in his place — oh, he's in the chamber — because I feel that I would like some clarification on statements that were made when all the local MLAs in the greater Victoria area met with the Victoria school board two or three weeks ago. The taxpayers of this area, facing increased educational costs, are very justified to ask, as we all

[ Page 1794 ]

do, about the cost of administration. Many citizens and parents have talked to me and said that they feel that more and more highly paid employees in the public school system don't finish up teaching our students, but in fact spend substantial amounts of their time on administration.

I think the meeting was a very good one, a very fruitful one, and at that meeting the member for Esquimalt made the statement that School District 61 had the highest administrative costs of any school district in British Columbia. When the member for Esquimalt was questioned on this matter, he stated to the chairman of the school board, at that meeting, that there was some study within the department on administrative costs which had revealed that fact....

Interjection.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You just came on to Hansard.

MR. WALLACE: Hansard's come to life at exactly 3:09 in the afternoon.

But if these facts that I'm asserting are incorrect, I would certainly welcome any comment, either from the member for Esquimalt or from the minister. But it was such a....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I said the information was available. I didn't say that they were doing a study at that time.

MR. LAUK: Don't speak out of your chair.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member's correction that it was not a study that was done, but that the information was available — that's the crucial element in the dispute.

I would like to know the information the minister has to indicate that School District 61 has the highest administrative costs in all of British Columbia. If that information is available, it has not been made known to the chairman of the school board in the greater Victoria area that it is available. And one of the points that was raised in the course of that debate was the fact that all school districts don't compile their budget in quite the same way in delineating where administrative costs should be recorded in the budget. I understand that the sections in the budget are entitled from A to J, and that certain costs are supposed to be clearly included under certain sections.

I want to say that in my connection over the years with the Victoria school board trustees, I have the highest respect and trust in their judgment — not only in their judgment but in the efficiency with which they compile their budget. I hope the minister is listening very carefully because I think this is a crucial matter for the public, and it isn't just in relation to School District 61. The fact is that in School District 61 every possible hour of administrative time, at the request of the former government and the department, was included under section A of the budget.

Now it stands to reason, Mr. Chairman, that if other school districts are placing some administrative costs throughout various sections of the budget and, in other words, to a degree, obscuring precise total administrative costs, then it would be unfair in the extreme to suggest or state publicly that School District 61 has the highest administrative costs of any district in the province.

I note that the minister is busy reading a document at the present time, which might make it difficult later on for him to remember the questions I'm asking. I've no wish to drag out estimates on education, but as I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips), there are some times I'll stand here all year if I have to to get some of the answers.

The answer to this question is particularly important because the public — the taxpayers and the parents — want to know precisely about administrative costs in the public school system. They want to know, and I'm sure I want to know, if each school district in its submission of its budget to the minister uses precisely the same formula and the same format, so that when administrative costs in one school district are compared with another you are, if I could use the hackneyed phrase, comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. The school district trustees in the greater Victoria area were quite understandably angry when the statement was made that in fact their administrative costs were the highest in the province.

I hope the minister will be fair and answer that question, because if he doesn't, I'll be up on my feet for as long as it takes to get the answer. We might as well have it now rather than prolong the debate.

Someone earlier on in the debate, Mr. Chairman, talked about the publication Education Today and said that it should be abolished, that it was not a good use of money. Well, I happen to disagree. I think that this newspaper entitled Education Today is a very useful source of information for those of us....

MR. KAHL: Political propaganda.

MR. WALLACE: Somebody interjects that it's political propaganda, but in fairness, Mr. Chairman, the accusation is levelled at just about anything that a government puts into writing that it's propaganda. Surely there should be some discernment by the reader to at least make use of the non-propaganda that's in this kind of document.

[ Page 1795 ]

In the issue of May, 1976, there's a very detailed article which starts off saying the following: "The finance formula for British Columbia public schools has long been a mystery, understood only by the financial experts in the Department of Education and school districts. For the non-experts Education Today presents a step-by-step explanation of the formula." I would agree, Mr. Chairman, that this document goes on to give a fairly straightforward explanation of what is a complicated formula.

So I think it would be wise, if the minister's thinking of disbanding or discontinuing this publication, to take a second look. It does provide a lot of basic information. Although some of the interpretations, as the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) has interjected, can be politically slanted, nevertheless I would suggest that there's enough positive value in Education Today that it should be continued. This particular article on explaining the cost-sharing formula, I felt, was a very reasonable job of explaining something that's fairly complicated.

To get back to the whole question of public school financing and a formula, I hastily assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not going to debate the formula as such, but in the meeting we had as MLAs with the Victoria School Board, they made a very eloquent and, I think, very just plea that there be at least some better evidence of consistency in how financing formulas are applied, not only as to the very unsuitable timing such that the school boards go on during the year waiting to have a budget approved in April or May when they're already four or five months into the year, but particularly in relation to the so-called special grants.

Nothing seems to cause the school trustees more heartburn than the difficulty in understanding the allocation of special grants. I know that the minister has replied that it is basically a question of student enrolment and so on, but there really is more to it than that. The minister provided a list of the 1976 distribution of these special grants totalling $7.525 million, and the interesting thing is that not all the schools which received the grants are on that list. For example, just to take school districts 62 and 63, being Sooke and Saanich respectively, I understand that they both received special grants, but there's no money listed on this list of school districts, which are numbered from 1 to 92.

I just have to ask the question: how can you avoid causing unhappiness in school districts which don't receive special grants when first of all they're not sure how the grants are allocated to the lucky school districts, and not only that but they come across a list that's incomplete.

I can't recall the precise figures we're talking about, Mr. Chairman, but I do know from checking locally that grants were made available to Sooke and Saanich, and they're not on the list. Of course, people like the trustees in the city of Victoria say that first of all they don't know till April or May what the budget's going to be. They don't know whether they're going to get a special grant or not. Then that very momentous day arrives that certain schools got a special grant and others don't, and then on top of that the list that's provided publicly doesn't give you accurate details. So there's a suspicion which develops among responsible trustees like those in the greater Victoria area who don't feel that the present system is efficient and, perhaps even worse, they are not fully confident that they are getting a fair shake when they go out of their way to do their job responsibly.

So I wonder if the minister would comment on that to some degree. For example, the Victoria school district got $1 million last year as a special grant but nothing this year. The minister's rather simple statement that it was all due to pupil enrolment doesn't really completely gibe with all the figures as they relate in some of these other school districts.

The next point about public school financing has to be this government's platform in the last election that they would remove, as soon as possible, school tax from homeowner properties. All the homeowner in Oak Bay knows this year is what he reads in the clipping in the newspaper — that Oak Bay ratepayers face an average hike of $112. How this government can seek election and did seek election as a basic commitment to remove education tax....

MR. KAHL: When possible.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes. There's the escape hatch from the member for Esquimalt — "when possible." The government, in seeking election, didn't go into that amount of detail. They simply stated that their commitment was to reduce school taxation from property.

All around me, Mr. Chairman, I sense that the Socred backbenchers protest too much. They are making great protests here, all around me, that that was just a commitment...

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Stick to medicine, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE:...at the election, that somewhere down the road when the money was available....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I wish I could use that answer to my wife when we need more money to run the house — that she'll get it when it was available.

MRS. JORDAN: They'll get it when they need it.

[ Page 1796 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, regardless of the outpourings of protest from the Socred backbenchers, this is the question that is certainly being asked in Oak Bay: how come this government got elected on a promise to reduce the school tax on property and all we find the very first year of their first budget is that we are paying $112 more, on an average?

MRS. JORDAN: Tell them to get an MLA who understands financing.

MR. WALLACE: It's a reasonable question from the homeowner, Mr. Chairman, and if the government was so well aware that there was a massive debt from ICBC, the government must have known at election time that they could not bring about a reduction on any kind of taxation when they had to meet this kind of debt.

So I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, that the Social Credit Party was a little less than complete in outlining the kind of commitment that it was making to the relief of the hard-pressed homeowner paying education tax on his property. Even allowing for that degree of licence which I think the Social Credit Party indulged in, we find that basically for the total provincial budget in education, the minister really is about $60 million short in the money that he should be making available to school boards if the election commitment was to be anything close to being met.

Maybe I've asked enough questions now that the minister would like to answer these and I can pursue a few other questions later.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just go ahead. Let's have them all.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to correct the point that the minister informed the House — I'm sure innocently in error — when he answered my question about the extensions to the two elementary schools in the greater Victoria area, which are of frame construction. He had already assured me that this government's policy was to have fire-resistant materials only in new construction. I checked back after his answer the other day, Mr. Chairman, and I discovered that approval for the two extensions that I had referred to was granted by the Department of Education on February 17, 1976. Now I seem to remember that this government took office on December 22, 1975. So I think the record should just be set straight that this minister who, perhaps, was just finding his feet in his job as Minister of Education, and harassed as he was by the ICBC crisis, may not really have been aware of all the goings-on in the Department of Education. But the record shows that approval to use frame construction at these two elementary schools — Glanford and Gordon Head — was approved on February 17, 1976.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 39 pass?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, wait a minute! He said he'd answer questions. Come on, none of that.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I'll just deal very quickly with some of these matters because many of them were canvassed at length in prior debate.

The matter of semesters, of course, is something which is a local option — how they organize their programme — and something which the department is monitoring. Like the member, we will be very interested in the results of scholarship exams, but it's not our purpose to limit the degree of local option in organizing the programmes at the school district level.

Computers of course, are something which, again, would be quite available for any local school district that wished to pursue such a programme. We give local grants, as the member probably realizes, but once those grants are given they're available to the school districts to use in any way they see fit.

I have talked, inside and outside the House, at length with regard to family life, which, again, is a local option, and the Department of Education has never considered this part of the core curriculum and it is not now considering that it will be part of the core curriculum.

We did meet, Mr. Chairman, at the instigation of the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), with the chairman of the Victoria school board, Mr. Ross, to go over the budget with him. He's going to be going into further consultation with the members of our department with regard to comparative costs, and the member for Oak Bay would be most welcome to attend those meetings if he wishes. Certainly the department has no information that it isn't quite prepared to share with that member or any other member of the assembly.

MR. WALLACE: Do we have the highest costs?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, but again it's not a.... The member's quite right. You can't exactly compare the way one school district sets up its budget with another. But what we are attempting to do, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, is to make much more information available to the elected trustees at the local level as to how their district compares with other districts with regard to these and other costs, because we feel that each of the local school boards does require better yardsticks than they have at present in drawing up their budget.

Perhaps the member would have some suggestions as to the precise ways that we might go about developing those criteria, but Mr. Jack Fleming — he's

[ Page 1797 ]

not in the assembly, but the members all know him — has been charged with that particular responsibility. So again I would suggest the member meet with Mr. Ross and with Mr. Fleming and other members of our department to go into this question in detail. We're quite pleased to have any input that members would care to give. Anyway, our general objective is to make available to all elected trustees criteria for setting up the budget.

Now with regard to Education Today, I rather think I agree with the member for Oak Bay. The member for Esquimalt had got to me last week, I must admit, but after reading some of the accounts of the debates in this assembly I really felt it necessary to reassess the position about Education Today. They say that the objective of papers is to separate the wheat from the chaff and then print the chaff, and that seems to have been the case of some of the debates here.

I felt particularly keenly about a rather major statement that was made last week with respect to post-secondary education, where the stakes involved are in excess of $25 million a year — an unparalleled windfall available for post-secondary education in British Columbia — where we want to make all those associated with the educational system aware of the degree to which British Columbia has been shortchanged over the years, to encourage them to join with us in trying to get justice for this province. Yet if we had no publication such as Education Today, there would be no way in which we could even make them aware of the problem, because of this "wheat from the chaff" system that apparently exists in some of our other publications. I could go on and on about this particular problem, but I don't want to bore the members of the House with the difficulties that one has in....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Will I resign? The member is far too optimistic, Mr. Chairman. In any event, many of the subjects we have already canvassed, but I want to assure the member that the Department of Education is open to him for any.... Oh, yes, he mentioned the areas of Sooke and Saanich. They both got increased grants because there was increased enrolment. As far as I know, that was published information; certainly it is not confidential information.

MR. WALLACE: What about a list?

HON. MR. McGEER: I haven't got the list that you have, but here's my list which is available to all members. If it is different from your list, then I don't know how your list originated. But in any event....

MR. WALLACE: I got it from your office.

HON. MR. McGEER: What did you ask for — special aid?

MR. WALLACE: How do you decide and...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: You know, there are special aid grants, Mr. Member. Neither Sooke nor Saanich got special aid grants, but they both got a grant for enrolment increase. Perhaps you don't have a list of the grants that were given for enrolment increase. But in any event, there isn't anything that our department has in the way of figures that isn't available to the members. I would urge them to seek details of this kind by consultation.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): There are two areas I want to bring up very briefly to the hon. minister. As we were not given the opportunity to hear the traditional minister's speech when he took his place as Minister of Education in the Education debate, we have found it necessary, of course, to pose a number of questions to the minister which I don't think we would have had to if he had given the House an opportunity to hear something about his own personal goals and philosophy for education in this province and perhaps show us what leadership he is going to give to the province, not only in public school education, of course, but in post-secondary.

There are two areas where I am particularly concerned in hearing the minister's statement of philosophy. Despite the fact that there have been a number of questions to him on family-life education, we still have not heard from the minister personally. I think any Minister of Education should be able to stand up and tell us, as he has, may I say, very clearly on value schools — he has repudiated them, from listening to him. I must say that I agree with the comments made by the minister relative to his comments on value schools, But when it comes to family-life education, the minister has been very evasive. I simply want to ask him: does he believe that family-life education programmes should be in our school system?

I know the minister evades it by saying: "Well, it's up to the local school boards." That is not enough of an answer for the public. I think the public would like to know if this minister is going to give leadership in family-life education in this province when we know that over 75 per cent of the parents of this province do want family-life education. Is he going to encourage it or is he simply going to sit back for the minority of this province who do not want it and give no leadership and give no incentive in the development of family-life education? I feel it is

[ Page 1798 ]

about time that the minister stood up and told the House where he stands personally on family-life education. Specifically, is he going to give consideration to the family-life co-ordinator, which the school boards of the province have asked for? If the answer to that is yes, I hope he then will also make it quite clear that he does endorse family-life programmes in our school system.

The second point on which I'd like to hear the comments of the minister is relative to the whole area of autonomy. Now the minister yesterday was very clear in the House when he said he believes very strongly in autonomy for the universities of this province. But, you know, he's been rather silent when it comes to autonomy for college councils. I realize there is a dilemma faced, as I know I faced also, particularly when it comes to the area of fiscal restraints and how you can control financing and, at the same time, keep autonomy within your college boards.

You do have college boards, Mr. Minister. You must believe in them because you have continued appointments to them. I won't go again into that area, but obviously you believe in the local college board structure. So my question to the minister is: if you do believe in college boards, why then was one of your first actions to strip the college boards of this province of autonomy? I am referring to one of your first ministerial actions, which was to announce to the boards of the province that they were not to move at all in the area of personnel. If I am correct, one northern college council was repudiated quite strongly and, shall we say, rather — I won't say strapped by the minister, as he used to refer to some of my actions — almost strapped by him for having the audacity to want to go ahead and hire on their own and make a decision on their own in reference to their own principal — a new principal. They were told by the minister: "No, you are not to make any moves in that direction."

I cannot see how the minister can espouse university autonomy and be so silent when it comes to autonomy for college councils. I'd like to hear him tell us: does he believe that college councils — community colleges — should have the same autonomy as the universities of this province? If he does, why has he taken some punitive action towards the college councils of this province, which obviously seems to suggest an erosion of their autonomy?

While I'm on community colleges I would also like to ask a question of the minister in reference to a new college Act he has announced he intends to bring forward perhaps next session, whenever that is. I know there was a working paper prepared; there's a new minister and I'm sure he wants to go over that. But my question to him is: will he release that working paper, or if he makes changes to the working paper, will he release the working paper, which will be a prelude to college legislation, for public consumption and input before he brings down the new college legislation?

I have a number of other questions, but I think it would be to the benefit of all of us if, following some of these answers, we could move on, I hope, to the individual votes, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, again very quickly, family life — I guess I'm getting a little repetitive here — it's a matter of local option; it's not part of the department's core curriculum. There was a suggestion put forward by the Home and School Federation that we appoint a co-ordinator, and we said that we would take a look at that one. Family life is something which I believe should be a local option, not part of the core curriculum.

Similarly with value schools — school boards have a right to do their own thing. We have said that we don't intend to interfere with that right.

MR. LAUK: Family life or fluoridation — which will you have? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. DAILLY: Would you like your children to have it in school? Family life?

HON. MR. McGEER: I can't really answer that because I'm just not familiar with the programmes, but I'm told that a lot of the local school boards have introduced successful programmes, so that's a great example of the effectiveness of local autonomy — something, again, we encourage.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: As far as the colleges are concerned.... What was that?

MR. LAUK: Are you still in favour of fluoridation? (Laughter.) It finally got through, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 39, please, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: The colleges. Once more, certainly we believe in the autonomy of the colleges. In no case have we acted without the request of the colleges themselves. It is a partnership and I think that one has to realize that there's a great deal of competition going on, for supplying exactly the same services of a post-secondary nature. That's why we appointed the Winegard commission.

As far as the new colleges Act is concerned, there are three principals at the present time who have come to the Department of Education to help work

[ Page 1799 ]

on it. There's no working paper, and it isn't their objective to produce a working paper as such. I can assure the member that there will be very wide consultation on the nature of that particular Act. We are working towards the idea of programme funding because, again, while each institution can and must have autonomy, obviously the funding you put forward is going to be based on the programmes that are available. You don't want to fund the same programme three times over in three different institutions.

I think the only way in which the partnership could be expressed between the Department of Education and the local colleges would be in the matter of to what extent a programme might appropriately be funded if a competitive programme somewhere else was being offered. That would be for economy and efficiency, not any desire on the part of the Department of Education to interfere with the academic side of what any institution was hoping to accomplish.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether the minister would like to make some comments about community schools. In particular I want to talk about the Burrard Bayview Community School.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the community schools are involved in an integrated and co-ordinated way in terms of the community at large. A lot of other groups use the schools, the parks board, the health units in the particular riding, and various other community groups in the riding use the community school. In fact, it is really a very practical and useful way in which the educational facility should be used, rather than the traditional way.

The problem with this is that traditional funding doesn't cover the running of a community school and in fact the community school calls for a more flexible kind of funding formula.

The, Bayview Community School, for example, services an area that has a large Greek population and deals in things like English for new Canadians — mother and children learning English. It also has health courses for senior citizens, as well as some of the more traditional things like consumer education, adult education classes, French classes for children, music lessons for adults — all these kinds of things. It has had a lot of support from the parks board as well as from various other groups in the community — the Vancouver Resource Board and this kind of thing.

In October of last year there was a conference held at the Bayview Community School to deal with the whole concept of community schools and the inability of the traditional funding methods to meet their needs. At that time a letter was sent to the provincial government requesting that a task force be set up to look at the whole business of overhead funding for community schools in B.C.

What I'm asking the minister is whether this task force has been set up, and what decision has been made about a more flexible formula for funding community schools, not just in the Vancouver area but wherever they may come into being.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there are three successful community schools operating in the greater Vancouver area. It requires, as the member I'm sure knows, co-operation on the part of the parks board, the school board and so on to fund these things. The Department of Education, of course, is delighted to make its buildings available — the more use the better. But again, this is not part of the basic education programme for British Columbia, so it doesn't come under the purview of the Department of Education to fund it. The appropriate place, really, to take up this cause is with the local parks board or the local school board. We're happy to make the buildings available.

MS. BROWN: A supplementary to deal with the same thing.

Mr. Chairman, it is part of the educational process. The Vancouver school board and everyone agrees that what goes on in the community schools is a part of the educational process. Courses dealing with teaching French to children are part of the educational process. Teaching English to new Canadians, that's part of the educational process. Consumer education, you know, Greek classes for children, the course dealing with health care for seniors, that's part of the educational process. That's not part of the school board.

Educators agree that there is more to education than, you know, just what's laid down in the textbook from 9 o'clock in the morning until whenever school is over at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. That was the reason this conference was called in October, and these resolutions were passed asking the Department of Education to look at the business of a more flexible funding formula just to cover the overhead costs of the community schools. Of course, the parks board is going to pay a part of that. They have already committed themselves to that.

At the Bayview Community School, for example, even the merchants in and around the neighbourhood have funded some of the programmes that take place at the school. Everyone is pitching in to help, but, you know, Mr. Chairman, I think it really doesn't come under the purview of the Department of Education. In its broadest sense it is part of our education, and all that the community schools advisory council is asking is that the minister set up a task force to at least look at the business of funding for community schools wherever they may exist.

It is true that there are three very successful

[ Page 1800 ]

community schools in operation in Vancouver — so much so that the trend is to go into more and more community schools, because really that is the kind of school all schools should be like, if the truth were known. The Department of Education should be in the forefront of this kind of struggle, not dragging its feet behind everyone else. So I hope the minister will rethink his position on this, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question of the community colleges and the kind of example of management that leaves a great deal to be desired. I'm talking particularly about the example in Capilano College, on which I've asked questions in the question period. I want to thank the minister for making the report available to me, and presumably to any member of the House on that particular instance. I want to make it very plain that I'm not here to attack or criticize personally that particular principal who resigned.

I want to take a little bit and ask some questions about the background procedures that are used to engage senior people at this level, in the hope that perhaps we can prevent this kind of situation recurring in the future.

The very quick and simple facts of the matter are that the principal of Capilano College resigned and was given severance pay of $41,700, which was in keeping with the terms of his contract. The point I want to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the degree to which management by college councils can be questioned in such a situation as arose in this case.

Without going through all the details, the report make it very clear that the college council was dissatisfied with the performance of the principal. Yet it's clearly stated in a letter from legal counsel, dated May 3, 1976, bottom of the page.... In a letter to the chairman of Capilano College, the legal counsel states:

"We also understood from you at that time that although certain council members had expressed dissatisfaction at being unable to obtain information from the principal, the council itself had not provided any specific directions to the principal concerning objectives and priorities."

How can anyone in management expect the best or even an adequate performance by someone in a senior employment position if you can't at least give the principal some guidelines and an outline of what the objectives and priorities of the college are? It's quite clear. It says here in black and white, in one and the same breath, that the college council were unhappy with the situation but admitted to the fact that they were not giving any specific direction to the principal as to what the goals and objectives were or how he might more adequately perform under these guidelines. The letter continues later on by saying that the legal counsel had advised the college council:

"In the absence of any specific directions from council, and in view of the imprecise nature of the dissatisfaction with the principal, and in the absence of any specific incidents in support of such dissatisfaction, the council, in our view, could not establish a case for dismissal for cause against the principal."

So here we have a situation where a college council feels obligated to discontinue the services of the principal. They can't seem to define what's wrong with the principal or what he's doing that he shouldn't do, or what he's not doing that he should do, and when they take the matter to the question of seeking legal counsel, they can't even spell out to the legal counsel why they're so unhappy with the principal.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour this to great length. All I am trying to say is: there is one thing that is very important to establish, and that is to try and get the trust of the taxpayer in all the money that's being spent on education, whether it's at the public school level for teachers or paying principals, or councils of community colleges, or whether it's university principals, or whatever.

But this kind of example that's spelled out very clearly in the report on this Capilano College situation really leaves me, as a taxpayer, just wondering what members of a college council want. They want to express their unhappiness with the principal and perhaps ask him to resign, and yet here we have a clear statement in the report that they couldn't put into words what was inadequate or inefficient about the principal. As a result, they received, I suppose, the only kind of legal advice you would expect — that he could not be dismissed for cause, and therefore he had to be given one year's severance pay in keeping with the terms on which he was employed. I just don't think, frankly, that that's good enough if this report is accurate in describing the wishes and the thinking of the members of the college council at Capilano College.

As I say, I don't want to quote this at great length, but I just want to leave the general thrust of my comments. Anyone who cares to read this report can only come to the conclusion, for reasons that are very vague and which the college council members apparently are either unwilling or unable to put into writing, that they felt that the principal should resign. Apparently there was no clearly definable cause that they could put into writing to ask for his resignation. They admit that there was not just cause to dismiss the principal, and yet they were sufficiently dissatisfied that on one date — I believe February 17 — certain members of the council moved a motion of no confidence in the principal. That motion was defeated, I understand, by eight votes to four.

At any rate, the minister has said that he is looking

[ Page 1801 ]

at a college Act and that there will be new legislation. I'm like the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly). I believe we should have the greatest possible degree of autonomy in our educational system. But, Mr. Chairman, any measure of autonomy carries with it very substantial responsibilities, none greater than when you're spending the taxpayers' money. With that autonomy there has to go some very visible evidence of responsibility by those who hold office on college councils.

I wonder, first of all, if the minister would state whether the matter of the Capilano College resignation is to be taken any further by his department, or does he feel that it's just an unfortunate circumstance where $41,700 has had to be paid out twice, since presumably someone is succeeding the principal at the same time as the principal's enjoying one year's severance pay? In other words, even prior to new legislation, is this the end of the saga at Capilano College?

Secondly, has the minister taken any specific steps to try and prevent this situation developing in the future as, for example, setting out some guidelines regarding the terms of contract? The college council, in a somewhat defensive way in a letter, has tried to justify its position by quoting that principals of universities get even a better contract and that their terms of employment, moneywise and otherwise, are even superior to those that usually apply to college principals.

Well, that kind of argument really doesn't wash at all; it's the specific way in which a council either meets its responsibilities or not. Mr. Chairman, one interesting statistic is that the principal, who proved to be less than the college council felt was adequate, was chosen out of 114 applicants — 114 applicants and they managed to choose somebody whom they found was, for whatever reason, not suitable or not efficient. Then to crown it all, they can't come out and put into writing why the principal should be asked to resign. Mr. Chairman, I think I've established that point and I hope that the minister just won't sort of waffle around when he answers my question.

Here are taxpayers' dollars that do not appear to be being used very wisely. I know that one example doesn't justify any kind of blanket criticism, but it's a large sum of money and I think the minister should give us some assurance that he's taken steps to minimize this kind of problem in the future. I wonder if he could tell us to what degree he plans to introduce provisions in the new legislation that will either restrict or limit, or in some way provide greater safeguards than appear to be in vogue at the present time.

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) talked about the importance of teaching French in our schools. I understand, from a question that was asked in the federal House on April 4, that the Secretary of State, James Hugh Faulkner, replied that the federal government provides 9 per cent of the funding of any programmes for the teaching of French.

I'll quote precisely the answer which the Secretary of State gave to the Hon. Mr. Corbin, the MP for Madawaska-Victoria (New Brunswick.) The Secretary of State replied:

Mr. Speaker, I discuss this question continuously with Ministers of Education of the provinces. There is a formula in place under which the federal government agrees to pay 9 per cent of the additional cost of any extended French-language training programme. That provision is available to any province which wishes to take advantage of it.

Mr. Chairman, on a previous date in the House of Commons, a written question was answered which, I think, shows some very devastating figures which I hope the minister will take note of. A Mr. Gauthier, who is the MP for Roberval, had asked how much federal funding had been granted for the promotion of the French language as part of bilingualism. The second part of his question was: "How much has been granted to Quebec for the promotion of the English language within these programmes?" I just want to quote you the total sum of money that has been spent: in British Columbia, between the years 1970 and 1975, a total of $5.4 million was spent on French education programmes. In answer to the second question of how much had been granted to Quebec, the sum total for the same period of years is $196 million.

So it would seem that we're not really spending much money on French-language programmes, or we're not availing ourselves in a proportionate kind of way in acquiring federal funding in the manner that the Province of Quebec has acquired $196 million in these years, and British Columbia $5.4 million. There seems to be quite a disparity and I wonder if the minister could tell us how the funding we have received has been spent — on which grades, and what in brief is the general way in which the money is used.

Secondly, have we availed ourselves of all the federal funding for the teaching of French that could have been used? What plans does the minister have in his tenure of office to try and expand both the programmes in French teaching and the amount that we should acquire from federal sources?

The last point I want to make is one which I don't think the minister answered when I asked it earlier, at the closing part of an evening session, and that was the Social Credit Party's commitment to discontinue the compulsory nature of membership in the B.C. Teachers Federation. This was clearly passed as a majority wish at the Social Credit convention.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

[ Page 1802 ]

MR. WALLACE: That's just clearly on the record, Mr. Chairman, that the delegates to the Social Credit convention suggested that it would be appropriate as party policy not to make membership compulsory. I am not going to take more time of the House to debate the freedom of choice that I believe professionals should have, and this whole question of union membership, but I certainly take issue with a comment made by the member for Nelson-Creston subsequent to my earlier comments that the BCTF isn't some strong political machine.

I have got a copy of one or two recommendations that were passed at their convention just a few weeks ago. One of the recommendations is a reserve fund of $1 million for political action. The most significant part of the recommendation, Mr. Chairman — I really hope the minister is aware of this part of the resolution — mentions the $1 million "....which is disbursed at the sole discretion of the representative assembly."

Later on there is another recommendation which makes it very plain that the B.C. Teachers Federation.... I'm not disputing its right to do this. It has got every right to indulge in using the methods it feels are best to represent the financial interests of its members; that's what organizations are for. But just don't come into this House and tell me that the BCTF isn't a strong political body. It's because it is so grossly or greatly involved in political activity that I am saying that it would not be a bad idea to separate its essentially academic and professional activities in the realm of education from its purely political activities.

So I would appreciate knowing first of all if the government has made a conscious decision not to follow the resolution that its delegates passed at the convention. I'd like to know the minister's own personal view on this question of compulsory membership in the BCTF. I would also like to know.... I particularly ask this because I know the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, is a physician. He and I know very well that the granting of a licence to practise medicine and the essentially disciplinary and professional requirements of a doctor are decided by an essentially non-political body set up under statute, under the Medical Act, whereas the B.C. Medical Association negotiates with the government for doctors' fees, which is a highly political issue, the key being that any doctor who does not wish to be a member of the BCMA has that choice.

I would just say again that the minister himself, when he became a politician and was elected to this House, exercised that freedom of choice by discontinuing his membership in the B.C. Medical Association. I presume that the minister elected to discontinue his membership for the reason that he felt there might well be a conflict of interest. But as far as his licence to practise medicine is concerned, that is, as it should be, based on his qualifications and training and established expertise and his adherence to the rules and to the discipline of our profession — not in any way subjected to the possibility of political interference or leverage through a trade union or its equivalent.

I think this is an important fact. Certainly I know of at least one teacher in my own riding of Oak Bay who is conscientiously and sincerely trying to fight this regulation as it now exists. However well qualified you are to carry out your professional job, you can lose your right to do that job in this province if you refuse to join the BCTF. I just think that democratically, in a so-called democratic society, that is wrong.

I know that the minister, certainly when he was on this side of the House as a Liberal, was strong in defending the rights of individuals and the freedom of choice, particularly within professions. I'd be very disappointed if I thought or was given reason this afternoon through the minister's comments to think that just because he's changed the side of the House that he sits on he has changed his basic conviction about something as important as a professional teacher's right to be able to indulge legally and openly in the teaching profession simply because he would not conform to a compulsory regulation that he also be a member of the teachers' union.

The last point I want to raise at this moment, Mr. Chairman, is the question of substitute teachers. The public school system depends a great deal on trying to provide consistent teaching to all students, even though the particular teacher is not available for a day or two or a week or two for reasons of illness or otherwise.

I have a letter from one of my constituents explaining how they are just poor relations in the teaching profession. I won't take a lot of time to recite their fate in relation to salaries over the last several years, but between 1966 and 1973, as far as the greater Victoria area is concerned, their payment has actually gone down. That has to be something of a record. Perhaps only the MLAs can claim equality with the substitute teachers, as we've just had our income reduced by 10 per cent. I understand that in 1966 the substitute teacher was paid $24.28 a day, plus 4 per cent holiday pay; in 1973, seven years later, this teacher received just $24. That's an actual reduction — not a lot, I agree, but when you consider how the cost of living has increased between 1966 and 1973, to be paid the same amount, I think, is very unfair. I believe at that point of time the schools had difficulty getting substitute teachers, and in October, 1973, their daily rate of pay was put up to $30 a day. That $30 in 1974 was put up to $32.64 in 1975, and it's stayed there since; there's no increase again this year.

The point this lady makes is very valid. What

[ Page 1803 ]

difference does it make that you're a substitute teacher? You have the same cost-of-living expenses, you have the same background and training, you have the same teacher's certificate, and if substitute teachers were not available there would be just that much more impairment of the teaching available to those students whose regular teacher takes ill, or is out of the city, or whatever.

This lady makes the point very clearly, Mr. Chairman — I hope the minister can perhaps research this matter, or have his department look into it — that they are paid very little more than they were paid 10 years ago. Their negotiating capacity is very weak, and as a result they more or less have to accept whatever daily rate of salary is offered to them. I feel that while they may not expect the same kind of continuing remuneration as does a teacher with a year-to-year contract, there is a very substantial disparity. Substitute teachers certainly fill a vital part in the system, so I wonder if the minister would tell us what his department's position is in trying to get the substitute teacher a fair financial deal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 39 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 39? I'm sorry, Mr. Member, according to the rules of the House the time limit for your speaking...is it concluded?

MR. WALLACE: I don't know. He hasn't answered the question! He was getting ready to stand up. How come everybody...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the question again: shall vote 39 pass?

Vote 39 approved.

On vote 40: department administration and support services, $4,922,992.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, in vote 40 we have a very sizeable increase in the research and development money. According to the figures I see here, last year's original estimate was for around $2.3 million, but I know the minister is aware that we revised that estimate down to $1.3 million. So according to my calculations you have estimated for the coming year $2,475,000 for research and development, and if you add on the other $1 million I see the total vote now for research and development to be approximately $3,482,000 — that's adding the surplus that was not used by the former department.

As that's a very sizeable increase in research and development, I wonder if the minister could give us some details on what his plans are in the area of research and development for the coming year. It's obvious there must be some major plans when the vote has been increased to such an extent. Could the minister answer that?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of specific programmes that fall into this general category. One of the most important of these is a financial planning study.

The answer partly bears on a question raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with respect to the contracts with college councils. What we want to do is set up a complete set of financial guidelines for the colleges and for the school districts which will give them a basis upon which they can set their own budgets and on which they can determine appropriate contracts — the appropriate remuneration for various categories and what sorts of financial systems they should set up to analyse the data.

Another question that was raised by the member for Oak Bay was on substitute teachers. The cost of substitute teachers varies enormously from district to district. It doesn't bear any relation to illness patterns, and we are looking into that. We are studying patterns of that kind. But in order to have reliable financial data available we have to set up a whole financial services division that can do this kind of thing.

We want to get much of the data available on computers. We want to be able to establish appropriate inventories for the school textbooks that are out there in the system. There is some estimate that there may be as much as $50 million of textbooks that are out there somewhere that we don't have track of. All of these things require the introduction of 20th century systems instead of 19th century systems. So that's going to be a fairly substantial part of it.

We've announced one commission to investigate the delivery of post-secondary programmes throughout British Columbia. The Winegard commission would also fall under this particular vote. The learning assessment programme and core curriculum development programme is something that's going from the pilot plant stage to the full-scale operation, and that also is going to require financial resources so that we can strengthen the core curriculum development and the learning assessment programme.

Very shortly we're going to be announcing the secondment of other people to the Department of Education for the purpose of looking at ways in which we can develop methods for funding the

[ Page 1804 ]

separate schools and ways in which we can condense the secondary-school programme to make it articulate with the post-secondary system, with the view in mind to saving students' time and avoiding duplication. That's something that I talked about before the school trustees association — again requiring financial resources. So all the initiatives the Department of Education will be undertaking in the next year are really encompassed under this particular vote.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the minister explaining what it's being used for. It seems to be the large emphasis, then, on this sum of money — which is over $3 million — will be mainly for preparation of, as you say, more up-to-date financial systems, particularly for post-secondary schools. My only concern is that under the former government a sizeable amount of that money was used for developmental programmes such as grants to local school districts, grants to groups that we felt were setting good, innovative, new measures in education. I remember the great number of people who came to us. My concern is: if you're going to spend the majority of the funds on your financial structure — which I realize is necessary — is there going to be anywhere, in any vote, that school boards and other groups, such as particularly the native Indian groups, can come to get some assistance in grants?

HON. MR. McGEER: There are $70,000 available for grants of various kinds. Mr. Currie, who's right behind, chairs that particular committee, and you can discuss details with him. Of course, he's available to you.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned a number of things under this vote, but not any examination into what I would call teacher evaluation. Just to put it shortly, there are good, bad and indifferent teachers, as well as good, bad and indifferent lawyers. That's the heart of the matter, and that's the heart of sort of the malaise of the school system. Where there are teachers who do not present an exciting portrayal of the subject, the pupils are turned off and the dropout rate is increased. We have police teams now in the city trying to get the children back into high school. So what does the minister think of teacher evaluation? They may have security of tenure in a district, they may have security of tenure at UBC, but I think all professions — and this is a profession — have to think in terms of retraining and evaluation of performance, in the interests of the students. Really, there should be worked out with the B.C. Teachers Federation and with faculty associations of the universities some way whereby the teacher can give his or her best, and whereby those teachers who are not able or unwilling to give their best.... There aren't too many of them but they do exist. They're a disaster for the student who has to spend his time in that particular class.

How can they be evaluated? Should it be by student opinion to some extent and, if not, why not? I would think certainly at the university level the opinion of students is, perhaps, one of the best guides as to whether the teacher is doing a good job. Why aren't you studying, Mr. Minister, this thing of teacher evaluation?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, under this particular vote there's $15,000 set aside for the joint board of teacher evaluation, under Mr. Leskiw of the department, which has the direct responsibility for precisely this matter.

In addition to that, for teachers who do need upgrading, in the next vote, 41, there's $375,000 set aside for professional development. It's not something which is being ignored, but it is, as the member said, something which needs improvement, and it's a difficult question.

The school superintendents, of course, have the job of evaluating individual teachers in their school districts, and we're going to be asking the superintendents to beef up their reporting methods, because we think that the matters raised by the member for Vancouver East are very legitimate ones and that we should be developing better tools for evaluating the teachers — I might say not just the unsatisfactory ones, but the ones who are doing an excellent job. Again, I said to the B.C. Teachers Federation that we wanted to be able to identify the outstanding teachers. We wanted to be able to recognize them in some way.

Some teachers put out a great deal of extra effort and never get recognized for it. I might say I was booed for making that observation, but it's one that I nevertheless....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, it's quite true. But I still believe in it, that we should recognize the good ones and we should be able to identify the ones that need improvement. I think the school superintendents are going to help with that.

In any event, to deal with the specific money that's been set aside under the vote, there is this $15,000 for the joint boards under Mr. Leskiw, and there is $375,000 set aside in the next vote for professional development.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, maybe you can advise me whether this is the correct vote or not. I'd like to ask a question on the advisory committee on sex discrimination in public education, and I'm not

[ Page 1805 ]

sure whether it should be dealt with under this vote or under vote 41.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would this be the proper vote? Just one moment.

MS. BROWN: Is it vote 41?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under this vote.

MS. BROWN: Okay, fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, on January 12 the chairperson of this committee received a letter from Mr. Meredith thanking her for the work of the committee and expressing the thanks of the department for the work of the committee and saying that the activities of the advisory committee had been temporarily discontinued. Temporary I think is the key word that I hope the minister is listening to.

On January 14 a telegram was sent to the Minister of Education asking for some official clarification of the status of the committee. No response was received. So on January 20 the chairperson again, Ms. Nadine Allen, wrote a letter to the Minister of Education asking once again for some clarification of the position of the provincial advisory committee on sex education. Again there was no response. So on March 11 again a letter to the hon. Minister of Education...this time asking just for a reply to the two previous letters. That is all.

On May 6, Mr. Chairman, this time a letter was sent to the deputy minister asking again for some kind of clarification as to the temporary status of this committee being discontinued. The letter went on to explain that one of the reasons that the committee had been established by the previous administration was because we recognized how important the whole setting-down of stereotypes was to young people in the school system and that, in fact, this committee was to help to deal with not just curriculum content but textbook content and other things as well in terms of dealing with stereotyping in the school system.

What I'm asking from the Minister of Education, on behalf of the chairperson of the committee, is: would he give me a response to these four inquiries? I will take this response to Ms. Nadine Allen. What is the official status of the advisory committee? How temporary was the word "temporarily discontinued"? I realize that Julia Goulden is still being retained by the department until June. We would like some ideas as to what she is doing in the department. Is her contract going to be removed after June?

Also, what else is being done in the department in terms of dealing with this whole business of sex stereotyping, not just in the curriculum content but in the textbook content of the books used in the system as well?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I suppose this comes under the category of the Julia Goulden lobby. I must say that I became acquainted with this lady by being accosted in the hall one day by the press who asked me if I had a statement about Julia Goulden. I said: "Well, who's Julia Goulden?" They said: "You just fired her." So that, in effect, Mr. Chairman....

MR. WALLACE: Are you proud of that?

HON. MR. McGEER: No. And as a matter of fact, we hadn't; that was just the comment of the press. I tell you how it began in the day of a life of a minister.

Mr. Chairman, the history behind it is that the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) appointed an advisory committee to her, and, of course, advisory committees to the minister are committees that are established for the purposes of that particular minister.

Miss Julia Goulden and her committee did work and provided valuable advice to the department, and much of that was incorporated into future programmes. But, again, this was not to be a long-term, continuing thing. If it was the understanding of Miss Julia Goulden or her committee at that particular time that it was to be a long-term thing, then there was apparently some misunderstanding between herself, that committee and the department.

We wish to thank the committee. They did very excellent work. The department has taken their recommendation seriously and some action will be taken, but if the member believes that this was to be a long-term, continuing programme, I think that was an incorrect impression. Now perhaps at some future time the committee will become active with a new set of recommendations, but this was a special project funded for a limited period of time, perhaps to be reconstituted at some future time to see if there's a further set of recommendations that can be implemented. But no, Mr. Chairman, it's not policy to have a continuing committee on this special aspect.

MS. BROWN: If I may be permitted to clarify that I'm not a part of the Julia Goulden...I forgot what you called them — lobby. I'm not interested in who heads this committee. I'm solely interested in the function of the committee.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the committee was indeed established to advise the Minister of Education on the business of sex stereotyping, not just in the textbooks used in the schools but in the curriculum content in the educational system as well. The committee's work has not been completed; there are still textbooks being used in the schools. There is still sexist content

[ Page 1806 ]

in the curriculum being used in the schools in the province today.

It doesn't make sense to me for the minister to say that it was a temporary committee which has now been disbanded when it says here in the letter from the deputy minister that the committee is under review, that proposals are going to be made for maintaining progress in this area. Really, this is all I'm interested in, not who heads it or who doesn't head it.

What kind of proposals are forthcoming for maintaining "progress in this area"? Because it's an area that still needs a lot of work. Also, if I can quote again from Mr. Meredith, superintendent of educational programmes, "temporarily" was the word used when he mentioned discontinuing the activities of the advisory committee at least temporarily. Now that's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in Julia Goulden, and I'm not a part of her lobby, or whatever. She did an excellent job and will continue to do an excellent job, if the minister has the foresight to allow her to continue in her job. But the job that was started by this advisory committee had not been completed, and I'm asking the minister what's going to happen to it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the member that staff work in the department is continuing with Mr. Meredith and his staff. Its work has been by no means abandoned. I thought I made that clear in the first trip around. At the same time, grant requests are being made by outside groups for workshops, and those applications can come to Mr. Currie of the department. Both these people would be delighted to discuss progress in the individual things that are going on with the member herself.

MS. BROWN: Is someone monitoring it?

HON. MR. McGEER: That's Mr. Meredith.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member is indeed welcome to go and discuss this matter in detail with Mr. Meredith. As far as grants are concerned, well, she can appeal to Mr. Currie. There's a limited amount of money available, but it's dispensed in a very fair manner, and we're aware of the legitimate concerns. There have been policies implemented as a result of the Julia Goulden committee, and everybody is very grateful for the work she did. As I say, work is continuing.

MRS. DAILLY: Just a couple of comments and a question to the minister on this subject.

First of all, the minister keeps referring again to the Julia Goulden Committee and congratulating them on their fine work, but I would like to point out that the committee was struck over two years ago and the first chairperson was Reva Dexter. I'd like it to go on the record that Reva Dexter did an excellent job for the department also. Julia Goulden was appointed the second year.

Now my only concern is.... I think it was the first time in Canada that such an advisory committee was established to the Department of Education — in this particular case, to the minister — and they do have a big job to do. Now if the minister does not like the structure and approve of the structure that was set up by the former minister, that of course is understandable. I think all we're asking for is more assurance from him that the whole area of sex discrimination in education is going to be looked at by his department. I know you said that Mr. Meredith will be looking at it and I think, in view of that, all we can do then is wait until the year passes and then we will have further questions on the development of the programme. I have great respect for Mr. Meredith. My only concern, having been in that department, is that I know the tremendous load which the superintendents carry. It is difficult for them to spread themselves over too many areas. So I just hope that if Mr. Meredith has been given that, he is also being given some assistance to carry out this work.

Vote 40 approved.

On vote 41: basic education K-12 programme, $523,492,978.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have just a few questions for the minister under this heading.

First of all, I'd like to have it clarified for the various school districts around the province the exact situation they're facing on fire insurance for the coming year. I appreciate there's been some discussion of this earlier on in the estimates, but I'm not clear yet in my own mind as to what is going to happen in the future. The minister says that the actual insurance situation, in terms of coverage for the districts, remains as it always was with the amounts under $1 million being covered by a special fund. But in the future, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister: who is going to pay for fire insurance costs? It was in recent years shifted from the local school districts to the central Department of Education. Now can the minister give us an undertaking that that situation will continue, however arranged, however he provides his funding, or whether there will be an attempt to shift this cost back onto the local school districts, thereby being an extra item of cost at the local level? I would hope the minister would clarify this point for us.

[ Page 1807 ]

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Next, there has been some recent discussion in this committee, under the minister's vote, on the question of French language education in the province. The only suggestion I have for the minister in this regard is that he should go after 100-cent dollars from the federal government. I would suggest that second-language education in this country is a matter that is peculiarly important to the field of national unity and that this is a particular responsibility of the national government. I believe that the minister should be seeking not 50-cent dollars, but 100-cent dollars as he considers his activities in this valuable area of instruction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all?

MR. GIBSON: No, that's not all. I was just wondering if you were listening, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, no. I just was wondering if you're keeping note of what's being said or if you're listening to one conversation with one ear and another with the other.

MR. LAUK: I'd sooner hear your conversations. What's going on over there? Speak up.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to ask the minister if he will give us a policy now, or undertake to examine a policy in the matter of gradual integration of day care with the public school system. It has to be gradual, Mr. Chairman, because there's a financial problem, which is that the province currently receives a federal sharing of much of the cost of day care under the Canada Assistance Plan and we would not want, through any particular moves that were made to integrate with the school system, to lose that cost sharing. This is one of the reasons why, in this area and so many others, British Columbia should seek to withdraw from a lot of these programmes and receive tax points instead, in order that we can better determine our own priorities in our own province as to how these dollars are to be spent.

But given the solution to that problem, which I have little doubt can be worked out in federal-provincial conferences in a fairly short time given a sufficiently aggressive stance on the part of the provincial government, given the solution to that problem, I would like the minister to agree that a policy of gradual integration of the day-care system into the public school system would make sense.

Most logically, I would suggest, it would be brought about by the gradual extension downward through the grades of the kindergarten system currently functioning in many areas, and efficiently, at the five-year-old level, functioning in other parts of this country very well at the four-year-old level on a voluntary basis as far as parents and their children are concerned, but on a voluntary basis which is very well accepted by most of the population.

This, to me, Mr. Chairman, is the most important potential development in education in the next decade, because I feel very, very strongly that the important years in a child's education are the early years, and in this I agree with what the hon. member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) said the other day, and I've been saying it in this chamber for a couple of years, Mr. Member. I agree with it very much.

Those are the years where you learn how to learn. Those are the years where your enthusiasm about the whole educational system in this whole world is developed.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, and the educational spirit can be destroyed in those years, that's right.

I think the hon. member for Esquimalt, if I read his remarks correctly, suggested that up until age 14 the child only spends, I think you said, 10 per cent of his time in school. Now we can improve that percentage a little bit and improve the educational experience, in my opinion, by extending downward the outreach of the public school system, on a voluntary basis, but extending it down progressively to age four and eventually age three.

I would like the minister to tell us that this is a goal that he is prepared to work towards, or have his department study working towards. It makes sense in terms of such questions as the use of physical plans, but far more important than that, it makes sense in human terms.

Then I would have just one more question under this vote, Mr. Chairman. It's a philosophical question but it's an important one. The minister has, for many years in this House as a private member, I know, been concerned with education, and over that period I believe he would have developed some ideas of his own about what should be the educational goals of the public school system, this vote that we're debating right now.

Certainly I'll give you some of my views: life skills has to be one of the things the system looks at, the idea of a well-rounded human being; the idea of a core curriculum, which I think the minister endorses, and at the centre of that core curriculum, the whole idea of communication and analytical skills, the two languages, the spoken language and the language of mathematics, by which we perceive and communicate about and analyse the worse. And there's the development under that head, too, of creative and expressive skills and motivation and a positive

[ Page 1808 ]

outlook on the world which I suggested before are important in the early years.

It would seem to me that education goals should include such things as preparation for the world of work, and that has perhaps been a little bit down-played in our school system in recent years.

I want to commend to the minister's attention the need to develop more work-experience programmes in high schools in particular — work experience in the community with cooperating employers which can have a very good impact — and not limited, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to vocational students.

Everybody should know how to work before leaving school, in some way or other have a feeling for it, regardless of whether they are going into vocational trades or other fields of endeavour. Work is an essential life-skill, if I could put it that way.

Another educational goal that I think hasn't had sufficient attention in our public school system is what I would call preparation for civic responsibility, and that is the political process and the economic process and the question of the area of social rights and obligations. As government becomes more and more heavily involved in our lives it becomes more important for the citizen to understand the problems that government is grappling with, so that the citizen can press government in intelligent ways for the solution of our problems.

I would remind all the members of this House that simple rhetoric only works on voters that don't understand a complex situation, and the best defence of democracy is an educated population.

I would finally, under this heading, suggest that preparation for parenting, for raising one's own children in later years, is something that is given insufficient attention in the school system. There is no greater single duty on all of us in this world than to do our best for those that will come after, and parenting is an important part of that.

In the attainment of these things, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest there are two basic principles: one is the emphasis on early years, which I spoke of before; the other is a strong insistence by the school system on application and hard work by the student. This is a favour to the child and it's a favour to society, for each to reach their full potential.

I am of the opinion, based on having gone through the British Columbia school system myself and seeing my own children go through it now, and many of their friends, that it is possible to get a lot more achievement out of children than is average at the present time, if there's more motivation, if there's more insistence that they put the effort in to get the product out.

It may seem like hard work at the time but, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you it's the greatest favour we can do to our children. I would ask the minister to imbue the school system, insofar as he can give it that moral leadership, with that kind of spirit.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, in this vote I notice there's been quite a change, and I think the change is good, the way you have pulled together some of the descriptions for the members to understand what is going on in the department. So I congratulate whoever was in charge of pulling this together in this form.

There is therefore a section here called educational support services, which includes native Indian education. My question very briefly is: as the research and development vote now seems to be primarily, even though it is close to $3 million, or over, for financial studies, I would first like to suggest that perhaps you should change the phraseology of that vote because it is really a financial study vote now primarily.

Part of it is, I know, for innovation, but very small. Out of that we did give sums of money for native Indian education. I see here, however, that in this vote 41, under educational support services, there is $416,000.

My question then really is: how much is being allocated for native Indian education this year? Because it is rather hard — although I think the way you've broken it down is fairly comprehensive — but as it's the first year it is hard for those of us in opposition now to break down. For instance, what is going to native Indian education? Could we have a rough estimate of that?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll answer quickly to the points raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). We've been over the fire insurance question, I think, several times with you and also when you haven't been here, and I don't know what more I can say to make the point.

The member originally asked if I thought it was consultation that had been started by the department. I said yes. The member was very critical of that, but really, Mr. Member, no changes of any kind have taken place except the necessity for ICBC to choose a new vehicle for re-insurance because of the very, very high cost.

This is a question that if I were to answer to the member now, I'd be guilty of the very thing that he wrongly accused me of before, namely to give answers before consultation had taken place.

This is something that will go on between the school trustees and the department in the weeks and months to come, so don't ask me to be guilty of something that you wrongly accused me of by coming back again and asking for answers before the consultations that we promised would take place have taken place.

Now secondly, with respect to French, B.C. does

[ Page 1809 ]

have the greatest number of special projects under the minority language programme of any of the provinces in Canada, and we're trying to get as much money as we can, and of course that gets passed directly on to the school districts.

With respect to day care; that's a matter for Human Resources, and I would refer the member to those votes. We look after the K-12 programme and day care is Human Resources.

Now with respect to the educational philosophy, I think that we've gone into that fairly exhaustively in the past. We're trying to develop this core curriculum. Incidentally, I see, Mr. Meredith who is in charge of that, is up in the galleries today. He must have a déjà-vu experience because he was last in here several days ago when we were discussing this very thing, so if progress seems a little slow it is because we're covering territories for the second and third time.

But the core curriculum is being developed in terms of skills that it is anticipated every youngster in the school system will develop. The skills will be specified and the way in which the specific academic programmes are designed to fulfil those skills will be spelled out as well. Then, in order to determine whether or not the skills are, in fact, being developed, there will be a provincial assessment programme. This is all on stream now and will be available in the kind of detail that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano would like to have now and which we would like to have, but it is on the way.

In addition to all of that, we're encouraging local school districts to carry out testing in the schools. We think parents want their youngsters to be tested. There are plenty of standard tests available. Every school district, every school, every teacher can have those and determine precisely where the youngsters stand relative to North American norms. We've said enrich, as much as possible, the kind of basic core educational programme that we are trying to promote.

Indian education, Madam Member, is definitely a problem. We are looking for a co-ordinator for Indian education.

There is some money in the K-12 programme, some money in the research and administration for this particular purpose. I don't intend to filibuster my own vote, but I want to introduce, however, to the House another member of the Department of Education who is on the floor of the House for the first time today, Mr. Andy Soles, who is the associate deputy minister for post-secondary education.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the answers he gave. I will overlook the non-answer on day care, which I think was a pretty shabby evasion of responsibility.

I want to say that his answer on fire insurance is just plain nonsense. The question is: will the minister guarantee that the Department of Education will continue to pay school insurance premiums? However he chooses to finance it internally, that's his business. Will he guarantee he will not shift these costs to the school districts? That's a perfectly open-and-shut question. That doesn't require any consultation with anyone.

You can be assured, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the school districts will be absolutely delighted if you will continue to bear that cost. Now will you simply assure the House that that will be the policy of the government? That's all I ask.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, our commitment is to meet with the school trustees on this question and consult with them on the best way to finance the losses that occur when fires devastate the school system in British Columbia, as well as how to prevent them. That's the commitment we have given. As I explained to the member, it's the taxpayers of British Columbia who will benefit if we find ways of reducing the fires. If the Department of Education pays all the premium, then of course that comes off the grants that the department would otherwise give to the local school districts. It is all very well for the member to say that the school districts would be absolutely delighted with that policy of the department simply deducting from what they otherwise would give them on the cost of the fire insurance. But that is really not getting at the question which we want to get at — how to prevent school fires.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say that what the minister just suggested isn't what I said at all was what would absolutely delight the school districts. What would delight them would be a continuation of the past policy, when above and beyond any grant and without talking about deducting if, a premium was paid for by the Department of Education.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Above and beyond any grant. The school districts have never been able to discover what the premiums were. That is one of the difficulties — this jiggery-pokery inside the mysterious finance mechanism of the Department of Education. But the fact of the matter is this: that minister, Mr. Chairman, has always stood up in this House for a shifting of the burden of taxation away from local levels and onto the central taxation authority of the province, which he knows is a fairer way of raising tax revenue in this province. He is, by this latest gesture on the matter of fire insurance, as in the general budgetary provision, backpedalling from that policy at about 100 miles an hour.

[ Page 1810 ]

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I have just one brief question under this vote to the minister. I understand that in Ontario the kindergarten programme has now been reduced so that four-year olds are included in part of the school programme under the regular educational system. Now thanks to the work of the previous minister, kindergarten for five-year-olds is available to all students in this province. But I am wondering whether or not you have had any discussions with your department about the possibility of including kindergarten, which is different from nursery schools or different from day care, as part of the educational programme.

I know that you undoubtedly will make some comments about "when money is available," et cetera, which is a comment that we hear very often from the other side of the House, but have you, in fact, discussed the possibility of lowering the age to include four-year-olds as part of the regular kindergarten programme for the province?

HON. MR. McGEER: No.

Vote 41 approved.

On vote 42: post-secondary education — universities, $171,973,112.

MRS. DAILLY: Under vote 42, in the area of the grants to the universities this year, which amount to over 13 per cent in comparison to 8 per cent and 9 per cent figures for our other educational institutions, the colleges and the public schools, I wonder if this will be the base for the operating grants to the universities next year or if this is considered as a special one-year supplement to the universities — the extra $7.5 million you gave.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: It won't be the base, then, for the next year. Thank you.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, there is a special grant to the faculty of law at UBC which is for tutoring for native Indian students who are students at the UBC law school at the time. Who monitors this fund and who is keeping an eye on it to see how the fund is being expended or whether it is being used at all? A couple of complaints have come to me by students that they have been unable to get any of the moneys released in terms of getting their tutoring paid for while they are students there.

HON. MR. McGEER: If you send me details, I would be happy to look into it. I am just not aware of any....

MS. BROWN: Supplemental, Mr. Chairman. There is also in the faculty of medicine, as you know, a committee that is looking into the whole designing of a special programme for native Indian students to go through the faculty of medicine. Can you tell me what the status of that committee is at this time and what is happening to their recommendation?

HON. MR. McGEER: I am told that the one regarding law might be in the Attorney-General's department. Departments do make special grants; it could be that something of that nature was made that our officials aren't aware of. But in any event, if the member will give me details, I'd be happy to look into this.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I understand that the universities council is meeting today and I think one of the items on the agenda is Notre Dame University. But what I'd like to talk about is the last meeting of the universities council, which I believe took place on or about April 29 — about the end of April at any rate. I've been led to believe that at that meeting they voted for interim funding for Notre Dame University in the amount of about $125,000 per month.

It appears that the wish of the council has not been carried out. I'd like to know why it hasn't been carried out, because it's been necessary, Mr. Chairman, for the university to go and borrow from a bank, and this is really no way to carry things on.

I'm optimistic today that the council will find — as would appear to be the case on the basis of information I have — that Notre Dame has been able to successfully carry out all of the criteria which were stipulated to them, that faculty curtailment, for instance, has proceeded with, that the faculty has been reduced approximately 50 per cent. I don't know if the minister might not have some information as to the meeting and whether or not the meeting is concluded by now. He might have the very latest information.

To bring it down to two questions, I would like to know of the minister, or his office, was advised of the recommendation, because I'm quite concerned that one of the problems has been some kind of a breakdown in communication at a very high level, which I've mentioned and alluded to before here in the House. Has the minister been made aware of that?

The other matter is: should the universities council recommend in favour of funding, and that NDU has complied with the stipulated terms for funding as a public university...? I might also point out that it has not been the desire of Notre Dame to remain private for several years now, certainly going back to 1971, 1972, or even earlier than that. It's not by desire that they've remained private. But should there be a recommendation in favour of funding, Dr. Armstrong

[ Page 1811 ]

has kind of indicated this would still be only for one year. You know, really, to undertake such radical change within the university, severing half of the faculty to bring things into line, only to buy one more year, that really isn't the type of thing that the university wants.

I'd also ask the minister, should the council come out in favour of funding, would he be prepared to give his full support in order that students from all over the province would know that there is a fourth university to which they might go to come next fall? We've lost a great deal and there's no sense in affixing blame now. But in terms of time, students have left the university this year, completed this year's term, not knowing what they would come back to next year if they should choose to come back.

I think that I am asking for three things, and would the minister give some assurance of some longevity and his support of the university if the universities council makes that recommendation?

Frankly, I do feel that while the universities council recommendation, whatever it should be, should be given weight, I think the minister should really have enough information by now through direct sources, as his deputy has worked very hard in this area.

There is the problem then: was the recommendation of $125,000 per month interim funding related to the minister? I'm afraid there might have been a communication breakdown somewhere there, but I'm informed that that's the resolution that was passed by council. And what are the long-term prospects beyond this if they comply?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, it's our understanding that no recommendation was made by the universities council for interim funding, but perhaps that question was resolved today. To my knowledge no such resolution was passed, but I could be misinformed and I'd be pleased to check into it.

Secondly, as far as the students at Notre Dame are concerned, we've given categorical reassurance to them that their academic investment would be protected whatever happens. So I think that no student should feel that in any way his investment in time and money at Notre Dame will go for naught. We are going to give the students themselves absolute protection.

Finally, we're very keen, as the member is, to see post-secondary facilities thrive at the Nelson site. It's an excellent place to carry on such studies, and if appropriate conditions can be worked out for continuing those programmes — and I'm sure that with good will on all sides it can be worked out — there should be a bright future indeed. But again, I think that we must put this one caveat in. That is that we're not prepared, as a government, to fund a private institution at a richer rate for academic programmes that are not high priority, when we're not able to give everything that we would like to be able to give to our public institutions.

So at such time as Nelson is able to meet the criteria that are established for public funding, they will get public funding on a long-term basis — strictly a question of meeting the criteria which, in our view, are very reasonable criteria and which we didn't want to interfere in ourselves, because we didn't want the accusation of politics thrown into this thing. What we wanted to do was to have our publicly established bodies — established by your government, Mr. Member, when it was in office — to take a dispassionate view of these things, to establish what were appropriate criteria for public universities and say: "You establish the criteria and we'll provide the money through you." That's the process that's taking place.

We have, from the very beginning, said two things: one, even if there is a breakdown and the worst should befall, we will see that the students themselves are protected; and, two, we believe in post-secondary education in the Nelson area. All that is required is to meet the public criteria established by our public body.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to draw a matter to the minister's attention of which he may well be aware, and that is that other provinces in Canada are either now charging, or are considering charging, higher fees for foreign students at universities. I appreciate that this is a complex question and one that the minister might not want to come to a policy position on quickly, but I'd simply ask him at this time if he could ask his department to ascertain — if he has not already done so — what the percentage of foreign students in our universities is, what percentage of our British Columbia children at university level go to universities outside of our province — because, of course, that's an offsetting item and it may well be that we gain as much from this practice as it costs us — and, finally, what the general practice is in other areas.

As I say, I believe that Ontario and Alberta are going to be charging higher fees, but I wonder if the minister could inquire as to the practice in this question of higher fees in other parts of North America — that is, the United States and areas abroad where Canadian students most often travel.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I believe almost all jurisdictions follow the policy that British Columbia follows, namely that the institutions themselves set the fees and not the government. If the member is aware of any area where the government sets the fees, we'd be pleased to learn about that, but it's not our intention here to interfere in any way with the right of institutions to establish whatever they consider to

[ Page 1812 ]

be appropriate fees for domestic or foreign students. The numbers of foreign students at our public institutions is remaining relatively constant. It's not increasing. So I don't think that it's a looming or enlarging problem, as the member fears that it would be.

Finally, we do not have a record of the number of local British Columbians who are attending foreign institutions, and I'm not quite sure how we would develop data like that except to go to very great expense in institute some province-wide survey. It's not beyond the realm of possibility, but I think one would want to determine what the cost benefit would be for spending money in that particular fashion.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Chairman. The minister mentioned that the percentage of foreign students, he thought, was roughly stable. Does he have any idea as to the approximate level?

HON. MR. McGEER: If you want to put it on the order paper, we'll try and get a precise answer for you. Right now it would be too much guesswork.

Vote 42 approved.

On vote 43: post-secondary education — community colleges and others, $106,623,567.

MRS. DAILLY: Just a brief comment and question to the minister on community colleges and their budgets this year. I note from the annual report that the university enrolment went up approximately 11 per cent last year, whereas we have the overall college enrolment increasing by approximately 25 per cent.

Yet it's interesting to note that the universities received an increase, as I said earlier, of over 13 per cent, although we know that same relative increase may not be necessarily carried on next year, but the colleges have been cut back to just over 8 per cent. When we were in office we had set a ceiling of 15 per cent. At that time we knew that this would cause some restrictions maybe on enrolments and certainly a cutback in subject offerings.

With this severe cutback in the college moneys, and with the obvious increase in enrolment in the community colleges and the great expectations of people for this very, very advantageous educational experience — and I think it ties in with our earlier discussions on recurrent education — I'm very concerned that the doors are going to be closed to many of our citizens of all ages to get into our community colleges because of this very extreme restrictive financial measure which has been taken. Although we agree there had to be some wind-down, I consider this very extreme.

I was wondering if the minister, as he has done for the universities, has any buffer at all in mind to help the community colleges if they do find themselves in a very, very serious position relative to demands for programmes and areas in which the students can even find facilities to work in. I am concerned.

HON. MR. McGEER: When the increase in grants to the colleges was 11.5 per cent, which is the highest percentage increase of any educational component, the increase to the universities was 8.5 per cent. I think I made it very clear to the member on a number of occasions that there's been a shift in the budgeting year and the method of budgeting for the universities to take it from an April-to-April basis. It's this old problem of bargaining away next year's taxes. We've said no more of that, but we are recognizing guidelines plus growth. There was growth in the community colleges, as the member pointed out. That's why they got 11.5 per cent, the largest increase of all, and if there's growth in the future they'll continue to get guidelines plus growth. The universities will be treated the same — that is, guidelines plus growth. If there's no growth they'll get guidelines.

Where there are new programmes being introduced — for example if a university like UVic has a law school and in the second year of its programme it has to introduce a whole second-year law school programme as something brand new — then, of course, you would have a special recognition of programmes of that kind. But by and large we're trying to get the educational system adjusted to a constant budgeting year so that we will be able to say each year that this is the amount of money that is available for education, this much is for K-12, this much is for community colleges, and this much is for universities. Everybody who bargains for that, be it the unionized staff or be it the faculties, will know that this is the pile of money they have and there just isn't any more.

So the university budgeting rearrangement was strictly for the purpose of converting their year from April to April and to let them know that if there are any contracts signed that carry on beyond the budgeting year they're going to have to set money aside for it. You know that section 163 of the Public Schools Act already places restraints on the community colleges and the schools to observe the kind of thing that we've now introduced to the universities. So it's really just fair and equitable treatment, Madam Member.

MRS. DAILLY: As usual, the minister has evaded the basic issue here. I didn't even bring up the point about how you budget and trying to get the colleges and the universities knowing how much money is coming. That's begging the question. That is a direction which we hope to go also and I think it's a

[ Page 1813 ]

good direction. I'm just pointing out that your government's priorities for education are very, very poor, and the figures prove it. So we're not in a discussion on how you hand out the money; I'm simply saying that I'm afraid that many people who wish to go to community colleges are going to be turned away because of your government's priorities on education.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on what the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has just been stating with respect to community colleges. I raised this in the House the other night, particularly as it applies to the newly established North Island Community College.

I appealed at that time for some way to give that particular college some additional funding. They've done an excellent job in introducing a very innovative approach to community college education. They're able to provide educational facilities for people all throughout that large geographic area. They're not out to build a big campus, but they do need some basic funding.

That group started with nothing in the way of facilities and today they have nothing in the way of facilities. I know that you're talking about approving budgets in July, but I'm wondering if perhaps the new colleges could be considered earlier than July, because by the time July rolls around any kind of construction they want to do will be difficult to accomplish during that construction season. So what about thinking of just looking at the capital funding that's being requested by the new community colleges, those that have been recently established?

There's an ideal opportunity at this time to look particularly at the North Island Community College, because just on Tuesday of this week the Alberni school district voted to become part of that North Island Community College, and it seems to me that you could look right now at the possibility of awarding funds immediately to the North Island Community College for capital construction. They're providing such an excellent service and could do so much more on an economical basis. They're providing cheap education, because they don't need all these fancy structures and campuses — that's not their approach. They're able to reach into homebound, captive people within that North Island Community College area and provide courses over that wide geographical region without costing the taxpayers that much money. It's an appeal, Mr. Minister, to look at that at this time, rather than waiting until July.

Vote 43 approved.

On vote 44: student-aid programmes, $10,584,747.

MRS. DAILLY: In vote 44, I note that there is a decrease by this government compared to what was given by the New Democratic Party government to students of this province. Now, particularly in a time of high unemployment, when many of our young people because of this government's policies are unable to find work, it seems a rather ridiculous situation where many of them are also going to be denied entry to post-secondary education because the grant programme has also decreased, if my figures here as I read them are correct. There may have been some surplus left over, but even at that this government is putting less into student-aid grant programmes than the New Democratic Party government did. There is an obvious drop in what you're putting in.

The question that follows that is: have you changed the formula for the student grants? Is there any change at all, or will it be following what it was the year before? Why I'm asking that is that a number of students have turned up at the university asking for their forms and they've been told they're not out yet, which I can understand, as it takes a while to get them prepared, but I was wondering if the slowdown is because there's any change being suggested in the handing out of grants to young people who need them. Is there any change?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I believe there is, Madam Member. What is being asked by the department is that the students take out the loan first before they get the grant.

MRS. DAILLY: The federal one?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes. They take the federal loan and then they get the grant. Actually, we're very pleased with the programme that was introduced by the former government. We think it's an excellent one. The amount of money that's set aside has actually increased from the amount that we think was spent last year, so that it's not adjusted downwards because we're trying to chisel in any way. If more money is needed, it will be provided, but this was our estimate of how much would be required. There's about a 15 per cent increase in there.

MRS. DAILLY: There was a surplus, I believe.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, we think about $8,700,000 was spent. So the only recommendation of the department is that the students, before they get the grant, take out the loan. I might say that the other thing the department felt obliged to do was to hire some verification officers so that we'd be certain the money would get to the people who honestly needed it.

[ Page 1814 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to nail down what the minister said there about the availability of money. Did I understand him to say that the demand by legitimate applicants for student aid exceeds the funds provided in these estimates the government will nevertheless undertake to meet the demand and provide additional money up to the legitimate demand required? Would the minister confirm that that's what he meant?

HON. MR. McGEER: We can't give firm commitments outside what the Legislature would authorize. The member well knows that, but I'm saying that the government might be very sympathetic towards students.

Vote 44 approved.

On vote 45: teachers' pension fund, $29,200,000.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just a short question here. We saw in the Clarkson Gordon report how many of the pension funds had gotten into positions which the report described as actually unsound. I wonder if the minister could tell us the condition of the teachers' pension fund in that context.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's managed by the superannuation officer, and you could pursue that question, if you wish, in the vote of the Provincial Secretary.

I would remind the member that the pensions the teachers receive are by statute, so no teacher has to worry about the government meeting commitments to his or her pension. The pension payments are specified by statute, irrespective of the teachers' pension fund, so the condition of the fund in no way affects the teachers' pensions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Member, you don't understand the statute. Read the statute. It's required under the statute, regardless of the fund.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister may want to foist this off on the Provincial Secretary, but I'll just say that I would have thought that under his vote, where $29 million is being provided into this fund, he could have given us a little better account of its condition.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I want to follow the same theme because the Clarkson Gordon report made it very plain and we've had answers from I think it was the Premier or the Minister of Finance in an earlier debate that all pension plans are in trouble.

It's not enough for the minister, in my view, to glibly say that the government guarantees that under the statute the pensions will be paid. Again, I get back to the earlier theme this afternoon that the taxpayers of British Columbia want to know how much, perhaps, of their general revenue will be needed to bail out the pension funds if, in fact, the contributors are not putting enough into the fund. That's a simple question and it's a very reasonable one. I detect from the minister's answer the theme that because the statute guarantees the teacher the certain pension, it really isn't all that important what's going into the front end because the government guarantees what comes out at the back end when the teacher retires and is entitled under statute to a certain pension.

I agree with the Liberal leader that while it is essentially the direct responsibility of the Provincial Secretary to administer the fund, when you think of some of the very serious statements included in the Clarkson Gordon report — for example, that the Hydro pension plan is $41 million in the glue, and we read in the newspapers the other day that B.C. Hydro has decided to close that gap — we as taxpayers are left wondering if this is a temporary closure or if there is some longer-term agreement, arrangement, to ensure that another year or two or three down the road we're back into another $41 million deficit.

I would really like to support the statement of the Liberal leader that it's not enough, in our view, for the Minister of Education simply to say that it's the Provincial Secretary's problem. The fact is that the minister's answer made it rather suggestive, if not clear, that the government takes the view — and he takes the view — that the money will be available when the teachers retire, and they will get the pension guaranteed under statute.

But I think what we would like to know is whether the financing of the plan, particularly in relation to the teacher's individual contributions, appears to be adequate. And this figure of almost an additional $7 million, from $22.3 million to $29.2, is an increase of one-third. That's a very substantial percentage increase. Is that predicated on the fact that that's the amount needed to prevent actuarial deficiencies? And that's a delightfully long phrase to cover the fact that there's not enough money in the fund.

I wonder if the minister would elaborate a little more on this question of the teachers' pension fund, if only for the fact that I'm sure a lot of the teachers in this province would like to know more exactly how their participation and the government participation will actually make the fund sound.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat some of the things that I've said before. The amount of money that's set aside in this vote is upon the recommendation of the commissioner who is

[ Page 1815 ]

under the direction of the Provincial Secretary. That's Mr. Forrest; he'll be in and you can ask him those precise questions.

The special warrant was passed last year, and that's already been a subject of discussion with the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly). This amount that's set aside brings the teachers' pension plan, the reserve account into balance according to the person who makes the recommendations. You might wish to quarrel with him as to whether it is satisfactory or not in terms of what the Clarkson Gordon report says, but I can't help but observe, Mr. Chairman, that the pensions are.... The actual amount paid is determined by statute; it is irrespective of this reserve fund. This reserve fund is established, but the amount of the pensions is spelled out by statutes. That is under my administrative jurisdiction, the Public Schools Act, so I can assure the member, from what is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education, that those pensions are protected.

This reserve account is something which is recommended by the commissioner, who comes under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). We've had a special warrant. We've got an amount of money set aside which satisfies the criteria he has met. Now you are setting up a reserve account, the adequacy of which will be tested over a period of 25 or 30 years. You know, Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing the ICBC situation where reserves were established to cover the claims incurred, where there is no statutory guarantee at all that the claimant in a motor accident will get his payment and where the payout is not measured in terms of 25 or 30 years but measured in terms of two and three months, these same two members who had this terrible concern over this reserve account were arguing against the establishment of that fund.

Vote 45 approved.

On vote 46: metric conversion, $119,972.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the minister could give us some very brief outline on just exactly how these funds and the increased funds on the metric conversion are going to be spent. There is a reasonable amount of public controversy about the whole business of metric conversion. Just to put in another $20,000 and ask us to pass the vote without as much as saying which direction the $20,000 is going, I think, is not reasonable. Could the minister tell us?

MR. GIBSON: It's only money.

HON. MR. McGEER: The majority of the increase has gone into Mr. Gossages's salary. The programme is really a fairly modest one, Mr. Member. I think that there are.... Well, you can count up the number of people who are involved here. As you know, we are moving at a breakneck speed into the metric system.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't know how you keep the temperature of this conversion in Celsius but, as the members well know, we are into a bit of a mixture of metric and non-metric because we cut our timber to suit some of the European markets, and yet we sell mostly in the United States which is vigorously resisting the move to metrication. We are caught in between.

I don't really know how fast the national government will press us into adopting a complete metric system. Of course, people who are concerned with basic science or medicine are strong advocates of the metric system because it is so much simpler and more attractive. But we've got a big problem in persuading the Americans to do the retooling that is necessary to go into the metric system. Eventually they will get to it. Perhaps as we approach that definite day the size of this vote will increase. In the meantime, we are puttering along.

MR. WALLACE: Just a last comment from me, Mr. Chairman. Would you give special consideration to the senior citizens? Because when they changed the financial system in Britain the senior citizens had a terrible time understanding the different value of pence. We've got the 100-cent dollar already — it isn't a question of money in British Columbia — but would the minister realize the particular difficulty it is for the senior citizen to start thinking and learning in different terms from those they have used for 50 or 60 or 70 years? I just thought that in asking the original question the minister would give some recognition of the particular problem to the older people in such a drastic change in basic terms of measurement.

HON. MR. McGEER: The way it is going, Mr. Member, I wonder if we mightn't start at grade school and by the time they get to senior citizens maybe the conversion will have taken place. It really is about the slowest thing you could possibly imagine. But obviously when we have more precise targets, then you start to zero in on those problems. At the moment the idea is just to introduce a little more of the metric system into the regular school system — putting it into the textbooks and so on.

Vote 46 approved.

Vote 47: advances re rural school taxes, $10 — approved.

[ Page 1816 ]

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 48: minister's office, $114,053.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a few comments about the Department of Environment before we get to our estimates.

Some of the problems which have occurred in the early months were because of the alterations in some of the departments and the makeup of the new Department of Environment. Even today a tremendous amount of correspondence comes to the department which should properly be sent to other departments. People have not yet fully been able to understand where the authority lies, and perhaps, for the benefit of some of the members who may still be somewhat concerned and confused as to where some of those responsibilities lie — just as a brief comment — the Department of Environment is made up of several components, most traditional of which is the Lands department, and as well the Water Resources department, which includes the pollution control branch and the Pollution Control Board. As well, the Department of Environment has the responsibility for the Land Commission and the Land Commission Act. The Minister of Environment is also chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee which, in turn, has the services of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat which offers us research work and other investigations.

The Department of Environment is relatively large when it comes to serving people, with a staff of very nearly 1,100 employees, and, of course, they're scattered throughout the province. The department, as it's constituted at the moment, offers a lot of value, we hope, as a co-ordinating agency, or a co-ordinating department, between other government line departments, hoping that if we cooperate between departments we may be able to come up with some of the best of both worlds with regard to development of the province and the maximum protection of the environment.

Many times a saw-off may occur when a development reaches a point where the damage to the environment, or the cost of seeing that that damage does not occur, would outweigh the cost factor of going ahead with such a development. It's our desire that the Environment and Land Use Committee, and other work between departments, will advise us as to the desirability of continuing on or initiating new developments relative to the possible damage to environment or the cost which would be required to see that that damage does not occur.

We're most fortunate in the department — as it's known now, Department of Environment — to have a very large number of dedicated public servants at all levels of the department, but, I think, most particularly I'd like to mention that those who are near the top of the various components within the department have served the province for many, many years and they've displayed their abilities and their desire to work over the years.

I'd like to mention the deputy minister, Mr. Ben Marr, who is regarded as one of the ablest of deputies in the government service. In addition we have Walter Redel, who is assistant deputy minister of Lands; Mr. Geoff Simmons, assistant deputy minister of Water Resources; Dave Borthwick, who is an assistant deputy involving special assignments, and devoting most of his time now — almost 100 per cent of his time — to the lands question relative to Indian claims, working with the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. William's) department on this.

As well, we have people who are in different positions but not at the assistant minister level: Garry Runka, who is chairman of the Land Commission; Mr. Bill Venables, director of the pollution control branch; Dennis O'Gorman who is acting director of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. All of these people have displayed exceptional ability in leadership in their various parts of the department, and I commend them all for their services.

A major problem in the Department of Environment is manpower. The overall budget we are seeking this year exceeds $43 million, but a doubling of this amount would be well utilized without waste. If we could simply get our field staffs increased in size and process some of this tremendous backlog of applications which have been before government for much too long — in many instances, several years.... These applications for leases of land or other uses of land — water licences — are needlessly held up for a particularly long period of time, frustrating many citizens of the province who feel they have a very legitimate right to communicate with their government and receive some satisfaction in a reasonable period of time.

It is not that the people in the field are not doing their job; it's just that it's a tremendous job to do. A simple application by a citizen of the province may only take them a few moments, but the actual carrying-out of that application, the investigations required to see if the land is suitable and so on, does take a long period of time, and we look forward to the time when our staff is increased considerably, in the field particularly, to expedite these applications for various purposes of land or water use.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

The department, in addition to the obvious areas of interest, has assisted in the establishment of rural subdivisions, the acquisition of open space, or green space, or agricultural lands.

[ Page 1817 ]

The department as well administers the University Endowment Lands, which have many situations and problems which are unique to the University Endowment Lands. We have great assistance from the two MLAs who are involved in that area.

Our budget is not the largest of budgets compared with other departments which provide service to people directly, but the Department of Environment certainly is vital to the well-being of the people of this province, and we recognize this responsibility. I believe that, almost without exception, those working within the department accept the challenge.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, because of the time, I would like to thank the minister for making an opening statement about his department. Other ministers have not done so, and I think it's a great help, not only to the opposition but to the people of the province, when a minister will take his place at the beginning of his estimates...

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, the Attorney-General did also.

...and explain how they see the department going ahead, the duties of this department and giving people some idea of how the minister thinks.

Mr. Chairman, the House Leader is not here at the moment, so I would like to ask the Premier to accept a motion to have the committee rise and report resolution because of the hour. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, one of the confusing areas about the Minister of Environment's responsibilities is that this department is called new. It's called a new department, the Department of Environment, when in fact there isn't one single thing that's new about the department, except there's been some....

AN HON. MEMBER: A new minister, that's all.

MR. LEA: This is a new minister, yes, that's right. But the minister didn't explain what there is under the Department of Environment. He mentioned lands, the Pollution Control Board, the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, the Land Commission and water resources. Now if we take a look at it, the only thing that's been entered in there that's really new under one minister is the Land Commission, which previously was in Agriculture. Forests has been taken out and is now with the Minister of Mines — the Minister of Mines and Forestry. There really isn't anything new. The only thing that is new is that the Land Commission has come in. Forests has gone out and we have a new minister.

I wouldn't want the people of the province to feel that all of a sudden we have a rather new direction in government, because it's a direction, as the minister has pointed out, that has been going on for some time.

The secretariat and the Environment and Land Use Committee have been bringing departments together for some time to try and get some co-ordination between the departments.

We found when we assumed office, Mr. Chairman, that there had been actually deputy ministers who hadn't spoken to other deputy ministers for a long while, that there was no co-ordination going on even between departments that you would think would have had co-ordination — between resource departments and between departments that are supplying social services to the people of the province.

We in the opposition feel that in forming the secretariat around the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet we could bring together from each department people who have knowledge and experience in their own particular discipline, and bring those people together to work on specific projects in regard to environmental matters and in that way not set up a department of environment per se that would only act as a policing agency, but rather to bring all departments together so there could be dialogue and each department could discuss with one another, and among themselves, the kind of problem that the modern society we live in is facing.

We feel it was a good approach and I'm glad to hear that the minister is considering keeping that direction in government, and that it is outdated to have departments going on in their own merry way without consultation of other departments; and this is the correct manner in which to go.

But I don't believe it would be a correct thing to do, Mr. Chairman, to leave the impression with the public that there is a new direction because of this new title, Department of the Environment, when in fact there is not one thing going on now that wasn't going on under the previous administration, in general terms.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: In general terms the direction, as the minister explained it to the committee, is exactly the same. Of course, I find no fault with that, because I think that the policy we put into effect while we were government is a sound one. I'm glad to see that the new government is taking that direction.

The one thing that wasn't mentioned when the minister was talking about the makeup of this new department was the fact that the Premier, when talking about the Department of Environment before it was in fact that, or shortly after it was, was that the Forest branch would also go into the Department of Environment.

I don't know what happened there. I would

[ Page 1818 ]

assume that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation — or as she's better known, the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — had probably either a little more influence in cabinet or with the Premier, and actually went in and scooped the parks branch out from underneath this new minister, who, let's admit, had very little political experience, and she had plenty. She went in and scooped that out and said: "I want that; you're not having it."

I remember chatting with people in the press gallery who were trying to get some statement out of the minister as to whether or not the parks branch would be within his jurisdiction or whether it would remain with the Provincial Secretary or the Minister of Recreation and Tourism. It seems that the Minister of Recreation and Tourism has won out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scoop McCarthy!

MR. LEA: It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that if you're going to form a Department of Environment, this new government has gone around it in a rather interesting way, because it would seem to me that the Minister of Environment should have under his or her charge those things that pertain to the environment. I think that parks would be a suitable branch to go in that environment. I would think that the wildlife branch would be suitable to go into that new department. It's not going in.

What do we have? We have Lands. Pollution Control Board, right, should be in this department, Mr. Chairman. Pollution Control Board, parks, B.C. Wildlife all should be within this new department, but they're not there except for the Pollution Control Board. Instead there's Lands. Now what earthly reason, Mr. Chairman, would there be to have Lands under the Minister of Environment? As a matter of fact, I can see the possibility of some conflict of interest. It's an on-line department dealing with land and sometimes the Minister of Lands has to make decisions based upon requests from industry and from other residents of this province in terms of land use and make decisions based on requests from not only residents but industry.

It seems to me that the Department of Environment and the minister of that department should be rather a policing agency, not only of the private sector and residents of this province and their desires and their ambitions, but also of government departments. He should be able to step in and say: "Look, I know that you're wanting to go this direction but my department, the Department of Environment, which has been set up to police not only government but also the private sector, is going to take a little bit opposite point of view than you are as the Minister of Lands or as you are, the Minister of Highways, or the Forest minister, or the Mines minister."

It seems to me that that should be the function of the environmental department: to act as a watchdog over the private sector, be it commercial or private citizen in his endeavours or the government departments. It just seems to me that there's been a little bit of a hoax pulled on the people of this province, because I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Environment and the Department of Environment have been set up as a sham by this government because of the word "environment", to make sure that other ministers in their jurisdictions can completely disregard environmental issues and go ahead with what they consider to be economic development only within this province.

That is what is happening right now because there isn't anything new that has been brought in except that they had their priorities in a rather improper way, I would think — you know, on-line departments under the minister and other areas like recreation and parks which should be under this minister, under the Minister of Environment. So it seems to me that that's rather a silly way to go about it.

I think, Mr. Chairman, what we have to do, because this is a new ministry — the government says, and this is for sure because we have a new minister in charge of these areas of jurisdiction — is we have to take a look at the attitude of government in terms of the environment, and especially a look at the attitude of this new minister. What attitude does this new minister bring with him into this portfolio? In other words, has he had a long experience of being concerned about the environment? Has he had a long experience of being intimately involved with environmental issues and people who are and have been involved in environmental issues?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Or even a short experience, Mr. Chairman? Because here are some of the first things that this minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Here is Sunday, December 23, Sun, Victoria bureau: "Nielsen Ready But Puzzled by His Cabinet Appointment." It says: "Why Jim Nielsen got a cabinet post in the new Bennett government is a mystery even to him. The 37-year-old high school graduate said after his swearing-in Monday that he had no background in the environment field and no idea why Premier Bill Bennett picked him as the Minister of Environment. Nielsen said: 'Most specific Socred policies on the environment have yet to be decided.' "

In another article, written by Frances Russell from the Sun, January 8: "Environment minister Jim

[ Page 1819 ]

Nielsen frankly admitted he had no idea why he had been chosen for the portfolio, because he had no background nor" — now get this — "any particular interest in the field." Nor any particular interest in the field. "Nielsen's candid" — and get this word, candid — "why-am-I-here question raises more doubts about the reasons for the appointment than it does about him personally."

Now it seems rather strange that a person who says that he has no background...and I realize that not every minister maybe even should have a background, because he doesn't bring bias with him. But he should have at least had an interest over the years, or at least say, "I think I can be interested in this subject," instead of saying, "Golly, gee! I wonder why the Premier appointed me?" But then, maybe the answer is taken up, Mr. Chairman, in this next. I'm back again to the Sunday, December 23, issue of the Sun under the title: "Nielsen Ready But Puzzled by His Cabinet Appointment." Near the end, referring again to the minister, it says:

"An unsuccessful Conservative candidate in the 1974 federal election, he lost a close race against Liberal television news reader Marke Raines in Burnaby-Seymour. Nielsen said he still believes that politicians should not always be honest or candid with people. Nielsen was quoted after his federal defeat as saying the campaign had taught him that you can't afford to be completely honest with people. 'There are a large number of people who want to be bribed and conned.'

"I think the word 'honest' is perhaps a bit confusing,' he said Monday. Probably 'candid' would be better. I mean, if you take a young girl out on a date and she looks very bad in a dress, if you want to impress her you're not going to tell her what you think. A lot of people do wish to be wooed by political parties.' "

Yet over here again, in the Frances Russell article, he says: "Nielsen's candid why-am-l-here question".... Let's go back here where he says that you shouldn't always be candid or honest with people as a politician — they want to be bribed and they want to be conned.

So, Mr. Chairman, we're talking about an attitude brought to government. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is an attitude that the people of this province do not need, especially in one of the most important portfolios in any government — the minister who is responsible for looking out for the environment of the people of this province.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

PREMIER'S MEETING WITH GOVERNORS

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement to the House on my meeting today with the governors of Alaska, Washington and Oregon.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you have an interpreter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, today I met on behalf of the Government of British Columbia with the governors of Oregon, Washington and Alaska. It was a discussion that covered many subjects of importance to British Columbia and our neighbouring states. Among the matters discussed were the matters of the High Ross Dam and the proposed flooding of the Skagit, the Trident nuclear base, the proposed oil pipeline and the development of the Port of Prince Rupert. We also discussed the proposed Alcan gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay down through Fairbanks following the Alaska Highway and connecting with both the Alberta and the Westcoast Transmission system as an alternative with less environmental disruption than either the proposed Mackenzie pipeline or the Maple Leaf route. All of these items were placed on the table as a matter of knowing our position in the various trade-offs that might ensue in any discussions for the mutual benefit of those states and our province.

We had a good meeting that will be followed up by other meetings. Governor Evans, as you know, will be here June 1, at which time he will also address the Legislature. It is expected that later Governor Bob Straub will be visiting British Columbia. There are staff meetings already set up with the government of Alaska dealing with a variety of issues. Another which we discussed today was the Haines Road, which is of importance to the state of Alaska but which requires the cooperation of the province of British Columbia.

I might say that the governors were interested. There were a number of advantages to their states and our province and some trade-offs that may be of benefit to all of us.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Premier for his statement. I am a bit concerned about his reference on a number of occasions to trade-offs.

While I welcome his information that there was joint discussion on such issues as the Trident nuclear submarine base at Bangor, Washington, discussion on the possibilities and alternatives to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, as well as other issues, I think would be welcomed by the House if the Premier were prepared to be a bit more specific in terms of the position the government is taking both on those

[ Page 1820 ]

matters and particularly on the Skagit Valley and the High Ross Dam. When the Premier talks about trade-offs, a note of alarm is certainly sounded on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I think that before the Premier is prepared to commit the province to any trade-off with those states, there should be an opportunity for notice in this House and discussion in this House as to precisely what the Premier is advocating might be traded off.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that we had trade-offs on the Columbia River Treaty which I hope are never duplicated in the history of this province again. I would hope the Premier might be prepared to spell out precisely the kind of position he is pursuing with the state governors.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, it was very kind of the Premier to give us an agenda after the meeting. It would have been better if he had told us what positions he advanced on behalf of British Columbia on these very interesting and important subjects, but nevertheless, this has given us fascinating material for his estimates.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the other two leaders. It was really a nothing statement. The Premier has mentioned the subjects that were put on the table, and I would share the concern of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. King) about the repeated use of the word "trade-off" in the Premier's statement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: I simply want to add my concern to that of the others that the word trade-off suggests some bargaining that casts an element of suspicion on our position and, if that is the case, we certainly feel on this side of the House that the minister should give us the opportunity of saying specifically what we might be willing to give up in order to gain certain other advantages for the province of British Columbia. Perhaps all the Premier's statement has done is whet our appetite as to exactly what went on in these discussions today. I note the Premier's nodding and smiling. He's often talked about open government and the willingness to show responsibility, and I think the most responsible thing he could do is give the opposition parties a little more information so that we can more intelligently debate, either in this House or elsewhere, the real issues and the commitments or sacrifices that the people in the province might be asked to make.

One of these sacrifices appears to be the flooding of the Skagit Valley. I think that this debate has raged in this House for many years, and when we've reached the happy point that the Premier does meet with the other governors, I think it is unfortunate that such a statement contains such little substance to help us, as members of the opposition, to contribute to debate.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of assuring the people in Victoria particularly that they need not have any fear about losing any of the benefits they presently enjoy. I say this because of a very misleading headline which appeared in the Victoria Times today, and also some very erroneous statements, in my opinion, that are attributed to one of the members of the House.

The headline says: "Mincome Wiped Out." The fact is that Mincome has, since June of 1975, been dealt with through regulations under the Social Assistance Act. The paper was only that — a paper. It was a piece of redundant legislation, and there is no change for the people of British Columbia. I apologize for the very irresponsible and misleading headline which is undoubtedly causing much worry for many people right this very moment.

I certainly realize, Mr. Speaker, that the reporter has covered the item fairly well and I'm sure someone else is responsible for this headline. I'm hoping that he is now very much ashamed of having caused this difficulty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to respond to the minister's statement, with leave, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. LEVI: In respect to the minister's statement, if he were to read the interview closely he would notice that one of his own staff, I gather his executive assistant, referred to the fact that Mincome was dead, and that now everybody in this province will be on welfare. Now it's no good the minister standing up here, Mr. Speaker, and telling us that the programme which was called Mincome is still in existence in this province today, because that is totally misleading. One of the first acts of that government, contrary to what that Premier over there said during the election when he said that they would never take away Mincome, was to remove Mincome, change it into an asset test, and differentiate between the handicapped

[ Page 1821 ]

payments, the 60-40 payments and the Mincome over the age of 65. You're standing up in your place and telling us that it hasn't disappeared? Of course it's disappeared! You've destroyed it!

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:10 p.m.