[ Page 2901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Reorganization of Finance ministry. Mr. Lea –– 2901

Northeastern B.C. rail link. Mr. Lauk –– 2903

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 54.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2903

Mr. Lauk –– 2904

Mr. Davis –– 2905

Mr. Lauk –– 2907

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2912

Mr. Passarell –– 2913

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2914

Mr. Mitchell –– 2915

Mr. Mussallem –– 2916

Mrs. Wallace –– 2918

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2920

Mr. King –– 2922

Mr. Barber –– 2922

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Railway financial statements for the year ending December 28, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2925

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the House today are some good friends, Mario and Marcella Carmel from Vancouver. They are here with a group of senior citizens representing the Italian folk society in the city of Vancouver. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Visiting the precincts today are students from Salmo Elementary School and their teacher, Mr. Andy Gris. I wish the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In the House today a couple of friends of mine from Saanich, Mr. and Mrs. Fenry Borsboom. Mr. Borsboom was a friend of my father's in the village that I came from in Holland, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: In the gallery today are two friends of mine, Mrs. Mary Mulvahill and Mrs. Kathy Mulvahill. They're here with a group of students from Chezacut in the Cariboo riding. If anybody doesn't know where it is I'll gladly guide them. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a young lad who is leaving for Ottawa this week to join the student forum of young Canadians. He will be one of 100. Derrick will be representing the Sooke school district and will be sitting in the chambers in Ottawa. I'd like everyone to welcome Derrick Acerman from Sooke.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'd like to introduce two people in the gallery today; one is an old friend of mine whom I became associated with for many years with General Motors. His name is Mr. Al Crocker. He has a guest with him from the government of Ontario who is here to see how we do things in the Legislature of British Columbia. Would you welcome them, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There are a number of guests I would like to acknowledge today visiting the House: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Jiggins from Qualicum Beach; their father Fred Jiggins, also of Qualicum Bay; also from England, visiting British Columbia, Fred's brother Mr. Jack Jiggins; also from Britain, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Wicks of Chelmsford, England — Mr. Wicks is an alderman there. With the party today is Ed Irving from Bowser; he's the former mayor of Parksville.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In the gallery today there are a number of students who are participating in the B.C. — Quebec student exchange program. During the summer they will be involved with eight government ministries, including the Attorney-General's ministry, the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit and the provincial Ministry of Health. They are undertaking a variety of jobs, some related to the follow-up care for medical patients, the health-care system, and the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary in relation to the heritage conservation branch. I would ask that the House give them a special welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We have two guests from the state of California, which is, I guess, a sure sign of summer. I'd like the House to welcome Don Libolt and Kim Adams from Santa Barbara.

Oral Questions

REORGANIZATION OF FINANCE MINISTRY

MR. LEA: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. This morning in Public Accounts there was a statement made by the comptroller-general. Part of that statement was that the minister, through his deputy, informed the comptroller-general that there would be reorganizational efforts going on within the ministry. The letter from the minister, through the deputy, was to inform the comptroller-general that there was a determination to proceed with the reorganizational plan and that this basically would mean that the comptroller-general would no longer report directly to the minister, but through the deputy.

Before getting to the question I would like to also mention to the House, or recall to the House's memory, that during the fiscal year 1979-80 a voucher from the Premier's office was sent to the comptroller- general's office for payment to Goldfarb.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we must have a question.

MR. LEA: Yes. I'd like to outline before I ask the question. This voucher was turned down by the comptroller-general saying it was too sensitive and too political for the comptroller-general's office to okay, and it was sent back to Mr. Brown. Was the decision for this reorganization in the Finance ministry made prior to that voucher being sent back to the office, or was it made after?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, because I understood that the comptroller-general made a statement today to the public accounts committee — a statement which I received some 40 minutes ago and I have not yet fully read — I was prepared for questions with regard to the statement which was made and I was going to attempt to assist members opposite. The attempt to link the two matters is scurrilous.

MR. LEA: It seems we have somewhat of a different idea of what is scurrilous. An attempt to thwart the comptroller-general's office and brine it under the bureaucracy to be controlled politically is also scurrilous. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has had a conversation with the Attorney — General (Hon. Mr. Williams) in regard to the legality of this planned reorganization of the Ministry of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, yes,

MR. LEA: In the minister's opinion, has the government decided at this point whether, in order to make this reorganization possible, there would have to be amendments or changes to the Financial Control Act?

[ Page 2902 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of a change in the reporting relationship within the Ministry of Finance, bearing in mind that the comptroller-general has, over a number of years, reported to the minister.... We are not speaking of the auditor-general, Mr. Member; we are speaking of the comptroller-general — just to assist you. Yes, there is an indication that there might be a need for legislative change.

MR. LEA: Did the minister know that these legislative changes may be needed prior to asking his deputy to instruct the comptroller-general that these changes would take place? Was the minister aware that these changes may have to be made?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In order that I give the most possibly correct and complete answer, would the member repeat the question?

MR. LEA: Prior to the minister, through his deputy, informing the comptroller-general that there would be a reorganization in the reporting structure, did the minister know, suspect or have any idea at that time that there would have to be legislative changes made in order that the reorganization could be carried out?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, I think yes, it was apparent that some legislative changes might be required.

MR. LEA: Is the minister then saying that he was only informing the comptroller-general that the government was thinking about a reorganization, or was the minister, through his deputy, informing the comptroller-general that the reorganization would take place?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to assist me again with that question.

MR. LEA: It's obvious now that there are going to have to be legislative changes made before this reorganization goes into effect. Did the minister inform the. comptroller-general, through his deputy, that these changes in fact were going to be made, or did he inform the comptroller-general that the minister was going to ask the Legislature to make some changes?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to be very clear on the question is that a number of the changes which are being undertaken, which have taken place and which are contemplated do not require legislative change. I think the member opposite, having been a minister, would understand that.

There are others where clearly a legislative change would be required. The legislative changes do not relate exclusively, I must say.... We're speaking about legislation which may come into this Legislature, so I look for your guidance. Not all the legislative changes deal with the topic which the member has raised this afternoon, quite clearly.

MR. LEA: Does the Minister of Finance concur in the findings of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Responsibility that the independence of the comptroller-general is the foundation of the integrity of the financial system?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, there is perhaps an inference there that there is no integrity among other senior members of the ministry, and I rather resent that on behalf of those senior representatives. What the member should also observe in the question and in any discussion of this matter is that this government introduced to this province an auditor-general to certainly ensure the first, finest and best accountability to the people.

MR. LEA: Can the minister tell me through what agency of the Crown the auditor-general receives her information or instructions? Does the comptroller-general supply the basic information to the auditor-general?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the member has the answer to that question. He knows it as well as I.

MR. LEA: In other words, if I understand the minister correctly, in order to have the information we go to the auditor-general through a different recording system. In other words, take away a portion of the independence of the comptroller-general, bring it under the deputy, into the bureaucracy, and thereby control the information in a closer way than before — going through to the auditor-general. That would be the outcome of it. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't think that it's necessary to reply to that question. It says a great deal about the member who has asked the question. We are undertaking a reorganization of a ministry and....

MR. NICOLSON: ... a disgrace.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am very sorry about the member who, when faced with a problem in his ministry, used to disappear from the building. I don't think I can assist....

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The minister questions our motivation for asking these questions. Can our motivations be questioned when we are dealing with a government who brought us Lettergate, who brought us thousand-dollar bills, who brought us Gracie's Finger? Now they want us to say that, no, we shouldn't question this government about their motivations.

I'd like to ask the minister one final question. I'd like him to cast back in his mind and answer the first question. Did the decision on this reorganization take place prior to that voucher being sent back to the Premier's office or after?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In front of this House and bearing in mind the history of this House over many years, and bearing the oath I took when I became a member of this House, the inference is scurrilous. I reject it. It is not correct. I was attempting to undertake, and continue to undertake, a reorganization of a ministry which, in my view, required some reorganization a number of years ago. The process started some months ago, very soon after my appointment, and the attempt to connect the two is something I ask the member to consider very, very carefully before he makes it outside.

[ Page 2903 ]

MR. LEA: I asked for the date, not a speech, and not about his oath. I want to know when that decision was made — prior to the voucher being sent back or after.

NORTHEASTERN B.C. RAIL LINK

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Premier. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) recently stated that the British Columbia Railway does not have the expertise or technology to construct the Anzac line; this was confirmed by BCR officials. Last weekend the Premier announced that the BCR would construct the Anzac line. Can the Premier tell the House where he will, on behalf of the British Columbia Railway, obtain the expertise and technology necessary for the BCR or for any other corporation to construct the Anzac line?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Today is a very unusual question period; we have found out that some people consider deputy ministers more political than ministers.

However, I'd like to answer the question. I have great confidence in the people who work for the British Columbia Railway. I also have great confidence in their ability to attract the best possible expertise to assist in what will be a major economic development in this province. It may be that the members opposite disagree with the rail line that will open up an area which is about 25 percent of the total size of this province, an area that has not only coal but other things. Rail and highway development are important to the development of this province, to the provision of private-sector investment and to the creation of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that the British Columbia Railway does have a very sound board of directors and very sound management. The member has questioned whether there is sound management. If the member opposite is questioning the ability of any single member of the British Columbia Railway to carry out its function, I wish he'd name that name in this Legislature.

MR. LAUK: I suggest that the Premier is wilfully refusing to answer these questions. Simply put, the question is: the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development stated clearly that the reason the CNR at that stage was being asked to construct the Anzac line was because the BCR does not have the expertise or technology to construct that line. This was confirmed by BCR officials. Last weekend the Premier announced that the BCR would construct that line. Now where in the space of three to four weeks...? Has he already obtained the technology and expertise, or where does he hope to gain it to construct the line?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, I have great confidence in the BCR and its management. And I have great confidence in the consultants available in this province and this country to construct rail lines. The member says that this government invited the CNR, as our railway owned by the Canadian people, to expand its line into a commitment to the country. Our national institutions can serve in no better way than to open up new areas of British Columbia, which is part of Canada. That's why the CN was invited in. The member has said that there was a particular reason for the CN being invited in. That's why they were invited in — as Canada's national railway. We thought they would respond to the challenge; we thought they would show entrepreneurial spirit and initiative in helping British Columbia create employment, new jobs for our citizens, and added value for Canada's export trade to help solve our balance of payments. That's why the CN was invited in. I am sorry that they lost that opportunity; they missed that opportunity by being unable to respond in the positive way that we had expected when we gave them that opportunity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period. Hon. members, it is becoming apparent that question period is losing much of the rules, regulation and direction that it was undertaken for. I must caution all members, not only in questioning but also in answering, that an answer must not be of such excessive length that it would take away from the value and the very real reason for the being of question period. I would caution members that the Chair will be in a position where it will have to enforce that very clearly in the future unless members take it upon themselves to make their answers much more relative to the questions.

MR. LAUK: On that point of order, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for apprising the House of that position. Before the Premier leaves I hope I could make one further point of order and ask for leave of the House to extend question period in view of the fact that the Premier did not respond in any way to the questions asked. It's a wilful desire on his part to frustrate the legitimate purposes designed by this House during question period. I ask leave of the House to extend the time for question period.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)

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

HON. MR. SMITH: I just want to deal with a few of the further comments that were made from members opposite yesterday.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked me about the approval process and was concerned that the approval process might be excessively slow and bureaucratic. I can tell him that we are reducing the approval steps; we are allowing more flexibility in approvals. We're decentralizing to the extent that.... Up until very recently if a school board wanted to build an administration office they had to meet certain criteria as to size and square foot costs, and if they didn't meet those criteria then they could not go ahead with their administrative office plans. I've just instituted a new policy which allows them to go ahead and exceed our cost guidelines, but the part that they exceed it by is non-shareable money. So we are trying to be flexible, and I'm certainly striving to have the approval step streamlined because I know what the hon. member is speaking of. You do hear these problems from the field, that approvals are sometimes not as rapid as they might be. It's something that I'm going to continue to monitor because I think that approvals must be done expeditiously.

[ Page 2904 ]

One thing else that he touched upon was the particular problem when a school burns down and the priority that should be given to approvals then. I think that is also something that is being addressed and that we will try and give close attention to — cases where schools have burned down. It may be, of course, that you get a school that burns down and then the school board is in a dilemma as to whether they should rebuild the school at this site or, having relocated the students in another school, leave the status quo. Both the first member for Vancouver Centre and I know of a case in the province along these lines — a very vexing case which gave me concern. I visited that school in Prince George which had been partially destroyed by fire, and I also went over the route that the children in that community were now diverted to so that they could be in a larger school elsewhere. I met with a number of parents' groups and I had very, very strong representations from my seatmate, the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), with respect to that school. In the final essence I really followed the decision of the local authorities. The school board considered the matter and decided that at this time their priority was not to rebuild that school but to leave the students relocated in the Prince George Junior Secondary School, which they did. But those are difficult questions involving a good deal of local sensitivity and local judgment, and the ministry, I think, is loath to intervene.

I should also respond on a matter which the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) mentioned, and that is the whole question of special education. She quite rightly pointed out the need to ensure that our teachers have the opportunity to have in-service training and resources so that they can deal with the growing needs of special education. We now have on the ministry staff Dr. Little, who has been added to the staff this year to develop programs and in service training for learning assistance teachers.

We have also designed some pilot regional diagnostic centres, and I'm hopeful that these can become, if they're successful, a permanent feature so that we can design individualized programs of a preventive nature for the classroom teacher which involve an education coordinator, psychologist, or medical resource.

I was able to visit a number of special learning assistance centres in a number of the elementary and secondary schools in the school districts that I visited. Many of them, of course, work extremely well and alleviate burdens that the classroom teacher has in dealing with special learning problems. But I think what the member was getting at is a matter that needs to be addressed more adequately — that is, the diagnosis of special learning problems. It's my view that we've not gone nearly far enough in that field and we're going to have to commit more resources.

I think that there are some other matters too that arose out of comments of the first member for Vancouver Centre. I will try to address those. I haven't forgotten them; I've got some further notes here, but I'll yield the floor to him.

MR. LAUK: I want to deal more extensively with the facilities approval manual — the blue book, as it's called in the trade — and discuss with the minister a situation which is rather current, and which I understand he is faced with together with the Minister of Labour.

The minister, as I am told, commissioned or instructed persons to conduct an investigation and report. That report has to do with possible asbestos contamination in schools. We are told by such experts as Dr. David Bates that the threat to children of asbestos-fibre contamination is extremely great and that short periods of exposure constitute an extreme threat and danger to the children of having a disease there-from some years in the future. Dr. Bates says that as short as three months' exposure could cause this problem. Asbestos was found, for example, in an elementary school in Edmonton and the school was evacuated. It cost approximately $5 million to renovate the school, so it's a very serious financial and moral problem that the government is facing.

My instructions are that the asbestos report is completed, it's on the minister's desk and a press release has been drafted, but that the minister, for one reason or another, is not prepared to table that report at this time. I hope it's not because he's serving his tour of duty in estimates. I hope that there is some more worthy reason.

The second point that I wish to raise has to do with the asbestos contamination. Almost 200 students and instructors at the Pacific Vocational Institute on Willingdon in Burnaby — a responsibility of the minister — have refused to enter the welding shops since 8:30 a.m. Monday, June 16, due to the asbestos fibre and other environmental hazards. Signs have been posted by the students warning of the hazard, and it is reported that an independent laboratory analysis of dust samples taken from the building recently showed a content of almost 40 percent asbestos fibres.

The staff safety committee for a long time has recommended that exposed asbestos in this and four other buildings on the campus be removed. It is understood that a ministry survey of the buildings has been done and cost estimates of the asbestos removal have been compiled, but no action has been taken by the minister.

The walkout occurred Monday morning, Mr. Chairman, because the atmosphere was choking thick with dust following a weekend effort by maintenance crews to clean up the interior of the welding shop. A Workers' Compensation Board team is understood to be testing air samples from the building this week, but employees point out that this can only produce a biased whitewash, because dust settles after a while when the building is not in use. I'm not sure I associate myself with the term "biased whitewash" with the WCB, but it is the expression I've chosen to use to show the concern and alarm shown by persons using those buildings.

It's contended that the WCB should obtain suitably sensitive testing equipment and monitor the air on a 24-hour basis for several days while the building is in normal operation.

I want to quote Mr. Tom Kozar, chairman of the employees' union committee on the campus, who has authorized me to provide this statement to the minister during his estimates:

"We are tired of the political stalling that has gone on for years now, and feel that neither the government nor the school management has the right to expose the public — students or instructors — to the kind of health hazard that continues to exist in these buildings. We are tired of them doing nothing because of vague promises of new buildings being built. I challenge the Education minister, Brian Smith — and Pat McGeer, who also did nothing — to set up their offices for just a few days in the welding shop and try to work in the dreadful and hazardous environment they expect employees and students to live with. "

[ Page 2905 ]

The PVI has five aging, temporary buildings built of steel girders and panelling, which were sprayed inside about a dozen years ago with fibre asbestos insulation four inches thick, and it is completely exposed. Due to the contraction and expansion of the buildings in varying weather, vibration from machines and activity within them, and simply age, the exposed insulation material has been crumbling for some time in the form of chunks as well as fine dust.

The buildings involved are: No. 2, millwork and boatbuilding instruction; No. 3, carpentry shop; No. 4, plumbing and steamfitting shop; No. 14, welding shop; No. 15, automotive shop. All have been the subject of repeated complaint by the campus safety committee, but the welding shop interior environment is the worst because of the additional problems of fumes and smoke from the welding activities. Several of these shops can only be used for restricted periods before conditions become visibly bad.

Students have normally accepted conditions because most of them are on short-term courses of about 10 months, but instructors and employees who have been there for years have repeatedly expressed concerns through their safety committee and individually. Two instructors have been under medical treatment for severe pulmonary problems and have said their doctors blame the environmental conditions of their workplace. Monday's walkout was unusual in that it involved student protest for the first time. It was the students who refused — and continue to refuse today — to enter the building until the asbestos and other problems are resolved.

I am instructed that this problem has been brought to the minister's and his predecessor's attention. No action by the ministry has been forthcoming. I am instructed that the administration of PVI has not acted quickly — or at all. It is a serious problem that I raise seriously with the minister. I demand on behalf of the students, faculty and employees of the Pacific Vocational Institute that the minister stand in the committee and give a commitment for immediate action to resolve this serious health threat to the people who occupy these buildings.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I must say that it has not been brought to my attention. If it occurred on Monday and was that serious, one would have thought that it would have been brought to my attention directly instead of to the attention of the opposition critic some two days later. That is not to minimize it. Certainly we will look into it immediately. If there is a hazard to students, faculty and other people who are in those welding shops, that will be addressed and corrected.

I hope to announce a policy with respect to asbestos in schools very shortly. I have not had a report as such sitting on my desk. There is no report, but a survey has been done in six school districts, looking into the hazards of asbestos. Generally speaking, there does not appear to be an asbestos hazard in the districts that we examined, but I am not content with that. I am going to be announcing a policy which will lead to all school districts addressing the matter so that the very sort of thing that may have occurred at PVI is not going to occur in the schools of our province or occur again in colleges and institutes, if indeed it is as bad as the material that the member has brought forward suggests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few words about....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I am pursuing the asbestos question. I think it is highly unusual to recognize a different speaker on a different subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has recognized the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. Debate is reciprocal.

MR. LAUK: Does the member defer, to pursue this matter? Or do you wish to...?

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member will find that some of my remarks fit into a message he was trying to deliver to us yesterday.

MR. LAUK: We're talking about an emergency situation, Jack.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only emergency situation is you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on vote 54.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few words this afternoon about community schools. I am in favour of them and I think we should have more community schools in British Columbia, but I would like to see them tightened up from an administrative point of view. Were this to happen, some of the current opposition to the community school concept would be overcome. I am speaking from experience. Half of the community schools in British Columbia are on the North Shore in the Vancouver area and half of that half are in my own riding of North Vancouver–Seymour. Of some 20 community schools in the province, 12 are in the North Shore and 6 are in my own constituency. To some they are still very much in the experimental stage but to others they are an accepted fact of life. They are a necessity, especially in sprawling communities where people locally feel they don’t have a neighbourhood centre in which to express themselves and call on services which governments provincially and locally can provide.

We have a good example in the Deep Cove area of my riding. We have a new, well-equipped school there, modern in every way. It provides a very useful focal point for all kinds of activities in that area now. Few of those facilities were available in the past. They are now available. They are also available in a fine new school, the location of which is well known to everyone in the neighbourhood. They know now where to go for those services and they are using them to the fullest.

One main reason for community schools is as old as schools themselves. It is the better utilization of buildings and equipment, not only in school hours but in the evenings and weekends as well our modern schools with their gymnasiums, workshops and libraries are equipped not only to look after the educational needs of our elementary and secondary school children but also much of our adult population as well. Granted, we have adult education in the pure educational sense, but the community school delivers more than adult education. It delivers various services for people of all ages and all income brackets. It delivers services, some of which are administered elsewhere in other circumstances

[ Page 2906 ]

where community schools do not exist. Services are delivered, for example, by the Ministry of Human Resources. It delivers recreational services. It delivers certain health services. It encourages the police to come and talk about alcohol and drug abuse. It is multi-ministerial in that sense and it tends to bridge the gap between the provincial government on the one hand and local municipal services on the other. It is a single, convenient, local delivery point for services of all kinds and is a few blocks away from the average resident in the area in which a good community school is located.

In addition to making fuller use of existing school facilities there is the convenience factor. People find it easier to go to their nearby community school to get help, instruction or simply for companionship. I realize that there is really no end to the demands that could be put upon schools of this kind. So far, in North Vancouver at least, these demands have been reasonable. Nor have they been promoted unduly by the special staff which have been hired to develop this new interface with the public. We have coordinators at these schools. Usually they are teachers or former teachers. They may be paid as if they are continuing to teach and some of them do teach a class or two. But their main occupation, as an official coordinator in an official community school, is that of encouraging the local citizenry to make use of the facilities of the community school in out-of-school hours and in a manner that is convenient to school users and deliverers of these various ministerial and governmental services.

The budgetary arrangements are interesting. In some community schools the local school board pays 100 percent of the costs. These not only include the salary of a coordinator and a secretary or clerk or both but also for some materials, lecturers' time, etc. In other areas the local parks board or some other local organization may put up a percentage, perhaps as much as half of the costs. In North Vancouver the municipality participates financially in these expenditures. It pays half of the cost of hiring a local community school coordinator and his or her staff. This gives the municipality itself a say in whether or not a local school is, in fact, a community school, at least the manner in which it is financed.

I've asked the minister's staff whether the ministry here in Victoria participates financially in these local school situations. The answer, basically, is no. There isn't an item in the minister's budget, for example, that deals with salaries and other costs incurred in our local community schools. There is some money for adult education, but that's an old story. That's another unrelated area of activity which is of long standing. Some of the adult education money may find its way into our North Vancouver community school activities, which are distinct from adult education, but that's understandable under the circumstances.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre talked yesterday about decentralization, if I understood him correctly — the need for greater decentralization of decision-making in the broad area of education in British Columbia. He complained that too much power was being exercised here in Victoria — more specifically, out of the minister's office. Our experience in North Vancouver in community schools is just the opposite. In recent years the ministry has adopted a hands-off policy insofar as community school direction is concerned. If our local school board wants community schools and wants to designate a school as a community school or create a new one, it's up to the board. It may also be up to the local mayor and aldermen if local finances are involved or if some local zoning is required. But these local authorities don't have to go to Victoria to get permission to start up or expand a community school, nor do they depend directly on the Minister of Education insofar as operating dollars are concerned. True, some of our other ministries — Human Resources, Health, and the Attorney-General's office — may provide personnel from time to time, advice and even some materials occasionally, but this applies also to local parks boards and other local services. Essentially, they supply the same kinds of services which they would otherwise supply through their own offices. These are not large budget items, in any case.

Still on the subject of decentralization of decision-making, I might add that there are two broad models that could be followed with respect to the establishment of community schools. One, like that in effect on the North Shore in Vancouver and, I assume also, in the Kitsilano area and in Surrey, sees the local school district acting as the sole agent or main deliverer of these services provided by the community school program. There may be a few general guidelines issued from Victoria, but otherwise the local municipal voter decides who's on the school board and the school board, in turn, runs the local community school show.

The other approach, a more highly decentralized approach, sees the local community school operating to a large degree on its own, independent even of the regional school board. Except for these same few general guidelines as applied today in North Vancouver, Victoria wouldn't be in the act at all, and the municipality as a whole wouldn't have a major say in the manner in which a wide range of services were delivered to the people who live in a relatively small local situation within the larger community.

Now we haven't followed this route of extreme decentralization in British Columbia at all. We haven't visualized the community school hierarchy, the local hierarchy, as the solver of many, if not all, local problems. I doubt if this will ever be the case, and if it's attempted I doubt if it would succeed, because the ultimate test of responsibility between those who really pay and those who receive would have been destroyed in its entirety.

Developments in North Vancouver in recent years are interesting in this regard. There was a tendency in the late 1970s to make our local community schools — all eight of them in North Vancouver — more autonomous, but regional pressures and regional votes turned this tendency around. Now it is the district school board, district 44, which has the say, and I think this, as a regionally elected body, is where the decision-making in this area of community schools should essentially rest. Incidentally, legal opinion has been sought in this regard and it too confirms that our local school boards have the necessary authority to do these things, while a local school on its own may not.

Mr. Chairman, looking across the province as a whole, I get the impression that the community school movement is not only confined to few constituencies on the North Shore, generally in the Vancouver area, but also that the movement is on hold at the present time. I would therefore like to ask the Minister of Education today to tell us whether he himself really favours community schools and, if so, why we don't have more of them in other parts of the province — not that he has a substantial say in these matters, as I've stated earlier. This is essentially a matter for the district school boards and the local voter. But the community school movement, if I can call it that, has been in existence across North America for some time.

[ Page 2907 ]

The advantages and disadvantages to the local communities are well known by our educators here in B.C. So why the present hiatus? Why aren't community schools more popular in other parts of the GVRD or on Vancouver Island, for example? One reason, Mr. Chairman, I think is finances. A large segment of our population is thinking that government is spending too much money on education and other services already. They're confused as to what the functions are of the local community schools and their coordinators. Many ask if this is a duplication of services already available to most people in B.C. They need to be assured that this, indeed, is not the case; they need to know where the functions of a community school begin and end; they need a clear set of guidelines for community schools issued at the ministerial level here in Victoria; and they need to know that their local elected officials, both on the school board and on their local municipal councils, have a good idea as to how these various services which a community school can deliver are best delivered, certainly best integrated one with another.

I think also that certain other ministries that are involved Human Resources, Health and the Attorney-General's office — need to look at this matter and also indicate what services may or may not be delivered through the community school system.

As I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, I'm for community schools. I'm for the better utilization of school facilities, especially those of newer schools with their fine libraries, workshops and gymnasiums. But like most taxpayers I'm against a proliferation of our provincial and local bureaucracies. I think the community school idea fundamentally is a good idea, but it needs greater certainty and clarification by both our main levels of government in this province. It must be seen to be good value by our local taxpayers and then, I think, much of the current debate — certainly the debate which is going on in my own riding — for and against community schools will be assuaged. Community schools are a good example of decentralization of decision-making in the field of education in British Columbia. I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre needs assurance in that respect and he should be assured.

I congratulate the minister for the open-minded way in which he's approaching this important matter. I hope that in addition to giving more power to our people locally, we'll also require our local education authorities to raise at least a part of the educational tax dollar. I believe that a responsible government is one which not only spends money wisely but requires the same level of government to do the difficult job of raising some, if not all, of the money involved. With this kind of local responsibility and with further clarification of the role of community schools, I think we'll have an expanding community school system in this province, and that that will be an advantage not only for the delivery of more services to more people in this province but also help to give local communities a sense of local importance.

MR. LAUK: With due respect, Mr. Chairman, in respect to the asbestos, the minister has been treating it, I would suggest, with somewhat of a cavalier attitude. To talk about a 48-hour delay doesn't really matter, does it, Mr. Chairman? Could not the minister now confirm the information I've provided to him? Could he confirm with the committee that action is being taken immediately to prevent the dangerous health exposure that these people are facing?

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

MR. LAUK: Will you do it now?

HON. MR. SMITH: If you'd like to adjourn the House, I'll go over to PVI and inspect it. I'm looking into it right away, and I will report to you in a few minutes.

MR. LAUK: You're spending money on staff like it's going out of style. Why can't you send somebody over to have a look or make a telephone call? It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is taking a very cavalier attitude to a very serious problem. Now I've sent out for confirmation that the minister had notice. He should have had notice through his ministry of this problem over some time, so the suggestion that he has not had notice is a negligent one, I would suggest. But I'm willing to send out and confirm the information I have. I wish that the minister could do the same. Surely to goodness, Mr. Chairman, we could have one of his officials call the principal at PVI or Elwood Veitch, who's drowning in the pork barrel over there, to give him a call and find out what's going on. Otherwise, it seems to me we could be here all day, because we have been asked, as the opposition, to bring this forcefully to the minister's attention and to get a policy decision and answer during the course of his estimates. Is the minister undertaking to do that?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again, yes.

MR. LAUK: We'll have an answer this afternoon? Right.

Now when the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) deals with engineering problems and other problems involving transportation I've been most impressed. Sometimes I've been favourably impressed. I don't mean to say this patronizingly, nor am I capable of doing so; I've been very impressed with the hon. member's contribution to this chamber. When it comes to education matters, however, I'm afraid — I say with respect again — he's missed by a country mile. But what I find particularly hurtful is that he would use some of the ideas expressed by me, not only yesterday but in articles in education journals, which I'm sure he reads daily, and then give me a kick on the way out the back door, saying that my criticism of the Ministry for centralization was perhaps, even in this case, unwarranted. Community schools are a creature of too much centralization, and I'll tell you how if I can borrow your ear for a moment.

The problem of community schools was that there was a need in the community to provide to a variety of citizens a variety of courses that were not available in the ordinary school system. It was couched in the argument that the 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. use of the school is not adequate use of an expensive public facility. A number of these community schools were established by various citizens. They were established be cause the structure was so centralized and bureaucratized that it was not flexible enough to widen and include that need in the community. That's a very clear issue, and people under stand that very clearly. So the community school which you argue represents decentralization is an unnecessary child of unnecessary centralization. Surely to goodness the structure of the public education system should be broad enough to include that need.

What I was speaking about yesterday, Mr. Chairman, was that broad concept of the use of the public school together with the other services of government as a wide

[ Page 2908 ]

complex, a family centre if you like, serving the community and avoiding the terrible, unnecessary duplication of costs from the various services of government. The only resistance to that concept, I predict, would be at the higher levels of the civil service structure; because, of course, sometimes the psychology at that level incorporates a vested interest in one's position. I would suggest that in British Columbia that tradition does not exist and perhaps that that resistance will not be met if such a concept is put forward by this minister or any other.

Having had the minister's undertaking that he will return vital information on the asbestos situation to the House, I want to bring to the minister's attention another important subject and deal with the problem of the Connaught school — let's use that example. The facilities manual and the famous 57, 67 or 102 steps, or however many you have currently, for the approval of capital expenditures at the local level....

The minister cited a problem involving the Connaught school in Prince George which was burned down. It was a school that provided a service to a particular community and through my investigations I determined that those vocal parents in the community — Mr. Chairman will know well about this — were people who had the courage to speak out about a problem which I felt was shared by other families having students that went to the Connaught school. The argument that has been raised — not in this chamber today but by other groups in that community.... I raise it only by way of example; I don't want to stress this as one issue. Parents were reluctant to complain; they had made the adjustment of the travel of the students to another community and another school. They were cognizant as responsible taxpayers of the saving of having the students go to the other school, but it seems to me there was a lack of articulation from these concerned parents about the concept of the community.

This brings us to the philosophical questions involved. It's not strictly a financial operation. There are over a billion dollars involved in schools and in other education expenditures. It is a very responsible area to administer. It requires serious administrative skill. There must be efficiency. But sometimes we miss the point, Mr. Chairman. We miss the point of the whole educational system when it becomes purely a bottom-line type of operation. When you get taken over by the financial part of your responsibilities rather than the philosophical and educational side in that ministry, you miss the point sometimes.

The point with the Connaught school thing is: what is the real effect of having Connaught school unavailable to that community? What about the missed opportunities that I was talking about in my more philosophical statement yesterday with respect to the community centre concept of the school? Could it not be used for other purposes? Could we not share moneys? I understand that it's partially used for other purposes now. But I'm talking about the total concept of a community service out of some of the plant that exists across the province.

I want to talk about the facilities manual — the blue book. It is the bane of secretary — treasurers across the province; we all know that. As soon as I arrive in a school district, the secretary — treasurer, who is usually there before the trustees, escorts me into his office, and I get the litany of problems and the epithets that are commonly used by such civil servants to describe their counterparts in Victoria. It seems to me that some of these examples are so horrendous that the long awaited revision of the facilities manual will, I hope, meet some of these demands for change.

Again in Prince George, take for example the idea of building another gymnasium. There's a formula, evidently, within the department. I don't want to get into the regulations and counter-regulations and the department of finance within the Ministry of Education and the academic side and the planning side and everything else. When I look at facilities approval, you know, I feel that.... Yesterday I was arguing for coordination between ministries. I fear that perhaps the minister has his work cut out for him in coordinating his own ministry and the departments and branches within it. Catch-22 situations abound which have to be cleaned out and swept away, and efficient means....

Again I call for the decentralization of that approval and control. You say shareable and non-shareable funds. Here's an example. There is no confidence in the civil service or trustees at the local level — none shown by your ministry. Absolutely none! The minister himself can make speeches across the province about how much confidence he has in local school trustees, but the actions of his bureaucracy demonstrate a clear lack of faith, trust or confidence in the abilities and judgments of people at the local level.

There's a formula whereby you can only have a gym size in relation to the number of classrooms you have in an elementary school; that's one example. It's very easy in these situations to add classrooms; it's not so easy to rip down a gymnasium and build a larger one to accommodate the added school population. Why is that rule there? Why is there not some sort of flexibility? What on earth is the ministry dealing with problems like that for anyway? Do you think that a community can't build its own schools and gymnasiums? They have a right to the shareable taxation money.

It was inconsistent yesterday, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to argue, on the one hand, that provision for funds for independent schools, without government control, was a great achievement. Well, if it can be done with independent schools, why can't it be done with public schools? There is a terrible inconsistency in the way the minister thinks about these problems. The issues are the same. You provide funds from the public purse at the provincial level to independent schools, without government interference. And he says that that's good. On the other hand, we have a facilities manual that treats local administrations like children and insults their intelligence and ability — and it's hopelessly inadequate and bogged down. Approvals are finally given about a year after they are needed, and construction can't even begin until a year after that, particularly in the northern communities.

We have no draft yet of the new facilities manual. But I have very little hope that the new facilities manual will solve some of these problems. The attitude of the ministry is a negative one. I want to give you an example, and read a letter dated February 20, 1980, from the deputy minister — a well-meaning sort, you know, Mr. Chairman. We're not entitled to comment here on high civil servants, but he's a well-meaning sort and a likeable person, a symbol of the Pearsonian bow-tie which we all admire and love so dearly.

For heaven's sake, why send a letter like that? Let me read it to you. "To secretary-treasurers of all school districts, re unauthorized capital expenditures." This could be in Antoinette French.

"Addressees of this memorandum are reminded that section 190 of the Public Schools Act reads in part 'no capital expenditures shall be made by a board without the prior approval of the minister.' During the

[ Page 2909 ]

past year or two we have evidence of some glaring examples wherein this legislation has not been followed, thereby leaving the boards open to possible prosecution or other action" — that boggles the mind; pillories, public floggings, perhaps? — "under section 249(2) of the Public Schools Act. It is therefore imperative that senior school district staff ensure that the proper approvals are obtained from this ministry prior to expending funds on any capital project. This applies to projects using shareable funds or non-shareable funds. "

That takes chutzpah; that takes audacity. "Shareable and non-shareable funds."

The deputy goes on: "In order to ensure that a consistent approach is taken, the ministry intends to implement practices which will discourage the use of non-approved capital funds. "Heavens! If 67 steps in the blue book and an army of negative-minded civil servants can't stop these freewheeling spenders, what additional steps are going to be taken? "In the future, when boards of school trustees or their officials decide to utilize capital funds without prior approval, in most cases these expenditures will be charged against non-shareable capital. Yours truly, Walter G., Deputy Minister. "

What does that letter do?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, it is very well written — of course.

The point is this: if there is a concern about the misuse of funds at the local level, the local taxpayer will take care of that. If there is a concern about the actions of the school district through its trustees, about the expenditure of funds — unnecessary, inefficient, whatever — about the decisions on teaching staff, transfers and terminations.... If those issues are property focused at the local level it will take care of itself in a democratic way. Look at Langley, for example, where the trustees went berserk; the community took care of that situation very nicely. Although the minister and the BCTF observed the situation and were involved, had resource input, the community dealt with it in a responsible and reasonable- thinking way. It seems to me that the same policy can be applied to the expenditure of capital funds.

The letter is really salt in the wound. It is an insult to the secretary-treasurers who have served for many, many years in this province in their school districts, who have to go through the 67 steps to get an increased number of showers for the girls' changing room at an elementary school; who have to go through all kinds of ridiculous nonsense and bureaucratic red tape to make simple decisions that you and I, Mr. Chairman, make in our own households every day.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, here we go. Here is a man that is totally overwhelmed by bureaucracy, who is awestruck by regulations, who is paralyzed into inaction by the law. I will get to him in a moment.

Mr. Chairman, I raise these examples to show the minister that a casual look at the facilities manual is not required. A wholesale revision is required and that revision will be worthless unless the minister is committed to bringing in substantial revisions and decentralization of decision-making authority. If he does not bring in a facilities manual that will espouse a much greater decentralization, doing away with a lot of the regulations and the need for duplication of work by staff. then he should keep the facilities manual a secret. We don't need to know about it. Substituting one bureaucratic morass for another one is no answer. There are countless examples of this in everything we see with respect to capital expenditure approvals.

I want to talk about the B.C. government scholarship problem and ask the minister to address his mind to that. A recent resolution was passed at the annual general meeting of the British Columbia School Trustees Association. There was a general feeling among the teachers at their annual general meeting that the changes made by the ministry with respect to scholarships were not thoughtful ones. I have the letters, and correspondence between Creston and so on, and they go on forever.

I think that if we could eliminate something like this on one issue, going back and forth from senior ministry officials to the trustees, we could solve a lot of the bureaucratic problems. Creston started the ball rolling after the ministry made the changes. The change, as I understand it. to put it generally in language that's understandable to me, is that there are two scholarships. One is awarded at the district level by the school boards and the other is awarded by the provincial ministry. They're awarded for academic excellence province-wide, and at the district level the goal was in mind to give scholarships to those people who were on a non-academic or vocational-type program.

Two changes were made that have caused the trustees, students and teachers a great deal of concern. The one change is that the province-wide scholarships were changed so as not to award the available scholarships to the best students in a district, but to award the available scholarships to the best students taking the entire province as a whole. That's what I understand one of the changes was. Now what is the effect of that? The teachers and the trustees tell me that this gives the advantage, first of all, to academics and to populated areas, so that one uses these scholarships purely as a mode to achieve excellence and forgets entirely the goal of treating regions and communities fairly with access to provincial scholarships.

This is not to argue that people in rural areas don't do as well academically as people in city areas, but we all know the differences of availability of courses, teaching skills and facilities in rural areas as opposed to cities. We all know the accessibility of materials for academic and vocational studies in rural as opposed to city areas. So it's thought to be a very unfair way to award scholarships. The minister's answers have been unsatisfactory. I won't read them, but they're vague and non-committal. which characterizes this minister, and I'm assuming that even the letters from his officials have been seen by him. It's an important enough issue so that he will give them top marks for their vagueness and noncommittal character as well.

Mr. Chairman, I think the argument is legitimate. The resolution passed the trustees' association, I believe unanimously, without very much debate. I also believe that the teachers feel the same way. If that much opposition is there, then I feel that the ministry has probably made a mistake on the provincial scholarship.

The second point that has been validly made, it seems to me, is that the district scholarships, which I'm told were designed to reach primarily the non-academic vocational-type student, now have a requirement from Victoria that a

[ Page 2910 ]

certain standard of English achievement be achieved before the scholarship be awarded. When the complaint was made to me I investigated it with the trustees and said: "Well, don't you think it's necessary that people going into vocational courses have a certain facility in the English language?" They would argue it's a question of degree in judgment from Victoria and that that judgment should be made at the local level and not at Victoria.

It seems to me to be purely on a decentralization goal that the ministry has again made a mistake. Let the districts make these decisions. Let them make the wrong or the right decisions in their community and have their own community who elect them deal with the wrong decisions in the ordinary course of events. There are plenty of people in this House who have served on school boards, and they have done so very well. I think it's really — and I'm sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman — patronizing and paternalistic of us to say that local school board officials do not have the capability to make the kind of judgments necessary. It's up to the ministry to provide the information base, where intelligent and good decisions can be made at the local basis. Beyond that, the ministry should not be involved in these decisions. I understand that the ministry indicated early this year that they might have a second look at that and a change may be made in that unfortunate decision.

I want to get through all of the material as quickly as possible, because I know that the minister wants to get his estimates through by 3:40.

I want to ask some questions of the minister about what he thinks about certain questionnaires that have been circulating. There's a group called Consequences of Funding Independent Schools. You know what I'm talking about. We have a group that is sending out questionnaires. I find some of them very offensive and unscientific. I want to remind the minister of when he was a candidate. I don't wish to trap him. I'll remind him about his letter of April 27, 1979, where he's referring to the same questionnaire that I read to him about the McMath report, where the minister has apparently changed his tune about that.

HON. MR. SMITH: I haven't; I'm remarkably consistent.

MR. LAUK: Well, good. Maybe you'll be consistent about this one too.

In the second paragraph of your letter to the Greater Victoria Teachers' Association you said: "I do not feel that this form of questionnaire affords the best way to deal with these matters. Like the referenda approach to government that is popular south of the line, these questionnaires tend to oversimplify complex issues of social policy and property taxation." I take that to mean that the questionnaire is involved — and by the way, the same format of the COFIS-type questionnaire is the one that was sent to the minister that he answered by a letter rather than answering the questionnaire.... So I assume that the minister feels the same way I do about these questionnaires. They simplify matters. They're not good research, and all us scientists know that, don't we?

HON. MR. SMITH: And they're voluntary.

MR. LAUK: Well, I don't imagine that people are shackled and brought to the desk to answer them, if that's what you mean.

However, COFIS asks these questions — I should say Dr. Kris Kirkwood of the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia. Here are some of the questions. I wonder if the minister isn't offended, as I am; and I'm not going to faint at the questions, but I think that they're worthy of some judgment on the minister's part. By the way, there are four areas where they mark "no basis for opinion, strongly agree, tend to agree, tend to disagree, strongly disagree" — the usual. Question 21: "Hardly any of the students carry knives in this school." Question 30: "I rarely find time to read articles about the subjects I teach." Question 37: "I seldom go to any professional association meetings." You see where these questions are going. They're designed clearly to elicit the kind of information that will support a biased view and discredit the public education system. "Some teachers in this school look down on minorities." "High standards in this school are threatened by people in the community who think education should be play but not work." "If student enrolments decline further this school may be in danger of closing." You can see the devastating subtlety of these questions. "Some teachers in this school try to get by by doing as little work as possible." Isn't that cute? Let's ask one teacher to comment on the performance of the other. "Some teachers in this school seem downright lazy" is another one. "Some students in this school do not like going to the lavatory alone since they fear being attacked or roughed up."

I'm amazed that this questionnaire would go out by any supposedly scientific inquiry. But can you imagine my amazement, Mr. Chairman, when I found out that it was being funded by the Ministry of Education? The department gave a $2,000 grant to a symposium on family choice, schooling, and public interest was devoted to pushing the school voucher proposals in the United States — that kind of thing. But some $142,000 of funding from the Education ministry to the Education Research Institute of B.C., part of which has been used in the accompanying elaborate questionnaires at obvious considerable cost as a branch plant operation of the United States study, which this is, on independent schools.... The teacher questionnaire contains particularly offensive leading questions. These are my own notes on reviewing the material.

MRS. DAILLY: And no money for Home and School.

MR. LAUK: That's a good point. The member for Burnaby North says, "We can't get $17,000 for Home and School," but we can get $142,000 for a research project that is designed to attack the public education system with a biased scientific view — or I should say unscientific view. That's a scandal. I want the minister to assure this chamber that no such further grants out of his ministry go forward unless it's to support the public education system or improve it, but not to have a biased study go out to an independent non-public group to the tune of $142,000 of the taxpayers' money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time under standing orders is up, but since the Chair did not warn you of the three-minute light, you may continue with three more minutes of questions, if you wish.

MRS. DAILLY: I would be pleased to intervene for the member who's just been on the floor.

[ Page 2911 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, continuing along the lines of the study, I'm sure that the minister will have to agree that the process by which these grants are given needs to be tightened up considerably. It was clear, or should have been clear, to the ministry that this was a branch plant operation for the U.S. study that is going to support some pretty peculiar groups in the United States, some of which, but not all, are fighting the public education system instead of joining in the fight to improve it. They're separating themselves off — again a fragmentation in society — and this is being actively supported with public funds from the province of British Columbia. This is a United States study. I'm reminded that the teachers have withdrawn their support, and I'm sure a good many right-thinking groups should do that. I'd ask the minister to comment on those issues as well with respect to that study.

While I'm on my feet, because I want to have as much material available to the minister as possible, so that he'll know what timing is involved in the answering of these questions with respect to his estimates — I only want to be fair — I want to raise a question, Mr. Chairman, that has arisen in North Peace River — Hudson's Hope, I believe — involving a teacher by the name of Peter Cincer. I want to raise the issue as an example of where we have to revise the provisions of the School Act to bring them in line with nothing more or less than natural justice.

Peter Cincer taught in the Northwest Territories, I'm told, and got a job in Hudson's Hope on probation, as it's defined under the School Act, and he had a philosophical disagreement — and I say that with some assurance, because I've read all of the transcripts that were made up until a certain date, including the reports of the interviewing teachers, superintendents and administrators with respect to Peter Cincer's performance in his school. It's alleged that Peter Cincer was not a good teacher and therefore he was going to be fired, or not continued because he was on probation. The fact is that Mr. Cincer served more than one period of probation. Under the provisions of the School Act he was renewed on another period of probation, a deliberate — it seems to me — attempt to avoid responsibility and not intended by the statute itself. If a person goes through the designated period of probation, he should not be continued on another period of probation; he should either be hired or not hired on that basis. But it's used as a sword of Damocles over a teacher, and I think it's unfair and it's not due process. It's simply not natural justice.

Inquiries were made, unfortunate statements were made that have been described by an Indian group with respect to the statement of one superintendent or official as racist concerning Indians. It's a heated issue in the area, and it serves one purpose: it shows and demonstrates that some administrations are not doing a fair job in some cases in dealing with their employees at the local level of education. Now I'm confident, because of my faith in decentralization, that the local community is going to take care of it, and it's a good example of creating interest in the public sphere. I'm upset that Peter Cincer has to go through this, because the information we have from his colleagues of many years' experience is that he's an excellent teacher. He's creative, he's well liked, and he creates a learning atmosphere in his classroom. I'm prepared to accept that, and I'm prepared to leave it to those people in the community to make a proper judgment on Mr. Cincer's case.

The B.C. Teachers' Federation has sent up an investigating group. Now that shouldn't bar the minister from providing an answer to my question. Let's not allow a period of probation to expire and then to be renewed. Let's amend the School Act to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the school board to hire or fire on that basis, and that's it. The period of probation should be long enough for anyone to make a proper evaluation of that teacher's skills and abilities in the classroom and his responsibility to fulfill his duties.

I wish to emphasize that Peter Cincer's case will be judged at the community level. What I find very upsetting is what followed this recent controversy around Mr. Cincer. A colleague of his has suffered an attempted forced transfer. Isn't it an amazing coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that this teacher, a colleague of Mr. Cincer's, took up Mr. Cincer's case among the other teachers in the community and, started arguing on his behalf, and then shortly after that, without any mark on his record, there was a forced transfer?

That kind of heavy-handed activity by administrations should be clearly condemned by this administration and by the local school district, and the minister should say publicly that no interference of that kind should be brooked at the community level and encourage the school district to take action.

Fred Flintstone was very helpful in this case too, Mr. Chairman. Do you remember Fred from North Peace River? Mr. Cincer sent him the transcripts and all the information and all the inquiries — all the information I had. But the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) drew an unbiased and objective view and wrote the sympathetic letter that a member for the riding should write to a teacher who is in trouble. He said as follows: "Dear Mr. Cincer: Your letter of May 23, 1980, has been received and the contents noted." Isn't that warmth for you? "You make some interesting observations, assumptions and accusations. Starting with your number one item I would, quite frankly, be surprised if you were dismissed before any report had been written on you. I see little point in getting into a debate on your various accusations. It is not likely to develop into anything productive."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I have to remind you that we are on the estimates of the Minister of Education, whose administrative actions are before us. That is what we will discuss in this committee.

MR. LAUK: Now, Mr. Chairman, we don't want to discuss Fred, but I think that that letter should concern us all.

MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I would just like some direction from the Chair. I understood that members are to be referred to as "the member for such-and-such." They are not to be called by their own names. Is it then legitimate for another member to make up any name he likes and then refer to member on that basis without referring to his position? I would just like some direction on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. Members in this House are to be referred to by the riding they represent or the portfolio they hold. Once again we will continue.

MR. LAUK: I will refrain from using his name of Fred Flintstone and will refer to him as "the member for Bedrock. ''

[ Page 2912 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre please remember that we are on vote 54?

MR. BRUMMET: Considering the source I will withdraw my objection. You can't expect that member to abide by the rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, all hon. members, can we get back to vote 54, the estimates of the Ministry of Education? That will be debate that is in order.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister would address his attention to this serious problem involving Peter Cincer. There has to be provision for the protection of employees that is standardized and general over the province. That is one of the areas where the ministry can provide its helpful resources. In this case I hope it will be dealt with in a correct and just manner by the community. If the community in that area does not wish to have a creative-thinking teacher and condones high-handed administrative tactics at the school level, then they have to live with it. That is pure and simple. It may be that Mr. Cincer, for many other reasons not apparent on the material that's been generally available, should not have his employment continued. But certainly the way in which it was proceeded with by the authorities in that area was far beyond what we could consider as fair play. I wonder if the minister could give his intentions about amendments to that particular area. I know it's not strictly in order but it would be of some interest, particularly to people in Hudson's Hope.

With those several questions I will now take my place and ask the minister to respond.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I am constantly invited by the first member for Vancouver Centre to be more decentralistic except where he wants me to intervene and be centralistic on a particular case or matter that's been brought to his attention. He is decentralistic if necessary but not necessarily decentralistic.

MR. LAUK: You weren't listening.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I was. You weren't listening to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). She was much more centralistic than anyone in my department ever was.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's not even here.

HON. MR. SMITH: I know, but she wants us to do everything in education at the community level — make all the decisions.

To deal with your observations on Connaught Elementary School, I think you appreciate, hon. member — I know you do — that that was a toughie. It was tough for the board to decide and it was a highly sensitive issue. There were a number of parents there who felt very, very strongly about it. I agree with you that that school should still remain as a community resource in that community, and what is left of that school is a community resource. The classrooms that remain are used by the college, and the gymnasium — it's a good gymnasium there — is used by the community. If the school population alters in that district I have no doubt that the rest of that school will be rebuilt.

I think that some of your observations on the facility manual are good ones. You do make some good points. The facility manual is going to be revised and it's going to be revised with input from the field. That is in the process now and has been going on for the past six months. We've been discussing revisions to the facility manual with advisory committees and we will be putting out a draft of that new manual covering space entitlements. The approval process is also under review and will be issued in draft form later this year.

MR. LAUK: Later this year?

HON. MR. SMITH: Later this year, yes.

MR. LAUK: Will you stake your seat on it?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know whether I'd stake my seat on the timing of a particular approval either.

MR. LAUK: I wouldn't recommend it.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think we've got to do better with approvals and we've got to be more flexible in terms of space requirements. Indeed, I would suggest that we are going to be, and that what you're going to find when this comes out is that there's going to be more flexibility and more local flexibility allowed. We're going to be getting out of some of the various things that cause irritation at the local level. So I take your comments there as being in the right vein.

What about scholarships? Provincial scholarships are now done across the province on an academic merit basis. They're not assigned on the basis of population to various parts of the province, as used to be done. You're suggesting that creates some concentration of winners in the urban areas and that that's unfair. I'm told that the most spectacular winner of these scholarships was Salmon Arm School District. A rural school district was the best per capita performer. Be that as it may, I agree that I'll take another look at the allocation of those provincial scholarships. It may be that the method my predecessor changed to is not the fairest way of allocating academic scholarships around the province. I'm quite happy to give that an honest review.

MR. LAUK: Will you increase them too, now that I've got you in a giving mood?

HON. MR. SMITH: You'll notice that we did increase the district scholarships, and you made some comments about those. There was a provision for a local examination that they were required to write in a field of their choosing and I removed that requirement. I had a lot of complaints about that — a number of letters about that — and I tried to respond to those. I talked to a number of teachers and I removed that as a requirement for the district scholarships.

The requirement that they pass an English composition examination still seems to me to be a sensible one. Whether the English composition examination that we administer or that we prescribe provincially and centrally is the best one or

[ Page 2913 ]

an appropriate one... sure, I'll look at that; but I do feel that there should be some competence level reached in English composition, that the scholarship should not be given out to people who are illiterate. I agree that they are for vocational students, non-academic students, and that we do not want them to become elitist in their mark; but I do think that it's worthwhile and desirable that they reach at least a passable level in English composition.

You brought to my attention the COFIS study. I really appreciate your reading my comments of a year ago on questionnaires, because I've always felt that way about questionnaires. I dislike them. I got some municipal questionnaires the other day from a council that I used to preside over, asking my views on every aspect of land use, and I didn't like some of those questions either. So I guess I'm not impressed any more than you are with some of the questions you read out to me.

The study, though, is being done by a Canadian named Erickson, who taught at Simon Fraser University and who is well thought of. It is also supported by an organization in British Columbia which the member is aware of, the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia. This organization had on its board of directors a member and representative of the BCTF, Mr. Thomas McRae, who in relation to this study totally disagrees with the position of the BCTF executive. He wrote letters to the local executives of the BCTF castigating them for their criticism of the questionnaire. I don't intend to get into an argument as to whose view is preferable on this, but I do intend to take a very hard took at the report when it comes down. If the report is based on answers to questionnaires that you and I think are silly, I think the report will speak for itself. If, on the other hand, the report is well grounded in sensible research, it will also speak for itself. So I would ask you not to judge the report until it comes out. I dislike most questionnaires; I guess I'm like the member, I prefer personal interviewing to questionnaires.

MR. LAUK: But why $142,000?

HON. MR. SMITH: That is the cost of the study.

MR. LAUK: Did you authorize it?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think it was authorized before my term, but I take responsibility for it. In any event, I think it's better to judge reports when they're in and not in advance.

Mr. Peter Cincer's problem, of course, was that he was placed on double probation. My information, hon. member, is that he was very carefully evaluated locally by his principal and by the director of instruction, that he was given a number of opportunities to correct his teaching, and that he was found not to have good classroom management and control. They decided not to renew his contract; he was a probationary teacher.

The member invites me to consider amending the School Act to prevent continuation of probation. I gather that's the invitation: that you get your first year and that's it. That is something I would be pleased to discuss with the BCSTA. It would seem to me that it might not be popular at the local level. Local boards may well consider that they must be absolutely certain about the teaching capacity of the teacher to whom they undertake, basically, a working-life commitment. But I tell you that I will certainly take that matter up with them. It's an amendment that I will bear in mind.

So far as the other gentleman is concerned, Mr. Greeff, the teacher who was transferred by the board, he can request a transfer review, and I gather he has done so. If the facts are remotely as you outline them, I will of course grant him a transfer hearing; there's no question about that. It would be a very strong case for a transfer board hearing. He will get his hearing — and a fair hearing.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) gave an excellent speech, I thought, on community schools. I'm sorry that he's not here at present, I will make some comment on that subject when he returns.

I undertook to respond to the situation at the PVI electrical welding shops. I have a report on that. Concerns were expressed in November of last year. In fact, on November 21, 1979, the Workers' Compensation Board conducted a full test of that shop and found that the laboratory analysis indicated no violation of industrial health or safety standards. But following that report the institute spent $60,000 on improving the mechanical exhaust systems, because of concern for the purity of the air, Following those improvements the report from the B.C. Buildings Corporation indicated no fumes or dust. Then on Monday, June 16, the Workers' Compensation Board was again asked to test for asbestos fibres. Tests were conducted on Monday and Tuesday of this week and the report is as follows: "The laboratory analysis indicated no violation of health and safety standards. "But as a result of continuing concern, which the members expressed here in the House, the Pacific Vocational Institute has asked an independent laboratory to conduct tests and expects the results tomorrow. If those tests reveal any danger, of course action will be taken. I should also tell the member that plans are underway to totally replace those welding shops within the next year. They really are old and unsatisfactory, quite apart from the issue of asbestos, but I thank the member for bringing that to my attention in the House.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a number of questions to raise to the minister. These are mainly constituency problems, but they have an overriding bearing to the minister. The first is about the intolerable situation of the children up in Greenville when they have to attend school. I certainly hope the minister has read some of my correspondence concerning the bridge. I don't think we have to go into detail on what the children have to go through to get to school, but I would like some assurances from the minister that that bridge would be implemented or there would be a better mode of transportation by this summer. Since Mr. Jacob McKay just wrote last week.... Have you received that letter also? Okay. Mr. McKay wrote that his daughter, who had to take the boat to go across to get to the school bus, because of no supervision....

HON. MR. SMITH: Is this the lady who fell into the river?

MR. PASSARELL: Yes. I certainly hope that something could be done this summer to alleviate the situation that the children in Greenville have to go through. I certainly hope that I could talk with the minister at some short time to discuss some of these problems and I hope to have an answer back on that shortly.

The second problem is the need in the Stikine school district for a school board. I wouldn't expect a full-scale school board, but I would expect some type of community

[ Page 2914 ]

involvement from the six schools into the local decision-making of the Stikine school district. School District No. 87 has a very unique situation in the province, with a superintendent who acts for two school districts, 81 and 87, and many people have voiced concerns to me through letters that they have no input into the decisions of the local school. I think a committee could be very easily made in which each community could elect one person and maybe two or three times a year sit with the superintendent and some of the teachers of the Stikine school district, discuss and formulate policy and carry out some local decisions concerning the schools. The committee could have certain powers to make local decisions affecting their children in the school. There has been talk. I've just talked to a superintendent up there, Mr. Parry Roth, who said some type of program was starting, and I certainly hope the minister would be able to see that some financial assistance could come, because many of the committee members would have to travel vast lengths to attend some type of meeting.

A third problem is concerning the Iskut federal school. In the community of Iskut, which is located about 60 miles south of Dease Lake, there is a federal school and the area is growing. It's simply not a reserve any longer. The community of Eddontenajon, which is one mile away, and the community of Tatogga, which is about six miles away from Iskut, are finding that more and more people are coming into the area. There is a definite need for a provincial school in the area of Iskut with the coming of mines and hydro developments into the area. An agreement would have to be worked out with the federal government to change some type of policy towards the Stikine school district to make that the seventh school in the district. If the entire primary school of Iskut can't be transferred to the minister's jurisdiction, then it might be possible to have some type of secondary education by the province involved for Iskut. Since many of the children now have to go out to Terrace or Edmonton to receive their education and the federal school really doesn't get into post-secondary education in Iskut, it might be possible to have some type of provincial jurisdiction into the school for Iskut. I would hope that the minister could arrange some meetings between district 87 and the federal representatives for the school in Iskut.

The fourth subject is the need to develop improved educational programs in the universities, maybe some input from the minister concerning northern teacher training. Besides the native teacher training program in the universities themselves, there is a definite need to have some type of correspondence with teachers who go up in the northern rural communities to teach. What is presented in the basic program of teacher training in the universities has been a very successful program for the native teachers' program in our universities. I know the minister is very favourable about the native teacher training program and I certainly hope that will continue.

There is a definite need to have some type of native development curriculum in the predominantly native school districts on a mode of something similar to School District 92, where the children learn some of their basic languages in the school itself. I certainly hope that the minister can work out some type of arrangement with some of the northern school districts, specifically 81 and 87, in which some type of native language teaching can go on in the school.

The fifth subject I would like to talk about is educational television in the public schools. After last year, the earth receiver was set up in Telegraph Creek, which was then very beneficial to the new school which the ministry has just built there. It will be an excellent asset to that community. But there is the problem that the experimental program is only licensed for another year. The school has in use the television signals from the satellite for the benefit of the education of some of the younger children in the school. I would certainly hope the minister could contact the federal government. They are presently expanding on the program to ensure that the television programming continues in some of the rural schools up north.

Sixth is a topic which my friend for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and myself definitely support: the increase in the number of playfields in the north. We would both benefit. I would certainly hope that the minister would see that the expanded program on playfields would happen. I voiced my concern last year with the minister, who stated that some type of expansion program for playfields would be done in some of the rural northern school districts. That year has elapsed and I would certainly hope the new minister would be able to implement the program before the snow comes again in the fall.

The last topic I'd like to talk to the minister about is the need for additional funding for rural northern students to travel out of their area on field trips. The present program there is that the children raise money in their own communities. In many small northern communities it is very difficult to get some type of fund-raising programs. I would certainly hope there would be some type of increased assistance to the northern school districts so students may travel out of their constituencies to see what the province has to offer.

Those are seven questions. As I said before, my main concern is the bridge into Greenville. Now that this young student has fallen off the boat and came very close to drowning, I would certainly hope the minister could give some idea or direction on what is going to happen with the students in Greenville this summer.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to respond as best I can to the very important points that the member for Atlin has raised. As far as the bridge is concerned, I have met with the officials there and I've also heard from the member on this bridge. The only thing I haven't done is to go up and see it for myself, which I had really wanted to do and will do. I've written in a very forceful way and spoken to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) about this. I would suggest that in addition to my response you should — and I'm sure you will — direct the matter to him as well in his estimates. What I understand is occurring is that soil samples and testing are going to be underway almost immediately. I just don't know the timetable, hon. member, because it's not my portfolio, but I certainly support the construction of a bridge and the upgrading of that road so that those children in your area can get to their school every day.

On the administration of Stikine district, your concerns there are about an advisory board. Yes, I would certainly support the movement to setting up an advisory board, and my officials will help with that.

There is no problem on the third matter you raised of taking over the management of a federal Indian school. Indeed, we have done that in a number of other districts. We did it in the Prince Rupert district. The school board there took over three federal schools. If the local district wishes to do so and the federal government agrees, it is routine. It

[ Page 2915 ]

simply requires the federal Department of Indian Affairs' concurrence. But again, we would assist in that process. We think that, and we're happy to open our doors to administer entirely the education of Indian children where that's acceptable locally. We have an open-door policy, and I certainly support your sentiments about the need to maintain and to strengthen native studies and native culture for native students. I think that's very important, and I think that's something that we should always keep in mind and not just give lip service to but give resources to, as you know we are.

Educational TV is of absolutely prime importance to the north and to the interior. Although the licence to operate that system expires in February 1981, we have applied for an extension and we certainly expect to get that extension. I would be most concerned if we did not, because this is of enormous importance to your area.

You raised the question of school playing fields in the north. I must confess that I'm not as knowledgeable about that as I should be. I think that this is the first time that it's been directly brought to my attention. It has, however, I'm told, been given priority in capital budgeting so that northern districts can have reasonable facilities, and a larger share of the budget than normal has been directed to that end. But I will promise to directly look into it in relation to your area and that of my friend the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), because it seems to be a matter of importance.

The problem of field trips. Has the member had much success with lotteries in that regard? Has the lotteries route been explored? I'd be happy to talk to him about that, and also to consider looking at a mini-bus policy for isolated secondary schools in the north to provide students with better opportunity for field trips.

Another thing that I think could be highly desirable would be that student exchanges, which are going on at a very major rate in British Columbia through the Secretary of State's office in Ottawa.... I think some priority should be given to some of the northern, more isolated communities on these tours, and that exchanges should be utilized. There's a great popularity, but most of the Canadian exchanges are utilized by the larger centres. But I'll look at a transportation support policy for isolated secondary schools, and I would be happy also to assist the member in exploring lotteries.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to add a few words to a new proposal that the minister mentioned earlier in his address to the House. I was hoping that before I got into this discussion he would have elaborated a little more on what he had planned in his proposal that he was going to bring forward — the proposal that he mentioned in his speech on the enlargement and development of an apprenticeship training program within the school districts.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House. Mr. Chairman, some of the problems that are facing our society in British Columbia today. We have a growing society. We have an economy that is both booming and busting. When we need tradesmen and we have a booming economy, there is a shortage of tradesmen. But when they are needed, we are importing them. Also, at that same period, we would take on apprentices within the industries. Then what happens? The economy goes down into a little bust, a little depression, or a little slide, and our tradesmen and our industries fail to bring in new apprentices.

I would like to recommend to the minister a completely new proposal on the training of apprentices for the development of British Columbia. I sincerely feel, Mr. Minister, that we have within this House a very strong, vocal, elitist group who have grown up within the university system, and I believe that same group dominates the educational department, whose main interest is to those of similar backgrounds to those who have come up through and into the secondary schools and into the universities. Both you and I — and I say this quite humbly, Mr. Minister — have shared a lot of the problems of those people, who in many cases come from different social backgrounds. In many cases they come from single-parent homes where the family is dominated by a mother, with her problems and frustrations, who in many cases does not understand the need for training a youth, especially a boy, in the trades. She is separated from that need; she is separated from that information, and the contact that is needed. I feel that if we are going to train tradesmen for this province, we must consider the training of these tradesmen to be as vitally important as training lawyers, librarians or any of the other professionals.

I feel that we must take a new look of our educational program; we must look to what we can analyze, what we can assess in the school system. In the school system our teachers and our counsellors can very easily pick out those students who will not become lawyers. those students who want to become tradesmen, those students who want to enter the workforce on their graduation. In years past many of those entered that workforce following graduation from grade 8, grade 9 and grade 10. I feel that the ministry must sincerely bring in a policy that if by the time a student reaches grade 10, by his assessment. his desires and his school teachers' and counsellors' assessment. It is obvious that he is going into a trades area, he should be directed into that workforce. I sincerely feel that a student in grade 10, with a combination of technical training within the school and with a positive input from the trade or the industry.... His training and his beginning a trade would start then.

I feel it is important that we develop a school seat in industry that is of as much importance as a seat in any classroom. I would not like to get down to the nitty-gritty of how it should be financed: but I think both the employer groups of all trades and all aspects of industry and the trade union movement, especially that section of the trade union movement that has been doing the apprenticeship training and the quality control of apprenticeship training, can work together and establish in the trades and in the factories a seat that a student can go into on a part-time basis and then on a full-time basis, as he continues into grade 11 and grade 12.

Those of us who have worked in trades all know that you cannot learn all that is needed on the job. For a student who finds geometry boring, finds geometry is something that he cannot comprehend, but has gone into the sheet metal business, when he all of a sudden has a job to develop — let's say an elbow for a 32- or 56-degree bend — and he must come up with a template to do that job, then geometry makes sense. This is why I feel that we must develop a type of training that combines work on the job with a policy and a program that fits that trade. In so many cases we have gone through, to act into pre-apprenticeship training you must graduate from grade 12. Many kids are going through grade 10 and grade 11 and grade 12 just hoping that they can get into preapprenticeship training. By that time it is too late. We must develop a program that is going to lay the groundwork for that trade. In each trade &t we develop we must have a different set of rules, and it must be singly or in groups of trades that programs are developed,

[ Page 2916 ]

I realize that there will be a certain amount of upheaval dislocating the employment picture that is taking place today. But I think once it becomes established that when a youth graduates from grade 12 and goes on maybe another year or two on a form of subsidized training equally to those who are going into universities and colleges.... Society is subsidizing the student who is graduating as a lawyer, a doctor or a social worker. Society is subsidizing him in many, many ways, and it is not unreal to expect that society, if we are going to train tradesmen, will subsidize them in different ways. I think it's so important that we develop a new concept; that we realize and accept the responsibility that if British Columbia is going to change from an exporter of resources to a manufacturing country, we are going to need a continual supply of the best tradesmen that we can develop. In each trade, each industry, there will be a different approach.

But what I think is really important is that if we are going to look at this concept we cannot do it in isolation within your ministry. It must be done in complete cooperation with the school districts and the Ministry of Labour. As I said earlier, Mr. Minister, in that area that both you and I in our past have worked with, we must work within the Attorney-General's department and do the preventive work that is needed now, instead of allowing younger people to drop out of school because of frustration and because they are afraid and they know that if they don't graduate with grade 12 they can't get into an apprenticeship.

We must not allow an apprenticeship training only to be developed if there is an economic need. There must be a need to develop tradesmen and make that opportunity available to every youth who wants to go into the trades in the province. I realize that as we develop an abundance of tradesmen for those areas in the north and the rural area who are complaining that we do not have tradesmen, people will not want to go into that area. When there is an abundance, when the job opportunities are there, I can assure you that there will be many who will move into the north and the rural areas, and they will be properly trained. I say when someone in that area hires a carpenter or a plumber, he has had that quality training, the quality training that we as society, we in the school district, can produce.

I also realize that now as we are exporting a lot of resources we will have a surplus and we will be exporting tradesmen at times. I can see areas like South America, which has a developing economy based on resources in many cases similar to our province. With properly trained tradesmen we will be exporting ambassadors to those countries. I think that ambassador that they produce will lead the way in bringing in some of the economic products that we are producing in the way of chain saws, equipment and bulldozers, and I feel that this will be a commodity we need to foster. We have the resources, we have the people. All we need is the wherewithal and the desire to develop that.

I use that as an example. For any of those who have gone into the shipyards in southern California, San Diego, there is a large section of Canadian shipyard workers who served their apprenticeship in the yards of Victoria, VMD, Yarrows, and in Vancouver in Burrard. When we had a bust in the shipyards they emigrated, and they are highly respected because the training that they received in our shipyards is second to none.

I feel that we can and must do that. We must do it to protect those who are coming up, those who are growing, and those many youth who right now are very bitter, who are very frustrated, who feel at a loss. For each two or three years when we have an area of time in our economy where there is a bit of a depression, they're not getting out to learn a trade that they must learn at an early age. Two or three years lost in a developing boy are years that never can be replaced.

In closing, I can say that there will be changes. We have accepted that challenge in the past. I remember, following the Second World War when a lot of young lads came back from that war.... They had left right from school and gone in to fighting for their country. The Canadian government accepted the responsibility of training the returned veterans. Some went on to universities, some came out in the professions. But there was equal opportunity given to those who came into the trades. Money came from the government to the employer to subsidize on-the-job training. There was quality control and a trade group to monitor what was happening to make sure that the veteran was not being exploited. The only thing they didn't realize was that the veteran who came back from overseas was not quite as naive as the kid who came out of school at 15 and 16. Society accepted the principle that they would train tradesmen as they trained university students.

I was hoping that maybe we could have had some of the background on this program he referred to of advanced or enlarged apprenticeship training. Anything less than a guarantee to every person who has the qualifications to master a trade and I say we are falling short. It is far better to graduate into the unemployed field trained carpenters, trained sheetmetalmen and trained seamen than to allow kids to graduate after 12 years of schooling and only be qualified to be a short-order cook at McDonald's or to work in some gas bar. This is the program I feel the department must bring in. We must bring in a policy so that by the time a student enters grade 10 he must have the opportunity to go on to learn something so he is going to be able to feed himself and his family and to live in this province with security.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, it's with great pleasure that I address you this afternoon on this very important ministry and compliment the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew on his address. There is a lot more to training apprentices than meets the eye. I'm sure that if he were to delve into it a little more he would find out that there are many problems not particularly associated with the industry or the desire but with problems in the union structure itself. I'm rather surprised that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew does not seem to have observed — a party which we understand is so strongly union-oriented.... If this is a crack in their attitude, perhaps we should bear it in mind. I for one agree a little bit with him that we shouldn't be too hide-bound on skills training. I do believe that industry would like to see it done. I think government would like to see it done. But I think there is a feeling among many unions that if we get too many people with skilled trades the situation deteriorates the jobs in existence. I don't hold to this point of view. Much as I believe in unionism and the strength of unions, I believe they are wrong in this respect. I believe that it would be better for industry and jobs, especially at this time in British Columbia's history, to relent in their position.

I have before me an article by Albert Sigurdson, special to the Globe and Mail on June 12, 1980. It's entitled: "Unions Blamed for Blocking Industrial Training. " In the article he says:

[ Page 2917 ]

"Union job security and seniority concerns are keeping British Columbia from training the skilled tradesmen it needs for its major industries, according to a report published by the Vancouver Board of Trade. There is an acute shortage of critical trade skills in British Columbia. The report said 85 percent of the firms surveyed indicated they had difficulty in finding adequately trained people during the preceding two years."

I believe there is a lot of truth in that report. I believe it is time that the Ministry of Education took this into consideration. I want to compliment the Minister of Education; in my conversation with him just a short time ago he stated that he is going to make a trip to the various colleges to see for himself, firsthand, the facilities, particularly of the Maple Ridge campus of PVI, which is in my constituency. I have been urging him to spend $3.5 million on upgrading that facility for the benefit of the young people of British Columbia.

At the present time it seems anomalous to me that our high school graduates cannot apply to PVI for training — even if they offer to pay for it — because they must be out of school for a year before they can apply for training. I think that should cease. I address the minister on this point of view. I think the unions may be prepared to accept a new look at training in British Columbia.

The Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, speaking in Vancouver on May 6 said: "Canada will need to import up to 500,000 skilled workers within the next five years, 70,000 of these in British Columbia." To me that is almost incomprehensible. Here we are with the young people and the raw material. Here we are in British Columbia with 8 percent unemployment and we cannot train our people. There is something wrong in the working system somewhere.

I appeal to the minister. I appreciate his point of view. I know it is not as easy and as clear as it would seem on the surface. To open the floodgates and let everybody in will only cause trouble, inconvenience and questions from certain quarters. But we can no longer let these jobs be taken by people from beyond our shores — from Europe and the United States. I have brought this matter up in this House on other occasions. I think it is now getting too late. I do appeal to the minister on this issue. There is no longer time for talking; it's time for action in training our young people to take these jobs. Somebody somewhere has got to give way. With 8 percent unemployment it is unacceptable to me that we are going to import tradespeople to this province.

It is interesting to note in the May 5 "Midweek Business Report" in the Province a reference is made to what is happening in British Columbia with the northeast coal deal situation. It is now on stream but was not a certainty at that time. Here is what the Province staff reporter said: "An example of the current talks on vastly increased coal sales between Canada and Japan, if they bear fruit" — little did he know at that time that they were going to bear fruit — "a priority and a problem will be in finding qualified underground coal-miners to work in northeastern B.C."

You see what is going to happen now: we are going to be importing coal-miners, no doubt from Europe, to do these first-class jobs when our young people are able to do them. At one time a coal-miner's job was a tough job but it is now mechanized. I do appeal to the minister on this issue of vital importance. The Pacific Vocational Institute is capable and ready to do the training. It is able to do the training but is hampered by facilities and by difficulties in the structure between government and unions. I appeal to the minister to remove this road-block.

I could go on to more quotations. In the June 11 "Midweek Business Report" in the Province there is an article, "Trade Training Branded Absurd, " by Patrick Durrant. "The opportunity for young British Columbians to enter trades training is so difficult it is absurd," he said. I won't belabour the point but it is almost unbelievable that we find ourselves in this position. There is a growing awareness of the need but here we are with a facility that needs to be upgraded. I appeal to the minister.

I appreciate the fact that he is going to PVI. But this is no longer a thing that should be done in the future, Mr. Minister. I am glad to see that he has returned. It is a thing that must be done now. It must be a crash program or we are going to find ourselves importing the workers we need. We have been doing it for the last five or six or ten years. Yet when our industry rises up and we need skilled staff, what happens? We don't have them: we have to import them. With our young people out of work, that seems unacceptable to me.

I want to draw to the minister's attention that the Ministry of Education at one time considered the establishment of another level of high school. We must remove, I believe, the elitism of academic education. There is nothing wrong with academic education. but we must remove the elitism from education. Every mother's child feels he must go to university or at least grade 12. There's nothing wrong with that, but we must remove the fact that it's elitist thinking. What we must have — as the previous Minister of Education suggested — is a certificate for grade 10. Our young could leave school at grade 10 if they were oriented to skilled labour and doing productive labour. If they were oriented to that and wanted to end at that grade, they should then move into training specifically for trades. If they do that, they could move on to higher education that would be to their benefit. But we would train them for a job from grade 10 and they would have a certificate on the wall.

In industry or business it's a well-known fact that titles are cheap. We make two or three secretary-treasurers or general managers in one firm because the titles are cheap and they give a person a position of dignity. I think that a certificate of grade 10 would give dignity to someone that would go into trades training in schools. They're not dropouts, because they are going to learn a trade and be productive for British Columbia and Canada. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the minister. This is something that's long past due.

I have no fight with academics. The reason that academics is so important and so carefully carried out in this province is because it's the easiest thing in the world to teach. There is no problem teaching academics. You can get a book almost anywhere and teach it. It's a solid, ironcast program. Training skills is another story. It is difficult, requires knowledge of the issue and somebody with a dedication. I don't say that we must remove.... Don't let me say: "Mussallem is against academics." No way! I think it's wonderful and great, but it's easy to teach and easy to acquire. Trades training is difficult to teach and difficult to acquire. We need both. But we have pushed our people into the academic stream and it's an elitist program. That must cease. In my opinion. We must give the same importance to the worker that works with his hands. I appeal to the minister again.

I appreciate what he's doing and I appreciate his think-

[ Page 2918 ]

ing, but I thought it was necessary that I bring it up on this floor. It's all right to talk with the minister, but I want to tell him from this floor that the time is long past due when we should recognize the importance of trades and learning to do something with the hands. Make that elitism. In some countries it is. Why not here? It's difficult to teach, that's why. Not many people can teach it. Anybody can teach school. If you go to university for four years and get a certificate, you're out teaching school. You can do a good job if you're dedicated, and that's necessary. But to acquire a trade requires specialized people. It's not an easy thing to do, but we must buck the tide and create jobs for our people. We have unemployment in Canada today because we have not trained people in the past years.

That is my message to the minister. I'm glad to hear the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), and I hope there's a change in the policy of that negative party over there that's always against everything. Here's one fellow that is definitely attacking the unions. I'm so glad to see that. There's a little change. We don't want to attack anybody. He says: "Train everybody. What's wrong?" The problem is that certain unions don't want to train too many people too fast. I'm not against that. I'm a union man. I believe in unionism, but it is wrong to withhold jobs from our people. We should have people with two and three skills so they can go anywhere for jobs. It's easy once once you get the stream flowing, but we have never had the stream flowing in British Columbia and we're paying the price today. We will be importing labour by the thousands from offshore — the Pacific Rim, England, Scotland, Ireland and the United States. Right now it's happening, and our young people are out of jobs. It's a pitiful situation. I appeal to the minister in the strongest possible terms that this log-jam has got to be broken and we've got to move on training our people.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I believe there was a slight misinterpretation of what I said. I'd just like to bring to the hon. member's attention that there are more non-union shops than union shops that are not training apprentices in B.C. I'm happy to see that he is supporting my progressive policy and positive suggestions to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has clarified his statement.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a variety of rather unrelated items, all related to education. I do my homework in my constituency. I go out and listen to my constituents and they bring their problems to me, and then I bring them to the minister. That is what I am proposing to do today.

I would like to follow on what the last speaker said relative to the apprentice program and speak of the need for training for people who are already in the workforce. I think it has been indicated very clearly that people who leave school and then decide to return to school make better students than when they were there the first time. A lot of people who are working today want to improve their position and to take advantage of the kinds of courses available. The problem is that they're not available to people who work on shift. The community college is geared to either a day course or an evening course, and there is no provision for those people who work shift work, perhaps two weeks of days and two weeks of nights, or one week or whatever. They would be available to have some night programs and some day programs. Unfortunately the colleges don't accommodate that kind of need. I would like to recommend to the minister that he review in the areas where there are large shift populations and provide that kind of opportunity to those people.

I would suggest to him that in the United States there is a program called Carrier which is, I believe, a weekend program. A course that would normally take perhaps three months to complete, on a regular basis, is taught every Saturday for a year, and the participant is able to achieve the same standard by attending that particular course on Saturdays as he would if he attended regularly during weekdays or evenings at the normal times. There is a similar program, I believe, in the British Isles called Progress, which has been continuing for some time over there.

I would commend to the minister a review of those programs to see whether or not he could consider instigating some such scheme into the educational system here to provide that opportunity for shift workers. They certainly don't have the same access to those programs as people who normally work on a regular day or night shift. The minister will find that certainly in the rural areas there is a concentration of people who work on the same kinds of shifts, and it should be very easy to ascertain whether or not there would be a demand on that shift schedule for any given program.

Another concern I wanted to raise with the minister is the concern that has been raised in this House before in regard to other buildings — the possible use of asbestos in the school buildings. I am particularly concerned about the portables, which I believe are sprayed with asbestos. I understand that a bit of a program has been undertaken to try to review this matter and there will be some report forthcoming. I would urge upon the minister that that program be speeded up as rapidly as possible, because it certainly isn't good policy if we are exposing our young people to those kinds of carcinogenic material at such an early age.

There has been a concern voiced to me on the problems that arise with young people in the public school system in trying to choose a career. Other members have talked about the apprentice programs, and certainly there has to be some long-range planning coordinated through the various activities that go on within the province, to ensure that we are training people for the jobs that we need ten or five years down the road, so that we don't continually just look at repeating the same old professions and industrial trades and training for those that are perhaps already overstocked. We have to look to the new requirements of the new society as it emerges. One of the examples pointed out to me by one of the people at the local college was the need for people skilled in water treatment, and the lack of facilities for training in that particular area. I am sure that the minister could do a great deal in working with the other ministries involved, and the resource industries as well, to ensure that we have some kind of ongoing program that looks ahead to the needs and then proceeds to train our young people so that instead of having unemployed graduates from high schools, colleges and universities at the same time that we are importing skilled tradespeople, skilled management people or the various kinds of people that we need, we have worked towards providing that kind of facility here. One thing that would go a long way, and is certainly within this minister's jurisdiction, is the provision of career counselling right in the high schools, and that's something that's not readily available in the lot of more rural high schools; that career counselling is very limited and inadequate. There is just not the knowledge

[ Page 2919 ]

of the needs out front, and if we had skilled people who have that knowledge that could help direct young people into the kind of occupations where there would be a very good demand for their labour, it would certainly be much more productive.

I was talking to a young friend just this afternoon who was telling me about his sister who went back to school, after having been married and having raised two children, to complete her teaching training, which she had started some years before. She graduated her third year with an average of 95-plus and then decided there was no use going on because there were no opportunities in teaching, and she's now switched and gone into accounting. You know, those kinds of things are really a lot of wasteful years and a cost to the taxpayer. If we had some kind of counselling to ensure that people got into a trade where there was an opening rather than training people that we don't need, it would be a much more productive use of tax dollars.

Another concern that I have and a lot of the people involved with education in my constituency have is the fact that learning disabilities are often so late in being diagnosed. Very often a child with learning disabilities is perhaps a bit above the average IQ and it doesn't show up at an early age. What we need are skilled people who can assess those problems at an early age, because if they are dealt with promptly and without delay, then certainly we can not only save the taxpayers' dollars in trying to cope with those children at a later date, but we can also do a great service to the child who has those learning disabilities in channelling them into a full and meaningful life.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

A similar problem where again the minister could do much if he would provide counsellors in the high schools to deal with the problem of drugs and alcohol, because that is a very serious problem in our high schools — I'm sure the minister is aware of that.... Particularly in the rural and outlying areas we don't have that kind of counselling available within the high schools. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and if we could get that kind of counselling at an early age — perhaps even in the junior secondary schools as well as the senior — to ensure that the counselling is available, because youngsters are very reluctant to deal with their parents about their concerns on these particular subjects, and if we had trained counsellors, it would do a lot to ensure that those young people did have an opportunity to direct their feet in a better direction than is happening with a great many of them today.

I wanted to speak just briefly — and I'm not sure what the status is at the moment — of the Strathcona Park Lodge. I have had several concerns from various schools and individuals in my area where the fees have been increasing at Strathcona Park Lodge because of lack of participation by the provincial government. I have a copy of a letter of April 8 from the minister which indicated that because it was costing so much to operate, the government was not going to fund it any longer. Certainly that program is a very valuable program in terms of getting young people in tune with nature, and the kind of programs that are given there have done a great deal for a great many young people in getting their mind straightened around a bit and getting a much better perspective on life generally. I have a letter from the Queen of Angels school which tells about them working to raise funds for this program. They're putting on bake sales and all sort of things — the children did this themselves — in order to raise the funds and get the thing down to a manageable size where they could then make a contribution from each family to see that the child could go to that course at Strathcona Park Lodge, and then found that the fees were going to be increased over and above what they had been told previously, and that was because of the withdrawal of government funds.

There are a great many native children attending that Queen of Angels school, and without funding those children are not going to be able to raise sufficient money to participate in that program, and that's really a very sad commentary on the kind of opportunities that the ministry is offering.

Speaking of the native Indian children, of course, we have quite a good program going, and I would commend the minister for his participation in getting the Salish language established in the school — G.E. Bonner Junior Secondary School, I believe it is — just near the Cowichan Indian Reserve, Actually it's established in the entire school district of Cowichan, but that's the place where it is being used and taught very fully.

But my concern in connection with the Indian students who are being integrated into the public school system is that they start out very hopefully in September and the federal government makes its allotted payment to the provincial government — $2,000 per student — which is turned over to the local board. Then by December you find that Indian school population has dropped to maybe half, and by Easter time in half again. Those children are then on their reserve without work and with no funds available to the band council to provide any alternate kind of education, because that's a one-shot deal. The money is paid by the federal government to the province, to the school board, the children are gone, but there is none of that funding available to the band council to supplement those children's education in some other form which they might be able to encourage on the reserve if they had the funds available. I would suggest to the minister that perhaps the financing could somehow be adjusted in such a way that it was allocated by the quarter, or whatever, so that when those children were no longer in the public school system, the funds would be available to the band council to provide education for those children.

The minister spoke earlier in the debate on the school facilities manual. The concern that has been brought to my attention — and to the minister's attention — through the Central Vancouver Island Union Board of Health is the lack of medical rooms in the rural schools. I'm sure that the minister has had passed on to him a letter from the chairman of the Central Vancouver Island Board of Health, which was dated October 1. 1979. "Medical rooms in the schools of the central Vancouver Island health unit are often used by special classes, and my board considers that the requirements for new school construction should include both medical rooms and space for special classes." Certainly, when a nurse has no place to work when she goes into a school, it handicaps her work, and when a child is ill at school and has no place to relax, that's not an adequate situation at all. I note that this manual is being circulated and that the minister is aware of the problem, but he's talking about new schools and that's what the medical board is talking about too. I'm wondering whether or not the minister has any thoughts as to how he's going to solve this problem in some of the older schools, where this situation has existed for some time and will continue to exist if it's only being dealt with when new

[ Page 2920 ]

schools are built, because we're certainly not building very many new schools now. Recently the minister and I were both at a very happy event in the opening of one new school in the Cowichan School District. But I think that those occasions are more rare than they used to be; the school population has not been growing too greatly.

I want to deal just briefly with the finance situation in a small school district. We had, of course, a rather unusual situation in the Lake Cowichan School District — that's School District No. 66 — where as a result of the change in assessments back in 1977-78, we had a tremendous drop in the total assessment within the Lake Cowichan School District. It dropped from $51 million in 1977 to $34 million in 1978. That has been increasing; it's now almost up to where it was before, due to adjustments. But the problem was, and still is, that while that was offset somewhat by grants that were made by the ministry to these small school districts — in 1977 they had a $150,000 grant and in 1978 one of $100,000; in 1979, at the time that I had this information supplied to me, they were not aware what the 1979 grant would be.... That was their real concern. When you're dependent upon a conditional grant that may or may not come, and you don't know how much or how little it's going to be, it's very difficult to plan ahead. Their request was that some alternate method be found, rather than these conditional grants to small school districts on a sort of tentative basis, because it means that they are not able to plan ahead; they don't know from year to year what that grant will be or whether it will in fact be forthcoming. Of course, that particular district was in a rather unusual situation as well because of the tremendous drop in their assessment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

While I'm talking about financing, I was interested and pleased to note that one of the first acts that this minister undertook when he became Minister of Education was to drop the mill rate. He decided that he would cut it back by some 2.25 mills, I think it was. The press at that time carried some headlines indicating that this minister's move would save householders up to $25 on tax bills. That's very commendable. But it's interesting to note that if that drop of some 2 mills would create a reduction to the average householder of anywhere from $20 to $25, the minister should consider what has happened to the tax load of the average householder since his government took office in 1975-76. At that time the mill rate was 26 mills, and it now stands at 41.25. That's an increase of 15.25 mills. If 2 mills makes a difference of $20 to $25.... What has actually happened to the householder during this government's term of office is a net increase in his average school tax bill of something like $200, and that's too high an increase to put on the householder. If you look at the total figures, you will find that the share of education costs being borne by the local taxpayer has skyrocketed in the last few years. I think the minister is to be commended for making the reduction he did when he first took office. I would urge upon him that when next year this decision comes to hand he have as an objective the continuing reduction of that mill rate back to where it was in 1975, because that would be a much fairer deal to the taxpayers in the local communities.

I thank the minister for his attention to my remarks and I look forward to his comments.

MR. GABELMANN: The first thing I'd like to say — and not totally frivolously — is that if the Minister of Education could do something about the trend in this continent about making verbs out of nouns, I think he'd become the most successful minister that we've ever had in this province. I say that just because I can't think of any other estimate to say it in, Mr. Chairman — what we're doing to our language. I note that in France the government has a program to try to preserve the language, to prevent — in that case — its Americanization, I guess. One of these days we might think about doing something in this country about trying to preserve our language, because it's going all to heck.

HON. MR. SMITH: When do you wish me to actuate that?

MR. GABELMANN: That's exactly the kind of thing that destroys my ears every time I hear it.

I have just a few comments this afternoon. I think we have a very serious problem in education, putting inexperienced teachers into the most difficult jobs. Last week during the break I spent a day or so out in Port Eliza, a logging camp on the west coast — one-roomed school, 12 kids in the school, grades K to 7, one teacher in her first year of teaching. I can't make a judgment about how good a teacher she is, but for two years she couldn't get a job and then when she did get a job she got this job in this one-roomed school teaching seven grades. She has a part-time teacher aide, but she's expected to teach seven grades — some native kids involved and some other kids with learning disabilities, and the normal problems of camp life. When I was there, for example, the school had to close because of a lice infestation. We somehow expect the teacher to cope with that, and we somehow expect the kids in that situation to receive a good education.

The other part of that whole problem is that we put young and new teachers into the lower grades and then promote them — as they gain some experience and ability, presumably, to teach in a more effective manner — to the higher grades. It seems to me totally backwards. I realize that school board policies could change that process. What we have in education is a status system, in my judgment, that somehow gives a teacher more status to teach grade 10, 11 or 12 than to teach grade 1 or 2. There is more status to be in the big high school than to be in the rural and isolated one-room multigrade school. It should be the other way around. We should put our best teachers in the lower grades, particularly the first grade or two, and we should put our better, more qualified teachers in these isolated communities. We're not going to be able to do that without providing substantial additional financial rewards for doing that. I think it's worth it.

I went into the school and talked to the kids last week in Port Eliza. The grade 6 kid and the grade 7 kid — one of each; you can imagine the difficulties they have; one is 12 and the other is 13, I guess — both wanted to quit school so they could go drive a logging truck. They already know how to drive a logging truck at that age. They are both bright kids; we talked about politics and government and all kinds of things. The school system has nothing for them. If they were in Vancouver or Victoria or any large city in this province they would undoubtedly go on to university, but there is no reason they will here. A teacher with the demands placed on her with seven or eight grades isn't going to be able to provide the kind of education that will create an interest on

[ Page 2921 ]

the part of those kids to stay in the system. I am quite sure they will leave the first moment they legally can. That is a problem, and I think it is a serious problem in the whole system, particularly when we put our inexperienced teachers in grade 1. I wish we could find some way — and perhaps money is the only way in terms of financial incentives — to put our better teachers into those grades.

The other thing we do is train teachers in what strikes me as a very strange way. We send them to a university and try to teach them how to teach through a lecture, a classroom situation of its own. I think that much more of that education should happen in the classroom throughout the time of teacher training; on-the-job training would be far more useful than academic. Not that you can do away with the academic part of it, but on-the-job training throughout the time of the teacher training would be far more useful.

I am one of those who believe that the minister should impose family life education throughout the school system. I see the number of boys and girls at age 12, 13, and 14 actively involved in sexual relations without a clue as to how it works and what happens, and we say as a society that we're not going to train and teach those kids. I find that position absolutely indefensible. Apart from the social costs and personal traumas involved in unwanted teenage pregnancies, think of it from an educational point of view alone, if you will. We are losing a lot of kids out of the school system because of unwanted early pregnancy. Those kids, whether they choose to keep the child or not, or to have an abortion, or whatever solution they choose, are scarred for life, and their families are scarred for life. I think there must be sex education at an early age in the schools. I would agree with those people who say that parents should do it, but parents don't do it. Mine didn't do it. Most parents don't do it. The school system must do it. I urge the minister to rethink his position on that matter.

One of the concerns I hear quite frequently in the riding and elsewhere is problems about vandalism. We recently had some problems in Campbell River. They've actually put barbed wire around parts of the roof and various other protective devices to make sure certain acts of vandalism couldn't be carried out in the schools. In my experience, schools that have a good atmosphere, good teaching, kids involved in a democratic way in the system, don't have very many problems with vandalism. Schools that have a tight, authoritarian, uninvolved system end up being vandalized often, even to the point of being burned in some cases. That's a point on which I've been unable to persuade, for example, board members in Campbell River. They just don't believe it. They think that the kids are vandals by nature. In fact, I was at the school in Holberg on Thursday. They actually plant flowers around the school, and the flowers don't get stepped on. Why? Because the kids are involved, and they feel that it belongs to them. That doesn't happen in too many schools in this province. I think when we talk about the problems of vandalism we should look at why it happens,

Another concern of mine is the suspensions — getting kicked out of school. Often kids act as a result of learning disabilities or other kinds of behavioural problems that aren't picked up by the system. They are dealt with as if they were bad kids. Once somebody is dealt with as a bad kid, he's going to make sure that he can prove that he is a bad kid. When you define someone that way, he will prove it for you. What then happens is that we kick him out of school. I guess five days is the mandatory limit without board approval. I can't think of situations where kids should be kicked out of school — period. I don't think it should happen. I wouldn't even want to kick the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) out of the Legislature. Kids are not bad.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, yes, they are; there are some bad kids.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to take that much time to get into the whole discussion about adults' definitions of children's behaviour. Kids have a way of proving to us what we say they are. In many cases, bad kids come from an alcoholic home; they come from a split-up family; they have personal problems of their own, whether psychological or physical, or learning disabilities of a wide variety. They act out. We say they're bad, so they prove it to us. That's something I think we should remember. I don't think there are very many bad kids at three months of age. They become bad some months or some years later. Why do they become "bad"? Let's spend some time thinking about that. We might find that the drop-out rate in the school system wouldn't be nearly as high as it is at the present time.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the things that don't seem to be taught in school but I think should be. We made the point earlier about lack of teaching about labour history. We learn about imperial history; we learn about all kinds of other aspects of history, which kids think are irrelevant. But they don't learn anything about the history of their parents and grandparents in this country, in terms of their work experience. I wasn't able to learn anything about labour history until I went to university. That's wrong. I hope that the social studies program will contain a significant element of labour history, when it is finally changed.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: We've had a couple of very peaceful days. I hope that's not changed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to say that, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: In addition to teaching children about the history of working class movements in this country and in the world I think that kids who are going to go onto the job market — many of them at 18, 19 or 20 — should lea-n something about what it's like to get a job. They should team something about the difference between industrial unions and craft unions. They should learn something about the reasons why you have to be a member of a building trades union to get a job in that industry — go through some of those things. Kids come into the workforce and they don't even know anything about what it means, what their responsibilities are as a part of the workforce. That should be part of a child's education as well.

I'm always amazed at the way we teach history. We teach history by starting out, usually — if my memory is correct — talking about Mesopotamia and the Euphrates and ancient Greece and all kinds of things which are absolutely irrelevant to most children, unless they have a strange interest in those topics, which very few kids do. I happen to have been interested in those topics when I was a kid — most of my classmates weren't. In communities such as, say, Campbell River, why don't we start teaching history by teaching the

[ Page 2922 ]

local Indian history and the local history of the whites' entrance and migration and development, and the industrial history of the local area — do that in each part of the province? Why can't history be made meaningful? Why can't the early history courses include major field-trip activities, so that there can be some meaning? In my judgment, one of the most important subjects in education in general is history. Without learning from it, without knowing it, we have a great deal of difficulty in making progress. It's important that kids have some awareness of that, and most don't; most kids don't like the subject. Why? Because we don't introduce it in the right way, we don't make it relevant, and we don't tie it in to the local history.

Just moving on quickly, I know there's been some progress in French language instruction, and that's good, both in terms of the actual teaching of French and French immersion, where kids are speaking French. In Campbell River we have a couple of programs and that's good.

I believe that every child in this country should learn two languages from grade 1 to every year of school. I don't particularly care if there are enough kids who want to learn Spanish, German, Chinese, or some other language — if there is enough to provide a teacher — that they do that instead of French. That would suit me. But I think the ability to function in more than one language is essential if people are going to be able to be good citizens in this increasingly smaller world of ours.

I regret very much that I'm not fluent in.... I can handle a little bit of a couple of other languages, but I'm not fluent in them, and I regret that very much. I'm a much more poorly educated person as a result of that. I honestly believe that in grade 1 there should be French classes; everybody takes it, the same as they take English or arithmetic, and it should go right through the whole school system. There should never be a time when they're not learning French in the system or, as I say, an alternative language of their own choosing if there are sufficient students to meet the class size.

The final thing I wanted to say in this very brief comment, Mr. Chairman, relates to physical education. There seems to be an increasing emphasis on physical education for school children, but not nearly as much as there should be. We cannot have healthy minds unless we have healthy bodies, and when I look at the physical condition of a great many school kids it's of some concern. I think there should be rigorous continuing physical education programs with a major emphasis put on them by the school system; they should not be seen as a frivolous extra in the program. It is a major part of growing up, of learning, and of education. I think that in a province like ours that should include outdoor education.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about Strathcona Park Lodge. I stopped in there on Saturday evening to talk to the people. They're running way behind, and the minister knows all the details, I'm sure, about the financial difficulties that Strathcona Park Lodge has. I believe those kinds of programs — and I emphasize outdoor programs — are an essential part of our education system in this province.

The final thing I want to say about physical education is that it should be co-ed in a much greater way than it is. There should be mixed sports. The development of boys going off with their game and girls with theirs should not be allowed. I think the girls and boys should play together much more than they do, and that the girls should not be encouraged, as they are by omission, from not participating in the physical activities of games and organized sports through the school system.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have a fan on the other side. I hope the minister will be as enthusiastic.

Mr. Chairman, I just have one brief issue to raise with the minister regarding the need for some kind of funding for upgrading nurses' training in the province. I believe the minister received the same letter that I received in January 1980. There was a copy directed to the Premier and to the minister. If he responded to this letter, I did not receive the benefit of a copy. It was a letter from a Mrs. Francis Wartman, a registered nurse from Armstrong, who made the point that we expect good quality health care in our system and that basically no funds are made available for the upgrading and post-training of registered nurses in the province. She indicates that this is a responsibility which resides under the Ministry of Education, which, quite frankly, I was not aware of. I had assumed that that may be a responsibility of the Ministry of Health, but her suggestion is that it resides under Education.

I don't know whether it's a joint thing or not, but certainly I think the point that she makes is very valid. There is no formalized or secure source of funding for the continual upgrading of nurses' training. They, like doctors, in my view must maintain a current knowledge of improvements and new procedures in the medical field, because they are very, very closely involved in the treatments that go on in the hospitals. The doctor is not in attendance at all times. I think she makes a valid point.

If she is in error and if I am in error in directing this to the Minister of Education, I would appreciate his responding in that fashion and suggesting perhaps that I should deal with the Minister of Health on it when his estimates are before the House.

I would also ask the minister to just briefly respond with respect to his attitude toward the need that has been outlined to him in this letter dated January 22, 1980. If the minister has responded to the lady, I would appreciate having a copy of that letter that went out to her.

MR. BARBER: Two days ago School District 61 closed a competition for participation in a new program for academically gifted students in grades 10, 11 and 12. It's an important change representing an important new policy. Starting on September 1 of this year, School District 62 in Sooke will begin a special teacher program and a special learning program for the gifted and talented.

Across British Columbia in the last couple of years, and most certainly in the last year, we've seen once again — forgive the cliché of it — that swing of the pendulum, which has reintroduced and restated interest in programs for the gifted. I'm absolutely delighted to see that happening, and I have a number of positive proposals I want to make to the minister in order to encourage more of that. As the minister, or certainly his deputies, will know, I've spoken on the issue of education for the gifted every year since I've been elected. I remain absolutely convinced that that issue, that dilemma, that option and that conflict remain central to one special aspect of the failure of public education in British Columbia.

That central aspect is simply this. We presume, I think, in an entirely naive and unfair way that if a kid is bright enough she or he will make it on their own and don't need help, don't

[ Page 2923 ]

require recognition and needn't ask for special options in their own education. There are a lot of people, I think honourably enough within the teaching profession, and equally honourably among the general public, who've always presumed that if the kid is smart, has the native wit, the original intelligence, the talent, the command, the articulateness, the imagination, all of the other things that comprise and compose giftedness in the authentic sense, then she or he will succeed regardless of the obstacles. I think that argument is really quite false. It's false not simply on spiritual grounds, recognizing what happens to the diminished spirit of a young person whose capacity is delimited unfairly, but it's also false, I think, on academic grounds as well. I propose to mention briefly a number of studies on the same subject that I've had an opportunity of examining in the last several months.

I want to talk about precedent just for a moment though before I get to the principal proposal that I would like to put to the minister. In the United States of America since 1975 — I mentioned this last year and have received more information on it since — the federal department of Health, Education and Welfare has established an office for the gifted and talented. As the minister may be aware, in the United States of America as well there is a national clearing house for the gifted and the talented. This is an agency which, in collaboration with state departments of education and with the national administration, through Health, Education and Welfare, finds some means of collaboratively designing programs to recognize, to develop and to promote the necessary new options for the very most gifted of young people in the public system in the United States of America. There at least there have been no great constitutional problems. There at least local school districts, state commissioners of education and the national government together have accepted mutual and joint responsibility for identifying, sponsoring, promoting and making happen in a practical and direct way special programs for special kids who happen to be gifted.

Let me say — adding it as a caveat at this point — I personally also recognize that programs for kids who are retarded or physically handicapped are also equally valid and necessary. I don't by any means, in making these remarks, attempt to downgrade or diminish the importance or slight the value of those other equally necessary special programs for special kids. Not at all. But as with every other member of this Legislature, so do I bring to debates personal and academic experience that tends, in the case of this particular debate, to persuade me that the contribution I want to make to public education in British Columbia is to find some way to raise the level of perception, at least among people in my own riding and perhaps throughout this Legislature more generally, of the very special demands and the very innovative requirements of sensitive programs for gifted kids. Let me restate. I don't by any means diminish, therefore, all the other programs for all the other kids. The particular interest I have in the debate is one that is obvious and straightforward enough.

In the United States I think it's become clear in the last half decade that national and state authorities together are competent, by and large, to make available the resources of the state to gifted kids. Those programs seem to work. They could work in British Columbia but so far we lack the coordinating instrument. I know the minister will say, as he has every right to say, that in the last couple of years more attention has been paid to this by school districts and by his ministry than for a long time before. That is true. I am glad that has happened. It may in part have happened because a number of people here and elsewhere have been arguing that it should. It may also be happening because simply in the historical time of things it is time for it to happen again.

Historians of public education in the United States have observed that about every 18 to 20 to 22 years there seems to be a new interest in education for the gifted. Roughly every two decades that pendulum swing comes back and tells us once again that it's important to pay attention to these kids. We appear to be at that point now. However it is we've gotten here, though, now that it seems a time when we can tap the energy and the fiscal commitment and the policy interest of school districts, it is most necessarily the time for an intelligent and coordinated and tough-minded approach to be taken by the Minister of Education.

As far as I can tell, no such single-minded instrument of provincial policy exists to date. As far as I can tell from my own inquiries, no instrument designed in a precise, thoughtful and sensible way exists singly to encourage and assist teachers, schools for teachers and school districts themselves to come to grips with the issue of education for the gifted. Many districts at their own initiative, thank God, have looked at it in the last couple of years, and they're moving. I congratulate them. A number of public servants in the minister's own department have also done that — again significantly at their own initiative.

I want to point out — I would be happy to be corrected by the minister, but as of the most recent inquiry I doubt that I will be — there exists no single instrument of provincial education policy to coordinate, inspire, suggest and promote the new options which we can find in the literature and in practical experience — the interest for which is now present at many school districts in British Columbia — to encourage educational programs for the gifted. I want to urge the minister to consider the establishment — at least temporarily during this start-up period of school district interest across B.C. In education for the gifted — of an office within his own ministry for the education of the gifted. It would be a very simple step. It would require, I think, no more than the simple, tough-minded. disciplined coordination of many disparate and uncoordinated efforts going on at the moment.

A provincial office for education of the gifted could right now seize the moment. That moment is this. School districts are now interested, and they have not been for some time. The literature exists now, and it has not been so currently or widely distributed for some time. The availability and the willingness of parents' groups to support such programs now exists, and it has not existed for some time. If the moment is apt and correctly here, then surely it is, in part, the responsibility of the provincial ministry to add credibility to those efforts locally, to add the stature and the imprimatur of provincial interest in a disciplined, named and organized way, and through an office of education for the gifted be prepared to assist parents and kids in their school districts in undertaking these programs.

Such an office would have four basic functions, each of which is, I am sure, self-evident. The first, of course, is to provide public information and documentation to any persons at large as lay people interested in the field. That is necessary to justify public investment, new programs and new policy. A sensibly and bright informed and able public can assist tremendously in the correct and sensible formulation of policy which would assist education for the gifted. That is the first function.

[ Page 2924 ]

Secondly, an office of education for the gifted could allow school districts — through the BCSTA and the other devices of consultation and cooperation that exist — to share their own experience, to collaborate mutually and equally in the partnership which will result in better programs for the gifted in British Columbia. That could be done in collaboration with the BCSTA, the BCTF and, additionally, the council for special children — the name escapes me; the thing that Ed's involved in up in Nanaimo.

There exists now a provincial body — a non-profit volunteer group — concerned about the educational needs of special children. In a voluntary and capacious way that body is willing to help become responsible — no charge, no fee, no cost — for the dissemination of this information and the encouragement of these new attitudes.

Thirdly, an office for the education of the gifted in British Columbia could, through conferences, workshops, seminars, dialogue and in an organized way, bring to bear the newest learning, the best data, the most advanced thinking and the most competent knowledge we have on all of the problems regarding the actual administration of these programs. They are real, several, important and mustn't be overlooked even by their most enthusiastic proponents. I'll deal with that in a moment.

The final one, of course, is simply that of facilitating and encouraging school districts in every practical way to become more co-responsible for developing these programs. Enough said about that.

There are, I think, five or six problems involved — at least as far as I can tell from the literature I've had a chance to examine and from discussions I've had with people in the field — in regard to developing competent programs for the gifted. The first, of course, is that such programs are inevitably attacked as elitist. There may or may not be sound emotional grounds for such attacks. But as far as I am concerned it is no more or less elitist to tap the energies and the talents of a particularly gifted student who has an astonishing musical ability as it is to tap the interests and abilities of a student who has an astonishing ability in carpentry. If it is elitist to do something for the musically gifted kid, it is surely no more elitist to do something for the kid who is particularly gifted in woodwork. I don't see any human line of demarcation. There may be traditional lines, but I don't respect them. I think they're false and artificial and in no sense informative or helpful.

The kind of kids I'm talking about are those who most often have the particular ability to synthesize great ideas at a great moment of inspiration in their own lives. These kids often have some rare qualities that require the establishment of rare circumstances in order to promote them. That natively, originally intelligent young person, who can suddenly grasp in one bright moment a level of connected relationships and meaning, that can never be described, but that only intuitively and occasionally can be won, is a kid whose intelligence, grasp and opportunity should not be denied. But the first problem you have with any such program is that it is condemned as elitist. The second problem is that traditionally many such programs for the gifted have had the practical effect of physically separating those kids from their peers either by skipping them a grade or two through school and radically accelerating the ordinary course of their education or physically removing them from the ordinary classroom and putting them somewhere else where eggheads go. Well, that's not fair either. There's a powerful emotional burden that must be borne by those kids. There's a powerful emotional remedy that must be found by their parents, if that's the only option being offered by their children's educators.

Let me refer briefly to the Toronto school district, which began, I gather, about three years ago, a new program they call the "Saturday Morning Program." It's a program which, literally, on Saturday mornings, by a series of tests and examinations, by the personal reference of teachers and by the recommendation of parents, has created a special set of learning opportunities on Saturday mornings run by the school district. The motivation of the kids to attend such programs is obviously profound. There are lots of better things that kids could do on a Saturday morning if they wanted, but they go because they're passionately persuaded that this, for them, is an education that might work. What they seem to have discovered in Toronto, that district which has enormous problems in such an urban community, is that it is possible to provide both the occasional physical separation that allows gifted kids to be inspired by one another, to enjoy the company, the practice, the intelligence and the amazement of one another, catching suddenly and surprisingly to new ideas, and at the same time allow those kids to enjoy the necessary emotional requirement of the ordinary company of everyone else like everyone else enjoys all the time anyway.

It's necessary, I think, to look at both those options, not simply within the ordinary classroom nor by artificial acceleration through the classroom, although there are a lot of people who've done that and seem to have prospered, but as well by encouraging in a genuinely bright way all sorts of other physical options for those kids — a Saturday morning program for the gifted among them.

The third argument generally raised against these programs is the one I mentioned at the outset. It is the blind and false notion: "Well, if they're so smart, they'll make it anyway. We don't need to worry about them." It's just not so, because it's very often the case that these particularly gifted kids become emotionally disfranchised from the world in which they have to operate. They find that intellectually they don't often have a lot in common with people their own age and intellectually they don't have a lot in common with their own brothers or sisters or their own parents, for that matter. They observe that however it may come to have happened — by no more, perhaps, than genetic fluke — they've grown up in such a fashion as to find themselves more rapidly, more querulously, more inquisitively able to sort things out and thereby the particular burden of such gifts is such that they become more and more emotionally disconnected from their ordinary surroundings. It's perfectly well-known. A number of recent examinations of people in the California penal system have indicated that many really very successful criminals, except to the point when they got caught, are people of really rather extraordinary intellectual ability, but very early on, to say the least, they were not encouraged to share that in a creative or generous way. Very early on in their own lives, to say the least, they were not encouraged to make such gifts and talents and insights positive and generous, decent and civil. To the contrary, for the reasons of emotional disfranchisement from which they suffered because of their gifts, they ended up doing basically self-defeating things, ran all sorts of remarkable student gangs in Watts and ended up, of course, in San Quentin. It's a serious problem and it is, I think, a false conclusion to draw

[ Page 2925 ]

that simply because they're bright enough they will manage their own affairs anyway and we needn't take any special reference to them.

I freely agree that there are other learning problems faced by other kids in the system. But for what it's worth, it's important that this House — at least those who care to listen — recognize that school districts in the last year have, I think, in a way that deserves a great deal of credit, because it takes some courage, vision and wit, to push through programs of this order against a lack of public interest and occasional public hostility. The charges and the challenges of elitism and snobbery and, "They'll succeed anyway no matter what. If they're so bright, why do they need it?" are not authentic or reasonable or fair-minded charges, but they are regrettably prevalent and they have at least until the last little while tended to discourage school boards from getting involved in this stuff. I congratulate my own school district for their new program. I hope it succeeds, and I hope as well that it succeeds sufficiently ably that they'll be able to extend it to the other grades in the system. I congratulate Sooke School District and all the others who are doing the same thing. What I would ask of the minister is that a year from now we be able to congratulate him for establishing an office for the education of the gifted. As a policy instrument it would be invaluable; as a means of helping this ministry and those school districts collaborate on better designed and better supported programs it would also be invaluable.

There is a final reason, I suppose, and it is one about which I have very strong emotions. When you observe in the lives and the families of gifted kids the frequent failure of the imagination of those around them, and when you observe the astonishingly embittering frustration felt by many of those kids, you then begin to realize that such gifted kids, unrecognized, untouched, unspoken in their own terms, have been treated very cruelly by a system like our own. They've been dealt, I think, a wholly unmerited and unreasonable attack, because it seems to me as fair and principled to argue that denying options and choice and challenge is cruel to the gifted kid as it is to argue it for the kid who may suffer from physical or mental retardation, a handicap of some order. It's the very same denial, the very same cruelty, it's the very same sadism in a special way, because what you're saying to that kid is that he may not go as far in his own life as he is capable of doing, and that's cruel, unreasonable and unfair. It's unfair to do it to the handicapped kid who's confined to a wheelchair, denied access to public buildings and cannot participate in an ordinary school. If we acknowledge, as a group of human beings, that that's unreasonable and unfair — and most people do now acknowledge it — how then is it any less unreasonable or unfair to deny the same challenge and the same liberty to the especially gifted kids in the system? To me it's equally unfair on both counts.

I want to conclude by pointing out that this particular Legislature, I think, has a particular obligation. given some of the cultural priorities and the cultural traditions on the west coast, to be aware of this stuff. I think that's especially important. British Columbia has a unique body of cultural traditions, has a unique intellectual heritage by virtue of our relationship on the Pacific Rim and the particular north-south culture that we benefit and suffer from equally on the west coast of North America.

I think it's vital that this particular Legislature be willing to acknowledge that unique historical placement, and be willing to grant the possibility that there are today among young people in British Columbia the Gausses, the Mozarts, the Benjamin Brittens and all the others who in an astonishingly precocious and able way have contributed to human enterprise, to cultural achievement, such talent and such wonders as they can never be praised enough for. I think that talent and those wonders, that gift, that intellectual and inspired passion that some of those people can bring is worth a little respect; it's worth a little time; it's worth some policy that encourages it; it's worth the attention of this ministry; and it's worth a lot more than we've done for it in the past.

Those young people with those talents exist in this province. They can be encouraged. They can be given opportunities to make things and achievements wonderful. I wish that the minister would do so. I look forward to his reply.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the British Columbia Railway financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 28, 1979.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, for the record, that on page 22 you will find — believe it or not, there are two of us in the province — wages paid to a Donald M. Phillips. That person is employed by the BCR as a casual labourer. He works out of Lillooet, and he was born in 1963. So if anybody wants to think that those wages were paid to the member who represents the great constituency of South Peace River, I just want to inform you it's not so.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.