[ Page 2877 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Credit Rating of Municipal Finance Authority.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2877

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Northeastern coal development. Mr. Lauk –– 2877

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 54.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2879

Mr. Lauk –– 2882

Mrs. Dailly –– 2886

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2888

Mr. Lauk –– 2889

Ms. Brown –– 2891

Mr. Cocke –– 2894

Ms. Brown –– 2894

Mr. Lauk –– 2897

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2900

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to be aware of a group visiting the precincts today from the Palmer Junior Secondary School in Richmond. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Barton.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to recognize in our chamber the minister who gave the opening prayer today, first of all to recognize, through him and to all other clergymen who visit, our appreciation for the prayers each and every day in our House, and also to recognize Mr. J.W. Robertson's fifty-ninth anniversary, which he and his wife celebrated last Sunday.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome some students who are with us today. They are from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in your constituency. They have had a tour of the legislative building, and they are visiting the galleries. We are pleased to see them with us. They are accompanied by their teachers, Alderman Karl Moser and Mr. Jack Godwin. We'd like to ask the House to welcome them.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome my cousin Donna Fedorowich, from Edmonton, Alberta, who is with us today. She is with the Canadian Library Association, which was on the west coast this weekend.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today three people who are extremely interested in energy projects proposed for this province. They are Malcolm Crockett, Martin Rossander from Powell River and Sue Brown. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

CREDIT RATING OF
MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement, with your indulgence.

I am very pleased to be able to announce that we have received word today that Moody's Investors Service of New York, which a little over one month ago awarded its AAA rating to British Columbia and British Columbia Hydro for the first time, has now underlined it with an AAA rating awarded to the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia.

I know that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), along with other members of this House, will join in congratulations to the chairman of MFABC, Jim Stuart of Kelowna, and the trustees of the MFA on this outstanding milestone in the Finance Authority's development. May I also say personally, as a former chairman of the Finance Authority, that I am particularly pleased to be able to comment on this matter and to announce it first to the Legislature of British Columbia.

I think it is fair to say that Moody's has awarded this latest AAA on the basis of the province's credit rating as well as on the financial status of the member municipalities and regional districts in British Columbia. I think that we can take this as another tribute by the New York financial community with respect to the management abilities of this province, this government and of regional and municipal governments throughout British Columbia.

I would like to quote just one sentence from the comments by Moody's Investors Service which accompanied the announcement of the new MFA rating: "Improved economic position and provincial prospects provide support for the rating revision of the MFA from AA to AAA." I think those are words which I may be forgiven for dwelling on for just a moment. considering all they mean to the people of this province and to this Legislature.

It was not long after the creation of the MFA to provide for the collective capital requirements of B.C.'s regional districts and their member municipalities that Moody's awarded its first rating to the Municipal Finance Authority, because at that time they did undertake a Canada issue. That rating was a single A. It's been a very satisfying experience to watch and to assist the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia to grow from a fledgling — almost an experimental — organization into a mature body representing this province's very important local governments, which have achieved and — I say this very positively — earned this top financial rating.

Mr. Speaker, one further remark. With the clear fact of a recession in the United States now evident, a rating such as this is even more significant, and I congratulate British Columbia's municipalities and regional districts on this tremendous achievement.

Oral Questions

NORTHEASTERN COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Premier. The government and private companies have agreed on a price for a tonne of coal from the northeast coal project. What is that price to the Japanese?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll take that question as notice.

MR. LAUK: What is the total cost to deliver a tonne of coal to the Japanese? That total cost, I assume, will include operating costs per tonne per annum, transportation costs and debt retirement of capital costs.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The delivery cost for a tonne of coal will depend on a number of factors. The mining costs of the private companies will vary from property to property. The rail charges charged by the CNR from Prince George to Prince Rupert and the throughput charges for off-loading the coal at the Port of Prince Rupert are to be, I hope, fairly developed by the federal government through the port authority.

MR. LAUK: Am I to take it then from the Premier's answer that if the costs have not been determined by the government, the price that's now being communicated to Japanese customers is not a price upon which they can rely for a long-term contract?

[ Page 2878 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: The customers can rely upon those figures that will be offered to them by the coal companies. The coal companies themselves will negotiate their costs with the various components that I've advised this House and the member of. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a number of years of work have gone into this proposal. The companies have had previous contact with the negotiating companies for the Japanese steel industry and I am hopeful that they'll be able to come home to British Columbia with signed agreements that will mean thousands of jobs for British Columbians both in the development of the infrastructure and in the private sector, particularly in the development of the mines, for those who will work in the facilities, whether it's in transportation, mining or offloading, and also the spinoff benefit of the multiplier effect on the number of other jobs that it will create for British Columbians and Canadians.

I think it's important to note that this project is of a magnitude both in real terms in numbers of people involved, and in the role it can play in Canada's international balance of payment in the gross dollars that will be flowing into our country, because the deficit on the balance of payments from time to time is of considerable worry. This will greatly strengthen not only British Columbia, because the action is here, but the total Canadian economy as well. Also I'd point out that employment opportunities are for all Canadians in British Columbia, and this project will be among the many job opportunities that are taking place in this province which have given us the greatest in-migration — that is, people moving from other parts of Canada — that we've had in many, many years.

MR. LAUK: The minister has indicated that the costs will vary from property to property. Mr. Speaker, we have information from the private companies that the cost variable from property to property will be averaged to determine the cost of production of a tonne of coal from all of the projects of the northeast project and will not vary from property to property.

In any event, we are aware that the government has been involved for a number of years in working out the cost figures, and we are aware that the provincial government officials have these cost figures. I repeat my question. What is the total cost to deliver a tonne of coal to the Japanese, including operating costs, transportation and debt retirement of capital costs? These figures are available to the Premier.Could he provide them to the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I've taken the question as notice.

MR. LAUK: Does the cost per tonne, as calculated by the provincial officials, include the provincial government investment in the townsite, additional roads and the production or delivery of Hydro?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Because these are detailed questions that require very detailed answers, I will take those questions as notice and provide such information to the House at a time in the future.

MR. D’ARCY: Can the Premier tell us what freight rates he has been able to negotiate, or if he has been able to negotiate a freight rate, with the Canadian National Railways in order to recover the provincial government's investment in rolling stock, rail construction and upgrading? It will be necessary to move coal from northeastern coal to whatever coal port the provincial government decides to use.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps I might advise the member that any discussions have been held by officials from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business, and as such, beyond being the broad policy concepts and the great goals of building British Columbia and creating jobs, the negotiations — I shouldn't use the word negotiations — the discussions have been developed by the technical experts advising within the ministry who have a global picture of both the development of the property and the delivery of the coal. Such information — as and when it is available — as can be made available to the public will be. But I must remind the member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that very sensitive negotiations are going on, and I'm sure that member wishes to amend his negative comments against the development of the coal and against jobs that he made on behalf of his party over the last weekend.

MR. D’ARCY: I believe the answer to the question, after all the bombast, was no. However, in view of the fact that the Premier has not reached an overall agreement with the federal government on this project, can we have some assurance that he is at least attempting to reach an agreement with Canadian National Railways on a firm, long-term freight rate for unit trains running on CN tracks to Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There is no need to make an agreement with the government of Canada. British Columbia has the capability of doing those things within the provincial jurisdiction, with a provincial resource and provincial resource revenues from natural gas — to undertake those areas where provincial involvement or rail development are needed. The private companies have the same opportunity to deal with the provincial authorities, provincial rail lines, as they do with CN, who appear to develop their policies separate from those of the federal government. While the government of British Columbia is in a coordinating role, there is a responsibility on both parties — on federal railways, whether it is the CNR or in harbours, and on the private companies — to coordinate their efforts in negotiations. Certainly the province of British Columbia will use such means as we have in moral suasion and discussion to keep the parties together to develop an acceptable price and a fair price for British Columbians, to ensure not only the development of the project but also the employment of the thousands of British Columbians who will now have renewed opportunity when this gigantic project of tremendous importance to our country takes place.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary. The Premier indicated in his answer that there is no need for an agreement on running rights on the CNR tracks to Prince Rupert. That can only mean that the government is now committing itself to running along the BCR lines to Neptune Terminals in North Vancouver. Can the Premier confirm that that is the government's option?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The first member for Vancouver Centre is wrong in his assumption and in the statement he attributed to me. I would ask him to check the Blues.

[ Page 2879 ]

MR. LAUK: The question to the Premier was: what steps has the government taken to assure that a long-term freight rate is firm for unit trains running along the CNR tracks to Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have said that the government has a coordinating role, I'm confident that the company is armed with the type of information — the hard economic figures — and the optimism and enthusiasm and the entrepreneurship that will allow them to conduct the negotiations with the steel companies in Japan, who have made inquiries about British Columbia coal after the initiative taken by this government to open up additional markets for British Columbia products from all regions, particularly the development of this new region that will open up more than the possibility for metallurgical coal and thermal coal and other British Columbia products. The rail link connection will be subject to the standard agreements between railways. There are great precedents for rail lines to cooperate in providing the type of economic costs so that great projects can take place. Commodities move over a number of tracks every day. Commodities move out of the great Okanagan Valley; they move on the CN and they move on the CP, and they move down to the great export markets in the United States on American rail lines. That's the type of transportation cooperation that has always been obvious, and I would have thought that the member for Vancouver Centre would understand that.

MR. LEA: You're full of it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Prince Rupert says I'm full of it. I'm sure he's familiar with whatever he's talking about.

MR. LAUK: The government and private companies have agreed on a price for a tonne of coal from the northeast project. Can we ask what price that would be to the Japanese? We assume that they have a firm price. How can they have a firm price without knowing what the freight rate is for running rights along the CNR line?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The question is taken as notice. Such information will be brought to this House. The member was well aware of that from the first moment he posed his question this afternoon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) says I don't know. Well, Mr. Speaker, the proof of the pudding will be in the results. I know that that member doesn't want this coal deal to succeed. He joins the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and their party in opposing everything positive that this government is doing. It's consistent with the history of a party that opposed the two-river development and other economic development in this province. It's a history of negativism, lack of confidence in the province, refusal to take a leadership position. We all know that the New Democratic Party in this province is negative. Mr. Speaker, we want to know what they stand for.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, a simple question for the Premier. Has the Premier achieved an agreement for running rights with the Canadian National Railways? Have you achieved an agreement with the CNR for running rights on their rail line?

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I assume that the answer is no.

Mr. Speaker, further to the Premier: has the Premier decided to approach the Canadian National Railways to seek an agreement for running rights on their tracks in order to reach the port at Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, again the member for Rossland-Trail, as is the habit of other members on that side such as the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), assumes an answer, hoping that it will be put in Hansard as coming from the government.

I've taken all questions of a technical and detailed nature that make up the coal proposal as notice, and information will be provided to this House in the future.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled answers to questions standing in his name on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 54: minister's office, $191,886.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have the pleasure of introducing these estimates and speaking on them for the first time. I have available in the House today my deputy minister, Walter Hardwick. My three assistant deputy ministers, Andy Soles of post-secondary education, Jim Carter of schools and Jack Fleming of finance will be here as well.

It is a pleasure to present estimates in the amount of slightly over a billion dollars for this new portfolio, which includes the public school system and grants to independent schools, colleges and institutes, but not the universities. This budget is an increase of about 9.2 percent over last year, and that increase reflects this government's commitment to education. The most spectacular increase is in grants-in-aid to post-secondary education, which is up about 18 percent over the past year. This level of funding has been recommended to meet the increased demand for education and training of both school-leavers and adults upgrading themselves and returning to the labour field. I am going to deal at some length with the major features of this, but perhaps I should say a few general words about these estimates and the Education portfolio.

I am not pretending to have a detailed blueprint of the way we should be going in public education. I am going to hold a series of public forums in this province in the fall in which the public will be invited to make representations in addition to the professional groups who are concerned about education. They will be two-pronged — professional meetings in the afternoon and the public meetings in the evening. Rather than proceeding with some major amendments to the

[ Page 2880 ]

Public Schools Act, as I was invited to do when I became minister, I am going to defer that until I've had a chance to get around to every part of the province. I have been doing a fair amount of getting around in the meantime. I've been to all but two of the colleges, a number of the institutes, and I visited about 60 or 70 schools, particularly in the lower mainland, the lower part of Vancouver Island, and some in the north. I have found a pretty positive experience in the classroom, and I've also spent a fair amount of time talking with teachers and students individually. I think that is a very helpful thing for a Minister of Education to do, rather than proceeding with a lot of plans that are on the back burner.

The grants in support of the public schools in these estimates have been increased to stabilize the mill rate. Limiting the increase in the basic levy, we have reversed the trend which started in 1975 that has seen the provincial share of basic education costs reduced and should result now in the local taxpayer paying less than he had anticipated for education. While that is true of the basic education program, I should point out that the overall expenditure to those institutions under me — the public schools, colleges and institutes — is not the traditional 60-40 split which is true with the basic education program of schools. If you take into account the direct grants to the school boards, the homeowner's grants which are earmarked by statute for public education, the capital grants, the direct grants and the cost of the colleges, both in capital and operating terms, the ratio is more like 64 percent provincially and 35 percent locally. Those are figures, of course, which are often not trotted around but I think they have to be recognized. Also, they don't take into account the money the province spends on university education.

Recognizing, however, the hardship of increasing costs of education for those on limited and fixed incomes, the homeowner's grant for the elderly and handicapped receiving GAIN, and veterans also, was increased a further $50. So their portion will be $630. In addition, the province, through these estimates and the surplus bill, is moving to provide increased funding for the education of the severely handicapped, and also language training for refugees. These are two important new initiatives this year.

In the education of severely handicapped children, for the first time the province has recognized a responsibility in making grants to school districts to defray the costs of programs for the severely handicapped. I have had the advantage of going and seeing firsthand some of the excellent handicapped integration programs — if I can call them that — that are taking place in some school districts. It is often mistakenly described as mainstreaming. Of course, it really is not mainstreaming but something quite different; that is, individual integration. The objective is not to try to take someone with a maximum education capacity of grade 3 and mainstream that mentally handicapped student with others of his age level. The objective is to allow him to function socially on a day-to-day basis with his peers, and not to isolate him from other children. This is working extremely well in a number of school districts.

In the area of language training for refugees, this has really reached massive proportions in the past year, particularly in the Vancouver school district. In a number of the schools that I visited in the east end of Vancouver the predominant population is non-Caucasian. A great many exciting programs of language education for Asian immigrants are taking place there now. Recognizing that that creates an additional burden to the local school district, special grants were made to the city of Vancouver to defray the educational cost over and above the average per-pupil cost in that school district.

I am also firmly of the opinion that the federal government has very important and real responsibilities in this field. While it has recognized some of these responsibilities in providing language funding, that funding has been limited, unfortunately, to full-time English language students. In my view, it does not recognize that we have many adult immigrants in this province who are in need of English language training who are not able to become full-time students but must take their training on a part-time basis. I am thinking particularly of wives and working parents.

I was in Ottawa last week and had discussions with both the Secretary of State and the minister of manpower. I hope that I made some distance down the line persuading them that the federal government should accept some comprehensive financial responsibilities for our new Canadians, at least in areas like Vancouver where they have major impact, and provide funding not just for full-time students but for a range of social services initially, following which, after about a three-year period, the province could then assume its constitutional responsibilities.

In any event, under the handicapped education program this year we will be providing this additional funding. Also we will be providing additional funding to school districts for refugee education in English to the extent of about $1.7 million.

The grants to independent schools this year were up from a little over $9 million to $10.9 million. That figure will continue to increase where the average cost per pupil in the school districts increases. Since it is based on a figure of 30 percent of the average per-pupil cost, as that per-pupil cost goes up there will be some increases. There have been no changes in the legislation, but the grants went up slightly. I am very proud of that legislation and the provision that the government makes to assist the independent schools. One of the reasons I am proud of it is that it is not a system designed to take away their independence but a system that allows them to receive, if they wish, financial aid that allows them to pay their teachers good salaries, and it gives them some security over and above that of their own donors and parents. It also, of course, helps keep down the parental fees without government control.

All this funding is important to the well-being of the education system. Without this funding the good teachers, instructors and administrators, the fine buildings and equipment that we provide, and the various student services would not be in place. Programs are the raison d'être of the system, but without the funding they cannot take place.

Public instructional programs have been very active this year in the areas of curriculum development, implementation and learning assessment. Some school officials are concerned that a great deal of time is being spent on these matters, and this is being monitored. But curriculum review is now scheduled over a number of years, and an open procedure has been adopted. The physical education program was the first, and the social studies curriculum review is now in progress — draft No. 3. That is a controversial area of curriculum, and I think rightly so. Public comment has been elicited and is still being elicited to try and create a soundly based curriculum.

The evolution of the program implementation division

[ Page 2881 ]

has been one of the changes in the past year, and through this division meetings have been held across the province with teachers and supervisors discussing that curriculum which has undergone change. This next year the division is planning to experiment with satellite delivery of in-service education for teachers. This division not only outlines the broad provincial curriculum goals, but also the areas of decision-making that are the responsibility of the classroom teachers.

Teachers themselves are also developing achievement tests for use in the secondary schools. The learning assessment branch has coordinated activities in English, mathematics, chemistry and physics. The objective of these tests is to provide teachers with provincial standards in their subjects, at the same time allowing classroom teachers to use their professional judgment in assigning final grades.

In an attempt to ensure quality of education, a new self-accreditation program has been developed for elementary schools.

An important program initiative that I should mention in the area of vocational training is the career preparation program. That is a pilot program where students in grades 11 and 12 may spend up to half their time learning a skill. In many cases work experience is included. There are some particularly good work-experience programs in many of our schools. I commend to members of the Legislature the program in Burnaby, which is an excellent one. We've had outstanding career program results in specific regions as well — for instance, in Fort St. John with oil field workers, and with hospitality workers in Courtenay. But generally speaking, the work experience is very broadly based and receives a great deal of cooperation from the local business and professional groups.

Further development in career education has been the establishment, under the leadership of the Occupational Training Council, of the computer-based career guidance program called CHOICES. This pilot project will be extended to all the secondary schools and colleges, hopefully within the next few years if it continues to prove to be a success.

On the administrative side, I should mention a couple of changes that are going to take place. One is the expanding of the number of locally employed superintendents. The B.C. School Trustees Association have for some years been requesting that they have the right to appoint local school superintendents to their districts. Now it depends on the size of the district, but the smaller districts do not have that right. Some of the districts that do have the right — the larger districts — have not exercised it, but still have provincially appointed superintendents. I am prepared to ultimately move towards a total policy whereby the local school board can appoint its superintendent if it wishes. We're working to phase that in with the B.C. School Trustees Association. Another administrative change is that we have been meeting with a committee of secretary-treasurers of the school boards to explore better management and budget information so that we will be more program- and cost-efficient.

I should also mention that the French curriculum has been adopted in the elementary grades as a core curriculum for francophones in the cadre program, which, although it only has a very small enrolment as of now, does recognize a commitment by the people of British Columbia to provide French language education to francophone children where the number is ten or more and a school district requests it. That is far beyond our constitutional responsibilities, but is, I think, an important contribution to the country. The French immersion courses have also proved to be very popular, and are now in operation and will be in September in approximately 20 school districts. These are important because they are brought in entirely at loncal option and are entirely optional by parents. We have early immersion — French language education at the kindergarten–grade 1 level — and also at the grades 5 and 6 level. We have now more than 3,000 students enrolled in French immersion programs. In many school districts we have line-ups.

I should also mention that the grade 12 scholarships, which previously were $500, were increased this year to $1,000. There were 938 winners from the examinations, and there were 384 district scholarship winners.

I should say a little bit about the post-secondary side of my ministry. I think that members are aware that we have 14 community colleges and seven provincial institutes. The system of colleges and institutes has developed extensively in the province over a very, very short period of time — about 15 years. It's a very vigorous and vital system which not only trains many of our skilled young people but also meets a variety of cultural and recreational needs and provides a lot of basic adult training and upgrading. It contributes very positively to the quality of life in various regions in the province. This has been a banner year in the programs of colleges and institutes and it shows that there's an increasing demand in this field. The general enrolment increases in the colleges average about 15 percent.

Also a number of new interesting programs were introduced. For instance, at Malaspina College a fish culture program and a solar energy technology training program will start in September of this year which will be the only such program north of Texas. I think there are only two in North America. Also, Camosun College takes over a variety of health science programs, including the nursing program that was formerly at the hospitals. A new diploma program in computer technology has gone to Camosun College in Victoria, and a welding program expansion took place at North Island College in Comox.

I could describe a number of new programs around the province but I will not do so. I'll just highlight a few of them. In New Caledonia College in Prince George business and process technology, mining technology, pulp and paper technology, music and registered nurse access programs were all added. The registered nurse access program means you do it a little more quickly than you did it in the hospital — one year instead of two if you have a paramedic background. Also a pilot program in computer-assisted instruction techniques was introduced at New Caledonia, and in Terrace a community service worker preparation program was approved for commencement in September. Selkirk College introduced establishment of a ski area management and planning program and East Kootenay Community College will be implementing programs for mental retardation workers and legal secretaries as well. In the lower mainland I should mention the B.C. Institute of Technology has a new program in diagnostic ultrasound. Those are perhaps the highlights of the new programs but there are others.

One thing I should mention in connection with these estimates is that along with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) I recognize, as I think all members of this House recognize, that we have in this province a critical skills shortage. I don't think that governments in the past, regardless of party stripe, have perhaps done enough

[ Page 2882 ]

planning and preparation in this field. We know that we have a shortage of critical skills in some of the trades, particularly machinists, electronic technicians, instrumentation mechanics, industrial electricians, millwrights, heavy-duty mechanics and diesel mechanics. In cooperation with labour — and there's been very, very good cooperation and support, I might add, from the trade union representation and from the Occupational Training Council particularly — the institutions are preparing proposals so that we can address these shortages and get busy and train and provide critical skills labour in these areas rather than being constantly forced to import our labour. I think that's a very important objective and one that we'll be able to report on very shortly.

We're also going to launch this year a major study in the whole area of technical education. There is evidence that British Columbia and Canada are not keeping pace with other western nations in providing needed technologists.

I will not deal, in my opening remarks, with continuing education and with the adult basic literacy curriculum committee and others, but I'll be pleased to answer questions on them.

I want to say a word about capital development on the college and institute side. We've been very conscious of the need to provide adequate facilities to allow post-secondary education to carry out its mandate. To remove some of the uncertainty and allow for some planning, and to allow the institutes to make realistic plans in advance, we've gone to a five-year capital planning procedure. This ensures the greatest possible degree of equity in allocations and allows the ministry to forward-plan the financial implications of a five-year plan. The necessity for this becomes evident when the amounts of money involved are considered. The past five years' capital approvals have totalled almost $188 million. This money has been spent on a variety of projects, including land acquisition, new buildings, renovations and also the more mundane public works projects which keep these facilities operating.

We have a Management Advisory Council. Support from the ministry staff does a good job of evaluating all requested projects against a well-developed set of criteria, and then putting the requests, sometimes modified in order of priority by year, which they then recommend to the ministry. These plans are updated each year so that we remain flexible, because educational needs and priorities change. Actual and projected enrolments are carefully watched to make sure that in a few years' time we don't end up with a lot of empty space in one area and people breaking the doors down in another. Ministry staff works very closely with the institutions in developing their plans, and the budgeting procedure through the Management Advisory Council has been largely successful.

I think that I will sit down and listen to some of the concerns and questions of members opposite. I will have some more to say later.

MR. LAUK: I'm a little disappointed in the minister's opening remarks, because it occurred to me that the opening address of a minister during the estimates debate of any ministry should include a statement of policy and, indeed, a statement of philosophy from a brand new minister — what his major commitments are, particularly to public education in this province. Perhaps when I'm finished my opening remarks it may encourage the minister to rise and state precisely what those are.

Educators, parents and taxpayers have expressed concern over the past several years that the public education system has not been responding to modern changes. Many misguided persons, such as the minister's predecessor, have used this failure to respond to modern change as an avenue to attack teachers and school trustees. This attack has been tragically misplaced. It is not the teachers or the school trustees who have refused to respond to modern change, but the ministry and the structure of public education in this province.

What are those modern changes? Since World War II, we in British Columbia, as well as the whole of North America, have been faced with unprecedented technological advances, with changes in the nature and the structure of the family unit, strident revolution in equality between the sexes, and a marked change in prevailing social values.

We'll deal with technology first. With the development of computer sciences and technological advances in industry, teachers and administrators in the education system have worked tirelessly to bring course content and teaching skills into line with modern industrial and scientific needs. The structure of the school system, however, has fallen far behind. Costs have been misplaced and guidelines by the ministry have been ill-conceived, and it is only recently that the public education system is scrambling to provide the kind of educational content and skill that the modern student will need to become an independent member of the workforce and the community. The demands of the modern technological world on individuals graduating from high school and post-secondary institutions are such that our whole approach to education may well need a revision. We cannot hope, under our present system, to educate large groups of people without concentration on individual needs and skills.

Since World War II the family unit has changed from the usual mother and father nuclear family with 2.2 children to a very large percentage of single-parent families, giving rise to new social and community problems which focus attention at the school level. The question we must ask for education in the eighties is this: is the public education system responding to the new pressures and social problems created by single parent families? In addition, since the war, even in the nuclear family both parents now are usually employed full-time, focusing even more pressure on the school system to deal with emotional and social problems of students by reason of the absence of both parents throughout the working day. The public education system has so far not adequately responded to this new social phenomenon.

Equality of the sexes has progressed rapidly since the Second World War for economic, social and political reasons. As I have stated, both parents are now working and many single-parent families exist, creating new pressures. The demands of women for social and economic equality are being partially answered in industry, but the public education system is again not responding to these new needs. Apart from the need for a revision of curriculum to reflect this new cultural value of equality between the sexes, the structure must respond to the new needs created by this reality. The public education system must recreate the course content and curriculum needs reflecting this new reality and the prevailing social values.

The prevailing values of our society have changed radically since World War II. The democratic model and the family and the community have created more pressures on the school system for a change in teaching skills and a greater

[ Page 2883 ]

demand for democracy within the school system. In addition to the massive changes that have occurred since World War II, we must take into account the tremendous increase in immigration into British Columbia and Canada, prompting the need to provide English language skills and greater English language training to first- and second-generation students of immigrant families.

In the 1950s only 30 percent to 35 percent of those in elementary school progressed through the secondary school level to graduation. Now over 80 percent of the school population at the elementary school level is proceeding through the secondary level of education to graduation. This creates more demands on space, and even greater demands on the teaching staff to provide more creative ways of teaching a broader spectrum of the population at the secondary school level. The response of the public education system in British Columbia is not uncharacteristic of the response of other public education systems. The challenge has been there for some time, and the response of governments has been very weak.

The public education system in B.C. is therefore facing these challenges:

1) Because of the compartmentalization of government services — public education being just one — the needs of the community and therefore the family are not being met. The education system is operating on its own, like Human Resources, Health and other services to the community. Services therefore are quite often duplicated and costly. The establishment of separate plant for all such services again increases, at tremendous cost to the government.

2) The centralization of the Ministry of Education has caused a bureaucratic morass, encroaching to the maximum on local decision-making authority, that local authority being closest to the people and therefore to the people's needs, desires and philosophy. Their needs, desires and philosophies are not being expressed in the educational system.

3) The credibility of the public education system has therefore suffered greatly, giving rise to arguments that alternative or independent schools would be best suited for the education of our young. Although independent schools have some merit, if left to be the major focal point of the eighties they will lead to an elitist education and an elitist educational philosophy. In other words, a class system will develop whereby mass public education will fail to meet the needs of our democratic state. The credibility of the public education system is in great danger as a direct result.

4) As stated before, the needs of the community equal the needs of the family. All of the family's needs should be met. It is therefore a challenge to the public education system, together with other services of government, to combine and coordinate services to the family, cutting down duplication, the need in many cases for a separate physical plant, and requiring a whole new focus for services to the family. I foresee that the Ministry of Education in B.C. should not be an authority-creating centralized bureaucracy, but a resource base providing services at the community level, meeting community needs for education. I foresee that more and more the plant, the buildings which house our present elementary and secondary schools, will be transformed to include not only kindergarten to grade 12 education, but also day care, parenting schools, family centres, counselling services and health services to the family. I foresee that we can transform our schools into family and community centres to be used not just between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. five days a week, but optimally throughout the evenings, early mornings and late afternoons, to provide a multitude of services where teacher, parents and students will cooperate as a community, with a sense of belonging to each other, and most importantly to develop democratic cooperative principles to achieve our personal and community goals.

I therefore have the following two major policy questions to ask of the minister before we commence the detailed debate of his estimates. One, is the minister fully and completely committed to the enhancement and progress of the public education system? That is to say, will he support the concept and the philosophy that public education should be available to everyone in our society — rich or poor, immigrant or non-immigrant, worker or professional — as being the most effective avenue through which the government can protect our free, democratic political system? Two, will the minister commit himself to the policy of decentralization — that is to say, will the Ministry of Education become a resource to regional and local decision-making groups, rather than an authority causing a morass of bureaucracy which does not meet the needs of the community?

It may seem odd, Mr. Chairman, that these questions seem to be necessary at this stage. But having regard for the record of performance of the minister's predecessor and for the minister's record of performance so far, the public can only conclude that there is no commitment to the public education system, as I have indicated. Secondly, this minister as well as his predecessor has moved relentlessly toward further centralization of the education system in this province. Perhaps the minister can indicate now whether he's prepared to make statements on those policy issues.

HON. MR. SMITH: I was going to wait. Mr. Chairman, for some other meaty proposals and then respond later; but so far as the first question is concerned, I am committed to a philosophy that public education is available to everyone. I thought that he had a copy of what I said to the B.C. School Trustees Association and B.C. Teachers' Federation. I've tried to make that abundantly clear. I wouldn't put it just on the basis of a rich and a poor class, as members on the other side like to put everything on; I would put it on a much broader basis than he does, and that is that everyone in this province, regardless of where he lives, is entitled to a good public education.

Secondly, on the question of decentralization the member talks deceptive twaddle. This spectre of a morass of centralizing bureaucracy in Victoria strangling the education system out there in the field just isn't so. The Ministry of Education is a resource centre. I indicated in my opening remarks that one direct positive move that I was making was to permit the school districts to select their own district superintendents. If what the first member for Vancouver Centre is wanting me to say is that I will, as Minister of Education, abandon quality control of education in this province and will not set standards and will not ensure that there are standards in this province which guarantee a child in Stikine the same quality of education as a child in the west side of Vancouver, well, then the answer is no. I do believe that the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education have a mandate and a duty to ensure that there are certain standards and certain qualities, Part of that is also in the field of curriculum, and I will not abandon my responsibilities and have 75 different standards and 75 different curricula in our

[ Page 2884 ]

school districts. I said that face to face to the school trustees gathered in convention, and I'll continue to say it.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, my disappointment deepens. I know that disappoints the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and other members of the House. I was hoping that the minister would take the opportunity to tell us where he stands on educational issues. His response to my challenge, my friendly, cooperative challenge....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I've done better than that. In advance of my speech, I delivered a copy to the Minister of Education. There is a breath of fresh air in the House; the Attorney-General jumps the gun. The Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, has overdeveloped calf muscles from jumping to conclusions.

In response to the challenge that I made to the Minister of Education, where does he stand? Where does his government stand? Where does he stand on the commitment to support and enhance public education? How does he respond? He says: "Well, I made a speech someplace and I didn't just limit it to class — rich or poor, professional or non-professional. I said that no matter where anybody lives, he should get an education."

You've missed the point. The point is that public education throughout North America is under attack. It was under attack by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communication (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when he was the Minister of Education. It's under attack by certain small groups of rightwing critics throughout North America. It's not an attack on the public education system; it's an attack on the free, democratic political system, because it's only when you have mass public education available to all the people of the country that you can preserve democracy. Just look at Africa and all the new states that are emerging. Look at the problems we are facing as far as peace, hunger and industrial development are concerned in the world. Those problems have their direct source and roots on the base of an inadequate educational system, a system that reaches only the elite, if any. Now we are so careless with our democratic freedoms and institutions that we will allow the chipping away of that sacred public education system because of the minority attacks of elitist and right-wing groups in our community. That is the challenge I am throwing to the Minister of Education. He can't avoid it by saying we're all committed to motherhood, we're all this or we're all that. That's nonsense. The education system is under attack. He has failed to respond; he has not even thought about the challenge.

The minister argues that there is not a problem with capital cost approvals. He is talking about decentralization. The bureaucratic steps necessary for the simplest capital expenditure at the school district level are so horrendous that they have been described by objective educators and administrators in this country as the worst in the country. There are 57 or so steps to approve a simple capital expenditure to put showers into a dressing room. Taking that local authority away from the school boards is a slap in the face to the democratic process at the local level. For the minister to stand up and say there's no problem is an insult and reveals a colossal unawareness of the tremendous bureaucratic problems created by his predecessor, his ministry and the officials involved in that approval process.

Are we arguing that there shouldn't be minimum standards so that all children throughout the province should achieve a fair and adequate education, so that there will be portability in their education from one public school institution to the other? Of course not.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You think it's amusing, sir? The people in your area, Mr. MLA for Kootenay, are more than concerned about the quality of education and decentralization. Maybe they would like to know about your amusement on the subject.

The fact is that we're not arguing for decentralization to the extent that standards would fail, but the minister is arguing for centralization on the pretext of preserving standards. I say "pretext" because in essence that philosophy, approach and policy goal has moved this ministry to great centralization. Even the smallest decision cannot be made at the local level. We are not arguing for one extreme. We are opposed to the extreme of centralization. Some curricula needs, designs and content changes can be made at the local level. We know that. When the minister talks to groups and school trustees he admits that, but he does nothing about it. He is caught up in the molasses of bureaucracy in his own ministry.

I want to ask the minister some specific questions about education costs. First of all, we have the burnble bee dance that the minister participated in so gleefully over mill rates. It is called the great poker game that goes on every year. His predecessor loved it; the new minister is also thriving on it. You announce an increase in mill rate, you feign battle with shadows for a couple of months, arguing the tremendous increase in costs of education and saying how concerned you are and how terribly sorry you are for the high mill rate. He receives the telegrams that are predictable from the trustees' association, the Teachers' Federation, ratepayers, individual municipalities, and so on. Then he pulls back and the increase, rather than two or two and a half mills becomes a quarter of a mill.

All of this creates the necessary political smokescreen for the minister to foist more costs and more of the tax burden on the local homeowner. If he can distract the local homeowner from the fact that this government is overburdening them, to the fact that he's beaten us over the head with a 2-by-4 for three months and now it feels pretty good when he stops.... That is the psychology. We were going to get a two and a half mill increase, or whatever it was, and now we've only got a quarter of a mill increase. Aren't we lucky. The fact is the government shouldn't be increasing the mill rate at all. They should be decreasing the mill rate. He knows that, and it's a political game.

When the increase and greater burden of taxation is placed on the shoulders of the homeowner, who gets the blame? The government? No, the average person cannot even get through the smokescreen. They blame the municipality; they blame the school districts. "Cut costs," they say. Because those groups of elected officials are closest to the people in the school district. They get the heat; they get the blame; and the minister twiddles his thumbs with glee. He pulled it off once again. It's a cynical approach to education financing in this province. It should be stopped. It must be stopped if we're going to be rational and fair with the people of this province about financing schools.

What's the record of those increases? Let me just look at

[ Page 2885 ]

the provincial contribution as a percentage of gross operating and debt service budgets. In 1975, when the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was the minister, the share of provincial contribution was 59.65 percent, In 1976 it was 57.4 percent. In 1977 it was 56.99 percent. In 1978 it was 54.4 percent. In 1979 it was 53.4 percent. In 1980, it is up slightly to 54.4 percent. Since 1959, instead of increasing the provincial government's share of the tremendous burden of taxation on ordinary homeowners, they decreased their share. They're slippery, and they've slid out of the grip of the local taxpayer. They slid out of their responsibility for a rational and fair approach to school taxation in the province. No amount of political smoke-screening is going to prevent us from pointing the accusatory finger at this government and placing that responsibility where it so justly belongs.

Since 1974 the basic mill rate has increased from 24.7 to an estimated 43.5 mills. That's shocking and scandalous. The provincial government's share of the basic education program has declined — and this is basic education — from 44 percent to less than 39 percent. Now, Mr. Chairman, that's the record. The new minister has been a willing accomplice in this political charade. I wonder what his position is.

We've gone through the figures. Let me refer to a few others. In 1975 the basic mill rate, as I said, was 26.5. In 1980 it is 41.25. Now nobody has raised the mill rate except the provincial government. I know what the minister's going to do. He's going to stand up and say: "Well, we don't collect the taxes. We don't set the budgets. We just put a maximum level on the amount of money that can be collected for school purposes." He might even have the nerve to say: "Well, we've increased the homeowner grant." Mr. Chairman, thank goodness for the homeowner grant. The homeowner grant is a reflection of the government's responsibility. But it's used in a terrible way. They increase the mill rate and the amount of taxation burden on the homeowner, and then during an election year they pay a part of it back through the homeowner grant. You know the image of this government: take $10, give back 50 cents. But if they take the $10 in the first year of their mandate and then give back the 50 cents during an election year, they hope the people of the province will remember only the 50 cents, not that they were practically robbed of $9.50 in total.

That's what the minister and this government have done in school education costs, through the provision of the homeowner grant. The minister may argue: "Well, we don't set the budgets. We don't collect the taxes. We just give the maximum level." The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the ministry approves all budgets. The ministry has a bureaucratic stranglehold on the budgets of this province at school district level, and the school districts can hardly move in any creative way. They can cut back, but some school districts that have cut back, like my district in Vancouver, took what they thought was a responsible approach. There were elementary schools in the city of Vancouver that couldn't afford lightbulbs because of those cutbacks. It's true. They didn't have proper heating for youngsters in elementary schools, because the school district took the minister's word seriously. And what happened? Instead of getting relief, a further increase in taxation burden from the provincial government was placed on their shoulders.

Here's how they did it. We've got two situations, mostly involving declining enrolment, Let's deal with the declining enrolment problem. You see, the Ministry of Education has a little trick. It's called Catch-22 in the school districts' the ministry doesn't call it that. The Catch-22 is that you'll be funded on the basis of enrolment. Other provinces have dealt with and are coming to grips with the financial problems created for local school districts by declining enrolments. If you, say, lose 20 students out of Victoria High School, those 20 students do not allow for any appreciable decrease in operating costs. As a matter of fact it doesn't allow for any cutbacks in that school's budget. Yet the provincial government shares its treasury with schools only on the basis of their enrolment, so they take a per-pupil rate and cut off their share to the school districts. The costs are the same; the burden to the taxpayer at the local level is the same; the provincial contribution is decreased. It's an unfair trick on the school districts and on the taxpayers of the regions.

Let's take Victoria school district as a notable example. I've chosen Victoria because it's the minister's school district. Maybe he has a special feeling and responsibility to his own school district. It's a district hit by declining enrolments. Here's a calculation of the revenues lost because of that Catch-22. In 1976, $5.3 million was lost. Remember the costs are the same to the school district, the contribution from the province is less. In 1977, $7.6 million was lost. Extra money that year had to come out of the pockets of people who own homes in the city of Victoria. In 1978, $10.1 million; 1979, $12.6 million; 1980, $14.8 million. The total as of this year, Mr. Speaker, from 1976 to 1980, is $49.8 million lost and paid for by the greater Victoria homeowners, because the province has failed in its responsibility.

Getting back to the mill rate and this year, has the minister done us a favour? Is he turning the corner and going back towards a rational sharing of the costs of education between the province and the school districts? No. That one-quarter basic mill rate increase has shifted a further $3,665,000 on the local taxpayer from the province. In 1979 the local taxpayer was paying $667,273,000 for public education. In 1980 they are paying $740,133,000. This great minister has given such a gift to the local taxpayer that they are now paying an extra $72,800,000 from local taxation. The provincial government's increased share is $45 million over that same period. So the shift in burden, rather than going back onto the province where it belongs, is increasing on the local taxpayer.

Those are the facts that we've gotten from the ministry, from school districts and the Teachers' Federation. We've gone over the figures time and time again. Let's clear away the smokescreen and le! the minister say what he intends to do for education financing in this province. Let's not hear the old saw about the homeowner taxation grant during election years. Let's not hear about the responsibility lying with the school districts. We know better; you're talking to the boys now. Don't try and kid the troops. Tell us the way you think education costs should go and what burden there should be on the homeowner and what burden there should be on the provincial government. I ask the minister to specifically tell me whether he supports the recommendations of the McMath commission report, which calls for an equitable sharing of education costs — 75 percent provincial and 25 percent local. I wonder if he'd indicate precisely where he stands on the McMath commission report.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am not going to engage in a philosophical debate with the member, answer philosophical propositions, say what we're going to do next year or anything else. But I will answer questions. I'm making notes of them and I think I'll let other members have a chance.

[ Page 2886 ]

MR. LAUK: Well, the other members will be ready to ask you questions in due course. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: could the minister respond? It's not a philosophical question; it's a policy question. That's what we're here for. We're in estimates to ask you where you stand on the sharing of education costs and you are required, in the sense of your responsibility to the public, to tell us where you stand. Are you for the McMath report or are you against it?

We've given the Minister of Education an opportunity. Is he going to fall into the mousetrap that some of his colleagues have fallen into this session and keep this session going all summer long? Would the minister like to do that or can he answer a straightforward policy question?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will answer legitimate questions that are put to me in this House and I will answer them in due course. I will not be bullied into it by the member opposite.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister is correct in viewing a legitimate question of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition requiring a responsible answer for the benefit of the public as an attempt at bullying? Would he reconsider that? If not, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to withdraw the suggestion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 54 pass?

MR. LAUK: I've asked the Chairman to ask the minister to withdraw the improper imputation that I have been bullying him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect, hon. member, the Chair does not find that statement improper imputation. The Chair cannot rule on that.

MR. LAUK: Well, is Mr. Chairman providing an objective view in that regard? Does the Chairman think I've been bullying the minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair can only act on the standing orders before us. It's the Chairman's position to moderate debate in the House and that's the only advice I can give you, hon. member.

MR. KEMPF: You couldn't bully anybody.

MR. LAUK: There you go. I have support over there. Now we have the member for Omineca supporting me. He says that I'm not capable of bullying anyone, because he knows I'm a decent, honourable member of the House. Then we have the contrasting opinion suggested by the Chairman that I am bullying the minister. Well, if there's any suggestion....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman did not give an opinion. However, the Chair will ask the minister if he did impute any improper motive, and if so, then will he withdraw that.

HON. MR. SMITH: If I did, I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister withdraws. The member continues on vote 54.

MR. LAUK: I wonder, can the minister tell us whether he has benefited from the core curriculum? Mr. Chairman, I think it's a proper question to ask at this stage of the debate in estimates. I wonder if the minister would provide his comments on the cost-sharing burden between the local taxpayer and the provincial government. Does he think it's fair? Does he want to improve it? Which direction is he going to go in? What does he think about the McMath commission report? Is it outdated or is it still a viable formula of cost-sharing between local and provincial taxpayers?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the minister is employing the same tactics that his leader has employed. So I'll go on to ask him some further questions. I wonder if the minister could indicate to us what his position is on declining enrolment, which is the issue that I put to him. The effect of the formula of cost-sharing is, on the one hand, to decrease the contribution to the local taxpayer to the school district, on the basis of declining enrolment, yet the corresponding decrease in costs does not occur. I'll repeat it again. The school district has the same costs, but they don't get the same money from the provincial government. I wonder if the minister is intending to change that policy. Can you answer that?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I'd prefer to deal with these in an omnibus way if I could. I'm making notes of what he's asking me; I'm not ducking them. I just would rather deal with them in an omnibus way.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to defer to other members on the opposition side, but I would like the minister to answer before too long what his position is on the costsharing burden between school districts and the province. I think it's a statement that should be made on the first day of the estimates debate. I don't see how we can carry on dealing with the other issues of education until we have a statement of policy in that regard. If the minister stands up and makes some reasonable and acceptable statement of policy to the opposition, we can press on.

MRS. DAILLY: As the minister has said, he wants to have all this given to him in a package. He is the minister and these are his estimates, so I suppose we have no choice, but I do want to protest that I think we would have a much better debate on the floor of this House if the minister would perhaps reply to some major questions that are being asked him at this time. When you try to answer all at once, much of the impact of the debate is lost. I protest this procedure; but I have to accept it, unfortunately.

On the matter of the increased cost to the local taxpayer, I too would like to reiterate that ever since Social Credit assumed office the local taxpayer has been burdened with more of the school taxation costs, and the provincial government has paid less. Those are the simple facts. No matter what the minister says, no matter how he juggles figures, it is a fact that the Social Credit government has apparently adopted the philosophy that the local taxpayer must bear an increasing share of the cost of education and the province will bear less. We happen to believe that today, with decreased enrolment, with the revenues which.... This government is so apt to stand up in the House and inform the public of B.C. how strong their financial ratings are. If they're in the position which they've tried to suggest to us, then I'd like to know why their priorities are such that in the area of education we have so many gaps.

[ Page 2887 ]

I hope that the Minister of Education will take his full responsibility to the Treasury Board, and if the money is there — as the Premier suggested it is — I would hope that he would try to relieve the burden on the local taxpayers of this province. In my own district of Burnaby we have seen the local share go up and up, and enrolments are going down. Therefore the tragedy is that the people of Burnaby are inclined to turn on the school board. They say: "We don't understand it. Enrolments are going down, yet we don't see our school taxes going down." They accept the fact that with inflation you can't expect them to drop drastically. The unfortunate thing is that this government, in the last four or almost five years, has attempted to place the blame on the school board. Mr. Chairman, I find it wrong. I find it almost deceitful for any government to do this.

The thing that concerns me greatly with taxation is that I understand — I can't blame the Minister of Education for this — someone in his government has almost insisted that every tax roll assessment that goes out to each individual taxpayer in British Columbia has on it: "Because of your provincial government and their great ability" — whatever the words are; I'm paraphrasing — "your municipal taxes have gone down." Well, I'd say, Mr. Chairman, if they have insisted that the municipalities put that on the assessment sheets that go out to every taxpayer, they should also be forced to place on it: "However, your school costs have not gone down to the extent they should have, because we have decided that local taxpayers should pay more of school taxes than the provincial government." I consider this a very deceptive manner in handling the whole matter of school taxation.

There are many other areas that we want to discuss today, but I believe my colleague, our education critic from Vancouver Centre, is quite right when he says that it is difficult to proceed until we can get from the minister some answers to some very basic questions. From there, we would prefer to go into specifics. To reiterate, we would ask the minister to tell us what his objectives are in the area of financing of public schools in this province. We also hope that he will answer and explain to us where he places the public school system in priority in comparison to the independent schools of this province. I think the member for Vancouver Centre made an excellent statement when he pointed out that the public school system is under attack all over British Columbia — not only British Columbia but in the world; in North America anyway. The attack was started, unfortunately, by his predecessor, who is now in charge of universities, science and technology. He helped to whip up the anti-public-school feeling in this province. I accused him of that when he was minister; and I accuse him again of doing so.

The new minister, whose estimates we are now dealing with, has met with the trustees and the teachers. We were pleased to see that he was receptive to them and ready to listen to them. But now we've gone through that stage of listening in his first few months. Here we are in his first estimates, and what we would really like to know is what his philosophy is. How strongly does he support the public school system? How does he feel about local taxation? Those are the basic questions that we really find it difficult to proceed with unless we can get this umbrella discussion going.

So, Mr. Chairman, as I have no choice, I want to proceed to some specifics at this time. Then I hope that perhaps we will hear from the minister, and we can continue our debate here on the floor.

I am particularly concerned today to hear what the minister can tell us about his own feeling on the matter that seems to be.... There's a pendulum swing here, I think, to almost an overuse of the marking system. Now I know most parents have always said, "Well, we'd like to know where our students stand," and there has been some pressure in the past for a grading type of system. Unfortunately, we saw the former minister push the pendulum to the extreme where suddenly the school teachers found themselves having to almost go back to a marking system that existed when some of us in this room went to school. My concern is that most children who are faced with this marking system and with the whole matter of failure often become psychological failures, and I have always felt this very strongly. I don't think the results, when it comes to.... Are we keeping more children in school because we decided to implement marking and heavy competition again? If we look at the dropout rates, I don't think that that pendulum swing is really helping the student — and that's what it's all about. I'd like to hear the minister's opinion on this whole matter of rigid marking.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In line with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to share with the House the fact that I had the opportunity just last weekend to visit the Nishga school district; and at this time I want to pay tribute to the native Indians of the Nishga, who themselves first came to the Department of Education — as it was called at that time when I was minister — with the hope and the wish that they could create their own high school and their own school district. I want to also pay tribute at this time to all the members of the ministry staff without whose help I don't think we would have been able to get that district created. I'm just glad to be able to say that I had the opportunity to actually see it in action, attending a graduation. My hope is that the minister himself — and I'm sure he intends to — will visit them. The success of that district, I think, speaks for itself. There were 26 native Indian and, I think, two white students graduating from grade 12 — and remember, this is the second graduating class they have had. I understand that 14 of those 26 are carrying on into higher education. I consider that a very successful scene. If you compare it to the situation before they had an opportunity to have their own school district, most of those students never got past grade 8. Most of them never came down to the lower mainland to attend higher education, because they simply did not have the experience of succeeding,

Now why I'm bringing that up is that I think this has shown philosophically that if you give a district the opportunity to develop its own meaningful programs which suit its own needs, you create an atmosphere which helps to bring about more success for the individual students — and that is the point that our first member for Vancouver Centre expressed so well in his opening statement — because there they have an opportunity to learn their own language and they have an opportunity to reinforce their own heritage and their own culture. I feel that that is something sadly lacking — this opportunity in our schools in the province of British Columbia to make the programs meaningful according to the needs of the area.

I too protest strongly what I consider to be a move to centralization in the ministry instead of a move the other way. When the minister stated that there is no way that he

[ Page 2888 ]

wants to have 75 school districts all teaching their own curriculum, I find it distressing that he has to use that old red herring, Mr. Chairman, because the first member for Vancouver Centre at no time ever suggested that. He is well aware, as we all are on this side, that there has to be a basic curriculum in every school district; but the point that is being missed here is that if you want to enrich your school system, if you want to give each individual student an opportunity to feel a person in his own right, you must allow some flexibility in curriculum. I think those are the points that we would like to hear the minister give us his feedback on, because the trend — whether he believes in it or not, or whether he's going to carry on the centralized movement started by the former minister — is something we're very concerned about.

There's one more area, and then I will sit down and hope for some feedback, and maybe let other members speak at this time. I'd like the minister to comment on special education. I know it's a difficult area, but it's one of the most vital ones. May I say to the minister that I think that special education in the province of British Columbia, through his ministry, has come a long way. But my big concern right now is in that area where I've always felt there was a great weakness — the ability of the classroom teacher to diagnose from the time a child is in kindergarten whether he's going to have special learning problems. It can be diagnosed in kindergarten now, and that's why, for one thing, I'm so pleased that under the NDP we were able to put kindergartens into every school in the province, because at that early age you can diagnose the problems. But the teachers of our province, by and large, are not trained to do this diagnostic investigation, because there's no compulsory course yet.

Perhaps the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Soles, would be able to advise us whether there have been changes in that area. I know when I was minister I was hoping to see a compulsory course for every teacher so that they will be taught how, at least, to diagnose if a child is going to have learning disabilities. If they can't do that, they often put a great deal of stress on a child who does have learning disabilities and is unable to perform. Once that is done, of course, the ministry must provide the right resources. I know the situation today is still in great need of help; we still need to provide much more assistance in that area, particularly in the training of teachers.

Mr. Chairman, I have many other things I'd like to discuss, but I'd also like to hear from the minister on those few brief points.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Burnaby North is usually constructive, and I appreciate it. I congratulate her for attending the graduation of the Nishga school; I think it's marvellous that she went up there and I would dearly have loved to do so. They invited me to give the address, but I had committed myself to the graduation at New Westminster Senior Secondary that same day. I'm also delighted that we were able to support the native language and cultural programs in that school, and particularly that a number of their graduates are going on to post-secondary education. I share her views entirely.

On the marking system, we have a draft administrative handbook out which when I became minister was really there for approval. One of the issues in that, of course, was a return to a grading system. I didn't approve that handbook, and I let it be known very early that I wasn't going to approve it until I'd made a general public educational tour and also knew more about the views of people in education on the specific issue. I have not taken a position on those issues in the handbook. I might say, though, that my tendency now would be not to favour a grading system at the primary level and to have an open mind on the subject at the other levels. When you get to the secondary level I think a case can be made for some grading, and I would tend to favour grading at that level, but not at the primary level, I don't think. I have an open mind as to the grades between.

On the question of my view as to commitment for the public education system as opposed to the independent system, I think it's incumbent on any Minister of Education to primarily support that public education system, and I do. I do not see that system being eroded by the independent school system or its vitality or resources being sapped. I see government's role vis-a-vis the independent school system as giving them some support and encouragement, but that is not our primary mandate. Our primary mandate is the public school system.

Both the first member for Vancouver Centre and the hon. lady have asked me to comment on the financing formulas. I'm certainly prepared to do so; I'm not trying to duck any of this, but I really didn't have a precise question from the first member. I had a long, rambling, self-serving speech in which he conjured up various figures. He used figures in a way very agreeable to his case. He took operating budgets and dealt with those to show a very slow decline in the provincial portion from '75 to '80, but he did not deal with the other components in the provincial funding that I indeed mentioned — I thought in a straightforward way — in my opening statement.

There are things that he overlooks in addition to.... I'm not acknowledging that the homeowner's grant should directly relate to those figures. He overlooks the post-secondary money which is put into the budget, into colleges and institutes as to capital and operating costs. He knows as well as everyone else in this House does that up until a year ago a portion of those came off property taxes and that at one time those were a property tax burden. That has been removed and the province of British Columbia now directly pays the entire cost of the colleges and the provincial institutes. I think that when we're talking about the provincial contribution to education it should not just be operating budgets that are looked at but it should be the capital costs that the province makes. Of course, the province still contributes the major portion of capital costs to school districts. Some $69 million comes from the province and $57 million comes locally with the direct expenditures that are made to post-secondary education. If you look at those figures and compare those with the local expenditure, you have the province paying 64.5 percent and the local expenditure being 35.4 percent.

I appreciate that the figures he cited to this House for Victoria school district and other school districts show a considerable increase. I appreciate also that the basic mill rate has increased in this province, but so has the cost of materials, the cost of labour and the teachers' salaries.

I also appreciate that declining enrolments present a very real problem for school districts. But in one part of his nice introductory speech the first member for Vancouver Centre invited us to turn the schools of this province into democratic human resource centres, and in another breath he suggested that there should be astringency in expenditures and that declining enrolments should reflect economies. The two may

[ Page 2889 ]

be in conflict. But unlike the manner in which the member portrays the ministry, the ministry doesn't make all these decisions. We do leave it to local school districts to decide.

MR. LAUK: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it's true. The local school districts decide whether or not they wish to close schools. Local school districts decide whether they want to keep three or four schools going at 50 and 60 percent enrolment. Quite often that's the decision that they make.

MR. LAUK: Where is that decision being made?

HON. MR. SMITH: That decision is being made locally.

MR. LAUK: Fifty percent enrolment? Where? Name one place.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, there are schools with that kind of enrolment.

MR. LAUK: Where?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll bring them to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It makes it very difficult, particularly for Hansard, when interjections come across without being recognized. If the member could leave his questions until the minister has completed, it makes it much simpler.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member would like me to give some pronouncement on the McMath report. I've discussed the McMath report with trustees and I've discussed it with the teachers. My view on the burdens of education are that the majority of that burden should be home, and continue to be borne, by the province and not by local taxpayers. What the McMath report recommended was that there should be a division of the basic education program of 75 percent provincial and 25 percent local. I do not think that that will take place. It won't take place within the next number of years, but I can see a slow improvement in the basic education program split. I think that if we were to move to the recommendations of the McMath report, the 75-25 split, the role of trustees would be vastly diminished. They would not have much of a role of financial accountability and that would not be a desirable final aim. But I certainly agree that the overall costs of public education should be borne by the province, and the province has an obligation to try and shield property owners, particularly those on fixed incomes, from the burdens of increased education costs. Beyond that statement I do not intend to provide little quiz answers from now to eternity.

MR. LAUK: You know, it's interesting, Mr. Chairman. He states that I've conjured up figures. Well, the figures that I gave the committee are from the Ministry of Education. Perhaps he should take that up with his officials.

HON. MR. SMITH: Give the rest of the figures.

MR. LAUK: They're all there right here. You remember this page. It's in your notes. If the minister is not happy with the increase in the mill rates since 1975, he should take that up with his officials. These figures are theirs. He's saying we're not taking other components into consideration, like the component of post-secondary funding. I take it that's for regional colleges and institutions, Is that what you're talking about? All right. Some regional school districts don't have those costs. Is that correct?

We'll proceed along the basis that I think we understand each other, That's the only component that you've referred to. And the difference between shifting that cost onto the provincial government and the lack of requirement to expend money from the local taxpayer in that regard has been reflected in the figures that I've given the minister. For the sake of clarification I'll go over them again.

We're talking about school costs. We've totally excluded the contribution made by local and provincial taxpayers on the post-secondary level. We've not included those budgets, shares and percentages of school burden of the post-secondary factor into our figures that we're presenting to the committee today. The shift by a quarter of a mill has shifted a greater burden of school costs, $3.6 million, onto school districts. The total increase from 1979 to this fiscal year is $72,800,000. That's the increase that school districts have to pay this year. The provincial share has been nowhere near that, yet the minister argues that a greater burden of the school costs should be borne by the provincial government. You know, it's funny that he refers to the McMath commission report and, in reply to my answer, says that the formula of 75-25 won't take place in the next number of years. In other words. the minister is not committed to that formula. He's not committed to increasing the burden of costs on the shoulders of the provincial government, and his actions as minister bear him out. His actions are, in this case, consistent with his statement, because a greater burden of taxation is now on the taxpayer as a result of his policies.

But, you know, he didn't always feel that way, Mr. Chairman. When he was running for the seat in Oak Bay on May 10, 1979, here's what he had to say about the McMath commission in answer to a questionnaire from the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association.

MR. LEA: That's not fair bringing that in.

MR. LAUK: But I thought that if during the process of their election, elected officials made commitments and promises to the people in their constituencies, we could expect they would keep them when they took office.

MR. LEA: But he made those when he was a Conservative.

MR. LAUK: No, he was a Social Credit candidate, and many then were saying that he should be the Minister of Education. That's when the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was the Minister of Education. Even then they said that this new candidate in Oak Bay, carrying the standard of Social Credit — which he did not always bear.... He made a promise. This is what he said: "I have long supported efforts to remove the burden of school taxes from property, believing as I do that retired persons on fixed incomes, who have reared families, should not be taxed out of their homes." A salutary sentiment, isn't it? The minister should be highly complimented. "Yes, I would support those recommendations of the McMath Commission."

[ Page 2890 ]

So, Mr. Chairman, seldom does the man produce what the boy has promised. He's reached high office and the gnomes have reached him; he's got the message. "We need the money," he's been told by Treasury Board, "to build such important things as the longest exhaust pipe in the world from Victoria to Vancouver. We need the money to put up a circus tent in False Creek. We need the money to do this, that and the other thing, but we don't have the money to relieve the overwhelming burden of taxation on the homeowner." He's got the message about this government's priorities and he has not got the intestinal fortitude to stand up as the Minister of Education and fulfill his promise to his own constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disappointing.

MR. LAUK: Oh, the disappointment deepens, and we are tragically disappointed, because we had such great hope for this breath of fresh air.

What's hot off the press? Do you remember the initial remarks on the Minister of Education that were made by the press?

MR. LEA: No.

MR. LAUK: You don't? Let me remind you.

"As he was hand-shaking and baby-kissing across the province shortly after his appointment, he was barely out of the Lieutenant-Governor's mansion when he was making all kinds of glowing remarks about teachers, the educational system and how he was going to reform this, do that and the other thing."

He even got the BCTF involved in these compliments. But what have we got?

"Sympathy and appreciation for teachers are not always matched with actions. Listing cases in which the minister's reported views have not been followed by action, the president of the British Columbia Teacher's Federation outlines as follows: 'Teachers have been told to wait to have their say on a new administrative handbook for schools until after the Education minister holds a series of public forums across the province. They have been given only until June 30 to comment on recent revisions to the social studies curriculum.'"

And on it goes.

The ministry has preferred to stay out of controversial areas like letter grades, the special approval process for textbooks other than those approved by the Education ministry, etc., etc. There's a whole list of them. Local scholarships have been frustrated in their original intention to provide local scholarships to non-academic achievement. They've been frustrated by changes in the ministry. The minister has correspondence from the Creston school district, followed up by correspondence from school districts across the province, and innocuous, bland replies have come from the minister's office. The change has been made. You can't fight city hall.

He told the annual convention of the BCTF that teachers should not be responsible for administering medication to students. He's been asked several times in the House about this question, and he agrees with us. It reminds me of that fellow who always agrees with you but never does anything for you — never makes any changes. He says: "I know we're wrong. I know we're not serving the educational system. I agree with everything you say." But he does nothing about it. That's the hallmark of this minister. He won't answer the questions we've put to him on philosophy. He says: "I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate." I don't blame him. He doesn't have a philosophy about education. He has a policy though, and it's based on his own personal philosophy. So on his behalf, I'll answer the question I put to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is he talking to?

MR. LAUK: I'm talking to myself again. I'll answer the minister on his behalf. In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the Minister of Education says this: "I have been appointed Minister of Education. I want to get through my term of office without any hassles. I don't want to make any changes. I want to be loved. I don't want any waves to be made. I don't want to make any bold decisions because it will affect my career, in my relentless, sure progress towards the Premier's chair."

You know, young, fledgling ministers quite often make the mistake of making actual decisions. And they pay for it. But I'd much sooner have a Minister of Education with the courage to accept his responsibility towards the young people of this province, and make those bold and necessary decisions today, and not have so much concentration on his own personal political career. Those decisions are in demand now.

So it seems that this minister, if we're analyzing his performance, has changed his position on the McMath commission from the days when he was running for election. It seems that he's changed his position on the administration of drugs by non-medical personnel in the schools; he's doing nothing about it. It seems he's changed his position on a number of things. He has indicated he was against centralization. The first move he made legislatively in this chamber was to centralize control of the colleges in the province. And on it goes. The social studies curriculum — has he done anything about that? That's very amusing. The gnomes, or, as he calls them, the snowy-haired bureaucrats in his office....

AN HON. MEMBER: Over here, Walter!

MR. LAUK: He certainly wasn't referring to the deputy minister; the snowy-haired gnomes with their little sharpened quills have been drafting the social studies curriculum. Apart from my natural social democratic paranoia that the social studies curriculum has maximum input from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and will teach the free enterprise system and so on — they might even get part of the Christian television network to support them — I wonder whether or not the social studies curriculum needs so much centralized bureaucratic input. I wonder if the structure of that curriculum, as I read it, is like a coffin for the social studies teacher. It all lows no creativity. It confines him or her to teach a course content without elaboration, with such time constraints — if one is to look at the whole curriculum — that the creativity in the classroom, the spontaneity and the knowledge of a teacher who can excite the social studies class may be discouraged.

Too much! Enough is enough! A general outline in the curriculum — fine. But to train teachers for five and six years and have them go out and teach kids, and then tell them, page

[ Page 2891 ]

by page from the guidebook, how to teach social studies, is going too far. They argue they haven't centralized. It reminds me of that cartoon of the flyer: he lands the plane according to a rule book, and as the plane taxis to a stop, he sits staring at the last page, turns the page, and says, "oh," and then turns off the ignition. [Laughter.]

Thank you. I knew the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) would get that one. It was simple enough, wasn't it, Mr. Chairman? He is the only man I know who, on the way to work, stops by the gas station to get his head filled up with air.

That is one example. The other example of the strictures caused by centralization are for capital project approvals. They go through the ministry. I wonder if the minister can indicate at this stage if he plans any revision. He doesn't have to hold a public forum or meet with the secretary-treasurers. Just send them a note saying: "What do you suggest?" Do you think any would reply? I think all of them would, wouldn't you? They would reply extensively. The secretary treasurers have some very good ideas on how to reform your capital approval procedures. That would solve a lot of problems.

The other question I have will probably wait for another time. The minister did not adequately deal, it seems to me, with declining enrolment. He suggests that there are schools that have 50 percent enrolment that were dropped. I would be surprised if there was one. I will concede that if he could find me one I will certainly withdraw that but I am sure those figures are exaggerated. Maybe he is referring to a school that has just been burned down, I don't know. I think that in the vast majority of cases, 99 percent of the schools, if they have declining enrolment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit eavesdropping! Just keep talking.

MR. LAUK: I can't see who is speaking behind the Minister of Agriculture because of the reflection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're not far from being there, fella. I'm going to lend you my sponge.

MR. LAUK: I've lost it all this session through the lack of answers from the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never had it all.

MR. LAUK: We're hearing from Fred Flintstone again. I'll deal with you during these estimates, Fred.

Getting my mind back onto the issue, the issue is declining enrolment, The minister cannot argue that the majority of schools have a great percentage of declining enrolment, school by school. You can't analyze costs related to the contribution from the provincial treasury using that rule of cost per pupil, It is not a cost per pupil. If you lost 50 students out of a high school, does it decrease their costs? Not at all. In most cases that is what we are talking about. We're not talking about a loss of 250 students out of 500 or 900 or 1,000, or 50 percent. We're not talking about those figures. They are very rare indeed. We are talking about the marginal decreases. I wonder if we do have any information or a report the minister can provide us with which will indicate how much of a decline in enrolment per school, let's say, is required before we can start to make arrangements that Would decrease fixed costs and operating costs at those schools. Those are figures that I think we should honestly deal with because the pressure is on.

The next thing I want to mention is that the minister says: "Well, if the school district wants to keep these schools open at great cost, that is their business." What is the minister's approach toward keeping schools — particularly elementary or junior high schools — close to a community, so children do not have to walk home over long distances, sometimes in the dark? What value do we place on that in relation to declining enrolment? What value does the minister place on, let's say, a school that is burned down? Does he place other students in the same school district far away in another school, combining the school populations?

Here's a follow-up question. Perhaps the Minister of Education can tell us what the maximum size of a secondary or elementary school is — maximum from the point of view of the students and the community. Are those values reflected in this formula of declining enrolment and the share of the provincial treasury towards education costs? Are those qualitative questions considered by the minister and his staff? It is a little bit cruel to say to a school district: ''You make that decision. You deal with the families in this community, You say that the school closes down and your kids have to walk the extra mile or two." You get off the hook, I say to the minister. That is not fair. That lacks courage and an acceptance of responsibility on the ministry's part. You should make it one way or the other through the cost-sharing formula, and eliminate — or change to make it fair — the declining enrolment regulations that are costing so many school districts such a lot of money.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to add my support to the request by the first member for Vancouver Centre and the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) that the minister make a statement about the policy, and certainly the philosophy, of his government. I know the B.C. School Trustees Association released a report recently about the findings of a Gallup poll which was conducted in the province, which showed that public confidence in B.C. schools appears to be in worse shape than anywhere else in Canada. It said that almost 54 percent of the respondents in B.C. — 14 percent above the national average — believe that education standards in this province are declining. The B.C. School Trustees were sufficiently concerned about this that when they had a meeting, with the Social Credit caucus and the New Democratic Party caucus in April of this year, they prepared an agenda, and one of the items on the agenda which they raised was the need for a statement of provincial goals and objectives from the government. They need to know whether the government has a commitment to the public school system or not; and if so, whether the government is prepared to put the dollars behind that kind of commitment.

The other item which was raised was the whole question of the government's share of the basic education program cost in terms of the public schools. Now the minister assures us that this is not declining. Yet we also find in a statement from the GVRD dealing with this particular issue, which was released at the end of 1979, or the beginning of this year, that the government's contribution to the basic education program — certainly in the greater Vancouver area, and that included Burnaby — declined in recent years from 45.3

[ Page 2892 ]

percent in 1973 to 28.8 percent this year. Now the minister can challenge these figures if he wants. They're not my figures, as I said; they're the figures of the GVRD, and they pointed out that the government's contribution to the province as a whole had dropped from 50.7 percent to 45 percent over the same period.

The other statement that the minister made in speaking to the table officers of the B.C. School Trustees in January of this year was that his ministry was not planning any major legislative changes related to education. He said none were planned before, maybe, the 1981 sitting of the Legislature. They expressed some alarm about this, and I want to express some alarm about that too. We are living in a society and in a time which is changing in very dramatic ways, and education has to change; it can't remain static. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise just a couple of the areas that I think the Ministry of Education should seriously start looking at.

The crisis that we're dealing with in the community as a whole now has to do with the whole issue of teenage pregnancies. I don't know whether the minister is aware of this or not, so maybe I will share some of the statistics. One thousand Canadian teenage girls become pregnant every week — and this is in Canada as a whole. We have a report from Dr. Tonkin of British Columbia, who supports this statistic in terms of how it affects British Columbia itself. He talks about the large number of girls under the age of 19, many of whom are under the age of 15, who are becoming pregnant. He says that there were something like 3, 934 women under the age of 19 who became pregnant, and a large percentage of these pregnancies were to women under the age of 15. We're talking about kids in grade 9, grade 10 and grade 11, but most of the figures were for kids in grades 9 and 10. His statistics went on to point out that of this number 51 percent ended up applying for abortions. He said that 35 percent of the abortions performed on all women in this province were on women under the age of 19 — and again he zeroed in on those statistics for young girls under the age of 15.

Now we don't very often hear profound statements from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) on this particular topic, but we did recently when he suggested that probably one way of addressing ourselves to this problem was to look at the whole business of ignorance because Dr. Tonkin's report went on to prove that in most instances we were dealing with young people who knew absolutely nothing about contraceptives and very little about the whole process of sex itself. They think they know everything about it, but the reality is that they know very little. He talked about one B.C. school district where he dealt with grades 9 and 10. Out of the number of students that came to his attention as a result of being pregnant, only one had ever used any form of contraceptive or even understood very much about it.

The Minister of Health suggested that one of the solutions to this was that the educational system should take this into account and maybe the school system should start seriously addressing this business of ignorance in this particular aspect of the lives of the young people in our province. There's a quote from the Times of January 15 of this year in which the minister made that suggestion. The Minister of Education was quoted as saying that he doesn't go along with that idea at all and does not support the suggestion of the Minister of Health. B.C.'s school system should be taking into account the fact that for one reason or another young people are.... They're not maturing younger but they're believing that they're maturing younger. They're certainly experimenting with sex at a much younger age. If we're going to be really addressing ourselves to the whole crisis of teenage pregnancies, the education system has some kind of responsibility in this area.

The minister felt that this is something which should be left to the school board, yet earlier this afternoon I heard him state quite clearly on the floor of this House that he was not going to tolerate curricula being left at the mercy of local school districts. He said there had to be guidance coming from the top and that was the reason that he was speaking in support of centralization, certainly in terms of the social studies curriculum, You can't have it both ways. You can't say we must have centralization in terms of the curriculum content of some things and then in an area.... I confess it is a controversial area and a new area, but it's not an area that can be ignored by the education system any longer. The minister says that he doesn't go along with it but the local school boards can do what they want to do if the spirit moves them.

Teenage pregnancies interrupt, and in many instances terminate, the education of a number of these young women. Surely that aspect of it anyway is of interest to the Ministry of Education. If you are not interested in the fact that a large percentage of them resort to abortions and that another percentage of them actually keep their children — and we have all kinds of additional problems with that — then surely you're interested in the fact that this particular experience in many instances terminates or at least interrupts the education of these young women. If you want to limit your perception of this problem to its very narrowest parameters, certainly the interruption of their education is something that you should take into account. The statistics say that 5 percent of the young women in school in British Columbia will become pregnant some time before they graduate. That is a very large percentage that you cannot ignore. The educational system cannot ignore a phenomenon that has as large and as profound an effect on the lives of those young people as teenage pregnancy is beginning to have.

What happens, of course, is that everything effects everything else. We get the statistics on poverty coming out of the Canadian Council on Social Development. Those statistics on poverty show that most of the people who are poor are women and most of the women who are poor have very limited education. If you want to take it right back to its very beginnings, education plays a major role in terms of the kinds of job that a person can apply or qualify for, the kind of income that a person can earn, the kind of contribution that they can make to the community at large and the quality of life of this entire nation. One thing that interrupts that educational process and terminates it in 5 percent of the instances in British Columbia is teenage pregnancy. It doesn't make sense, therefore, for the Minister of Education, who is presumably the person responsible for the direction and the policy decisions in terms of the education of the young people of this province, to dissociate himself and say that he doesn't go along with this idea — that if the Ministry of Education, for some reason or another, didn't want to go ahead with such a program that would be fine with him. In fact, various independent local school districts.... His exact quote is that education is a local option. That is what he said in this particular case, but of course when he interferes with the content of the social studies program it's not a local option.

[ Page 2893 ]

I think that raises a point which the first member for Vancouver Centre did earlier when he said it really does call for intestinal fortitude and courage to be a Minister of Education in this province. It really does, because this is a controversial issue and there isn't any question about it. There are all kinds of newspaper clippings. All the forces opposed to information and enlightenment and knowledge around the province are going to come screaming at the Minister of Education: "How dare you deal with such a topic in the schools?" You have to. I don't believe that the Minister of Education or the department has a choice anymore. As long as teenage pregnancy was something that happened to just one or two people because they weren't good girls, that was fine; maybe it could be ignored then. But it has reached proportions now where it is affecting 5 percent of the female students going through the school system. It is interrupting their education and in some instances it is terminating it. Dr. Tonkin's report tells us that it is also a threat in terms of health. Even their life, in some instances, is threatened. For one thing, the kids wait until the very last minute before they reveal the information. In some cases they try to abort themselves. There are all kinds of health problems surrounding this which will presumably be dealt with under the Minister of Health's estimates.

But the basic thing is the lack of information. They don't know. They think they know. I repeat it again, as a parent of teenagers. Teenagers really do believe they know, and in some instances, probably, they do; but in this particular instance the statistics don't bear that out. The statistics show that there is a lot of information that they just haven't got access to. It is just as important for them to understand the basics of this particular topic as it is for them to understand how to construct a sentence properly, which I understand they are not even learning to do very well in the school system now anyway.

In terms of the minister's statement about not planning any major changes, this is one area where I think we can't wait until 1981. We are talking about kids in grades 9 and 10. We are talking about 15-year-olds and about something that has reached crisis proportions and is getting worse. We are talking about something that directly affects what happens to that person's life in the future and affects the ability that that person has to contribute to the lives of all the rest of us and to society as a whole, or their inability to contribute, as the case may be.

I want to bring that to the minister's attention once again and to tell him that there was a brief presented by Planned Parenthood to a provincial education association in which they stressed the importance of making family life and sex education part of the regular school curriculum at the primary and secondary level. It has to be done right now. This is not an original idea on my part. This is an issue which concerns people involved in education and health, and parents right across the board. It is not good enough for the Minister of Education simply to say that it is not an issue to which he is going to address himself and that he has to be careful. As someone pointed out to him, ignoring the problem certainly isn't going to solve it.

I would like to bring to his attention that panel on sex education which was conducted in Richmond recently. I am sure he has access to the findings of that particular panel and can see some of the issues that were raised by teachers, doctors, parents and students in terms of directions in which the minister should be going.

The second area that I would like to address to the minister is this. In November of last year, a memo went out from the deputy minister that had to do with female participation in educational programs and sources of sponsorship. I think the minister is probably very familiar with this. I want to raise the question of what has happened with the information which was included in this. The information in it is pretty frightening in terms of the very poor female participation in educational programs and certainly in terms of sponsorship. I want to quote a little bit from it.

This study was done by Dr. Marilyn Mohan, the former director of program research and development for the Ministry of Education. It found that, first, the majority of women are in non-sponsored programs — university transfer, career, technical and continuing education — with the exception of the CEIC sponsorship of women in a pre-employment program. Secondly, it says that those women who were fortunate enough to be sponsored were being trained for occupations which have low salaries, low security and for which the competition for employment is high. Here we go again!

I want to, if I can, bring the minister's attention again to the poverty report which was released by the Canadian Council on Social Development and corroborated this kind of information. The poorest people in this country are women. The poorest women are that way because they are in these traditional jobs that pay low salaries and have no job security whatever. The basis of that is inadequate education and training. This is supported by the study done by his own ministry. It shows that in the apprenticeship program, for example, 7.8 percent of the sponsored students were women; 92.2 percent were men. This is in the apprenticeship program into the non-traditional jobs that pay decent money and put you into good, strong unions so that when you retire you get a pension and you don't have to be poor when you are old. Only 7.8 percent of those students were women; 92.2 percent were men,

What have you done with this report? What kind of efforts have been made by the ministry to change those particular statistics? The pre-apprenticeship statistics show the number of female students was 5.8 percent; the number of male students was 94.2. Again, what has happened to those statistics? This memo came out in November 1979. Surely there has been enough time to at least begin working on some of the recommendations which were submitted along with the kind of horrendous statistics which we are talking about. The recommendations were that the Ministry of Education should get together with the ministries of Labour and Human Resources and work together in terms of evaluating the progress that had been made to date — I don't know why they use the word "progress" because I don't consider 5.8 percent progress — and then begin to encourage women to go into a wider range of training.

One of the things that this report also pointed out was the really inadequate data base. It was very, very difficult to get the information because the data base was not there. No one had been interested enough to put together a decent data base so that when you want these kinds of statistics you can get them. So the first thing the Minister of Education needed to do was to improve that situation anyway, in terms of the data base, and having done that, come together with these other ministries in terms of improving those statistics.

The other recommendation was that sponsoring agencies should earmark funds specifically for those women students

[ Page 2894 ]

who wanted to move into the nontraditional programs. "Nontraditional" is a euphemism that we use for those areas of work that pay decent salaries, have good working conditions and have until now been reserved for men. It is suggesting that the sponsoring agencies should earmark funds specifically to encourage women to go into those areas. I know that at the same time the Ministry of Labour was doing a study on women in nontraditional areas and they also brought down some recommendations. If the Minister of Education doesn't have that report I would be happy to share my copy with him.

The third recommendation had to do with the selection process for sponsoring post-secondary students and said that it needed to be thoroughly reviewed. That goes back to the old business of the previous Minister of Education first of all firing the committee on sexism in education, which used to be an advisory committee to the Minister of Education in terms of input in this particular area. So I am not holding the present minister responsible for that. True, he has made no efforts to reinstate that particular committee, but at least we can't hold him responsible for disbanding it. He didn't fire that committee. But it is clear from the kinds of information that we are getting that the ministry needs an advisory committee in terms of having input for ways in which the educational system really is failing the women in the province today. He has been asked, I know. I have a couple of letters having to do with that which I will deal with later.

The fourth recommendation had to do with career counselling. I am going to go into a great deal of detail on that one when I talk about the access program. I can see the deputy minister beginning to go grey because he knows this is all the access program — women's access. What is happening with that recommendation on career counselling for women in the post-secondary schools? Again it was suggested that it should be thoroughly reviewed.

If the minister is unable to answer some of these questions, I can answer them for him, because I know some of the answers.

But I think it's good to raise the issue, because it's possible that he hasn't even had an opportunity to see these recommendations, Mr. Chairman, and find out just how serious the situation is in terms of women in the community. I am convinced that no one likes the idea of poverty. No one supports the idea of poverty. No one condones the fact that most of the poor people in this country are women. Everyone wants to do what they can to eliminate this phenomenon. There isn't any question at all that employment is one of the ways of doing it, and training for employment certainly is a basic necessity. This is where this kind of counselling, access money, encouragement in terms of affirmative action and those kinds of phenomena have to come in. This is the reason why I am raising them here under the Minister of Education's estimates.

The fifth recommendation was that where there is evidence of need, women taking programs that lead to employment offering career development, greater security and higher salaries should be given high preference for provincial grants. Women taking career training and technical programs should be given special encouragement. I recognize that no one ministry can act in isolation. For a number of these things to happen the Ministry of Human Resources has to do a better job in terms of child care facilities and that kind of thing; the Ministry of Labour has to do a better job in terms of beefing up their apprenticeship programs; the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development to do a better job in terms of job creation. It calls for a great deal of cooperation, but l'm zeroing in specifically on the Ministry of Education's responsibilities as one area that has to work, because none of the other areas are going to work as long as this counselling is not available.

The sixth recommendation, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is listening....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I just got started.

The sixth recommendation is that post-secondary institutions provide support services that will enable women to enter the full-time programs. As you know, Mr. Chairman, a number of the women going into the educational system are women who cannot, either because they are single parents or because they have families or whatever, have access to school full-time unless there are support services either available at the schools themselves or in the form of subsidies to make it possible for them to utilize the day care services or get past other barriers which stand in the way of their pursuing a full-time education program. So this sixth recommendation is that there should be some support services made to make it possible for women to go to school full-time, as part-time education does not always meet the needs which these particular women have in terms of upgrading their skills.

I'll just rest for a minute. Are you going to intervene for me, Dennis?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, while the Minister of Education is thinking over that extremely important material that has been developed by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and just to further educate the Minister of Health, I would intervene just long enough to let the member for Burnaby-Edmonds get back and finish what she has to say.

MS. BROWN: I just want to deal now with the women's access program. I see the deputy minister has been anticipating that I was going to do this. I'll give a little bit of background, because this is one of the deputy minister's favourite programs.

In 1979 he made a ministerial policy statement on women having access to post-secondary education and training. It's just an absolutely magnificent letter and I'd like to read part of it. He says:

"In looking at the major trends affecting our colleges and institutes, it is very clear that women students are forming the major new educational market. We know that women who re-enter our educational institutions in preparation for re-entering the workforce need specialized counselling and several of our colleges and institutes have designed special counselling services. The ministry wants to ensure that all of our student services have some counselling specifically designed to assist women to make realistic work and educational choices."

Three cheers for the deputy minister of education. He goes on to say:

"It is the policy of the ministry to support every college and institution in establishing a program to enable women to access information about educational and career possibilities. This policy is detailed in

[ Page 2895 ]

the attached paper and attached is the ministerial policy on women's access programs. The ministry will now be prepared to fund programs aimed at bringing institutions closer to the goal of women's access programs.

Yours truly,

Walter G. Hardwick,

Deputy Minister."

Three cheers for the deputy minister. Beautiful.

The program talks about the importance of the colleges having career counselling. It talks about how in the next decade adult women students are going to form the major educational market, because they're choosing to enter the labour force rather than have large families. That should make the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) very happy. It says it is clear that women now see education as the route into the labour force. He says: "Not only will women be the new client group, but they will be older women." He even took into account us older women. No more will they have 15- to 24-year-olds; they were going from 25- to 44-year-olds. He didn't get those quite as old as I am.

He says: "If the adult women students do indeed form the new client group for educators, then career counselling needs to be designed." And he went on: "The goal of every college and institution should aim at establishing a program to enable women to access information about career possibilities." It goes on: "You've got to hire the personnel you need, get the space that you need, design the programs, special education and continuing education courses." Then he even outlines the steps towards the goals: "Every college will be invited to describe the local personnel, space, access programs and special continuing education programs specifically aimed at providing women access..." et cetera.

That was in January 1979. And a number of colleges took him seriously. I think he started out with 12 proposals from BCIT, Malaspina College, Cariboo College, Okanagan College, Camosun College and you name it. A number of colleges took him seriously and filed their requests for funding. That first year they didn't get quite as much as they wanted, but they did get some. Cariboo College, North West College, College of New Caledonia, Malaspina College and Okanagan College all received some funding, and the program proved to be very successful. There was no question about it. It was exactly what the women in those particular areas of the community were looking for. In droves, they registered in those access programs; they used the facilities. It proved to be so successful that at the end of the year other colleges decided that they needed to participate as well and those first colleges that had their funding decided that they needed more money. They were doing such an excellent job that they needed additional funding so that they could — what is the word? — "access" information to even greater and greater numbers of women students.

There were women over the age of 80. It says 61.3 percent of the women students were above the age of 30, with their last child likely to be in school full-time, and the trend accelerated until by the time we got into women at age 40, they made up 69 percent of the enrolment. All these older women were going back to school, deciding to get the kinds of skills they needed so that they didn't necessarily have to be poor when they were old. In particular, rural women were using this program. It was what they were looking for: it was the answer to isolation, lack of cultural activities and all kinds of things. There were obstacles, but they had leadership training, program development and this kind of thing, and it really was the answer. It dealt with vocational planning, information referral, life goal planning, psychological tests, self-development and career development: the whole works.

Then, the department decided that since it worked, it wasn't necessary to allocate any funds to the program anymore. Really! Having established the program and having established that it worked, there wasn't any necessity to fund it anymore, The department decided that now the universities and the colleges should pick up the full cost for this program out of their inadequate budgets.

Have you any idea, Mr. Chairman, what happened to the program? Can you guess what happened to the program? I want to read a letter which I received — another letter — from the deputy minister in March of this year. He said: "I am so sorry to have taken so long to respond to your letter of January 1980. However" — and he explains that Dr. Mohan was on leave, so information was not available. First of all he says: "The ministry sees services to women as part of the student services activities of colleges and institutes. With an increased percentage of students being mature women, the need is very real. It is our goal that these programs become integrated." Now I want to compare that with the first letter, where the government said the department was going to be paying for these programs — that was in 1979. In 1980 the goal has changed. Now the goal is that it has to be integrated into the colleges and institutes activities and become part of their budgets. In one year that's what has happened to that particular program.

He goes on to say that five colleges were awarded special funds in 1978-79 to set up the program — as I said before, Malaspina, Cariboo, New Caledonia, North West and Okanagan. "Once the program was in place, we urged that the funds be included in the student service budget base, and therefore no additional funds were set aside for them in 1979-80.'' Does that make any sense to you, Mr. Chairman? There was no money for this program prior to 1978-79. The government decided that there was a need for this program, therefore the government funded five colleges and institutes to put this program into place. Having put the program into place and the program having been proved successful, the government therefore now says: "Okay, integrate it into your budget base, because there is no more money to fund this program." There wasn't any money in the colleges' budget base in the first place. The colleges could not have afforded to institute that program in the first place. This program would not have existed unless the funding had been available, They would not even have accepted the funding except that they got a letter saying that the government had this magnificent commitment to women, wanted them to have all the education they can get, and therefore was going to fund this program. They took the government at its word. They took the funding and set up the program, and a year later they got a letter saying: "There are no additional funds set aside for this program for 1979-80." The funds allocated were approximately $20,000 per institution. Now I'm not sure what kind of program you can get for $20,000. That's what's happened to the women's access program.

It doesn't matter how many letters you write. There are letters of support from people right across British Columbia, women who have used the program: Outreach (Employment Opportunities) of Golden, B.C.; Women's Resources Centre

[ Page 2896 ]

on Robson Street; Dawson Creek, Burns Lake; support from Okanagan College — you name it.

People have been writing in support of this program. The colleges have been writing to the Ministry of Education asking that the ministry reconsider its position on this particular issue. There are all kinds of statistics that have come in from Okanagan College showing the kind of impact it has had on the community and the ways in which it has changed people's lives. There's a study on the Vernon experience — the components in the access thing. There's the special project on basic literacy done by Okanagan College. I have stuff here from Malaspina and UBC. The program was a success. The government cut the funding off. The Premier stood on his feet yesterday and said this government has money: "We have money. We can do whatever we want to do. We do not need any assistance from the federal government or whatever."

One program that was finally put together that addressed itself to the training and educational needs of older women — more mature women, if you prefer that word — which the community colleges and institutes were enticed and seduced into putting in place in 1978-79, had its funding cut once that program was proved successful. The colleges were told: "Integrate it into your overall expenditure; it becomes part of your budget base." There's never been a commitment to women in terms of that kind of budgeting in any of these colleges prior to that. The colleges have always maintained that this was not a priority area, that there was no funding for it. That was one of the reasons why the decision was made that the government would fund it; the government would initiate the funding for that program so as to make that program become a reality in terms of meeting these needs. It stayed in place for one year and then the letter went out saying that there were no additional funds set aside to pay for these programs in the 1979-80 academic year.

There were a couple of colleges which didn't get any funding in the first year — Fraser Valley and Northern Lights — and the program research and development branch of the post-secondary department is reviewing those colleges with a view to probably giving them some of the one-year funding. But as far as the other colleges are concerned, those that already have the program in place, where it's being used, where the women have become dependent on it, where it's been proven successful — 401 individual consultations; 12 interviews for career planning in one instance; 39 adult women taking the career planning workshop; people enrolled in business; 5 in the long-term care aide program — the funding has been cut off. They have been told to integrate it into their budget base because there is no additional funding for that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That's a really cruel hoax, Mr. Chairman; that was not a nice thing which the department did to those colleges or to those women who've become totally dependent on that access program. It was really just a very small step in the right direction. For the first time in this government's term of office, the ministry was making a genuine move, I believe, to try and give women, particularly in the interior and in the rural areas, some of the tools with which they could start to build their lives in terms of dealing with poverty somewhere down the line. It was cut off. If there is any way at all that the Minister of Education can reverse the decision on this particular issue it would be appreciated; it would be a major step on the part of his ministry.

I don't know how else to explain it, except to say that it was a cruel hoax. The Prince George area and a number of other areas are now beginning to talk about wanting to put these access programs into place themselves, but the financial wizards at the college level are saying if the government is only prepared to fund it for one year it's better not to touch it at all. If they do, then the colleges are going to be called upon to pick up the funding after that and there just is not enough money, there just aren't the dollars to go around. I regret to say it, but in many instances it is still not seen as a priority area by these colleges.

I have another report here, "Re-entry Women and Employment Services," which was prepared in 1980. It's a working paper, a social policy statement, that outlines recommendations for the Ministry of Education in terms of dealing with women. It comes out very strongly about the Ministry of Education making a firm commitment to community colleges and institutes in terms of special programs, special resources, and in terms of retraining and helping women to re-enter the labour market and the labour force, so that women can become more and more responsible for themselves in terms of employment. It has to be done through education; there isn't any other avenue we can use.

I want to move onto another area. I remind the minister that what I'm talking about are major legislative changes related to his ministry which I think cannot wait until 1981. The first one was teenage pregnancy; the second one is the women's access.

The minister raised the question of English as a second language education. I wonder whether he has any idea what it is like to be a teacher of English as a second language in our educational system. I met with a number of these teachers recently and they pointed out a couple of things to me in terms of their jobs. I know the minister is going to say this is negotiated at the local level but I think he should have this information on the working conditions of these teachers of English as a second language. They have no contracts and therefore have no job security. They can be fired on a day's notice. That was the first grievance they raised. They could be told at the end of a teaching day, "Your services are no longer needed," and that is the end of it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

They have no pay differential in terms of their scale. All the teachers are paid exactly the same. If you start working today as a teacher of English as a second language you start at exactly the same salary as if you had been teaching English as a second language for seven or ten years. Everyone is paid the same; there is no differential whatsoever. There is no special sliding scale in terms of your experience or your qualifications. One teacher wrote and said: "I worked in Burnaby for eight years and my pay is exactly the same as a new teacher or a substitute instructor with or without any experience or training." That is the second grievance.

The third one is that they have no voice in the annual increment salary negotiations. They are not called in to negotiate salaries. They are told that this year their increment is going to be 3, 4 or 5 percent or whatever. There are no negotiations. They can take it or leave it. The thing pointed out by these teachers in Burnaby was that they were being paid less than in Vancouver. I recognize that there is absolutely nothing the minister can do about that particular discrepancy but I am bringing it to your attention in any event.

[ Page 2897 ]

They have no paid statutory holidays, no paid annual holidays and no fringe benefits whatsoever. If you don't work you don't get paid. They are not entitled to any holidays whatsoever and on statutory holidays when they do not work, they are docked in terms of their salary. They are allowed one work day — three hours — sick leave per month. We asked to have that prorated for four consecutive years so they could put it together and get a package so that they can get really sick and have a couple of days off at a time or whatever. They were turned down.

Again I am saying that I recognize that the minister is going to stand up and tell me that these things are negotiated at the local level and he has no control over them, but it is information he should have because he should have control. If the minister can tell us that he must have control over the content of social studies curriculum, he should at least know what is happening to these teachers in the school system. Three hours a month is all they are allowed.

The fourth grievance they raised is that pay is given for direct student contact hours only. There is no allowance for curriculum preparation, lesson planning, clerical work, extra help to the students, travelling time from one school to another, lunch break or whatever. A number of these teachers, because they only work three-hour slots at a time, work in different schools. They have to drive from one school to another and, as one particular teacher pointed out, they eat lunch while driving. They are paid strictly by the hour and the time put in preparing and marking the lesson, the extra time with the students, typing or whatever is not taken into account. It is strictly in terms of the number of hours spent teaching. That is all they are paid on. Remember what I mentioned earlier. There is no job security. At the end of a three-hour stint they can be told their services are no longer necessary. As I pointed out before, there are also no fringe benefits — no medical coverage, no dental coverage, no superannuation, no pension, no eligibility for UIC. They should be covered at least by the Labour Code. For Pete's sake, there are people in here fighting to get farmworkers and domestics covered by the Labour Code, and the Minister of Education has working under his purview people who haven't even got those basic kinds of coverage.

The instructors are told that their negotiations are done at the local level. They are hired at the local level. They are fired at the local level and if the local school boards choose not to give them this kind of coverage, there is nothing that can be done about it. But surely the Ministry of Education can lay down some basic standards in terms of labour management practice which must be respected around the province. I mean it is thoroughly disgraceful that in this day and age a Minister of Education would tolerate this kind of procedure on the part of the staff. "Because English as a second language instructors do not come under the regular School Act there are no bylaws for their protection, no tenure, no salary scale, no negotiations, no seniority, no leave-of-absence, no hours of direct or indirect student contact time." It's not mentioned here, but I imagine they're probably not covered by the Workers' Compensation Board either. They're in a new category between the regular school teachers and other support staff, such as the stenographers, so they're not members of CUPE and do not have any form of trade union protection or whatever.

Mr. Chairman, I have notes I made myself plus, I guess, five other letters which I received from different teachers once they knew that I was interested, pointing out pretty much the same things as were raised in the first letter, the really incredibly bad working conditions under which these teachers have to work. The Ministry of Education has to lay down some basic ground rules in terms of the working conditions of these teachers. It's not good enough to say: "It's negotiated at the local level."

Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, before you tell me that my time is up, that was the third area under legislative planning that can't wait until 1981. I just want to mention very quickly the B.C., Home and Schools Federation, some changes in terms of decision for funding which can't wait until 1981, and some kind of response to the Council of Parent Participation Pre-schools in British Columbia who wrote to the ministry and have not received an answer. The last letter was asking for another answer about Project Child Day Care which he received in May; they sent me a copy saying they still have not received an answer from the minister dealing with that thing.

Finally, just before the light goes red, I want to bring to his attention that the Board of Education in Ontario is finding that as a result of declining enrolment and high unemployment among teachers, there is a temptation on the part of various school districts to hire based on a breadwinner basis. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is monitoring this in terms of discrimination in hiring by the local districts, and I'm wondering whether any of this has been brought to the attention of the ministry and whether, in fact, the B.C. Human Rights Commission is looking into this area too.

Are you going to answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we going to hear from the Premier?

MR. LAUK: Oh, no. He's got to wait in line, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Education has got designs on that job.

AN HON. MEMBER: We probably all have.

MR. LAUK: Knowing human nature, I guess that's true.

Mr. Chairman, the questions that have been raised this afternoon surrounding the homeowner taxation problem have not been adequately answered, and I would ask the minister to reconsider the reply that he's given to the extent that he might fill out his reply with a little bit more information. The movement generally since the election of the Social Credit administration in 197 has been to increase the burden on the homeowner rather than the other way around. The first reduction in the mill rate has occurred this year. It seems to me that the minister could assist us all if he'd provide us with the decision on policy or some direction that he's going that will assure the homeowner that the burden will be relaxed and a greater proportion of local school district costs will be borne by the provincial government.

I also mention, Mr. Chairman. the problem of centralization, and I want to give the minister an example. I'm sure he's well aware of centralization — other examples will occur throughout his estimates and will be brought to his attention. Under section 168 of the Public Schools Act, as it then was, local schools were permitted to replace provincially prescribed courses, subject to regulations. A committee was established by the NDP administration to formulate these regulations. It was set up in May 1974, It was dis-

[ Page 2898 ]

banded by the Social Credit administration in 1976. Nothing was done until circular 81, March 1979, established those regulations. The standards are so detailed, complex and time-consuming as to surely discourage the development of local courses.

I would submit that, having regard to the minister's commitment to standards throughout the province, even in the face of that commitment, such a complex and detailed set of regulations is surely not required to ensure the basic curriculum needs across the province. The rigorous criteria can clearly not be met, it seems to me.

The minister's regulations are presently being tested in proposals by the school boards of Trail, Langley and Abbotsford. I understand that Trail has already been rejected.

HON. MR. SMITH: They all have been.

MR. LAUK: They all have been rejected. So this is an example of a local school district making an effort and the effort being paternalistically rejected by the authority, rather than the resource.

The new curriculum guide is being approved by order-in-council rather than the minister, which is a practice, I understand, that has not been in use since 1918. So when one looks quantitatively at how much the minister is regressing, one can look at those dates. The practice has been that changes in the curriculum need the approval of the minister, but the effect of this change — that is to say with the Lieutenant-Governor — is that we now have to place the decision before the cabinet.

The minister has indicated to me that all three requests for an order-in-council under this system have been turned down. Certainly these three requests, I submit to the committee, will inhibit other school boards from developing courses. I think the procedures that have followed have been designed to create criteria and regulations which will discourage the local development, if you like, of courses; it is being frustrated. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it's being frustrated by the natural bureaucratic approach that's taken to education. That's a very unfortunate situation. School trustees have asked me about this, particularly in areas where there are large Indian populations, with a view to proceeding along these lines of developing local courses. But I'm sure that once they have heard of the rejection of the three school districts in question they will be greatly discouraged indeed.

I want to ask also whether the minister would not particularly use his good offices to encourage his — I submit — slow-moving area of Indian course curriculum, to develop locally developed courses in places where there is a heavy Indian population and eliminate all of this red tape. Surely once you have the branch concerned with Indian curriculum cooperating with this guideline for locally developed courses, there's no need for the kind of criteria and regulative morass that discourages the efforts of the local officials in this regard. I wonder if the minister wouldn't intervene and encourage — not wait for it to happen, but get the Indian curriculum people and the Circular 81 people together and get something like that rolling. Because otherwise people are just going to throw up their hands. There is a lot of evidence that they throw up their hands in dealing with the ministry on many other issues. That's one where I think the minister can show some leadership and encourage some activity.

As the twilight of today is rapidly approaching, there are a few odds and ends that I would ask the minister to consider. I asked him in question period some time ago about funding the Home and School Federation. I'm sure that the minister knows that this federation is non-partisan. It is not committed to any political party. It does not support the teachers over school trustees or vice versa. It has no axe to grind. It has provided parents with a vehicle and an opportunity to take their concerns and suggestions for education to all levels of government concerned with health, education and welfare of children. Funding was provided by the province for 27 years and was discontinued with the reason given that the province in the future would rather fund only programs that directly serve children. It is a provincially based, non-profit society and has been for 58 years. It represents over 40 percent of the school districts in B.C. with some 5,000 members. It is the only provincial home and school federation in Canada not receiving assistance. It received funding under the NDP administration.

I am going to quote directly from a note from the Home and School Federation:

"These 58 years have been spent by thousands of volunteers assiduously working for the health, welfare and education of all children in B.C. The hours could never be counted and the millions of dollars raised by our B.C. members at the local school level and used directly by these schools could never be tabulated."

They are recognized by the various professional educational bodies, including the ministry. They are recognized nationally by the federal government. Virtually every country in the western world has a home and school organization and 99 percent of them are funded by the local administration — the provincial government or state government or whatever it be.

The most recently requested grant was for a mere $17,500. As I say, we are building tunnels across the Strait of Georgia. We are putting up receiving dishes from here to Timbuktu to get Oral Roberts for the Minister of Agriculture. We've got the Open Learning Institute. We've got all kinds of expenditures by this government. It is not as if they are going to break the provincial treasury. Maybe the minister can tell us why a non-partisan, non-profit society operating solely for the benefit of youngsters cannot receive this small amount of money just to get a mailing out once in a while to let their members know what's going on in education.

The minister has indicated that he intends to have public forums this fall to receive information. It is important that he receive information not only from professional groups and highly organized groups that will be able to put out the funds and the research to present thoughtful and sophisticated briefs to the minister's commission, but these groups of parents throughout the province should have some financial assistance to keep themselves organized and informed and perhaps even present a parent's point of view to the minister's public forums.

They've only asked for $17,500. I suppose they're asking for so little as to embarrass the minister into granting it. The minister might also consider a more substantial grant of money to this federation so that they can contact locals in each school district to start the research and development of materials to be presented to the minister this fall. That, if he's sincere about getting a broad spectrum of an overall point of view on all aspects of education during his tour, would be a very worthwhile expenditure of funds. To do otherwise is to limit unnecessarily the capacity of this organization and its

[ Page 2899 ]

locals to represent the parents — if you like — of British Columbia. I'd ask the minister to consider making that grant as quickly as possible.

I mentioned earlier the question of the social studies curriculum with some interested glances from the minister's staff. Apart from my rhetoric, I want to seriously approach this problem and I want to ask the minister whether he doesn't consider the social studies curriculum, as developed so far.... The third draft — I don't know where that is.... it just gives you an example of the centralization of the bureaucracy. I understand Mr. Carter was ill and the third draft, which was due at the beginning of April, didn't come out, as a result of Mr. Carter's illness. It calls into question the centralization of the ministry when the sickness of one official can so seriously jeopardize the development of the social studies curriculum. I don't want to make a federal case of this. Everybody's entitled to be ill, but the point that I'm trying to make is that to develop the social studies curriculum is a very serious situation and I don't think it should depend on one official. It seems to indicate — it's apparent to me — the degree of centralization that's occurred. I wonder if you could indicate what the new timetable is for the curriculum and where the third draft is. My notes are not up to date on it. It might be around today.

I ask the minister to consider the highly prescriptive nature of the curriculum, This is the point I was trying to get at earlier this afternoon: 75 percent to 80 percent of the compulsory social studies program each year is prescribed. That's what I'm trying to say. I mean, good Lord, don't you have any faith or confidence in social studies teachers? If we don't, and that lack of faith is justified, let's get to work on our education departments at the universities — maybe we should anyway. Yes, the heads are nodding. I tend to agree with that. I hope that a lot of the criticism I've made of the ministry this afternoon has been somewhat constructive — apart from what the minister implied. It could be directed to the departments of education at our universities.

In the sixties teachers had far greater scope in teaching social studies than they have now. I'm not sure, but it seems to me that a lot of those teachers are still around, and maybe they're somewhat resentful of the large prescriptive nature — 79 percent to 80 percent of the material — in the social studies curriculum.

The other point that should be made about the curriculum is: I'm wondering why trade union history or, let's say, the history of workers in British Columbia or in Canada has not been included. I understand that the deputy minister made a commitment to the British Columbia Federation of Labour that there will be a section on trade unions. Maybe someone could direct me to that section in due course; I haven't noticed it.

And, very importantly, arising out of my opening remarks, we're in a situation now where women are demanding equality. They are entitled to equal treatment and respect. But it's a cultural problem. Changing our cultural values to reinforce the positive change in cultural values is an educational problem. Where's the section on women? There's a social studies curriculum at this time, with great deference for the new movement, including a section on women.

What about Indians in the contemporary world? I'm not satisfied with the draft of the curriculum that I have which includes the kind of reference to Indians in the contemporary world that should be required in a public education system in B.C.

The study of other minority groups. The minister and I, I know, agree on one basic thing: that the rule of the majority is not always a supportable proposition. One poet said that the majority has not been right since the crucifixion of Christ. It's our solemn duty in a democratic or free political system to protect minority groups. It's also our responsibility in the field of education to include in such a social studies curriculum a large section on the minority groups of British Columbia; that includes ethnic as well as other identifiable minority groups. The failure to deal with this group seems to cut people off from their historical experience and thus their roots. That lack of response in our education engenders alienation between those groups in our society. It seems to me that a goal with the Ministry of Education and education generally in the province is to bring people together into a cooperative community and not reinforce old cultural values that will engender alienation. The entire approach to the curriculum is worthy of some criticism because it seems to assume the general passivity of a student, not an active, creative mind at that level of academics.

Those are the points I wanted to seriously make to the minister on the social studies curriculum. I wish he would consider them and perhaps make a response too. It's been a long time in coming. I think part of the problem is that fear of decentralization and delegation of authority and that lack of trust in the creativity of teachers and students and local school trustees. I use this social studies curriculum development that has been taking place, together with my statement to the minister on section 168 — the locally developed courses.... The experience people are having in approaching the problem of decentralization on curriculum, for example, with the department has been discouraging. There is no need for it and it should not happen.

Before I sit down, I want to bring to the minister's attention something that may have missed his attention in the past. This is a tabulation from Statistics Canada with respect to the estimated per capita expenditure for British Columbia for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, and the rank of British Columbia relative to other provinces. It is worthy to note that in the expenditures for education this province, of all ten provinces, ranks ninth.

Maybe the minister missed that. The per-capita expenditure for education in this province ranks ninth. I don't think it can be said that it's because the other provinces are so attentive to their education systems as much as it can be said that we are so neglectful.

I think that when we have $1 billion in surplus, when we re talking about these great capital expenditures throughout the province, we've got to talk about this government's priorities. The New Democratic Party's priorities are clear: our priorities are education and health first; that's a government's responsibility. In cooperation with private industry and the community generally the major projects can come about, but the priorities of a government that we would head would be health and education.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No chance of that.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Municipal Affairs says that there's no chance that his government will change its priorities, and that's really too bad, because.... Well, maybe it isn't, maybe it is, because that certainly sets up the contrast between that side of the House and this.

British Columbia, one of the richest provinces in the

[ Page 2900 ]

country, with all its natural resources, with $1 billion surplus in 1979, ranked ninth in education expenditures. That's a very serious condemnation. I wonder if the minister wouldn't comment on how he's going to improve that with the Treasury Board. Apart from his being a new minister, I'm sure that he has a great deal of strength in the cabinet now and will be able to convince his colleagues on the treasury benches that the share of the provincial budget towards education should be increased substantially. I'm sure I've got the agreement of each and every member of your staff here today.

Perhaps the minister would like to finish off the afternoon.

HON. MR. SMITH: If the member agrees, I'll respond to his questions and close the debate.

Yes, I would agree with the member; I would like to see more money in the education budget. I think that's an excellent objective and I will....

MR. LAUK: Tell the Premier where we rank.

HON. MR. SMITH: I gather that we rank fifth on another chart, but it's still not good enough.

MR. LAUK: Are you attacking Statistics Canada?

HON. MR. SMITH: I have a Statistics Canada that says fifth. Listen, fifth or tenth, it's still not good enough.

First of all, I am still considering funding the Home and School Federation. There are a lot of other parents' groups that are very active. There are parents' advisory groups and councils and so on that also have a similar kind of case, and I'm concerned about how far it should go. I am considering funding them.

You mentioned section 168, now 165, on the local permission for textbooks and resources. I turned down these three Lippincott reading applications that you mentioned, but I did so in such a way that we agreed to fund what they had done already and allow them to continue and phase out, and that any students in them will be able to complete. I didn't turn them down on the basis of bureaucratic information. I actually sat down for a day and went through them and had them explained to me and looked at them and compared them. The main reason I turned them down was that they were bad on Canadian content. I am kind of concerned that we have Canadian content in our reading program. There were two — one by a Canadian firm and one redone by an American firm with Canadian content — which were better. That was the main reason I turned them down. Also, they were a little weaker technically in one respect than the others. I didn't penalize the school districts.

I have tried to be as decentralistic as I can, while keeping some control on standards. On social studies, this is the first time, honourable critic opposite, I am told, that social studies curriculum reviews have gone out and we've had this consultation process. But the social studies curriculum is now at draft No. 3. Draft No. 3 went out at the end of April and the field were given until the end of June to respond. They have not had this opportunity in the past to do this kind of thing. Some teachers are telling me that is not enough time because of the end of term. I am going to certainly allow them until the end of July, because I think that's reasonable. It wasn't designed by bureaucrats. It was designed by a committee consisting of one public servant and six teachers from the field. There has been so darned much consultation on this thing, I suppose we could go on consulting into the nineties.

I really have tried in curriculum revision to have some genuine field input. If that's not occurring, you bring that to my attention. I'm pleased to try to improve it. I honestly don't believe these things should be prescribed and drawn up in a broom closet by people at the centre.

MR. LAUK: Why do it?

HON. MR. SMITH: You produce the final product and direct it, but you don't put everything into it. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) raised a number of points with me. Career counselling was one. I think she misses the boat. This career counselling is taking place at the post-secondary level, but it's taking place as part of the normal budget and not as a special program, and I know that concerns her.

She also raised the question of the English second language teachers who had no job security. These are teachers in a particular school, Royal Oak, in Burnaby, and they're a pilot project for one year. I was in that school and saw them and they're very good. They will probably get regular contracts from Burnaby if that continues, but they were in an insecure position for one year. Generally speaking, all these teachers are on regular contracts with their boards and they do have the kind of security that she was concerned about.

She also asked me about female participation in the educational process as a whole and the necessity to ensure that we have more female participation in our trades and apprenticeship programs. I think her point is well taken. I would point out to her that in the post-secondary field of education the majority of the students are women.

She invited me to prescribe family life programs across the province. While she was doing that, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was urging me to be more decentralistic. She was urging me to be more centralistic. I have no intention of prescribing family life programs across the province. There are some very, very good ones in individual school districts and it should be a matter of local choice.

In closing the debate, I would like to thank the members for the constructive criticisms that they gave me and the points that they raised. I will take them into account.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.