[ Page 2927 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Northeastern coal development. Mr. Lauk –– 2927

Ministerial Statements

Standard and Poor rating upgrading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2929

Incidence of cancer in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2929

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 54.

Mr. Cocke –– 2930

Mr. Lea –– 2931

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2933

Mr. Hall –– 2933

Mr. Brummet –– 2935

Mr. Howard –– 2937

Mr. Lauk –– 2937

Mr. Nicolson –– 2940

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2942

Mr. Lockstead –– 2944

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2944

On vote 55.

Mrs. Dailly –– 2945

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2945

On vote 56.

Ms. Brown –– 2945

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2945

Mrs. Dailly –– 2946

Mr. Nicolson –– 2946

Mrs. Wallace –– 2946

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2946

Mrs. Dailly –– 2947

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2947

Mrs. Wallace –– 2947

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2947

Ms. Brown –– 2947

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2947

On vote 57.

Ms. Brown –– 2947

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2947

Mr. Hall –– 2947

Mr. Cocke –– 2948

On vote 59.

Mr. Hall –– 2948

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2948

On vote 61.

Mrs. Dailly –– 2948

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2949

On vote 62.

Mr. Howard –– 2949

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2949

On vote 63.

Mr. Cocke –– 2949

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2949

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 3). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2949

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. Howard –– 2949

Report and third reading –– 2950

Appendix –– 2950

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Leading us in prayers today is, frankly, one of the finest men I've ever had the pleasure to meet and to count as a friend: Father Bernard Hanley of St. Joseph's parish. He's here often; would the House welcome him again today.

MR. LAUK: In the gallery today is a special visitor, a very well-known broadcast personality from the city of Vancouver. I'm sure everyone has heard the morning program of Frosty Forst. He's sitting up in the gallery today, and I ask the House to welcome him. He's taking a holiday and watching show business at its best.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I was pleased to have a visit from a long-lost cousin, his wife and their daughter. In the gallery today are Steve, Jane and Chris Heinrich from Seattle.

Oral Questions

NORTHEASTERN COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LAUK: I was going to try the Premier again today, but I suppose we can go to the second string.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Why are they heckling, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe they're waiting for the question, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Judging from yesterday's performance, I really doubt that.

I have a question for the minister of industry and little development.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we must address members in the House by their proper titles, and the member is aware that....

MR. LAUK: I'd be expelled from the House if I did that, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development: on Tuesday the Premier took as notice the question of the price at which coal from the northeast is being offered to the Japanese. New information from undisclosed sources has been published in the press. I wonder: is the minister now able to name a price or a range of prices being offered to the Japanese?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: My answer to the little member for Vancouver Centre.... It's unfortunate that that member doesn't understand normal business practices. It is the ultimate responsibility of the private enterprise coal developers — who will be investing some $1.2 billion in this great project to create thousands and thousands of jobs for British Columbians and more economic activity all over Canada — to go to Japan and sign the contract, because the government doesn't do this. This isn't a socialist government. This is a free enterprise government. I'll say again today, as I've said in this House and in these corridors before, that anybody who sends the price of that coal to Japan, to the steel companies, before the people who have the ultimate responsibility for selling that coal do is being mischievous. I want to tell you, I'm not going to be mischievous in or outside of this House.

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the same minister. It has been reported that a $4 per tonne surcharge is being suggested to the private companies on behalf of the provincial government, which is investing almost $1 billion in the total project. The shareholders of that investment, the taxpayers of this province, are entitled to know what you are doing in Tokyo before the deal is signed. Can the minister confirm that the government has suggested the sum of $4 per tonne as a surcharge?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member who used to be Minister of Economic Development and who failed to put this project together and is very jealous today because after four years of hard work by this government the project will probably go ahead again is being mischievous in this House when he mentions that the government of British Columbia will be putting $1 billion into infrastructure, because that's not so. I would suggest before the member asks any questions that he get his facts straight. They are available. I would suggest that I'm neither going to confirm nor deny the $4 surcharge.

MR. LAUK: I would agree with the minister. I would like to get my facts straight. Could the minister confirm what total investment the provincial government is prepared to make in the northeast coal project with respect to infrastructure?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would be most happy to make those figures available in due course, but we are talking about very broad, general figures at the present time. In 1979 dollars, it will cost $215 million to build a spur line. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that these are not BCR engineers, nor are they engineers who work in the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development; these are good British Columbia engineers, the same type of engineers and expertise that's been here for ages and that they darned near drove out of the province when they were government. Also built into that figure is a contingency for overruns on the line. But I want to re-emphasize that those were 1979 dollars when the engineering and cost studies were done. We're looking at the vicinity of $140 million of infrastructure.

That group over there, which continually says that we're not creating any employment in this province, every time we bring forth a project that's going to employ people, is good for the economy of this province, is negative, negative — a negative, harping opposition. They don't want to build up. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this project is an investment in the future economy of this province and in the future economy of Canada.

MR. LAUK: To the same minister: on Tuesday the Premier was unable to supply a figure for the cost of deliver-

[ Page 2928 ]

ing coal to the Japanese. Have the minister's officials estimated the total cost per tonne for delivery to the Japanese?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this in answer to the member's question. The coal companies have now been provided the freight rate by the CNR and by the British Columbia Railways. The freight rate will return great profit to the BCR, and it will return more profit to the CNR as a national railway.... They're the chief beneficiary of this; that's why they should have built the line in the first place. They have been provided, by the National Harbours Board, a throughput charge at the port; they have been provided the surcharge, and they have also been provided the formula for the recovery of our infrastructure. Never in the history of Canada or any province or any state or any place in North America have there been so many tonnage guarantees to get a little bit of infrastructure and a small spur line going.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister could tell us when he estimated the total investment to the British Columbia government in this project as $355 million, with some unstated figure for overruns in addition to that. Does the minister's estimate include the delivery of hydro to Tumbler Ridge townsites, to the spur lines which require special investment from the provincial government, and from the townsite to the minesites? Does it include roads in and around the minesite and townsite areas which the provincial government has agreed to contribute to? Does it include the contributions in agreements that have been made with respect to the tunnels that have to be built along the Anzac line? Is the $215 million still firm? In other words, are his estimates upon which we based a $4 per tonne surcharge still relevant?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, you know, the member asks a specific question without taking into consideration the broad general economic development and potential of this area. The reason the federal government wanted their infrastructure cost recovery is because they are afraid of a bonanza in the price of coal — something that I've been telling them could happen — and they're afraid of the tonnages; they don't want the coal companies to have a bonanza. That's why they wanted the recovery. To your general question, sir, I would say that we took all those things into consideration when we gave the companies the figures on Monday.

MR. LAUK: Taking all those things into consideration, is not the infrastructure cost from the provincial government more in the neighbourhood of $750 million?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there again I would suggest that the member doesn't have his facts straight. I told him what the estimated infrastructure costs were.

There is one point to this whole deal that everybody seems to be forgetting. Certainly the opposition would seem to be forgetting that before one tonne of coal is hauled out of that area, the private sector has to invest about $1.2 billion of their own money. When you look at other private investment in hotels in Prince Rupert, additional investment by the private sector in Prince George, Chetwynd, Dawson Creek and in the new townsite of Tumbler, you're looking, my friend — and I want you to get this figure — at a possible investment by the private sector of up to $3 billion. I'll tell you that's a ratio of almost ten to one, government investment versus private investment. I'll tell you, when you can get that kind of ratio, in my economics that's good business for the government. It's a good investment in the future of this country.

MR. LAUK: Yesterday the minister is reported as saying that the private sector in spinoff investment would be $5 billion. We've lost $2 billion in 24 hours.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's almost up to your record as government. [Laughter.]

MR. LAUK: That's very good.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the House whether or not the government has conducted a study on the impact on southeast coal producers if the northeast coal project proceeds?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, you don't have to be very smart to know that if we have two ports, two railway systems, and two separate coal mining developments Canada will be the beneficiary, because we will sell more coal. I also want to enlighten the member for just a moment and tell him something — and this is why the southeast was saying: "We want you to get an extra price for your northeast coal." If we succeed in getting this deal it will be of great benefit to those in the southeast. Because the more coal you sell to a country, the more that country relies on you and the more you have to say about the price of that coal. That is something else that everybody seems to forget. So I would say that this development of northeast coal will indeed be of great benefit to those producers in the southeast. I'll tell you, I would rather see us get that extra tonnage than have it go to Australia — and that is probably where it would be.

MR. LAUK: The Teck report of this year, the Canadian-Japanese Council newsletter and the Halverson report recently mentioned in the press all indicate that Canada's share of the supply of coal to Japan will not be sufficient to reach the projections of the government insofar as northeast coal is concerned, and would stop all of the southeast's further potential for expanded production and export to Japan. Does the minister agree with those reports?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with what the member has said. Although we have been talking basically about the sale of coal to Japan, if the member has read any of the world reports.... There are several of them around now. As a matter of fact, while we were progressing on our studies of the northeast, the federal government and my department did a study of world demands. Since that time the Boston institute of technology and World Coal have issued reports. There is going to be a demand for coking coal in ever-growing, continuing quantities up to 1990. There is no doubt in my mind that the price of coal will rise, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are eight billion tons of coal in the northeast.

What we're really arguing about is building a 115-kilometre spur line. That's what all the argument is about. That coal is going to come out of there someday and in my books the sooner we build it the cheaper it'll be. The benefits will be for future generations and more jobs once the railway is built and paid off — for the young people who are growing up in

[ Page 2929 ]

this province and in Canada. That's economic development and investment in the future. Thank God this little government has had guts enough and courage enough to go ahead and to see into the future" to make that investment and to take those challenges that face us today. That's what makes this government a lot different from that government; they sit back and criticize and they harp and are negative, my friend. That's why they're in opposition, Mr. Speaker, and that's why they'll stay in opposition.

STANDARD AND POOR RATING UPGRADING

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. We have just received word from New York that now....

MR. LAUK: They took one of your As away?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I trust the members opposite are speaking in lighthearted jest, because British Columbia has now batted 1,000. We've just received word from New York that the second rating firm in the United States, Standard and Poor, has upgraded the ratings of the province of British Columbia from AA to AAA.

MR. LEA: What does this do to pay-as-you-go?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Member, you've asked the question three times now. I'll assist you someday with the answer.

On the basis of the brief information which I have received, the evaluation upward has been based on marked improvement in the financial status of the province in recent years; apparently excellent financial controls in place; good prospects for the British Columbia economy because of continued economic diversification and an abundance of energy resources. This rate applies as guarantor, and Standard and Poor are also, at the same time, upgrading to AAA the ratings on issues by the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, and therefore provincial credits as well, including British Columbia Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, when I made the first announcement several weeks ago about the Moody's upgrading, I thought it was fair and gracious of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not present today, to express his pleasure that an AAA had been achieved. I know that he, as a responsible member of this House, would be happy to say something about this latest good news from New York. I'm also pleased that I am able to share the news first with the members of the Legislative Assembly. It has been asked what this means for those issues which are outstanding in the United States at the present time. It is difficult to put a precise saving on this, but I think that members would be well guided if they considered a saving of something around 30 to 40 basis points. In other words, it is a saving of many, many millions of dollars in interest over the years to come on issues which have been placed and issues which may be placed at some time in the future.

There were no further upgradings in our ratings to come. We sought Moody's and Standard and Poor. These firms take their own time and they conduct rigorous and careful research and, as I say, the credit is to the people of British Columbia.

INCIDENCE OF CANCER
IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

HON. MR. MAIR: Since there is no response to that ministerial statement, I rise also to make a statement.

Yesterday the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) issued a press release, the meat of which was contained in a letter addressed and delivered to me yesterday. It concerned, generally speaking, a federal Health and Welfare Bureau Statistics Canada report entitled "Mortality Rates in Canada." This press release, I might say, has raised a number of concerns among the general public. The problems he raised, arising from this report, were as follows. There are four areas in British Columbia with a high incidence of cancer: firstly, Strathcona-Comox, which has a high incidence of lymphatic cancer in males only; secondly, Central Okanagan, which has a high incidence of lymphatic cancer in males and females; thirdly, greater Victoria, which has a high incidence of ovarian cancer; and fourthly, greater Vancouver, which has a high incidence of lung cancer for males and females.

I've had the opportunity of having my ministry look into the press release and the letter that the second member for Victoria has given me. After reviewing the document prepared by National Health and Welfare called "Mortality Atlas of Canada," I would like to respond to the four specific areas.

1) Strathcona-Comox. It is correct that the Strathcona-Comox area has a higher incidence of lymphatic cancer in males than other parts of British Columbia. I think this is important. The report states that it is not statistically significant. Those are not my words; those are the words of the report that the member quoted. This level could have been achieved by chance, as there is no difference between the incidence of lymphatic cancer for females in this area compared with the rest of the province.

2) Central Okanagan. Again it is correct that the central Okanagan area has a higher incidence of lymphatic cancer in males and females than other parts of Canada but, once again, the report states — and these are the words of the report — it is "not statistically significant. "

3) Greater Victoria. It is correct that the southern Vancouver Island has a higher incidence of ovarian cancer than other parts of British Columbia but, once again, the report states it is not statistically significant. It's interesting to note that the central Okanagan has a significantly low rate of ovarian cancer.

4) Greater Vancouver. It is correct that the Greater Vancouver area has a significantly high incidence of lung cancer in both males and females. However, it should be noted from the report that it is also significantly high in Regina, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. All of these locations are major urban centers in Canada. The report therefore suggests: "They have large referral centres providing diagnostic and treatment services." That is perhaps more important in answering the question than the particular location itself.

In closing I might say that I'm sorry the member opposite chose to issue a press release and thus raise the concerns of people before giving my ministry the opportunity of answering these concerns. However, the concerns are, I hope, now satisfactorily answered.

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 2930 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; you're a new boy, but just before some of those cabinet ministers leave, I'd like to congratulate them on their behaviour this afternoon. It's been absolutely marvellous.

Getting onto the Minister of Education's estimates, there are a couple of areas that I'd like to deal with. I note that the minister, as distinct from the previous minister, has at least shown some concern and some positive direction with respect to the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. The former minister decided that decentralization of the educational opportunities for profoundly deaf people was the order of the day, and the present minister is indicating that he is interested in going the route of at least taking a good, hard look at Jericho Hill as it might serve that community.

Mr. Chairman, I've had a fair amount of experience — and I'm not going to go over past speeches or research or past family and personal experience with this question — but I will say that I think our province is big enough in population, big enough in terms of the demand and need for possibly two or three central programs for educational facilities for profoundly deaf people.

Incidentally, I noted the people the minister has placed on the committee. Their backgrounds are diverse and their interest in this particular question should be of a level, I think, that will provide the minister with a good deal of positive information. I do hope that the report, when it is forthcoming, will be made available, because there are many of us in the House and in the opposition particularly with concern over the direction we were going with respect to the education of the deaf.

I have explained, and have had it explained to me many times, the whole area of socialization of deaf people, where they are totally without the ability to communicate because of our inability to communicate with them. When we put seven or eight of them in a public school, unless they happen by coincidence to be in a normal peer group — that is, relatively the same age and having to some extent similar interests — then they are little islands unto themselves. I have found, when moving around the province, we do not have people with the background of instructional expertise in quantity sufficient to look after the needs of these people. Jericho Hill School has performed well over the years in this province. It has been a resource that, as far as I am concerned, has put many, many people today in a very productive position with productive capacity beyond which they couldn't have even envisaged achieving had it not been for that background and the support of that school.

I would hope, while the minister is looking at it, that we can look at one or two other areas in the province — a semi-centralized program where many of the people in the north could be brought in to, say, Prince George, where their family would at least have some access to them. It's a long, long way for a person in the Peace River to come down to visit a child in the lower mainland at Jericho Hill or, for that matter, for the child to go whipping home. The same thing, too, holds with the central interior. Kamloops or Kelowna or some place like that could very well serve the purpose, or somewhere in the Kootenays.

But I certainly am pleased with this new announcement, and I do hope that after three or four years of wondering and waiting and to some extent seeing Jericho de-emphasized and to some extent phased out.... It was a major concern. So I would just like to say, on behalf of those of us in the opposition who have taken a particular interest in this area, we want to congratulate you for your initial efforts and hope that the outcome will be such as to provide the greatest service to those individuals.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be less complimentary. The Minister of Education who enjoyed that portfolio — and so he did; he always had a smile on his face — before this minister took office established what I consider to be a very, very bad precedent. He turned his back on the Home and School Federation. He denied them access to a grant which they had become....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, our Pat, dear old Pat — the guy with the rowboat on Skaha Lake.

He denied them access to a grant to assist in their good work in this province. The reason that he denied access to that grant was that they were not directly involved in education or the delivery of education. What utter and sheer nonsense; it just has to be that. Here are people giving voluntarily of their time and, for heaven's sakes, their money. Both time and money are important; but beyond that, their care and their concern over our education system.... Incidentally, many of them, beyond even those that are involved directly in the delivery of service at some levels.... To say to them, "We think that you are significantly unimportant," is the damnedest insult I can imagine.

What the government and the minister should be saying is: "For heaven's sake, go on with the work you've been doing. Try to put it together in such a way as to give us some further information. We are not all-knowing here in Victoria." For those of you who don't remember, Home and School was an outgrowth of the parent-teacher associations. It used to be called PTA; now it's Home and School. That group takes one day each year and comes over here to Victoria to talk to politicians, both in the opposition and on the government side. They take countless evenings and days and time within their own communities, assisting, trying to help create a better school system.

What was their demand? Absolutely, utterly insignificant. Here we have a department of government with an estimate before us now for something in excess of $1 billion, and the cheapskates can't come up with $20,000 for the Home and School Federation in this whole province. I can't believe it, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure you can't either. If you weren't in the chair, you would be jumping up right now, giving a speech, indicting that minister for following that formidable practice set by the previous Minister of Education. We could almost forgive the previous minister. We knew his heart wasn't in the job. We knew that his heart was totally at the university level — what there was of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has no heart.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Member, I don't agree. He does have a heart because I've heard it pounding across the floor.

[ Page 2931 ]

In any event, I believe that this new minister should set a new practice for them. Continue the practice of the previous government before this government took office. That was to assist a very positive group to do their work on behalf of all the children in this province. To say that they're not directly involved in education begs the question beyond words. This minister should see to it — if for no other reason than to show something less than contempt for the home and school associations — that he goes back to the original practice and assists them.

I don't particularly want to make a hero out of this guy more than any other Socred, but I do think that he would gain a tremendous amount of respect in a community that is very important. Like any other minister, he has a constituency, and I'm not talking about a political constituency. That looks to be in pretty fair shape at the moment, but heaven knows, if they keep making the same number of mistakes that they've made in the last little while, it may not be safe either. He has another constituency. That constituency is teachers, school boards and others that are voluntarily, directly or indirectly, involved in education. I just can't imagine a government so totally disrespectful of a group of people who have provided so much over so many years.

Would I be right in suspecting that this government wants to see the Home and School Federation fall apart and die? If that is the case, let the minister stand up in this House and tell us that's what he wants. Does he want the Home and School Federation to fall apart and die? Does he want no more PTAs? Does he want no more advice from parents and other interested people in the community? Is that advice embarrassing to this minister? Is he going to continue on with the centralized, bureaucratic, all-powerful Victoria in education? Or is he going to look back to the community for advice that they should be giving?

Mr. Chairman, it is at the community level that we can really draw some real conclusions, because it is at that level that the problems exist and are known. Some of the people with the best experience of dealing with these problems are those very people that he is turning his back on. He does condescend once a year to go down to the little theatre behind the museum to give a speech for 20 minutes to half an hour. Isn't that marvellous? Isn't he grand? He goes and gives them a little speech, but that's it. That's his only input into that organization in terms of anything positive.

MR. LAUK: Politeness costs him nothing.

MR. COCKE: He was polite. I admit this too. I didn't go down to listen to his speech, and I am sorry for that, but I am the health critic. I understand that he was polite and that he was at least a head above the previous minister in his ability to communicate with those people. But he has absolutely no excuse on earth for turning his back on their need for some financial assistance. He can say, as this government so often does: "Let the community support them; after all, they are community-based."

I want to take him back to a little history. The community is more involved in education now than they have ever been. This government has dumped the cost of education on the local community as we have never seen before. Here am I in poor little old New Westminster, a town ravaged by the Socreds with hardly a tax base left, and we are paying 100 percent of our operating costs in that town — 100 percent and $200,000 or a little more this year, unfortunately, back to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to eliminate equalization?

MR. COCKE: No, I just want a fair formula and I want you to set a decent mill rate, that's all. You guys have been increasing that mill rate arbitrarily ever since you've held government. You talk about responsible government! I've never seen such total irresponsibility in my life.

Getting back to the Home and School Federation situation, don't dump that one on us. As a result of the actions of this government, we're absolutely poverty-stricken when it comes to education. It is little enough to ask that this government go back and apologize to the Home and School people for ignoring the need, and say to them: "We'll not only give you that; we'll give you more for other activities, because you are very important to the people in this province, to the children and to education per se."

If the attempt to kill the Home and School Federation is successful, all I can say is it is just another blot on the face of this province, another misdeed in the name of whatever — good management? Good nothing, as far as I am concerned. This would be money to really save money. He might check with the other provinces; they do it. The other provincial Ministers of Education assist Home and School, but not us.

I just ask the minister to rethink that situation. Just because a pattern was set by his predecessor doesn't mean that he has to follow it. Let me give you one good argument why he shouldn't follow that predecessor. If you were to do a survey in the province of B.C. and ask the folks how they liked Dr. Pat and what kind of a job they think he did as Minister of Education, that, Mr. Chairman. would be something that minister should read. Because if he wants to walk in those footsteps, he's going the right way with respect to this decision, and those are not good footsteps in terms of education.

So can the minister answer that question: is he going to rethink this whole question of assisting and being more cooperative with the Home and School Federation in this province?

MR. LEA: I'd like to talk about the former minister for a while too, because if this minister wants to be a hero, I'm quite willing to make him one — a big H on your sweater: "Hero." I had a commitment last year during the educational estimates from the Minister of Education, and he didn't keep the commitment. It's in Hansard. As a matter of fact....

AN HON. MEMBER: You just happen to have a copy of it.

MR. LEA: Yes, I do. This all started two and a half years ago when I had the first inquiry from citizens of a small community in my riding called Oona River. In Oona River there are approximately 15 families and there are not enough children from those families to form a regular school. What they are asked to do is to have every child take correspondence courses. But what really happens is that they would like to, if they can, if they're able to, have a little better education for their children, so they want to get however many there are — seven or ten children, depending on the year — and have someone help these children with their correspondence lessons. Now under section 20 of the act there is some provision

[ Page 2932 ]

for that help, but it also says that it cannot be for instruction, only for aid to help these children.

I've been raising this by correspondence for some time; in education estimates last year I had a commitment from the minister that he would look into this. I'd like to read you a letter dated August 16, 1979. It's from Pat McGeer. It says:

"Dear Graham:

"This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 8, 1979, regarding section 20 allowances for tutoring of correspondence courses. I recall my personal guarantee and shortly thereafter requested my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Jim Carter, to investigate and report to me on this matter. I'm awaiting his reply, but rest assured that I will be in touch with you in regard to this matter as soon as possible."

The people in Oona River who remember Dr. Pat McGeer with a great deal of fondness when he held the post are now listening to the radio in Oona River. They've heard that minister announce tunnels; they've heard the Premier announce B.C. Place; they've heard about billions of dollars being spent on coal. You know, they don't really want very much. But they begin to wonder about the priorities of a government that worries about putting, as the member for Vancouver Centre says, "the biggest exhaust pipe ever" between here and the mainland, when all they want is a little help — and not much — in educating their children.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hartley Dent wanted to build a tunnel from Vancouver to Prince Rupert. That makes this other one look small.

MR. LEA: Absolutely correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I will remind all of you that we are on vote 54, the Minister of Education's estimates for 1980-81. The member for Prince Rupert continues.

MR. LEA: Mr. Dent also had another recommendation: we put you in the tunnel and plug both ends.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, vote 54.

MR. LEA: Now I have a letter that I'd like to read into the record, because it's from one of the teachers who taught or instructed under section 20 in Oona River. It was not written to me but to the former minister's executive assistant, Jim Bennett. It says:

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"Regarding section 20 allowances, the Oona River community association has been communicating with the Hon. Graham Lea regarding the upgrading of the funding for students under section 20 of the Public Schools Act. When the matter comes up for review by the management committee of the schools department, it may assist you to be aware of the following points. "

Now I don't know whether it ever came up in front of that review committee.

"a) The duty of the section 20 instructor is to instruct students to enable them" — these are the words of this instructor — "to complete correspondence papers. In the care of primary-age students, particularly in grades 1 and 2, the instructor must teach each lesson, as these children read only minimally. As each child studies seven subjects, the instructor is working full time.

"b) Intermediate-age students are able to work more independently, but they do require explanation of difficult concepts, opportunities for discussion and enrichment in social studies and science, as well as general supervision and discipline.

"c) The instructor we employ supervises seven students, four of whom are in grades 1, 2, and 3. He also has one kindergartener. He works a full school day and also some evenings and weekends preparing lessons and planning remedial and supplementary work. It seems there should be some provision for a more adequate financial compensation for such full-time professional positions. As you know, an instructor is required to have a valid B.C. teaching certificate or a letter of permission, but there are few teachers who can exist on the $350 a month which our instructor receives from the province — that's $50 per student — under section 20. Our parents supplement the salary at $60 per student. This often results in a heavy financial burden, particularly for parents with more than one child of school age. Even so, each parent feels that our teacher is grossly underpaid.

"d) It should be noted that section 20 of the Public Schools Act states that funds are to be paid towards the salary of any person who is employed with the sanction of the minister to give instruction — I understand that's how the act reads — in the prescribed courses of study. This would indicate that the job is seen to be one of an instructor, not merely a supervisor. From personal experience I can state that the job of instructor is a challenging and demanding task. I have taught both in the public school system and under section 20. My duties in each case were somewhat different, but the amount of time invested was comparable in both cases. In both cases I had to take the printed curriculum and make it understandable to the students. Presently I'm teaching my own child through correspondence, and I find that just one child requires three to four hours of my time per day. Our child does not attend the Oona River section 20 class, due to the distance we live from the school. In determining whether the present funding for section 20 is adequate, it is interesting to note that a child-care worker receives $5.60 per hour, or approximately $600 per month, to work with individual children under the supervision of a classroom teacher, whereas a correspondence instructor receives only $50 per month for tutoring each child. As there must be other schools operating under section 20, we would be interested in corresponding with such schools to see how they cope with the insufficient funding. We would appreciate it if your department could supply us with the addresses of other section 20 schools."

Mr. Chairman, this is really a ridiculous situation. There are small communities throughout the whole province who face this kind of problem. I would think that if adequate funding were given to these communities for the instruction under section 20 it would be such a minimum amount of money coming out of a $6 billion budget that it's ridiculous that I have to be up here again for the second year trying to get some money for these people.

[ Page 2933 ]

I'd like to hear what the minister has to say before I continue. Maybe there's a solution.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member doesn't need to say more because I certainly agree with him. We are going to increase immediately the amount from $50 to $100 per student and to authorize the supervision of these individuals under the local school board so they can tie into other local resources. That will go into effect at the beginning of the term in September. I regret that it hasn't happened earlier. He certainly was given that commitment. He may rest assured that that will take place and is in place, and that I will be sending out directions to the field immediately in that regard. Right now it affects six remote communities, including Oona River, the one he's particularly concerned with.

As I think the member knows, most of the supervisors do not have the qualifications of the gentleman he cited. This gentleman is overqualified for the job in relation to others. It is regrettable that this is all he will earn, but he will double the amount he'll receive. I know how he feels. For years I've done part-time lecturing at universities, and sometimes put in as many hours a week lecturing as the full-time people did, and I was paid about one-eighth or something like that. So you don't always get remunerated for what you do. But in relation to all the other instructors who do this, he's overqualified, and I'm sorry that's the case. But we are going to double the allotment and let the school districts administer and decentralize it.

MR. LEA: I thank the minister for his reply. Does the minister have any idea of the average cost per student per month? What would it cost to educate one student, say, in a school in Victoria?

HON. MR. SMITH: Roughly $235 to $240 per month.

MR. LEA: I don't know how the minister came up with $100. I welcome the $100, but I don't know what kind of a formula was in place to say we're going to double it. I don't knock the doubling. I wonder whether the minister has given any consideration to putting some sort of automatic escalation clause in there. For instance, five years from now am I going to be standing up in the House trying to get it up from $100 to $150, or is it going to be done automatically in some way?

HON. MR. FRASER: You won't be here five years from now.

MR. LEA: No, I'll be over there.

Mr. Minister, is there an escalation clause in this so that this is done automatically?

HON. MR. SMITH: Not at the present, but I think it's a figure that's reasonable to review regularly and not have the situation that occurred where it was stuck at $50 for a number of years.

MR. LEA: How long was it at $50? I know the minister and the department have the best of intentions on this, but we all know that isn't the way it works.

HON. MR. SMITH: Five years.

MR. LEA: Five years it's been at $50. It would have to be $100 to keep up with the average inflationary rate. So they're back at the five-year level, and for years 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the last five years they've been grossly underpaid. There's no retroactivity, but I think they could live with that as long as they had some guarantee that there was going to be an automatic.... It seems to me that it would be easy to tie into the $100 a month some sort of formula that would give them an automatic raise each year. To tie it into the cost-of living indexing wouldn't seem to me to be a bad idea to keep it going. Those of us who have been here for a while know that automatic reviews end up like me trying to get this up to over $50; it just doesn't happen. The best of intentions will be there; there'll be higher priorities — tunnels, what have you — and I'm afraid that these correspondence course instructors are going to be forgotten in the swirl of coal deals, tunnels, B.C. Place, and just generally fighting with the federal government. So I'd like to ask the minister if he would consider taking back to his department a suggestion that you look at some sort of automatic indexing of raising those wages.

MR. HALL: By coincidence I received a phone call this morning which has brought me the only good piece of news I've had about education in a long time. I was told that my son had passed grade 12. That's about the best piece of news I've had about education for a while. It might be the only good piece on education the minister might hear today from me.

I've attended debates on educational estimates in this House — some on the other side will say too long....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. HALL: I've got my "applause" card down here and my "boo" card down here. Do you need me to bring them up every time, or can you do it automatically now?

I remember the first debate on education in which it was pointed out that we were spending roughly — that was back in 1967 — $1 million a day. We must be nearly double that amount now. The fact of the matter was that if we expressed in gross terms the success of the program, we could ascertain that not half of the people that entered the program finished it. We had, in effect, a 50 percent failure rate. That's a gross expression in both senses of the word. Roughly 15 years have passed since the days when that kind of program was put forward, and some 13 or 14 estimates have passed since that comment was made, and I'm not sure that any improvement has been made in that kind of gross criteria. What I'm bothered about is that somehow, somewhere along the line we appear to have, as a society, not measured up to the requirement of being able to interest, to turn on, to inspire a great number of our young people within the educational system. I know we have excellent students.

I attended the convocation at UVic not too long ago, along with the minister, and in fact we attended the dinner at which the person who made the speech in estimates was honoured, and I referred to some 15 years ago. I don't see any real improvement in terms of those figures and it worries me. I don't want today — the third day of your estimates — to get into that kind of philosophical debate. I think I may do it next year. I want to do a bit more research, a bit more thinking, because frankly I'm changing some of my own viewpoints about education that I've had over some years.

[ Page 2934 ]

I have spent some time, when I was on, as it were, a leave of absence from this chamber, travelling and examining educational opportunities elsewhere, looking at students in other countries and dealing with relatives — nephews and nieces in other parts of the world — some of them are involved in the educational field in Europe and south of the line. Also, I've had the benefit of talking with — like the member for Prince George North (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Labour — a long-lost cousin. I have one who's just come from South Africa to British Columbia, who is now teaching at university. He's been involved in another country altogether, South Africa, finding out what's going on in educational systems there.

But I'm not happy. I'm not satisfied. I don't think the minister is. All I'm saying, in short — in that comment prefixed by some success in a personal sense and in a family sense — is that I don't think we've anything to be very happy and smug about, because we've not seen much progress in the 15 years of debating estimates in this House.

Two areas of real concern now — in detail. One I'd like the minister to take under a kind of general examination umbrella. I'm going to do it myself as an MLA by adopting a course of action of interrogation. That is the whole question of counselling. I have become acutely aware over some years about the need for counselling and about a general area of dissatisfaction with counselling. I wonder whether or not we really know where we're going with the whole question of counselling. I know we've got local options, and I know that you can say there's the second member for Surrey being a centralist. He's laying down the law; he wants more regulations; he wants this, he wants that. Well, you know, I don't see proper career counselling in many areas. I'm bothered about some of the counselling I see which is not career counselling. I'm not talking about the special counselling of handicapped youngsters. I'm talking about the more social counselling that is carried on by people who I don't think are qualified. I can be argued; I can be debated; I could be persuaded to change my mind. I'm not happy with some of the things I see, particularly in the two districts with which I am perhaps most familiar.

I think it's time we had a look at that whole counselling system. I don't like it. I feel uncomfortable with it. I know that if I wanted to — as the government itself did a short year ago, starting to list its complaints in the Ministry of Deregulation, if you remember; it analyzed the letters it was getting — analyze my letters and my complaints, I think I'd find that I get just as many complaints about the kinds of things that happen with counselling in the educational system as I do about other things in the educational system. It bothers me to think that that's one area in which I think we should be absolutely proficient and be very tight and really know what we're doing.

The other area is the question of career counselling, and I prefer to deal with that in a different way by coming at it through the Ministry of Labour estimates.

I'm very concerned about counselling and I hope the minister may have some general response to me about what he's noticed as a new minister, if he's seen anything, if he's got anything going in terms of studies. I know that new ministers tend to always have that magic word "reorganization" when they get into their portfolios. It seems to me to be a good excuse to do nothing for a while but to reorganize. Perhaps I except a couple of ministries from that. There is a famous quotation about reorganization which takes the place of activity, and one which I could remind the minister of; but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that I hope he has got some comments about counselling, without just simply telling me that the local districts do this and the local districts do that, because I feel that the Ministry of Education has to take on much more of a leadership role in some of these areas than it has been doing up until now.

The last comment I have deals with my own riding. It is one with which the minister, I think, is familiar, and it raises the whole question of what is going to happen in a district which has an increasing school population, as distinct from most districts in the province, which have a decreasing school population, when the minister's own rules require — to put it at its extreme case — that children be at the door before the ministry will do anything about it. That's the extreme case. I know that's not quite the case in Surrey, but that's almost what your rule book says. Certainly that's the refuge behind which most school districts will tend to flee when faced with public pressure. If I could say that the other way round, it is the ministry that gets the blame when the local parents arrive in their dozens in front of the school board meeting hall. Indeed, the school board will point the finger of blame at the minister's rules and regulations regarding new school construction and capital expenditure programs. They will say there's nothing that can be done, because the ministry says that until the kids actually arrive, lunch bucket in hand, smiling faces at the door, on the first Tuesday after Labour Day, that is it.

In South Surrey, now spreading into Newton and also into North Surrey, we have a real problem of overcrowding. It all started with official notification to this hallowed place a year and a half ago. It has taken a year and a half before anything has been done. I suppose I'm going to add to the congratulatory notes that the minister has already had from some people by saying that he's the first minister who's done anything about it. His predecessor simply ignored it. His predecessor's executive assistant not only ignored it; he didn't even reply to the letters. This minister has at least acknowledged it, first of all, grappled with it secondly, and thirdly, I'm pleased to say, has dealt with it as best he can, given the completely hopeless pieces of information that were provided his department by a school board that was hopelessly staffed in terms of planning and figure determination.

That brings me to the point I'm trying to make. If the rules you've got will allow that kind of idiocy to develop, why haven't we got better rules that will take care of those kinds of things? We must have inspectors and regular reports. Surely to goodness we're paying the piper; why don't we insist on school boards of the size of Surrey having planners? Why have we allowed school boards of that size not to have fully professional planners? Why in heaven's name have we not said to them…? We don't have to pass a statute in here, an act regarding a planner for School District 36. The minister's got clout. Why didn't somebody go into School District 36 and say: "Hey, you're now the second biggest school district in the province; get a planner, if you know what's good for you"? What happened with your predecessor? Why didn't we do that when we first received the intimation, to which there was no reply by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the previous minister, in February 1979?

You'll be pleased to know I've got nearly nine pages of

[ Page 2935 ]

diary which account for contacts, letters of communication between the South Surrey parents — which reflect nearly 15 schools in South Surrey — and the ministry and the school board. I've gone through it and I've noted all the contacts — not with the school boards, because that is altogether a different fight we can have. In my view, to a certain extent they stand condemned. I want to point out that since November of last year — I think something happened in November that we got some attention — we've been getting somewhere with the problem. In February and April 1979 there were follow-up letters and no reply. There were night letters to Premier Bennett outlining concerns in Surrey schools. One acknowledged it after one month. That is the kind of record of achievement we've got in terms of answering an association of consultative committees representing all those people in South Surrey — a riding formed following redistribution; a riding that used to be part of the Delta riding, not part of the old Surrey riding; a riding that I have become the member of since redistribution and since re-election; a riding which is the fastest-growing area in the lower mainland and maybe even in the province, now equalled, in some respects, by what is happening in Newton.

More is yet to come. By the government's own statements, to be found starting off in the throne speech and following through in the budget speech and others, there are more things happening in that area. I can't talk about Bill 7, which is before us, but the very arrival of the third crossing of the Fraser River will again put more people into that area. It will again mean a heavier requirement for schools. It will again mean more land being sold for housing, more development and more voters voting one way or the other, Mr. Chairman — Mr. Chairmen. I'm sure one of the Chairmen hopes they'll be voting one way particularly.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We have some evidence before us that the Annacis Island bridge proposal is not all it's cut up to be — and I use the words "cut up to be" advisedly, as we look at some of the areas that the bridge is going through. The land development proposals already being assembled and talked about in South Surrey are immense. If this can be done, I want to know why we don't have a better method of dealing with it at a ministerial level. I'm prejudging the minister's reply. I hope he doesn't simply say that we just accept what's given to us and we can't do anything unless the school boards give us those figures. I've proven that there's been two years' delay. It's now going to cost us more money doing it this way. Is there no kind of administrative discipline that can be exercised, requested or required in the regulations in the School Act? It seems to me that it should not be left almost to chance. As I say, it was a fateful Tuesday morning in September when 2,000 students appeared to fill 1,200 desks. The minister's move now to accommodate some of the problems with portables and so on.... It seems to me that we've got to do better than that.

In short, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have the minister specifically address changing our basic approach to this in that the ministry won't recognize any projections other than actual student counts in approving CEPs. That's question number one. Secondly, the ministry, when it approves CEPs, won't recognize local characteristics, such as a district class size formula, which is lower than the ministry guidelines. It won't recognize locally developed special education programs like social adjustment classes. Remember what I'm talking about? I'm talking about Surrey. The minister knows when he examines — as all the members do — human resources problems, the Attorney-General's problems and other problems, that when we look at our institutions, our hospitals, our special education programs, School District 36 or the municipality of Surrey is always shown as the largest contributor per capita of any of those problem areas. There should be some special arrangements made for those districts with those kinds of problems.

I'm told the ministry will not approve local acquisition of portables under any circumstances unless your student numbers are met. Again I ask if that's correct, given these emergency situations. I do want to congratulate the ministry by pointing out that the ministry has offered to speed up the needed construction by cutting some of the red tape that's gone on. I've already paid tribute to what's happened in the last four or five months. The acquisition of portables has been a great success.

Those are some questions, starting off with a basic worry about the counselling system and the whole Surrey crowding problem. Now, lastly, there's one irritant which I think is totally and utterly unnecessary. It's happened two years on the run and I just wonder if we're going to go through it again. I wouldn't have raised it, but I see one of the officials is with us today and I didn't know whether he was still with us. I mean, I wasn’t sure whether Dr. Soles was still on board totally — 100 percent full time. I just didn't know, Andy. This is regarding the whole deal with the Bridgeview adult education program. I welcome Dr. Soles and say good afternoon to him.

For two summers on the run now that excellent program in the north end of the riding has been delayed. The students have been worried and the teachers have been unable to satisfy themselves on whether they're going to have work. I wonder whether a community that's really trying to do a job for itself in one of the worst parts, economically, of my riding should be asked to put up with that kind of administrative nonsense — and I use that word deliberately — that they were asked to put up with this last fall. They were waiting to know whether they were going to get the money from the school board, Douglas College, or anywhere else. I really feel that is absolutely unforgivable. While there was no break in the delivery of the service following November, I think that it was almost an imposition on the people who delivered the service to put them through that kind of thing, and I certainly hope it doesn't happen again.

MR. BRUMMET: It's with some temerity that I rise in this debate on education, because generally the experts come from without the system rather than from within. However, I can't resist the impulse to say a few words, at least, about education. Since the minister has been faced with a number of demands and requests, I'd like to perhaps express a few cautions that I would like the ministry to consider while they're considering all these demands and requests. I recognize that, in the interest of brevity, my explanations would not be full, and so my remarks can certainly be misconstrued. However, it's a risk that's worth taking.

I know that many studies have been advocated. There have been questions about what the objectives and the philosophy are about education. as though there were simple answers to this. I too, when I first started teaching some 28 or 30 years ago, quickly became an expert on solving problems

[ Page 2936 ]

in education. I got less expert as I went through the years, because one recognizes that education is a very, very complex business and can't be solved by simply having a month's study to set up a new philosophy or to spell out a philosophy. I speak from some experience because I have had to write the philosophy for a school, and I have participated in the writing of district philosophies. It's always a problem to get everyone to agree. We get into a lot of values.

Something was mentioned about counselling. Several of the members opposite, I think, were concerned about counselling and career counselling in particular, because that's the present catchword. I know that many high school counsellors have done a great deal of career counselling. However, if the members opposite mean that counselling is to tell a pupil exactly what career he should train for, what career will be best for him, what career will give him all the guarantees and so on, then, yes, counselling is failing. I think in many respects we have unrealistic expectations of the educational system. Ask any successful person who has a job how they got the job, and most of the time the survey will indicate it was by their own merit. It's only when they're not successful in obtaining a job that it's because the counsellors didn't direct them correctly.

I have been in the same community for enough time to know pupils in the system from grade 1 through to grade 12, and many of them in the work field afterwards. Very rarely do they realize — and I don't think it's conscious or deliberate.... Naturally if you go get a job you get it yourself; if you don't get a job, well, somebody didn't help you. That's the kind of result you get in surveys. Nobody will ever be satisfied with counselling — if that's any help.

To move on quickly, there have been suggestions for all kinds of extra programs into the school curriculum: sex education, family-life education. Unfortunately the simplistic solution is sought, and what is ignored often is that there are different values with respect to this. It is almost impossible to get people to agree on those values, and therefore it is difficult to put sex education programs into the schools. As far as physiological features of the human body, I think those are fairly well covered in the schools. It's when we get into the values part of it that we get into difficulty with the program.

Others have suggested there be more physical education, more vocational training, more academic training, and a great many more programs into the school system, at the same time as we're expecting schools to come up with better academic education and spend more time on almost everything. You cannot keep adding things into the school program without something that's already there suffering. It's one of those things that is hard to accept. Most people when they want something added to the school curriculum have a vested interest and they want to get the schools to do their job. Surely society does not want the schools to take over every facet of what society stands for and every facet of training. I think it would be unrealistic; I think it could be dangerous.

The other thing that was mentioned was curriculum guides being too restrictive. I've heard this remark so often. Most of the curriculum guides I've ever had any experience with said: "Please treat this as a guide, not as a rigid prescription." Most teachers went ahead with that particular content and used that guide and used their own imagination and their own particular skills, and they did a fine job.

What we hear often from the people, I suppose much like many bureaucrats, is that if you stay by the book you're perfectly safe, and so the easy way is to stay by the book and then criticize the book rather than take any initiative. I find it almost humorous sometimes, particularly from my own experience where I taught courses backwards, forwards, from the middle, any direction 1 felt like it; I never had anyone tell me: "You're doing it the wrong way." As a principal, if teachers were teaching the course, I didn't care whether they used a textbook if they were teaching the concepts, and yet I've heard so much of how prescriptive things are.

We had quite a bit of comment about special education. It's such a diverse and complex field that I'd just like to toss out a couple of cautions or considerations. I'm not so sure whether some special education is for the pupils or to salve our own conscience. It makes it much easier for us, for people with particular interests — vested interests, if you like, or genuine interests — to be able to say: "We did more for those who needed it more." I'm not so sure that it's always a consideration for the pupils, if they be unconscious.

I do know that much has been said about lack of early diagnosis. Here again, I have taught special education myself, so I am familiar with problems. In a classroom situation I have deliberately taken on what are known as "problem groups" and found that maybe they weren't such problems when you looked at their particular needs rather than the needs of the system, the teacher or the community. But what I am concerned about is that if we get too expert in our diagnosis, one thing that we have to remember.... The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) put on quite a impassioned plea for segregating the brighter pupils, and that too concerns me. I know that we cannot take the attitude.... I don't believe we ever have; I don't know many teachers who've taken the attitude: "Well, they're smart enough, forget about them." People are concerned; most teachers that I know and have known were quite concerned. But I also know that there were some pupils....

Let me first of all say this: if you follow this diagnosis of special education to its illogical conclusion, we have to recognize that 50 percent of pupils are above average and 50 percent are below average, so that nobody is left as normal, if you get the screen fine enough in the diagnosis. I also know of a number of pupils who thought they were normal until somebody came in and diagnosed them. Once they were put into special situations — whether for a short period or a longer period — they wondered ever after why, all of a sudden, they were no longer normal. That concerns me, because it's quite normal to be shorter, to be taller, to be stouter, to be thinner, to be a faster runner, slower and so on. In good intentions for special needs, all of a sudden it is no longer considered normal to read a little slower or to think a little differently than others. It bothers me, and I'd like to just suggest to the minister and the ministry that you might consider not moving too quickly into trying to get everybody's special needs covered. There are a lot of normal pupils in there.

Secondly, teacher training for special needs makes many teachers who thought they were good, normal teachers wonder what's wrong with them, because all they are doing is a good, normal job with all the pupils in their care. I think that has to be considered. It almost gets to the point where, unless you've got some special courses, you can't possibly teach properly. Yet tender loving care, consideration and empathy for students have gone a long way amongst many teachers I have known.

I think that often people in positions of authority want the

[ Page 2937 ]

continuation of certain requirements or almost the status quo, In other words, if you ask how you can improve a system, you improve on what you have rather than make any changes. We have pressures from many minority groups, as I've mentioned, often groups with particularly vested interests. So we start to develop in trying — politically, if you like, or whatever way — to meet all these expectations, and we end up demanding unrealistic performance from the school. What generally happens is we do a great deal of tinkering to improve functions which perhaps the school cannot properly achieve.

We're trying sometimes to perfect an illusion that we can do certain things better than parents can, better than society can, and so on. In many cases we can't. For instance, I happen to believe that it's partially an illusion that we can train secondary students to be better in academic skills at the same time as we add more vocational training, physical education, driver instruction, sex education, etc. I don't think realistically that it can be done, and we will spend a great deal of time and effort in trying to improve an impossible situation.

So, again, perhaps partially as a devil's advocate, or as a caution, I'd like to suggest that we take a look.... We look at all the faults. We tend to say, "Well, this is inadequate, that is inadequate," and we try to improve that. Maybe we should recognize that there's a lot of good things going on out there. I'd like to suggest that these great scientists, Mozart and many of these people that were used as examples, somehow or other became thus without special education programs. But maybe in this day and age that can't happen. I think there's plenty of scope for people to get special education without special education programs.

Just a brief comment about Indian pupils. I've seen it from the early fifties when integration in the schools first started. I've seen it happen — better, worse, various situations. I think one of the problems that we often have is that we try to integrate Indian pupils into the schools according to our standards, our set of values, our expectations, and I think what we have to do is recognize that the child who grew up on the reserve does not fit into that neat antiseptic classroom structure that we want him or her to. I think if we really want to meet their needs we've got to recognize their wishes, their objectives and their goals much more, instead of trying to convert them into our own way of life. We just work at it and have unrealistic expectations and then wonder why they don't work.

Finally, I'd like to comment briefly on the apprenticeship program, or the vocational skills training. A lot has been said, and I think all of us acknowledge that we do not have enough of a training program in our province to train the skilled people that we need. Again I think we may be working in the direction of trying to improve on an unrealistic program. We have fairly rigid structures in place by management, by the rules, by unions, etc., and I think — a personal opinion, if you like, not documented — that the only way we are going to really achieve skills training is to be a little more patient and take it in smaller steps. I think at the final levels of a journeyman training program, the training has to be intensive under skilled journeymen, under proper conditions. You cannot train a machinist at the final levels if he's not working in a machine shop. But I'd like to suggest that if we break it down into levels, if you like, with the continuous progress type of thing, we can have someone start out playing with wrenches at level one and working from there. There could be various stages of development broken down into separate levels that do not need to be on a continuity program.

I say this partly because right now employers will often hesitate to commit themselves to three- and four-year programs on a continuing basis. Young people are reluctant to make a three- or four-year commitment, and unless they do it's hard for them to get into the apprenticeship program. What is wrong with a would-be mechanic starting out at level one serving gas and checking the oil at the gas pumps? Then when he gets adept at that he could get a certificate for level one. Then if he decides to try something else for a while, he could come back to level two perhaps a year later and learn the next step, and so on.

I haven't worked it out entirely, and certainly I don't want to take the time here to spell it out, but I think we can break it down into smaller steps, almost a programed learning type of thing which could get us some results, and could get us into a one-man shop — a person could start in a one-man shop. So I'd like to suggest that we do it in stages or steps, and that we, with a little more patience, could probably get many journeymen.

I'd just like to conclude by saying that there are many good, sincere and interested teachers in the school system, to my knowledge. Given some guidelines they will do a good job. I'm afraid that we're accepting pressures from too many different groups to try and make the schools all-encompassing. I feel that we can t possibly come up with the ideal school system which will look after all of society's needs. I think we do have to go back to other agencies as well.

MR. HOWARD: I would like to pose a question to the minister, who I'm sure is taking many notes of things that are advanced. I wonder if he could outline for me, when he does reply, the various proposals and thoughts that have been put forward and what procedure a group of people would follow who may want to either ally themselves with a different school district from the one within which they may be located, or alternatively who may want to establish a separate school district embracing that particular group of people. Wouldn't the minister mind setting out what procedure there is, what sort of criteria are established and what expectations the ministry has that such a group of people should try to meet?

MR. LAUK: First of all I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and advise him that I agree that so often when we embark upon special needs programs we forget the effect that the structure of the special needs programs have on the students and the teachers themselves.

It occurred to me as I was listening to the speech from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to wonder what special needs programs Mozart and Einstein had. When you have special needs programs — and I don't wish to put down teachers or the ministry officials or anything — who makes the judgment on who the potential Mozarts and Einsteins are?

We're assuming that we've got people in place who can make that judgment. and we know full well that the way things go we sometimes miss identifying so-called gifted children. Generally speaking, most of us on this side of the House feel that all children have special gifts. Some have different gifts than others but they all have special gifts. The job of a school system, the teachers, and all of us involved in

[ Page 2938 ]

the education of ourselves and our children is to create a learning environment where the gifts of people are enhanced, where individuals are encouraged to try their best to fulfill themselves and to contribute as much as they can to society. I don't wish to see unnecessary divisions take place identifying special needs groups, underachievers and high achievers and so on. As the member for North Peace River indicates, it sometimes creates more problems than it solves.

I wonder if the minister could advise us when Bill 20 is coming back into the House. It's a strange history. The amendments to the schools act....

HON. MR. SMITH: As soon as we finish these estimates.

MR. LAUK: That's fine. I want to point out some other mistakes in the Bill 20 that's been discharged from the House.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, these are better brought under Bill 20, surely, aren't they? I would prefer these to be brought up when the bill is before the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Matters involving legislation are not discussible at this stage.

MR. LAUK: The bill has been discharged; it's not on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's immaterial though, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: It's discharged. I wanted to be helpful to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment please, hon. member. Bill 20 is still on the order paper, hon. member.

HON. MR. SMITH: The bill has been discharged with respect to one section only.

MR. LAUK: Well, before they bring the bill back I wanted to tell the minister that there are other things wrong with it that we haven't pointed out that are quite serious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. That cannot be done. As much as the member would like to bring this to the minister's attention, it is out of order in Committee of Supply.

MR. LAUK: All right, thank you. I'll press on to something else then.

I have some general remarks about the minister's office. The opposition notes that his ministerial vote has increased by 27 percent. It is always helpful to point out how this contrasts to the overall increase in his budget, which is 15 percent, and point out that in public schools the funding is only up 6.7 percent against an overall increase of 15 percent. We must look at the 9 percent inflation rate that we're told is prevailing today.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It seems that schools, as far as the budgetary pie is concerned, have got short shift. I pointed out last day that we stand ninth out of all the provinces as far as expenditures on education are concerned. I know that the minister is now the junior minister in relation to his predecessor, who is now the superminister of education in our province. In short order the junior minister becomes the senior minister and gets some more money for the schools. I don't think he should allow himself to get pushed around by that big bully from West Point Grey, who has graduated to a position where he can charge the public purse to supply him with the various little toys that he has to play with now — dishes and tunnels and so on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, vote 54....

MR. LAUK: You know, it would help if you would listen and not interrupt, Mr. Chairman. I was referring precisely to the vote and I was referring to the contrast in the budget in the minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The administrative actions of the minister, please.

MR. LAUK: That is precisely what I was doing. It seems to me that a stronger voice in his office would get the funds necessary for the expansion of services in schools.

One of the specific points I want to raise has to do with student aid programs, including scholarships. This has suffered a great deal of neglect since the Social Credit administration took office. I think the minister should direct his attention to student aid programs through the ministry. For example, in 1975 the total of student aid including scholarships was in the neighbourhood of $12,584,000. That was what was available. In 1980-81 the sum has, after all these years, decreased. Instead of increasing, it has decreased to an amount of $10,982,000. In 1975 the amount for student aid was $11,664,000, and about $917,000 in scholarships. The figures for student aid last year are that there was $10,500,000 for student aid and $1,263,000 for scholarships. Although scholarship amounts have risen modestly, the student aid expenditures in the other column have decreased. At the same time it should be pointed out that the amount of money expended to advertise student aid and scholarships in 1976 was $37,200. The amount of money spent in 1979-80 to advertise student aid and scholarships was $78,750. We are spending a lot more money on advertising scholarships and student aid programs to students, but we're spending a lot less money on the students themselves. This, to me, is the kind of mistaken priority of the ministry that has occurred over the past four or five years.

Why is the sum decreasing? There is not declining enrolment, overall. The number of students in post-secondary enrolment, from the department's own annual report, was 67,753 in 1975. In 1977-78 there were 82,139 students. That is up 21 percent from 1975, and I wonder if the minister wouldn't have a hard look at that. The number of students in post-secondary is up 21 percent, but the amount of student aid and scholarships is down by 13 percent. That is a shortfall of 34 percent, and we're falling behind. It seems to me that the minister should have a look at that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question involving a person by the name of Archie Gaber. There's a lengthy problem involving this teacher, who has had correspondence with the ministry about his particular grievance; but I want to raise a

[ Page 2939 ]

specific question with the minister, if I can have his attention, It directly involves his ministerial office and what perhaps could be seen to be improper conduct on either the minister's part or on the part of one of his staff. I'm told that Mr. Gaber made known his intention, somewhere in the chronology of these events involving his grievance, to run for the school board in his area, Kamloops. A Mr. Tucker of the minister's office contacted this person who had a grievance in the system and told Mr. Gaber that if he stood for nomination in the upcoming school board election, it would complicate their efforts to fully correct his situation. I want to repeat that for the minister, because this is a rather serious allegation that should be cleared up. In other words, the allegation is that Tucker, a ministerial assistant, contacted Mr. Gaber, the complainant, and suggested that if he ran for the school board or stood for nomination, this would complicate the ministry's efforts to fully correct his situation.

As a result, Mr. Gaber wrote to his lawyer in a letter dated April 18, and this letter was transmitted to Mr. Tucker. I would take it that.... Gaber says in the letter to his lawyer:

"I have, with considerable reluctance, decided to accede to the Ministry of Education's request not to stand for nomination in the upcoming school board election, to again extend my full cooperation and to avoid any complication in their efforts to fully correct my situation. I therefore returned all campaign contributions to my supporters. There was some unhappiness and disappointment, which I hope doesn't result in lack of support for future elections.... In view of my compliance, I would appreciate it if you would inform the ministry that I shall view their request with utmost mistrust and public action if they fail to deal properly with the problem reported to them, or else provide adequate corrective compensation in line with the dual objectives I set out in my notes to you on Monday," etc., etc.

That letter went to the Ministry of Education for the attention of Mr. Tucker, with a covering letter from Mair Horne Janowsky Blair, lawyers in Kamloops, which said: "Re Archie Gaber. We enclose herein letters we have received from our client, Mr. Gaber" — a letter to myself on April 18, along with the one I just read.

So I'm assuming that that letter reached the ministry, and making the allegation, it would have been refuted at that stage. Therefore the lack of action on the part of the minister to refute the allegation means, to my way of thinking, that the allegation was correct. If the allegation is correct, I wonder if the minister can explain why a ministerial assistant would be interfering with the democratic process in Kamloops, on the basis of holding out a hope of favour if the aggrieved party would not continue his efforts to be elected as a school board member.

Another point that I want to raise — which was raised before, but wasn't adequately replied to — is the abolishment of the committee on sex discrimination. It's very important apropos the comments that I made in my opening remarks on these estimates, that we have such a committee or similar group that will be an ongoing review of the materials — the curriculum — presented to our young students, so that we can culturally reinforce, through our educational system, our widespread and common view that equality of the sexes is a desirable cultural goal in our society. That committee or advisory group would review such materials — textbooks, curriculum and what have you — to ensure that the concept of equality of the sexes is properly presented in such materials and not the more traditional unsavoury approach that we used to take. So when this committee, which was established by our administration, was abolished, it received widespread attention among many groups which expressed disappointment.

There's another specific question for the minister regarding Douglas College, Winslow campus, in Coquitlam. My understanding is that there's an unfair labour practice in progress out there. Evidently they hired a right-to-work contractor named Hil-Ron, a member of the ICBA — that well-known group that's not identified with the New Democratic Party, I think it's safe to say — not to say that only groups associated with the NDP should have such contracts, but I think it's a well-known problem in hiring union personnel on such campuses. I wonder if the minister can report on that situation and assure us that there'll be no labour relations problems as a result of that probably unwise move in hiring a right-to-work contractor.

I think, Mr. Chairman, those are the issues that I wish to raise. I wish to remind the minister of the medication problem. section 110 of the School Act says that the Minister of Health shall prescribe the rules for medication administered within schools. I wonder if the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) has issued a directive to the Ministry of Education setting out the procedures, and if he hasn't, is the School Act being technically violated? Should this be an ongoing violation tolerated by the government, or should the School Act be changed or what? It seems to me that if the minister has not provided for such procedures as required of him — because the word is "shall," not "may" prescribe the rules for medication administered within schools — that should be done forthwith or an explanation given to the committee.

Before I take mv seat — I'll be leaving the chamber for a while this afternoon — I want to compliment the minister on his announcement with respect to allowing school districts to make their own employment decisions on superintendents, which is probably the only piece of hard news we've heard. That's not to say that the minister's undertakings are not sincerely given, I'm sure, but we're hoping to see that completely in place soon.

The last question, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the forums that the minister will take this fall. I'm no clairvoyant, but we have a feeling that some of the briefs might say something along these lines. I wonder if the government will change its position on centralization of education control, if the public indicates at this autumn's hearings that it wants less centralization under the ministry and more local autonomy under school boards. In other words, is the minister prepared to give a commitment to the chamber today that he will take the forums as a firm guidance for policy for the Government, or is he just going to shelve the criticism or take piecemeal the suggestions made?

I wonder if he could outline for the record which items of education policy really are up for grabs, if you like, in the autumn forum reviews, and which educational policies are sacrosanct from the outset and we shouldn't even approach making submissions on them. I think it's fair for the minister to present that outline to us today — fair to the people who are interested in presenting briefs, because it's a heck of a waste of money and time to prepare material and research oil issues that the minister really isn't going to change anyway.

I'd like to tie the minister down to some timetable for

[ Page 2940 ]

rewriting and tabling a new act after the forum hearings are completed. I've complained in the chamber this spring to the minister and cautioned him not to use such forums to delay necessary action on a complete revision of the School Act. I don't like saying School Act, you know; I should add that. I like saying Public Schools Act. I feel that because of a politician's natural paranoia he worries about changes like that. If you take away the term "Public Schools....."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a lawyer's paranoia.

MR. LAUK: The lawyer's paranoia — whatever you like.

By the way, there are problems in the new School Act because you've eliminated "Public Schools" but the expression "public schools" is still used in some sections, causing some confusion. Anyhow, I don't like the dropping of the term "Public," because that might get us back to that old proposition that your leader and Premier argued, that was quickly shelved: that the independent schools will come under school district administration. The school districts reacted very strongly against that proposition, and I wonder whether the change of the title of the Public Schools Act is a harbinger of that old proposition surfacing again. I want to caution that we would be opposed to that.

So those are the questions I have. If I'm not here to listen to all the answers the minister may have, I will certainly make every effort to read the Blues and see what he has to say.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to wait until the members opposite have asked more questions and then try to respond to them in my closing remarks. I've got a number of them here I'm going to respond to; I'm not going to just leave all these things. I've got notes coming out of my ears to respond to.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think it would have been a little bit better if the minister had responded in bits. It would have been accepted with more enthusiasm on this side that he might dispose of matters raised by other members, but I guess our official critic has left the House for the time being.

Mr. Chairman, I'd first like to say that I am pleased that the ministry has responded with a little bit better pace than has been customary to schools that have been burned and destroyed. The actions taken today with Hume School in Nelson and the Prince Charles Secondary School in Creston in terms of bringing in temporary facilities — which I think will probably be ready for next fall at Prince Charles — have been commendable. There were some slight delays with Hume School reconstruction, but that has gone ahead a little bit better than par for the course, so there is improvement in dealing with this type of tragic situation.

I would say to the minister something that I've always felt; I really would like to know what a cost-benefit analysis might yield if we were to look at the possibility of having 24-hour supervision on plans that are worth many millions of dollars, and I would hope that the minister would undertake to do that. Maybe some small elementary schools don't warrant it, but there must be some level where 24-hour on-site custodians would produce a predictable benefit and saving in not only the cost of replacing a building, which, I think, would be the yardstick that we would use, but I would hope that we would also consider the tremendous benefit in terms of the very disruptive effect when in a small community the entire senior secondary program is put out of business and there is no option, such as there might be in Vancouver, of dispersing students temporarily to other schools, but simply relocating to a recreation centre, if you have one, such as we did in Creston. So that's question number one: would the minister consider such a cost-benefit analysis to see if there is a rational argument for placing 24-hour custodians in some of our school plants?

Secondly, I'd like to just say something about the matter of transportation, particularly of children to and from kindergarten. It seems to come up in different parts of my riding — and I'm sure it's something that all rural members find — that while the ministry will pay a travelling allowance for automobile transportation of children, it is just not satisfactory in this day and age when we often have two working parents. In rural areas where there are not the forms of transportation, children cannot walk home to get back to a babysitter or whoever is looking after them. With the kinds of problems that we run into, I would urge that the minister have a fresh look at the possibility of extending the transportation of kindergarten children. I'm thinking most recently of letters which have gone to the ministry from parents from the Crawford Bay Elementary School, but it's a matter which has come up in Salmo and I'm sure it has come up in other rural areas at other times.

The third item I would like to bring up is the matter of computer science. The ministry does have a pilot program, and with the cooperation of the B.C. Systems Corporation they have been able to acquire Apple computers for which a great deal of educational software has been written and there are programs. But what I find very odd and, I think, very inequitable, is that.... I'm not going to say this is a matter of small schools versus large schools, because one reasonably small-sized school district in Golden has, under Mr. Miller, an excellent program of computer science with four Apple computers. I think that their MLA might be very pleased to know that. In other areas with larger-sized schools, for some reason or another some curmudgeons on the school board seem to find that computers are threatening and that they are a frill or something, and they constantly vote down budget items such as some investment in computers. Yet they will readily recognize that something which costs just as much, such as an IBM Selectric typewriter, should replace the old antique Underwood typewriters, which is a good investment because that is what the students will be using when they get out in the workforce today.

The computer, the microprocessor and the whole field of electronics and electronic technology is the wave of the eighties. If we do not give them the best that can be given today at a very economical rate, if we do not give all students some preparation in terms of computer science.... Commerce students, mathematics students, science students, vocational students — every student in the school — should and can easily be exposed to some computer science in order that they not think that a computer is Hal of Space Odyssey 2001 but a useful tool which most of them will be using and dealing with in one way or another. In fact, I'm really amazed that your predecessor, who would pretend to be so enthusiastic about scientific endeavours, would have left this field in such disarray. If anyone knows anything about computer science they would realize there is a pun in there.

The biggest expansion of technology is going to be not even in the building of hardware, particularly in electronics, but in the building of software technology. In the eighties

[ Page 2941 ]

factories are going to get smaller, offices are going to get larger and eventually the offices will get smaller because the offices will be moving to the home of the worker. The electronic revolution which is taking place while we sit in these marble halls is something which is a tremendous opportunity and it is the opportunity for people in British Columbia and in Canada. We are going to be falling miles behind if we don't get going on this almost instantaneously. The cost of putting in and equipping a computer science lab need not even be more than $30,000 or $40,000 per school. In fact, if you want to get by very cheaply, you can get one computer for less than $1,000. You can do quite a bit with that. You can get more flexible systems. You could have your senior commerce students doing some word processing. They could be learning how to do accounts receivable using computers. They could be learning how to address files, set up files, using floppy discs and the things which a great number of computer hobbyists have already found their way to because our school systems are very much lacking.

As I say, there has been a start. There has been a sort of experimental reaching out, but I think the time has come for the ministry to put forward an intensive capital program in order to make a full computer science laboratory available to every senior secondary school in the province. It should not follow very far behind that it should also be made available at the junior secondary and even at the elementary levels. We cannot afford not to. Really, within ten years' time, or perhaps much less than that, there will be very few people that won't be using these.

Lawyers are using computers. Lawyers can pretty well be automated now. Conveyancing can just be done by a quick little program. Get your floppy little discs whirling around and you merge a couple of paragraphs and there's your conveyance contract. Many lawyers, I think — a couple of people probably, like Mr. Jabour and other progressive types — have probably already gone very heavily into that area. So I would ask if there is going to be a pretty well uniform curriculum set up. I don't think the minister need worry about training; in-service training could certainly handle the job with a good, intensive two-week course or so, because I know that in many schools there are trained computer programmers teaching math and science who don't have any computer labs in their schools. I think there are more trained people out there today than there are in terms of equipment. So we've really got the software; we don't have the hardware for the program.

The other situation that I would like to bring up is that of Creston-Kaslo School District 86. The Duncan Dam in that school district is not assessed for school tax purposes, and I think the minister could rectify this situation, and maybe a few of the others, at no great expense to the ministry. In fact, I think it would actually be of benefit to the ministry — a benefit to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — but it would require that some money be taken from B.C. Hydro.

By order-in-council 1135 of April 9, 1968, the Peace River project was exempted from taxation, because B.C. Hydro is required to pay grants in lieu of taxes — that is their policy, but it was exempted. According to the submission of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority to the commission of inquiry on property assessment and taxation back in November 1975.... At that time, at the 1975 tax level, the estimated annual school taxes applicable for the Peace River project would have been $6,253,000; yet the school district — which I imagine is probably Peace River North school district — gets not a bit of that. The Columbia River Treaty storage projects — the Duncan Dam, the Keenleyside Dam and the Mica Darn — were exempted, and since that time the Kootenay Canal in School District 7, Nelson, was put on, and the Seven Mile Dam in the Trail School District is paying taxation or grants in lieu of taxes.

I think that it's particularly unfortunate for School District 86 that this order-in-council remains in place as is. It has a fairly low assessment rate per pupil. The assessment rate in 1980 was, I believe — I might have picked up the 1979 figure by mistake, but at least the comparison is correct — $25,247 per pupil assessment, and the provincial mean was $29,643. I didn't use the ministry's report; I think the BCSTA 1980 thing is probably pretty close. The mill rate in School District 86 — and this is the 1980 figure from this source — was 58.791 mills compared to a provincial mean of 51.380. The previous year the disparity was even a little bit greater; it was actually just about a complete set of mills. The difference in this most recent year is about 6.5 mills higher, and it's not that the cost per pupil is really out of line; it has a high cost per pupil because we have some very small high schools. We have to have a high school in Kaslo; we have one in Crawford Bay as well as in Creston. Those are small, isolated communities. It would be over an hours' drive on very tortuous and slippery roads in the winter if one were to bus those students elsewhere. The cost per pupil in 1980 was estimated at $2,371; the provincial mean was $2,282.

So in spite of the fact that it's a very difficult district to service, and we do have to have small classes to offer programs, the cost per pupil has been kept only $91 above the provincial mean. The taxes that would have been estimated by that 1975 submission by B.C. Hydro were $552,000. I guess we have to compare apples and oranges a little bit. The present budget is about $3.17 million, so that would appear to be quite a bit. But what would that actually do in terms of the grant from your ministry? Well, first of all. It would increase the assessment in the district. That means that the amount of money raised locally by the statutory mill rate levy would increase. So the amount of money that would have to be donated by your ministry and placed in your budget would actually go down, Mr. Minister.

At the time we got the change in 1975, when we first made the commitment on the Kootenay Canal — the decision was made fairly close to the 1975 election — I can say in all honesty that we were within weeks of making the same adjustment on this Duncan Dam. I guess I'll leave the Hugh Keenleyside Dam to my colleague from Rossland-Trail. I know that those changes were in the wind at that time. I can say that. because we did chance policy in terms of placing the Kootenay Canal under full taxation. It has been continued by the commitment which the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and from the Minister of Finance for the Seven Mile Dam.

So, Mr. Minister, my question to you is: would you please make the strongest representation in order to rectify this anomaly of order-in-council 1135 of April 9, 1968, which affects the Peace River project and Columbia River treaty storage projects? We're now in the strange anomaly where dams built by the old B.C. Electric, such as the Bridge River Dam in the Lillooet school district, pay full tax. We have other dams, such as the Kootenay Canal and the Seven Mile project, which are paying their grants in lieu of taxes. but we have the Columbia River Treaty darns and the Peace River project which are not. I think that it is perhaps ludic-

[ Page 2942 ]

rous that, say, a full $6 million goes to one school district.... If those numbers don't work out, I would hope that the ministry could work out something that is equitable and at least as fair as the benefits being shared by and enjoyed by other school districts such as the Lillooet school district, my Nelson School District 7, Trail school district and many others in the province. The Bunsen power project pays its way. The rest of them....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's my old hometown, Nicolson.

MR. NICOLSON: I guess you knew.... Well, we'll have that conversation elsewhere.

Mr. Minister, that is my question on that matter.

I would like to say that I very much share the views and concerns of my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) about the education of the gifted. He talked about the burden of their gifts. That might sound like a contradiction in terms, but I have had the very enjoyable experience of having taught students at the grade 7 level in elementary school, and then having taught those same students in grades 10, 11 and 12 in senior high school. Mr. Minister, I have seen some very gifted children fall by the wayside, largely, I think, because they were not challenged. I know that it is a real problem to come up with something special for them without falling into the trap of elitism. But if we recognize the problems that gifted children face in terms of having to play down their aptitudes, in terms of deliberately underachieving, then, Mr. Chairman, I feel we are missing the opportunity to keep this country as great as it is. We have in this chamber at least one Rhodes scholar. I suppose that was the singling out of one.... Possibly we have more....

Mr. Chairman, I think that we do have to find ways and means to combat the problem where students deliberately underachieve, particularly girls or women in the secondary school. I don't think that it's anything genetic that explains why girls are probably way ahead in elementary school and then boys tend to get ahead in a lot of the subject areas in the high school. I think that it's an attitude towards excellence, and I think that we have to come up with ways of encouraging our students to achieve the best that they can at the earliest age.

Students don't have a great deal of time to learn what they have to learn before they should be out in the work place. I've said it before in this House. Two of the brightest modern mathematicians died at a very early age. Abel, who was one of the discoverers of modern mathematical theory, died when he was 21. Another fellow with a French name, which for the first time in my life I've forgotten, died when he was 19 years old. These two people were pioneers in mathematics. In their day and age they made as important contributions as did Gauss in terms of group theory and things in mathematics. At 19 and 21 they had untimely deaths, and yet they left their mark. So we can't afford to have brilliant students sort of held in a holding pattern when they could do other things. It doesn't mean that we have to isolate them or create elitist groups, but we do have to find ways of letting them go ahead at their own speed.

On the matter of scholarships, I was pleased to see the amount has been brought up. It has been eroded and I've said that in the past. The $1,000 amount is very welcome. I would like the minister to consider a return — not a complete return in terms of the district scholarships, but in terms of the academic scholarships, the competitive ones that are marked here in Victoria — to allowing students to pick out their specialty areas and not be held back by, perhaps, their lack of aptitude in English. I've said this every year and I think I said it when the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was minister. For instance, in looking at the graduation list from SFU — I just happened to be looking through and, of course, I naturally tend to look at computer science, mathematics, chemistry and physics — I was impressed with the number of students with obvious Chinese names. They were hardly a minority. They were almost equal in number to others in those subject fields. Of course, they gravitate to that area because a great number of them have a language difficulty; especially those who immigrated at an early age have a language difficulty. I say this from my years of experience in school. I have seen many people, not only Chinese but other ethnic origins, excel in physical sciences but have some difficulty in English. Some of them even do very well in French, strangely enough, but have difficulty competing in English. I know that we should encourage well-rounded students. I think it's a crime if engineers go out in the world and really have no philosophy, no sense of humanity. I would think that in the area of scholarships we're really not going to do much except penalize a few gifted students who really do deserve that scholarship and that $1,000. They've worked darned bard for it through their high-school career, and they deserve not the money but the recognition that is due to them. I leave that with the minister.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm going to try and deal with most of these, and if I don't deal with them all you can come and beard me personally on them. The last speaker from Nelson-Creston invites us to put in fire supervisors, and I must say I thought that was a good idea too. I began, but with 1,600 schools and the cost of a commissionaire or a supervisor it works out to something like about $58 million a year, so we're going to have to find some other way to cut down arson other than having round-the-clock patrols.

I agree with a lot of his comments on computers. We do have a pilot project of a hundred computers in eight school districts, and I'm hopeful that we'll move to a much wider dissemination and use of computers in the secondary schools.

You would not expect me, I don't think, to comment on the inequities of assessments; I would be in trouble with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). But I am well aware of what he speaks of because it used to concern me a lot when I was mayor of Oak Bay — how the tax base is different. The Minister of Finance should really be the one that he directs that to.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked me about how school districts can change their boundaries or a new school district be formed. There is really not very much difficulty with changing the boundaries if the boards involved agree on it. It is pretty matter-of-fact. If the boards involved agree on the new division of districts and it makes any rational sense at all, we approve it. I've approved a number of them already. If they want to form a new school district, I wish I could say there were clear criteria. There aren't. We consider mostly the community of interest. An example of a new school district created that had a commun-

[ Page 2943 ]

ity of interest but wasn't very large in numbers, of course, is the Nishga district. We don't just take an arbitrary rule based on geography or population. Community of interest is the dominant one. If he's got something in mind or people in his riding do, we'd be glad to work with them. I don't think there's much problem in changing boundaries of boards. That is done quite regularly.

I should make mention of a few of the matters the opposition critic raised. He raised the matter of Douglas College and the Winslow school and the contract there. Those, of course, are let by the college board, not by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education doesn't prescribe who should get the contract. That contract was done on the basis of a low bid.

He asked me about my educational forums across the province, and if I would be bound by what I heard. I'm certainly going to listen to what I hear in these forums, and I would expect to implement a considerable amount of it. As for what the goalposts are, I don't really consider that there are any sacred subjects out there. I hope it will be a general discussion on all aspects of education. He invites me to set deadlines as to when an amended School Act might come forward. Unlike him, I don't believe that legislation cures all the ills of the world. I hope that a lot of the things I hear out there can be implemented by administrative changes, and I would do so; but if legislation is needed it will be prepared.

He mentioned a matter of a Mr. Gaber of Kamloops. Mr. Gaber was a supervisor in Windermere school district whose position was eliminated by the school board. He was entitled still to be employed by that board in another capacity, but resigned. Therefore, as I understand it, he was not entitled to the statutory review procedures of the act. He was given, first of all, a ministerial review. Then he was given a special review by Mr. Stan Evans, a respected member of the BCTF who went over his case very, very thoroughly and made some recommendations, all of which were carried out. That did not satisfy Mr. Gaber. Mr. Gaber at one time used to send me telegrams on a weekly basis. He was one of my telegram pen pals. Mr. Gaber is getting a further review from me, but it was never threatened or promised that he would get that if he didn't run for school board, nor indeed would I presume to tell anybody to run or not to run for any office. Also, my executive assistant never spoke to Mr. Gaber or communicated with him; they had some discussions through Mr. Gaber's solicitor. It would seem to me quite obvious that if Mr. Gaber were going to run for school board he would have done so, and he still can. This would not depend on his review. But he is getting a third review. I just don't know what more you can do. If there has been a lack of due process there will be action on it, but he was never promised he would get that if he didn't run or did run.

Some other matters of education were raised by the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). I thank him for that and particularly for his comments on vocational training and the need to use patience there, and also his sensitive comments on special needs of Indian students and the importance of not lumping them into ''aseptic classrooms," as he put it.

The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) made some comments about counselling and asked me what we were doing on it. There is a task force study that has been completed and will be released shortly. It looks at counselling overall and is quite a good study. We are going to be considering some sort of overall policy for counselling. It may well be that we will try to better define the qualifications needed for counsellors, and try to establish a core curriculum for counsellors. We certainly would hope to expand both the choice of program and the work-experience program.

The second member for Surrey also mentioned the special problems his district has with respect to declining enrolment. I am very happy that both the second and first members for Surrey and myself have really worked together as a non-partisan team in trying to address the capital needs of Surrey and the problems with increased enrolment. Surrey is one of those districts that goes against the provincial figures and has very, very significant growth in certain areas, particularly in south Surrey.

In trying to address those needs I did meet directly with that school board to tell them that I would expedite approvals, if student enrolment proved to be as high as was projected, to install portables immediately on a shareable basis; also, that we would review the space requirements of that school again in September. I also allowed them to submit a revised capital-budget submission. In the capital approval of Surrey, as the member knows, we actually approved a major expenditure there that the board hadn't even asked for in its original submission. In that district they are in the process of obtaining a new superintendent. With the work that the members have done, I hope that there will be better coordinated planning — that is what he talked about in his address — between the school board and the municipality. This is a matter that I know my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), is concerned with generally across the province.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made a couple of comments about Jericho Hill School for the Deaf, which I thank him for. I assure him that the review committee is a broadly based. sensitive committee and there is absolutely no reason why there cannot be some decentralization of these facilities if that community wishes such a decentralization. Some decentralization has already occurred because I was able to open a group home for the severely deaf not too long ago in Vancouver, This is the first of its kind; it is the first move to an experience of taking the deaf children out of dormitory living and having them live in other surroundings. It is in the Vancouver area, that is true, but there is absolutely no reason — if that is not an acceptable experiment to the deaf community — why these couldn't be more decentralized in different parts of the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I know you want me to just sit down. I have this compulsion to answer everybody's questions. It’s very unpopular, I know.

I hope that I answered some of the queries of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) about counselling at the same time as I was responding to the other member.

I should also perhaps say something about some of the comments that were made and the issues that were brought forward by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. government Whip (Mr. Mussallem). Regarding the need for vocational training, I certainly agree with the need to identify and train people who wish to pursue vocational programs. We have been encouraging pre-career programs in grades 11 and 12, working towards ensuring that these people do have secondary school graduation. and also a marketable skill. Thirdly and of great importance is that they

[ Page 2944 ]

have some advanced standing in an apprenticeship program or in a college career program. One of the ways that this is brought about is through work experience. The work experience programs in some of the school districts are excellent. There is a particularly good one in Burnaby. These programs go far beyond the regular industrial and commercial education programs.

I think I have answered most of the outstanding matters. If I have not answered matters, I hope members will bring them to my attention.

I am just reminded that there were some comments on student aid. There may be some misunderstanding from looking at the estimates, but grants for student aid are up this year and not down. I think the member was perhaps reading the wrong figures. They're up from $10.1 million to $10.9 million. The amounts, of course, depend on the demand. If the demand were greater than those amounts budgeted, I can tell you that I certainly would have no hesitation in seeking a necessary warrant.

There was some mention on the vote of my office. I think it's just about up to what my predecessor of two ministries before, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), had in level of staffing if I were to fill those positions.

I want to thank the members for their many constructive remarks during the estimates.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have a few very brief questions of the minister. I don't intend to go through the whole debate again on the issues already raised over class sizes and all of these various local issues. But we do have one unique issue in the riding; that is School District 49. As the minister is aware, one of the larger communities in that school district is closing down, resulting in the loss of 40 percent of the student body. The teachers' association and the board of trustees have expressed a number of concerns. Perhaps the minister, particularly for the record, would take a few minutes to answer some of these concerns under this particular vote.

For example, it would appear that many of the families — although the community of Ocean Falls at the present time is shut down completely — will be staying on in the hopes of perhaps getting employment in this proposed sawmill and chip operation, if and when the government decides to proceed with that operation, which has not been determined yet. In any event, some families will be staying on, but it may well be that there will be less than ten students in that community. So the district has asked the minister — and I don't think there's been a reply; at least I haven't got a copy yet — if there's some way that that school district would be able to keep a one-classroom school open from, say, grade 1 to 10 or something like that, until the government makes a decision — if it ever does — about the future of the proposed Ocean Falls sawmill and chip operation.

Another problem that comes up in that situation is that there are two fairly large schools in Ocean Falls with a beautiful gymnasium, etc. The problem is that the school district can't afford to keep the schools open at all, and these facilities will deteriorate very rapidly when the Ocean Falls Corporation cuts off its heat at the end of July, I believe it is. The school district, as you know, has a very, very low tax base. So there's some concern about what's going to happen to the two schools and also the furnishings — desks and what have you — in those buildings. I wonder if the minister or anyone on his staff has decided how they are going to handle that particular situation.

There's the matter of the 29 schoolteachers. I think that the minister has taken some action in assisting the teachers to move or relocate, but I wonder how many jobs have actually been found for the displaced teachers and maintenance staff from that community. What is happening to these people, and will they be receiving assistance of some sort — relocation allowance, severance pay and this type of thing?

I have two or three more items. It's my understanding that the two representatives to the school board will be leaving and relocating, which will leave a school board of three people located in Bella Coola. The board is wondering what happens then. Will there be a representative still available from Ocean Falls? Is a three-member school board legal, do they have to have new elections throughout the whole district or what happens? I don't know. Perhaps the minister can tell me what happens in that particular situation.

Last but not least, I was wondering as well if the minister was considering any boundary changes in School District 49 — perhaps amalgamating that school district with some other district. The reason I raise this particular topic is that this is a very small and unwieldy school district, as it is a regional district, because of the geographical nature of the area, but the board has requested that before the ministry contemplates any changes or realignment of the boundaries of that school district, they be fully consulted on the matter. I would hope that we will receive assurance from the minister this afternoon that the board will be consulted before consideration is given to the realignment of that school district's boundaries. So with that, Mr. Chairman, hopefully — it's very short — the minister could take a couple of minutes and answer those questions.

HON. MR. SMITH: Insofar as the children that remain behind, if they're under ten, they're under that regulation where they get the correspondence provided for them. That is the rule as it now is. And so far as keeping the school maintained in proper condition for the time when, hopefully, there is a resurgence there again of a population, yes, we are looking at and have been studying how that can be done and how those buildings can be maintained.

Jobs for schoolteachers. We have assisted in this and tried to be aggressive, and the figure that I have now is that 15 of the 29, I think it is, teachers have jobs elsewhere, and we will continue to try to assist in that relocation. So far as the support staff personnel are concerned, it's my understanding, hon. member, that the corporation has given and is giving some assistance there.

What happens to the trustees from Ocean Falls? Well, they can serve out their term — I mean that's clear — or they could resign and the board could replace them with trustees from elsewhere in the district by appointment. We're going to be at the end of the term, of course, by late November.

There are no boundary changes contemplated at present, but the initiation for that would have to come locally and should have local concurrence; that is, if there is a desire to relocate and to amalgamate with another school district and that had the concurrence of that district, I don't foresee a problem, as I told the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), but the initiative for that should come locally.

Mr. Chairman, I did not, when I was concluding a moment ago, make a response to my friend the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) when he spoke yesterday, and I was going to respond to his questions con-

[ Page 2945 ]

ceming community schools. I thought he made a very good speech, and I want to respond to what he asked me about on community schools. I can't pretend to know as much about community schools as I would like to — I have been in two of them — but from what I've seen of them, I favour their creation where there is cooperation between the various ministries to deliver the services that are contained in the community schools. The present legislation allows boards to set up these schools where cooperation is obtained. I'm not sure why the growth of community schools has slowed down in the province — possibly it has not been a priority with local school boards in recent years — but the essential thing is that if they're desired locally, yes, they can and should be established. I support them, and I will certainly take a closer look at the community schools. I've always been favourably impressed with some of the community programs that have integrated well into the school system. For instance, some of the police information programs that a lot of the schools that aren't public schools have have worked extremely well from the preventive standpoint. So I think that if there is local support these community schools should continue.

I did not reply on the gifted program. Two members mentioned that: the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who is so extremely eloquent on that subject. I was happy this year to attend the first gifted education conference that we held in British Columbia in Richmond soon after I was sworn in as minister, and we did this year earmark an individual in our ministry to take charge of gifted education. Interestingly enough, he's a very able young man who is also the son of my opponent who ran under the banner of the members opposite in the election in my constituency, and he is a very excellent young man who's giving leadership in this field.

I think that we've done a great deal in the past couple of years in this field, but we have not done very much in the way of funding. We've done quite a bit from the standpoint of supporting the program and assisting school districts, but I perceive that we'll go further in the field of gifted education. I'll be looking forward to Mr. Overgaard's report to me.

I did not mention the status of Strathcona Lodge. It, of course, receives support from this ministry for outdoor education programs. It has had financial difficulties for some years — particularly acute difficulties this year. Being fearful about the future of that institution, as I know my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is, I urged the University of Victoria to consider taking it over, and I have tried to work to bring that about. It may or may not be possible; I hope that it is. The president was sympathetic to that. Probably the long-term solution is to have it become part of the operation of the university, perhaps with some program assistance from the present director. I'm hopeful that that will occur. The financial difficulty of that institution — the debt structure — is pretty acute.

I think I've answered all the outstanding matters.

Vote 54 approved.

On vote 55: ministry services, $6,610,769.

MRS. DAILLY: On vote 55 there is a sum of $1,938,000 for research and development. I wonder if the minister could tell us just generally what areas that money is being spent on.

Secondly, I notice an enormous increase for your national and interprovincial activities. Last year it was $278,000. and this year you are going to put $708,000 into national and interprovincial activities. I wonder if you could give an answer to those two questions.

HON. MR. SMITH: The national and interprovincial activities rise there is the CIDA project in Sri Lanka, which is recoverable. It's shown there, but almost all the overage, as I understand it, is recoverable money: it comes back from Ottawa.

On research and development, the management development projects are the largest, and they account for some $666,000: project management study by Tennant Ltd., $90,000; project planning and control centre, $125,000; administration, $157,000; management planning research and analysis projects, $252.000; data project development, $42,000; English placement test, $250,000; curriculum for gifted students project, $103,000; learning disabilities program, $80,000; curriculum development projects, $40,000; and learning assessment studies, $40,000. Those are examples of how that money, hon. member, was spent in last year's budget.

Vote 55 approved.

On vote 56: public schools education. $711,110,274.

MS. BROWN: Under vote 56, the section on public instruction service. basic programs, and also the one under it on special education, I raised the issue of the epidemic of teenage pregnancies which is sweeping the province. I suggested to the Minister of Education that the response to the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Mair's) suggestion that this should be dealt with in the curriculum of the public school system was a good one. In responding, the Minister of Education indicated that he's opposed to centralization; however. any individual school districts that were interested he would certainly support in any way that he could. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me, if all the school districts in B.C. were to decide that they need the funding to introduce that kind of program, whether in fact in the budget, either of these two, either in the basic program or in the special education program, there would be enough funding to pay for such a program.

I also want to draw to the minister's attention the recommendation under this particular vote which came down from the National Agenda for Action for Children which stated under "Education: Adolescent Sexuality and Pregnancy" the fact that studies have indicated that a lack of understanding of their bodies and sexual functioning is the basic reason for the epidemic of teenage pregnancies which is sweeping the province. It therefore recommends establishing effective programs within our school system to deal with this particular thing. It recommends family life education be included in all high school curricula and that the school revise curricula to include material on the subject of shared responsibility in sexual relations. I was very unhappy with the minister's response to my bringing this matter to his attention. I want to know on the basis of a national recommendation on this issue if he would tell me. In fact. whether there is enough money in this vote to implement this program across the province.

HON. MR. SMITH: There certainly is not. If all the school districts brought in a program, would we assume

[ Page 2946 ]

responsibility then? Well, we're a long way from that. hon. member. I still think there should be local flexibility. The other problem is that, as you know, a lot of the programs vary from district to district. Some of them are quite elaborate and some of them are not. They would be of different elaboration and different cost. I appreciate the sincerity of your point of view and also that you're well backed by people in the medical field and people who are experts in this. At present we have a difference of philosophy. I might be persuaded otherwise but we at present have a difference of philosophy.

MS. BROWN: I just need one very quick response from the minister. Can you tell me exactly how many students are presently attending school in British Columbia at this time? I could do sort of a rough calculation that approximately 50 percent of them would be female students and 5 percent of this group are becoming pregnant as a result of, to a large extent, the absence of this kind of information in the curriculum. Could you give me those figures so that I can do just a very…? Five percent of the female students going through the system have a teenage pregnancy before they complete their education. If you could give me the figures, then maybe we could put it into some kind of straight perspective of what we're talking about in terms of the impact on the community as a whole.

HON. MR. SMITH: The only figure that I can give you — and you'll have to work out all the others on the basis of your own information — is that there are roughly half a million students in the schools in British Columbia, and you can draw your own statistical conclusions from that.

MRS. DAILLY: I can't let this vote go by without also endorsing the statements that have been made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) re the urgent — it's almost an emergency; it's endemic, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds says — need for family life education in our schools. I feel that when the minister says it's a difference of philosophy, it isn't good enough, because that's not going to help all those young people out there in our school system. Despite what the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) just said — "Why don't we do it in the home?" — the fact is they're not getting the information in many homes. I know that it is something which Ministers of Education will either have the courage to face up to or they won't. I know from my own personal experience it was pretty miserable. I can recall when I tried to create family life programs in this province, I was followed from school to school by small vocal groups who were not representing the majority of parents, but unfortunately they were loud and they were vocal.

Since the Social Credit government came in they have sat back because politically they're afraid to touch it. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, you have to put the young people of this province ahead of your political concerns on an issue like this. It is becoming increasingly worse every day. Your own colleague, the Minister of Health, has come out and said that it is needed in our schools, so it is obviously not a matter of philosophy that each member in the Social Credit cabinet happens to adhere to. I am asking the minister to show the courage today in the face of what I know may be some unpleasant reaction. There are young people out there today who are being denied access to this information. They need it.

I don't want to go on and on about this at this time, but I want to say to you that it is serious and we're very disappointed that the Social Credit government has sat back on this. We had hopes when a new minister took over that perhaps he would grasp this serious problem. I know the Minister of Health feels it's necessary. Will you give us an assurance that you will give leadership to this province?

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to ask the minister if he could give a little bit of a breakdown on the section labelled "scholarships," which has gone from $1.2 million to $1.9 million. First of all, what are the administration costs, and how much will actually be going into scholarships? Because there are administration costs in preparation of exams, marking, and various other things, I guess. And would he be able to give me the breakdown between the provincial and district exams, and how many successful candidates they expect? Is it still broken down? There's a full $1,000 and then a lesser amount. Could he give me any estimates of proportions of those?

MRS. WALLACE: I want to reiterate in the strongest possible terms the position of this side of the House relative to the problem of teenage pregnancies. It's true that there are families where that kind of education is available to young people. But there are a great many families where it is just not available, and no amount of wishful thinking or moralizing is going to correct that situation. You can't legislate morals, but you can do something about prevention, as far as our teenage girls are concerned. I am really concerned that the minister is not prepared to take some action to fill this gap. It is a gap, and whether it should or shouldn't be there is not our decision. The fact remains it is there. The ignorance is there and the result is very, very evident. It's a responsibility of the school system to take steps to correct it.

I would like to ask the minister another question which I raised during his ministerial vote. I think it was one he perhaps overlooked in his massive, lengthy notes. It had to do with the funding of Indian students who dropped out, and whether or not he could make some arrangement that the funds already paid could be recaptured for use when it was proven that they were going to be used by the Indian band for alternative education. That was a question I don't believe he answered.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's terribly tempting to get into a philosophical debate, but the philosophy is not really whether it's a good idea to have these programs or whether there's a problem. The debate is over whether it should be prescribed, in a Big Brother way, on local districts. If you feel as strongly as you do in your own district, surely you can persuade your school board in that district to institute a program.

MS. BROWN: But you've just told us there's not enough money in the budget, if the school districts want to do it. So what's the point?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I just don't accept that, hon. member. The district has to want to do it first.

I'm responding to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). There were 1,000 of the academic scholarships and 385 district scholarships. The amount of money allocated to the students was $1, 230,000. The salaries involved

[ Page 2947 ]

in the administration were $185,500. Temporary salaries were $41,000. travelling expenses amounted to $7,800. Professional and special services — mostly for marking — were $356,000. Office expenses were $18,000. Furniture was just under $3,000. Advertising was $53,000. Materials were $1,500, and there was an item of $10,500 for rentals. That's the entire amount.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to ask the minister if his ministry is embarking on any programs to do with driver education. I regret that when I was minister we were unable — or just simply with other things to do, and I know the minister has this problem too — to get a comprehensive driver training program in the schools. I think the statistics which the Attorney-General has, and which we will be discussing during his estimates…

AN HON. MEMBER: If we ever get to them.

MRS. DAILLY: …when we get to them, show that there is a great need for comprehensive driver education from the early years up, starting even with the children in kindergarten. I feel that we're sadly lacking in this. We could save many lives. In any areas that I have read or heard about in the United States and other parts of Canada where they have embarked on these comprehensive driver education programs, there is a marked difference. Have you been able to get moving in that area and are you intending to?

HON. MR. SMITH: It is part, as you know, of the grade 10 guidance. That is just the beginning. A lot of school districts have very good programs such as you mentioned, but I certainly can't assure you that that's uniform across the province. It isn't. It varies from district to district. There should be basic driving and not just the theory of driving. They should get the chance to get out. There is much merit in what you say. I will tell you that I will give it some personal attention.

MRS. WALLACE: Relative to the native Indian students, who are paid for by the federal government through the provincial government and then that is passed on to the local school board, we have a high incidence of dropouts among those students. The Cowichan band in particular is the one I'm talking about. They would like to have the funding made available to them for alternative education for those dropouts, and that's not available. I have asked the minister now three times — and I'm sure it has simply escaped him — whether or not he would be prepared, in some way, to make any funding available to a band council for that specific purpose.

HON. MR. SMITH: The school districts in most instances have already incurred the expenditure and hired the teachers and so on, even if the student doesn't complete the year. It does present immense problems in committing that kind of transfer payment. I would say, offhand, no; but I'll be happy to go over it with you privately and we can look at the ramifications of it. I'm told that it is just not as easy as you or I might hope.

MRS. WALLACE: I recognize that, and that's why the school board simply can't turn its back when the student drops out. What I'm asking is that the minister recognize this situation and, either through his offices or through the federal offices, make some provision so that an alternative form of education can be provided to those native students who drop out. I am certainly convinced that it would be a very cheap way of dealing with the problem that's running into a great deal of welfare money and costs in the Attorney-General's department as a result of that fact that we have those young native people without any opportunity for education in the sort of thing they are able to accept and to engage in. The result is that we have the high crime rate, the alcoholism, all the problems that are costing society a great deal. I would really urge the minister, and I would be happy to talk with him at a later date.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister could give me the figure of the number of female students who dropped out of high school between grade 8 and grade 12 last year. Is there a breakdown in terms of the reasons for their dropping out, and does he have any statistics in terms of the number of the students who had their education either terminated or interrupted because of pregnancy?

HON. MR. SMITH: First of all, I couldn't even assure you that we could get those figures without quite some time, because we'd have to get a data analysis from the various boards on this. But we can see what' available and maybe we can at least give you some sample districts — some of the urban districts that might be of interest to you — to try to analyze those figures. I'll certainly try to do that.

Vote 56 approved.

On vote 57: post-secondary education — colleges and provincial institutes, $231,873,399.

MS. BROWN: Very quickly, under the operating grants and expenditures for colleges and other post-secondary institutes, I raise the issue of the women's access program. In responding to me. I think the minister said that I didn't understand and in his reply he indicated that he didn't understand. What I was trying to say is that by not continuing the special funding for those programs the minister has to all intents and purposes destroyed those programs, because there isn't enough money in the budgets of any of the post-secondary institutions to continue the funding for that program. Did the minister specifically earmark money for the women's access program in those budgets?

HON. MR. SMITH: As a result of those women's access programs starting, many of the institutions took on additional staff and that has become part of the base. That's what I'm saying. What you seem to quarrel with is that they're not even the label perhaps of women's access programs. They don't have that kind of profile, but they are there in place, I'm told, and that's built into the base of the budgeting.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if I can just respond, I had a meeting with one of the colleges, Capilano, for example, who clearly indicated that their budget would not be able to encompass the funding of this program unless additional funds were sent to them.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, this might be a suitable opportunity to repeat my request for information regarding

[ Page 2948 ]

the permanency of the Bridgeview adult education program that I asked for in the ministerial estimate. May I just repeat to the minister in brief form that the most economically deprived area in my riding is the one that has made the most startling advances in adult education programs as a community working together. There are excellent programs in other parts of the community. This is a really first-class, fine example of a community pulling itself together in a number of ways, not only in an educational way but in a number of the ways that my colleague the first member knows. We started when we were government, in terms of sewer programs and neighbourhood improvement programs. As I said, they were bedevilled by disappointments in this basic education program for adults.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I found almost inadvertently that the minister now has visited New Westminster. He was there for a sod-turning. It was a question of inadvertence: in typical Socred fashion you people went over there, broke the sod at Douglas College, and the MLA for the area didn't even know about it until after it was over. That is the shocking kind of lack of courtesy that you people generally show.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: I will except the former Attorney-General, who found me in the audience at his sod-turning and asked me to come up to the front; he's a different brand than most of them.

But in any event, Mr. Chairman, now that the minister has been to New Westminster, seen Douglas College on the hill where it's to be, would the minister like to tell me where he figures they're going to park 2,800 cars? My understanding is that that's about how many they park at the present campus in New Westminster, which is in a large field, but now that they're down in the city centre, I would like to know where they're going to put those cars.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Municipal Affairs has all the answers; maybe he could supply a couple. We'll move them over to Surrey, if you like.

MR. HALL: I don't want to get into a furious argument about sod-turning, but I do want to get into a discussion about the Bridgeview educational program.

HON. MR. SMITH: I simply cannot help you with that, I'm sorry. I will undertake to help you beyond the chamber. I have tried to get that information. You've asked me three times. I'm sorry.

MR. HALL: That's satisfactory. Thank you.

Vote 57 approved.

Vote 58: post-secondary students' aid program, $4,632,408 — approved.

On vote 59: teachers' pensions fund, $44,150,000.

MR. HALL: I would like to ask the minister if he could give us an estimate of how much this figure will be overrun.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: I will resist the temptation to point out to the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) that he took up as much time as anybody on this side of the House in debating these estimates. I am resisting the temptation to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that that member took up as much time as he needed to make his point. Does he try to deny that to other members of the House? Or is he dumbfounded again?

Vote 59 is the teachers' pensions fund. I want to ask the minister if he could give some estimate of how much that vote is going to be overrun due to the effects of Bill 29.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a little difficult to rule the question in order, hon. member. We have reference to a bill that is presently before us. In committee, as you know, that is not in order. I wonder if the member could possibly rephrase his question in such a manner that we don't bring in other legislation.

MR. HALL: There is $11 million that we have to find, Mr. Chairman, to pay for supplementary allowances for school teachers, as the payer of employer's contributions on behalf of school boards of the province. That $10 million or $11 million paid on behalf of the school boards of the province has to come from somewhere. I think it has got to come under vote 59. I'm wondering if this figure of $44 million should really be something in the order of $56 million, and if this is a misprint. Perhaps the minister could advise us if indeed there will be a supplementary estimate. How would the committee deal with the problem of this shortfall?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 59 pass?

MR. HALL: I wonder if the minister could indicate that my figure of some $10 million or $12 million is incorrect.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I really can't, because that would be a figure that the superannuation commissioner would have to give me. I can't do that at all.

MR. HALL: It seems to me that when we're dealing with estimates like this, there should be some way in which we can pass an estimate that's somewhere near a correct estimate of expenditure for the coming year. It's now almost July; it seems like July. I would have thought that since we're now into the estimates, in that length of time we could have had a more accurate figure than that. But I will pencil in, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just in my book, another $12 million on top of that $44 million.

Vote 59 approved.

Vote 60: advances re rural school taxes — net, $10 — approved.

On vote 61: independent schools, $10,985,785.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this is the independent school vote. I have one question at this time. I notice that the

[ Page 2949 ]

inspector of independent schools — the staff has been cut from four to three. Usually I don't advocate an increase of ministerial or deputy minister's staffing. I notice that the minister has increased his own staff; and I missed the vote to discuss that. My question on this one is: why has it been cut? That is the only area where the government has an opportunity to ensure, through their staff, that the Independent Schools Support Act is being carried out properly and correctly by the schools which receive the grant. As we know, that's the only accountability we have, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. SMITH: The person not shown there now was an assistant who was there for a couple of years and has now retired; he was part of the start-up inspections. It was not thought that a replacement would be necessary this year. But if it does become necessary to have a second person there, that will be increased. It was not in the budget this year. He is no longer there; he has retired. That was the problem.

Vote 61 approved.

On vote 62: building occupancy charges, $2,380,000.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to afford the minister an opportunity to explain to the committee and tell us how careful he has been and how assiduous and what a good negotiator he is. Can he tell us how it was that he was able to effect a reduction in rent from $3.9 million to $2.3 million — about a 40 percent reduction in rent — when everybody else in the province is faced with higher rents?

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish I could take that kind of credit, hon. member, but I'm afraid that most of it was brought about by a transfer of properties to local institutions, colleges, BCIT and so on. I would like to be able to tell you that it was my sharp pencil; but I think that accounts for more of it.

MR. HOWARD: I'm very delighted with the answer. Thank you.

Vote 62 approved.

On vote 63: computer and consulting charges, $1,460,050.

MR. COCKE: I have a very brief question, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know whether the centralized computer service of government is doing as badly for the Ministry of Education as it does for most other departments. I gather that the minister isn't listening.

HON. MR. SMITH: Okay.

MR. COCKE: I just wonder, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — whether the computerized service of government is doing as badly for you as it is for many others. I just wonder if you might have a chat with your colleague in the Ministry of Health sometime.

HON. MR. SMITH: I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might take the rest of the session.

Vote 63 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 20. Mr. Speaker, the same minister's bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Everybody calm down. We thoroughly appreciate that leave is required to go to public bills and orders, so I first of all ask leave to go to public bills and orders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is not required, hon. member, at this stage.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Since the opposition is not prepared to go to Bill 20, I call committee on Bill 3.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper, with the brief explanation that when the legislation was drafted the fuel consumption rating was incorrectly called fuel consumption rating code. [See appendix.] So the amendment deletes the word code in three clauses.

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

MR. HOWARD: I just wanted to say, apropos what the government House Leader said earlier, it wasn't a question of not being prepared to proceed with a particular bill. It was a question of us being advised that bills would proceed in a different order than the government House Leader sought to call them. On that basis, the spokesperson for education was not here. That is why, and not as the government House Leader said was the case.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2950 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 3, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 3, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1980, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

3 The Hon. H. A. Curtis (Minister of Finance) to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 3) intituled Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1980, to amend as follows:

Section 1: By deleting the word "code" in the proposed section 2 (1.1) (a), (b), and (c).