[ Page 4107 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) (Bill 75) Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 4107

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 159.

Mr. Wallace –– 4107

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4108

Mr. Lauk –– 4109

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4109

On vote 160.

Mrs. Dailly –– 4110

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4110

Mr. Wallace –– 4111

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4112

Mr. Nicolson –– 4113

Mrs. Dailly –– 4114

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4114

Mr. Wallace –– 4114

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4114

On vote 16 1.

Mr. Wallace –– 4115

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4115

On vote 162.

Mrs. Dailly –– 4119

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4119

Mr. Wallace –– 4119

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4119

On vote 164.

Mr. Wallace –– 4120

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4120

On vote 167.

Mr. King –– 4121

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4121

On vote 168.

Mrs. Dailly –– 4122

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4123

Estimates: Ministry of Labour

On vote 203.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4123

Ms. Sanford –– 4126

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

STRATA TITLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (No. 2)

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) .

Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 159: administration and support services, $5,064, 827.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, it would probably be only right to say that I regret my angry outburst at 6 o'clock when the members kept saying "aye." But I didn't think they'd keep saying it at 8 o'clock as well.

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, on vote 159: I'm really asking these questions in an attempt to prevent problems in the future, because many incidents have developed in the past year or two, where employees of the government got involved in being fired and suing the government and they either went through court or there were quiet settlements without court action. It seems to me all this undermines the confidence of the electorate in the government, whatever government it is.

I wonder if the minister can tell us in relation to the particular incident I quoted ... in relation to the research and development division in the Ministry of Education, first of all, what kind of conditions of employment were negotiated? Inasmuch as firing the individual proved, in the opinion of the government, not to work out, as the minister said, what were the conditions of employment which left the government in a vulnerable position so that they couldn't fire the person? I'm not dealing with personalities here; I won't even mention the individual's name. I just want to know how is it that the government - in this case, the Ministry of Education - could set such a bad example in employer-employee relationships by bringing in a skilled academic with a great deal of experience, and then find that since he, in this case, did not work out, that they had so much trouble, first of all, firing him, and secondly, making their action acceptable - or, in fact, making the action unacceptable, because the minister admitted just before the supper break that the previous government offered that individual no particular financial settlement. The individual took it to court, and although the minister indulged in the word "counterproductive, " we all know that court cases are counterproductive. Somebody gets taken or somebody gets penalized in a court ease. So it's always counterproductive for somebody, and I say that with the greatest of respect for the courts. I just mean that the decision is bound to penalize somebody and make them wish that they hadn't gone to court, whether it's the plaintiff or the defendant.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What if the court makes a mistake or the lawyers make a mistake?

MR. WALLACE: Well, courts are like doctors; they never make mistakes, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense. If courts make a mistake, you've got to have a court of appeal. If a doctor makes a mistake, there's no court of appeal.

MR. WALLACE: Are you nearly finished?

MR. LAUK: Yes.

MR. WALLACE: But the point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is that this is a principle involved here, namely the efficiency and sensitivity of a government and the way in which it employs skilled senior personnel, whether it be in Education, Highways or Health or any other ministry.

We have a situation here where the government of the day felt justified in dismissing a senior civil servant and owing him nothing by way of a financial settlement. We then find that two years drag by, the individual takes his case to court and the government of the present day decides that a financial settlement is justified. Now that kind of situation does nothing to inspire confidence in that particular ministry.

I am still interested to know two particular things. What fact or change of circumstance persuaded the government now to make a financial settlement with this particular employee when over two years ago it was considered that it owed this employee nothing? Secondly, regardless of the particular branch of this ministry, what other measures has the minister taken within other divisions of his department to try and ensure that this kind of situation will not develop again whether it be in research and development or post-secondary education or any other branch of his

[ Page 4108 ]

ministry? I would like to hear the minister comment on that.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, the individuals in this particular case were hired through the Public Service Commission, which is how all civil service appointments are handled. The rules are not set by this particular ministry. It's a general question that I suppose could be addressed to the Provincial Secretary. All I can do is to try and interpret the rules of the Public Service Commission which, while it's not part of this vote, I would be quite prepared to answer with respect to this individual situation. With the previous government it was never decided that no financial settlement was deserved. What happened was the individual in question launched an immediate grievance and pursued it for two years and it was finally settled, but it was settled on the basis that a senior person has been hired, he has worked for a time in government on a probationary basis, the probationary period ends, and it's decided that he is unsatisfactory. Whether or not the man resigns or whether he is dismissed, according to the rules that are currently being followed by the government generally, he is entitled to two months' pay and the people in his division are entitled to two months' pay. Now that's the same whether or not the person is fired or whether he resigns. The probationary period of six months entities him to that emolument.

So by awarding two months' settlement no precedent of any kind was established. We were merely following the procedure that would apply for any civil servant in any capacity in any ministry, whether he is on probation or whether he is not. He's been there that long. After all, if a guy is a senior person and he moves to Victoria and gives up some other job, you have some obligation to the person. It's not a decision of this ministry and it's not something unilaterally pursued by this ministry; it is general government policy. So when the time came to make a decision whether to pursue the matter in court, the recommendation of this ministry was that you offer the settlement that he would have received had he either been fired or had he resigned. That's precisely what was done.

I can say that to have pursued any other course would have been irresponsible as far as this ministry is concerned, because even if we had won the case in court, the man would have still received the same amount of money and all that would have happened is that the senior people of the ministry, who are desperately needed for other duties, would have been spending their days in court instead of working for the government. So it would have been far more costly to the government and would have produced precisely the same result.

Now I suppose it would have been possible for the government to be vindictive and say, "You'll not be permitted to submit a retroactive resignation, " but I could personally see no purpose in pursuing that course of action. I thought that the ministry and the government did the most reasonable thing they could do under the circumstances - not conceding anything to the individual concerned but doing their best to preserve the efforts of the ministry and the treasury.

As I said before the dinner adjournment, Mr. Chairman, the individual concerned did come to Victoria and he did hold a press conference and he did present a situation at that press conference which did not reflect the facts. I was not prepared at that time to hold a press conference and refute what the gentleman said. But since the question has been asked, I don't mind stating for the record and on the floor of the House that he simply did not represent the terms of his severance with the government or the terms of his settlement.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just two further quick points. At the time when he was fired, the report in The Province of January 23,1975, quote&the leader of the Socred party: "Socred leader Bill Bennett called the government move just another example of this government's arrogance and contempt for human values." I wonder, now that the minister is in possession of all the facts and, indeed, has stated tonight that the government was entitled to do what it did without offering any financial settlement, can I assume that that very harsh statement - the government was acting out of "arrogance and contempt for human values" - was not a justified statement in January, 1975, by the then leader of the official opposition. Because it would appear from the statement the minister has just made in answer to my earlier questions, that in fact the government was acting within its rights and as it saw best in relation to that particular branch of the Education ministry.

The second thing that bothers me ... and I won't take a lot of time of the House but I do have a complete file and all the clippings on this issue. It appears that the deputy minister went on a hotline and answered questions about this controversial issue. I would just like to ask the minister whether or not it is a policy of this government, regardless of the former government. The deputy minister I am talking about is Mr. Fleming, and Mr. Fleming said on a radio hotline that it was his decision to fire that particular employee. With a great deal of wisdom, the same deputy minister refused to talk directly on the hotline to Dr. Knight, saying that the two of them would be involved in a civil service appeal procedure and that any discussion on an open line between the two of them could prejudice the outcome of that grievance procedure. That's absolutely wise and sound.

[ Page 4109 ]

But what I want to know now is whether this minister, if there should be similar problems - and I hope there won't be.... Supposing some other employee is hired by this minister and problems of the same nature develop - could this minister approve of the concept of his deputy minister going on a hotline to defend the fact that he fired a senior civil servant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind the House that actions of high public servants whose conduct can be criticized must be criticized on a substantive motion.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the two questions, first of all, the manner in which the decision was reached by the Ministry of Education made no presumptions about the former government and made no presumptions about statements made by the former Leader of the Opposition. Those stand on their own feet. The decisions reached by the Ministry of Education were completely pragmatic ones. The settlement was in accord with what would have resulted whether the man was fired or whether he resigned. So the end result was precisely the same and therefore judgmental questions of this kind were not a factor.

Next, Mr. Chairman, under the Public Service Act the deputy minister does have responsibility for making decisions. This is for the obvious reason that you do not want civil servants to be hired or fired for political purposes. The appointments under the Civil Service Act, as the member well knows, are not the responsibility of the minister nor is their dismissal. That is strictly a civil service exercise.

What the minister does do, Mr. Chairman, is to set broad policy. If it's a question of policy rather than individual competence, then of course it does become the responsibility of the minister himself. Ultimately the minister must accept responsibility for what goes on within his department.

Speaking on the more general question of whether a deputy minister is free to appear on hotlines and express individual opinions, I can say, as Minister of Education, that my deputy minister is certainly entitled to do that. As far as I am concerned he has free rein to express his opinions at any time.

MR. LAUK: The first, Mr. Chairman, is a question of privilege. I came here tonight knowing that it was Wednesday, July 27, and the debates for the night sitting were about to commence less than 15 minutes ago. As they commenced I found the Blues for the night sitting of Wednesday, January 27. 1 was wondering what I had for supper and whether I missed something. Perhaps Hansard could tell me why that has occurred. In any event....

AN HON. MEMBER: Carrying on....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): It says 1977.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, there are only two points that I wish to make. I don't quite understand the member for Oak Bay's comment that it somehow tarnishes the image of the civil service to have people take their legitimate claims - or whatever claims -through a legal process. Private industry has these opportunities open to it, and it happens every day with large settlements and small settlements, MacMillan Bloedel settlements, Bob Bonner's pensions and so on.

Secondly, I think that Mr. Fleming acted correctly in going on the air, as any deputy minister would.

I think what is really important from this exchange is the complete and unquestioned vindication of the actions of both Mr. Fleming and the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) . The former Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, was vilified in the press, was attacked by the now Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of this province and by the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) of this province in the most irresponsible way that we've seen in a long time over this non-issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member is having difficulty determining the vote. The vote is 159 and it is the administration and support services of the present administration.

MR. LAUK: Yes, and the recent settlement having to do with Mr. Knight. Now the former minister was under a terrible attack, Mr. Chairman, and tonight justice is not only done but seen to be done. The minister candidly gets up and, without directly saying so, he apologizes for the actions of his Premier when that Premier was the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. McGEER: Order!

MR. LAUK: He humbly; and respectfully asks the forgiveness of the former Minister of Education for the callous and irresponsible way in which the Social Credit Party acted during that unfortunate period of time.

HON. MR. McGEER: I feel obliged to correct the record, Mr. Chairman. The Premier of the province, when he was Leader of the Opposition, at no time nor under any circumstances acted in an irresponsible way. He was the most responsible Leader of the Opposition this province has ever had, and his behaviour in this particular case, as in all others, was impeccable.

Vote 159 approved.

[ Page 4110 ]

On vote 160: basic education K-XII programme, $563,700, 000.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Under this vote, I'm looking at the area of professional development, and I know the minister is following along with the learning assessment programme. I think he would certainly agree that in this whole area of learning assessment, one thing has been shown in certain areas - perhaps the need for in-service training and pre-service training examination.

When I look at the sum of money allocated here by the department for professional development, it's exactly the same as last year. I'm just wondering how he's going to achieve the goals which he hopes to with so little money allocated here to give some leadership out there and some financial assistance in the whole area of in-service training.

Now I may be misreading the way the votes are laid out now. Perhaps the minister could explain if that's all that is being allocated from the government in the area of in-service training. My concern is that that is one of the most vital areas we have to deal with and the amount of money there certainly isn't going to provide much in that area.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the member is not aware that that particular figure in no way represents the total amount spent on professional development. What the ministry is doing is encouraging local school districts to make their own arrangements. That's on the basis of the much more satisfactory result when the school districts undertake responsibility for this activity within their own area. So much of this particular sum is spent on organizing the school districts to help them do their job. We think it's the best way to produce maximum results for minimum taxpayers' dollars.

MRS. DAILLY: My concern is, again, that this Minister of Education, who has been responsible for an increased load on the local taxpayer, is now saying that, "even though the programme I endorse, I want to give leadership to and I believe in . . . I want the boards to provide leadership, but they're going to have to produce most of the money." This is what I've taken from his remarks. When you consider, Mr. Chairman, that the local taxpayer is now paying almost 55 per cent of the cost of education on a provincial basis, and when we have an area that the minister concedes is a vital area, yet we have this very small sum of money allocated and the rest is up to the school boards ... I'm just picking out this particular vote, Mr. Chairman, because there are so many other areas where we find the local school boards not only having their basic levy raised higher than it's ever been before, and yet at the same time the government is abrogating more and more financial responsibility in Other areas. Frankly, I am very concerned; I'm sure the school boards of the province are. While I'm on that subject - I think it would come under this vote, Mr. Chairman; you can correct me - the whole matter, again, of the taxation burden on the local school boards, comes to the matter of savings on insurance premiums for the schools. I know the minister and his deputies have met with the school boards on this. But in December, 1976, that 37.5 mill rate was established. At the same time it was almost implied, I think, by the ministry that while there were increased costs on the government, one of them would be the $9 million for school insurance. Now the government is no longer responsible for that, yet there is no drop in the basic levy. I'm just saying to the Minister of Education, a former opposition leader and Education critic who used to stand here on this side of the House and complain about the burden on the local taxpayer: what are you doing since you became minister to ease that burden?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I did cover this point, I think, rather extensively during the salary vote. I'll just go over it again very briefly for the member not to labour the point. The school districts have all been, I think, notified long in advance by myself. If they haven't got the message they can, perhaps, derive it from this debate. We'll certainly be sending out further written communication to them to the effect that the school population is not growing. The provincial revenues are only accruing at a given rate and, therefore, the amount that school districts can expect from the provincial government is not related to their ability to spend. It's related to the provincial government's ability to derive taxes from their own taxation sources.

The opposition have been very vigorous critics over the increased taxes that the government found it had to levy in order to meet the bills that were left behind by the former administration. We've made a pledge not to raise taxes further, but I must say, as I have said before, that I am terribly grateful to my colleagues in the government for being so generous towards Education, foregoing legitimate programmes in their own ministries which would have taken a larger share of the available provincial revenues for their particular projects, and seeing that redirected towards Education so that Education could do as well as it has done. I would hope that my colleagues in government would continue to give to Education the kinds of high priorities that it has enjoyed in the past.

Even given that, Mr. Member, the ability of local school boards to spend is still outstripping the ability of provincial taxpayers to provide revenue, and therein lies the dilemma. We don't order school boards to hold the line. What we say to them is: "If

[ Page 4111 ]

you want to spend beyond the provincial taxpayers' means, then you'll have to turn to local property taxation as the method for raising the difference." We find that, indeed, , that's what local school boards are doing and that's why the basic levy is going up.

With respect 'to school fires, and I am going to speak very briefly on this because the one thing that I am desperately anxious to do is not to draw attention to the arson situation: last year we had $12 million worth of damage through arson. We went to a $5 million deductible and said, in effect, that school districts would now replace their fire damage through normal capitalization procedures up to $5 million. Since that policy has been announced in the province, there have only been two small school fires - both by arson, but still minuscule. We've already made, by the rates of the past year, $6 million, because that's how much we've saved this far.

I said at the time I announced the policy that I hoped that we could save $6 million over the year. We have already done that and we haven't even passed the summer vacation. The last thing I want to do is to see attention drawn to the amount of arson that was present in schools last year and which might start again if we excite an interest in the general subject. I'm upping my estimate. I hope that we may be able to save $9 million - or even, hopefully, $11 million - this year on school fires. All that money, Mr. Chairman, goes directly to school districts.

In other words, when we announced this change in policy we said in effect: "We're not going to deduct that money from you. We're going to put this new policy out and if there aren't school fires that's money in your pocket that you can use for the payment of teachers or in-service training or all these other things that you would like to do." We could have deducted it off the top and given $9 million less to the school districts and set it aside as an insurance fund. Instead we think that this is going to be a more productive way of spending the taxpayers' dollars -my fingers are crossed. So far I can say with certainty we've saved $6 million, and I hope by the end of the year we're going to save more than that..So this, Mr. Chairman, simply means that by putting the responsibility where it belongs - with the local school districts - whether it's school fire insurance or whether it's in-service training, we're giving them an opportunity to spend the available provincial dollars themselves and do it wisely rather than having us deduct it at the source and put larger amounts in this particular budget but smaller amounts in grants to school districts.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to ask some questions of the minister in this regard, not only about fires but vandalism in schools. While I share his wish to avoid inciting interest in this subject, I would like to know if the minister has any evidence to indicate why there has been such a dramatic improvement. I would hope he was not suggesting that a new financial policy towards the schools has had any direct effect in reducing the action of irresponsible people who set fire to schools or create vandalism. Since I asked questions both last year and earlier this session as to what initiatives were being taken to try and cut down on the enormous costs, which the minister has again repeated tonight, I would still like to ask that same question. What has the minister done in the way of proposing new initiatives or different policies by school boards in order to try and either prevent vandalism and fires or to act more swiftly when these unhappy situations develop?

We had talked about the concept of having resident caretakers, and the minister is on record as saying the cost of that would be too great to be justified. Earlier on the minister announced an emergency school protection fund of $3 million. I would like to know whether any school boards have applied for any portion of that $3 million. If so, has the programme been part of the reason why the minister can give us the good news tonight that there has been a dramatic decline in school fires? If he has allocated some of that $3 million, for example, did it go to the lower mainland, where one or two serious fires occurred in 1976?

1 would like to know also, Mr. Chairman, since the B.C. School Trustees Association embarked on a study of the whole problem of school fires and vandalism - I believe the study will cost something in the neighbourhood of $20,000 - if the minister has received any request from the BCSTA for funding to cover the costs of that study. It would seem to me that the $3 million fund could surely manage to provide $20,000 to support the efforts of the School Trustees Association, but I'd be interested to know if that request has been made. If so, has it been granted by the minister?

I would like to know what changes, if any, have been made in specifications by the ministry in regard to new school construction in relation to the type of construction and the installation of sprinkler systems. Last year we talked at some length about the fact that there would no longer be new schools or new extensions built of wood construction - it would all be fire-resistant construction - and I recalled at that time that there were two extensions to schools in the greater Victoria area that in fact were a frame construction. I just want to confirm that the minister has this fireproof policy. What minister would ever reject a fireproof policy?

I have just one or two quick questions. I also want to know a little about vandalism - to what degree that is getting better or worse and the kind of costs that the system has encountered in the last year in relation to vandalism as contrasted with fires. I notice

[ Page 4112 ]

that in Ontario the school board in the Peel area has successfully introduced a programme that depends very much on the vandals, when convicted, having to spend a considerable number of hours working for the community, usually during the school vacation. A very interesting report in The Globe and Mail of May 6,1977, says that this kind of punishment serves to demonstrate the stupidity of the offender in the first place, and that this has already brought about a substantial reduction in the amount of vandalism in that particular area of Toronto. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, first of all we don't get all the reports of vandalism. I can't give the member exact figures, but just rough comparisons as I am aware of them to date. By this time last year, it was about $6 million; so far this year it is about $125,000. So I think we are running something this year of the order of about 2 per cent of what it was last year.

Obviously I can't say what all the reasons are, but I attribute it to our change in policy. Maybe there are other reasons, but something has to account for the fact that it has dropped in the order of 98 per cent. We do have that emergency fund available. The $20,000 study of the BSCTA will be paid out of that fund. We are getting applications in from individual school districts and, of course, where genuine emergencies exist, we will pay it. I am in the process of approving sheets and sheets of applications every week on the installation of intruder alarms and various sprinkling devices for protection of schools, which goes into the normal capitalization. I can't give you an upper figure on that, but I can assure you that it is small compared with the fire losses of former years.

The ministry obviously will grant any applications to individual school districts where they can demonstrate a genuine emergency with respect to fires or vandalism. The reason why I make a kind of appeal to the members and also to the press not to draw attention to the situation is because when you've got a winning streak going, you don't like to see it change. We had, as I say, $6 million worth of fires; we've had two small fires this year, one of them in a school district where the vandals disconnected the fire hydrants, removed the fire extinguishers in the school, unhooked the fire alarms and the intruder alarms, and set fires in several different places in the school at the same time, and there was some damage in that one. That's a pretty organized vandalism attack. There was another small arson situation in a school just up the valley. Fortunately it doesn't look like it is going to be necessary to replace the school. That's it. So far, so good. The decision was made at the beginning of the year that instead of taking it off for insurance it would be given to the school districts so they would have it for other educational purposes. The individual school districts assume a risk in return for receiving that $9 million extra, and I think they are responding in a most gratifying way to that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, there is just one other area I want to ask the minister particularly about, and that is teacher training under the part of this vote described as "teacher certification and registration." I would like the minister to elaborate on questions that I already asked the minister in April of this year regarding the so-called Leskiw report. At that time I asked the minister about the report. If I can just quote his answer to me at that time, Mr. Chairman, he said: "I have never seen this report and I can assure you it was not a report that was prepared for me." This deals, Mr. Chairman, with the extremely important and sensitive matter of teacher training. The front of the report, which is headed "confidential, " states that it is a report prepared for the Ministry of Education by the division of field personnel, dated December 2,1976.

First of all, I would just like to ask the minister, since the front cover indicated that a division of his ministry ordered this report, if he was unaware that this report was underway. I don't suggest that there is anything wrong if he didn't know, but it seems to me that on an issue as important as teacher training and the whole question of the possibility of an independent commission being set up, which I'll deal with in just a moment, it would warrant at least the person who ordered the report making the minister aware of the fact that it is being done and the reasons for it and the people involved and so on. I wonder also why it was that when I asked the question in the House in April of this year the minister was not aware of a report which was dated December 2,1976.

Furthermore, it would appear - and I'm ready to stand corrected, but I want to ask the minister very plainly - that this report on teacher training was apparently circulated to the faculties of education in our universities with either a direct or indirect suggestion that there be no transmission of copies of the report, or information about the report, to teachers or school trustees. Again, it would seem strange that a report of this importance affecting professionals in the teaching profession should be first of all carried out in this kind of secretive way and then, when the report is available, that it be circulated to one section of the education system -namely, the universities - without it being made available to teachers and school trustees. Yet, as always happens when governments attempt to have limited circulation of secret reports, someone of course, quite predictably, sent a copy of the report to the president of the B.C. Teachers Federation just about the time that that federation was having its annual meeting.

[ Page 4113 ]

So first of all, how much was the minister aware that the report was being done? Secondly, when did he become aware of the fact that the report was completed? Thirdly, did the minister have any part in trying to provide the report to one section of the education system - namely, the faculties of education at the universities - but not our teachers or trustees?

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this particular report makes some very substantial suggestions. I realize that they are only recommendations; they're not some kind of resolution by anybody who has the power to implement them, but simply recommendations. Nevertheless, as I mentioned a moment ago, the report was prepared by the division of field personnel and is labelled "confidential, " so it would seem that the Ministry of Education had some very substantial interest in this area of study and did not want the information to become known publicly. At any rate, the information is now public and one of the proposals was for a teacher-education commission appointed by the minister and operating under his guidelines. The commission would, if implemented, approve teacher-education programmes; it would certify and decertify teachers; it would evaluate programmes; it would recommend changes; and it would arrange and fund practicum phases of the programme. The funding of the commission would be through certification and other fees, supplemented by a requisition from government. The proposed commission would have 12 members, consisting of three lay persons, nine professional educators, of whom two would be school administrators, four teachers, and three faculty members.

I would like to quickly conclude these remarks by asking the minister: what is the present status of this report? I don't mean by that to ask if he is ready to implement it word for word or to the letter, but I think the teaching profession were upset enough to think that this amount of study on teacher training was going on without involving the very people who are most concerned - teachers involved in service training and post-graduate training, not to mention students in our universities who are already completing their training in the faculties of education. Beyond the question of what the status of this report is, could the minister tell us what he has done with the report? Is he presently in consultation with teachers, trustees, and others, to seek their views and responses to the basic recommendations in the Leskiw report?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the ministry undoubtedly is conducting many studies of its own that I'm not aware of. This particular effort was not commissioned by me and I certainly was unaware of it until it appeared on the front pages of the paper. The mistake that people make is to assume that any report is of significance or importance which is not endorsed by the ministry and is part of government policy. This was an effort by members of the Ministry of Education acting entirely on their own and, therefore, it's not government policy. It's not ministerial policy. It's nothing that this minister was aware of, or commissioned, or is accepting or rejecting. However, I will explain to the member that teacher education is a very sensitive area. It does need to be reviewed. We will be reviewing it in consultation with the teachers' colleges and the teachers, and that will be done without prejudice one way or another to the so-called Leskiw report. I made that very clear at the time publicity first surrounded the revelations that this report existed and what its contents were.

The best thing that I could say is that that's something that was done entirely on the internal initiative of the Ministry of Education. I don't want to discourage in any way the very capable people who are officials of the ministry and who act on their own to develop many excellent policies that eventually become part of government policy. I think the member will understand that reports do not have status of a kind attributed to this particular report unless it is something which is endorsed by the ministry and the government in the first instance, and that just didn't happen to be the situation.

MR. WALLACE: Where is it now?

HON. MR. McGEER: The report?

MR. WALLACE: What's happening now?

HON. MR. McGEER: The report is in a drawer. I say that with the greatest respect to the author. I wouldn't want my remarks here to be interpreted by anybody in the ministry as a put-down or a discouragement to their individual initiatives and efforts, because these people are obviously unable to communicate to me every single thing that they wish to do. They are developing many interesting policies on their own, and I want to encourage each of them to continue to do that.

But what I would like to do, if I may, without in any way reflecting on the excellent work that these people do, is to try and make it very clear to people on the outside like the teachers' federation, and those who made such a big play out of that document, that they are not anticipating in any way government policy by that sensational interpretation of what was a working document that emerged from the depths of the ministry without this minister even being aware of it.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to address himself to page 13 of his estimates, G193 at the top, and, down

[ Page 4114 ]

near the bottom, sub-votes 04, 10 and 20. One is salaries, temporary, and there is quite a drop there. Another one is travel expense and the other vote is professional and special services, which is up. I'm really wondering if this is the area where amounts are paid for marking of government scholarship grade 12 exams.

HON. MR. McGEER: No.

MR. NICOLSON: Where are these funds shown in the estimates?

HON. MR. McGEER: You mean the marking?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, the marking.

HON. MR. McGEER: Correspondence.

MR. NICOLSON: No, not correspondence. I mean the regular scholarship exams which are written, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McGEER: Vote 163, I'm told.

MRS. DAILLY: This is just a final, quick question on this vote, Mr. Chairman.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was discussing vandalism with the minister and I just want to ask one specific question. What has actually happened to the $3 million fund which was set up? I don't know whether you answered that; I didn't get the answer. The school trustees are still awaiting the dispensing of this $3 million.

HON. MR. McGEER: We've explained to the school trustees, Mr. Chairman, and we've actually phoned the individual school districts, saying the money is there. If you have an emergency, ask for it. We're not trying to predict what kinds of emergencies they might run into in their individual school districts. If you try and set guidelines for something like that, you are attempting to predict what an emergency is.

What we've not done for this fund is to use it as a substitute fund for the normal capitalization for upgrading of their facilities. If it isn't routine upgrading, then that money is available. We say to school districts: If you need it, apply.

We're looking for preventive programmes and we're funding the BCSTA as they do studies to try and define what emergencies might be encountered in individual school districts. The money is there and the school districts know about it, and they're welcome to apply for it.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Minister, but I think there must be some lack of communication or misunderstanding here with the school trustees. For instance, could a school district put in under this fund for intruder alarms? Is that in your terms of reference? I think this is where the confusion is. You're saying you are waiting for them to apply. Can they apply and say: "We need so many intruder alarms, " and the money will be forthcoming? This seems to be the question in their minds.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not for routine introduction of intruder alarms or sprinkler systems or things like that. If they have a crisis situation where somebody has lighted a couple of fires on the porch or something, and they've got to move very fast....

Well, we've done our best, you know. We've telephoned them. But you can't say these 25 things are emergency and those 15 things aren't. We're getting about 15 applications.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: We've got quite a few applications in. The money is there and it's very hard to define circumstances that might occur in an individual school district. But we're not trying to hoard the money. It's there and we're happy to have it used for the purposes specified.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, most of the parents in British Columbia in the last year or so, as far as education is concerned, have heard about the minister's research into the core curriculum. While I wish to make my question very brief, I notice that under this vote, the first item is curriculum development. I wonder if the minister very briefly could bring us up to date as to what success or otherwise he considers the booklets and questionnaires which have been seeking parent and teacher input into what is required in the core curriculum. What precisely is the degree of planning that is complete for starting the fall school term in September?

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't know whether "euphoric" is the word, but the ministry officials certainly have been extremely pleased with response from the public and the kind of direction that they have developed as a result of that response.

I suppose, as always, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we don't know. Starting in September, what everybody's going to say: "Well, this has just been a colossal failure." But the feeling of optimism in the ministry at the present time is high. They have a sense of direction as a result of the analysis of the goals, and they will be giving definitions to the school districts by September of

[ Page 4115 ]

this year.

That's not etched in stone, and there will be plenty of opportunities for amendments as time goes on. I personally will be surprised if there aren't a lot of amendments. But anyway, the big, major effort to get the thing launched will be by September. I hope it's going to work out well, but maybe it won't.

Vote 160 approved.

On vote 161: post-secondary education -universities, $191,866, 037.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have already touched upon the problem of very sudden and substantial fee increases to students. I may have missed the minister's answers earlier today, but I would appreciate knowing his answer in regard to the question of student loans.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

There was a conference, as I mentioned, with the provincial ministers and the Secretary of State in January of this year at which the Secretary of State reported that many more students were failing to repay their loans because of economic difficulties. Without making any promises, the Secretary of State - if one reads the newspaper clippings - hinted that there might be more federal money available. So my first question is whether there is more federal money available or whether the minister has any indication that there will be more funding made available.

I had a meeting with the staff at the University of Victoria who advise students regarding loans, and they expressed the opinion that the whole procedure is rather cumbersome and unrealistic in many ways. I won't take up the time of the House to explain the various ways in which they feel that improvements could be made, but I would like to know if there is to be any more money available, any relaxing of the conditions, or whether in fact that system is unchanged or will be unchanged despite the obvious economic difficulties of students.

I also want to know if the minister, despite his respect for university autonomy, will be taking any action to advise the Universities Council that this business of keeping fees the same for many years and then suddenly increasing them by 32 per cent really makes very little sense and produces very severe hardship to the student at a time when the Universities Council is on record as acknowledging that many students who qualify to go to university simply cannot do so because of economic hardship.

The other question I'd like to ask regarding the universities, Mr. Chairman - and colleges as well, for that matter - is the change in federal-provincial cost-sharing which was worked out under the fiscal arrangements Act earlier on this year. The opinion has been expressed by some officials at other Canadian universities - not at British Columbia universities - that there might be a policy of extra charges to students from outside of this province - in other words, the student attending a university"in a province other than his place of residence. I'm particularly concerned on this point, Mr. Chairman, because we've already learned from many debates h. this House that the medical school in British Columbia cannot begin to accept all the qualified sons and daughters of B.C. residents who would like to take medical education.

If, in addition to the difficulty in getting into a medical school, these students have to go to another province, and if, in addition to that, they have to pay an extra fee because they are out-of-province students, so-called, then I think it is obviously becoming more and more of a problem for many young people to get the university education tor which they are qualified and which, in my view, they richly deserve. I would like to ask the minister whether in recent meetings with other provincial ministers the new cost-sharing arrangements with the federal government seem likely to lead to universities in other provinces placing an extra charge against the fees of British Columbia residents who travel to these other provinces for their university education.

HON. MR. McGEER: First of all, with respect to fees generally, it's not the policy of the government, nor will it be the policy, to attempt to establish fee schedules for the individual institutions. That's their prerogative and it will remain so. We are free to pass opinions, and I'll pass an opinion or two this evening. Also, under the Act, it's the responsibility of the Universities Council to allot provincial money. Again, the universities may spend it in any way they see fit. The fees in British Columbia had not been changed for many years and the institutions on their own judged that they were responsible in increasing the fees by however much they increased it, comparing their fees with other parts of Canada. Now the consequence of that fee increase, Mr. Chairman, was that the universities got a little pot of money out of it in their budgets and they divided this very nicely up among their faculty. The faculties of three universities this time around got much more than the colleges got and much more than the staffs of their own universities got. The base increase wasn't all that great, but it was slipped in on the basis of experience, merit, promotions and this kind of thing. So the universities gave very generous increases to their faculties and they did it at the cost of raising fees. It's that simple and anybody who studies the situation will realize that it happened. I might say, since we are being blunt tonight and since I am in no sympathy with what happened, that Simon Fraser University

[ Page 4116 ]

was the worst performer in this respect. There were great appeals to the ministry to give more money to the university but the fact remains that they gave extremely generous settlements to their faculty and they did it at the expense of the students. Now I don't often speak that strongly but this just happens to be the situation and, as I say, a study of what happened will reveal that. There were no increases in fees at the colleges and yet equivalent increases in provincial funds were given to the colleges as were given to the universities.

With respect to the student loans, that's federal government policy. At the Council of Ministers of Education meetings, many proposals are made for changes in that federal policy. They are going to change the terms somewhat within the regulations under the Act, but they are not going to change the total amount of money that is available. They have discussed changing the legislation themselves, but I might say that the federal Parliament has some of the same practical difficulties that our provincial Legislature has, namely how do you get a bill up for discussion and get it introduced and passed? For that reason, because this is a relatively small thing, it is quite conceivable that legislative change that the provinces want to see will just never get on the federal agenda. We'll just have to be patient.

There is no surcharge on fees for British Columbians attending any other university in Canada, to my knowledge. The surcharges are on foreign students who come in to, let's say, Alberta or Ontario. Ontario discovered that there were large numbers of students coming up from Michigan to attend universities in Ontario because the fees were a bargain. The universities there, in self defence, began to initiate huge increases in fees to foreigners, much the same way that states like Washington and California levy against our youngsters if they go to college down there. If such a thing is done in British Columbia it will be the decision of the individual university. We've taken a look at the immigration situation and we find that there are not that many foreign students attending our universities here in British Columbia and that there has been no increase in recent years. The problem is not a big one here and that may be a factor in the decision of the universities.

At the provincial government level, we are not going to make any insistence about fees to foreigners or fees to our own students or fees to students from other parts of Canada. That will remain the decision of the universities.

MR. WALLACE: I'm really quite disturbed at the minister's answer regarding the way in which the students this year find themselves faced with fee increases of the dimension I mentioned earlier today, starting around 20 per cent and going up as high as 35 per cent, depending on the university and the particular faculty. The minister's statement is that in this case the faculties were awarded a rich settlement at a time of restraint. I am puzzled to know if the minister means by that that the awards exceeded the anti-inflation guidelines. We are not just talking about whether the board of governors of university X feels disposed to give a generous settlement to their faculty but the whole fact that we are trying to promote national uniform restraint in wages and prices on a national level. So my first question would be: is the minister suggesting that these generous settlements -and I will use his terminology - to the faculty have resulted in the need to increase student fees by a substantial amount? Secondly, in the light of the fact that the government provides funding to the Universities Council and it allocates the breakdown in the money provided to the three universities, is he satisfied in continuing with that situation? In point of fact, he's acknowledged that some of the arbitrary salary settlements by the universities have resulted in this very sudden increase in fees to the students, with real hardship at a time when some of them can't even get summer jobs to earn the money to pay the kind of fees they paid last year. It is all very well in these debates, Mr. Chairman, to keep saying, well, the minister doesn't have authority. I recognize he doesn't and I know the importance of autonomy, but somewhere along the line the people of British Columbia are beginning to wonder about this delineation of jurisdiction.

The other matter that came up was the whole question of university faculty doing consultant work. The accusation by the Provincial Secretary was that there was double funding, where faculty professors were paid very well from the allocation of public moneys as the minister has described, and at the same time, many of these professors are involved in consultant work, which also brings in substantial fees.

Now I happen to think that one of the most important areas of expertise that should be used in our society is the expertise of university professors. I'm not disputing that for a moment. But somewhere along the line we have to strike some kind of a balance so that we don't find young students, qualified to either go into university or embark upon graduate studies, suddenly thumped with an increase in fees in one year of somewhere around 32 per cent, as in the example I quoted of the graduate student at the school of architecture. So I think it is time that this government made some kind of policy statement other than just simply passing an opinion. I recognize the minister for at least making his own personal opinion clear.

But I do say that this matter is important enough that it should not simply be answered on the basis that there are lines of jurisdiction, and if the universities choose to allocate the money available from the government in the form of generous

[ Page 4117 ]

settlements to the faculty, it's the poor student who is the one who really has the hardship to put up with. I don't think that that can just be adequately explained by saying, well, that's the rules of the game and that's the way the jurisdiction lies. I think governments today are expected to show the kind of leadership which perhaps involves changing the ground rules and changing the jurisdiction and saying to the universities: "If this is your response to the authority given to you, then maybe there might have to be some government review of the way in which jurisdiction is allocated."

Far be it from me to ever want to encourage politicians to dictate in a way where political influence in our university system would become a fact of life. I know enough people have talked to me about the high cost of education - and it always will be costly. But I think many of the citizens of B.C. are very concerned that that dollar for education should be allocated in a judicious and responsible way and it should be spent in a judicious and responsible way. What I have heard tonight leaves me in considerable doubt as to whether that is what is happening in our university system.

I see on television as recently as last night that there is all kinds of scrambling around trying to find a basic amount of dollars to expand the accommodation for students at the University of Victoria, They accommodate something like 10 per cent of students who ask for accommodation, those who come from outside of Victoria and need accommodation. There's all the scrambling around trying to get the funding from CMHC. Apparently if the money is not forthcoming from CMHC then, of course, there just will be no expansion of accommodation facilities for students at UVic. I just pick that as an example of how the citizen in the home, or the parent - and particularly the parent of a student leaving high school and seeking to go to university - just wonders how judiciously the post-secondary education dollar is being distributed. When we hear the minister honestly tell us - and I appreciate his bluntness - that this year, for example, the universities have chosen to allocate their dollar in such a way that the faculties have done very well, thank you, and the students have been hammered, then I think questions should be asked.

I apologize for taking more time of the House tonight, but I think it's something that I would want to know: has the minister any intention of reviewing the areas of jurisdiction so that, as far as the allocation of dollars is concerned, there should be some kind of scrutiny over the percentage increases granted to faculty? In particular I would like to know whether the minister's statement tonight means that university faculty have perhaps received a percentage increase above and beyond the AIB guidelines.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the universities have not exceeded the AIB guidelines as they've been interpreted; otherwise, they'd b- rolled back. But if you total the amount of money allocated, taking into account the basic increase of cost-of-living plus what goes for promotions, experience and merit, then it adds up to more than the guidelines, but that's accepted by the AIB. The problem is that our provincial revenues are not tied to the AIB guidelines. Our provincial revenues are tied to what the taxpayers of British Columbia provide to the government. The total budget this past year overall increased 5.4 per cent. If we distributed equally to everything, including growth, that's what it would be. If the number of students in our universities or number of students in our primary and secondary school system remains constant, and the amount of money that goes to teachers who provide services to them goes up by somewhere between 9 per cent and 10 per cent, then, of course, somebody has to pay the difference.

This is what we had happen in the primary and secondary system. The number of students is constant and you take a basic increase - in the case of school teachers, you add the grid - and you get far more than what provincial taxpayers are giving to this government and, therefore, what we can give to the various components in the educational system. Somebody has to pay the difference. In the case of school districts, it's the local taxpayer. In the case of universities, unfortunately, it's the student.

Now, Mr. Member, we're acting under current legislation. It isn't government policy either to make alterations in the way that local taxes are raised to pay for expenses of school boards, or to change the manner in which universities and colleges may raise revenues in addition to what government can provide. I think that rather than bring forward a provincial government legislative cure that might do more harm than good, we're better off just to hold the mirror up to the users of the educational system and say: "This is the consequences of what you do." If school boards make a settlement which in toto - that is, cost-of-living increases for everybody plus the grid -gets into the 9 per cent and 10 per cent range, let the local taxpayers know that the difference is being paid for out of their property taxes. This is precisely what's happening.

In the case of the universities, I think the students must know that the faculties of their universities have achieved more than the average available to the province, which was 5.4 per cent. If the total salary adjustments are in the range of 9 per cent to 10 per cent, which they were....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, 10.65 per cent at Simon

[ Page 4118 ]

Fraser. Is that what it was? Well, that amount of money isn't going to come out of provincial revenues. That's going to come out of the student's pocket book. We're not going to change the whole system by which we try to say how much professors get and how much students will pay in the way of fees. We'd rather have the discipline of the marketplace and the light of public opinion lead to self-correction of the system, because in the long run it's our belief that that's much healthier. I think if the provincial government starts to monkey around in the affairs of individual school boards and in the affairs of individual universities and colleges, we're going to have a big brotherism of a kind that we've never had before in this province. I, for one, reject it, because I believe in individual responsibility at the school board level and at the university level.

I'm afraid I can't offer a great deal of sympathy with respect to the solution, though I can offer a lot of sympathy with respect to the dilemma. It's my hope that people will recognize at the user level that they do have responsibilities; that when we make the money available from this Legislature for Education, we're making the money available to the student and not for the benefit of the faculty member or the teacher. If they intercede so that the money can't get from government down to the student, who we want to be the beneficiary of it, then they've got to be accountable to the public for interceding to an extent that is more than they are entitled to in taking their cut along the way, if you like. I submit that that has happened throughout the educational system. I don't think you can isolate it to the universities by any means.

Now what we do, however, Mr. Member, to compensate for those students who are in the dilemma that you suggest faces the architectural student, is that we make larger amounts of money -very large amounts, by past tradition - available to the student not just in the way of loans, but in the way of grants. There's a total, I think, of $33 million available between loans and grants for students who are in genuine financial need. Now there is money, and has been money, each year lying on the table for students that hasn't been applied for, but in order to get that money you have to prove that you are really in the circumstances you suggest. If there isn't enough money on the table for students who are in genuine need, then we will lay more on the table.

I agree with you that finances shouldn't be a barrier, but at the same time, if people do have the ability to pay, then they've got to carry their share of the responsibility for the cost of running these institutions. I really don't think there's anything wrong in theory with that system, though in practice it may get out of whack a little bit. If we're not offering enough money directly to the students in the form of student aid, we'll offer more, but I recoil at the idea of a provincial government getting ham-handed and trying to dictate to universities: (a) how much their faculties should get; (b) how much the students should pay in the way of fees.

MR. WALLACE: Could the minister just comment briefly on any inquiries that he carried out at any one of the three universities when the issue of consultant work by professors was raised, and could he report to the House what changes, if any, he has instructed be introduced at the universities to ensure that those teachers on faculty are, in fact, allocating an adequate amount of their time to their primary job, which is to teach students, important as their consultant expertise is in other fields? Could the minister just tell the House what actions, if any, he has taken since this issue erupted, I think back in the end of February this year, and what changes, if any, have been implemented by the respective universities to ensure that there is a balance between basic teaching and consultant work?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, when the issue first came forward I asked for every university and every college to submit to me what their regulations were with respect to consultancies and extra university or college duties. I think every university and every college responded, indicating what their policies were. As a result of that request, many of the universities and colleges began to think hard for the first time about what was going on, and all of them have guidelines of sorts.

Now that information has been referred in toto to the universities council for consideration and further recommendations to the ministry if they deem that it's appropriate. I've not heard from the universities council yet, so I can't tell you if further guidelines will be emerging from the ministry itself. We are still in the process of gathering data and evaluating the situation.

I think it fair to say this about consultancies at universities. First of all, we learned that the worst offenders in initiating abuses were governments themselves, provincial and federal. They frequently entered into unilateral contracts with faculty members, never letting the administrations of the institution know and never requesting permission. So if there were abuses, particularly in the case of the renowned incident of one of the deans at UBC, the person who was equally as guilty as that man - if indeed there was an abuse - was the federal government, who paid the fee and initiated the arrangement. We discovered, when one of the university presidents complained, that we were doing the same thing at the provincial government level. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , and myself as well, said: "We're not going to do that any more. Before anything of this nature gets initiated from our government we'll ask the administration of

[ Page 4119 ]

the university, and they can say, (a) whether it's appropriate; (b) what their administration cut should be on any consultant fees that were paid to the individual." I think that's fair and proper.

But looked at from the point of view of the university faculty member, the people who are the very best in their field in the world, or near the top, obviously deserve to command an income that would exceed that of any of us, and probably the fee of the top administrators of the university. If they're not being paid that amount of money as faculty members, not only are they entitled to earn that on the free market but also it's essential that they do in our province. If they don't, they'll merely go somewhere else where they will have that opportunity and our own students will be the losers.

So I think that we have to recognize that if we're to have leading universities here, it can only be because our faculty members are leading faculty members. If they're leading faculty members, two things have to happen. First of all, they have to have the atmosphere that will allow them to reach the top in their particular field and they have to be able to command equivalent rewards here for that ability and performance that they might get somewhere else. We've got to be able to compete for our share of the world's outstanding men. I for one would never want to see introduced at the provincial level any kind of regulation that would guarantee mediocrity for our institutions. That's what I would be afraid of if we embarked on any kind of witch hunt.

Vote 161 approved.

On vote 162: post-secondary education -community colleges and others, $118,633, 963.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this is the vote dealing with community colleges and other post-secondary institutions. I notice there are a number of new positions here which haven't been in the estimates before. Just very quickly, I wonder if the minister could explain the terms of reference of this new director of curriculum development. Is this for all colleges or is this vocational? Is it just an amalgamation of a former worker?Also, could you explain the tourist service chairman? They are both new positions.

HON. MR. McGEER: The director of curriculum development, Madam Member, is in the vocational area, and the tourist service chairman.... Can anybody help me out on that one? Yes, this has been in the estimates before; we have had such an individual. But in the past year a number of the positions that were temporary-continuous have been converted to permanent, and this was one of the conversions.

MR. WALLACE: Just a brief question, Mr. Chairman, relating to the problem of immigrant citizens who can't speak English and where the federal government and the provincial government are co-operating to try and provide services. I wonder if the minister could comment on the report that was made by Mary Ashworth of the faculty of education at UBC on the need for a better policy for providing English-language training, particularly for immigrants who obviously at the time can't speak English. The report mentions that there have been cuts in the English-language training programme at the King Edward campus of the Vancouver Community College. I can hesitate a moment as the minister is talking to his deputy.

HON. MR. McGEER: Can you give my financial experts here a moment or two to hunt around for that one? It's a big programme at King Edward and it's important, but I can't account at the moment for the details.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just briefly continue with another college matter that I want to raise quickly. It regards Camosun College in the greater Victoria area which had a programme of education for nurses' aides. Without getting into the whole larger issue of the best use of nursing personnel, using the word "nursing" in the widest sense, there is no doubt that with the large number of extended-care beds in the greater Victoria area and the fact that there's an expansion beginning literally this week - the builders have just moved into the Glengarry Hospital site on Fairfield Road - I wonder if the minister can give any good news to the greater Victoria community regarding the programme for the training of nurses' aides at Camosun College; I've been in touch with one of the officials who has said that programme has applicants far in excess of the number who can be accepted, and the big part of the problem appears to be adequate funding.

So, first of all, in general terms, can the minister say whether in light of the government's commitment to intermediate care and an expansion of extended care which will inevitably call for more nurses' aides the government will provide more funding to the colleges for that particular purpose in training?

HON. MR. McGEER: There's a jurisdictional dispute which is a major problem and at this stage I don't know what the resolution will be, but it traces back to union agreements that were made, the Noel Hall report and the manner in which that's to be dealt with. It's not something which the Ministry of Education can deal with unilaterally. I quite agree with the member that the need is urgent, and I'm dismayed about the difficulties that lie ahead. We'll do our best. As far as the Ministry of Education is

[ Page 4120 ]

concerned, we'd like to expand the programmes in the colleges right now. Whether we'll be permitted to do that or not, I don't know.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just return briefly to the question of English language programmes at Vancouver Community College? While the deputy may be obtaining the information precisely, Mr. Chairman, there is a programme entitled, "Moms and Tots Programme, " which emphasizes the fact that if the mother can't speak English it's not very conducive to the young preschool children picking up English. I understand that the federal government is putting in a fair amount of money to help in this programme. I wonder ... for example, in May, 1976,610 people were waiting to enter a class and the largest percentage of those 610 people were beginners.

I would like to know, in very approximate figures, how much the provincial government puts in. Is it prepared to consider compensating for any federal cutback?

This same report which, as I mentioned, was prepared by a member of the faculty of education at UBC, puts forward the proposal that this Ministry of Education should establish a provincial committee on English-language training, which covers both children and adults, particularly in relation to the needs of immigrants.

I wonder if, when answering my question about the situation at Vancouver Community College, the minister would indicate whether the ministry of our government is taking any new initiatives to try to set up such a committee on English-language training for immigrants.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member's got me stumped and he's got my adviser stumped. I wonder if we could deal with this question perhaps by the member discussing it with me in my office in the next few days, because I don't think the notes that I have here on the briefing book adequately cover the situation. But I certainly agree with him on the importance of the programme, and I want to be certain that the answer I give is not only responsible as far as the current state of affairs is concerned, but that we're discharging our proper responsibilities in this area. On the face of it I'm just not absolutely certain of that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly acknowledge the minister's offer. I just don't really want a lot of information. I just want to know the federal money, the provincial money, and the cutbacks. that apparently have occurred and have resulted in a longer waiting list of immigrants seeking this course. If the minister cares to put that in the form of a letter to me in due course, I accept that readily.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the notes I have here indicate that English for new Canadians is scheduled this year to increase from $1,410, 000 to $1,650, 000; vocational night school programmes from $280,000 to $423,000; the non-vocational night school programmes from $600,000 to $691,000; and the administration costs from $23,000 to $100,000. So it looks like we're allocating a substantial increase to this in the coming year, but it also appears as though we did cut last year. For example, English for new Canadians, from $1.6 million to $1.4 million. I frankly don't understand Those cuts. But there are increases this coming year, so something is going on that I don't understand.

MR. WALLACE: Could you send me a letter?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes.

Vote 162 approved.

Vote 163: student aid programmes, $11,179, 254 - approved.

On vote 164: teachers' pension fund, $38,300, 000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in light of the discussion we've had about the increase in faculty salaries at the university, I'm also interested in this vote because I notice the increase is $9 million over a base last year of $29 million, which is very substantial increase. I assume that since this is a percentage calculated on teachers' salaries, could the minister explain why it's way and above the 8 per cent increase allowed by AIB?

HON. MR. McGEER: This figure is not created by the Ministry of Education. It is a statutory calculation which comes out of the superannuation branch. We were advised last year that there was a deficiency in the fund to the extent of $38 million. No, I think we had $38.3 million. But in any event, it is not a question that I can answer from within the ministry because it is a statutory obligation under the teachers' pension fund, which is Public Schools Act. I can get the answers but it is not anything that we calculate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no wish to launch into any debate about the whole question of pension funds and how properly funded they are or what. But I am puzzled if the minister is saying that the deficit as of this year was $38 million and this is some kind of catchup payment. It is my understanding as an MLA, thinking of the MLA

[ Page 4121 ]

pension fund for a moment, that we pay X per cent of our salary into a fund on the arithmetical basis that that will create a certain pension at a certain age.

Now is the teachers' pension fund just a hit-or-miss procedure and this year we put in $38 million and next year it's another third increased? This amount compared to last year is an increase of about 30 per cent. I don't mean to be awkward at this time of night but if we are going to be meaningful critics of the money under the Education budget, how come the teachers' pension contribution - whatever the statutory falderol is - is up by 30 per cent this year compared to last year, or was the 29 figure last year another hit-or-miss figure just trying to straighten out a deficit in the fund?

If there is a deficit, I think the teachers would like to hear about it because it would suggest to a layman that the government has not been putting in an adequate share of the funding.

HON. MR. McGEER: I will have to check some of the details on this, but there were changes both to the terms of the teachers' pension fund that came as a result of legislation passed as well as the numbers of teachers contributing to that fund.

Now under the former administration, changes were made so that effective January 1,1975, the employers' contribution became a full 100 per cent of the employees' contribution. So that was a swat of money that the provincial government had to put up right then because of the statutory changes. The second thing that happened was that there was an increase in teachers' salaries of a very substantial amount during the period of 1972 to 1975 not only in each individual teachers' salary but in the numbers of teachers in the system. The number of teachers went from something of the order of 22,000 to 27,000 while the population remained constant, so that you have just under a 20 per cent increase right there just from numbers of teachers. Then in addition to that, there's been a change in the age distribution of people in the system and those retiring so that there needs to be an actuarial recalculation based on the life expectancy of the people contributing to the system.

Those three things combined produced a shocking amount of money. I want to say that when I saw how much more was to be put into the thing, it shocked me. But these were all changes that were undertaken not under this administration.

Vote 165: metric conversion, $195,630 -approved.

Vote 166: advances re rural school taxes - net, $10 - approved.

On vote 167: building occupancy charges, $19,209, 874.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Chairman, this is a fantastic figure for building occupancy charges. I have been fascinated with the allocations for office rental and the various estimates that have come before the House. I want to remind the Minister of Education that he was one of the vocal minority over the past few years who was very interested in the cost of space to the government.

I would certainly appreciate it now if he could outline to the House precisely what this $19,209, 000 is for. How much office space is rented from the private sector? How much is rented through the B.C. Buildings Corporation and whether or not a charge to the B.C. Buildings Corporation is placed on all public schools in the province? Nineteen million dollars is a fantastic amount.

What is this cost per square futt? (Laughter.) I was hoping we wouldn't start that again.

MR. WALLACE: It wouldn't sound the same without us.

MR. KING: Scotty, they don't laugh at you when you say "ruff' so I don't know why they laugh at me when I say "futt."

In any event, I certainly want to know the cost per square footage for government-owned buildings and for the private sector. I hope the minister, who was extremely critical in the past of vacant space and too high costs for rental accommodations, can give an accounting. Surely he wouldn't be asking the House to justify this kind of allocation without being able to justify that the Ministry of Education is receiving value for every dollar expended. This is supposed to be the government of the businessmen, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking forward to the minister's answer.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to assure the member that this government as a whole and this ministry in particular are not rushing around, as in former times, leasing space from the private sector so it can remain empty.

This charge includes 50,000 square feet for the ministry itself at $4 a square foot - all used - which is $200,000 for the ministry. The suggestion has come up that at $4 a square foot that might be a little bit steep for St. Ann's, but in any event that's the allocation for the ministry.

I think some of my honourable ministerial officials here are booking for better space. The rest of it, Mr. Chairman, goes for the costs of the vocational schools and BCIT - in other words, the provincially owned institutions that are around the province. I might add, and I don't want to suggest this in a partisan way at all, that there have been complaints, as might have been anticipated, from the individual institutions

[ Page 4122 ]

when they learned what the real cost was of maintaining their buildings. They are convinced that they will be able to manage it far more efficiently and get these costs way down.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's partial response; it is certainly very limited. The 50,000 square feet at $4 a square foot is a very small portion of the total allocation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, but the ministry only has 1.5 per cent of its budget itself. The rest is given to institutions. We give away 98.5 per cent of the money.

MR. KING: Vote 167 provides for payments to the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for rental and maintenance of building accommodation occupied by the ministry. The total allocation is $19 million plus. I am sorry, but I don't understand the vast discrepancy between the minister's explanation for $300,000 of rental space as opposed to the $19 million that is in addition to that amount.

I would appreciate a more detailed explanation. Is this simply a bookkeeping figure? Is it totally unrealistic? As the minister suggests, are the various departments of government renting on a realistic and businesslike basis from the B.C. Buildings Corporation space at a cost which is commensurate with their needs? The minister simply hasn't explained that. I know he wouldn't want to charge any amount to his department which is not received in full value.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there are quite a few rather large institutions that are involved in this total sum of money. The Jericho Hill School, the Burnaby Vocational Institute, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, the Haney Educational Institute, Camosun College, Northern Lights College, Malaspina College, Cariboo College, Okanagan Vocational, Northwest College, Nelson Vocational and Rossland School of Mines are all institutions where the buildings, the grounds and so on are owned by the provincial government and where, in the past, the cost of maintaining this has always been charged to the Ministry of Public Works. So essentially what we are doing is taking the public works vote and splitting it out according to the institution. Some rather revealing things are appearing. I agree with the member; I think a lot of pretty penetrating questions are going to be asked when the real costs of operating some of these places emerge. I think it is shockingly large.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his information in respect to some of the institutions that are included in the vote. I would ask whether or not the per square footage cost is the same for all of those institutions or whether it varies on the basis of the type of accommodation that is involved - I whether or not it's a modem institution or an old one. Surely if this is to be a realistic figure those considerations would be inherent in the value. Surely, too, Mr. Chairman, if the cost is to be in any way a realistic yardstick of what the costs should be, then I would think that someone in the Ministry of Education should be negotiating with the B.C. Buildings Corporation what the value of all these various facilities is. I see no indication of that, and by the minister's answer it would appear that this is just an artificial amount assessed to the Ministry of Education in an arbitrary way by the B.C. Buildings Corporation and accepted in docile fashion by that minister without knowing whether there is a standard cost or whether it varies between facilities. I think that is completely artificial and meaningless.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm flattered, Mr. Chairman. The initial sum is a rough cut in which the allocation has been on an average basis. The business has got to be refined. However, it's very clear, even on a rough cut basis, that the costs of operating some of these institutions - because it has been masked in the past - is disgracefully high. Already there are strong demands to improve the efficiency in the management of these places. Unfortunately, the greatest snag in it all is union contracts.

Vote 167 approved.

On vote 168: computer and consulting charges, $232,000.

MR. DAILLY: This is the one with reference to the computer and consulting charges. Here again I think the school districts of the province are in a considerable state of confusion on the relationship in their computer facilities and how they are to fit in with the proposed B.C. Systems Corporation computer area that is being set up. I think their main concern is that most of the school boards of the province are fairly satisfied with the manner in which they have been handling their computer needs, and yet they have been given the impression that they are going to be faced with a fairly major change. I think they have even actually been told to hold back and sort of prepare themselves for it. As we know, the bill isn't even through the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, for that reason we cannot discuss it.

MRS. DAILLY: No, I realize that. Can I simply ask the minister, though, Mr. Chairman: has he filled in the school districts of the province on what they

[ Page 4123 ]

are to do at the present time? I think they are very confused and not too happy with the projection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. We're unhappy about the state of affairs. The main dilemma that we face is that the Ministry of Education up until the present time simply has not had any kind of central data processing at all. So we're pretty, well starting from scratch. The individual school boards, which have leaped ahead in this matter and have many systems that are functioning well enough to suit them, are terribly concerned that they might be forced to reprogramme and have high cost and perhaps not get any return at all. They would just be reprogramming and faced with a cost with no return. So we are quite cognizant of that legitimate worry.

We have no intention at all of trampling over local school boards and forcing them to indulge in these kinds of costs for which they would get no return at all. What we do have to develop is some kind of central data system which we'll be addressing ourselves to now. I know that in the end we'll give far better service to all the school boards in the province. If it's a question of their having to spend money merely to reprogramme and not derive any benefit out of it, then I would think it would be the obligation of the Ministry of Education to cover that full cost.

Vote 168 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 203: minister's office, $131,284.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, before the members enter into the discussions on my estimates, I have a few comments to make.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Members will note from the material before them that the estimates for this fiscal period total in excess of $36 million. Simple arithmetic will show that the increase over the previous year is about $19.8 million. I would like to draw to the attention of the members that the increase is occasioned almost exclusively by the inclusion within the ministry's estimates for the first time of funds for the operation of the youth summer employment programme.

In these estimates, expenditures for training and job initiative programmes total approximately $28 million, or close to 80 per cent of the total spending estimates of this ministry. Within these job training and employment opportunity programmes, $15 million is allocated in the estimates before you. But as you are aware, an additional sum of $7.5 million has been committed by the government to that purpose since the estimates were printed. As well as this, approximately $10 million is provided for apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship training programmes.

The estimates for the ministry for this fiscal period reflect the intention of the government to expand employer-based training, an area in which the ministry has not been involved before. This includes industrial training programmes. Included in the estimates are funds to provide staff and operating expenditures for this programme in the amount of $450,000.

The sum of $10 million provided for training costs associated with apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programmes offered by the ministry will permit us to provide approximately 280,000 training days at a cost of in excess of $6 million; and in the pre-apprenticeship sector, approximately 180,000 training days will be put forward at a cost of $3.9 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's an increase over last year, Mr. Member.

I might say that the pre-apprentice ship training is a programme in which the ministry is very closely associated with the Ministry of Education. In this regard, there will be initiatives placed before the House shortly which will clarify the respective roles of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour in this important field of skill training.

In the area of employment initiatives, the ministry's estimate is $15 million in the book before you, but in fact $22.5 million will provide for the administration of the seasonal employment programme. A two-phase programme has again been developed by the ministry this year.

In the first phase, funds are made available to regional districts, municipalities, school boards, hospital boards, universities and community colleges, plus farms, businesses and non-profit organizations originally in the amount of $10 million. The ministry estimates that approximately 7,600 jobs will be created by virtue of these initiatives. This programme is essentially a wage subsidy programme. We require those restricted employers who can take advantage of it to offer positions to young people looking for work experience on a seasonal basis, and they are provided with assistance in meeting the wage.

Phase 11 of the programme provides work in government activities. Out of the original sum, $5 million was allocated for this purpose and approximately 2,000 jobs will be created with that money in the various government ministries. These are special employment projects of a seasonal nature

[ Page 4124 ]

carried on within government, quite separate from that area which is generally known as auxiliary employees whereby, through employment opportunities in the various ministries, some students having special training and special skills are able to gain employment. But the funds made available through the Ministry of Labour are specifically designed for special employment projects. They are not auxiliary positions; they are positions which we are able to offer through ministries who will administer those programmes with the approval of the B.C. Government Employees Union. But we are not taking away positions which would be available to persons normally seeking auxiliary employment of a seasonal nature.

As I indicated, in the interval since the development of the estimates and in fight of the magnitude of unemployment facing young people in the province, the government undertook to spend an additional $7.5 million in these programmes. These moneys were allocated between the two phases, and we will provide an additional 5,800 jobs in phase I and an additional 500 jobs in phase Il. In total, the expanded programmes for 1977 are intended to provide and will provide approximately 15,900 jobs at a cost of $22.5 million.

In the area of collective bargaining and employment standards programmes, spending estimates are held at approximately the same level as the previous fiscal year. This activity of the ministry provides for the operation of labour standards, mediation, arbitration and special services and labour education programmes.

The services of the ministry in the areas of employment standards and labour relations are those most commonly brought to the attention of the public. The resources and personnel of these individual branches are increasingly extended to accommodate a growing labour force in the province, increases in unionization and the attendant possibility of labour-management disputes. It is often only in the area of dispute resolution where the services of the ministry are well-known to the public.

The other services provided by these branches, however, are of equal importance, if not of greater importance, to the working people of the province. For example, during 1976, the industrial relations officers of the ministry undertook over 60,000 individual calls and investigations in connection with the enforcement of labour standards legislation.

Adjustments exceeding $1.75 million were made on behalf of over 10,000 employees by approximately 4,500 employers. The majority of these payments ... and in the simplest way, may I say that the labour standards branch of this ministry is probably the largest and the most successful collection agency operating in the province, if not in western Canada. The majority of these payments were the direct result of an employer inability to meet payroll commitments, owing to financial instability or other reasons. The success of these officers of the ministry is indicated by the fact that recoveries effected by the personnel are up over 20 per cent of the amount recovered in 1975, with approximately the same staff resources available to the ministry.

The officers of the mediation services branch perform an invaluable service to the province, one which is not often recognized. Sometimes, in the course of disputes which achieve some major publicity, one recognizes the name of a mediation officer. Otherwise, this silent service of the ministry carries on its responsibilities scarcely noticed.

During the past year, officers of the branch were involved in over 340 disputes, effecting resolution in a majority of those in which they were involved without work stoppage. During the year, 206 disputes were resolved with the assistance of these mediation officers. The educational role taken by this branch is an increasing dimension of its activities. The ministry is undertaking to provide speakers, panelists and moderators for trade union-employer organizations, as well as educational institutions throughout the province. The educational role undertaken by these officers will substantially improve the collective-bargaining atmosphere in the province in future years.

The human rights branch is an essential service offered by the government and one which is the pleasure of this ministry to have under its administrative control. Throughout the year the branch has been active in promoting the Human Rights Code and in resolving many of these most difficult situations confronted by our citizens in matters pertaining to employment, accessibility of public services, right to accommodation and other matters.

Over the past year, the human rights branch processed 578 formal complaints and handled an additional 3,500 inquiries from the general public; 11 boards of inquiry were appointed during the year and a number of significant gains were reported through these actions in the area of human rights.

The role of the branch, I'm afraid, is misunderstood by some people. It is essentially mediative in nature, with a large educational aspect to it. Throughout the year, the staff of the branch participated in over 200 educational programmes in communities throughout the province, and distributed literature pertaining to the operation of the Human Rights Code in British Columbia. There is an increasing involvement of branch staff with employer and union groups throughout the province, and this is a most welcome and beneficial association.

Often overlooked in considering the achievements and accomplishments of the various branches, are

[ Page 4125 ]

those support services which are critical to individual ministries in discharging their responsibilities. Programmes of financial management, personnel administration and information programmes, and research and planning do not achieve the pre-eminence of some of the line programmes of the ministry. Nonetheless, they are critical and invaluable support services to the ministry and to the government in achieving goals and objectives for individual programmes in this ministry.

The research and planning branch of the ministry has developed valuable informational programmes for labour and management communities throughout the province, and its various publications have done much to assist in the provision of statistical and other data useful in dispute resolution.

I have, for the benefit of the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , also items dealing with occupational charges and computer and consulting charges. I wish to assure him that Assistant Deputy Minister Frank Rhodes has been at considerable pains to provide me with information which will enable me to give very specific answers to the questions. Actually, by the time we complete these estimates we'll probably be metric, and it will, I'm sure, confound the member no end.

The minister's estimates provide as well for the operation of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board. Estimates of expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31,1978, will total $1.147 million, which is up only marginally from the previous year's estimates. The estimates provide, for the most part, the salaries of the chairman, vice-chairman, and staff of the board. At present, the total staff complement of 41 includes the chairman, five vice-chairmen, and 35 staff members.

I am sure that the members will be concerned with the Workers' Compensation Board during the course of these discussions. I would like to touch very briefly on one aspect only at this time, and that is the boards of review. In the area of workers' compensation, considerable attention has been given to a strengthening of the boards of review. During the pas , t year, there has been a steady increase in the number of appeals reaching the boards of review. The numbers have arisen from 1,018 in 1974, to 1,617 in 1975, and 1,905 in 1976. 1 think the reason for that increase will be obvious, as there has been a greater understanding of the role which boards of review are there to perform. There has been an obvious increase in the attention which claimants who have been denied their claims, as they see it, by the board have turned to the boards of review for an opportunity by way of appeal.

I should also point out at this time that with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board there has been some misunderstanding, I believe. Out of all the claims that are received by WCB in each year, something less than 1.5 per cent are denied. Therefore the experience in this province is somewhat better than is found in other jurisdictions where the percentage of denials rises as high as 5 per cent. The appeals to the boards of review flow from that 1.5 per cent of denied claims.

The difficulties of dealing with an increasing number of appeals were compounded in 1976 by the resignation of the administrative chairman and the subsequent time required to effect his replacement. In this regard, the ministry has undertaken a direct policy of strengthening the boards of review.

In January, 1977, Judge Ross Collver of the provincial court was seconded on a temporary basis to act in the capacity of administrative chairman of the boards of review, both to carry out the responsibilities of chairman and also to perform two other very essential functions. One was to consider the administration of the boards of review themselves and to make recommendations to me as to how the administration of the boards might be improved for the purpose of making their work more efficient; and, as well, to diminish a gulf which, unfortunately, had grown up between the boards of review and the Workers' Compensation Board itself. I am pleased to say that in addition to discharging his responsibilities as chairman, Judge Collver has fulfilled the other two important aspects of his role in the most admirable fashion.

On the return of Judge Collver to his post in the provincial courts, Mr. Paul Devine succeeded him as the administrative chairman of the boards of review. Mr. Devine, prior to his appointment as administrative chairman, was the compensation consultant - a member of this ministry's compensation service branch. He is well respected inside the board by those employees and organizations who used his services as compensation consultant and he brings to his position as administrative chairman a demonstrated capability in this field.

In addition to these personnel actions, three additional chairmen of boards were appointed and a fourth board of review was made operational. These actions already show the results in terms of improving the administration of the compensation appeal system, The number of cases pending decisions by the boards of review showed a decline for the first time in June of this year. The following is a listing of the number of cases outstanding before the boards of review: as of December 31 1976, 1,122; January, 1977, 1,203; February, 1, 2~1; March, 1,382; April, 1,448; June, 1,463. These are at the end of each successive month from December 31,1976.

1 am hopeful that with the appointment of additional personnel to the boards of review we will see a continuing downturn in the number of cases outstanding before them. We now have in the boards

[ Page 4126 ]

of review six chairmen and four complete boards. This gives the boards of review a capability which they heretofore did not have. The boards sit with a chairman and two members. Following the hearing of appeals to them, there falls the responsibility of consideration of the matters coming forward in the hearing and the writing of a decision. That latter task has fallen almost exclusively on the chairman. This means that if the boards of review continue with hearings, the time available for the writing of decisions and the processing of appeals is therefore diminished.

With the appointment of additional chairmen, it now gives us a greater flexibility so that the chairman can be spelled off in order to deal with the decision-writing process. It also gives us greater flexibility in being able to place a chairman with differing side persons. Therefore the complexion of each board changes, the experience is spread over the total boards of review, and I think the quality of their adjudication is thereby improved.

I might say that with the appointment of a new chairman, vice-chairman and two members to the Workers' Compensation Board, there has been increased communication between them and the boards of review. As a result, some internal administrative changes have been made in the Workers' Compensation Board which themselves are assisting in the shortening of time for the handling of cases that go to the boards of review.

It has now been perceived that in some instances, matters coming before the boards of review have obvious errors. The Workers' Compensation Board itself is being advised of this and a second look is being taken at some of these cases, with the result that the recommendation is often made from the adjudicator level of the Workers' Compensation Board to the boards of review to allow the appeal immediately. This is reducing the number of hearings and expediting the dealing with these decisions.

Mr. Chairman, with those few remarks, maybe tomorrow my deputy minister and some of my associates will be here. But I would be happy to receive any questions from the members and to respond.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I want to thank the minister for outlining the various aspects of his department tonight. He did it quite briefly and I thought quite succinctly, and I appreciate the information that the minister was making available to the members of the opposition this evening.

I would like to compliment the minister on another matter. That relates to his stand regarding the obligation of this particular government to provide that money for the children in Vietnam. That money, as you will recall, Mr. Chairman, was first agreed to unanimously in this House some four years ago. When the minister was approached by a reporter from The Vancouver Sun, he expressed his viewpoint quite forthrightly and said, yes, he felt that this government had an obligation to go ahead and spend that $2.25 million to provide medical services for the children in Vietnam.

I really think that it was because of that minister's statement that the Premier was prompted to agree that in fact this government had that obligation. When the Premier's estimates were under discussion we had that assurance from the government at that time. The minister in that case won out over the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) because she was quoted in the same article as saying that she felt that this government had no obligation to provide those funds.

So it made me realize, Mr. Chairman, that within this cabinet that minister had some stature and had some weight with the Premier himself. I have often noticed during the time that the House is in session that this minister is consulted by various other ministers and various other government backbenchers. So he obviously has some clout and some respect and some stature within that cabinet. He always looks calm, on top of the situation and unruffled - well, most times unruffled.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I must say that it is with some surprise that we find that this minister is actually being trampled upon by other ministers. I don't quite understand that and I really would like to have the minister make some comments with respect to the way in which the other ministers at this time are intruding upon his jurisdiction and that this minister is remaining completely silent.

I see the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , who is not in his seat, is looking very quizzically my way. I can assure him that one of the ministers that I am referring to is the Minister of Human Resources.

Now we're certainly not going to discuss legislation that's on the order paper, Mr. Chairman, but I am completely at a loss to understand why this minister, who seems to have stature, who seems to have control within his department, who seems to have clout within that particular cabinet, is allowing the other ministers to enter into his jurisdiction and to trample all over him. That's confusing.

I'm just wondering if perhaps the minister has lost some of those fights in cabinet. He won out over the Provincial Secretary and the Premier with respect to the money in Vietnam, but he now seems to be falling by the wayside and is not able to stay on top of the situation and is not able to prevent the other ministers from entering into the affairs of his own department.

I'm wondering why the minister has been so silent on this issue. There have been several reports in the paper written by editorial writers and columnists with

[ Page 4127 ]

respect to legislation that's now on the order paper that very clearly intrudes in that minister's jurisdiction, yet the minister has said nothing. He made no mention about that tonight when he got up and spoke about his department and how it was being run. I'm worried at this stage, because people who are watching the Minister of Labour and who have felt for some time that, yes, he's getting things in control, he seems to know what's happening within his department, see him now in a position where the other ministers are intruding upon his jurisdiction and walking all over him.

They are wondering out there in the public who is next. Is the Minister of Labour not going to stand up and protect the rights of workers under the provisions of the Labour Code? These are workers who have gone to the trouble of becoming unionized and getting certified, and suddenly other ministers within this government are introducing bills which wipe them out and the Minister of Labour's not saying anything about it. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm hoping that the Minister of Labour will be able to enlighten us, because we're really puzzled about this on this side of the House.

I am also wondering about who's winning other rounds in the cabinet, because I'm sure that the Minister of Labour is very concerned about a number of issues that affect his department. I think one of the most obvious ones is unemployment.

I am sure that the minister is concerned that the figures that are produced within his own research department each month indicate that the government as a whole is failing the people of this province, that the increases that they have imposed have had a detrimental effect on the economy and on the levels of unemployment. Surely this minister must be concerned about the hardware store approach to the economy of the province, to the fact that the people do not have the disposable income that they once had, and to the fact that bankruptcies are taking place all over this province, which in turn creates more unemployment. He must be concerned about it.

Tonight he made mention of the fact that there is $15 million in the Minister of Labour's estimates this year for student employment programmes. That's not a new programme, of course; it's only that this year the money is actually incorporated in the estimates themselves. But this minister, Mr. Chairman, is so embarrassed by the fact that the government is showing no initiative in terms of the economy, is showing no evidence at all of any planning, has done nothing in terms of inviting capital into this province, that in fact there is just no investor confidence, that at least he went to cabinet and said: "The situation is so bad that we have to get another $7.5 million so that we won't have students unemployed all over this province this summer." He indicates that the additional $7.5 million on top of the $15 million that's already there will provide some 15,900 summer employment jobs. That's good. But because of the actions of this government, because of their interference with the economy and because of their inability to do anything to improve the economic situation in this province, he had to go and get another $7.5 million to provide that number of jobs. Mr. Chairman, that money will still not ensure that the students of this province have work this summer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you running for the leadership?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: We've seen unemployment lines. Young people, Mr. Chairman, have lined up at the PNE when they were advertising for students. They were lined up all night in some cases, waiting for the possibility of getting a summer job. I have never before in my memory of this province seen evidence of lineups of that type of students looking for work. Never! When young people begin to jostle and push each other around in their desperation for work, Mr. Chairman, the government should be concerned and the Minister of Labour should be concerned. I think it's high time that they changed their attitude to the economy of this province and particularly to the people of the province.

Mr. Chairman, day after day the headlines talk about the jobless lineup lengthening in B.C. They are getting longer. The situation is not improving. Yet at the same time, reading in one of the Alberta papers, the Edmonton Journal, 1, would like you to look at this headline, Mr. Chairman, because here it is: the Edmonton Journal, June, 1977. The headline reads: "Not Enough Students for Available Jobs." What on earth has this government done to the economy of this province that results in long lineups for work, young people jostling each other, pushing each other - some of them fainting on the lines - trying to get a job in this province?

When is the government going to make some changes with respect to its approach to the economy? Are you going to continue to take, the money out of the pockets of the people of this province and continue to have the kind of bankruptcies that we've seen, including those that are happening in the city of Kelowna? I have a list of them. I don't know if the Premier is aware of all of the bankruptcies that are happening up there, but the coverage in the Kelowna papers on bankruptcies has been rather interesting. Problems with Homeco, employees being laid off; headquarters in Kelowna. They are shutting down plants and they are laying off people right there in Kelowna, are they not?

What about articles like this: "Bankruptcy: Who's Going Broke and Why?" What paper is this? Not an

[ Page 4128 ]

Alberta paper. It says Kelowna Today.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You'll never be able to match our record.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank God!

MR. MACDONALD: Unemployment is up; capital investment is down. These are the bottom-lines. Don't try to do better, just try to do as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Now back to the member for Comox on vote 203.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the unemployment figures are a very clear indication that this economy is under-achieving and the responsibility for that must lie with this government. It's their actions in the last year and a half that have resulted in the kind of lineups that we see and the kind of headlines that we see and the kind of disaster that means for a lot of families in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a big joke over there.

MS. SANFORD: You're taking away the initiative of these young people who are struggling to find work, who are jostling and pushing each other trying to find a job in this province. It's all over the place. You know, the Premier's sitting there smirking away about problems such as this, but the responsibility must lie with this government and the Premier is not yet prepared to accept that responsibility. He's not prepared to change his attitude towards economics. He's prepared to continue that hardware-store approach that we've seen since day one. The attitude of this government is that as long as the provincial budget is in good shape, the provincial economy is in good shape. That's what they think, Mr. Chairman.

But the provincial budget and the provincial economy are not the same thing and the measure of the provincial economy is the opportunity that it generates for the people of the province. On that score, Mr. Chairman, this government has failed.

You know, the Conference Board of Canada maintains that B.C. is the only province that is capable at this time of creating enough jobs to meet the increase in the labour force and to do something about the unemployment figures. This is the Conference Board of Canada - they're a research group made up of business people, and they say that B.C. is the only one that's capable of doing it. And what's happening to B.C.? They're falling farther and farther behind. The situation is growing worse.

Then there's the Economic Council of Canada that has also made comments with respect to B.C. They've done some regional studies, Mr. Chairman. What they have found is that this government could lower taxes at this time - and I say it should lower taxes at this time - and still get the same amount of money into its treasury. Now that government does not recognize that. It's not paid any attention. It hasn't done anything. It continues to proceed with its same approach - high prices, high rates, increased taxes, in spite of the promises that they made at election time.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that it's the economic policies of this government that are resulting in the kind of unemployment shown in the figures that are produced by the Minister of Labour every month in the publication out of his ministry.

Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest errors, I think, that this minister has made during the time he has been Minister of Labour was one that he made very early. That was to fire summarily Mr. Terry Ison, leaving the Workers' Compensation Board leaderless for about a year. I think the subsequent Ross report that was brought in was a report that was not worthy of Workers' Compensation Board level. In other words, the Workers' Compensation Board, the programme, the projects that it was undertaking warranted something more than just a report by a consultant group. What did they know about workers' compensation and all of its complexities? Mr. Chairman, that was an error that the minister made as well.

But tonight the minister indicated to us that he now has six chairmen of the boards of review under the Workers' Compensation Board, and that he has four full boards in operation. Mr. Chairman, that is not going to reduce the long list of people who are still awaiting attention under the boards of review sufficiently quickly. What we have now are people who are still waiting for months and months and months to have their appeals heard before the boards of review under the Workers' Compensation Act.

Sure he's made some changes. Sure there will eventually be a reduction in the number of months that people have to wait. But if this minister was aware of the hardship that this is causing families all over the province, by having to wait that length of time for their cases to be heard before a board of review, he would immediately move to appoint two boards of review right now, on top of the one that he has just appointed.

Once those boards of review have dealt with the backlog of cases, then certainly those boards could be relieved of their duties if, in fact, they are no longer needed at the Workers' Compensation Board. They should be appointed now so that those people do not have that long, long period of time to wait. It is going to take too long for the additional board that has been appointed to reduce that caseload which the minister, by his own figures tonight, said was around

[ Page 4129 ]

1,400 people - 1,400 people waiting to be heard. Mr. Chairman, it is not fair to the workers involved who have been injured and it's not fair to the families of those workers who must wait all of that time to find out whether, in fact, they are going to have their compensation case considered or approved.

Mr. Chairman, one of the accomplishments of the last Minister of Labour (Mr. King) , in addition to doing away with the anti-labour legislation that was on the statute books put there by the previous Socred government, was the fact that he was able to gain the confidence of not only the employees and the trade unionists of this province, but also the employers of British Columbia. Now this means, Mr. Chairman, that people respected the previous Minister of Labour in that he was fair and even-handed in his approach to the very difficult portfolio of the Ministry of Labour. He was fair. He was able, Mr. Chairman, to create the necessary climate which is absolutely essential if we are going to have successful collective bargaining in this province.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier shakes his head,

MS. SANFORD: I don't know what he's shaking his head about. Does he not feel that it is necessary to have a climate in which the collective bargaining process can take place without government interference and without the kind of comments that have been made by various ministers within his own cabinet? I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman.

The climate under which the whole collective bargaining process must take place is one which must not be tampered with. It must be left so that there is no interference from government or from individual backbenchers or cabinet ministers. It must not.

Now the Minister of Labour in the previous government was able to set up a Labour Code which has gone a long way in terms of resolving the difficulties that the people involved in the collective process bargaining were facing - a long way. And I'm appealing to this minister tonight, who to date during this session has not brought in any legislation whatsoever. We don't know what he intends to do. But let me assure you that the people who are watching this Minister of Labour are very concerned about the kind of changes that he may be considering towards the Labour Code. They are particularly concerned based on the fact that the other ministers of government are now trampling on this minister.

The minister himself, Mr. Chairman, has been fairly careful in the kinds of statements that he makes. But he has fellow cabinet members like the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) saying in effect: "Well, I suppose we really should have right-to-work legislation." That's what he said in effect on several occasions. The Minister of Economic Development has also made statements which gives an indication of his knowledge of industrial relations in this province, statements such as: "The IWA should sign a no-strike contract for five years."

Now with fellow cabinet ministers displaying that kind of ignorance of the whole industrial relations process and the whole collective bargaining process, he's in trouble. The climate which is so necessary, which the former minister worked so hard to establish in this province is being destroyed by that kind of statement and by the kind of actions that are taking place now through the other ministers who are trampling on this minister.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I will take my place. I would like to ask the minister, though, going back to student employment, how many applications they have had all told. He told us tonight that they are employing some 15,900 students. How many applications have there been all told? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, it's getting a little late. I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10: 54 p.m.