[ Page 1995 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 54. Mr. Barber –– 2006

Mr. Cocke 1995 Mr. Lauk –– 2011

Hon. Mr. McGeer 1996 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2013

Mrs. Dailly 1997 On vote 56.

Mr. Levi 2000 Mr. Cocke –– 2016

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm 2003 Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2016

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 54: minister's office, $119,793 -continued.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I had a word or two last year with the minister with respect to Jericho Hill School. Last weekend - not this immediate last weekend but the weekend before - I had a meeting with a number of people who have been affected by the decisions made concerning Jericho Hill School. There is real concern out there among the people who have children in Jericho Hill School and among the people who are part of the deaf community in B.C. I think many of them exhibited how they felt. They indicated they are not at all impressed with this minister in his handling of Jericho Hill School and the concerns of the deaf community in the province.

I think one of their concerns is probably around the whole community. I know that many of the members in this House have a little trouble understanding that community. Last year the minister said that he wants to decentralize the programme - incidentally, that is the antithesis of what he is doing in Education elsewhere - get the children back into their homes, get the children back into their communities and work with them much more easily in that way. Study after study has been done of the deaf community. The one thing that comes out of virtually every study is that a deaf community is not an operating community unless there are at least 36 people in it. When you decentralize a programme and send three deaf children - one aged 12, one aged 15 and one aged 9; different sexes, different temperaments and all the rest of it - into a particular area where the rest of the children in their milieu and their school don't sign or have no other way of communicating with them, then you've got a very sad situation. As I recall it, the minister also indicated that it was a sad situation to have a situation where children are away from their parents and the rest of the family.

I talked to a deaf man last weekend who has been stone-deaf virtually all his life. He cold me that of a family of 16, including close relatives, first cousins, father, mother, brothers and sisters, there is one person in that entire family who has learned to sign - one person. That's the problem they have in the deaf community. And, Mr. Chairman, the minister and his bureaucrats obviously don't seem to understand that it's necessary to create communities significant and large enough that there is socialization possible, so that they have somebody to communicate with. When you create these small communities, which would appear to be the direction that he's going, then you have a very sad and very lonely person.

I alluded last year to a niece of mine who went through the whole Jericho Hill School system. She had a loving family that wanted her; but she would get home, she would be glad to see her parents and her brothers and sisters, but the minute that period of exuberance was over, she would want to get back to the community where she was understood and the community in which she could communicate.

That's really what we're talking about here, and now we're seeing the same situation of great concern that we had last year. I recognize that the minister has at least not torn it down brick by brick, but there is certainly a lower priority on Jericho, and it would appear to me that that will continue. Certainly if we can create three or four areas in the province, so much the better. Keep the children as close to home as possible, but, Mr. Chairman, that is something that I would like the minister to look into very carefully before he makes any more of these decisions around decentralization of that programme.

Right now there is a great concern at Jericho around what's happening to the children from grades 9 to 11. They're being pulled right out of the school and taken over to Kitsilano. Maybe there are some good aspects to that, but I'll tell you it sure does cut down the viability of that community. And so I suggest that maybe what the minister is doing is looking at an expansion of his justice institute. Their training programme is to be taken out to Jericho Hill School. I read through this article in Education Today, and every argument raised to centralize that programme for the justice institute is an argument that you could raise in defence of Jericho Hill School, in defence of the larger milieu, and the opportunity to communicate the children will have under those circumstances.

The two people I met with were deaf, and we needed an interpreter. They were totally opposed to the minister's position now, or what appears to be his position, because certainly there seems to be a continuing of his decen-

[ Page 1996 ]

tralization.

There were 22 groups involved in and around that school. Was there any consultation? None. Announcements. When the groups reacted to the minister's decision, what did the minister say? He said they had a vested interest. I'll tell you, if I had a deaf child, I would have a vested interest in seeing to it that that child had the very best that education has to offer. The best that education has to offer is that hearing-impaired children are with other hearing-impaired children so that they may at least have someone with whom to communicate.

I believe that we're watching a sad time in the history of this province, when communicatively impaired children and others with disabilities are being mishandled, because education really has divested itself of the responsibility to see to it that they have the best possible climate in which to operate - no preschool for the deaf in Vancouver. I believe that there is a situation out in the areas, where there have been some deaf programmes, that nobody can assess. I have heard of no reports coming out of Surrey. I have heard of no reports coming out of all the other areas where there are as few as three children and as many as six or seven.

I would ask the minister to set up an independent committee - independent of his office, independent of the 22 groups, or however many there may be - to assess the services to the communicatively impaired in our province. I think that he could do no less, particularly in view of the fact that he has gone the way he has. The Western Institute for the Deaf at the present time are being asked to help. You know the reason they're being asked to help? It's because there is a great need for help in the system. The system is breaking down, and I suggest to you that if there were a committee, without what the minister calls a vested interest or whatever other kind of interest one might have ... I suggest that the minister set up such a committee.

There are many forward-looking people who are asking that something be done to show that there is priority for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if we continue to go down the route we're going, there will be those alienated people out there, people who have been alienated through their youth and have become alienated adults. That's where you have your problems. That's why we need a Minister of Human Resources; that's why we need an Attorney-General. That's our great problem: we've done no preventative work of real substance, and then finally, when we've created all the problems, we go around trying to patch up. But by then it is too late.

With this kind of decentralization you will not create leadership in the deaf community. There aren't enough of them in one group to have that kind of society where you can create leadership. They need leadership among themselves. They need an opportunity to grow, and they don't have that opportunity to grow in a lean community. It's up to the Minister of Education to create a rich community for them. Instead of that, it's decentralize, decentralize. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, we've seen enough of the minister's mood in terms of decentralization in other areas. In terms of the school system, he wants to take over full control. But in this particular situation, no, it's decentralize.

What about the use of deaf teachers? In the lean community there is very little chance of attracting deaf teachers, but they need deaf teachers. They need the teachers that a larger school like Jericho Hill School could attract and could produce. That's what's needed, because who understands the problems of the deaf like one who is deaf?

I hope that the minister can give us some kind of reassurance this year. Last year he got up in his place, indicated he wanted to keep the children close to home, said another few brave words and then sat down. I think that it's up to the minister to reassure a lot of people in this province tonight, and tell us where he's going with this whole area of the communicatively impaired, and particularly the problems of the deaf.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I've spoken many times before in this House about the deaf wars which go on in British Columbia to the detriment of the whole hearing impaired community. I see no end of that in sight. I think the same group, a very minor group by the way, will each year raise the same issues in the same way and catch gullible people willing to make an issue once more out of an area in which no one wins. It's impossible to satisfy this particular group. Complaining to the press is a way of life for them. However, I can only describe what is taking place.

First of all, the policy with respect to looking after the communicatively impaired is something which is not new, which is a firm policy of the ministry and the government, and which is not going to change. That's to follow through on the principle that your own former leader espoused. He was the one who wrote the Berger commission report recommending that wherever possible services be brought to the youngsters in their homes and in their communities. Now that's what we're firmly

[ Page 1997 ]

trying to do. But the special interest group would have us pull deaf people out of homes all over British Columbia and centralize them at Jericho Hill School, believing that.if they had a community gathered together, totally dependent, somehow that would further everyone's interest. Well, it simply isn't so. All we can do is say that Jericho Hill School will remain for those who need the special attention that can't be provided in their own homes.

The principal of Jericho Hill School is Henry Minto. He's recognized by common consent as the best deaf educator in Canada. You talk about leadership - we simply couldn't find a better leader in the country. We're very fortunate to have him. I would think that the best thing that could be done would be for members on all sides of the House to support a man, if he is the best in Canada, and give him the kind of help that he needs to get his job done. This merely erodes - because the public is bound to become confused by the deaf wars -and it undermines what someone like that is trying to accomplish.

We've got a very strong individual in Mr. John Anderson, who is the co-ordinator of this programme at the Jericho Hill School. We have an advisory committee which we formed a year ago, including representatives of the deaf, to monitor everything that's been going on. I might say this is a very positive and responsible committee made up of positive and responsible citizens. Every single child - every one - who is deaf in British Columbia is individually assessed and a programme provided that will be the best for that individual, not for the people who complain to you.

MR. COCKE: Don't give us that junk! You can't tell me that putting that child with three kids is best for him!

HON. HR. McGEER: You say: "Don't give us that junk!" You don't want to listen to the truth. We can't do better than to get the finest person in Canada as the leader of that institution. We can't do more than to set UP an advisory committee of the most responsible people we can find to act as lay individuals. We can't do more than to go and assess every single student in British Columbia individually for the programme that would be best for them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we've just done in these last few weeks a demographic study of all the hearing impaired, by Dr. Bryan Clark of UBC. That's going to be available to give us an opportunity to predict even better into the future how the services for the hearing impaired should be distributed around British Columbia so people can live in their homes.

Now we've said that Jericho Hill School is going to remain open. We're not attempting to close it. The numbers are dropping very marginally. In 1975 there were 196 students; in 1976,190; this year there are 177. But if people who are deaf can receive their education better and live in their own home, have the benefit of their own home atmosphere, for heaven's sake why stand in the way of trying to implement the report of your own former leader and what's in the best interest of these students? We're not acting against the advice we're getting from the educators of the deaf, from the advisory committees, or from the parents of the individuals. Would you have us turn our backs on all of that and accept the advice and the programmes of a small special interest group that year after year manages to catch ... ?

MR. COCKE: Nonsense!

HON. MR. McGEER: They're a tiny, small, isolated group. And you want us to follow their advice and their dictates against all professional advice.

Just a year ago, Mr. Chairman, I read into the record of the House what a North American consultant, well respected all over the continent and who had come here, had written to us, telling us that he had seen the finest programme he'd ever seen right here. And that's what objective assessment tells us, and yet you would have us follow some other course. Mr. Member, we can't do that, because we've got to be responsible in the programmes that we put forward.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, Mr. Chairman, once again this minister has shown a complete lack of understanding of a very sensitive problem. Every one of us in this room can hear and none of us can really comprehend what it must be like to be totally deaf or even very severely handicapped with deafness. And yet this minister stubbornly persists in moving to decentralization of deaf children. And you know, he can talk all he wants, and tell us in this House over and over again that each child is going to be individually assessed. What's the point of individually assessing them when the general policy of that ministry is to decentralize?

And that's why the parents are uptight. The minister talks about groups; he says: "We're not going to satisfy small groups." We're not talking about satisfying any small groups either, Mr. Chairman; we're talking about

[ Page 1998 ]

satisfying the needs of a deaf child, while that minister is going against all current thinking on what is best for the deaf child by persisting in sending one or two children -maybe two of them - back into a community where they live in a world where they cannot hear. Now it's different for the blind child. The parents of the blind children are not as concerned, because the blind child can assimilate. But to put maybe one or two deaf children alone in some classroom on the pretence that it is good to have them back in the community is a tragedy. And this minister has never yet been able to back up for us in this House why he's doing this.

So the only reason I can give for his persistence in doing something which is going to be a tragedy for the deaf children of this province is finances. No. 1, they wanted to use part of Jericho for the justice school; No. 2, if you ship these children back into the community, the school boards have to pick up the cost of most of the resources for training these children. Now I've talked to school trustees in this province, and they have no choice. The amendments to the Act brought in last year by that minister give them no choice - they have to accept these children. Not only is it a tragedy for the children, but the local taxpayer is now going to be burdened with the majority of the costs of educating these deaf children in the community - which certainly saves the ministry the money spent when the child was at Jericho.

Now, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, it simply will not wash when you keep repeating here that every child will be individually assessed. We know that the parents of the deaf children would not be concerned, would not be expressing their concerns in reports which they put out, if they did not know that this minister's plan is basically to completely decentralize the education of deaf children. He's done it without proper consultation. He's paid no attention whatsoever to the Ben Chud report, which was commissioned under the New Democratic government and which, by the way, did meet and consult with the parents before these recommendations came in. And what did Ben Chud say? He- said: "Basically the dormitory institutional situation is most viable and should continue for most children. What you have to look at is the kind of dormitory and the environment in that dormitory." But Chud, who worked very hard in this whole area, in talking to parents, visiting people, at no time suggested doing what this minister is doing to the deaf children of this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, we went through this last year. In the meantime, dissatisfaction exists in this province. The deaf child is being tragically treated by this minister, with no concern for the real needs of the deaf child. I think this minister should halt this programme immediately and take away the fear that exists with many of the deaf children's parents in this province, because they're helpless. tie's made up his mind and, no matter what he says in this House, his programme is continuing. And I can say nothing more, except that what this minister is inflicting upon the deaf students of this province is a tragedy. And a-11 we can do is make a plea on behalf not of small vested interests groups, but of the deaf child of this province, for that minister to stop, sit down with the parents and not be so stubborn about persisting in a policy which is not followed in any other part of North America.

I talked to people who are involved with deaf children in the United States, and they were shocked to think that this sort of thing is going on in British Columbia.

Jericho may have had its problems - I know that - but the basic philosophy of keeping a deaf child in the deaf child's own community has been accepted and is continuing to be accepted in most progressive administrations. So why this minister persists in swinging against the whole current and philosophy of the treatment of the deaf child, I cannot understand, except I certainly hope it is not because of finances. Surely he would not be putting that ahead of the needs of a deaf child of this province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move on to another social issue in this province, which I am sure the minister will be equally as concerned about as I and many other people in this province are. I would like to comment on it and ask the minister for some of his reactions to it.

I wonder if the minister is aware that in the last two years in the province of British Columbia, 2,957 babies were born to mothers 17 years and under. I want to repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Almost 3,000 babies were born to mothers 17 years and under, and these are the latest statistics compiled by the Perinatal Programme of B.C. In that same age group, there were 3,362 abortions in the last two years, indicating that 6,319 young teenagers became pregnant.

Now when they talked to these young teenagers who were in this situation, they found that almost 75 per cent of sexually active

[ Page 1999 ]

teenage girls were indulging in unprotected intercourse. Of this group, 83 per cent were convinced that they would not get pregnant.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm bringing this to the attention of the minister because it leads me into an area which I've always advocated, despite a vocal minority which managed to do much damage to the development of these programmes. What I am leading to, Mr. Chairman, is the expansion of family life programmes in our school system. My concern is that I know for any Minister of Education to give their stamp of approval to family life education immediately means that that minister is going to be subjected to a small, vocal minority who will follow him around from platform to platform - as I know - trying to make sure that a family life programme will never truly get started in the schools of British Columbia.

I pay tribute to the schools that have had the courage to go ahead with it, but there are many schools in this province, Mr. Chairman, where no family life education is taking place whatsoever. For those people who are concerned, the people who are anti-abortionist, I find it rather ironic that very seldom do we see them standing up and saying: "Let's have some family life programmes in our schools."

The facts are here. There are more and more teenage girls becoming pregnant, mainly because of lack of knowledge. Yet here in 1978 we still find areas in British Columbia where no family life training or family planning training or sex education is being given to the students of this province.

Why I am bringing it forward to the minister is that before the NDP left office we attempted to give the leadership in this area. We know we ran into difficulties. As I say, any minister will. But you cannot afford to cater to a small, vocal minority when you're faced with a situation where more and more young people, young teenage girls in this province are being forced to have abortions or to have the child.

The sad thing is that most of the teenage mothers, Mr. Chairman, are in a very particularly high-risk group, with exceedingly high health hazards that you do not find in the older area. Also, the teenage mother who keeps her child unfortunately can often become the mother of a battered child, because it has been said that the unwanted baby of today is the battered child of tomorrow.

This problem is getting more serious in British Columbia every day. I'm not saying that family life and sex education will solve the problem, but it certainly points out the great lack of it in this province today. Basically what I want to ask the minister is what his policy is as Minister of Education for this province on instituting and ensuring that family life programmes can go into the schools of this province. I know you cannot put them in unless you have the co-operation of the parents. I want to know if this minister since he became minister has ever taken any leadership in this. Has he ever made a public speech on the need for it? I feel that any minister today in 1978 who does not take a strong leadership role in the family life programmes for the schools of British Columbia is abrogating a very major responsibility of their portfolio.

The figures speak for themselves. I hope that the Minister of Education - and I certainly want to wait for his answer - will talk to us tonight about his policy on this and what he plans to do in this area.

Another area I want to discuss with the minister is the area of the French language programme which he talked about this afternoon. The minister leaves us somewhat confused. I wonder if he could explain it to us a little more clearly. He talks about French immersion programmes, which, of course, I think we all agree with. Then at the same time he is starting a parallel programming of French core curricula, which I think is certainly very admirable, but what I fail to understand is how this is actually going to work in a school. If you are going to allow 10 students who wish it to take it, how does this work out in one school? Are there going to be children of different ages? Are they going to be segregated in one classroom in different ages? Have you the teachers available? Are you going to put any restrictions on the parentage of the children as to whether their mother language is French or not? This has not been made clear. I think there are a lot of people out there in the province who have heard this great announcement from the minister but who have serious questions as Lo exactly how it is going to function. It is all right making these statements, but if you are not going to come through with it, it is going to cause a lot of anxiety with people who thought that this programme was going to be prepared for them almost within a matter of a few months. I hope you can explain to us the mechanics of just how you are going to do it.

Also I wonder at the same time if he would explain to us what the financing is. Perhaps he could correct me if I'm wrong here, but as far as 1 know, to involve himself as minister with French core programmes I don't believe involves any money from this provincial government whatsoever, and yet the minister is taking great credit for the initiation of it.

[ Page 2000 ]

I understand that the support grants for it are 100 per cent federally funded and the special grants are 50 per cent federal and 50 per cent local. Is the ministry in their budget putting aside any money for the French core programme or is it all federal financing? I think this is an answer that we will all be waiting to hear from the minister. He is taking a great deal of credit for this programme. I give him credit for announcing it, but I would like to know how it is going to work and who is actually funding it.

The minister also mentioned yesterday that he was planning to introduce guidelines for administrators' salaries. That's a very popular thing to say today, but I wonder if he realizes the shock waves that such a statement does send throughout the school system. Some people may say "good." That's fine, but I suppose the minister really, if he is responsible, will elaborate on what this means. He said administrators' salaries. Could he tell us if this will include superintendents, principals and university and college administrators, or is he just going to zero in on the public schools? Would he tell us exactly who these administrators are going to be? Who comes under the guidelines? That's a question to the minister.

We spent considerable time Friday discussing financing of education in this province. We expressed our very grave concern over the way this government has shifted the burden to the local taxpayer. There's another area that he has done this in too. It's in the matter of regional colleges. Not only are the school board and the citizens of B.C. having imposed on them an unnecessary local taxation for the operating of the public schools of this province, but they are also loaded with part of the cost of the regional college in their district. Yet the minister made a great thing about sounding of there in the House and in press releases a year ago that the Social Credit government was going to take over 100 per cent financing in operating the regional colleges of British Columbia - or community colleges. I don't say community any more, Mr. Chairman, because this minister has Emasculated the true purpose of the community college. It is no longer reflecting the community. We went through that before and I won't get into that tonight.

What I'd really like to ask the minister is this: you said, I believe, that once you designated a college under the new Act it would receive the financing. My understanding is that to date there is only one that is designated and that happens to be the new Pacific Vocational Institute which, I'm sure you are aware, was already financed 100 per cent by the government. My question to the minister is: when are you going to come through with the great promise that you made a year ago - that you were going to take this burden off the taxpayers of British Columbia and finance the operating costs 100 per cent? A year has passed, the colleges are wondering, the taxpayers are wondering.

Mr. Chairman, I have some more points but I'll give someone else an opportunity now. I hope that the minister will answer.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to cover three points tonight. One of the things that has characterized the minister's general approach to education has really been the constant pursuit for excellence - excellence in the educational system and presumably excellence in respect to the students that go through that system. In April, 1978, the president of the University of British Columbia spoke in Kamloops. He was also talking about academic excellence and the need that British Columbia has - he was also talking in a general sense about Canada but specifically relating it to British Columbia - for developing the kind of universities which would produce the people that could make their contribution in the academic way through research and development. He said:

"It sickens me when people suggest that too many of our young people are engaged in post-secondary education. Too many indeed! Our figure in British Columbia is 18 per cent - a mere 18 per cent compared with the national average of 22 per cent. In other words, we in British Columbia are substantially below the Canadian level, which is itself shockingly low."

Then he relates it to the situation in the United States where 50 per cent of the university-age people are receiving post-secondary education. Now that is at the top level. We have a minister who has a department that seeks the pursuit of excellence and yet participation by the students is limited to only 18 per cent of our high school graduates who are going to university.

Now at the bottom end, I want now, Mr. Chairman, to refer briefly to the issue of illiteracy. In Canada there are approximately one million people who are illiterate or functionally illiterate. Today if you have an education up to grade 8 or grade 9 you are considered to be functionally illiterate in terms of what you have to have in order to compete for work in the employment market. In March of this year there was a conference on illiteracy and there was a paper delivered by

[ Page 2001 ]

Gary Dickinson of the department of adult education of the University of British Columbia on adult illiteracy in Canada and British Columbia.

Let me say that British Columbia has the lowest illiteracy rate in Canada. However, we still have about 65,000 people in this province who are illiterate and we have not come to grips with this particular problem. The figures indicate that our illiteracy figures will increase, and I think that one of the significant reasons why they are going to increase is the government's failure to do anything about what is known as English as a second language. That's what I want to talk about in more detail: the whole question of English as a second language.

In Vancouver, particularly in the ridings of Vancouver-Burrard and Vancouver East, there are a large number of children of immigrant people. In fact, in a brief that was submitted by the school board.... They've submitted a number of briefs. They submitted one to the unity commission, the cabinet of the province of British Columbia, to the Progressive Conservative federal caucus and the Liberal caucus. They've been going after the same thing basically. What they're looking for is help.

When I talk about assistance in terms of English as a second language, I'm not just relating it to the Vancouver area, but that's the area that I know best about. Earlier this year, when we had a public caucus meeting in Mission, we were told by a representative from the school teachers that English as a second language was a problem in their own school district. They had almost 400 children that needed to be looked after and yet only had provision for classes for 80 of them.

In the Vancouver area, English as a second language has been identified as a problem for between 6,000 and 7,000 children. There are only 1,500 children who are getting any kind of assistance. I know there is a great debate that goes on between the provincial government and the federal government in respect to who should pay for this. While the debate is going on and the provincial government doesn't give sufficient help, then what we're going to have are more children who are going to become high school drop-outs and who are going to be functionally illiterate because they're not able to deal in the language of the country. This is already demonstrated in some of the drop-out statistics in high schools, particularly in the Vancouver area with children who have English as a second language and couldn't make it through.

Those figures are fairly significant. After all, as has been indicated, 40 per cent of the children in the Vancouver school system come from homes where English is a second language. In terms of the elementary school system, it is almost 45 per cent. In terms of the high school system, it's 30 per cent. The school board in Vancouver has been trying to get the provincial government to put more money into this programme. It is essential that we hear from the minister on just what they have in mind in respect to a policy - a specific policy. We know what their policy is roughly in respect to the French language but I would like to hear from the minister just exactly what the intentions of the ministry are regarding English as a second language.

There was a conference in 1977 called "Directions: English as a Second Language." There, Professor Mary Ashworth of the University of British Columbia gave some further background to the work of the symposium. They previously had a symposium which started to open up the whole question of English as a second language. In developing her position in respect to this particular problem, she quoted some of the recommendations from the Faris report on continuing and community education in British Columbia.

She took issue with one of the recommendations - recommendation 4.3 - which says: "To provide provincial leadership in the development of training in English as a second language, one institution be designated to receive appropriate funding for professional leadership in this important field." She took issue with this. She pointed out: "One of the qualities that has distinguished the English as a second language in this province is that all institutions have worked on a co-operative and equal basis with each other. No one institution has considered itself superior in any way. We need each other." She outlined the functions of each institution. "The King Edward campus of the Vancouver Community College runs probably the largest adult English-as-a-second-language programme in Canada. The Vancouver school board runs one of the largest programmes for children and is showing tremendous growth. UBC is concerned with research and also trains teachers." But Professor Ashworth would be very sorry to see the cooperative basis of the King Edward campus and the Vancouver School Board and UBC that have worked together turned into a competitive one. I would like to ask the minister what the policy of his ministry is with respect to an attack on the programme, "English as a second language."

I spent some time going around the King Edward campus and some of the schools in my riding, and also Britannia, and one thing you

[ Page 2002 ]

have to be impressed about are the kind of people who work in attempting to assist not only the children of people who come as new immigrants to this country, but also the older people. In one school, Hudson School, when I visited it, in the basement they were operating two classes. One class was for children and mothers, where there was English taught, there was a nurse present, and nutrition %us explained to the mothers. The children had a child-care worker operating in the day centre. Then in the other room there were some older people who were being taught by a retired teacher who had come back and agreed to do some of this English as a second language training.

If the minister is bound and determined that he's going to have the pursuit of excellence, then it had better not just be at the top in the universities. It's got to take place in the high schools, because it's still the case that many of our young children do not go to university. We still have to address ourselves to the very serious problem of the immigrant children. The country has a responsibility. I'm not particularly interested at the moment whether it's a federal or provincial one, but our children who are in our school system have every expectation that they should be able to receive as good as any other child gets, and if it means they have to be upgraded with special classes in terms of English as a second language, then it has to happen. The arguments between the two levels of government can take place, but the government has an obligation and the Ministry of Education has an obligation to meet the needs of these children.

I don't understand the priorities of the ministry when it can take $9 million and put it into the separate school system and yet somehow completely disregard the problems of children of immigrant families. The minister has already made his commitment about that, in which he is providing money to schools that already have sufficient money in many cases. Some of the grants under the separate schools grants represent windfalls, and yet there are no windfalls for immigrant children, there are no windfalls for the school board in Vancouver or any other school boards in the province that want to do something about the problem. The failure of the government to do something about children who have problems with English as a second language is going to cost this province millions and millions of dollars in the future because they are not going to be able to enter the mainstream of our society. They are going to be at a complete disadvantage in terms of employment, because they are going to lack....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM; Don't give me that malarkey! What a bunch of hogwash!

MR. LEVI: Oh, we're going to have an example now of the minister.... You've settled down now, have you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: An immigrant's kid will learn quicker than you will. I happen to know.

MR. LEVI: Now we have a minister who not only does not want to provide for welfare services, he doesn't want to provide any services where English is a second language, because he is an example of one immigrant child who didn't need to go to school. He had no need to go to school at all, and he made it. Well, that's very nice, except that not everybody can do what the minister does.

Will the minister tell us what specifically is the policy of the ministry with respect to English as a second language? Is he going to follow Dr. Faris' recommendation that was in the Faris report on continuing community education in British Columbia, the one that Professor Ashworth took so much issue with, saying that that kind of recommendation would be divisive and would really set about to ruin the good co-operation that exists in the Vancouver area with the school board and the King Edward campus and the University of British Columbia?

What does the minister have in mind? What is happening with the discussions - if any discussions are going on - with the federal government in respect to their contribution to this problem? Will the minister tell us whether it is the policy of the government not to do anything about English as a second language in a broad way until it makes some kind of settlement with the federal government? Because if that's what's going to be the policy of the government, then they're setting out to ruin a lot of lives of young children.

I have one other issue that I want to cover with the minister. I want him to tell me about the cost sharing of education on the local level between the provincial government and the school boards. The minister no doubt received a letter from Mrs. Betty-Anne Fenwick, who is the chairperson of the Vancouver school board. She wrote me a letter on May 12 and I just want to read parts of it:

"The Vancouver School Board is extremely concerned about the disproportionate amount of educational costs being assessed against the local taxpayer, not only in

[ Page 2003 ]

the Vancouver School District but in the province as a whole, and I've been instructed to write to you outlining this concern and requesting an explanation why this situation is continuing in spite of statements to the contrary.

"Both this government and the previous government endorsed the principle of reducing the school tax on homeowners. In addition, the McMath Commission recommended that a greater proportion of school costs - 75 per cent of the operating and capital costs - be funded by the province. In spite of this, the provincial contribution to the cost of operating the public school system has continued to decline. In October, 1977, the present Minister of Education was quoted as reaffirming a previous statement that provincial funding for schools could only increase in line with the provincial revenues. This has not been done. We have been informed by the British Columbia School Trustees Association that while the anticipated increase in the provincial revenue is approximately 9.8 per cent, by the raising of the basic levy to 39.75 mills from 37.5 in 1977, property taxes for school purposes will be increased by almost 16 per cent while the provincial government has increased its share of school costs by only 3.7 per cent. This has resulted in a further decrease in provincial sharing of approximately 3 per cent in 1978 - to 40 per cent; 1977, 43 per cent. This continued reduction in the provincial contribution to the cost of operating the public school system, which has resulted in a corresponding increase to our local taxpayer, is completely contrary to public statements made by our political leaders and many members of the Legislature. As a result, the board is questioning the sincerity of these statements. If the government does not intend to reduce the local cost of education, then this change in policy should be made clear to the public. However, if there are reasons for the delay in implementing this policy, they also should be made public.

"The board is of the opinion that as a representative of the taxpayers of this school district, you should be prepared to have this matter clarified by the government, so that the extent of the provincial support for the public school system is clearly defined. It should be noted that prior to the amendments to the Public Schools Act in 1968, the Act provided as follows: 'That the total amount to be raised annually in all school districts by the basic levy shall not be more than half of the total cost of the basic programme for all school districts calculated on a province-wide basis.' Yours truly, (signed) Betty Ann Fenwick."

She asks one very clear question, which I am asking the minister. She asks that if the government doesn't intend to reduce the local cost of education, this change in policy be made clear to the public. However, if there are reasons for the delay in implementing this policy, then they should be made public.

So the minister has an opportunity to tell us, to tell them where they stand, what they can expect and what programmes they're going to have to reduce or cut out, particularly in the area, presumably, of English as a second language - because the government has failed to play its proper role in this.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few brief comments. My friend, the former speaker, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, suggests that somehow we should institute a special programme in the schools for immigrant children.

MR. LEVI: There is one.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I realize that he had an advantage in that when he came here he spoke English - though, like myself, he will always have an accent. Certainly this was an advantage to him. But I think the majority of children that learn at school, the children learning the second language, do so because they participate in the normal programmes. This is where they learn. And it's playing baseball or being with the kids out on the field and in the gym and just doing everything that the other children do which provides them with the real education. I think we hear too often about too many special programmes for immigrants, when many immigrants would do just as well without the special programmes.

I just wanted to particularly comment on the remarks made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , who says he has a niece attending Jericho Hill School, and that his niece continually looks forward to returning to Jericho Hill School. He feels that this is extremely important, and therefore we should continue on with that type of institutionalization.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we're really being fair to this girl. Are we doing her justice?

[ Page 2004 ]

MR. COCKE: She's teaching at a university in the United States with a PHD.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Wonderful!

MR. COCKE: Don't talk to me about justice.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You didn't say that, did you? But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member certainly felt that it was an advantage that these people would want to continually return to Jericho. I think it's quite the contrary. I think our goal in educating these young people should be to try and provide them with the greatest opportunity of being involved with the community.

I think we have demonstrated this very clearly in our integrated day care. Certainly this is a concept being supported by members on the other side of the House. It is recognized by social workers particularly that the specialized day care where we provided a special day-care school for youngsters with handicaps is not the best route. The integrated system is far superior. We are finding that handicapped children - physically disabled, deaf, blind, mentally retarded - attending day care with "normal" children or those without the disability are learning themselves from that experience, and so are the non handicapped children learning from the experience. They develop an understanding for the handicapped youngsters and certainly the handicapped youngsters also learn to communicate well with those same non-handicapped children. It's a very effective approach. Again, it's one of integration. That, I think, is what we are talking about when we speak about decentralization of Jericho Hill School and providing opportunities in the community.

The member for New Westminster cited an example of his niece. I too can recall an example: my cousin in Holland, who attended an institution until age 14. After that, she was introduced - because Holland changed the approach - to community education. Now at 28 years of age she too is a very effective and very successful and competent secretary. She is a deaf mute, but she is managing well. I think she benefited tremendously from that opportunity of being able to participate in community education and in a normal type of education.

I'm sure there are some parents who are having a great deal of thought about this approach because it is new to them. I can appreciate that and I can understand it. But to simply say it can't work or it won't work as well without having all the evidence or without perhaps giving recognition of the evidence from other areas which would prove otherwise is not fair.

MS. BROWN: I think that was very nice of the minister to answer the questions which were posed. I was under the impression we were doing the estimates of the Minister of Education, but maybe the Minister of Human Resources has now taken on that responsibility because he realizes that the Minister of Education needs all the help he can get, that he is not having any success with his portfolio and that he doesn't know what he is doing. The Minister of Human Resources in his own gentle, inimitable way has decided to come to his rescue. On behalf of the Minister of Education, I guess we should thank the Minister of Human Resources for rushing into the breach, dear friend.

One of the things, however, that the Minister of Human Resources didn't seem to know is that there is a special programme in the school system for immigrant children for whom English is a second language. It might not be a bad idea before he takes over any more portfolios that he should find out what's going on in those departments before he starts to presume to speak for other ministers.

In any event, what I would very much like to talk about is something that should interest the Minister of Human Resources as well as the Minister of Education. It is a pilot study which was done on welfare children in Sooke School District No. 62. 1 think the Minister of Education probably knows something about it. I understand the report was sent to the Minister of Education as well as to the Minister of Human Resources. A number of recommendations were included in that report. I want to repeat four of them because I want to ask the minister whether in fact he is extrapolating the information which came out of this report pertaining to the Sooke-Saanich area and applying it to the rest of the province.

I'm sure you are going to respond to this too, Mr. Minister of Human Resources. If you would allow me to just complete my question, then you can do this additional favour for the Minister of Education. I think he would appreciate it. He really has a very appreciative smile on his face and he seems really grateful for everything you are doing for him.

In any event, the report cited four causes for the problems that welfare children were having with the B.C. careers education: (1) Foster parents lacked the knowledge of the career education offering. (2) Career education operates in the school system with priorities that are unfair to welfare wards. (3) Social workers, like foster parents, seem to

[ Page 2005 ]

lack a knowledge of career education offerings. (4) Family, social and environmental background of Human Resources' wards tended to work against these particular young people.

I gather from the latest piece of information - a letter which I received from Mr. Warren, the career education co-ordinators - the Ministry of Human Resources was in the process of hiring an evaluation team supervisor to cooperate with the Ministry of Education in dealing with this particular problem which was raised. I'm wondering whether the Ministry of Education is looking at this problem on a province-wide basis rather than just in terms of the three school districts that are mentioned in the report, and whether there is any sort of widespread co-operation going on between the two ministries on a province-wide basis to deal with this particular problem.

On Saturday at a meeting in Burnaby with some representatives of the Burnaby School Board I raised the question as to whether the findings of this kind of report could be documented in Burnaby. The chairman of the Burnaby School Board said that although they had not done a study, they were quite sure that if they did do one they would find that indeed the children who came from foster homes, who were in the foster home programme, or even from families who were in receipt of social assistance, did seem to suffer some kind of disadvantage in the school system. They didn't seem to be able to take full advantage, certainly of career counselling and career education programmes, and his school board would be very interested in any kind of resources that would be developed by the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education to deal with this programme right across the board.

Mr. Chairman, as I am saying, I'm not sure, first of all, whether the minister has seen this report. Maybe the minister would indicate whether he has or not, because if he hasn't I would be very happy to share my copy with him. It's called "Discrimination and Misinformation - just two of the ways in which welfare kids are being cheated under British Columbia's school career education programme, " a report to the Hon. Dr. Pat McGeer, Minister of Education, and the Hon. W. Vander Zalm, Minister of Human Resources. It was prepared by Mr. Ken Warren, career education co-ordinator for School District No. 62, Sooke. The minister might keep that in mind and give me a response when he replies to some of my questions.

The other question I wanted to deal with has to do with the whole business of the fact that although more and more women seem to be making it to school principal at the elementary school level, we're just not having that breakthrough at the secondary school level. I'm not going to be firm about these figures, because I've had to go through on a school-by-school basis and use a visual Amy of assessing it, so they could be incorrect. I hope they're incorrect and I hope that the minister will correct me. But what I have is for 1977-78, the list of schools in B.C. with names and addresses, et cetera. There are approximately 149 secondary schools. I couldn't find any principals who were female - is that correct? As I said, I hope that is not correct, and that, in fact, I missed one.

I found that out of the approximately 134 junior secondary schools there are two women who are principals, and I found that out of the 51 secondary schools there are two women who are principals. However, of the elementary schools, there are a large number that had women as principals. I'm wondering if these figures are correct and I'm repeating again that I hope they're not correct. I hope they are totally and completely incorrect. But in the event that they are correct, I am wondering whether the minister would like to g five some kind of explanation for why it is that we continually seem to have women being able to rise to the ranks of principals at the elementary school level and we still haven't been able to make that breakthrough at the junior secondary or at the secondary school levels.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if, when the minister is responding to this question, he refrain from explaining to me that it was ever thus, that this was a situation under the former administration and the administration before that, because I'm not debating the estimates of the previous minister or the minister before that, I'm debating his estimates. He's been the minister long enough, I think, that he should be able to answer in terms of his own experiences without going in--to a historical repeat of things that weren't, because that's not what I'm interested in at this time. I want to know what's happening now.

The other thing that I wasn't able to find out was whether there are any women at the school superintendent level and how many, and maybe the minister would be able to give me some figures on that.

The third point I want to raise has to do with the whole question of the B.C. Teachers Federation report on the impact of declining enrolment on the hiring of women in the school system. Again I'm wondering if the minister has seen this report and whether he would like to make any comments on it because, in fact, what the report is highlighting is that as a

[ Page 2006 ]

result of the cutback in hiring due to the declining enrolment, women are the first ones who are being fired. They're the last ones being hired, and part of this problem is the fact that a large number of them operate at the temporary level. They're substitute teachers or they're temporary employees without any job security whatsoever, so it's very easy to release them.

In fact, the statistics are very discouraging. For February, for example, Vancouver Manpower registered that there were 248 unemployed male teachers in Vancouver and there were 663 unemployed female teachers. In September of last year - of course, I realize that this doesn't necessarily apply only to British Columbia; in fact, it's happening right across the country - Statistics Canada showed that there were 5,000 unemployed male teachers in Canada and there were 22,000 unemployed female teachers.

I'm wondering whether in responding to this the minister can give any kind of reassurance that in fact in the hiring practices - and I know it is the school boards but, you know, some sort of direction does come from the ministry - there's some direction coming from the ministry in terms of ensuring that there is no discrimination based on what his leader likes to refer to as the so-called secondary wage-earner, which, as I said before, is just a euphemism for women.

My final point has to do with the whole area of research into sexism and sex stereotyping in the text books. I realize that lie has appointed someone recently to do some research at the post-secondary level. I'm wondering exactly what the terms of reference of that person are, when she is supposed to bring her report down and what he intends to do with that kind of information when he gets it. I'm also kind of curious to know whether she was hired at a consultant level and if she is going to be paid for this job, or whether she is just doing it on her holiday time or what the situation is.

What kind of liaison does the ministry have, for example, with the status of women committee of the British Columbia Teachers Federation, which is very active in this area? Do you get their reports? Do they have any input into the ministry, into any of the curriculum material that is going out, into any of the curriculum material which is being purchased? Do you make these reports available? Because if you do, it certainly would be of interest to me and I would appreciate being placed on your mailing list.

Mr. Chairman, I raised a couple of issues, and I am kind of worried that the minister might forget unless he deals with them quite promptly. Specifically I really would like to know what's happening with the whole findings of the study about the impact of welfare kids and the school system and the information coming out that they are not being able to utilize the system to its fullest. The system is not operating in their own best interests. Also, the other three areas which I raised have to do with the whole area of women and the educational system. I wonder whether the minister would respond to those questions.

MR. BARBER: 1, too, look forward to the answers the minister may care to provide to my colleague from Burrard.

There are three topics which I wish to raise in this minister's estimates. The first of them is programmes of special education for gifted children. The second is related to it and concerns programmes of music education in the public school system. The third concerns the criteria, if any, employed by the ministry when giving approval as is required under the Public Schools Act for closures of schools in the event of a declining enrollment.

First of all, though, starting off by talking about the needs of gifted children, I raised this subject last year. I was not then at all satisfied with the answer provided by the minister, and have had no reason whatever to be satisfied with the progress, such as one may call it, in the year subsequent.

I'd like, if I may, to start out by paying tribute to the work done in Canada and in the United States as well since 1922 by a group called the Council for Exceptional Children, and in this particular province of ours its division, known as the Association for the Gifted. They've done some very important work in identifying in the literature and creating in practice means of recognizing and supporting the very most gifted and talented young people among us.

In the province of British Columbia we're informed that last year some 20,000 students dropped out of the public school system. Mr. Harry Lyon, who is the director of the United States Office of Education programme for exceptional children, said.... I'll quote a paper which I'll table, if the minister is interested: "Our findings show a very high percentage of gifted and talented youngsters among the dropouts from school." The case there is no doubt the case here. Among the 20,000 who dropped out last year, it is well and conservatively estimated that some 3 to 5 per cent of those are, in fact, among the most gifted and bright of them all. The reason they drop out is because we don't care about them

[ Page 2007 ]

enough, because we don't teach them enough and, most importantly, because we don't respect them enough. Let me, if I may, read a comment from Mr. Scott Thompson, who is from the United States of America. He is a very talented teacher and very concerned about the special needs of gifted kids. He said:

"We make contradictory responses to excellence. We reward winners, but empathize with the underdog. We admire success, but guard against superiority. We demand performance, but not if it offends equality. We deplore collectivism, yet find individual pre-eminence to be threatening. We adulate physical prowess, yet seldom acknowledge intellectual finesse. Little wonder then that the gifted students in secondary schools face a similar ambivalence. They are expected to excel but within the limitations of the regular curriculum. Schools generally are more concerned that remedial students reach graduation or that mediocre students enter college, than exceptional students fulfill their talents."

I, for one, have no objection whatever to special programmes for those young people whose physical or intellectual limitations are such that ordinarily they too would be excluded from the system. I support all of those programmes. What I ask here today, and what I asked for last year, is for some special recognition for those young people who have the most special and rare gifts of them all, those gifts of inquiry and imagination and inspiration that lead them to the most challenging frontiers of human knowledge and excellence. Those are the gifted children' in our system. Those are the children who, by and large, because we do not understand them, because we are often over-awed by them and cannot follow them, we tend, in fact, to ignore.

If it is reasonable and fair to conclude, as most people do who study the subject, that some 3 to 5 per cent - one might calculate all the students in the system - could, in some intellectual or artistic sense, be categorized as gif ted, then it is very clear as well that we're making no special programme and certainly have no special success in dealing with the needs of those kids.

I don't know if the minister follows it, but there's been a remarkable interest revived in the last few weeks in the career of a great pianist, now aged 75, by the name of Ervin Nyiregyhazi. He's made a comeback. This is a man who premiered a Mozart concerto at the age of seven, who played with the Berlin at the age of 12, and who at the age of 17 took Carnegie Hall by storm.

I want, in a moment, to talk as well about education for the musically gifted in our system, but I would like to point out that there are people like this pianist. There are artists in the plastic arts and the performing arts within the system, and there have always been, and we see now the results of those who made it, and never see but wonder if there could have been the results of those who could have made it but didn't, and they dropped out.

What these particularly gifted young people can produce and give to us! I want to restate that what we give to them in return is by and large uninterest, which is not to say disinterest, and the lack of vigorous, challenging, sometimes annoying opportunity to push them more and more, to push them to be a little better, to push them to meet us as early and as well as they possibly can.

One of the falsehoods, I believe, from my own experience - which I admit is limited to work with young people I've done in Victoria and to reading the literature - is simply this: the very gifted can somehow look after themselves. It's a prevailing falsehood which we are content to accept because again we tend to be bewildered by people whose talents border on or encompass genius. We tend not to understand how those phenomena occur and where those gifts can lead. We tend by and large to be intimidated by people whose gifts are such that in the end result we give them little that's special enough to move them. We therefore draw the false conclusion that they can look after them elves. The SchumAnns, the Schuberts, the Mozarts, the Verlaines and the rest of them always do and always could, but the problem is that a lot of them don't.

The problem is that we've seen over and over again, especially within the inner cities of those states, among most particularly minority groups - obviously black people are the best known examples - that much of that talent and many of those gifts are squandered and wasted and ignored, are diffused and made unimportant, because of the failure of the public school system to recognize those kids. Instead, over and aver again we see those kinds of children turning their particular leadership, organizational and artistic abilities to crime and delinquency, and all of the other things that they end up taking charge of because the public school system never took charge of them.

It is, I think, a falsehood that gifted children can somehow look after themselves. Without doubt, some can and do and have and always will; that's good and commendable. Without doubt, many of them are born into families where the parents respect and admire their gifts and encourage and push them as

[ Page 2008 ]

well. But just as certainly and any teacher in the field will tell you a disproportionately large number of drop-outs is composed of young people whose energy and intellect are far beyond the capacity of the system to absorb and charge them, and they drop out in despair and disappointment. The teachers themselves struggle in despair and disappointment to come to grips with the obvious potential of those kids.

There's another falsehood. It's the other swing of the pendulum. I'm well aware that this debate occurs almost cyclically every eight or 10 years, judging by what I've been able to read. That falsehood is that somehow we need and somehow there must be established ghettos for the gifted, special classes with little boxes off in the corner where the really bright eggheads go and get laughed at and held in contempt by all of their fellow students and generally get treated as freaks and sideshow exhibitions. This too is false and equally dangerous. That too inclines us the wrong way. Although it may be an opportunity in a certain abstract and intellectual sense to thrill those kids and turn them on to great works and great art and great ideas, in fact it diminishes their personalities and it diminishes the quality of their human character.

Somewhere that pendulum referred to has got to slow down a little and somewhere in the middle find that combination of recognition and support and that combination that says as well young people must have opportunities with others to live and grow emotionally as well as intellectually. Just as surely as we have now learned that it is false to expect kids who have these great gifts to look after themselves, so too is it false to exclude them and to put them in that ghetto for those gifted and presume that somehow the qualities of human growth will take care of themselves as well. They won't. Those kids will be treated like freaks from beginning to end. It's not fair. It's not kind or generous, and it is not reasonable to do so.

We need a policy in this province that identifies, supports, recognizes, values and encourages the very most gifted among our young people. This province has never had such a policy under any such administration. Only occasionally are school boards independently inclined to deal with these policies and produce the local result. Year by year such programmes come and go as the one in North Vancouver that I was informed about - the major works programme and others. Mr. Carter may well know about that. They come and they go. They fade and they return. As far as I can tell, there seems never to have been a significant statement of policy and support coming from any provincial government that believes in such a policy of recognizing the special needs of the very most gifted kids among us.

In the United States of America in the 1974 federal legislative programme, legislation was passed that established within the office of education what is known as the office of the gifted and talented. Its budget that year was approximately $3 million. The emphasis that they placed in the United States through its office of the gifted and talented is to assist the American states in a vigorous and independent way to identify, recognize, value and support those special gifts.

As a result of that they held a series of what they called leadership training institutes, the purpose of which is to assist professionals in the field, school trustees and the occasional Minister of Education to come to grips with the problem. As a result of these nation-wide leadership training institutes that have been going on now for four years, they have prepared a set of two recommendations, which I would like to briefly draw to the minister's attention. The teams that worked on these policies and came up with the following are, I think, by and large respected in the field, and again, certainly in the limited literature that I have been able to study, seen to be taken quite seriously. The recommendations make perfectly good sense to me. The objectives of the institute and of the policies coming from it are as follows: to maintain a communication network among their central office of local education agencies, parent groups and the private sector; to formulate and initiate state and regional team activities involving planning and programme development for the gifted and talented; to train selected individuals at regular intervals at regular training institutes or workshops; to develop documents, publications and media products on the gifted and talented, which are disseminated through workshops and institutes to increase public awareness and knowledge of the gifted and the talented. Those are the particular objects of the institute itself which, I'm told, continues to this day.

One of the things that the institute has developed, that surely in parallel here in British Columbia we could consider, is what they call a state plan for the gifted. The institute has come out - again with massive assistance from the American federal office of education - to develop criteria whereby in state plans for the gifted certain objects might be met. These objects are as follows:

[ Page 2009 ]

"lo provide consultative services with respect to all aspects of programme planning; to provide assistance to colleges and universities undertaking professional development; to provide aid in designing an information and communication system concerning education of gifted and talented; to provide aid in curriculum development including in-service training of personnel to provide for differentiated curricula; to establish demonstration and pilot programmes which model effective and innovative approaches; to promote new state legislation and utilization of existing federal and state titles; and to provide assistance with design of appropriate evaluation programmes related to the education of the gifted and the talented."

One of the programmes they refer to is a programme which, I understand, I-Las been going quite successfully for a number of years in Portland, Oregon. It's called, quite simply and straightforwardly, the gifted child programme. Down there in that district, in that particular state, with state help, with trustees concerned about the matter, with professionals worried that they weren't doing the whole job that they wanted to do as decent and well-intentioned professionals, they set up some time ago a gifted child programme which has been, as I read it, a model for considerable state interest and copy across the United States of America. It's not very far from here to Portland, Oregon. I wonder if the minister or his ministry has ever taken the opportunity to examine what they appear to have succeeded in doing down there, which is, once again, to deal with the two principle falsehoods of programmes for the gifted. The first falsehood is that they can somehow look after themselves in a magical and remarkable way. The second falsehood is that they should be shunted off to some box like the rest of the freaks to be laughed at by their fellow students because they happen to be a little more talented than the rest of them.

We need a policy in this province that recognizes these problems and that promise. We need leadership from this minister and his colleagues that recognizes problem and promise, and offers a variety of programmes and a variety of support for districts concerned enough to turn their minds to this.

There are in particular three policies that I would encourage the minister to consider. In philosophic terms they're best described in words other than my own, in words by the great American psychoanalyst and writer and theoretician, Carl Rogers. He identified four traits regarding teaching of the gifted. This is surely the first policy that must take place here in the province of British Columbia, a policy which in schools of education provides educators with professional opportunities to identify and respect and support the gifted children who they will shortly be teaching. Carl Rogers said that what we require:

"...in the first, is a sense of realness or genuineness on the part of the teacher, the acceptance that imperfections are quite human. Often it is this teacher that can be wisely human in front of students and not attempt all the answers - an impossibility with the gifted and talented anyway - who makes the most effective teacher. The second important trait is a sense of empathetic understanding so the teacher may put himself in the student's shoes. The third trait is a prizing or caring about the individual. The fourth trait is a sense of trust between the student and the teacher."

In a large sense, those same rules and that same doctrine must surely apply to any teacher in any classroom situation, but Rogers argued - and so does this group in the United States - that those particular qualities are particularly required for teachers who care enough to deal with the problems of gifted young people. So the first policy that we need, therefore, is within the professional training programmes of the universities in this province and, hopefully, across Canada. The special realization and the special instruments and tools must be offered to teachers when they come in, particularly in the elementary schools to provide this kind of challenge and constant testing of gifted kids.

Secondly, we need a policy - and I'll refer to it in a moment when I talk about music -that especially across the province sees the Ministry of Education accepting a leadership role in the development of the arts and the development of music. That doesn't exist at all. I'll be talking about it a little more, but I want to point out to the minister that in a state system that is allegedly bankrupt, in a city system that is supposedly failing apart, in New York city to this day - in New York of all places - they still maintain in Brooklyn one of the finest institutes of its kind for what we would call junior and senior secondary students, the Brooklyn High School of Music and the Performing Arts. It has hardly an equal in North America. It is the property of a system which has been declared bankrupt by conventionally minded observers. It is, in fact, an achievement that is not bankrupt at all in any of the most civilized senses. Surely, if in New York city, west

[ Page 2010 ]

Brooklyn, something like a Brooklyn fligh School of Music and the Performing Arts can succeed and flourish over years, some smaller equally successful equivalent can be established here in the province of British Columbia. That's the second policy, an arts policy - a policy within the ministry that turns its attention Lo the development of those great gifts in the musical and the performing arts. So too as with children generally scientifically and mathematically gifted, we see in the field of the arts no statement from this or any predecessor minister ever concerned about identifying and supporting those qualities.

Thirdly, we need practical opportunities for these gif Led kids to go out and have their mettle tested, to go out and find if what they've read about is really like it is, to go out and find if what they've thought about is really how it works. We require an opportunity for gifted youngsters to go out into the city to create their own educational laboratory with physicians and businessmen, with artists and musicians, lawyers and doctors - maybe with the occasional politician - to learn something about those disciplines. The minister shakes his head; that's too much to ask. Perhaps it is; it's not kind.

But we require as well, through the leadership of a ministry that cares about it and through the practical results in a school board that can deliver the goods, that opportune practical laboratory for the bright kids to test their bright ideas. There is no reason why they couldn't and shouldn't have that. There is no reason why a young person in grade 8 who's discovered the miracle of biology and how the human organism works and reproduces, how it has succeeded over millennia, shouldn't go and have an opportunity to work in a laboratory somewhere, maybe on the weekend, maybe in the evening, maybe side by side with a great researcher at the university of which you're so proud. Maybe those practical opportunities for those kids discovering such thrilling ideas should be created and made manifest. They should be taken, in a metaphorical sense, into the city for those practical opportunities to learn, and that's the third policy that I commend to your attention.

First, teacher training: it's totally inadequate, and the teachers will be the first to tell you. Secondly, we require the creation -I'll later refer to it in greater detail - of an office of artistic education, or at least musical education, in the province of British Columbia. And thirdly, we must provide the practical opportunity for those kids to go out and work and learn on the job in a new and innovative and bold way, in a way that the school system never provides for except once a year on "jobs day, " which is hopeless and completely inadequate for the purpose of finding out for themselves whether or not what they've been dreaming about can in any practical sense come true. That's the first comment that I want to make to the minister.

The second concerns music education in the schools. I raised this last year; I raise it again this year. Last year's answer was no better, I expect, than tonight's will be. We do not see in this province a serious commitment by this minister or any of his colleagues to the powerful and growing teaching of music in the public school system. In fact, it has diminished over the last 10 to 15 years, according to friends of mine who are full-time music educators, and they are dwindling in number - not through lack of friendship, but through lack of work. In the '60s and early '70s things were challenging and bright; they are simply not that way at all today.

Music education and art education generally are under attack by idiots who view it as an unnecessary frill, as some kind of largely irrelevant and unimportant piece of candy to be found and left on a shelf. The fact and the truth is that music, about which I personally and particularly care, is among the most profoundly civilizing forces that man knows, much more so than many of the other things we teach in schools and fob off to the students as somehow being an education. Music alone vividly speaks to every person in a rare and remarkable way. Every single person from the beginning of their public education must have the opportunity to enjoy and learn something or other about music.

We require in particular in this province, I believe, an office of music education in the Ministry of Education itself. When I went through school in district 61, my own training was in violin and piano. And at that time there was an outstanding strings programme in our district, and we had an outstanding what was then called Greater Victoria School Senior Symphony Orchestra. We traveled across the country and we performed and were proud to do so and proud to be able to do so. There was at that time as well a full-time director of music instruction in district 61. This year across the district the string programme hardly exists; this year in the district there is no director of music education; this year in my district the opportunities for young people to learn what that civilizing force means and can mean are diminishing.

They're diminishing because they are under attack by morons and klutzes who don't understand how important it is - indeed, how much

[ Page 2011 ]

more important music can be than many other forms of so-called education. Because it's a frill, we cut it out. The fact is it's no frill at all; it should be there embedded in the heart of education for every young person. We need an office of music education in this province that recognizes that and promotes it. In particular, in regard to its relations with school districts it should provide the expert and the professional help and the money, if need be, to get these programmes started.

It's not very difficult to organize a music programme in the schools. At the elementary level the simplest and most important thing to do is to enjoin the children to sing. Learning to sing, learning to pitch, learning to hear intervals and relationships, learning the voices and the sounds and the echos and the overtones in music is the most important thing to begin with. You don't need a budget for equipment for that; we have the voice. Young people in elementary school - surely that's where it starts, with choral work. If you have the opportunity as well, you begin in the elementary schools with classes in rhythm.

I have a friend who is six years old and has been enrolled for the last two at the school of music in Victoria in what is called the Kodaly class. The minister may be familiar with this. It is, again, not a capital intensive programme at all but it is based on the discipline and the work and the treatises of a great musical pedagogue by the name of Kodaly who worked in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, particularly in Europe but later in America, to teach young people the strong, abiding, enduring sense of rhythmic relations. The kids I have seen in this class can count five against seven after a year. They could count three against four after two months.

Young people who start out in elementary school learning through singing, the overtones, the sounds, the pleasure, the intervals - the foundations of rhythm - can later on have at their command, obviously, for the rest of their lives anything they care to do in music if they are so inclined. Every elementary school in this province should have those programmes. Every young person who wishes it should have that opportunity.

In my own district, the only remaining musical programme of excellence is in the band system. We have a number of particularly able teachers here; a couple of them were mine. One of them was Howard Denike, another was Rod Sample; a third teacher, a friend with whom I went through the system, is a guy called Len Michaux. Here in Victoria, we're lucky enough to have them. Here in Victoria, Lotusland, we're lucky enough to be able to keep them.

But in other districts, they have not been so lucky. In other districts, the morons have won out and the budgets for music have been cut. In other districts, the failure of leadership on our parts to encourage and recognize the bedrock importance of a musical education, for all its civilizing value, has gone by the boards and we've wasted them.

I just want to end finally by pointing out that at the British Columbia School Trustees Association convention in Prince George, we were able to see the results of such a programme - led by trustees, among them a very bright guy by the name of Dr. Charlie Boyd in Prince George - in the Suzuki discipline. As you know, Dr. Suzuki of Japan is one of the great teachers of voice and, in particular, of strings among the very young. The Prince George school district has adopted a Suzuki programme which we saw and enjoyed that night at the conference. I have seen other Suzuki groups perform before as well.

What they do is recognize the pleasure the kids take out of playing with one another in any way at all, including musically. Observing that pleasure, they move it to a principle and the principle simply is that you can teach kids in unusual ways if you follow these ideas. They have been in practice successfully and elsewhere for a long time.

Prince George recognized it. My own school district in Victoria still recognizes at least the importance of a band system, although the string programme has gone down the drain and choral work, unfortunately, isn't as strong as it once was. What I recognize, at least speaking for myself, is the overwhelming value of that special, human, truthful education that suggests that the language of music universally and subterraneanly can touch hearts and make peace wherever it goes. It should start going here in this province.

I realize I've run out of time. We'll talk about the other matter in a moment. I would appreciate the minister's comments on these.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are on English as a second language. I'm seconding the remarks made by the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , because I do not feel that the point can be overemphasized, particularly in the city of Vancouver.

Forty per cent of the population of the city of Vancouver in the school district has English as their second language. Because of the year that has passed since I raised this last spring, and also through correspondence with the minister and subsequently double checking with those involved in the school district, I am satisfied that the Minister of

[ Page 2012 ]

Education has really no idea of the seriousness of the problem. I suppose if he were an immigrant child and if English were his second language, lie would understand the problem only too well.

I indicated in my letter of September last to the minister on the problem of English second-language training that it was a cultural and financial barrier to the mainstream of this society. I did not use the words to exaggerate the problem but, Mr. Chairman, to accurately reflect its gravity. The letter I received was a largely unsympathetic letter which, if I may sum it up, was an attack on the school board for having the wrong priorities. At other times, I an told, when people have sent delegations and implored the minister to provide funding for these needed programmes, the minister has replied: " Well, the federal government allows these people in. It's their responsibility to make sure they can speak English."

I suppose we should look at the seriousness of the problem. Forty per cent of the population of the city of Vancouver has English as a second language.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is one of the exceptions - a person who has been able to learn the language extremely well and who is extremely articulate in the English language and is able to achieve great success because of it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Hard work.

MR. LAUK: It takes more than hard work. It takes sympathetic teachers, funding and a concerted programme effort on the part of the Ministry of Education. We can't have the exceptions; we've got to have the rule. The rule should be that it is the responsibility of the provincial ministry to provide this kind of training, and provide it in great quantity and quality to the immigrant population in the city of Vancouver.

I can give you one example. The Vancouver School Board has made comprehensive surveys and from them obtained detailed school-by-school information about English second language problem . As a typical good example, I'll choose the one that I have here with respect to Vancouver Centre. There are other examples in that riding alone. Lord Roberts Elementary School in the city's West End has a total enrolment of 600 pupils. For 302 of them, English is a second language. Of that 302, they spoke 42 different languages and dialects. This is elementary school level, Mr. Chairman.

What happens when the immigrant children of our cities in the province of British Columbia cannot speak the English language well or, putting it another way, speak it poorly? They are cut off from a great deal of employment. They are cut off from higher education. They are cut off from social mobility and achievement within our society.

No one can tell me, , Mr. Chairman, that immigrant families and their children are not among the hardest-working and most devoted people in our community. They are facing impossible odds in achieving social and economic goals within out society, and the response over the last year from the minister with respect to this problem has been to pass the buck. Last fall he blamed the school board. Well, I've looked over the 1978 budget and I'll quote to you the minister's letter of September 21,1977. He said:

"The fact that the Vancouver School Board has complained of shortages of funds in this, above all other areas, implies that English as a second language is near the bottom of their list of priorities. The ministry would not only disagree with such priorization but would draw attention to many programmes where the Vancouver School Board spends at a higher level than other boards in the province."

I defy the minister to show me in the 1978 school board budget for the city of Vancouver where the fat is. I've gone over it and I've tried to guess where this fat is, where it could be cut back and the funds redirected to English as a second language. I've communicated with the school board and its officials. They've explained the programmes to me, and the only way they can redirect funds from their own budget, Mr. Chairman, is to seriously and drastically deteriorate the quality of the whole public school system in that district.

The minister is really not speaking with an honest heart when he writes that kind of a letter to me, a letter in response to a serious and desperate inquiry on behalf of people who are in great educational need in the city of Vancouver. The school board is still doing the best it can. It has 72 or more teachers who spend all day with a small group of students. There is follow-up work, and a great deal of the work, Mr. Chairman, is voluntary work at no cost to the ministry or to the school board.

Mr. Chairman, the only explanation for this buck-passing on the part of the minister is a form of racial elitism. It is a revelation to me that this minister, because of his position and background, simply does not care about second-language immigrant children in the city

[ Page 2013 ]

of Vancouver. He simply could not care. He needs an education himself, Mr. Chairman, to put it quite bluntly, because he himself does not know of the tremendous difficulty young students have when their parents do riot speak English, when there is inadequate education for them in the English language in the school system, and they've got to pass a regular course of studies throughout elementary and secondary school education. And some hope that they will be able to reach the post-secondary school level.

Some of those people are perhaps some of the talented people that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was talking about -really gifted young people. Because of the barrier of the language, inadequate training and inadequate response from teachers, those lives are cut short. It's like locking them in a room and giving them a small window. You'd think that a man as well educated as the minister would be able to empathize and would be able to put himself in the position of those immigrant children and the struggle that they face.

I say it's racial elitism on his part. It's ethnic elitism on his part. He didn't need it; his children don't need it; therefore nobody needs it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw any personal attack on the minister.

MR. LAUK: There's no personal attack. I'm saying that this is an incorrect approach taken by the minister. He has revealed a lack of caring and I'm explaining to the committee why I feel he cares so little about the problem. He has claimed that it is a federal responsibility. He has claimed in a letter to me that it is a municipal responsibility. Others claim that it is his responsibility.

It reminds me of the schoolhouse that was built on the border line between two municipalities. The schoolhouse caught fire and one municipality arrived with its fire trucks and the other municipality arrived with their fire trucks. Both fire departments refused to put out the fire because both were claiming it was the other's responsibility. It has reached that crisis state with the immigrant families in the city of Vancouver. It's a suffering in silence. It doesn't get the headlines. It's not worthy of publication, you know. But how many thousands of kids are cut off from their own greater fulfillment in cultural and economic affairs in our society because the Minister of Education and his government couldn't care less? While the two fire departments are arguing about the fire, the schoolhouse has burned to the ground.

It's important that a government not just always play the political angle. It's important that the government not always bully the minorities and the voiceless. It's important that they be just and conscious of a major problem. To write political letters is wasting everybody's time. It's a sad way for a minister to make his mark in history by being accused - and I feel justly - of a certain amount of ethnic prejudice with respect to immigrant children in this province. It is such a high priority in that to ignore it.... There is no other explanation.

Now the minister has, through his office, granted supplementary funds. I think they're called special approvals. They do not anywhere come close to meeting the need. The briefs that have been presented to the Minister of Education have been detailed, they've been thoughtful, they've been well researched and they have been substantially ignored, Mr. Chairman.

So I rise to support the remarks of the second member for Burrard, who asked the minister to once again look at this question. I would hope that someone somewhere will educate him as to the real need. We can't have the child prodigies and we can't have a great deal of funds for exceptional children in this society when we're ignoring almost half the population of the city of Vancouver. It just simply can't be done. To ignore them is to commit a grievous error in education policy at the provincial level.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there is a backlog of questions to be answered and I will deal with these as best I can. I might start with the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) because it's always a treat to listen to a well-thought-out speech delivered with passion, which the member did. I want to tell him that I don't quarrel at all with any of the points that he made. I think that it was an excellent dissertation. I would run the risk in agreeing with him of being called an elitist because it seems to me that's the theme that his party continually drums away on in this House.

Certainly we should have exciting programmes for the gifted and we don't - no question about it. British Columbia has done an extremely poor job in this area - no question about it. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that that member is sitting with a party that continually complains about any efforts in this direction at all. But nonetheless, despite the disagreement of his party with this sort of thing, he won't find a quarrel

[ Page 2014 ]

with me; he'll find a quarrel within his own caucus. And I can only say with respect to the general thrust that we're trying to get going in the ministry; we simply have to walk before we run.

We're commencing trying to get something basic into the school system first with a core curriculum. This last spring we wrote to every single school in the province asking for information with regard to their promotion and assessment policies and their programmes for the gifted. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, what exists out there, as love said before during the estimates, is chaos. We do not have any consistent standards for the average student, much less for the gifted. We're going to try and get these programmes in place. I hope that by the end of the month we will have a statement to make regarding general policy on promotion, assessment, and a programme for the gifted children. They have been ignored. It is a very gaping hole in the overall programme in British Columbia. We should have done it long ago, and we will do it.

I think the programmes in Oregon and other places that the member drew our attention to are well worth our study and our consideration for implementation. We have to walk before we run. We're not overlooking this as a longrange programme at all. I can only ask two things of the member: first of all, his patience as we try and get the basics into place before we move along; and secondly, the wholehearted endorsement of his party for this kind of thing, because it's certainly been lacking in the past.

Well, moving now to the member who spoke after....

MR. BARBER: What about music education?

HON. MR. McGEER: I have no quarrel with that either. I think that it would be a wonderful thing if we could get more emphasis on music programmes in the schools. But the gifted are not all musicians. That happens to be the talent of the second member for Victoria, and I very much admire him for his gifts, which aren't restricted entirely to music, and certainly for the passion he has in putting forward the very sound arguments for what should be done. I agree with all of that, but I think when you've got gifted youngsters, those gifts might be in many directions, even one which some regard as banal - athletics. It may be in physics or music or whatever.

The best way to group the talented people is, again, a matter of conjecture. If they are as gifted as the towering figures in history have been, they're almost committed to a life of misery and ridicule because others simply can't understand them. They tear away at them as they did at Galileo and Newton and all the other great figures of the past. So they've got a problem of adjustment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure, I think that's sound too. I don't quarrel at all with what the member says. In any event, we're working our way towards that. I well appreciate that when you want to see something done, you want to see it done yesterday. It's very hard to develop an acceptance, I suppose, of the fact that the wheels turn very slowly when you're trying to get policies implemented. It's easy to think them up and very easy to make a speech about it; it's much less easy to get something happening, particularly when you have a system of 27,000 professional teachers, 550,000 students and, as the members opposite frequently remind me, autonomy at the local level.

So we're doing our best to make progress given the limitations imposed on a system of that size and the fact that the minister is anything but a dictator or an elitist - merely an individual trying to do his best to provide a little guidance, with the help of members of the Legislature. Mr. Chairman, if that sounds like a protest, I suppose I ought to switch gears a little bit in dealing with the question raised by the member for Vancouver Centre.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: You'd rather switch McGeers. I'm sure you feel that way. But whether that feeling is shared by the electorate of British Columbia will be determined in an exercise in the not-too-distant future. Certainly judging on the general record of your party when it was in government and the record of your party in opposition, I think that there will be little doubt about the judgments of the public when that test comes.

The opposition record is certainly a dismal one, isn't it, Mr. Member - poorly thought out speeches, wasting of the time.... Well, I'm not going to get into that.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, getting on, we had the member for Vancouver Centre raising the problem of English as a second language. Well, the ministry has given 97 special approvals to the city of Vancouver, which adds up to a total of $2,328, 000 for this programme alone. I just would like to know, if it is not being used for this purpose, what purpose it

[ Page 2015 ]

is being used for, because that's the intention of the ministry. This is something which is based on demonstrated need of the Vancouver School Board - $2,328, 000 for this programme, above and beyond everything else, is a fair amount of money.

MR. LAUK: For half the school population?

HON. MR. McGEER: It isn't half the school population, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: It's almost half the school population.

HON. MR. McGEER: It isn't half the school population. I'm sorry, but that's not the case.

Mr. Chairman, fortunately the problem is a declining one right now in Vancouver and in British Columbia. It's not restricted to the Vancouver school district, but the immigrants are learning English. That's a very happy thing for all of us.

MR. LAUK: No thanks to you.

HON. MR. McGEER: There aren't the same numbers continually arriving each year, so it is a shrinking problem. Nevertheless, there are $2,328, 000 committed to the Vancouver school district alone, over and above the regular school district budget. As I say, that's a lot of money. The total budget for the Vancouver School Board is some $107 million and I'm quite prepared to repeat what I said in the letter to you because it was a very sincerely felt position on my part. It is important, and it should be the first dollar of that $107 million, not the last, because it is a priority. That's why there is $2,328, 000 worth of special approvals.

MR. LAUK: There isn't.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's all very well for somebody to come and say: "Well, I've spent all the rest -in putting vice-principals into schools that have 300 pupils and so on, and paying the district superintendent $5,000 or $6,000 more than the Premier, the highest assistant superintendents in British Columbia .... "

To spend all your money in that fashion and not have any left over for teachers of people who haven't got English as their first language.... You can go ahead and do those things because they are in charge of their budget, but at the same time I don't think it is very realistic to then come to the ministry and complain that you haven't got any money to teach the immigrant children. There is just too much that you can find in that budget that could be redirected.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour that one, but I do say that the ministry is doing the best it can, first of all by negotiating the number of second-language special approvals, and secondly, perhaps working with the school districts in Vancouver to see how the budgets might be a little better oriented.

Going back earlier in the evening, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) once more raised the question of the deaf. I don't think that we can really profit by going over and over and over this ground. Every single youngster in British Columbia with a hearing handicap is individually assessed. The member hasn't raised a single case of a parent and a family that hasn't been satisfied with the programme that we have offered to them. It's true that there was a parent group came and objected because we weren't forcing others to go to the school where they were sending their youngster. We've had that problem, but not the individual parents themselves, because in each case they have been consulted.

With respect to family life, which the member raised, the policy of the Ministry of Education is that this is a programme that is introduced at local option. Local school boards can introduce that if they feel that it is appropriate for their district. If we can find evidence that the problem the member raises is one that is solved in districts that have introduced this programme but instead exist only in districts that haven't got the programme, then it seems to me that we have the kind of hard evidence to move more aggressively to get this accepted as part of the core curriculum. As the member knows, it is controversial and some people are not behind it.

Mr. Chairman, one of the members raised the question of the choices programme and the Esquimalt school district. This was an experimental programme tried with the federal government and not something which is a part of the regular school programme. That experiment is concluded. It would be very possible for us to watch closely on what would take place if a permanent programme were to be introduced and to see that the youngsters that you mentioned get every bit as good a shot at it - perhaps a better shot at it - than the others who have better family circumstances.

As the member knows, in the Ministry of Education we don't hire principals or teachers; that's something which is done at the individual school district level. I think the

[ Page 2016 ]

member should make her concerns known. In the ministry we do hire superintendents. There are now three female district superintendents, which is perhaps the kind of movement that would be suitable for what she is advocating.

I think that covers all the questions that were raised - certainly ones that were raised for the first time. I don't want to give answers a second and third time to questions that have been already dealt with.

Vote 54 approved.

Vote 55: ministry services, $5,097, 460 -approved.

On vote 56: basic education K to 12 programme, $591,589, 968.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to ask on vote 56. They're not individual votes, but I notice that education support services went from $420,000 down to $322,000. Then, when you look to see what education support services is, this includes native Indian education and educational services to disadvantaged children. Can the minister explain just what's going on in this particu-

lar area?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm looking around for some advice, Mr. Member. I can't explain it. I notice one of the members positioned up in the galleries, but the associate can't help me. I think what it is a reorganization from inside. Certainly nobody has been reduced. I'll just have to try and get the answer for you.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at all the votes that we have, and it would strike me that the minister could come back first thing tomorrow and give us the answer to that and also answer a few more questions that we have in the succeeding votes.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:53 p.m.