1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


MONDAY, JULY 9, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 599 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Bikeways Development Act (Bill M 204). Mr. Barber.

Introduction and first reading –– 599

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act (Bill PR 401). Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 599

Energy Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 23). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 599

Oral questions.

Sale of Crown land through realtors. Mr. Lea –– 599

Health hazard for Provincial Museum employees. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 600

Dismissal of Margaret Caldwell. Ms. Sanford –– 600

Salary of Wendy Robertson. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 600

Timber licences. Mr. King –– 601

Community health and human resource clinics. Ms. Brown –– 601

Milk Industry Amendment Act (Bill 14). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 601

Provincial Homeowner Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 19). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Skelly –– 601

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 601

On section 3.

Mr. Barber –– 602

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 603

Report and third reading –– 605

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology estimates.

On vote 62.

Ms. Sanford –– 605

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 606

Mr. Stupich –– 608

Mr. Lauk –– 609

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 610

Mr. Skelly –– 611

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 612

Mrs. Wallace –– 613

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 614

Mr. Smith –– 615

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 616

Mr. Passarell –– 616

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 616

Mr. Lea –– 617

Mr. Mussallem –– 618

Mr. Barber –– 618

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 621

Mr. Stupich –– 621

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 622

Mrs. Dailly –– 622

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 623

Mr. Cocke –– 623

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 623

Mr. King –– 623

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 624

On vote 64.

Ms. Sanford –– 624

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 624

Metro Transit Operating Company Act (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 624

Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 624

Presenting Reports

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing annual report for the year ending December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 624

Appendix –– 625


MONDAY, JULY 9, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: I take great pleasure today to introduce to the House Mrs. Lois Moss, vice-chairman of the board of Dr. Helmcken Memorial Hospital in Clearwater; Mr. Fred Braun, who is the chairman of that board; and Miss Betty Sykes, who is the nurse-administrator of the hospital. I ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: It's my pleasure today to welcome to Victoria our guests Dirk Kemp and Janet Kemp, who hail from Capetown, South Africa.

MR. BRUMMET: We have with us today from the municipality of Hudson Hope in the North Peace River riding, the mayor of Hudson Hope, Tex MacKeegan, Alderman Heather Scorey and superintendent of public works Roger Porter. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery are Aldermen Frank Lento and Bryon Hill from Fernie in the Kootenay constituency. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Years ago I started work in a radio station in this city before electrification came into broadcasting. A young man also involved at that time now looks as old as I do — well, not quite. I would like to introduce Mr. John Ansel of radio station CJVI. I believe its frequency is 900, but it varies.

Introduction of Bills

MR. BARBER: I have the honour to present a message from the official opposition. [Laughter.] I was hoping if I introduced it this way — this being the fourth consecutive year — it might be approved. All agreed?

BIKEWAYS DEVELOPMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill M 204, Bikeways Development Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Ritchie, Bill P 401, An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SALE OF CROWN LAND
THROUGH REALTORS

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I would like to ask the minister another question in regard to the Hayesville mobile-home subdivision in Prince Rupert. Is it possible for an individual, a company or a credit union to apply directly to the government for one of these lots, or must any of these apply through the Multiple Listing Service?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Arrangements have been made for the multiple listing of 35 of these mobile-home pads. We still have 17 of these costly mobile-home pads under remedial work — improvement of drainage and of sewerage — and they haven't been listed with the real estate board of northwestern British Columbia. The question the member is asking is one of future policy and that decision has not yet been made. There is a possibility that they would be available to individuals. It all depends how quickly we can dispose of those others in this stagnant development in the city of Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary question, will the minister supply a list of every individual, company or credit union that has applied for a lot in the Hayesville subdivision, also the dates of the applications and the amount of each individual offer for lots or for a single lot? I'm asking the minister to supply this information to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a very detailed question. Perhaps it would be better to place it on the order paper.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, he doesn't have to give the answer in question period. It's not a complicated question; only the answer will be lengthy. I'm asking the minister to supply this information.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I think he should take a lesson from his colleague there — the empty seat — regarding technical and involved questions. I think this should be placed on the order paper for reply once the information is available. I don't think the verbal question period was really geared to asking questions of a technical nature such as the member has just asked. As I said a little bit earlier last week, if the member for Prince Rupert wants to persist in asking questions in the oral question period that involve a lengthy answer, I have no alternative but to give him those answers in the oral question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The answer to a question must not exceed the scope of the question itself.

MR. LEA: Is the minister going to answer that question? Will he make that information available to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The minister has the question and it is at the discretion of the minister as to whether he wishes to answer.

[ Page 600 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for Prince Rupert, needless to say the question has been taken as notice and an answer will be forthcoming in due course. As soon as I'm able to secure the information and the answer for him, I will provide it to the House and everybody in British Columbia, including the people on the Queen Charlottes.

MR. LEA: I have a new question.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be a new question, hon. member.

MR. LEA: It is. There's another list that I would like. I would like a list of all successful offers in the Hayesville subdivision. I'd like to know the purchasers, the amount paid and the date of sale, and I'd like a list of commissions that have been paid for successful sales and a list of commissions to be paid for sales that have been consummated, and to whom.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Before I could possibly consider taking that question as notice, I would have to have an interpretation of what the member means by "offers." Because at the moment we list these mobile-home pads in Hayesville subdivision at a stipulated price. My ability to answer the question that he has posed to me will be contingent on what he means by "offers," Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: On a further supplementary, is the minister then saying that there are no offers considered on these at all — that it's a set price and first-come, first-served? Is that what the minister's saying?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, he's asking me a question in response to my answer.

MR. LEA: I didn't hear the minister's answer because of the noise in the House. Is that what the minister is saying — that it's first-come, first-served on a set price?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister has the question.

HEALTH HAZARD FOR
PROVINCIAL MUSEUM EMPLOYEES

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question posed last week by the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) regarding the Provincial Museum. I will be as brief as possible. By way of background, the museum was closed for about one hour from 12 noon, March 28, 1979, because of an employee protest about fumes affecting the employees. We have known that information since the day it occurred.

This matter was amicably resolved at the museum level by Mr. Edwards, and the employees returned to work about 1 p.m. the same day. Subsequently a Workers' Compensation Board inspector identified a problem of insufficient ventilation in a room where staff were reportedly handling toxic chemicals, and a copy of the WCB report is attached. If the member wishes it, I can hand it to him.

The B.C. Buildings Corporation has investigated the problem in consultation with outside experts and is proceeding with the improvements to the ventilation system. Meanwhile, work with the chemicals concerned has been done in areas with good ventilation elsewhere in or adjacent to the museum.

It should also be noted that there is an able and active staff health and safety committee in the museum which reacts quickly to potential hazards and which works with management to correct situations which may arise such as those encountered in the use of chemicals, epoxies and so on in the manufacture of exhibits.

I thank the member for his question. I think the matter was on the way to being resolved at the time he asked it.

DISMISSAL OF MARGARET CALDWELL

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Labour has been very busy advising the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) on health and hospital problems in the province, I see. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question.

Who was the labour representative on the board of inquiry which ruled on the complaint of Margaret Caldwell, whose teaching contract was terminated or was not renewed because of her marriage?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the board of inquiry in that particular human rights matter was not selected with any consideration of management or labour or otherwise.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, usually in cases of this nature there would be a labour representative on such a board of inquiry. I am wondering if the Minister of Labour could advise us why no labour representative was on that particular board of inquiry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking her question under a misapprehension. It is not usual that that's the case in board of inquiry hearings.

MS. SANFORD: A new question for the minister. Will the minister recommend that the decision in this particular case be appealed to the courts?

MR. SPEAKER: This question is not in order unless the minister wishes to answer.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That recommendation will be based upon legal advice, and counsel is already examining a decision for the purposes of providing an opinion.

SALARY OF WENDY ROBERTSON

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) asked last week if we could advise the House as to whether or not Miss Wendy Robertson received $28,800 for the term of her employ in the calendar year 1978. The answer is that Wendy Robertson was employed in this ministry full-time during the year 1978, and earned a total of $28,900 for her full 12 months' service to the people of British Columbia.

MR. KING: On a supplementary to the minister's answer, the minister's predecessor, in answer to direct questions related to the term of Mrs. Robertson's appoint-

[ Page 601 ]

ment and her salary, indicated that she would not receive $28,800 a year. Will the Premier now call for the resignation of the former minister, Sam Bawlf? It's one way of escaping one's commitments to this Legislature. I suppose it's an appropriate one under the circumstances.

TIMBER LICENCES

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister tell me whether any timber has been allocated to the provincial small-business program in any of the forest regions?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know what the member means by "allocated." If he is asking if there have been any sales processed under the small-business program, the answer is no. Each regional manager is at present under instruction to identify areas of timber which can be made available, and under the small-business program they are doing that. The small-business program sales themselves, which are the actual allocation process, will be proceeding in the very near future.

MR. KING: A supplementary question. I don't know how the minister would refer to it if not as an allocation of timber that may be put up for sale through the small business program. It didn't take very long to provide timber for the large, integrated licence holders. Can the minister explain what the problem has been? Why has it taken over a year to make timber available under the small-business program flowing from the new Forest Act?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The small-business program under the new Forest Act is a new program. One of the things we are doing right now — and I'm sure the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is aware of it — is a complete analysis of the timber supply areas in the province. There are some timber supply areas, as currently defined, in which it is obvious there is a substantial amount of timber that can be allocated. Other areas, which are tighter, are restricted somewhat in the amount we can make available; a lot of the timber in those areas will be coming through what we used to call our district forestry reserves, as well as timber allocations which have not been fully utilized by existing licences. It is a new program, it's a very important program, and it is getting underway now.

If the member looks at the amendment to the Forest Act which was introduced last week, he will see that we have had to make a minor change in defining different classes of small business in order to be able to fully implement the program. At the present time, if we were to put up sales before that amendment is passed, we would have to group the different classes together and it wouldn't give the same opportunities to the different classes that they will have when the amendment Act is passed.

COMMUNITY HEALTH AND
HUMAN RESOURCE CLINICS

MS. BROWN: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Did the minister institute an investigation of the community health and human resource clinics remaining in the province last December — or any other time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled answers to questions 5, 6 and 7 on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

MILK INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

PROVINCIAL HOMEOWNER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. SKELLY: I would like the minister to explain to me why, for people under 65 years of age and who are not disabled, the minimum tax payable, after the homeowner grant is paid, is $50. In subsection (a) of subsection (d) of section 7, why is the minimum tax payable $50? What's the object of having everybody under 65 who is not disabled pay $50 minimum property tax? What is the minister trying to achieve?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That was in the Act. Certainly when it was decided to provide the additional allowances, it was commenced for the seniors' group.

MR. SKELLY: It's not really a good enough reason, Mr. Chairman, to say the $50 minimum was there because it was there in the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the debate should be on the amendment, not on the original Act.

[ Page 602 ]

MR. SKELLY: It is on the amendment. The amendment still provides for a $50 minimum tax payable for those people who are under 65 and who aren't handicapped. The thing is, it's a tremendous hardship on some people on fixed incomes. I do understand why, in the other sections, the minimum tax payable is $1. Because you wish to have some token tax payable in order to maintain the Crown's right to tax the property. But why is it $50 in the case of people under 65? It is not a good enough reason to say it's because it was in the original bill. Why are you retaining it in this bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think certainly it ought to be recognized that we provide additional benefits from time to time to the seniors by a variety of means, particularly through other ministries. We provide bus passes and Pharmacare benefits, all of which are certainly a recognition of the special needs for that particular age group and the handicapped. I'm not sure whether the suggestion is that we charge everybody $50 or what, but we have brought these additional benefits into place for the elderly and the handicapped in recognition of their needs.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: But, Mr. Chairman, in spite of the Premier's interjection here, you brought the benefits in for the senior citizens and we congratulate you for that; that should have been done. But the price should not have been taking $50 away from every other taxpayer. The Premier's father should also be congratulated for making a regressive tax — the property tax — progressive by adding the homeowner grant, by creating an exemption on property tax....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I wasn't against it, Mr. Premier. He should be congratulated for that. But this Premier should be faulted for eliminating the progressivity of that tax by having a $50 minimum payment for people under 65. If you wish to make the tax progressive, create an exemption starting from zero, or $1, to $480 and then tax them beyond that, but don't have a $50 minimum, because it simply creates hardship on fixed-income people who are under 65 and who don't have the benefit, in this case, of a disability pension.

I know the minister can't change it and probably doesn't intend to change it in this bill, but I do hope that he will look to changing it in the future to make this tax progressive.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if I may talk about the retroactivity feature of this Act, especially as it excludes certain people. I was disappointed when I read the Act. I'm disappointed as I debate this section to note that some people have been excluded by what I hope is simply an oversight. I am referring to the owners of 99-year leases, for whom this feature of retroactivity will not apply. Let me illustrate, if I may. I know the minister is well familiar with the matter; it's been brought to his attention on a number of occasions.

If I may briefly refer to the current Act, Mr. Chairman, in order that this debate on the amendment may seem all the more relevant....

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, hon. member, since you brought the point up, it reminds me to read the section of the Act, and it says: "This Act is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect with respect to the current year taxes levied in 1979." So at this point it is not really appropriate to discuss whether or not 99-year leases should be included under this section. Perhaps it would have been appropriate under second reading, which is now past.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, they are already included. If you will recall — and that's why I was mentioning the previous legislation — the government, to its credit, amended the legislation in 1978 and included the 99-year leasehold, so I think you'll find this debate relevant, Mr. Chairman.

However there was a catch then, to which I wish to refer now when debating the retroactivity of this year's homeowner grant bill. The catch then was that owners of 99-year leaseholds had to have those registered before December 31, 1977. Those who did not so register, or who have purchased a 99-year lease anytime from January 1, 1978, on are excluded from section 3 of the amending bill. The original intent was this: to recognize that 99-year leaseholders for all practical purposes are as much homeowners in British Columbia as are you and I with our single-family dwellings. It was to recognize that the people in my riding, in buildings called Orchard House and Villa Royale, are for all practical purposes homeowners just like everyone else.

I argued for some time with the former Minister of Municipal Affairs that 99-year leaseholders should be included in the homeowner grant. I was very pleased that they were. I was very pleased with the 1978 amendment. However there was a catch in that amendment which I hoped might have been covered in the section we are now debating. The problem with the original Act and the failure of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: as people over a period of time purchase 99-year leaseholds, by and by the original intent is undermined. If the government wished to recognize in 1978 that 99-year leaseholders had a right to the homeowner grant, they could, I think, have made that feature permanent and universal. It is for all the other homeowners in British Columbia. There is no cutoff date; there is no December 31, 1977, that applies to you or me, Mr. Chairman. There is, however, as it applies to 99-year leaseholders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. I appreciate what you're trying to get at. However, the point you are trying to make requires an amendment. This section dealing with retroactivity only applies to sections 1 and 2 and their subsequent amendments. So the line of debate that you are discussing requires an actual amendment to the Act rather than the retroactivity applicable to these sections 1 and 2.

MR. BARBER: Well, if you're certain of that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to propose an amendment; and if you give me 30 seconds, I'll have it on your desk.

[ Page 603 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How can an amendment be in order?

MR. BARBER: Well, what's in order is that this is a fair request.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. Whether or not the request is fair is not the question for the Chair to decide; whether or not it's in order is a question for the Chair to decide. This retroactivity only deals with these two particular sections of the Act, and that's the only subject for discussion under section 3 of the bill.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm trying my best to stay wholly in order and at the same time raise an important point without at the same time raising the ire of the Chair. I'm sure you appreciate the problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I anticipate that you are trying to maintain relevance with regard to this section, and I would ask that you maintain relevance with regard to retroactivity as it applies to sections 1 and 2 of Bill 19.

MR. BARBER: I wonder, then, if I might ask the minister — would this be an acceptable way to get to the point, Mr. Chairman? — why section 3 should not include such retroactivity as would protect all of those homeowners who purchased 99-year leases after December 31, 1977. I hope that's in order. I hope the minister's answer is in order, and that he will indeed agree to such an amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, I think this should have been debated during second reading of the bill. However, if I might, I will answer the hon. member this way: the government has attempted to be as fair as possible through all of its dealings over the years, and in order to meet a commitment or an understanding that a certain group of people perceived with respect to 99-year leases, those who were presently holding such leases were granted the rights of the homeowner grant. It was not intended to recognize leasing as ownership. Those who were under the impression, then, that such a benefit was coming to them received the benefit and are continuing to receive such benefit. If, however, other 99-year leases are entered into, or if those particular leases are in turn turned over to someone else, there is no such commitment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister is out of order and the member questioning the minister is out of order. Might I suggest that question period would be a more appropriate time for this debate.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, we're not permitted to discuss legislation in question period. I see Harvey nodding his head; he agrees with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can have some respect for the Chair. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: Well, I appreciate the answer of the minister and I'm trying as hard as I can to keep this in order.

I wonder if there is any form of amendment to section 3 as it appears in front of us that the minister would consider that would eliminate the discrimination that is now in place between those persons who were lucky or well-advised enough to buy a 99-year lease prior to December 31, 1977, and those who were unlucky or ill-advised enough to buy it after that date. It seems to me there is a principle here.

Now it wasn't advertised; it wasn't common knowledge that 99-year leaseholders were going to get the homeowner grant when they bought those leases some time ago. It only became a public debate because we made it a debate. It only became public law because your government accepted it as law. And that was a very good thing.

The merit of that law and the lack of merit in this section 3 is that you've established two classes of 99-year leaseholders: the class of the lucky who got in before December 31, 1977, and the class of the unlucky who got in after. That just can't be defended; that's just not fair. If the principle is that the homeowner grant should apply to the owners of dwellings in British Columbia, and if you have accepted as an interpretation of that principle that it should also apply to 99-year leaseholders, then it is not fair to establish two classes of 99-year leaseholds. Section 3 is imperfect to this extent, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in section 3 about 99-year leaseholders, and I see nothing in sections 1 and 2 on that same subject. I think the member is well aware of the fact that he's abusing the rules of the House by taking this opportunity — when second reading may have been the more appropriate time — to enter into a debate which you would have liked to have conducted at another time. It's only the duty of the Chair to enforce the rules of the House as they stand. I would direct you to discuss section 3, which admittedly is very difficult to discuss — it's a two-line section — or cease your debate. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair. I was advised that it would be as troublesome to raise it in second reading as it is in committee; so I took this opportunity, and I'm sure the Chair would have ruled similarly in second reading as well.

I wish then, if I may — and I understand there is a precedent for it — to debate a defect in this section. I'm told that's in order. And the defective aspect of section 3 is that it does not include what I'm arguing toward. What I argue is that there should not be established two classes of 99-year leaseholders — or, indeed, two classes — save for the salutary exception that the minister and the government have made in favour of senior citizens. There is a broad argument for doing that. We respect that argument. There is no respectable argument that would say that some 99-year leaseholders should be more privileged than others, none at all. It just doesn't make sense.

Now from time to time people on this side of the House have private conversations with people on the other side of the House, and I would be surprised if many members would find it defensible in debate of this section to say that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. BARBER: No, I won't name names, but I would be really surprised if any good member in good conscience could say that by the defect of this section we should allow

[ Page 604 ]

such an injustice to occur as to establish those two classes of leaseholders recipients of the homeowner grant.

From time to time, discussing this defective section, Mr. Chairman, it may be argued that the 99-year lease, as it has the gift of a homeowner grant, could be unscrupulously attached by certain landlords as a justification for raising the so-called rent that a 99-year leaseholder pays. Well, there's no material evidence that that's ever occurred, not since a year and a half ago when this effectively came into force. If there is such evidence, I'd be glad to hear it, but it's not at hand. So I'm arguing on behalf of those people, some of whom have been to my office — I expect they've been to see the minister as well — who wonder why it is they should be excluded from this defective section of the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. You are now abusing the rules of the House. I must direct you to either bring your speech into the relevance of section 3 or cease.

MR. BARBER: Well, perhaps the Chair could give me guidance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not up to the Chair to give guidance to a member.

MR. BARBER: In as courteous and civilized a way as I can, I'm trying to raise the issue of a defective section and am hoping thereby to call attention of the government and of this House to the plight in which those who are not cared for by this defective section find themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has allowed ample latitude for discussion of this section which is totally out of order under this section. Now I have been somewhat tolerant — more tolerant than I usually am. However, I must now insist that you maintain relevance in your speech and move an amendment which could be a method of discussing it. But you may not discuss it under this section. This section refers specifically to the two sections before you. I have canvassed them and there is nothing in them about people with 99-year leases.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the advice that you involuntarily tendered. However having already considered that matter, I was told that such an amendment sponsored by me or any other opposition member would be totally out of order and not subject to debate at all. So I'm stuck.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The determination of whether or not an amendment was in order would have to be made at the time the amendment was moved.

MR. BARBER: Would you agree to this, Mr. Chairman? I shall give you an amendment with my signature in 30 seconds, and if you promise to take at least four minutes to consider it, I shall be done and then sit down You may rule it out of order and the case shall have been made in a fair way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not appropriate, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: Well, all right. I'll try again in another direction. Would the minister be willing to delay passage of section 3 today in order that at some speedy time in the near future the government could come back to us with a more perfect section 3, which would include those people who are at the moment in the second class of 99-year leaseholders, and who didn't buy until after January 1, 1978? Would the minister agree to delay this section of the bill today until some future date so that a more perfect amendment can come back? That's my question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, that's not before us now. The matter of whether leasing is considered home ownership or similar to home ownership hasn't been before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps when the member has a moment he might read section 19 of our standing orders to save the Chair the opportunity of reading it. If the first member for Victoria has a question, please continue.

MR. BARBER: My question is: why not? You could delay it a day. You could draft it on the weekend, bring it back on Monday, and we'd support it. That's not unreasonable. Oh, I see — enforcing orders.

Well, what would you do if you were me, Mr. Chairman? You want to make a case for your constituents, but the bill doesn't allow you directly....

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd resign.

MR. BARBER: Resign?

HON. MR. MAIR: Certainly. If I were you I would.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is ample opportunity during the budget speech and the throne speech debate when all types of debate are in order in this House. However, during the committee stage of a bill, especially a two-line section of a bill, I have some difficulty in allowing the latitude that the member would like to have to discuss whatever subject is available. You will appreciate the position of the Chair. If I allow unlimited latitude to you, I must extend that same privilege to other members of the House. I am charged to enforce the rules of the House and see that the debate continues in an orderly fashion.

MR. BARBER: I wonder then if I could ask any member of the executive council, any one of whom is entitled to speak on this matter, if they feel it is justifiable to exclude from this defective section 3 — now this is surely in order — those second-class citizens who were unfortunate enough to buy a 99-year lease after January 1, 1978. Is there anyone over there who finds that discrimination defensible? If so, will you stand up and defend it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, hon. member, I must caution you. It's not up to members to determine what is in order and what is not in order. That determination is left up to the Chair. You make assumptions that things are surely in order when they are not surely in order.

MR. BARBER: A final question. Will you entertain any amendments whatsoever to section 3 as we have it in front of us?

[ Page 605 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

MR. BARBER: I don't think the government heard my question. Will they entertain any amendments whatsoever to section 3?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(continued)

On vote 62: minister's office, $119,071 — continued.

MS. SANFORD: I have some concerns regarding the Open Learning Institute that the minister made reference to the other day.

It seems to me that what has happened is that we've had a premature setting-up of an entirely new bureaucracy with respect to the Open Learning Institute. I hope that I will be able to express my concerns about this and have the minister respond to the concerns that I raise about the Open Learning Institute as it now exists.

The minister indicated to us that some four courses or more — maybe it's about seven courses — will be available this fall through the Open Learning Institute. By January of next year the number of courses will be expanded and then by September, a year from now, the Open Learning Institute will be in full operation.

I think it is premature that he set up the Open Learning Institute which this year, I understand, is going to cost the taxpayers some $3.5 million. He has indicated to us that the expense of using commercial satellites is going to be too high to provide programming through television. He has also mentioned that he is now interested in approaching the other four western provinces, at least, in order to discuss the possibility of coming up with some $50 million for an educational satellite.

What happened was that the minister, right off the top of his head a year or two ago, announced the Open Learning Institute without consulting any of the universities involved and without consulting anyone, as far as I can determine. It was an idea that came to the minister. He made the announcement and now he's discovered that his concept of the Open Learning Institute is going to be far too expensive.

He's not going to be able to deliver the way that he had hoped to. As a result, he is now hoping that sometime in the future, $50 million can be found in order to come up with a satellite that will provide programming through television for his original concept of the Open Learning Institute.

I think there are great possibilities in terms of improvement of educational opportunities for people in this province through a satellite, but that's obviously some time down the road. In the meantime, we have an Open Learning Institute which this year will be spending $3.5 million. I'm not sure that $3.5 million needs to be spent at this time. Perhaps I can indicate to you why I feel that way, Mr. Chairman.

Through BCIT there will be courses sent out by satellite this fall to various community colleges in the province. But the Open Learning Institute does not involve the use of television, Mr. Chairman. The federal government, for the period of one year, has made space available for BCIT to use the Anik B for that programming. But the Open Learning Institute is not going to be using television to make courses available to the people of British Columbia. The Open Learning Institute is making what is basically a correspondence course available to people throughout the various parts of British Columbia.

In addition to the basic correspondence course and the materials that are associated with such a course, such as articles from periodicals, textbooks, whatever, they will have a few additional things. They will have access by phone on a private line to a tutor who is probably located in the lower mainland. In addition to that, they will have cassettes which will be sent out and which the student can play, if and when he or she needs that particular information for the course. I am told that on rare occasions, and only when essential, will any video material be sent out to students of the Open Learning Institute.

So what do we have? We have a basic correspondence type course that is available to students who are enrolling in the Open Learning Institute. For 50 years, Mr. Chairman, we have had in this province a distance learning institute in the form of a correspondence school which has been operating very well. Last year they had some 13,000 students enrolled and their total budget was $1.5 million.

I know that the correspondence courses which have been available are designed for kindergarten to grade 12, but some of the Open Learning Institute courses are in that secondary level as well. Why could not the present correspondence branch have been expanded to include the use of cassettes, and to include a phone system so that students throughout the province could phone a tutor, probably here in Victoria or perhaps in the lower mainland? Why couldn't the correspondence branch have been expanded to involve secondary education and post-secondary education, just as the Open Learning Institute is doing now?

We are spending $3.5 million in addition to the $1.5 million already being spent through the correspondence branch of the Ministry of Education. Why could we not have expanded that particular course to include the kinds of things that the Open Learning Institute will be offering this fall and again in the spring and next year when, it is hoped, it will be in full operation? I don't see that the Open Learning Institute at this stage is very much more than correspondence materials being made available to students, plus the use of cassettes and a tutor who can be at the end of a phone in order to answer questions.

[ Page 606 ]

A couple of years ago the minister made a very hasty announcement without any consultation. The only thing he'd read about was the Open University in Britain, and he felt that would be a good thing for British Columbia. But it's obviously too expensive for British Columbia unless we have the kind of satellites which is also obviously some years down the road. The minister has not yet even approached the other provinces to determine whether or not a $50 million satellite can be established. I wonder if the minister would be willing to make some comments on that.

I have a couple of other things I would like to raise. I understand there have been studies going on within the ministry with respect to the possibility of establishing larger school districts. Instead of the number of school districts that are now in existence, I think the ministry is looking at a much smaller number of districts, which means, of course, much larger districts. I'm wondering if that study is in fact going on or has taken place. Would the minister be willing to comment on that possibility? If, in fact, that is what the minister is considering, obviously we're going to have less local decision-making that we've had in the past. This minister is not noted for looking with approval on local decision-making.

The other day I raised a question regarding the minister's former executive assistant, Jim Bennett. I asked some questions with respect to the kind of consulting work he will be doing, and whether he will be an order-in-council appointment or whether he will be working on a regular basis. I also asked what kind of expertise Jim Bennett has in order to do the kind of consulting work that the Minister of Education indicated he wants his former executive assistant to undertake.

In the throne speech on March 22 the Lieutenant Governor told us: "My Minister of Education, Science and Technology will double the value of grade 12 scholarships to encourage excellence in academic effort." I've not seen in the minister's budget this year where this doubling takes place. Does that mean that there will be only half the number of students who will be receiving double the amounts? What does it mean? I've not been able to find it in the budget. Perhaps the minister could answer that question.

I have another question relating to another statement the Lieutenant-Governor made in the throne speech. He indicated that the Minister of Education, Science and Technology will also advance a program for sports bursaries in our universities, in order to promote excellence in physical achievement in competitive fields. Could the minister give us some information with respect to that?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: In answering the questions of the member, I have to say I think she needs to distinguish clearly between programs of distance learning, as they have been developed around the world, and the entirely new concept of beaming programs two ways through interactive teaching by satellite. Distance learning involves the application of entirely new skills of delivery, many of which she described, whereas the other merely involves taking a lecture as it would be given in any educational institution and delivering that lecture into the home or to a studio where the people who are in the studio are in effect members of the class. The satellite program is going to be done by BCIT, not by the Open Learning Institute. The people who will be members of that class will actually be in five of our colleges.

The potential for this kind of thing in western Canada is enormous. This kind of interactive teaching has been well developed through closed television networks in parts of the United States. One is the TAGER system in Dallas, which I've seen. There you've got some 14 institutions and a number of industrial firms participating in what is a regular college program. You pick up something that looks like the TV Guide. It is the programming in that inter-institutional network of a given week.

That's different from an open learning institute. Believe me, this was nothing that either I or the Ministry of Education went into hastily. It was as carefully thought out and prepared as anything we have undertaken in the ministry. The fact that it was not received with open arms by the educational establishment in British Columbia did not surprise me or the people in the ministry who were planning this. Resistance to this type of education is universal throughout the world. The Open University in Britain commenced with the hearty hopes of the educational establishment in Great Britain that it would fail. There has been tremendous resistance by the traditional institutions to something which is perceived as competition. It was inevitable we would face that kind of resistance in British Columbia. This concept could not have been introduced without the resistance of the traditional institutions.

I make no apologies whatsoever and I say, without hesitation, this will prove to be educational democracy at its best. Without any handicap of age, financial circumstance, previous academic achievement, geographic location, people will have the opportunity to participate in a full range of educational programs right up to the baccalaureate level through the Open Learning Institute.

In educational terms, it's the greatest bargain we have in British Columbia. In your estimate books you will see some $432 million set aside for colleges and universities of the traditional type. Here, for this great new venture, we set aside less than 1 percent of that. Yet it will reach a whole population who now find the post-secondary system, through no fault of their own, closed to them.

I would think people from the non-metropolitan areas of British Columbia would be particularly pleased and keen to praise the work done by that Open Learning staff to put these programs into effect.

People in the remote parts of British Columbia, those who have so far been disadvantaged by the system, will be the principal beneficiaries. It isn't there to serve our traditional academic institutions. Members have to keep in mind how very hard it is to take tax dollars at the government level and pass those dollars through to the students for whom the dollars are intended, and who will be the beneficiaries. Institutions become the intermediaries along the way. Therefore those institutions capable of serving students in a completely different fashion are the ones that deserve special encouragement from the Legislative Assembly.

You may ask why this needs to be done through an institute, and why it can't be done through our correspondence course system. For the very same reason, Mr. Chairman, that you don't make a high school into a university. The correspondence division of the Ministry of Education has done a superb job in preparing correspondence material for people up through the grade 12 level. The

[ Page 607 ]

Open Learning Institute starts where the correspondence division leaves off.

I must say that British Columbia has probably done the best job in the world in preparing and delivering a correspondence system. We serve people from many different nations, in many different parts of the world, through our correspondence program. But its termination is at grade 12. What we're doing at the present time is preparing programs, using modern techniques that will go right up through to baccalaureate level.

The member had a question with respect to school districts. Now what we've said with respect to school districts that are very small — where you would have fewer pupils in a whole school district than you would have in an average-sized high school in the metropolitan areas — is that we don't want them to have a full-time superintendent, a full-time secretary-treasurer and all of the administrative trappings that go with the larger districts. But at the present time we have no policy to reduce the number of districts. If such a thing ever were to come to pass then there would be a 'policy announcement by government on that subject.

At the present time, all we are saying is: for heaven's sake, keep the administrative expenditures in any given school district within commonsense bounds. For a very small school district we see no reason why there needs to be a full-time superintendent.

The member asked about my former executive assistant, Mr. Jim Bennett. Mr. Jim Bennett, to my regret, has left the government service and has opened a store called "The Good Stuff Games Store" in Bastion Square in Victoria. If you write that down, it's for adult games, it's in Bastion Square, it has very good stock, and this is a free commercial.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that Mr. Bennett has no contract with the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, has done no consulting work for the ministry and therefore has not received any money. I don't know the origin of the member's question, but I do say this: we had someone who worked many long hours on behalf of government and the people of British Columbia. You say: "What were his qualifications?" He handled problems for the ministry right up to the deputy minister level.

MS. SANFORD: That's not what I said.

HON. MR. McGEER: You have no idea, Madam Member, of the mess that the government inherited in 1975 or the job that we had to undertake with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the Ministry of Education, which lacked standards, which lacked organization and which left enough work for a staff of ten people. In fact, that executive assistant, Mr. Chairman, replaced three people in the office of the Ministry of Education, and I don't know how many to help that member over there handle ICBC. Yes, it was 16 and 18 hours of work a day, and nobody who has to carry that kind of load for government can do it without having the kind of experience that would make him a very desirable consultant in future years, if only, Madam Member, to keep future governments out of the kind of troubles you left this government when it came to office.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow up on just a few of the comments made by the minister. First of all, with relation to the executive assistant, at no time did I ever question his qualifications to be an executive assistant to the minister. As a matter of fact, what I said was that there are often executive assistants who are appointed to a minister, and who have no particular expertise in the provincial governmental ministry in which they are employed. But, Mr. Chairman, if they're going to be used as consultants within a ministry, then it seems to me they should have some particular expertise in whatever capacity they might be employed as a consultant to the ministry.

Now I was under the distinct impression that Jim Bennett was going to be employed from time to time, or perhaps by order-in-council, by contract, or in some way to do contract consulting work for the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. My question to the minister was: what qualifications does Jim Bennett have to do that kind of consulting work? The minister did not answer that. Now that he has said he has not been employed yet, I'm wondering if I might ask the minister whether or not the minister intends to employ Jim Bennett at this stage in some capacity.

I'm not through yet, Mr. Minister.

The other question that I raised related to the scholarships, and I think he just omitted to answer that particular question. Maybe he will next time he is on his feet.

The other comment that I wanted to make relates to the Open Learning Institute again. Now I am sure that the concept the minister has in mind of the Open Learning Institute eventually is to program courses through a satellite, if that is possible. That is his ultimate objective in terms of the Open Learning Institute, if that is possible. Now he's separating here the Open University concept and tying that in with a $50 million satellite which he talked about the other day.

Mr. Chairman, there is duplication here. The minister indicated that the correspondence school, which is operated through the Ministry of Education, could not handle the work that is being done by the Open Learning Institute because of the fact that they had been geared toward elementary and secondary courses, not post-secondary. But there is no reason on earth why that couldn't have been expanded to include post-secondary courses. He indicated himself that they've done an excellent job over the years. They're not a school, such as a high school, as he tried to indicate. They are different; they are a branch. They have a lot of very experienced people, and it seems to me the minister could very easily have asked this particular branch to carry out the work that the Open Learning Institute is now doing so there wouldn't be duplication. I already indicated that there was duplication because the Open Learning Institute is offering some courses which are, in fact, at the secondary level. So there is duplication there already.

The other duplication which exists, Mr. Chairman, is with the North Island College, which is conducting courses in much the same way as the Open Learning Institute is going to be doing. I feel that money could have been saved if the minister utilized the existing correspondence school and expanded that to include cassettes and tutors and phones, and whatever else the Open Learning Institute has. We could have avoided duplication and saved taxpayers' money.

HON. MR. McGEER: Coming back to what the qualifications of Jim Bennett would be to do consulting

[ Page 608 ]

work, I could only say that they would be unique and very rare qualifications. Because here is somebody who spent three and a half years in the minister's office being given virtually every problem that could come across the minister's desk, and he had the particularly unique experience — and this is what is so unusual and valuable — of being in the office at the time we took over the government from the NDP. He had to help to take over the straightening out of the enormous mess that was left behind. It is this invaluable experience in dealing with an Education ministry that was in chaos that would make him such a valuable consultant. Therefore I think he is a young man of not only extraordinary ability but incomparable experience to be a consultant. He could certainly identify all kinds of problems that careless government could get into, and therefore would be extremely valuable. Therefore I have no hesitation in recommending him as a consultant to a Ministry of Education anywhere, particularly if the situation had been allowed to deteriorate the way it did under the NDP.

With respect to scholarships and sports bursaries, there has been, as you probably know, Madam Member, some surplus in the vote in previous years. But it may be that this year we'll be short of money, in which case we'll have to go and ask for a special warrant to make up any of the shortfall. But I want to assure the members that it is our intention to give both the scholarships and the sports bursaries to all qualified people, and if this vote turns out to be a little shy, then certainly I will recommend to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council that the vote be supplemented so that the young people can be looked after.

It may be that this year, with an increase in fees coming at two of our institutions — and maybe the third — there will be more pressure on the student aid part of the vote than there has been in the past. So it may be that some supplementation is required there. The intention, by the way, with the sports bursaries is that we take our most able athletes, who for so many years have gone to the United States to receive their education, simply because sports scholarships have been available to them across the line but not in Canada, and try to keep them here in British Columbia. That is the intention. This is really just on a pilot basis and we'll have to see how the program develops whether it's a good one or....

MS. SANFORD: Is there money there now for that for this year?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, we hope there will be, but again, if there isn't I'll be asking for a special warrant. We won't turn able people down for lack of funds.

To come back again, Mr. Chairman, to the satellite question, I think people need to appreciate that what makes an open learning institute so different from a traditional stand-up lecture type of educational institution is that people have got to do much of the learning on their own. Therefore you cannot take the standard sorts of textbooks that form the basis of a lecture and just assign them to a student and have that student succeed in picking up the material on their own, even when it is supplemented with cassettes and with tutoring. What you have to do to prepare a course so that it can be successfully mastered by people learning on their own is essentially to rewrite it completely. Therefore teams of the most able academics and other educators have to be brought to work for the Open Learning Institute, usually on contract basis. The types of programs they put together can then be transmitted by this much more difficult educational mode.

You simply cannot take people whose knowledge lies in the field of secondary education and expect them to write university programs. They just don't have the academic background to do it. Of those professors who've got the knowledge for these upper-level programs, only a small percentage of them have the necessary talent to write the sorts of learning materials that will be successful. So far this is where the overwhelming majority of effort as gone into open learning institutes of various kinds. We've purchased a great many materials from the Open University in Great Britain, which is valuable to us not just for unmodified materials and using them without the necessity of duplication. In some cases they have to be adapted to be able to use the techniques that they have pioneered with standard textbook-type materials. They are put into a form that can be successfully transmitted by this new technique, so it's a much more difficult thing.

That's the preparation part. The delivery is the subject of a long debate, and I don't want to take up a great deal of time. But the delivery has to be tailor-made to the particular area. Up in North Island there is a different problem than in other parts of British Columbia, like the Okanagan. We're very proud of what they've done in North Island. There's a fine principal and board there and they've really done a superb job. I'd like to take this opportunity to compliment them publicly on what they've done.

MR. STUPICH: In spite of the inflammatory, partisan political remarks of the minister, I'd like to say a word about Jim Bennett myself. I had occasion to consult him on several problems on behalf of constituents, and I always found him very helpful. I think it says a great deal for him that he was able to put up with the insufferable ego of the man who occupied the minister's chair for three and a half years. Perhaps it even says more for him that he left that office as soon as he realized that minister would be there for another term.

I have a couple of questions about things that affect my riding. There's been a considerable amount of correspondence between the minister and in Mrs. Joan Jakes about her "Steps to Maturity" program that has been offered in Nanaimo. It was under suspension for a while, but they've since found the money to keep it going. In one of the most recent letters from the minister, he refers to a report on counselling and guidance services presently being prepared for the ministry. I think the possibility of any future support from the ministry for this kind of program depends in part on this report. I'm wondering just how long this report has been ongoing — or how long they've been working on this report? When might we expect to have that report produced, and, of course, will we see that report?

There has been a long-standing boundary dispute between Nanaimo and Qualicum school districts. The two school districts have agreed on a new boundary. I'm not sure whether the minister has had this brought to his attention yet, but I'm wondering about the next step in the procedure. Is it likely, now that the two districts have agreed, that there will be fairly quick agreement reached in the minister's office and the new boundary might come into

[ Page 609 ]

effect? I'm wondering just how long that takes and how likely it is to happen fairly automatically.

MR. LAUK, . This is the first time in this session that I have been able to stand and speak. When I came into the chamber today, one of the members said: "Well, I see they haven't found a cure for you yet." After hearing some of the remarks of the hon. — and I've been waiting since 1963 to say this — second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), I think it's absolutely clear that the cure for what ails me is a change in government, particularly a change in the Ministry of Education.

For any minister to stand in his place and answer even in ordinary questions in committee that he found the Ministry of Education at any time — and that means his ministry, Mr. Chairman — without standards and in complete disorganization is unfortunate. I know he made the statement to make little debating points in the chamber, because he fancies himself a wit. My colleague says he's "half right." But he fancies himself a wit. From time to time — at the expense of accuracy — he'll make a little joke. It's also at the expense of the morale of very dedicated public servants who have had years and years of commitment to public education in this province.

I would not even mention it if it were the first time. But it is a consistent pattern with this minister to travel the length and breadth of the province of British Columbia and undermine the morale of the public education system, not only by attacking teachers and school boards, but by attacking the Ministry of Education over which he has had mastery for three and a half to four years. In three and a half to four years he still makes suggestions that the ministry he has supervised has no standards, and is disorganized.

I wish to raise two points with respect to education, Mr. Chairman, and I realize the subject matter of Margaret Caldwell was debated last week. But my reading of the Blues indicates one point still needs to be made. There are two suggestions, major aspects, to this case of Margaret Caldwell. The one thing I found when the decision came down on Friday, and from the information and discussions I've had with ordinary citizens over the weekend, was that the subject does raise a serious problem that every member of this chamber has a responsibility to apply himself to: it is a division in society along sectarian lines. It's unfortunate that we, as representatives of the public, from time to time have to deal with questions involving sectarian division within society. It's nevertheless there, and we're charged with the heavy responsibility not to inflame it and not to take critical advantage of the situation. As the decision in the case itself points out, under certain circumstances discrimination with respect to employment qualification may be permissible under our legislation. This leads me to the second aspect of the Caldwell decision.

They use the extreme example of there being an employment qualification, that ministers of the Anglican religion be Anglican and that those who apply for the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church be Roman Catholic. From that position the board made a serious and wrong decision. It was wrong in policy for the good of the community. And it was wrong at law. The distinguished chairman, who's well known to me as a very adequate lawyer, has placed the decisions made by courts across this country on separate school and religious questions into what I would call a procrustean bed, and forced out of it a principle and a decision that is totally unreflective of the decisions of the courts of this land. I wonder why. Mr. Hebenton can read a decision as well as any other lawyer in the city. The decisions he cited to support his ruling do not in any way support the conclusion of the decision of the board. A typing teacher in high school is what we're talking about. To preclude her from employment because it's a legitimate employment qualification for a Catholic school.... If I were sitting on that board I would ask for evidence of how her marrying a divorced person could affect the catholicism and the philosophical integrity and the religious integrity of that school and its students.

I happen to have gone to school in the Catholic school parochial system. It's not bad, I don't have any resentments, and I appreciate the experiences I've had in that system. But as a former student I resent very much the authority of that school, or any other, making the unchristian judgment that the individual decisions made by a Christian person will preclude her from her employment, as she is, as is admitted by all, a perfectly adequate and, indeed, over-average teacher in that school system. That is reprehensible to me. It is anathema to what I was taught in that parochial school system. It is an unfortunate position taken by the archdiocese. Nevertheless, if the decision were based upon the law, I would support it reluctantly; but I argue that it is not. I charge the Minister of Labour with the responsibility to quickly find counsel who will take the appeal and review this situation.

Furthermore, had this side of the House had any indication that this kind of thing would take place in the education system, there would have been a much clearer public forum, not only in this chamber but in extra parliamentary debate, with respect to the funding of independent schools. No member of this House can in any way give sanction to this kind of discrimination. However, I do not think that at this stage — and I may depart at least in principle from some others on this point — we can connect funding of independent schools with problems of discrimination. Certainly it is in keeping with honesty and fairness to deal with them as separate questions.

Margaret Caldwell has been described in the uncontradicted evidence as an above-average teacher. Margaret Caldwell describes herself as committed to the Catholic philosophy. There is no evidence whatsoever of any other "defect" in her approach or her personality or anything else. There is no evidence that the fact of her marrying a divorced person would have any negative effect upon the students of the school. When you start calling upon society to give the stamp of approval to that kind of discrimination as an employment qualification, surely the onus is upon you to bring forth evidence in keeping with the philosophy of the school that would clearly indicate it would have a negative effect on the students.

As the member for Vancouver Centre, I demand that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) immediately appeal this decision, because it will lead to far-reaching negative effects on society if it is not appealed.

I hasten to qualify my remarks in this regard. In Catholic or other schools with religious philosophies there are situations where it must be open to their authorities to give preference to Catholics or whomever, because the basis of the private school is to espouse and to propagate the philosophy it holds. It is certainly open to the authority to seek out and give preference in employment to people of

[ Page 610 ]

that faith. It is open to those private-school boards to reject or dismiss any teacher on evidence and for cause, on the grounds of a complete anti-Catholic view expressed in the classroom. It would be anathema to expect the authority of the Catholic school system to have a teacher preaching atheism in a Catholic school — or a Protestant school or whatever. That's the point. However, that situation is not even remotely referred to in the decision involving Margaret Caldwell. This is clearly a decision that has worked a great hardship on a good school teacher and a good citizen. It is based upon the narrowest view of a very great philosophy.

The second point I wish to make is that affecting the question of health services to independent schools, particularly in the school district of Vancouver — it may affect others. This is a matter that has surfaced from time to time and has recently been called into question. It disturbs me because it affects the same kinds of principles of decency that I just spoke of with respect to Mrs. Caldwell.

The principle of decency is that the various levels of government, and indeed the various departments of government that fight with one another about jurisdiction, during the course of that fight have caused or may cause hardship to innocent people who are enrolled in private or independent schools. I'm reading from a committee report, Mr. Chairman, of the Vancouver School Board. The minutes are of the committee meeting on Tuesday last.

"D. Lupini, superintendent of schools, reported that it appears that the origin of the provision of health services to independent schools dates back to an informal arrangement in the 1950s between metropolitan health services and the school board, and that he and other officials had met with Dr. McLean to discuss the nature and cost of health services provided, and the legal position of the Vancouver School Board providing services to independent schools had been questioned. J. Robertson, head of business administration, reported that he had contacted the board's solicitor, who advised there is no authority either under the Public Schools Act, the Independent Schools Support Act or the Health Act which would permit the school board to fund any health services to independent schools, and referred to the provision of section 249(b) of the Public Schools Act, which provides for a substantial penalty to be levied on the board or individuals approving an unauthorized expenditure."

Now the school board is placed in a very untenable position. They have been advised by counsel that they are breaking the law, and since the 1950s, the school board — meaning the homeowner of Vancouver — is paying for the health care of students in the independent school system. Health care is a provincial responsibility. From time to time school boards — because of a rather niggardly attitude on the part of the Ministry of Health from time to time — have through Part V of the Public Schools Act increased health facilities and care to the students within its school district, at the expense of the homeowner. I'm opposed to that. I think it should be direct provincial funding, both from the Ministry of Education and from the Ministry of Health — from the Ministry of Health all health costs, including nurse care and preventive medicine courses and so on.

Where it becomes borderline is where there are psychological testing facilities, hearing-impairment courses and other handicapped courses, which are health related but may fall more within educational courses.

I do hope the minister is listening to this. It's a very important problem that's currently being discussed in the district. Is the minister interested at all in the problem? Because what we're facing here is a dispute between you and the Minister of Health and the school board. The school board may be providing funds for the independent schools illegally. Now it may be an important time for the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education to meet with the Vancouver School Board and decide the basis of a formula for the cost sharing. I urge you to take that load off the homeowner and place it where it belongs, on the provincial government, and that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education decide at the deputy minister level what costs should be shared between the ministries. I know the problems of Treasury Board as well as anyone else and I should tell you that that is no excuse for allowing these innocent students at independent schools to go without health care. There's every real danger that's going to happen soon. There's even a call, because there's provincial funding now to independent schools, that they should purchase their health care facilities. I think this is probably a regressive step on the face of it and on its own.

Apart from any dispute in this House with respect to aid to independent schools, students and young people come first. They're not much interested in the debates on philosophy between both sides of the House with respect to aid to these schools. Health care is a right of every citizen and it certainly is the right of the students when they are at school. It's an integral part of their daily routine at school. They've had it since 1950 and now there's a danger it will be cut off in that school district. I want the minister to indicate clearly that he will undertake to resolve the dispute of jurisdiction in this matter immediately between him and the Ministry of Health; intercede, as is his duty and responsibility, on behalf of the students, the young people of my school district.

Those are the two points that I have raised.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll just reply briefly to some of the questions that were raised. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) isn't here but the Steps to Maturity program which he asked about is one of these locally based programs which is something clearly within the jurisdiction of the local school board.

It places the ministry in a difficult position because there are certain parts of the program, the core curriculum, that we say must be taught, and other things which we recommend as an expanded curriculum that should be taught. Then there are the locally developed courses which entirely fall within the jurisdiction of the local school district. That Steps to Maturity program is one of these. So the recourse for the member is at the local level on that one.

We can't get into the business of picking up all the locally developed courses when these are clearly something we placed in their courts, so to speak.

With respect to the boundary argument with the two school districts in Nanaimo, as soon as we get letters from the school districts saying they agree to the reapportionment, we will bring forward an order-in-council and get that done.

We had quite a discussion on Friday with respect to the Catholic teacher and the decision of the board of inquiry of

[ Page 611 ]

the Human Rights Commission. I think the member has put his finger on it when he says that this is a question that really needs to be dealt with through the Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Labour rather than the Ministry of Education. I gave an undertaking to the first member for Victoria that we would have our inspector examine that particular school under our jurisdiction under the Independent Schools Act and have him bring a recommendation to me.

I don't think the proper course here is to punish all the schools by the minister arbitrarily disagreeing with the board of inquiry of the Human Rights Commission and therefore taking away funds from all the students. That clearly isn't the way to resolve a question of that kind. I think the member has put his finger on how correctly to resolve that particular issue.

With respect to the payment of health costs, this is something which has really been a subject of drift for some years, and we've got to get at the bottom of what's been going on for a long period of time. The per capita payments for health costs that are made by school boards vary from 30 cents to $10, I don't know why there should be a 33-fold difference, one district from another.

MR. LAUK: Because in Vancouver they pay 96 percent of their own school costs.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it isn't quite that simple. But in any event, what we're doing is that we're going at the whole business of province-wide health services now, trying to come up with a policy that is even-handed and makes some sense. But in order to do that, we've got to dig out all the information. There's a lot of historical material involved in all of this. It's only because somebody raised the question in the last few weeks that people even became aware at the ministerial level, certainly, of what had been the practice for many years. We're investigating that now and we will be announcing a policy as soon as we are able to bring it all together. We have a problem and we're addressing it.

MR. LAUK: What about the current situation where they might cut off funds?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, obviously we're going to look after that somehow or other. I just don't know what the formula will be, Mr. Chairman, because, again, we've got to dig into this very deeply. It doesn't just involve the Vancouver school district; it involves the whole province. Therefore a new arrangement has to be made that recognizes the realities of health care funding and educational funding today. One way or another we'll find an answer. It's just that we're not obviously in a position right now where we can announce government policy. But that will be taken care of.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister for indicating that he is concerned and that he is monitoring the situation, I thank him for drawing to my attention once again the historical context in which this problem has arisen. But I am aware of the historical context. I've been aware that it was a problem at least as far back as October 1978 when other legal problems with such expenditures were drawn to the attention of the minister and the ministry. I'm referring there to recreational programs and other cost expenditures. It may or may not offend the Public Schools Act.

During the course of those discussions, the question of health to students and health care to students was brought to your attention. Now the minister has permitted this situation to develop in the school district of Vancouver. I want the assurances for the time being, while you're sorting out how many elephants can dance on the head of a pin, that the students going to independent schools will not go without health care because of an illegality pointed out to the school board and that the Ministry of Education will intercede on their behalf, as is their responsibility.

If I could have the commitment from the minister on that, I will end my dreadnought attack on his estimates.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly give an undertaking to do my very level best....

MR. LAUK: That's not good enough.

HON. MR. McGEER: Maybe the member could help me out later on in the session by taking it up as well with the Minister of Health. Mr. Chairman, sure we're going to find an answer to this thing. I just don't know what it's going to be at the present time. But we'll put whatever meagre resources this minister has at his disposal, in money and in influence, to bear on this important problem.

MR. SKELLY: I passed a number of pieces of correspondence to the minister and his deputy. They involve an incident which happened in one of the school districts in the province. I prefer not to mention any names or places, but I would like to have the minister investigate the specific incident. I would also like to present this case to the minister as an example of the problems which seem to develop because school districts are able to treat children without any reference to the system of civil and legal rights that have developed in society as a whole. They do this based on a section of the regulations under the Public Schools Act which allows school districts to act in the place of parents as "a kind, firm and judicious parent."

Let me outline the context of the event in which this correspondence took place. First of all, a small group of school students was taken to a sports event outside the district — into Vancouver — and three teacher-supervisors went along. During the trip one of the students brought out an intoxicating drug and distributed the drug to some other students who were along on the trip. Some of this drug was used by some of the students during the trip and in a hotel room afterwards in Vancouver. One student decided to get out on the balcony of the hotel and put her life in danger. Another took the keys to the van and smashed it up on a city street in Vancouver. As a result they cut short the trip and the students were taken back to the district. According to the parents, there was inadequate supervision because two of the three the teachers left the remaining one alone in the hotel rooms with all of the students.

When they returned to the school, some of the students were taken by the principal from their classes and interrogated in the company of another adult for periods as long as two hours. Parents were not contacted about the interrogation or about the offence which was under investigation during the interrogation, which, as I mentioned, lasted up to two hours for at least three of these

[ Page 612 ]

students. In fact, parents were not informed at all until the notices of 20-day suspensions were handed down to three students. As a result of the long interrogation, three of the girl students who had not used marijuana, which was the drug involved, finally admitted to having used it, in order to terminate the interrogation. Once the interrogation was finished they went home and told their parents that they had been pretty well forced to say that they had used the drug because of the length of the interrogation.

The parents were angry because three of the students were suspended. One of the students who stayed on at school was the one who smashed up the van and was also reported to have used an intoxicating drug; but he received no suspension. His father is a law enforcement officer in the community. Another of the children who, it was suggested, had been using the intoxicating drug was the son of a school administrator. He also received no suspension and he was not disciplined at all. The parents were angry about this uneven application of justice, or discipline, and as a result they complained to the principal. The principal privately admitted to them that possibly he had overstepped his rights and infringed on the rights of the girls by interrogating them for such a long period; and he agreed that possibly they admitted to using the drug because of the long term of the interrogation; and he privately felt that an apology was necessary. However, the board then held a special meeting. The parents attended at one meeting and presented their side of the story. At a separate meeting, to which the parents were denied access, the staff members presented their side of the story. As a result the board upheld the suspension. The board based its decision on the fact that it had a policy that even if a student involved in an event where people are using drugs doesn't use the drugs himself, he is liable for a 20-day suspension.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

After the parents came to me, I suggested that they contact a lawyer, because it appeared that the rights of these students had been violated. It appeared to me that they had been confined unlawfully and interrogated without counsel and without any advice from their parents, lawyers or whomever, or any opportunity to contact their parents or counsel. It seemed to me a total abridgment of the civil and legal rights of these children to be confined and interrogated for two hours, until such time as they admitted to using a drug which they said they did not use.

The lawyer wrote to the school board, and the minster has a copy of that correspondence; and the school board replied to the lawyer in the same way that they replied to the parents: "This is the school board's policy. The school board has a right to discipline students under this section of the regulations, which allows them to stand in the place of parents, and act as a kind, firm and judicious parent."

What bothers me is that in the International Year of the Child one of the things we should be concerned about is that students, because of the fact that they go to school and are enrolled in a public school, are deprived of the same civil and legal rights that citizens of the community at large enjoy. They can be confined for periods of up to two hours; they can be interrogated by somebody who, in the community, would have no right to question them at all. They can be questioned in confinement with no right to discuss the matter with their parents, or with no right for their parents or their legal counsel to be present. It seems to me that this creates a separate body of citizens in the province of British Columbia, a body of citizens that is deprived of the civil and legal rights that we all enjoy as members of the community at large.

I would ask the minister if he would investigate this specific situation. All that the lawyer for the three girls involved is asking is a private apology in the form of a letter by the school board, because in the absence of this they will carry this reputation with them, possibly, for the rest of their lives. I would like the minister to investigate this specific situation.

The other aspect, I feel, deserves a more public inquiry — the rights of children enrolled in public schools. Should the public school system be able to stand in the place of parents and discipline students in the place of parents, to the extent that their civil and legal rights are abrogated and they have different civil and legal rights than members of the society at large? I think that during this International Year of the Child there are grounds for a wider public inquiry. It's something that we should be examining, either as a legislature, a legislative committee, or a public inquiry established by the minister. So will the minister investigate the specific incident, and what is his reaction to the suggestion of a public inquiry?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I'll certainly give an undertaking to the member to have our officials look at that particular situation in Alberni.

In the broader context, the responsibility for discipline in schools rests with the principal. If he is effective as a disciplinarian, the school runs well and smoothly. If he's not, then the school is in chaos. Every single person who has attended a school recognizes this, and the principal stands or falls on his ability to be the disciplinarian, the firm but friendly figure upon which the whole integrity of the school system resides. I'm satisfied that that principle is sound, that it requires no public inquiry, and that indeed that principle deserves our full support of the principal as an individual.

We're not going to alter that historic dependence on this individual. That is his key role. Where he fails, then he is replaced. The member will see that in the amendments that are placed before the House this year we make provision for those who are not outstanding to be returned to the classroom with honour and with their reputation and integrity intact, to make room for other outstanding teachers in the system to replace them for a new term. The only recourse under the Public Schools Act before this was introduced was that the principal be dismissed for cause. So I think we've got, with these amendments, all of the protection that the member would hope to achieve through this kind of public inquiry.

Remember that the Public Schools Act does not deny parents or students the full protection of the law. What we're talking of now is the administrative effectiveness of an educational system. The school board has the responsibility for broad policy within the district. Therefore they can set down in broad terms what disciplinary policy would be appropriate if students use alcohol, drugs, steal the keys to the school station wagon, and so on. Youngsters are going to test the limits of authority and some are going to get into trouble as a result of that.

The way the Public Schools Act is set up is that the principal is the responsible disciplinarian in the first

[ Page 613 ]

instance and the school board then becomes the appeal board. And, Mr. Member, I can't see anything wrong with the system per se; it may be in the execution in this particular instance that there was something incorrect. We can certainly investigate that possibility, but I don't think we require any inquiry at all.

Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet although I haven't been asked a question about this I'd like the Legislature to be aware that Mr. Seth Halton is in the galleries today. He's our chief individual responsible for Education Today, which has won no less than three international, awards as a publication, the most recent of which was just in the past few days. Once more Education Today has won international recognition, largely as a result of his contribution. I wonder if the members would recognize him.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the fact that the minister will look into this specific situation that I gave him, but also I would like to point out to him that that specific situation is only one of many that take place. Certainly the ideal system of operation of any public institution — whether it's a prison or a school or a Legislative Assembly — is that there should be a kind, firm and judicious director of that institution, whether you call him a warden or a principal or a Speaker or a Chairman, and theoretically he should, in his kindness, firmness and judiciousness, maintain discipline in the Legislative Assembly, prison or school. That's an ideal system, and we in this chamber should know that the facts don't always conform with the theory.

I wonder if the minister is saying that we're going to keep that system in spite of the fact that abuses have grown up within that system that do permit for differences in legal and civil rights between people in the system, simply because they're enrolled in the system, and those outside the system who have access to the justice system in society as a whole. The Public Schools Act seems to exempt schools from the same types of hearing processes, from the same rules of evidence, and from the same rights to counsel as other citizens in society have. Does the minister feel that it's correct to deprive students of those various rights that we have?

Almost every organization — whether it's a legislature or a prison or a government or a school — has built up an ombuds-role where, when a student feels his rights have been overridden by the authorities or by the bureaucracy or by the warden or whatever, he can then approach an ombudsman who has certain ways of obtaining redress for that student. Yet in the public school system there doesn't seem to be that redress. Certainly, as in this case, the parents, after having received some satisfaction, went to the school board and then even that minimal satisfaction they received was overturned and the school board saw its duty as backing up the staff. In order to keep the staff happy they backed the staff up, because they have certain rights which the students don't have.

So I feel there is a need for an examination of this whole question of students' rights within institutions. The question is being examined in jurisdictions throughout the world, throughout North America, and in some areas legislation has been brought in defining the civil rights of students within educational systems. I would certainly hope that the minister would reverse his decision and take a look at those other jurisdictions that have examined the rights of students and enshrined them in some form of legislation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly undertake to examine what has been introduced in these other jurisdictions and to inquire about what the consequences of that type of action has been. We'll see, really, what other places have in the way of experience before we take a step that, I must confess, gives me the shivers, as it expands the province of the lawyers into the school system. I would have thought the member from over there would have left that kind of proposal to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

MR. SKELLY: That's why I suggested an ombudsman.

HON. MR. McGEER: Maybe the ombudsman route is one to go if people honestly need appeal systems beyond what we've been talking about here.

Let me conclude by saying we'll look at what they're doing in the other jurisdictions. But my own personal belief is that this whole system rides on the integrity and ability of the principal. Any exercise which undermines his traditional role in the schools would be counterproductive for the effectiveness of our school system. I wouldn't want to make any move that would do that. I would make provision for replacing those who aren't doing well, but not to undercut the ability of those who can do a job effectively.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't really want to get involved in the debate, but when the minister talks about the integrity of the principal being the key in the case the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has just raised, I have a few questions that really bother me. If it is, as that member has said, that the young person who took the keys to the van and crashed it on the streets of Vancouver received no suspension, and if it is, as that member said, that the young person who obtained the intoxicating drug received no suspension, then either the integrity of the principal is open to question or something is wrong with the system.

I have grave concerns not just for the three girls falsely charged, but for the fact that in this school system we have apparently allowed two young people who were very much in the wrong to go scot-free. That's not teaching them good citizenship.

We have to learn it in school, if nowhere else; and if we don't we are not going to learn we must be responsible for our actions in today's society. What that member has pointed out indicates that the school system, in this particular instance, didn't fulfil its duties in that line. I have some concerns about that.

I wanted to talk about some of the remarks the minister made Friday when he was introducing his estimates. He talked about the programs he was hoping to introduce for the gifted youngsters in grades 4, 5 and 12. That's a very good move; I'm happy to see it happening.

Probably the best way I could put it is that I hope the minister is prepared to put his money where his mouth is. When the youngsters at the other end of the learning capability scale were mainstreamed into the public school system, there was no funding for that. If he is now going to lay on some increased programs for the gifted child, then I hope he will not only correct his error in the first instance and provide extra funding to those school boards to cope with

[ Page 614 ]

the children at the lower level, but that he will provide the extra funds required to provide that enriched program for the gifted child.

In my own area, the Cowichan school district, they have had such a program. They have had it, thanks to the dedication of the teachers. It has been very difficult to make it a worthwhile program without extra funding. At the other end of the scale, there have been tremendous problems with the mainstreaming of the children with learning disabilities.

Because of geography, in one class we may have as many as seven children with learning disabilities. Because of the restrictions on finance, limited funding from the government, and with no extra funding to provide for this extra load, in one instance we have a teacher with those children with learning disabilities, and who has no extra assistance. The result is that the teacher is at the breaking point, emotionally, trying to cope with the extra workload. In another instance, a parent who is a taxpayer and a contributor to the school system has had to take her child out of the school system in the mornings, hire a private tutor, and then let the child go back in the afternoon so he has the company and the social contact with children.

Those kinds of things are a result of the financial restrictions placed on school boards by this Minister of Education. When he took over, the mill rate was 26 mills. It is now 41 mills.

In Cowichan, that means that instead of local taxpayers picking up 55 percent of the school costs, they are now responsible for 70 percent. On top of that, the school board is extremely limited in what it can do. It's held to the 5 percent increase in spite of the fact that salaries — by arbitration, by adjudication — have resulted in more than that kind of increase. Not only that, school boards are faced with the almost insulting situation of having their budgets turned over to municipal councils and regional boards for their input, when they really lack knowledge about what has gone into that budget preparation and why the various amounts are in there. Yet this minister has seen fit to turn those budgets over to municipal councils.

Mainstreaming is a credible program, but the thing the minister has failed to recognize is that it's an expensive program. Likewise, the objective of keeping children in school for the full 12 years is probably a very credible idea, but it too is an expensive idea if it's going to be successful. There have been no extra funds allocated. It's putting school boards and local taxpayers in a very difficult position. I hope the minister will be prepared to provide in his estimates this year that extra amount of money that is required to cope with those problems. When you keep children in school for 12 years, there are a great many children in the higher grades who need special programs, if it's going to be meaningful. Those provisions are not there. They cannot be there, because the funding is not available.

It's all well and good to say you have made great strides in education — and probably some of the ideas have been great — but if there's no money to carry through those programs, then those strides become nothing less than a matter of just holding your own in education. The school board chairman in my area has indicated that's about all they are able to do in the Cowichan school district. There is no possibility of making the kinds of advancements they'd like them to make, or the kinds of advancements that I'm sure this minister would like to make, unless the funding is available from the provincial government. You can't put any greater load on the taxpayer. It has already increased from 26 mills to 41 mills, a tremendous increase in four short years. It results in an awful lot of dollars now being paid by the local taxpayers, far more than is their fair share. The government was elected in 1975 on a program of getting that tax reduced.

It's not possible to carry out the kinds of educational programs that should be carried out in this province unless this minister is prepared to put up the dollars. I don't see those extra dollars in the estimates, but I hope I've just overlooked them and that the minister can assure me that there will be money to cover the mainstreaming of the children with learning disabilities, that there will be money for that from the provincial coffers in the coming year. If he's embarking upon an enriched program at the 4, 5 and 12 levels, I hope that there will be extra money to ensure that the school boards can carry out that program.

I have a couple of specific questions relative to the local area. In the Lake Cowichan School District 66, they have two peculiar problems. One problem is that a great amount of their land is forest and, as a result, their assessments were drastically reduced. Also, they have a diminishing school population.

They were granted special assistance last year. They have written and asked the ministry for special assistance this year. They have a letter from the minister — they were good enough to send me a copy — which says that every consideration would be given in 1979. Can the minister tell me what special consideration has been given Lake Cowichan in the 1979 budget?

My other question is relative to the Cowichan School district, where we have a fair amount of agricultural land. Earlier this session the minister did mention the reduction in assessment of some of the school districts as a result of the 50 percent assessments. Can you tell me what is the amount of reduction in assessments in the Cowichan school district?

HON. MR. McGEER: First of all, on the Alberni question, I've agreed to take a look at this system as it applies elsewhere. I've agreed to look into the specifics of the case. The one thing that I don't think we ought to do here is to try and debate the facts as they are presented; they may be right or wrong. We're obviously not going to be a very good forum for that kind of thing. Anyway, we won't let it pass by.

With respect to the programs in education that we're trying to develop, we give the most generous special approvals in all of Canada; something like $34 million of these went out last year. We're not ignoring the bookends, if you like, in our system; nor will we ignore them in the future. Obviously it's much better to try and set up your funding from the provincial treasury on a global basis rather than get into a rat's nest of so many of this and so much of that. They had a system that was totally unmanageable in the province of Ontario, as a result of having been led into the trap of a little bit of this and a little bit of that and a little bit of the other thing every year, so you had such a complicated tier system of allocating funds that it just got to be unreasonable and unmanageable.

Just to look at the overall picture, Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to make two observations. First of all, the amount of money that comes from the provincial level, including the homeowner grant, is about 60 percent or a shade less of all the money that goes out to operate our public school

[ Page 615 ]

system. The amount that is actually raised through property taxes is roughly 40 percent, and that hasn't changed over many years. Oh, it goes up and down 2 or 3 percent, depending on the individual circumstances of the budget. This year it is going to be of the order of 60-40 percent or 59-41 percent — something in there — so it hasn't changed a great deal.

What has changed, Mr. Chairman — and everybody ought to be acutely aware of this — is the number of teachers in the system relative to the number of students. There was a tremendous quantum leap during the time the NDP were in office, where some 6,000 new teachers were added to a system that was not growing in size. There is a considerable financial commitment to those people. It amounts to maybe $140 million or $150 million a year, every year, to take care of that particular bolus, if you like, of new teachers being added to the system.

I think it reasonable that when you have had that kind of a quantum jump in the personnel available in the system, you should be able to take care of gifted youngsters as well as those with learning difficulties, if you weren't able to take care of them before. Really, it falls within the province of teachers to be able to teach gifted as well as non-gifted students, particularly when our classrooms are now so much smaller than they were even five years ago.

Maybe we've got to think a little more in terms of the bygone era when teachers were not only capable of teaching the slow learners as well as the gifted, but they took it in their stride to teach youngsters in many different grades all at the same time. We can't have a system that has narrow specialists that can only teach normal youngsters in an average school for one course. That's really going a little too far. Therefore we need, as we bring these programs along, to encourage, I suppose, a certain degree of versatility in our teachers since the classes themselves are smaller.

The 1978 mill rate for Lake Cowichan will be 54.5 mills, and for next year it will be 54.18 mills, so the school taxes will actually go down there next year.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the minister for trying to balance the educational needs with the financial needs in his budget, and for recognizing the serious situation that we are in with declining school enrolments but rising educational aspirations and needs.

The subject, however, that I want to say a few words about this afternoon may produce a bit of levity because it's not exactly what has been debated here for the past couple of days. The minister has a later estimate, vote 70, on metric conversion. With your leave, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to say a few words under his own estimates, and will not speak when that specific vote comes.

I would ask the minister, perhaps, to give some consideration to the metric conversion program insofar as it affects the province of British Columbia, particularly when the new federal Minister of Industry, Mr. de Cotret, has stated this last few weeks that he will review metricization programs of the government of Canada. Now of all the programs launched by the former government of Canada, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that none was less conceived by elected officials and more conceived by weights-and-measures bureaucrats, and bureaucrats as a whole, than the metric program.

There was never any mandate given either to the government of Canada or to the province of British Columbia to change not just the highway speed limits, not just the readings and temperature, but also to intrude into the housewife's kitchen and to intrude into every way in which we measure distance or conduct our business.

I think it is very important that a new look be taken at the metric program, particularly now that the Americans are backing off metricization. The major argument in favour of Canada and British Columbia going on a metric program was that we did no want to lose pace with our neighbours to the south; we did not want to be at a trade disadvantage; we wanted to have standardization of products, and so on. That does not appear to be the case any more, and the Americans are having serious second thoughts about a metric program.

Also, metric conversion is very confusing to the consumer. If you were trying to discover how much more you were paying for gas, it is pretty difficult to do so when your gas is being sold to you in litres. Under a program of metricization, price increases can be introduced to the detriment of the consumer without his knowledge. Consumer protection demands a second look at metricization.

What I'm going to suggest to the minister is that we in British Columbia look at a program whereby the old measurement designations are given alongside the metric. I'm going to introduce a "truth-through-metric" bill a little later in this session which requires anyone in British Columbia who gives a metric designation to give the original designation, so that the public, particularly the public of my vintage and older who are not going to be thoroughly educated and comfortable with metric conversion — unlike my son, who is quite delighted with it — has a chance to understand and get the feel of what's happening. I realize that those in this House, like the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who are golfers, can make the metric conversion very easily because the difference between yards and metres is only minimal. It just means that they're losing a little distance — about 10 yards a drive.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Well, I think the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) is probably losing a little more distance; but it's not because of metric conversion.

In the area of the kitchen, however, metric conversion is totally absurd, in my submission. It also makes no sense in the measurement and sale of land. Who is going to be grabbed by an advertisement which says you have .42 hectares for sale instead of an acre? I really don't think that the public has totally woken up to the implications of the metric conversion. Metric conversion in temperatures has had some effect on our tourist trade. I quite regularly meet Americans on this coast who will say to me: "You know, your weather has got very bad recently — all these readings down in the 15s and 16s." They still think that we're on the Fahrenheit scale. If the Americans aren't going metric, there's no good reason for us to proceed on this mad conversion spate. As a municipal official, I voted against putting in metric signs in Oak Bay; my council thought I was mad and disagreed with me. But very seriously, if the old designation was put alongside or underneath, then everybody would be happy and it would give us some flexibility if the Americans don't go metric.

[ Page 616 ]

I'm not asking the minister or the House to turn the clock back; I'm only urging it to be sure that it tells the right time. I would like to hear the minister's response on this subject, and maybe he could undertake to look into the cost and the feasibility of a "truth-through-metric" approach in which we give the alternate designations.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm going to do the awful thing and turn loose Mr. Eugene Gosh, our chief metric conversion man, on the the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Smith), to give him a little briefing. You give some people a centimetre and they'll take a kilometre.

I can tell you that what the member says is quite correct. One of the things that we had to discover in all these metric conversions was that there were some agencies of government slipping in a raise on the expenses that they were going to get for operating their cars by changing kilometres to miles. So you do have to watch it. We're definitely for truth in conversion, and we'll certainly provide the double labels, particularly to help those in the legal profession.

Our commitment to metrication is not something where we in British Columbia are marching out of step with the world. We're only keeping up with the commitments that have been made nationally. Those commitments were not made to keep up with the United States. The United States is the foot-dragger of the world. We made those commitments in Canada because much of our trade goes elsewhere than to the United States. That's why we now cut 2-by-4s — they're not 2-by-4s anymore — to the metric system so that we can meet the markets of the world. It's quite a dilemma; but the national government really sets the pace and the standard, and the provinces keep up with that by agreement. We're not trying to set the pace nor are we going to be the holdouts. We'll do our duty; that's my responsibility. I'll watch very carefully to catch the metric cheaters and will undertake to see that we get our double labelling.

MR. PASSARELL: At the outset I would like to extend a welcome to Dr. Hardwick, whom I am glad to see in the House today. He is a credit to his profession and I welcome him to the House.

I would like to direct four questions to the minister. The first deals with a school board for Stikine. At the present time we share a superintendent who also acts in the same capacity as the official trustee. We have six schools in Stikine, and the residents of the area, mainly native individuals, would like some input into the education that their children are receiving. At the present time we average maybe a principal a year in the six schools. What happens is that often the parents who live in the area have no feedback to the school; they are almost ignored. I would like to suggest, if the minister could find something, that we put aside a very token fee so that six individuals could form some sort of an advisory committee to the school district in Stikine. I have some suggestions. Maybe sometime the minister would like to sit down and we could discuss them.

Another topic I would like to talk about is the high percentage of native students who leave the public schools of British Columbia to receive education in the Yukon. At the school I taught, approximately 30 percent of the students went away to Yukon Hall up in Whitehorse. If there could be some kind of an arrangement made where we could keep the students in B.C., I think we would provide a good service. We did at Good Hope Lake, and I would like to see something arranged where we can deal with students who have problems in the Stikine school district and have to be shipped off to Whitehorse so they can find some type of accommodation when their parents are out on the trap line during the winter months.

Another comment I would like to make is the good job that the Nishga school district, School District 92, has done for the residents of the Nass Valley. As most of us are aware, they had their first graduating class, and it is to their credit what the Nishga school district has done concerning the involvement of the native language into the curriculum of the school. We tried to do this in Stikine and found out that there weren't any funds available. I would like to see another token sum set aside so that the high percentage of native students that we have in Stikine have the opportunity to learn their own language.

The last topic I would like to mention is the maintenance that is given to these schools in Stikine. At the present time we have three men who cover the vast area of School District 87. If they're going to drive from Cassiar to Atlin, it is 500 miles, or if they have to go down to Telegraph Creek, it is another 400 miles. The tools and the supplies the men are working with are just peanuts. I remember one case this winter when it was 60 degrees below up in Lower Post and the heat was off at the school. One of the maintenance men had to get a truck and go up there. It took a good part of the day to get up there, to find out that the whole problem was that the breaker switch was off and the heat was off into the school. That took a man away for a whole day while they had serious problems at another school.

I would appreciate if the minister could give me an answer on the playfields for the north. I know we talked about this previously and we had very positive statements. The schools up in Stikine have come a long way in the last few years but they still lack quite a lot of items that are taken for granted on the mainland — for instance, visual aid equipment. I had a projector when I first came up to Good Hope Lake years back that had been broken for three years before I got there. When I tried to contact the school district to get it fixed they said: "Well, okay, send it through the mail to the school district, and we'll send it to some person to fix it down in Fort St. John or somewhere." I received the projector back two years ago. It was a good 18 months that it was being fixed. Many of the schools up in Stikine are in poor shape when it comes to visual aid equipment.

Gymnasiums are another thing. I know that you can't put gymnasiums into every school, but I think activity rooms can be used. We have an extra room in Good Hope Lake, left over from the old school, that is just sitting. I've tried to get approximately $500 from the school district to turn it into a gymnasium so that when it's 60 or 70 degrees below outside the children have some place to do some physical activity.

The last topic I would like to talk about is television. When we talked about the satellites, I heard from the previous statements that only two schools in the Stikine out of the six have television. I would like to see a more in-depth program in which we could use visual aids and ETV systems to provide taped programs from the satellite programs for the children in the Stikine. I'd appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. McGEER: We'd be pleased to set up an advisory committee for the Stikine. It's a little hard when

[ Page 617 ]

you get six schools covering a quarter of the province. We'd need to work out a way of getting an effective committee.

I'd also be pleased to take a look at the high percentage of native children of the area who are going up to the Yukon. I don't understand the reasons for that, but I'd be prepared to discuss it with the member and see if we can find a way of doing things better. We're very proud of what's happened with the Nishga school district; that's been a great success. We believe in the advantages of incorporating native languages into the school curriculum. What do you say when there are three maintenance men covering a quarter of British Columbia? I don't know the answers to that, but when you've got school districts that spread out, we have to think of unusual ways of doing things. I don't know whether it would mean contracting out, where possible. But if things aren't working smoothly, come and see us and we'll see if we can work out a better arrangement. I can't really be more specific, because each thing is going to have to be tailored to meet the demand of the moment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEA: I have what is, from the ministry's standpoint, probably a small item. But for the community of Oona River — and I'm sure other communities — it's a large item, and it has to do with section 20 of the Public Schools Act. If I understand that section correctly, for people in rural areas on correspondence courses money can be paid to either lay instructors or people with a teaching background but who are not actively teaching. What these people are paid a small sum to do is go to the people on correspondence courses and give them a hand. For that they're paid a fee. Oona River is one of the communities where there may be not enough children to form a school, but where there are enough children — if the community decides to put space aside — for this teacher to come in and instruct them. I've had a long-running correspondence with the ministry, starting May 18, 1978. Since then I've had a number of letters from the ministry, and it's really getting past a joke. As a matter of fact, the correspondence I had was with Jim Bennett, the former executive assistant to the minister, and that started.... Actually the first one went to Mr. Canty, May 18, 1978, superintendent, Ministry of Education: "I'm informed by the hon. Minister of Education that you are processing the Oona River fund in regard to services under section 20. Would you please keep me informed."

Then the next one was a Telex from Mr. Canty, saying nothing really.

I'd like to bring your attention to two letters. One I received from Jim Bennett on January 11, 1975, says:

"Dear Graham,

"Regarding section 20, allowance, your letter of December 6.

"The management committee of the school's department has placed this matter on the agenda of a forthcoming meeting for review."

Now almost a year previous to that they told me it was going to be reviewed. Almost a year later they tell me there is finally going to be a meeting. I don't know whether there was a meeting in-between time, and it wasn't discussed, or there hasn't been a meeting. It says:

"However, it should be recognized, I'm told, that the duties of a person employed under section 20 consist usually of supervising the completion of correspondence papers and not of giving instruction. The ministry has never considered that the work is, in any way, comparable to that of a teacher in a regular classroom; it has always been viewed as more of an honorarium for services rather than a minimum salary, as the pupils could — as many do — complete the correspondence papers without outside assistance. "

I wrote back again on February 26, 1979, saying: "Would you please let know what the management committee's decision has been."

Then I got another letter dated April 3 from Jim Bennett. At this point, even he's getting amused by the delay within the bureaucracy: "Re: Correspondence from Oona River. Regarding the attached correspondence, couldn't something be done to assist this individual at Oona River?" He's writing to the department by this time, again, to Mr. R.J. Carter, assistant deputy minister. "I was earlier informed by the ministry that this was on the agenda for a schools department management committee meeting in January, but I've yet to hear the outcome."

So then I write to Carter, and I say:

"Dear Mr. Carter:

"I refer you to a memo to yourself dated April 3 from Jim Bennett, executive assistant to the minister, regarding the section 20 allowance for tutoring of correspondence courses. This matter has been hanging on for a long period of time with no decision forthcoming. Could you please let me know if any progress is being made whatsoever?"

Then I get a letter from Carter. No, this is to Mr. John Walsh, to Mr. Les Canty and to Mr. Bruce Naylor in the department: "Re: section 20 allowance for tutoring of correspondence courses. In April, I received a memo from Jim Bennett inquiring on behalf of Graham Lea as to a ruling on section 20 allowances." He wants him to check on it.

Then I get a letter from Carter, who says: "Dear Mr. Lea: I've just received your note drawing to my attention Jim Bennett's memo of April 3, 1979."

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure they got in there to clean up this administrative mess that they found when they took over from the NDP. Also, they're going to keep the person responsible for this one on as a consultant to make sure that the mess is cleaned up.

I think what's happened here is a thing that happens in government all the time. We sit in Victoria. We make a law or a policy or a regulation and we say: "This is for all of British Columbia." Then we start taking a look at how it applies to each individual case in British Columbia and we find that in each case, there's some peculiarity where it doesn't or shouldn't apply. It seems to me that what we're running into in this section 20 is rigidity within the Ministry of Education of not wanting to take a look at individual cases and individual needs of communities, and just saying: "This is the blanket rule, this is the blanket policy, and if it doesn't apply for you, too bad."

Now I've been writing on this one for over a year. Even if you wrote and said no, it would be a breath of fresh air. But this thing has been shuffled through the bureaucracy sideways, backwards, forwards, and there's still no answer. Now is it that the management committee hasn't met? Have they met and not discussed it? Have they met, discussed it

[ Page 618 ]

and couldn't reach a decision? Have they reached a decision, and the minister or the deputy has turned it down because they want to review it? Or do they ever meet? It's getting beyond a joke. There's one community, and I'm sure others, which has a number of children and someone willing to instruct these children. All it would take would be a little bit of money in order that the community could get their children together in one place, benefit from experiencing relationships with each other, and have someone who could help them with their correspondence courses. We're talking about a paltry sum of money even if we did it for every community that has this kind of need.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he can make an undertaking today to make sure that.... Well, I know that we do have some pecuniary interest in Ocean Falls and turning out paper. But this big file is, I would think, a subject that could be done in the minister's office with the deputy minister within 30 seconds by saying: "Look, there is a need. We all know that." When are we going to get a decision?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I agreed with my friend from Oak Bay when he said the metric system was.... Lots has to be done and we shouldn't be too hasty on it. As has often been said, the Lord must have given very little consideration to the metric system. It has often been said there were 12 disciples, not 10. I trust that the hon. Minister of Education will not be hasty with metric. However, it will come. We're living on the Pacific Rim, and regardless of whether we want it or not, we should be up with the times. It's true that a great amount of our exports are going elsewhere.

But that's not what I got up to say. We must, in the system of education, remove the restrictions on opportunity. We have restrictions on opportunity in our system today. Right through our school system there are restrictions, and the ministry should address itself very sincerely to the matter of making the system work for the students and not the students for the system. There are too many places in the system, particularly in the secondary schools, where children must have certain subjects in order to proceed further. Now there are reasons for some of this, but I think that we have come to the point where the system is no longer serving the students, and the system should serve the students.

My express purpose in speaking today is something that I know is very dear to the minister's heart, and that is in connection with skills training and employment. That is a big issue in our system today. We do not have enough skills in our students. I think our vocational institute, PVI and others, should be teaching skills, and we should ride roughshod over anyone who wants to stand in the way, whether it be union, management or anyone that says to us: "No, you can't train any more mechanics; we have too many. You can't train any more machinists; we have too many."

I think the educational system should ride roughshod over anyone that will stand in the way of our students and our people receiving education skills. I can tell you of a case — the numbers are legion — of a large manufacturer in the Fraser Valley who had a large order with Russia and needed 150 machinists immediately. They were not available in Canada, and finally they had to obtain them from the United States.

It would have been easier to have students with the basic knowledge — not necessarily the technical knowledge, the full knowledge — in lathes or machine handling. We're trying now to serve and say that we don't need certain skills. We should base our system on the principle that everyone graduating from a high school must have a skill. If we did that today, instead of our unemployment being in the ratio of 8 and 9 percent, we'd be down to 5 and 4 percent, because the problem is not jobs; the problem is skills.

I urge the minister to get on this quickly and let us stop playing around with the fact that we have too many advancing. We need training for our people in all the mechanical skills, in all the repairman skills. Everyone should have a skill before they leave high school and a good one too. We should be positive that they have passed it the same as they pass arithmetic, the same as they pass English. They must leave with a skill.

MR. BARBER: Would the minister care to reply?

It feels just a little risky following the member for Dewdney, who wants Skylab to fall on Victoria. It should fall on Victoria, he says. It's no wonder Social Credit are so unpopular in the capital city. The government Whip actually proposes that Skylab fall on the heads of the people in the capital city. If it has to fall anywhere in the province, he wants it to fall here. My goodness!

There are two subjects I would like to discuss today. I've discussed them in previous estimates in previous years, and I'm pleased that there has been some improvement in one of the fields. The two topics that I want to refer to again with some new information and some new argument, to which I hope to hear in reply some new responses on the part of the minister, are in regard to music education in the schools and, more generally, education for gifted children in the school system of British Columbia.

In talking about music education, there has been unhappily no great improvement. The minister has occasionally sent along notes indicating these and those grants to the Vancouver and the Victoria schools of music. That's a good thing. It's a good thing that the conservatories of music in Victoria and Vancouver are being supported by the public purse because they perform an important public service. But it is, I think, still not adequate by any means or any stretch.

What we lack is that quality of pushing, moving, competent leadership that says to school districts across the province that music education is just as important as physical education. It's just as important to know about the civilizing joys of music as it is to know about the civilizing joys of poetry or football.

It's just as important in the human scheme of things that the enormous — and I'm sure the chairman would agree — civilizing value of music in human enterprise be promoted everywhere. Well, it's not being promoted in the school districts like it could and should be. Band programs tend always to be particularly successful where good band instructors together with a school board that cares about these things are willing to lease or loan equipment to the students, and combine and produce a program.

It's fairly easy for music educators in British Columbia to make a strong case in favour of band music and it usually succeeds where the boards and the educators locally want them to succeed. It does so, however, through no great fault of the Ministry of Education itself. Perhaps the minister or

[ Page 619 ]

the deputy can correct me, but I'm not aware that the ministry employs even one person, even one whose job it is across the province to promote music education in the schools. I'm not aware there is even one.

Well, other jurisdictions do have full-time music educators within the provincial or the state ministries, the duty of whom is to guarantee that school boards who chose to have access to all of the literature, all of the teaching and training resources, all of the instruments and, more importantly, almost emotionally all of the commitment that is required, push forward with a vigorous and able program in the field of music education.

Why don't we do it? Well, in part, I suppose, because it seems too snobby, too elitist, too aloof from the general course of ordinary human education. Why don't we do it? Because some people may think that it is not as important, perhaps, as learning how to type or learning how to add or learning how to engage in safe chemistry experiments in grade 11. In a sense, there's an argument that can be made there, I suppose. Those basic, those mechanical and those personal skills are vital, and I don't question or challenge any of them.

But I would also argue as forcefully as I can that in our particular world a music education denies trespass, opens boundaries and horizons, challenges wit and imagination in such a fashion as no other enterprise ever does. Music is the most honest language in the world. Music is, forgiving the cliche, that particular language which omits and transcends every ordinary human boundary. Music moves people around the planet more decently, more formidably and more generously than almost any other force one can name.

Science, one can argue, is from time to time put to a bad purpose. Science and the discipline and skill of it, from time to time, ends in a bad result. One can argue that there are many features of human education, the final consequences of which are to diminish human possibility, human happiness and human relations in every aspect. The same simply cannot be said for music. Music boldly and generously enlivens and illuminates good human feeling and good human respect around the planet. It does these things. It is most important that whenever we find at any level some decent human enterprise that brings people together, it should be supported and encouraged. One of those enterprises is music. The expression of one of those human enterprises supported by the state could be an office of music education within the Ministry of Education. It would collaborate with school boards, identify and move on opportunities to enhance music education across the province. It's a vital skill.

It's a vital choice, which is, by and large, open to most of our citizens. There are very few people whose hearing is so impaired that they can't hear intervals. There are very few people whose problems with physical coordination are so severe that they cannot play at least one or two instruments. There are very few people who could not enjoy singing with others. I don't mean to trivialize any of those aspects of a good music education by describing them in small and literal ways, but I want instead to identify small and literal fashions that people could take advantage of to establish and restate their own human connections with all the other people in the world who enjoy music and recognize its educational value.

There are some school districts that do recognize the value and aggressively promote its work. I think of, for instance, the school district in Prince George. For instance, sir, I'm sure you'll be familiar with the Suzuki strings program in your own district. I was in Prince George two years ago. I have a particular interest in such programs, having gone through a few of them myself. I was absolutely delighted with and impressed by the quality of the Suzuki program in that district. How did it happen? It happened because one or two trustees, particularly the much respected Dr. Charlie Boyd, who is also a string player himself — with whom I play duets occasionally; I know he's active in the symphony up there as well — took it upon himself to make a case and a cause for improved music education. He recognized that successful band programs aren't adequate, admirable as they may be; that strings programs are important too in that district. Now you enjoy a Suzuki teacher or two, I believe — correct me if I'm wrong. You enjoy a Suzuki program, which, for the benefit of members who might not know it, is nowadays probably the single most effective means of introducing very young children to string instruments, also to singing, but principally to string instruments.

To the best of my knowledge, the Prince George school district — I'm informed by one of its trustees — received absolutely no encouragement whatever from the Ministry of Education. Congratulations to Prince George, but shame on the ministry. A music education is as important at least as any other form of a young person's education at any step along the way. But in a day when tight budgets mean all you can teach is the three Rs, in a day when all that education means is that you've got to be able to count, so you can make sure your accountant didn't cheat you at the end of the month, we are omitting vitally and irrevocably a means of challenging young people to recognize and vivify one important statement of the heart. Music makes that statement. Music does wonderfully and powerfully make those connections among people. An office of music education in the ministry could help school districts identify those needs, create those programs, obtain those moneys and establish those successes. It's a good thing that the ministry supports the Victoria and Vancouver schools of music, but there is no equivalent school in the Kootenays. There is no equivalent school in the riding of my colleague for Atlin (Mr. Passarell). There are no equivalent opportunities in many school districts in the province. It is unfair and unreasonable that talented young people outside of the lower mainland and the lower Island areas who enjoy music and appreciate its value should be so denied. It's not fair. It's not reasonable. It shouldn't be allowed to occur.

I want to talk as well about education for the gifted, and hope the minister will reply. In connection with the subject of music education, there was a wonderful concert on CBC-FM last weekend. The minister may have heard it. This particular concert consisted of one of the concerti written by Rossini. He wrote it at the age of 12. He was a young person whose talents were identified at an appropriate and vital time in his life. He was a young person whose particular talents lay in the field of music, and who, at the age of 12, wrote a concerto, which 114 years later is still being played and enjoyed. Rossini was lucky. He grew up in a family that had the financial resources and the human expectations that allowed him to push the burden of his gift to its limit.

Once more we find in the field of education for the gifted the miserable reply of some people, taking a

[ Page 620 ]

miserably red-neck attitude that it's too elitist and it's too snobby. "It's not as important as this or that. The gifted can look after themselves." If they're so smart they'll always find a way to make it. The tragic fact is that that's simply not true. Often among the problems that gifted children have is the problem of dealing with their peers' disrespect, ridicule, or simple misunderstanding of the nature of the particular intellectual or artistic gifts that a young person may have. Accordingly, the ability of that uncommonly gifted child to express whatever miracle it is that moves them inside is actually diminished and finally denied by virtue of the emotional pressure against that expression and against that success.

How many bright kids do you know, Mr. Chairman, who've gone through school mocked and ridiculed at every stage of the way for being eggheads, for being just a little bit too bright, too quick, too fast and too willing and able to learn? The emotional result is often diminution of the human spirit, a poisoning of human inquiry, a crippling of human excitement and intellectual curiosity that otherwise makes that kid burn.

One of the reasons why it's so important to encourage gifted kids is because it's so frequently the case that emotionally it's hard for them to act on their intellectual and artistic gifts. They are denied those chances most often of all by their peers. They're made to feel freaky; they're made to feel peculiar; they're made to feel unwelcome. It's not good enough to think or to imagine that because gifted kids are so bright, they're always going to take care of themselves. It just ain't so. It never was, with the exception of a few rare and happy cases. The general case is that gifted kids become always and finally counted on to express everything they've got, to offer society everything they've got within them, to offer finally to the working world every human improvement that could result.

There are other administrations in North America that recognize the problems that gifted kids have expressing their gifts. I think, for instance, of school boards in California. In June 1978 the official journal of the California School Boards Association published a volume called "Educating the Gifted." This journal recounts in some 30 pages in a very simple, overview fashion the remarkable steps forward taken by the educational authorities in the state of California, whose population, after all, is equal almost to that of Canada.

In one American state alone, this is what they've been able to do. I ask the minister why, proportionately, we can't consider some of these things. I want to say again that there's been some improvement in the last year. I follow very closely the minister's announcements, and I'm aware of the program just now initiated in School District 61, my own in Victoria, currently taking place in Esquimalt. But in California they have in a serious and enterprising way, in a financially committed and intellectually competent way, been looking at the problems of educating gifted kids since 1961. In that year, they enacted a program called the Mentally Gifted Minor Program. "Minor" refers to adolescents. This legislation provided in 1961 a total then of $40 for each gifted student for both identification and program expenses. In the first year of that program's enactment, 1962-63, some 50,000 children in grades K through 12 participated in programs, for a total cost of $1.3 million. In 1975-76 that was improved with subsequent legislation, and now some $100 per student is offered by the state of California for the identification and support of intellectually and artistically gifted kids and the programs within school districts that encourage them.

In 1974, 1975 and 1976 additional legislation has been proposed to make more general and comprehensive changes within the framework of administrative law as it pertains to education in California; that legislation on each occasion was vetoed by the Governor of the state. In California 348 school districts have programs for intellectually or artistically gifted children. This is, in fact, some 85 percent of the total in the state of California. Of the 348 districts that provide programs for the gifted, 183 have identified and served over 3 percent of their total admissions, in some form or another, as being gifted.

There are some school districts that have an uncommonly high recognition rate. These are districts — I think particularly of the one in Palo Alto — where an enormously disproportionate number of young people are identified as gifted, or simply act as gifted. Their parents are heavily involved in the intellectual and academic communities in and around Palo Alto and the Bay Area. These are kids whose parents bring them up and expect of them the very finest in intellectual pursuit. In districts like Palo Alto the percentage of young people involved in the programs reaches 8, 9 and in some cases 10 percent. However, more often it is down around the 2 or 3 percent mark. The federal government in the United States of America, as well the minister knows — and I discussed this last time — enacted a program within the office of education that provides federal funds, both matching and original, for the identification and support of gifted children and the programs that serve them. What do we have in British Columbia as a provincial initiative and as provincial funding for programs for the gifted? As I read these estimates, Mr. Chairman, we have nothing. It's not that we haven't reached the 1961 level of $40 a head that California had or the 1975 level of $100 a head that the same state had. The provincial government provides precisely nothing in the way of special programs and special identification for these kids.

We omit opportunities when we omit programs like the one that California has. We omit opportunities for some of those brightest and best students to go as far as their intellectual vigour and curiosity and their own personal demand for excellence will take them. We omit all of those choices when we omit anything like this kind of support and recognition. How can one tell we omit this? Simply by looking at the results of inaction. Only occasionally from school board to school board, where once again local leadership provides the thrust and the motion, do we find anything like significant examples for programs for gifted kids. How admirable it is that in California more than 300 of their school districts recognize and act upon these needs. How shameful it is that in our own so very few even present the case verbally, much less act upon it programmatically.

The minister, reasonably enough, boasts from time to time about the commitment that he personally feels toward education in the sciences. I respect that. I don't challenge it at all; it's absolutely vital. I would argue that there are other aspects of human education that are just as vital, but I wouldn't challenge that one. The minister will surely realize, as someone who has been through a university system where even at that level giftedness is difficult sometimes to identify and even more difficult to sponsor, that there are problems inherent in devising a system that

[ Page 621 ]

identifies and moves on that particular need. I'm not arguing that we develop some — if you will — state-funded and state-controlled ghettos for artistically and intellectually able young people. Every kid should have the same chance. Every kid should have the same opportunity. Every kid should have the same resource available to her or to him. That's absolutely certain and vital.

Additionally the mistakes made during these cycles of interest and lack of it that we've seen before in programs for the gifted should not be repeated. Those mistakes consisted of physically removing gifted kids from the ordinary classroom and putting them off in some special setting. There are many more bright and effective ways of dealing with gifted kids than to physically divorce them from their own age group and from their own friends; no one argues that either. I argue instead that experiences like that underway in California since 1961 are surely of some value here in British Columbia. There are surely experiments underway elsewhere that we can learn from and apply here in British Columbia. There are surely others who have studied the matter at least as ably as we — perhaps even more ably — and they have something to tell us. I know that it is a bitter, frustrating and diminishing experience for gifted young people to try and move through a school system that prefers to think they don't even exist, because that would, if you will, discernible an administration from keeping its administrative house in order. It's surely easier always to talk about mainstreaming ordinary kids, if "ordinary" is the word that applies, than it is to identify and move with the particularly bright and able among them.

I very strongly feel that the failure of our administration and the failure of school boards as well, collaboratively, to find out who these kids are, to help them move as far as they can, essentially exiles and finally kills altogether the gifts of most of those kids. It does so for the very simple reason that emotionally they are not able to fortify themselves against the laughter and the ridicule, or the simple cold disinterest of those around them. A lot of kids have been disappointed thereby. They will continue to be disappointed every year hereafter until the province, as the leading educational authority in British Columbia — the government itself — accepts corporate and personal responsibility to work collaboratively with school boards, to fund jointly with school boards and to act immediately and effectively with school boards to develop competent and decent programs for gifted kids.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I feel very strongly about these things. I've stood up every year since I got elected to talk about these things. They are important issues for several thousand young people in British Columbia. So, too, is the broader issue of music education.

If the minister has good news to report or good plans to announce, it would be most pleasant to hear the report and the announcements now. Otherwise, who knows, I may have to come back next year and ask once again that these things be considered.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that next year we can count on an impassioned speech by the member, all in a good cause. I certainly subscribe to his general sentiments. Naturally the member will not be satisfied with the measures that we are taking; but that's as it is bound to be, and perhaps as it should be.

First of all, though, we should explain to the member that we are making progress. In our ministry we don't hire specialists for music or for physical education for any skill or any discipline. When we need to get people to take care of a particular program in order to get something launched, then we get people by secondment. This is how we handle the development of new curricula and any specialty programs that we are introducing. Indeed, this is the route we have gone in trying to establish a program for the gifted.

Now what we have done, especially for music education — which is new in the last year or two — is to provide funds for the community music schools, which run a parallel and very effective way of bringing these particular skills out in the youngsters. We do, of course, have a very modest program of music in the schools, which is there in a very minor way in the core curriculum, but which, happily, is enriched by most school districts. So we've just got to continue to plug away at it. But our style is not to have a specialist for this, a specialist for that, a specialist for the other thing within the ministry. I hope the member understands that's why we don't have any particular music person permanently on the staff.

With respect to the gifted, obviously we get a greater dividend from challenging these people than we do any other group in society. Therefore it behooves society to make sure they are challenged. My problem, as the Minister of Education, was getting across the concept that we ought to challenge everybody in the school system. That was the whole thrust behind the core curriculum. Now we've got that message across, and we are now taking it as given that every youngster in the school system ought to be challenged — and that, of course, includes the gifted.

The only remaining problem is how to systematize it, because this has never been done before. We've had inadequate and almost haphazard programs of one kind or another for gifted youngsters scattered throughout the system. Now we're trying to get a regular, understandable program that can be delivered by every teacher in the regular classroom in British Columbia. There should be no teacher unprepared to deal in a special way with gifted youngsters in his or her own classroom. That's another difficulty that we are having. People are unwilling to accept that it is the responsibility of each teacher in each classroom to be able to take on gifted people and, to some extent, those who are slow learners as well.

Our approach, then, is to try and prepare special curriculum materials which get the job of challenge across, and which lay it out as the responsibility of every teacher in every classroom. That takes a while, but this fall we are, as the member knows, doing what I've described as an extensive pilot plan — three grades, not in every school but in most schools. And I can assure you that as soon as our curriculum materials are tested and prove themselves to be effective, we will expand this to all schools and all grades.

I'm right with the member. Maybe he doesn't agree with either the speed or the comprehensiveness of what we are doing, but I hope he will accept the direction.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I sent the minister a letter about a study that I asked about. I just wonder when it started, how long it will take, and whether it will have any bearing. And could I have my letter back?

[ Page 622 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: You are going to get it back, Mr. Member, with some notes on it.

MR. STUPICH: That's fine.

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer — and I'm sorry I didn't have it at my fingertips — is that we set up a study on school counselling last fall that had a wide variety of people on it. While this was a local program of the ministry, we wanted to see whether it would fit in with the general context of a whole rationalization we are developing for the the role of counsellors in the schools. Their report is due this fall, and then I think we'll be able to try and match what is being done in Nanaimo with what is felt to be appropriate for the whole school system.

In this letter that you're going to get back there will be some notes about the makeup of that committee and the talents of the people who are preparing of the report.

MRS. DAILLY: Following up on what the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has been bringing to our attention for a number of years — and I think he and the minister would agree — the important thing to do with gifted children or children who have special learning needs is to diagnose them and discover what their needs are, and who is gifted. In this area, Mr. Chairman, this minister has been very, very slow to take any action. I find it rather interesting that once again he was on his feet saying that it wasn't until he became Minister of Education for British Columbia that any child in this province was challenged in the classroom. That again is another insult to all the teachers in British Columbia and to the teachers that we've all had through our own years. Think back to your own teachers that we were all exposed to through the years — there were good teachers and bad teachers. I personally can remember many teachers I had who did challenge me.

Once again we have the arrogance of that minister, who is suggesting that only he alone has been able to challenge the children of British Columbia. Once again it's a lot of flim-flam. We find here in one of his latest news releases this minister speaking of the need for special education for children with learning disabilities. He states that as part of his whole new program for children with learning disabilities, his ministry will support the services of the children's diagnostic centre. Mr. Chairman, that centre was in existence when the NDP were in government, and the NDP did support it financially. It was when this minister took office and when the Social Credit became government that the funding stopped. But now the minister has said he's going to have a new program. What is his new program? It's just following up on something that the NDP had started.

But I'm not here to go back into that, Mr. Speaker. What I want to talk about is where we're going from here in certain areas. On the Open Learning Institute, I wonder if the minister could answer the question of how wide a coverage and what group of people will be able to benefit from this Open Learning Institute.

In some areas of British Columbia, notably in parts of the Peace River, there is a great amount of illiteracy. May I say we probably have it right down here — anywhere. We can see it across there, looking at the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot). The point is, Mr. Chairman, illiteracy does prevail in our province, and there are pockets in this province where, I understand, the illiteracy rate still hits almost 30 percent.

I think we're very pleased to know that we're going to have a system that will provide a sort of flexible open-learning situation. But is it just going to be able to give people their degrees or is it also going to give people who are illiterate an opportunity to be able to be given the basics in learning — how to read — even if they are 25, 30 or 40? It seems to me that the Open Learning Institute could do a great service, using the mechanism it has across this province, on addressing itself to that group of citizens also. But the past history of this minister always seems to suggest an elitism, and I am wondering if he has turned his attention at all to these people who, through no fault of their own, cannot read or write even though they are adults. I hope he can tell us if the Open Learning Institute will address itself to that area also.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we understand that the ministry is thinking once again of amalgamating some school districts. I was wondering if, perhaps, when he does answer us, he could give us any idea of how many school districts the ministry is thinking of moving to from the present number. I think the school trustees of this province would be most interested in knowing if the ministry has any projected figures in its collective head on that at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I have another point that I would like to just discuss briefly with the minister. It's the matter of independent schools again, which I know we have addressed at considerable length. I think the minister is quite aware of my position on aid to independent schools — I have been quite clear on it. I want to reiterate that, to my mind, the recent case which came up in Vancouver, where the Catholic teacher was fired, was certainly tied in very much with aid to independent schools. My question to the minister is: what terms of reference have you given to the inspector for independent schools, who you said today, I believe, is going to visit that school? I think we'd be interested in knowing what his terms of reference are.

One final thing on the aid to independent schools. As I said, my position, is quite clear. I have never equivocated on that issue, but I am very confused about the minister's position. I have a letter in front of me, written and signed by Pat McGeer, in answer to a question I had put in writing to the minister regarding student loan assistance to institutions such as Trinity College.

I believe they should not come under the student aid program. I am rather surprised that this minister, who has spent so many years advocating aid to independent schools, happens to agree with me in this instance. I wonder if he could explain the paragraph in his letter to me, in response to a student who attends Trinity College and was inquiring about the B.C. student assistance. This is the answer: "This government would find it extremely difficult to justify the expenditure of public funds for studies at private institutions."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps members would like to be identified by name. Or perhaps they would like to just cut out the private conversations to reasonably limited amount, because it is difficult for the Chair.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm glad someone is listening to this particular paragraph. I would like to read it and remind the House it came from the Minister of Education of this province. He states: "This government would find it

[ Page 623 ]

extremely difficult to justify the expenditure of public funds for studies at private institutions at which it has no control over the quality of education. In addition, in the area of religion, it would be impossible to determine what types of denominational endeavours should qualify and also undesirable to even attempt it."

On one hand we have a minister who advocates giving private funds to the children who are within the public school years. Yet, on the other hand, we have a statement, almost a philosophy from this minister, which says he couldn't justify expending public funds to private institutions where there is no control over the quality of education. There is a section of the Independent Schools Support Act which allows an independent school to receive aid without government control over the quality of its education.

I would appreciate very much having the minister explain to us whether he has changed his mind. Maybe the Premier isn't aware that the minister has stated in this letter to me that he does not believe that government should give aid to private institutions. So perhaps you have become the leader of this now, Mr. Minister, and not the Premier.

HON. MR. McGEER: I will answer the member's points very quickly. First of all, I wasn't aware that we had major pockets of illiteracy in British Columbia; but if we do, we should identify them and move in to try and make some progress. The whole idea of the Open Learning Institute is self-study, and if you can't read or write you're in a pretty difficult position to manage this kind of activity. That's why we do adult basic education through the colleges themselves, where there's an opportunity for individuals to get the traditional type of education. They just couldn't manage self-learning. I might say that adult basic education is the largest single program of our colleges.

With respect to the independent schools, we've been over and over and over this, and I don't think we're going to throw any new light on it. But with respect to the post-secondary institutions, the members should clearly understand that we do inspect the independent schools; we do insist that the public curriculum be given; we do insist that the Provincial Learning Assessment Program be administered. Therefore, as far as independent schools are concerned, we are monitoring the content and the quality.

With respect to instructions I have given to the inspector, I haven't been able to give him any yet — he's on vacation. But he will inspect that school keeping in mind the provisions of the Independent Schools Support Act, which are to look at the program side of things and to make sure, as the Act states, that prejudice and all the other things that are listed are not part of their teaching program.

When we talk about post-secondary institutions and the teaching of religion, we're into the situation where a number of religious colleges — that is colleges that prepare people for the ministry, are seeking public funds. We give no public funds at the post-secondary level to institutions, with two exceptions. One is the religious colleges that are affiliated with UBC and therefore give religious courses to university students attending public institutions. That's long-standing and they get it because they're affiliated. Trinity Western has received a pass-through of federal funds but receives no provincial funding. So when I write as I did in that paragraph, it is not inconsistent at all with what we give to the independent schools because there we're monitoring both program and performance.

MR. COCKE: I rather thought I was going to have a little time, and I don't want to disappoint my good friend the opposite Whip (Mr. Mussallem), so I'm going to take a very short poke at the Minister of Education with respect to Jericho Hill School. Since the last time I spoke in this House on the question of Jericho Hill School for the deaf and recommended that there be some thought given to the whole process around profoundly deaf people, and also suggested that the minister re-think his whole idea of mainstreaming in that particular area because of the lack of communication and the ability to communicate that does occur in that particular situation, I have asked any number of people intimately involved and have yet to find anybody of any stature in this particular area who is in tandem with the minister on this particular situation. As a matter of fact most people involved with the deaf feel that he has made a tremendous mistake and that the deaf have suffered.

Beyond that, in those areas where he has mainstreamed they lack funds. I wonder sometimes when I see this minister's real lack of concern over public education, over anything other than areas of science and technology, if we wouldn't be better served on Wednesday if the minister would strap on a baseball mitt and go out and catch Skylab for us as it comes down. I am sure with his scientific bent he will know exactly where it is going to land and he'll get out there and make a marvelous catch. If he could use a little help, he could get it from the mouth of the minister opposite who's making all those rude remarks. I keep forgetting that you are Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I'm sorry, I have difficulty in identifying the minister across the way. He's been the minister of so many things, and failed at virtually everything.

I'm really sorry that people involved with the deaf, and people who are profoundly deaf, particularly young students, have been so terribly disappointed by this minister. If I need any better proof, anybody reading the Deaf Advocate or talking to people who have been through the system or are directly involved with the system now will tell you that the minister is not only underfunding when he mainstreams, but he is letting them down by his mainstreaming efforts.

It's just too bad. The minister is deaf in this particular situation, but I imagine that will continue until such time as the Premier relieves him of his responsibilities. He's got a bunch of very ambitious backbenchers there who would just love to move in and take over. I see an old school principal and former superintendent smiling and smiling. I know that he feels more than competent to take over this minister's work.

In any event, I wish the minister would re-think this particular situation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Vote 67, which I hope we'll come to, shows that we've got 163 students at Jericho and 58 in the rest of the system. The amount set aside for them in this vote is $2.9 million, up 11 percent from last year. Probably British Columbia is more generous to these people in financial terms than perhaps any jurisdiction in the world. I don't begrudge the money at all. I don't think there is any way, however, that in this legislative chamber we are going to settle the deaf war.

MR. KING: I want to raise a brief matter with the minister regarding the junior secondary school at Armstrong. They have a rather unique problem; perhaps the

[ Page 624 ]

minister is familiar with it. The school occupies Crown land and, I believe, has done since about 1903. The building is obsolete and they're in a position where they either involve themselves in major renovations or build a completely new facility, which they propose to do. As the present site is not adequate in terms of land for a play field and gymnasium, and so on, they are proposing to build their new facilities in conjunction with the senior secondary school, where there is adequate space. The problem is that their current facility resides on Crown land, under a Crown lease, I believe.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is familiar with the problem. He and I have had a number of discussions bout it. My predecessor in this area had some discussions and some correspondence with the minister, too. In order to sell the existing school, the land has to be deeded over to them so that they can realize some compensation for it, and that may contribute to the cost of constructing the new facility.

They've occupied it, as I understand it, since the early 1900s. What I'm asking is whether the Minister of Education would apprise himself of this particular problem and perhaps consult with his colleague, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, to see whether or not an agreement can't be expedited and the land which, as I say, has been utilized for education purposes, be deeded over to that school district so that they can proceed with planning new facilities to bring education in that area up to a standard with the rest of the province. I would sincerely appreciate the minister, his deputy and his colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing addressing themselves to this jurisdictional problem which has bedevilled them thus far and prevented any decisive action by anyone on that side of the House.

I trust that with this knowledge, and the fact that they may discuss it with one another — and come to know each other a little better in the process — an early solution can be found.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We'll look into it.

Vote 62 approved.

Vote 63: ministry services, $5,851,474 — approved.

On vote 64: public schools education, $614,849,031.

MS. SANFORD: I have one very brief question under this vote. Professional and special services has gone up from $1.8 million to over $3 million. This relates to public schools education. Could the minister please give me a brief explanation of that?

HON. MR. McGEER: These, Mr. Chairman, are contracts that are established for people who are working out the curriculum or the assessment programs. Our policy is not to hire permanent people but to bring in by secondment the individuals we need to get the jobs done.

MS. SANFORD: Why would it go up by that much for one year?

HON. MR. McGEER: Because we're doing that much more work, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 64 approved.

Vote 65: post-secondary education — universities, $232,780,581 — approved.

Vote 66: science and technology, $656,100 approved.

Vote 67: post-secondary education — colleges and provincial institutes, $200,697,634 — approved.

Vote 68: student aid programs, $11,831,130 — approved.

Vote 69: Teachers' pensions Fund, $40,470,000 — approved.

Vote 70: metric conversion, $352,942 — approved.

Vote 71: advances re rural school taxes — net, $10 approved.

Vote 72: independent schools, $9,185,749 — approved.

Vote 73: building occupancy charges, $3,976,000 — approved.

Vote 74: computer and consulting charges, $1,365,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

METRO TRANSIT OPERATING
COMPANY ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Metro Transit Operating Company Act.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act.

Bill 25 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented the annual report for year ending December 31, 1978, for the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

[ Page 625 ]

APPENDIX

5 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources the following questions:

1. How many tons of copper concentrates were produced in 1978?

2. What was (a) the estimated value of these concentrates and (b) the royalty return to the Province?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. Preliminary estimate for 1978 shows production of copper in copper concentrates to be 274 631 252 kg.

"2. (a) Valued at $418,182,723; (b) no royalties were paid on copper in 1978 as the Mineral Royalties Act has been terminated. However, Mineral Resource Tax has been assessed in place of royalties, and the amount assessed for the 1978 corporate fiscal years on the 10 major copper producers was as follows:

Net tax assessed — $6,060,588.07."

6 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With reference to the Peace River power projects —

1. What is the total amount spent to date, including generation and transmission?

2. What is the latest estimated total cost of the project?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. $746,028,788 to February 28, 1979 (includes contract litigation settlements).

"2. $762,839,457."

7 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With reference to Columbia River power development financing —

1. What is the total expenditure on construction of storage projects to date?

2. What are the total expenditures on generation, transformation and transmission facilities to date?

3. What is the estimate of the total amount required to complete the project?

4. What was the total amount, including interest, received under the Columbia River Treaty?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. $599,515,293 to February 28, 1979.

"2. $670,750,938 to February 28, 1979.

"3. $2,464,873.

"4. $479,107,523."