[ Page 5591 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 54: minister's office –– 5591

Mr. Lauk

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Mussallem

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to ask leave of the House for the public accounts committee to sit this morning while the House is in session.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: That would be quite permissible, Mr. Speaker; also for the Crown corporations committee to meet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's always charmingly facetious, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, for the information of hon. members and your self, as we know, Monday is Victoria Day. As discussed with the official opposition, it's the government's intention to adjourn at the usual hour tomorrow to return on Tuesday at 2 o'clock; in other words, the hours on Tuesday will be the same hours that we would have otherwise had on Monday.

MR. KING: If I may, I would like to introduce to the House today 25 students from the Eagle River School in Sicamous who are visiting in Victoria today along with their teachers, Mr. Alan Roberts, David Williams and Bev Draper. I think it's always extremely pleasant to see students from interior points able to visit the Legislature in Victoria. I hope the House will join me in extending a very warm welcome.

MR. LAUK: Also in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is Joan Gillatt, who is the chairperson of the school trustees for Vancouver Island. Would the House make her welcome here today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 54: minister's office, $225,957.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, give me an opportunity this morning to make just a few more remarks before my friend opposite continues with his comments. I think I should give some praise for the work that is done in the province by the school trustees, with whom during the past year I had a great deal of cooperation in the field, and also the teachers in the B.C. Teachers Federation and the local associations, who presented a number of very good briefs.

Another issue that is continually before us this year in education is the need to have a balance between provincial leadership and local decision-making. I was very pleased this year that we were able to recognize and to enhance a number of spheres of local decision-making. One of those spheres was that local school boards appoint their own superintendents now, if they choose, and are not required to accept provincially appointed superintendents. Also, local school boards have a considerable say now in the fixing of their own stipends, which were reviewed and revised in legislation last year. There is a good deal of flexibility as well in the development of local courses that boards can opt for, particularly of the expanding area of French immersion, where the decision-making as to whether a French immersion program is to be implemented or not rests with local authority. That will continue.

Also, school boards will have more flexibility this year in the sphere of capital construction, because the building manual is being revised in a way which will assist a lot of smaller communities and smaller schools to build gymnasiums and other badly needed additions to their schools at a lower pupil-qualifying level.

MR. MACDONALD: Gymnasia.

HON. MR. SMITH: Gymnasia. While there is a good deal of local decision-making, there is still a considerable amount of provincial responsibility in education, as the members know. As I see it, it is the role of the ministry and the minister to speak out for excellence and for what is best in the system, to speak in a positive way, and to praise good teaching and quality education where it is seen. I have tried to take that approach to my job, not to go around and be a carping critic or a nitpicker, but to say positive things.

We also have a role in developing policy, setting standards and developing new curriculums, but not so rapidly that we submerge teachers and school boards in constant change; we should do it in a coherent and properly planned way.

MR. MACDONALD: That's "developing new curricula."

HON. MR. SMITH: You were a Latin scholar, sir; I will bow to you.

We have developed two new courses for implementation in the next year. I'm pleased to say that we are trying to strengthen the teaching of English, by requiring that grade 11 students who are deficient in composition take a course called Writing 11, if their principal, on the advice of the teacher, believes they need more assistance. The time spent for English in the schools is going to be increased, not decreased. We're going to strengthen the role of composition by bringing in this Writing 11 course.

We also recognize that the ministry has some responsibility to assist teachers in upgrading themselves in in-service training, particularly in some of these new and demanding fields, such as special education. I also recognize that I have a role in trying to encourage faculties of education at the universities to meet the needs of the classroom today, not the needs of yesterday. I have been meeting with the faculties of education to encourage them to take some new approaches, particularly an approach which involves more classroom experience and more internship than they have been hitherto giving in most of their programs, although there are some internship programs that work well at a couple of universities. But most of their students are not in those programs.

Another area, which I mentioned yesterday but perhaps should emphasize a little more, is the importance this government places, not just this year but generally, on the field of special education. That this year is the International Year of

[ Page 5592 ]

Disabled Persons highlights the fact that we are taking special initiatives to help the handicapped. This government also recognizes that all children have a right to an appropriate education, and that handicapped children have been denied access to educational institutions for too long. We have a commitment to reasonable integration. That integration will not always result in every student ending up in a regular classroom. It may result in some students being in special classrooms. It may result in some students being in special schools. A severely hearing-impaired child may be much better if he's in Jericho than if he is in his local community. We will try and provide both options. We recognize that some centralized facilities which can handle severe learning and physical disabilities in a sophisticated way may be a good approach, always bearing in mind that it is best if children are educated as close to their homes as they can be.

We will also be taking some major initiatives this year to provide funding for severely disabled children, and we will be supporting these children in district, regional and provincial education centres at provincial cost. We will also have a major initiative to upgrade the skills of teachers in the field of special education across the province.

Some of the changes that were made as a result of the education tour, in strengthening the curriculum in the field of writing and in urging school districts, as well, to have physical education given on a daily basis at the elementary level, are changes that I'm very proud of. We also asked school boards to schedule physical education at the grade 8 and grade 10 levels on a regular basis every week, and not, in the case of schools that are on semesters, to have blocks of physical education and students getting no physical education for perhaps a six- or eight-month interval.

Another change that we made was to expand career preparation programs in the schools. There are about 100 such programs now. These will be expanded. Career preparation programs are not meant to be a substitute for apprenticeship training. They are an introduction that students will take into the world of careers and skills that will give them some job familiarity. They are usually accompanied by a period of work experience in the field. I saw a number of these programs in operation. There's a very good one in Burnaby, which I'm sure you're aware of. It's run very well in cooperation with a number of employers. The experience with this program is that a number of students who have been in work experience change their career goals as a result of that and make a more realistic appraisal. I believe that by strengthening and emphasizing career preparation we're more realistically meeting the needs of our students of today.

We also made some major changes in the scholarship provisions across the province and have now ensured that there will be scholarships available to students in every school district, no matter how small that district may be in terms of population. We have also ensured that there will be 20 top scholarships across this province which will pay $2,000 instead of $1,000.

Those are a few of the changes I wanted to highlight today to supplement my introductory remarks of yesterday. I thank the hon. member for bearing with me.

MR. LAUK: I'm disappointed that the minister did not.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, is there something we can find for that hon. minister to do — anything? He's in here every day cutting out paper dolls, looking through the telephone book and providing his wit for the benefit of us all. He's underemployed.

I want to say to the minister how disappointed I am that he did not.

MR. MACDONALD: Are you carrying the weight of the constitution on your shoulders.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if we could find something for the second member for Vancouver East to do. He comes in here every day.... Could you both go out in the hall? Is that possible?

I'll repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I'm very disappointed that this morning the minister has not seen fit to answer even one of the questions I posed to him yesterday.

This morning the minister has added fuel to yesterday's dimly lit fire. He says that he has praise for the school trustees, and how wonderful it has been that he's been able to work so well with them in the past year. Yet the major impact with the public and the school trustees this past year has been the minister's — I am trying to search for a parliamentary word to describe it — unwarranted and baseless attack on the school trustees and their budgets. I think it's important to realize that we should look at what the minister does and not what the minister says. He praises the school trustees here this morning. A little while ago he was attacking the school boards for having high budgets. He blamed the school trustees for the high taxation on homeowners throughout the province. The attack was unwarranted and baseless on these grounds. Everyone who is familiar with the problem of school taxes and the property owner knows that it is the minister himself who sets the rate of taxation. The minister himself decides how much each and every homeowner will pay.

On the other hand, school boards across the province have been very responsible with their budgeting. Once inflation is taken into account, the only real increases have been to provide for services the school board must provide by reason of policy decisions made at the ministry level. The minister says we must achieve a balance between what he calls euphemistically "provincial leadership," which is just centralization, and local autonomy.

I say that there's been a distinct, unrelenting move towards centralization of power in the ministry over education in this province. It is unhealthy, dictatorial, and disrespectful to the persons in local school districts who elect as well as are elected to school boards. The people on school boards are treated with such derision and disrespect that ministry directives seem to come regularly on even the most minor decisions to be made at the district level.

To say that the appointment of school superintendents at the local level is a big move is categorically a paternalistic statement on the part of the minister. The attitude of the minister is one of paternalism. The soft, fatherly advice to teachers, students and school board members, flowing constantly from this great father of education in the province of British Columbia, is wearing a little thin. People are becoming irritated and upset at being treated with this kind of paternalistic disrespect by the Minister of Education.

Certainly the appointment of superintendents — long overdue — is a move in the right direction. But this move was

[ Page 5593 ]

well underway before the minister's appointment. To argue that this is an example of decentralization is hogwash. It's an essential ingredient and a first step. All other moves made under this minister have been to centralize more and more power and decision-making authority within the ministry. I fear, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's paternalistic attitude and that of the ministry itself — its bureaucratic grab for more and more authority and control over local education — are leading public education itself into disrepute. No better organization than the local school board can make decisions that will reflect local needs, desires and hopes for the education of young people within that community.

I also want to take issue with the minister's reference to handicapped students. If he really did get around the province and meet some of the so-called handicapped students, he would not refer to them in that way. The reference most acceptable now is "disabled person," and we all in one sense or another have a disability — whatever it may be — in the educational system. It could be some sort of a physical or a learning disability — but these disabilities are the real characteristics of each and every individual student who enters the public education system. I don't think we should necessarily take bows for responding to those needs now. I think that we should be very cautious about taking bows for that kind of attitude. By the same token, this ministry, which has mainstreamed disabled persons into the education system, has left school boards and public schools to try to cope with this problem with little or no assistance from the provincial government.

To argue now, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps people with a hearing disability should not be mainstreamed and that some of them could be better off in an institution such as Jericho Hill and so on.... The minister has the audacity to take a bow for backing off a rigid position that the provincial government has held in the last few years — that all students should be mainstreamed. Again he's taking a bow for providing scholarships at the local level; again that was a rigid position taken by the provincial government. It's like beating a person over the head with a club and then saying: "Isn't it nice when I stop?" This provincial government caused the problem, and when they solve the problem they caused, the minister comes into the chamber and takes a bow.

When you analyze what this minister has done since he's taken office, one can say that the promise of the public forums and the great new sweeping changes that are needed in the public education system.... The promise that these changes would be made by this minister has not been fulfilled. There are just the ashes of disappointment. The minor changes, the minor announcements and the reannouncements of policies that go on ad infinitum, ad nauseum lead us in the opposition to conclude that this minister is merely a caretaker minister. He is a do-nothing minister.

I challenged the minister last year during his first estimates to take a look at a review of public education in the province. This was a speech I made to him prior to his forums. I called upon the minister to be creative; I challenged him to be creative. I pointed out that the minister was presiding over an education system that was unchanged since World War II, related to massive social, economic and political changes that have taken place in our community in the last 35 to 40 years.

The public education system has fallen sadly behind. The innovations that have been made — other than in curriculum development — have been made primarily at the local level. All other changes have been made to fossilize the education system in an ancient mould, unreflective and unresponsive to modern needs. I say this is a caretaker minister.

I'll get into greater detail on school financing as we press along, but I think we should ask the minister a few questions about his forums. I was going to read from the Kelowna Capital News — just before everyone was dozing off — dated Wednesday, October 22, 1980.

I would like to ask the minister a few questions. I notice that he's lost a considerable amount of weight; it's almost alarming. He's not this chubby, jolly fellow we knew last year. He's got that lean and hungry look. I hope he's not ill. I hope he hasn't got anorexia nervosa or anything like that. I know that there were some attacks made on him. One of them was in the Kelowna Capital News. I'll just quote part of it:

"The minister was up there on the forums. There was a lot of preparation made at the local level to have people attend these forums. The plan was that a Springvalley staff member would pick up the minister at CHBC studios at about 11:30 a.m. Friday and bring him to the school, where he would meet the students at a 12:30 p.m. assembly. It didn't quite work out that way. When the Springvalley staffer picked the minister up, Smith's first question was: what's for lunch? The embarrassed staffer didn't know anything about lunch. The school hadn't been told they were to feed the minister, and obviously someone's wires had been crossed somewhere alone the way. It happens, but Smith was not pleased. Upon arriving at the school, he checked the school cafeteria — vacant at the time — and upon realizing that they really weren't going to feed him, he stalked out of the school offering no explanation to the students or staff and eased his hunger at a local restaurant."

He was probably huddled over a cheeseburger and a milkshake.

Needless to say, the Springvalley students and staff were surprised at the behaviour of the minister of the Crown — reprehensible.

The article pointed out:

"The Springvalley incident wasn't just an isolated moment of pique, because the next day, Saturday, the minister was slated to appear at a morning meeting in Penticton. He was half an hour late for that affair, because he couldn't find a restaurant in Kelowna which served a proper breakfast. Concern for the inner man is apparently a dominant factor in Smith's conduct and his penchant for down-home nutrition while on the road isn't doing anything for his punctuality."

I was very amused by that, and I thought I should get it on the Hansard record and ask the minister to make some explanation for his behaviour.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's not on the record of Hansard. I think that the piece de resistance has to be Education Today. I was reading through my April copy of Education Today, and I saw two photographs of the minister in a World War I pilot's helmet with two welding goggles — they look to be — on the top. He's holding up a megaphone saying: "Get out of the way." I don't know who that refers to. Maybe it's to school boards or whatever. He's sitting in a Harvard trainer in

[ Page 5594 ]

a pair of white coveralls and a World War I helmet. At first I thought: who is that — Benny Hill? It looks just like Benny Hill. Here's a minister of the Crown getting into a Harvard trainer with his helmet on.

It struck me that the vintage of the helmet is very much representative of the minister's philosophy of education. It does go back about 60 or 70 years — the idea of elitism and central control and authority. I thought that was very representative. I hope that whoever took those pictures — Doug Heal or whoever — is not reprimanded, because it is representative of the minister's educational policies. My apologies to Benny Hill.

The minister was appointed in November 1979. For the next two or three months he kept on saying that he wouldn't proceed with the revision of the School Act. His predecessor had set up a team to get on with that. He would not proceed with the administrative handbook; the second draft was drawing some shell-fire. He would not proceed with any major changes in anything until he had conducted his forums and met his constituents. This seemed reasonable to some people at the time. The minister conducted forums from September 30 to December 1, 1980. There were some problems, but generally it was a successful tour. What the minister did do by the forums is build up expectations to a very high level. He issued two press releases: one on December 2, 1980, and one on December 17, 1980. I can only describe those press releases as dealing with the inevitable, the minor, some major things in a minor way and some reannouncements. This government seem to be geniuses at reannouncements.

The minister's final report was announced for January, then February, then March, April and now May. He's been in office almost 18 months, and he's done next to nothing. Our assessment — believe me, Mr. Chairman, it's not arrived at lightly — is that he's warm and full of good intentions when in a flesh-pressing situation close to the people. But once back in his office, surrounded by his bureaucracy, he reverts to his Burkean forebear: "We change only to preserve."

A classic example is the medication question. He was present, of course, at the British Columbia Teachers Federation. He was questioned by a teacher about teachers who were taking time out of important schedules of preparing and teaching to administer medication to students. They were concerned on a number of levels: the time factor, their lack of expertise in administering such medication and the legal consequences of a serious error being made. The minister said: "This cannot be." I have it on tape. He said: "Teachers should not administer medication, period." There was no question that he would back off that statement, and the teachers relied on this. He came back to his office, was questioned in the House and began to back off further.

Then he came down with a policy that did not deal with the problem of teachers administering medication. He outlined a policy of what the teachers should do, adding further responsibilities onto the administration of the school and the teacher by not taking the necessary creative steps to provide qualified medical personnel at schools which require the administration of medication to students. In other words, something happens to that minister when he gets back to the office.

I'd like to know who's running the ministry. Is it really the minister? Is he a split personality, or is it Edmund Burke? I'd like to know what his bureaucrats are up to in the meantime and what the minister's direction is with respect to the circular on the administrative handbook — circular 144. I'll deal with that in greater depth in a moment.

The teachers asked who composed the circular, because nowhere are teachers really mentioned. They asked: do teachers exist? Where is the statement from the forums? Is it represented in circular 144? Where is the positive direction for the education system? What's the new move that's going to be made, and what about modern management? Has the minister directed his mind to that? Professional or local decision-making: has he really dealt with that? What about the collective bargaining problems between the B.C. Teachers Federation and school boards? They want an expanded scope of bargaining. Does the minister really think local school boards should be bargaining on a collective process on learning conditions, or is he, as he suggests, going to leave it up to the school boards to consult with teachers? Is it to be a part of the contract?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What do you advocate?

MR. LAUK: I'm not the minister. He's making statements that only add confusion. If you don't believe me, talk to the trustees and the teachers. They don't know what you've just said, and I don't think you do either. You are, as I said yesterday, a semantic stutterer. You cannot make a decision. You're on four sides of every question.

It seems to me that the minister has to come out with policy, He cannot avoid making a decision forever. Nobody knows what he means. Does he mean that the school boards are to bargain a contract on learning conditions, class size, mainstreaming, extra teachers and equipment in the school? What does he mean? Does he mean they should just consult? They always consult. I've visited school boards across the province. School teachers' representatives are at the board meetings all the time. Does he mean it should be incorporated as an unofficial part of the contracts negotiated with teachers? What on earth does he mean? Has he consulted parents groups? What about the body politic? Does he understand where power vests in terms of education at the local school board level? I don't think he understands any of these questions. If he does, he's deliberately attempting to confuse school boards, teachers and the public. That's what I think he's doing. He's a caretaker minister who is delaying decision-making at all costs.

As I charged last year, the forums were a stall. If there's any better evidence that they were designed by the minister to stall the necessary sweeping changes that have to be made to public education, it's the fact that announcements for the final report came out of the ministry for January. Then they said they'd delay it until February, then March and April. It's now May, and nothing has happened. There are the inevitable announcements that we can get a branch head in the ministry to announce, minor changes, tinkering with the system, when the public education system is under a full-scale attack. The public education system has been derided and criticized over the past several years. There has been some improvement in the public perception, and that's mainly because there has been a change in ministers. But the improvement is not substantive. It's only in perception, and the improvement must be in substantive decisions made by this minister.

Now I'll take my place, Mr. Chairman, and allow one or two of my colleagues to make some comments.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, having been in the present minister's position and having put in my term, in office, I perhaps see the whole educational scene from a different perspective.

[ Page 5595 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: So did John Bremer.

MRS. DAILLY: I think you're right. I think that member over there doesn't have enough to do. I think we should give him another portfolio, and then he won’t waste his time with these petulant little remarks. It's not very seemly. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I was intending to start this on a very nice, sane level. But he's made me go right down again into the low gutter of debate.

I feel that the present minister faces the problems all ministers of education face. As our critic has tried to point out, he first has to establish some kind of philosophy for dealing with the new problems any minister would face today. That's really what I want to discuss briefly. I think what's been lacking from this minister is that we're still waiting, after all his public forums and travelling, to hear from this minister what he considers the basic thrust for education throughout the current decade.

It's not easy, as I know. I was burned. It's not easy to try and develop a philosophy, because you can never please everyone in education. I know that the hon. minister has found this out also. Everyone's been to school; if they haven't been, they're going now. Everyone in this province have their own separate ideas on what the educational system should be about. But it seems to me that in spite of the fact that any Minister of Education cannot please everyone, the onus is still on any Minister of Education to let the public know how he feels his office can best administer to the needs of students in the province of B.C. in the coming decade.

There are so many changes taking place in society. I know that the minister must have heard this kind of speech when he travelled, but I think your main function is to ensure that you are going to provide an educational system which can meet the very varied and different needs of the student of the eighties. I think this is something we're waiting to hear from the minister. It seems to me that the basic statements he's made up to now are really patchwork things, just continuing some of the ideas which have been around in education for quite a while. I don't really think we have been given any guidelines or hope that his ministry is really grappling with the problems of the eighties.

That does not mean that I'm advocating a great upheaval and change, because I know that any minister attempting to make major changes in education is going to be in trouble, because half the people will not agree with him. So I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the duty of a minister to at least tell the public of B.C. that he is aware of the present problems and is studying them. They're past study; he's been in office long enough now and he's got to start producing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now if I may throw out to the minister some of my concerns with the period of education we now face.... And I can't help thinking as I stand here that I first started expressing my concerns about education on the floor of this House back in 1966 and 1967. At that time the present House Leader was also in the House, and I really had hoped that he too would have tried to grow throughout the years and have a little more understanding. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have from the remarks he makes. Back in the sixties we were dealing with completely different problems, so let’s forget about that. When I was minister, the problems were different then. It's up to any minister to sit down and assess what he or she is faced with. My big concern today is that the present Ministry of Education still isn’t grasping what the basic problems facing the children of today are. I hope the minister will talk to us about it. So without boring the House too much, I simply want to make a couple of statements about what I consider are some of the major problems.

There was a recent article in the paper on the stress the teachers of B.C. are undergoing. Anyone who's taught in the classroom — and I know the minister seems to have a good appreciation of this — knows that. Despite all the criticism of the teachers, there's nothing harder. There's nothing harder than standing up in a classroom and dealing hour after hour with children and all their varied problems. So what are we going to do to assist the teacher so the student will be able to come out of the school system with as good an education as possible? The problem is that today the teachers are faced with children who come from broken homes, which we never really saw in the 1960s and 1970s to the degree we have now. I think most teachers say that if you took the average classroom today you'd find that over half the students come from a broken home. To begin with, the teacher in the 1980s is faced with a child who's going through a different kind of problem at home than the children in past years. The whole society has changed. The children today are faced with so much more external stimulation that we did not have in the past. There are many areas today the child of the 1980s must face that we never even conceived of. My concern is whether the educational system in B.C. is prepared to cope with that.

I'm waiting to hear from the minister, after all his travelling around the province, where I'm sure he's had these things brought up to him, that he himself is aware of his primary function. His function is not to bring about change in the classroom just for the sake of change. I do not believe that the school system of B.C. should be the basic catalyst for change. I think it has to reflect society, but it has to be prepared to accept the way society is today. I mentioned to the minister that I'm concerned about the increased stress on teachers because of the kind of students who are coming to them today. There are many children with more emotional problems than we've seen before. We have basically, strangely enough, a mix of an affluent society and extreme poverty. The teacher in the classroom has to deal with children from these backgrounds.

The teacher today needs help. It doesn't mean that the teacher wants to deal with all those problems. They've still got to teach the child. We accept that. But I'm concerned that we are still not providing enough adjunct services in the area of counselling, particularly for the elementary teacher and for the child who has serious problems at home. That teacher should not have to deal with that. She or he should be aware of it, but they should have some assistance right in the school area. There should be counsellors and social workers available.

There should be health services available. That brings me to the point that when the NDP was government, we were hoping to have the opportunity to create true community schools which also had, in their core area, the health services, both mental and physical. I think if we could have it all in a core centre, then the teacher today would not be under the same stress — if they were able, immediately, to find some assistance for the problems which they face, which they should not have to handle.

I'm concerned about the teenagers today. I'm wondering just what this ministry is doing to cope with family life

[ Page 5596 ]

education. I know that is a touchy area and that as soon as the minister puts his head up and says, "I believe in family life education," immediately there will be groups of people out there — a small vocal minority — who will accuse him, as they did me when I was minister, of attempting to teach the children obscenity, pornography and so on. As a matter of fact, I remember once — it wasn't in your area; as a matter of fact it's the area where there's something very interesting taking place today; I think it's the area of Kamloops — I was on a hotline, and at that time I had stated that I believed that it was essential that the school boards move into the area of family life education. This included not only sex education but also the whole area of consumerism and so on.

I still remember one listener phoning in and saying: "Mrs. Dailly, you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting that. I understand that you're responsible for all the venereal disease in British Columbia." Those are the kind of statements that ministers are subjected to if they actually take a stand on something. But as far as I'm concerned, this minister must give leadership in those vital areas, whether it's going to affect him with a few votes or not. There are children in this province who are basically ignorant in the whole area of sex education, and I feel that it's the responsibility of this minister to assist the school boards, and to be vocal about assisting them, to start some family life education.

I know that when the minister travelled around there were innumerable briefs to the minister about the number of teenage pregnancies. I read the other day that they've dropped in British Columbia. I don't think that means, frankly, that promiscuity is not still continuing with teenagers. There may be other reasons for the drop, as we know. The point is, many children in B.C. are still basically ignorant in the areas of family life education. I really condemn the Social Credit government for putting a literal freeze on this vital area by saying nothing and keeping silent from the time the former minister, the Hon. Pat McGeer, assumed office. He did not want to take a chance of losing votes, so he kept his mouth shut on this area, with the result that B.C. had one of the highest records in the last few years of teenage pregnancies. So I'm asking this minister basically — and I don't want to ramble on too long; I want to give the other people a chance to speak at this time, and later I will have specific questions — what he has to offer the students of British Columbia for the 1980s.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to add just one or two questions to what has been said by my colleagues. I'm concerned, as our education critic is, about the minister. He seems to me, on occasion, to be the perfect model of what a conservative minister of the Crown should be: he's good-looking, well dressed, a fine aspect, well spoken, good in discussion, and absolutely nothing happens — the perfect model of a conservative minister of the Crown. I wonder if that's going to be sufficient in the area of education.

There are just two questions I raise with the minister, and I'd like to hear his answers at this time. The first one relates to what the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has referred to, which is sex education in the schools. I don't think it's good enough that someone like myself, who has come through the B.C. school system, should have to wait to acquaint myself with the real facts of life from my daughter.

MR. KEMPF: You don't know the facts of life?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, my daughter has explained them to me.

Ignorance of any of the important areas of life such as this cannot be a blessing of any kind. I support the kind of family life education programs that should be in the schools, and I reject entirely what those right-wingers say out there. Unfortunately the minister listens to them, because that's the party he has joined — back in its lunatic fringes out there. I think he should take a progressive approach to questions of that kind. I'm very interested in what he will say in reply to the hon. member for Burnaby North.

The other question I raise is: what should be taught in the schools in terms of values and doctrines? I draw a distinction, and I suggest to the minister that while it is important in the schools to promote the kind of democratic and social values that will assist a democracy to live together and work cooperatively, doctrines should not be taught in the school; the teachers should leave that to the free choice and expression of the student. The object of the exercise of teaching about the various political and social doctrines and all of the rest should be to make the student think for himself and leave the student, at the end, able to cope with the world and make up his own mind. I wonder if the minister agrees with me, because we do have reactionary groups running around now, saying we must inculcate certain doctrines into these students, such as what they understand is the Judeo-Christian ethic, capitalistic values or socialistic values, for that matter. I think it's wrong to try to inculcate doctrine. I think the child in its wisdom will regurgitate sooner or later what is inculcated in that fashion and will reject it. But I want the minister to say whether he believes that doctrine should be inculcated in the schools, or whether the objective should be simply to enable the students to have a good survey of what is out there and make up his or her own mind. Those are mv questions, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll perhaps just respond to the second member for Vancouver East on those points. I don't think we have any quarrel, hon. member, on your last remark about doctrine. I don't see it as the role of the Ministry of Education to be laying down some kind of doctrinal blueprint or trying to produce a particular mindset. I see the curriculum as providing knowledge of a number of different points of view and philosophies, whether they're scientific or social, but I don't think that the role of the ministry is to outline doctrine. I don't think that we have any quarrel about that.

On the question of family-life programs, I did hear a great deal on that subject — both pro and con — and I heard it not only from teachers and parents but also from students themselves. The policy now has been to leave these programs to local decision-making. I gather that I'm now being invited to become centralistic and to impose some sort of program across the province in a compulsory way. I have not seen fit to do that, but there are....

MR. LAUK: You leave the controversial stuff to the local boards.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, no. You're always decentralistic if necessary but necessarily decentralistic.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, no. This question rests with local decision-making at present. There are a number of good

[ Page 5597 ]

family-life programs now in force in school districts; there's a good one in Nanaimo. We're going to provide, through a curriculum resource centre, more distribution of these programs throughout the system. There is absolutely nothing stopping any school district from developing its own program or building on the good ones that are there. I have nothing further to say on that subject at this time.

I would like to reply to a few remarks made by the member for Burnaby North, who occupied this position and had some of the same questions before her. It is very tempting, hon. member, to stand up in one's estimates and try to make some ringing philosophical statement on the general goals of education. I don't happen to think that estimates is the place for such a statement. I make absolutely no apologies at all for not having instantly produced a major education report from a tour that involved the sort of effort that this one did. I hope that the report which will be produced will not be a superficial document or full of a lot of philosophical clanging, but will actually point to some specific directions and deal with a number of specific problems.

I do agree with the comments of the member for Burnaby North that we have an important role to assist the teacher. I certainly agree with her remarks that change for change's sake in the classroom is not desirable. We're asked so often to make revisions to curricula to bring in new courses; when you do that sort of thing, of course, you have an immediate impact on the duties and the stresses that teachers face. When there is curriculum revision going on, I'm trying to ensure that that's properly targeted and announced a year or 18 months in advance, and that we actually have materials and guides available for teachers so that they don't have these changes sprung on them, and also that we don't simply do revisions for the sake of doing revisions.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) always makes very enticing comments and honeyed phrases about modernizing the system, moving to processes of modern management, revising creaky old acts and so on, but I often feel that we never hear even a glimmer of specifies as to what he has in his head, if indeed he has anything in his head. It's very easy to say that an act needs revision. I've said many times that the School Act does need revision. But to throw it all out and replace it with something, you'd have to replace it with something that is both relevant and does work. The revision of the School Act will take place over the next year, but I hope it will be a sensible revision, one which will incorporate the good things that are in there now and make the relationships among the parties in the education system more meaningful, update their relationships and spell out those relationships.

I should reply to a few of the comments by the first member for Vancouver Centre. I did not realize that he saw me as a fatherly, paternalistic figure. I'm sorry that he's sensitive about the use of terminology in dealing with the education of disabled children. I can tell you, hon. member, that many of the children whom I've seen in special and regular classes are indeed handicapped, and very much handicapped. They're anxious to have opportunities, not to have politicians splitting hairs about terminology. They are getting those opportunities. I know that the member for Burnaby North is supportive of the directions we've taken to give access to students who did not have access in the past.

I'm always amused when the member reads from the press about the tour to Kelowna. Several incidents that were written up were dealt with at that time in the House. The visit to Springvalley School was not arranged. Regrettably, there was not an assembly or anything else at that school. We did not stand them up; it simply wasn't arranged. As I recall, we managed to have lunch at the cafeteria at Okanagan College, which is where I was going to an opening.

The medication issue that the member has dealt with has also been aired in this House on a number of occasions. A policy on medication was developed which I felt certainly gave a good deal of protection to teachers and required communication with the health nurse and required that the teacher have adequate instructions concerning the administration of medication. But I do realize as well that some legislative protection may be in order. The good view of some legal experts is that the matter is now covered under the common law and under the duties that school boards have as employers to stand behind their teachers, but that some changes in the law may well be required. I support those.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if I could ask the hon. minister the next time he speaks to extend his microphone a bit. Hansard is having a few problems picking everything up.

The member for Omineca.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Not yet. I've invited you to come up and run against me, but not yet, Mr. Member. You're still from the urban area of this province.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the volume has had to be turned up, I thought maybe on this very quiet morning and in a very quiet way I would enter into debate on the estimates of the Minister of Education. Over the past two or three weeks I've listened with great interest to many of the members opposite in question period and in other debates — I'm sure they'll get up during the estimates of this minister and get it firmly on the record — speak and go on at length about the tax equalization question. As you know, Mr. Chairman, to me it's the same old tune. Being from the north yourself, I'm sure that you recognize it: everything for the southern urban areas of this province and nothing for the north.

MR. LAUK: What nonsense!

MR. KEMPF: I've heard you expound upon the equalization system, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Never have I said anything that stupid. I've said things that are stupid, but not that stupid.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Member, I'm sure you've said things that are at least that stupid, if not more so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps if the member speaking would address the Chair and other members would not interrupt, we could proceed with orderly debate.

MR. KEMPF: There's nothing for the interior of this province, just everything for the urban areas; nothing, for the northern part of the province where all of the wealth comes from in the first place. It's the same old story, Mr. Chairman, and the same old tune. The socialists chatter away over there. In this case what the socialists over there are saying — I defy any one of them to get up and tell me I'm wrong — is that they

[ Page 5598 ]

don't want to share with the smaller school districts of this province. They don't want to share with those areas of have-not in the rural areas of this province. They don't like equalization. I've heard it time after time. You can go back in Hansard and look at some of the questions that were asked — by that member for Vancouver Centre, as a matter of fact — about the school tax equalization system in the province and its concept of sharing.

That's really strange coming from that group over there, which has professed for over 60 years to be the defender of the less fortunate. I'm beginning to believe that they are changing and indeed have changed, when I hear them in a complete turn-about. They do not have the philosophy any longer that there should be a sharing between the haves and the have-nots. They no longer believe in sharing and that services should be provided to those who cannot — in this case, because of the size of the communities — provide it themselves.

They've really changed. They no longer believe that those who have plenty should share it with those who do not. Yes, they are happy to take, and on many occasions we've heard them speaking about those things they want for the urban areas of this province. They're willing to take the riches and the natural resources from the interior of this province to build schools, colleges and universities on the lower mainland, but they don't want the students of the north to have the same opportunity. All take and no give. A fine bunch of socialists they are. They should hang their heads. They claim to be socialists, and in this case they don't want to share in equalization of school taxes with the smaller communities of this province. The children of the citizens in my area deserve every bit as good a facility for learning as do the people of the Fraser Valley, Vancouver and Vancouver Island. That's what equalization is all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why aren't they getting it? They're not getting it because you're the MLA.

MR. LAUK: For one thing they need a better MLA up there.

MR. KEMPF: You can see that it's getting under their skin. They chatter away over there. The members opposite say one thing and profess to be another.

That's what this equalization system is all about. I want to put it squarely on the record that the NDP opposite are against the equalization of school taxes in this province.

MR. LAUK: Not true.

MR. KEMPF: Well, get up and say so, Mr. Member. I wish the member for Vancouver Centre would get up and contradict what he's been saying in this House for the last month, as well as set the record straight. I stood in my place on this very quiet morning to give a very quiet speech — not to rile the opposition but to put on record what they really profess.

In this minister's estimate I also stand to speak on behalf of the students of a senior secondary school in my constituency — Fort St. James Secondary. For some time now they have had to put up with conditions — again I talk of equalization — which I feel are substandard. This senior secondary school, with an enrolment of 481 students this year — an increase of 23 percent over the last three years — has a very real problem. It's a problem which is in need of an immediate second look. It's in need of an immediate construction program for a new gymnasium, but it's not just a gymnasium problem. Yes, the present gym is inadequate, it's too small and the floor.... The Fort St. James Secondary School boasts of two very good competition class basketball teams, the Fort St. James Falcons. The floor is warped and totally unacceptable for use by this class of basketball team. Yes, the gym is not a satisfactory situation, but again I say that's not the real problem. The school is overcrowded, and should the new gym be built — which has been requested by the board of School District 56 — with a little bit of northern ingenuity this inadequate facility could then be turned into the classrooms that are needed in Fort St. James Secondary, and all the problems would be overcome.

In light of the minister's recent announcement of a very vigorous school construction program.... Don't get me wrong, Mr. Minister. The people of Fort St. James are very happy about the advent of Sowchea Bay Elementary, now under construction; as are the people of Fraser Lake for the addition of classrooms to Mouse Mountain Elementary; and Houston, as well, for the addition of classrooms to Twain Sullivan Elementary School in that community. Aside from that and due to the very vigorous school construction program — particularly where gymnasiums are concerned — I stand this morning to ask again at this time, on behalf of the students of Fort St. James Senior Secondary, that the minister reconsider their request for a new gym, not only to give them the type of gymnasium facility that they deserve....

MR. LAUK: What do you want from him?

MR. KEMPF: A new gym, Mr. Member. But as well — and possibly even more important — it would alleviate the overcrowding now being experienced in that facility. On their behalf, I request that he do everything possible to reconsider that request in order to commence construction this summer of that new gymnasium.

MR. LAUK: I'm surprised that a government back-bencher finds it necessary to stand up during the minister's estimates and plead for a school in his own constituency. The member is never very clear, but from what I understand him to say, the gymnasium there is in a terrible state of disrepair. He said that the floor is warped; they can't play basketball on that floor. I really want to reinforce what this member has — in a very confused way — tried to put before the chamber. You've got a situation in the north of this province — what do the students have to do up there? They need recreation and gymnasium facilities. If the local school district has made a request of the minister to build a gymnasium and the minister has turned it down, that's reprehensible. If I were the member for that riding I sure as heck wouldn't be coming in here with a soft speech. I'd be raising Cain around here to get those facilities. The incompetence of that member is astounding. Well, incompetence is fair game. It must be fair, there's a lot of it over there. I demand, on behalf of the kids of that area, a new gymnasium, and a new school if it's overcrowded. What's happening to the minister?

HON. MR. SMITH: Fort St. James — remember that.

MR. LAUK: Fort St. James. I believe that the member knows what he's talking about, as confused as he sounds. If

[ Page 5599 ]

he knows what he's talking about, the minister has turned down a request by the district to build a new school and gymnasium. That's what the member said and I believe him. The minister turned him down. What is the minister going to do about it, or is the member full of beans, Mr. Chairman? Was there any request made from the school district? Did the ministry deal with the problem at all? If there was, every hon. member accepts what he says. I say: "Shame on the minister for doing that."

When the minister made some remarks about whether there is anything going on in my head at all, I'm really offended by that kind of remark. I've never attacked the minister personally. I'm really quite hurt that he would say there's nothing going on between my ears. I delivered a brilliant speech last year. I sent a copy over to the minister. I signed the copy. It was in Hansard. I read out the speech, contrary to standing orders. I can't do it again this year.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, why should I resign?

I’ll just canvass what I said. If the minister's forgotten, I'd like to refresh his memory. I pointed out that when I'm talking about sweeping changes, I mean what I'm saying. Since the war, nothing has changed. The system has really become fossilized. The changes that have been made to date have been tinkering with the School Act. You know, Mr. Chairman. You were on the school board for many years. You know what I'm talking about.

MR. KEMPF: Are you against equalization?

MR. LAUK: Not at the moment. No I'm not, but I'll deal with that. Everybody else here knows that I'm for equalization. I'll explain it to you in a moment. Just be patient.

At that time last year, on June 17, 1980, I tried to articulate what I meant. I said that there are many changes that have put different demands upon the public education system and that the system is not responding. If it is responding, it's not in a way that's effective. I tried to point out the changes that I felt would be required. I think it's obvious that with the development of technological change in computer sciences and technological advances in industry, teachers and administrators in the education system have worked tirelessly to bring course content and teaching skills into line with modern industrial and scientific needs.

The structure of the school system, however, has fallen far behind. Costs have been misplaced. Guidelines by the ministry have been ill-conceived. It is only recently that the public education system is scrambling to provide the kind of educational content and skill that the modern student will need to become an independent member of the work force in the community, and so on.

It's only a piecemeal thing that's going on. There's no support system. The minister talks about centralization as opposed to decentralization. I mentioned last year that I was talking about a Ministry of Education which would become a resource, not an authority. The authorities should be the autonomous authorities of each and every school district. The ministry should try to provide a consistency throughout the education system, but it should de-emphasize its role as an authority and emphasize its role as a resource. I do not see that happening anywhere, neither through its circulars nor its communications to school boards and administrators.

I talked about the family unit. Since World War II the family unit has changed from the usual nuclear family of mom and dad and the kids — the 2.2 children — to a very large percentage of single-parent families. They have different stresses and different needs. Is there a consideration for day care at the schools? Is there a consideration for working parents? No. Is there even a consideration for a policy change to encourage school districts to do something about that? No. Have they dealt with it? I don't think so. If they have, they haven't dealt with it effectively.

I talked about equality between the sexes. The curriculum is ridiculous. It still hasn't been changed to reflect the equality between men and women in this society. It's a major item; it's not just something that all the beer bellies can chuckle over as women's liberation. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a basic respect between men and women in this society which has emerged since the Second World War. It's not going to go away. The children in our schools have to be taught that there is a basic equality between the sexes, because that equality is essential to our development in a democratic society. It's essential to world peace. It's essential to mental health. It's essential to practically everything I know about.

It's because of the inequality between the sexes that a lot of mental illness has occurred in this society over the generations. If we can do something for the kids in schools, we can teach them the basic equal respect between men and women. My friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and my friend from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) are talking about family-life education. We're not saying "teach sex." People learn sex very easily. That's not the problem. The problem is knowing what a relationship between a man and a woman in a marriage situation is, and where they have responsibility to each other and to their children and to the community. I must say, without losing faith or confidence in the teaching profession, that the faculties of education at universities are not teaching these kinds of subjects. At this stage I don't believe that I can say to a school board: "I want some family-life education in my schools, but I don't want a teacher to take a four-week course and say that he or she is equipped to teach it." I have values because of my religion and background, and I don't want someone else to teach different values to my children in those areas.

However, there are fundamental values about marriage and equality and contributing to society which can be taught to our students by well-trained and equipped teachers. Are they dealing with the problem? I'm not saying to interfere with the individual school board's decision to say whether family life will be taught in schools. No, let that be a local decision. But what about the resource I talked about? What about the ministry's strength to provide the training and the money and the people to teach family life at the local school level? It's not coming. It's not being considered. It's controversial. The minister doesn't like to dirty his hands on controversial issues.

The minister should be a minister without portfolio. He is not a minister who is decisive enough for this portfolio. He is not a minister who instills confidence of leadership with the people who are involved in the public education system, and he should be. I talked about the change in prevailing values, and they've changed radically. Teaching skills need to be changed to reflect those changes. I talked about English as a second language. I talked about the immigration of many children — and the Vancouver school district is a classic

[ Page 5600 ]

example — who use English as a second language. We pleaded for three years, with two successive ministers in this administration, for some support for English as a second language. What they have offered is a pittance. It's an insult, and he's once more burdened the local taxpayer with the heavy costs of providing for the teaching, the space and the curriculum development — or whatever is required for English as a second language at the local level.

That $2 million-odd — a part of which goes to English as a second language — which will be effected in the school district of Vancouver, is nothing; it goes nowhere to meet the problems and it's designated only for the refugee children who came over in the Vietnamese scheme, not to meet all the needs of immigrant children. The minister knows this, but, Mr. Chairman, you'll be surprised to know that in the school district of Vancouver over 45 percent of the overall population of school children have English as a second language. That's a phenomenal number of children. In the secondary schools it's a little lower, in some schools it's lower or higher, but overall in the school district 40 percent to 45 percent have English as a second language. What are the resources coming from the Ministry of Education? Zero. Just a small drop in the bucket to contribute toward providing English second language teaching for the refugee children — that's all the ministry has dealt with. It hasn't dealt with the major part of the problem at all.

I called upon the minister last year.... I don't like repeating my speeches, Mr. Chairman, but the minister said there is nothing between my ears. He says I never make a concrete, substantive suggestion, that I always call upon the minister to make grandiose philosophical statements. I didn't last year and I don't now. Last year in June I suggested that the major changes that have to be made are underpinned by the idea that the minister has to make a philosophical statement. He is committed to public education; he is committed to the idea of egalitarianism in a democratic society, where each and every girl and boy, man and woman is entitled, as a basic human right, to an education, taking into account that person's mother tongue, first tongue, the disabilities — either learning or physical — and the area of the province in which that person's family resides. Taking all of those things in account, there is a basic right to education.

It's not enough to say: "You have an opportunity in the public education system." We know that; opportunity exists for all of those who can walk, run, talk, read and think in an average or better-than-average way to obtain an education. We're talking about a basic philosophical right that everybody has: a basic right to an education. If there are financial, cultural or physical barriers to education, this ministry has the solemn responsibility to rip those boundaries and barriers down. I'm saying that the minister was not listening when I asked him to make that philosophical commitment. He gave lip-service last year when he said: "I am for the public education system. I don't see why the member is so silly." But the truth of the matter is that unless he takes actions flowing out of that philosophical statement, the philosophical statement itself is meaningless — it's just lip-service.

I talked about the use and abuse of educational plant throughout the province. The school in a community, if it is properly situated within that community, should become the community service centre for children. The five ministries involved in providing services to children should provide a coordinated service to children at that centre. Health, Education, Human Resources, police and municipal government should be involved as well to coordinate library and information services. Look at Britannia Centre in the city of Vancouver. There may be other examples, but that's one of the best examples of how you can move toward coordinating a centre with services not only for children but for all kinds of people within the community. They have a senior citizens' centre that works with kids and that is close to kids. The kids understand old people — they see them. The library services are used by school librarians as well as public librarians. There is an information centre providing information not only to the parents of families but to the entire community. Immigration services are there, because of the area in which that school is.

Think of the savings, Mr. Chairman, to the local and provincial taxpayer to have those buildings and services coordinated at one spot. There is the ice rink that's used by the public; there is the swimming pool that's used by the public and the schools. The savings that are involved are immense. We have schools that are closed at night or closed in the morning. We have schools that are underutilized by the public. Expensive schools on which we have spent millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to construct are not being used. Why isn't a day-care centre right at the school for single-parent families? Why aren't those single-parent families involved with that establishment from birth?

You'll note, Mr. Chairman, that BCTF is arguing that we should support the public school system by getting people aware of the public education system from the birth of the child. Pamphlets are being suggested to the ministry, and I think maybe one is even underway, which will go out to parents of new-born, saying: "While you're raising your child and getting that child ready for the public education system, here is what's available to that child. Here are the services provided. Here is a statement of your rights as a parent and your responsibilities as a parent as we see them. Here is a statement of the rights and responsibilities of a student as we see them." What is the ministry doing about that?

I say: day care in the schools. I've made all kinds of those suggestions. Those are the suggestions I'm talking about, not a tinkering with the School Act, an amendment here, dotting an "i" here and crossing a "t" there. I have dealt with family life and philosophical statement.

I take issue with the minister on his use of the word "handicapped." The young people resent it. They're not handicapped; they're disabled. If the system took down the barriers that they find because of their disability, they would no longer be handicapped. That's why the difference in terminology.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're being didactic.

MR. LAUK: I'm not trying to be didactic. It's an essential importance. It sounds nitpicking to the minister, who doesn't understand what the real substantive difference is. The difference is that if you take down the barriers and provide the kind of services required, the student is no longer handicapped because of disability. He can flourish and become an active and contributing citizen in our community. That is what I mean.

If the minister regards his term of office as a caretaker minister and as a person who's just concerned about getting through this difficult and controversial portfolio as quickly as possible without too much mess on his hands, the minister is

[ Page 5601 ]

a failure and has not met the needs of the modern age. If the minister is sincere about providing an education to each and every person in this province, regardless of the geographic location of their family, regardless of physical, learning or any other disability, regardless of financial capacity and regardless of race, creed, colour and every other barrier that historically — or even now — we hold up against people achieving a good education, then the minister will take the steps that I've called upon him to take.

We've had 18 months: several months of a forum, a delay in the announcement of any major changes and an announcement yesterday about consumer education. I'd like to ask the minister about consumer education. I'm concerned about philosophical content in consumer education. What's it going to be? Who's going to develop the curriculum? The Premier of this province said that we should be teaching capitalism in our schools. He said: "Let's teach capitalism in our schools."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Did you say "right?" I've got the clipping. What would happen if we said: "Let's teach socialism in our schools?"

MR. MUSSALLEM: All right, but don't overdo it.

MR. LAUK: Can you overdo capitalism but not socialism? Teach capitalism and socialism — equal time? Perhaps we could have the political parties taking an audit. We'll go in and audit the time the teachers spend.

You're getting into dicey ground, but I'm not totally in disagreement with that suggestion. The chamber of commerce has called upon the various ministries of education across the country, saying: "You should be teaching the free enterprise system. That's one of the problems we have in our society. There's not enough faith in the free enterprise system."

By the way, shortly after the Premier called upon the education establishment to start teaching capitalism, he brought us BCRIC. Remember that? He said when he announced BCRIC that it was designed to teach shareholders across the province what it means to be a part of the free enterprise system. I think that's one of the most effective lessons the people of the province have ever had — a very important lesson. They learned that you have to be an insider like Kaiser and Helliwell to make money. It's not a free enterprise system outside of the boardroom. You've got to have insider information and line your pockets — in other words, you've got to cheat. That's a very important lesson. I don't mind teachers teaching that in the schools, do you? I think that the number one lesson in consumer protection education that the minister should ask the ministry to develop in a curriculum way is BCRIC.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is over there now lobbying the Minister of Education. He's trying to talk him into what I'm saying: that the first lesson planned for consumer education in high schools be BCRIC. Who do you believe and who do you not believe? Do you believe the smiling face in the Premier's chair, students? Here's what he said: "Buy BCRIC; get a piece of the rock; invest in the province." Or do you believe the opposition, who said: "You're only buying back what you already own as a taxpayer and as a citizen?" Do you believe the Premier who said, "Hold onto these shares; we're going to make a bundle, folks; just hang on to me," as he wore his little straw boater and bamboo cane and moved through the province saying: "Buy a share, buy a share?" Do you notice the resemblance of the man in the picture of the family on the share certificates? It looks almost like the Premier. That was even before Douglas Heal.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Premier says the man on that wasn't ugly enough, but I tell you it looked very much like the Premier. I think you're very good-looking. You'll notice, of course, that I'm not wearing my glasses.

That should be the first lesson plan in consumer education. But in seriousness, sometime during his estimates I want the minister to outline what the plan is to develop that course. What's its content? I know there's going to be something on labour, there's going to something here and something there. If it's an apologia for the capitalist system, I'm not worried. I know how the teachers, administrators and parents will be able to handle that, and they'll handle it very swiftly. If that was the approach, the attempt by the ministry would be pathetic. I'm sure it wouldn't be, but the minister should provide some clarification there.

This afternoon I'll be dealing with the financing formula and school taxes in a very detailed way. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, it's a very complex area, and I want to deal with it in detail, because there's a lot of misunderstanding with the public — and with some members — as to how the complex education-finance formula in this province works. This enables the Minister of Education to get away with remarks that are designed to confuse the taxpayer and voter — remarks made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) as well as the Minister of Education blaming school boards for the increase of taxation on the property-owner. I've never seen a more dissembling press release come out of a ministry. It was a very deceptive piece of work. If the minister did not understand the education-finance formula, he should tell us so we can give him a lesson. No responsibility lies on the shoulders of the school boards. The responsibility lies with the ministry and its policy decisions about how much the province will pay and how much the local taxpayer will contribute to the basic education program. That decision is a political decision and he should admit it. He should not try and confuse the issue by blaming the school boards, who are doing a salutary job. Standing up this morning, congratulating the school boards and saying how wonderful it was working with them, having just kicked them in the shins a couple of weeks ago, is a bit politically two-faced, so to speak — along the lines of parliamentary language.

As I say, I'll be dealing substantially with the school costs and asking the minister to answer some of the questions raised by school trustees and others in the province with respect to the role he's playing. He has sort of slipped back into the role of his predecessor in that jiggery-pokery — as it were, so to speak, be that as it may.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would rule on the parliamentary use of "as it were."

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's hard to comment on a figure of speech, hon. members. The thing we can say is that of course

[ Page 5602 ]

a member cannot impute any false or deliberate motive to another member in the House. A figure of speech such as "as it were," on the face of it, doesn't seem unparliamentary to the Chair.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, it was beautiful to watch the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) keep his eye on the clock and wonder why it was moving so slowly. I've never seen anyone in this House faintly praising a minister as much as this member. It's so difficult for him to find fault with the Ministry of Education.

Today he informed us that he will be bringing up the matter of finance soon, and he would like the minister to explain the question of departmental finance. We'll wait in anticipation for his questions on that one. I'm sure that what he gets will be far from what he thinks.

I have risen to speak today because of the remarks of the hon. member. He said that the schools should teach who to believe and who not to believe. That is the flaw in his socialist theory. I think we should bring that up at this point. The school has no place in teaching the judgment of who to believe and who not to believe. The school has a place in teaching the order of understanding and logic, and being able to assess and decide on their own who to believe and who not to believe. That is the real flaw in the socialist system of education. He asked me, off the cuff: should they teach socialism? Of course they should teach socialism. They should teach communism and all the isms, including capitalism. The point is to teach what they are and to teach the student how to believe and how to form the judgment. That is the responsibility of the schools.

I bring up the simple point that he brought up in a teasing way: the question of BCRIC and how the Premier sponsored BCRIC and it was a great thing. I want to tell that member that it was the greatest thing in business teaching that this province has ever had to this day. Our students in all our schools and our people understand what the stock-market is. It is simply a little gambling casino, or a big one, whichever you like. It has no reflection whatsoever on the value of stock. It is the value of hearsay. Some people hear something is going to happen and say: "We want...." It's the system that builds the country. You take your chance and you put your money where your mouth is. Sometimes you lose and sometimes you win.

I tell you that the people of British Columbia have a better knowledge of the stock-market today than they ever had before. If BCRIC did no more, it has been a great teaching institution. It certainly has helped the people of British Columbia understand what the stock-market represents.

I know that children understand it. Only three weeks ago I was in a high school, talking to children about their coming to this House. I was amazed that one question they asked was: "What do you think of BCRIC?" Well, I told them what I thought: it was a great company and it would prosper as time went on. I was amazed at their knowledge of the stock-market. I'm amazed at the knowledge of children in our schools. I do not think that in all of Canada we have a better system of schools than we have in British Columbia, because our schools are teaching children not what to believe — not at all — but how to think and reason. That's a situation that socialists do not teach. Socialists want to teach socialism entirely: the socialist way is the only way, where everybody is level and down in the dumps. We teach that each person has the right to be as strong as he wishes to be and to rise to whatever level he desires. The schools are doing this. I think they are doing an excellent job. I compliment all members of this House. That member says we must teach the children what to believe. I say that it will be a sorry day for British Columbia when we teach the children what to believe.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.