[ Page 5627 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Finance Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading (voided at page 5643) –– 5627

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

On vote 54: ministers office –– 5627

Mr. Lauk

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Howard

Division on an amendment

On vote 55: management operations and educational finance –– 5642

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 55 –– 5643

Mr. Cocke

Division on the amendment

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction of amendments –– 5643

Tabling Documents

List of grants made under the School Act.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 5643

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a button just extended to me the rest of my colleagues feel discriminated against. On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, we want to extend our best wishes and congratulations to Mr. Claude Richmond, MLA-elect for Kamloops, and our congratulations to the Premier for conducting a successful campaign. I'm sure the Premier won't be offended if I don't wear the button.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would be pleased if the House would welcome two very special visitors today. We are very privileged to have had Pastor Maureen Gaglardi offer the prayer on behalf of the Legislature. On behalf of my colleague from Vancouver–Little Mountain, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I would like the House to welcome Pastor Maureen Gaglardi of the Glad Tidings Temple. The members will remember that Pastor Gaglardi's uncle served this House well for many years in the province of British Columbia.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I really would like to take this opportunity to welcome my husband Ray, who is on his first visit to the House this year.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would like to draw the attention of the House to a distinguished visitor in the members' gallery today. He is Mr. J. Jacob, Deputy High Commissioner and counsellor of India in Ottawa, who is visiting Victoria for the day.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming a group of students from Booth Memorial Junior Secondary School in Prince Rupert, along with their teacher Bert Slater, who are visiting the buildings today. They're going to be observing us for a short wide in the House, so you know what you have to do — be real good.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, again this Session we have been fortunate in having four very excellent interns in our caucus. On behalf of the Social Credit caucus, I would like to extend our appreciation and best wishes to those interns. They are Sheila Burns, Karen Layng, Kevin McColl, and Rosa Munzer. I would ask the House to join me in wishing them well in their future endeavours.

MR. LEA: Along with the chairman of the Social Credit caucus, I would like to thank all of the interns, especially those who worked in our caucus. They worked hard and well over the past while. We also wish them the best of luck. I hear they're going to Ottawa for ten days, and they're going to need a bit of luck when they go down there. Also, it is another birthday for someone from CBC who has been closely connected with us for a great long while; today is Jackie Melville's birthday. I've been informed that Jackie will not be with us that much longer. It's nothing to do with the age she's reached; she has been transferred to Toronto, or at least to central Canada somewhere. So congratulations to Jackie on her birthday and best wishes to her in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The members should be aware that this is the last day on which those persons involved in our internship program will be with us while we are sitting.They depart at the beginning of the week for Ottawa and, when they return they will no longer be in the program. This will be our last opportunity to wish them well,

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act.

Bill 13 introduced. read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the'House after today.

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. In discussing these estimates yesterday the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) made a particular charge in relation to some questions. He made the charge that a number of special aid grants made by this ministry under the provisions of sections 181 and 187 of the School Act were made, as he put it, "out of political. partisan motivation." He went through those grants and suggested that moneys had been given to constituencies that were represented by government members for partisan purposes. Yesterday I supplied him with a breakdown of all those grants, and today I would like to file with the House the details of those grants and how they were broken down.

Quite apart from being motivated by any partisan considerations, the breakdown of these grants shows that the only grants that were discretionary were some $1.2 million of special aid grants. The rest of the items he referred to were grants made according to the act based on enrolment increases in certain school districts, which the ministry then credits back to the districts for the increased enrolments. Those districts were, understandably, the growth districts such as Surrey, Abbotsford, Langley, Howe Sound and so on. Later figures showed that those were moneys under the formula that those districts would have got. The other feature of these grants were that they were given for Cadre de français programs established in sonic school districts, and all the considerations of these grants are set out in the sheet. The only items that were discretionary were the special aid items, which were given to nine school districts for reasons of low assessment base, alteration in expenses, sudden emergencies such as a school burning down or start-up costs for a new district such as Stikine. Quite apart from proving my friend opposite's argument that these were given for partisan purposes, if these figures were analyzed they would show that of the $1.2 million some $730 million went into constituencies

[ Page 5628 ]

represented by members opposite and not to government constituencies. The truth is that who represented the school districts in this Legislature had nothing to do with these grants whatsoever. They were given on a totally fair, educational basis.

Knowing this member opposite is a fair-minded individual, that he's a member of the bar and so on, and also knowing that these grants are carefully prepared by officials that he deals with during the year, I'm sure he'll do the right thing and give an unqualified apology to this House — and do it with a little bit of grace, hon. member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if we address the Chair in our remarks, it greatly helps in the tone of debate.

MR. LAUK: I want to improve the tone of debate, and I'll do the right thing. I do not accept the minister's or his deputy's explanation or the material that was sent to me with respect to justifying the minister's overall position on special aid grants, and I do so on the following grounds. The list fails to address the question — and even in my discussion with the minister's staff.... How can the public be sure that a district with a specified set of circumstances — and I've analyzed all the figures — is treated in a similar manner to another district with the same circumstances'? I have not been satisfied on that count, Mr. Chairman. The original charge that I made still stands. There's no point telling me that you have statutory compulsion for these grants. I say nonsense, and I'll tell you why for a number of reasons. Carefully analyzing the information — which, by the way, we requested many days ago and which the minister's office steadfastly refused to provide us, except in what he thought were the twilight hours of his estimates — is the right thing to do. We carefully analyzed what this minister is doing and whether he's doing it according to law, partisanship or what have you.

The list that I was provided purports to be details of grants made under section 181(5) and section 187. Therefore I sought the legal approval for the grants as outlined in the School Act under those sections. But the amounts are identical with those on order-in-council No. 1034, which says its authority is section 187 only. It may seem like a minor point, Mr. Chairman, but the point I want to make by bringing it to the committee's attention is that this minister has used section 187 — a very broad section — to grant special-need-and-special-aid grants, and he's making these special-need-and-special-aid grants on the basis of unknown criteria. If you look at it from district to district, he cannot justify making grants for high enrolment in some areas and not in other areas. That's one thing.

I also noticed something here that I had never heard of, although we try to monitor the ministry extremely closely. If there is a press release or statement from the minister that I've missed, perhaps he'd be kind enough to bring it to my attention. What steps has the minister taken to advise all school boards that it is possible to obtain moneys in adjustment of transportation for 1980 in the 1981 calendar year? Is this retrospective adjustment policy applicable to items other than transportation'? If so, where can we find that information? Why was the adjustment necessary in the cases that have been pointed out on the sheet that the minister has provided for me? Why could the cabinet not simply pass an order-in-council for the necessary special aid in the calendar year to which it applies? Why is the transportation aid given in the subsequent calendar year applied to the particular districts that got the aid? Did others apply for aid? Did others know about this application under the law? Perhaps not.

Section 187 is worded as a catch-all. According to the form, it has been formalized into a series of sections and special maintenance grants. Did the minister make any representation — and this is the gist and the most important part of this whole debate — to Treasury Board to secure relief for the general property taxpayer, either under section 187 or by reducing the mill rate or by asking for an increase in the homeowner grant? Did he take any of those three steps? He'd be doing the right thing, as a member of the bar and as the jolly good fellow that he is, if he'd stand up in the chamber today.... Do the right thing by relieving the home owning taxpayers of this province, instead of playing games with their money.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the provision of grants for enrolment increases and for transportation adjustments is well set out in policy documents of the ministry, which are in the hands of all school boards. These readjustments are made annually on the basis of figures. Similarly with the policy of Cadre de français. There is absolutely nothing unusual or secret about this policy or how it's applied.

MR. LAUK: Do all. the boards know about it'?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, they do.

MR. LAUK: Can you file the circular with the House'?

HON. MR. SMITH: There are policy statements that contain this. Districts have been sending in statistics for these grants for years. There is nothing new about this procedure at all. As for the argument that this member makes that the special aid provisions of this act could have been used to relieve high assessment school districts, Mr. Chairman, I dealt with that very fully, both in this House and in my press release at the time of the setting of the basic levy. To take a step such as that, as this member knows, would have been to have robbed from the amount of money in the estimates — the basic grants for school districts — and taken away from all other districts in order to provide...

MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

HON. MR. SMITH: It is true.

...to try to provide a small pot of money.

MR. LAUK: If you believe that, you don't understand the financing formula.

HON. MR. SMITH: Hon. member, when you sat on the treasury benches your government liked to create pots of discretionary grants and sprinkle them around in a way that didn't have guidelines, but we don't do that.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister is obviously doing something that I find unusual for his practice. He's stating a situation which is not the case. Under the NDP Minister of education there were fewer discretionary grants. The lists that are given to me boggle the mind. This minister is playing Marie Antoinette with the school districts of this

[ Page 5629 ]

province. He's starving them on the basic education program and then at the end he is sprinkling these little pieces of cake that he calls special grants, which his predecessor, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), brought in as amendments to the education act, so he could give awards for excellence. Awards for excellence — what arrogance, what audacity and what disrespect that government holds for school board trustees across this province. Feed them cake. Let this minister, who is so very touchy about his own stomach and a proper breakfast, wander about this province passing out crumbs of cake to the trustees.

Let me tell you what the special grants are that should be built in on a formula based on the McMath commission. Let the record show that this minister has not given an answer at all to the charges of the opposition that he is riding on the backs of the local taxpayer, the homeowners of this province that he has not fairly dealt with the homeowners of this province; that he has dissembled in his attack on trustees throughout this province. He has not given an answer throughout two days of debate. He refuses to stand in his place and answer for his actions on the basic education program and not providing a sufficient provincial share.

Here are the pieces of cake that this minister is handing out under section 187 — discretionary grants, like some paternalistic, Rudyard Kiplingesque white man's burden.

HON. MR. SMITH: Racist!

MR. LAUK: Have you had enough of that?

Let the record show that this minister has not answered the charges. He has accused the former NDP administration of handing out discretionary grants. We had nothing in the way of discretionary grants such as this minister has, where he goes — enrolment increases. Cadre de français, as if that should be at the foot of the throne: special aid grants — if the poor dears lose a school by fire, they can beg the minister for a calendar year and apply under the facilities manual to try to get some grants.

Others, such as the disabled, have to beg. The minister likes to use the word "handicapped." I got a note from someone yesterday hearing this debate, who was a handicapped person. He said: "Mr. Lauk, I appreciate your trying to correct the minister and all other hon. members who use the word 'handicapped.' The origin of the word is 'hand' and 'cap' and the disabled people of this province know full well where that word comes from." Now we know why the minister likes to use it so much. Grants to the handicapped, the disabled persons begging the minister so he can hand them out at the end of the year. It makes him feel good, Mr. Chairman; he's got power; he's now the Crown.

It says "other." Let's take a look at that — section 19, correspondence supervision in school districts. My goodness, if that can't be standardized into some formality, if that can't be built into the basic education system, why not?

Lippincott program, regional support centres, primary development and so on — all of these things are year-end adjustments: handouts, where people come and beg the king, the Crown, for handouts. This man is not an egalitarian. He is not a democrat. He refuses to be one. He's centralizing power in the Ministry of Education. He's turning his back on the locally elected school boards. Let the record show that he has not answered the charges.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to get in the way of a debate between members of the bar, who are oh so fair. I don't know, what that does to my status. In any event, I'll muster up the temerity to proceed.

I would ask the minister to give me an answer with respect to the matter I raised yesterday afternoon — not the letter from the Revelstoke Teachers Association blistering the minister for rudeness, which I suppose is between the minister and the school teachers, but the more important issue of disabled people. I think the bulletins from the department and from various other ministries designate them as handicapped people, which is perhaps not a very flattering term to use. Perhaps we should be talking about "disabled people who have special learning needs." I raised with him the problem of people requiring these special classes from Revelstoke and many areas of the interior, like Clearwater and a variety of small communities. who must rely on the Overlander School in Kamloops to gain the kind of special attention that they need. I asked the minister whether or not the $300-a-year grant that is made to the visually and hearing impaired people would be extended to all disabled people requiring this care. The minister indicated that the grant level might be increased this year, but he did nothing to assure me or the committee that this grant will be applied equitably and fairly across the board, rather than in what I view as a discriminatory fashion — just to the visually and hearing impaired. Certainly if that is the standard, it should be applied fairly and equally to all disabled people requiring special education.

The other problem which I raised — the minister didn't really answer it satisfactorily — was with respect to boarding facilities in Kamloops when these students are obliged to seek entry into the Overlander School. It's been acknowledged, and I think the minister and his colleagues are aware of it, that there's just not adequate private housing facilities in Kamloops for youngsters in this category.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

Last January I met with a group of people in Revelstoke — representatives of the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education along with local representatives — to see what might be done to find accommodation for these people. I was given to understand by the very great interest of the representatives there and their good cooperation that there's a problem between the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Human Resources and perhaps one or two other ministries. It's kind of a bureaucratic problem in terms of who has jurisdiction and basic responsibility. I think that's a real crime when government ministries quibble over jurisdiction while children who should be attending that school for disabled people are unable to gain entry because they have no place to stay, particularly when a government facility — such as that which exists at Tranquille — could accommodate them in the interim period, with some modest renovation.

I note the press releases that come out of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing: "Province Will Fund Handicapped Housing Units in Vancouver," "Group Home for the Handicapped in Vancouver Is Given Conditional Approval for Shelter Assistance," "Province Will Fund Housing for the Physically Disabled in Prince George," and on and on, My appeal to the minister is: for gosh sakes get your act together over there. I don't care whether it's the Minister of Education, the Ministry of Human Resources or the Ministry

[ Page 5630 ]

of Lands, Parks and Housing, but for about eight students that I can identify between Revelstoke and the North Thompson area that need the opportunity for entrance to the Overlander School — the only facility in the area that can accommodate them — it's just totally unacceptable. It's stupid and incompetent that the government can't make a hard political decision and pull the responsibility together under one agency and say that they're not going to hide behind this overlapping jurisdiction anymore, and that a political decision is going to be made to find facilities for these people. They need education, and it's basically the government's responsibility to make sure that the facilities and the housing are available for them to gain entry immediately.

I would like a commitment from the minister on those two points: the equalization of the grants available for all disabled people, not only the visually and hearing-impaired; and the provision of living accommodation, either at Tranquille or in some other area that the government is able to establish on an interim basis, at least, for all students wishing to gain entry into Overlander School. I don't think that's too much to ask. I certainly urge the minister to give that consideration and to make the commitment. It's not a major budgetary item; it's a matter of political will.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly look favourably to extending that larger grant to other special-needs categories. That point is very well taken. I think we should extend it. How far we extend it will depend on the numbers and the resources.

Secondly, the overlapping of responsibilities in the field of special-needs children exasperates me. We do have an Interministerial Children's Committee which has worked reasonably well in some areas. I think that that committee call get this matter together to pinpoint some responsibilities for the housing problem that these students attending Overlander face. I thank the member. I think those are two very positive and constructive suggestions.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the Greater Victoria School Board is, I think, widely recognized across British Columbia as one of the most enlightened, progressive and imaginative of them all. What I wish to do this morning is describe some of the problems our school district has in the capital city with the provincial government's basic educational program. As well, I'd like to describe a few of the achievements of the Greater Victoria School Board over the last several years. I'd like to talk about some of the ways in which they have been able, under very tight and difficult financial circumstances, to broaden the base of community participation in education and to provide all educational service to students young and old, of which I think the people of greater Victoria are enormously proud.

The Greater Victoria School District has four municipalities within it and is the third largest by way of enrolment in all of British Columbia. Yet, given the sheer numbers of it, it should be observed as well that our school district has over several years, including this year, been enormously cost conscious and prudent in its financial planning. There are 75 school districts in British Columbia. The second lowest — number 74 out of 75 — in regard to gross operating costs per pupil is the district of Victoria. Seventy-three more districts spend more per pupil in terms of the gross operating cost than does our district. It can certainly be argued that they've been extremely prudent with public funds. Yet I think it's a matter of great pride to the people of Victoria that in the face of declining provincial participation in the budget requirements of our district they have nonetheless been able to simultaneously hold costs down and expand the range of community and special programs, as well as, of course, provide the basic educational services necessary.

Let me talk for a moment about what the Greater Victoria School District is up against. In 1975 its total budget was $42 million. The provincial government contributed 44 percent of that the school district itself 51 percent. There is a small column for "other," each district often having these resources that was in the amount of 4 percent. In 1981 the budget is $67 million. What is the provincial contribution? It has declined from 44 percent to 28 percent since 1975. What is the school district's local contribution? It has risen from 51 percent in 1975 to 67 percent this year. I recall when the now Minister of Education was running in Oak Bay. He said he thought the McMath formula of 75-25 was pretty good. He committed himself, as I recall his campaign literature saying, to attempting to introduce that program. What's happened under his government? Just the opposite. What achievements can he point to? Just the opposite, and even worse than his predecessors. It is a shame and a disgrace that the people of Victoria have had to pay from 51 percent up to 67 percent by way of Social Credit contributions — to put it ironically — since 1975. It is a shame and a disgrace that that sort of thing should be happening, especially in the light of the minister's personal campaign promises to the contrary.

In 1975 the province paid 44 percent of the school budget in Victoria; this year they paid 28 percent. There's no excuse for that. It's widely recognized that school districts have one basic source of revenue, and that's the property tax. The property tax is inherently regressive and unfair, especially in a community like my own where so many senior citizens attempt to retain ownership of their own homes and attempt to do so in the face of ever-increasing taxes. It's especially unfair and unreasonable, I argue, in the capital city, which has the highest proportion of seniors of any community in British Columbia, that so many of those seniors, because of the neglect, failure and deliberate intent of Social Credit to underfinance education — as they are currently underfinancing medicare — should find themselves being the personal victims.

Let me repeat. In 1980 the gross operating cost per pupil in greater Victoria was the second lowest out of 75 districts in all of British Columbia. It cannot be argued that our district in this capital city is spending money foolishly. To the contrary, it's been argued by many people in the professions that they've not been able to spend enough money. I think the reasons for that are fairly obvious.

Nonetheless, personally I am extraordinarily proud of the achievements of our school district over-the last several years, and I want to talk about some of them for a moment.

I think it's important to know how, even in the face of declining provincial participation, one school board — School District 61 — has been able to broaden the base of important and vital educational services. I want, if I may, to talk to the committee about the achievements of School District 61 in a very difficult field, I'm referring to native Indian education.

Every level of government pays lip-service to helping native people. and to the extraordinary dropout rate — if you will, the educational mortality rate among native Indians in this province. There are all sorts of reasons for that.

[ Page 5631 ]

To their credit the school district of Victoria has now established a Native Indian Education Commission. That commission comprises representatives of the professional teaching community, citizens at large and, of course, most importantly, native Indians themselves, both status and non-status. This commission is, now putting together programs for the district and administering those which currently exist, most particularly at the S. J. Willis school — a junior high school from which I was proud to graduate. It is an attempt — against the face of declining provincial participation — to assist native Indians to have full and personal access to every educational program available, preferably up to and beyond grade 12. It's an attempt as well to involve the families of native children in the education and encouragement of their own children, that too being an important and vital link. This year the school district in Victoria is contributing another $250,000 to make that program work. I would argue it is one of the leading and most progressive school districts in all of British Columbia in that field. I think they deserve great credit for that great achievement. They've taken a lead that the province hasn't taken, They've achieved things that many other districts have yet to achieve. and they've done so in the face of declining provincial participation in their budget.

Career education is also extraordinarily important. The notion of being prepared for a competent apprenticeship through the school system is a notion that many people support. The notion of establishing cancer schools where kids who were ordinarily considered somehow unfit for what were thought in the old days to have been the better forms of education are now properly and rightfully being told that it is an important and proud contribution they make to be trained to participate at many levels in all the workforces of British Columbia.

Once again, the achievements of the Greater Victoria School District are remarkable and important. This year in our school district an extra $154,000 is being spent to guarantee that one of the principal results of the educational policy in greater Victoria shall be to ensure that any person, female or male, who wishes to take up a career via the pre-apprenticeship program, via the career training program or via all the special services and facilities — many of them very costly — shall be allowed to do so, in order that the workforce of British Columbia shall be more trained and better able to compete, in the name of all of British Columbia, with our overseas and American competitors, who are often much better trained through their school systems than our kids have been trained through this school system.

I think it's extremely important that school districts be encouraged to do this. However. It's very difficult for them to be encouraged to do so when in 1975 the province paid 44 percent of the school budget and in 1981 they are paying 28 percent.

Why is the property tax unfair? Let me offer a second argument here. It's unfair because the province has a rational option unavailable to school districts. The province can call on the resource revenues of the whole province of British Columbia: the stumpage. the royalty, the mineral rights and the petroleum leases — all the revenues from the great assets of this particular part of the planet are available to the province to finance education and everything else. The resource base of the province of British Columbia is far greater than the resource base of School District 61 or any other, because in my district, as in all the others. the only resource base is the property tax. The province has 100 times broader a base, and is therefore far more obligated to contribute by virtue of the greater vastness and applicability of its tax sources.

I congratulate School District 61 for pioneering. pushing and making real and important a cancer education program in the face of declining provincial participation.

There's another program which our district has been heavily involved in in the last couple of years. I'm personally very proud of it, and the minister made reference to it in his opening remarks. These are programs for the gifted. I strongly feel that in the interests and the name of academic excellence giftedness must be recognized, enhanced and encouraged in every way. This costs money, and it's hard to do. In this instance I congratulate the minister and his predecessor for responding to the many demands — not just here in the House, but across the province — that have been made in the name of programs for the gifted. That does not mean that programs for learning-disabled children are unimportant — not at all. I wouldn't, for any reason, attempt to disqualify or disfranchise any of those kids. They are also and equally important. But I hold that one of the assets we've not dealt with, one of the resources we have not properly used, is the resource of wit, imagination and creativity, and sometimes a special quality of genius that can be found in the very most gifted and talented of the young people in this and every other district.

To the credit of School District 61 they have this year launched a major new initiative based on the proven success of the initiative started two years ago in Esquimalt. They now propose to expand that program across the district, They propose to spend another $100,000 this year to guarantee, in the name of academic excellence and the highest learning, standards, that kids capable of the highest learning achievements shall be given the opportunity to do so. The best and brightest students in the district are now being challenged to reach their potential, and thereby to make the richest and greatest possible contribution to the whole society. This is money well spent. I only urge the province to contribute a more important part of those moneys that have to be spent in order to obtain such academic excellence.

There is another reason why the basic educational programs is unfair. School boards that wish to decentralize find it difficult and expensive to do so. School boards that wish to engage in the pioneering, revitalizing and reanimating programs of community schools find it, initially, costly. How do we pay for that? Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman. they have only one source — the property tax. The province has 100 more sources, but since 1975 the province has cut its share in Victoria from 44 percent to 28 percent. Nonetheless. the Greater Victoria School District, under the leadership of several able chairmen over the last six, seven and eight years — and in particular through the James Bay Community School, which is an outstanding example of success in community and neighbourhood participation in schools — has great achievements to show for the money that the people of Victoria have spent.

There are currently three community schools flourishing in Greater Victoria. These community schools are based on two operating principles. First of all, family, neighbourhood and local interests shall have a say in determining the course and the content of educational materials made available. This is vitally and democratically important in a school system like ours and. I argue, in every school across the province.

[ Page 5632 ]

Secondly, young people are thereby trained, encouraged and given the opportunity to learn something about being co-responsible for their own education when, as my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has pointed out, at the South Park family school — also in Victoria — a pioneering effort in cooperative education managed by the parents and financed by the school district.... The kids themselves regularly come down to these parliament buildings and pick up the newspapers that you and I leaf through quickly and throw away, and contribute that to their own recycling project. They deserve a heck of a lot of credit for that. That's one of the achievements here in this district of the South Park family school, which exists only because we have a school district sufficiently progressive, enlightened, able and prudent financially to be able to put it all together. I congratulate those kids and their parents, and I observe that that is the second great principle of community schools. It is that notion of students becoming co-responsible for their own education and learning in an increasingly mature way how to derive and develop their own education from the best possible sources: academic, theoretical and practical. This too is what community schools do. We now have three in the Greater Victoria School District. Hopefully there will be more in the future. More are being planned right now.

Community schools finally make a prudent, I think, and efficient — I know — use of tax dollars, but it's difficult to get them going. It requires a lot of work, a great deal of organization and a particular kind of discipline of approach that's hard and takes a lot of time. Once again, I congratulate the school district of greater Victoria for what they've been able to do in the last several years in that field. That's important and it's necessary.

I want to talk briefly as well before I sum up about the special educational programs that our school district has been able to put together and finance in the last several years. I would remind you for the last time that they've been able to do so in the face of a province and a provincial educational finance formula which in 1975 picked up 44 percent and this year picks up only 28 percent. The local taxpayers have had to make up the difference and yet, again, in 1980 our gross operating cost per pupil was the second lowest in the whole province — right here in greater Victoria.

Special programs that have been set up by our school district include the challenge to provide special educational services for the disabled. "The full-services model," as the board by policy has described it, includes and incorporates all of those kids to the maximum extent in the public educational services and systems of greater Victoria. They are not excluded unless the parents wish something special set aside. They are, rather — personally, humanly and in the most profoundly civilized way, as disabled persons — encouraged to participate 100 percent. The importance of that humanity and decency can't be measured in simple bucks: nonetheless, it does cost money to do it. Our school district, has found the money, and yet kept the gross operating cost per pupil well below the provincial average.

Our school district is providing special education services for the learning disabled, for emotionally disturbed young people, for physically handicapped young people and for young people of — if you will — relatively minor levels of mental retardation who do not belong in institutions, whose families cannot look after them directly and who do, by right of franchise, belong in the public school system. These programs, too, are being provided. Our school service provides education in hospitals, education for autistic children, and for pregnant teen-aged girls, who should be encouraged to stay in school and in the mainstream of society, instead of running off in shame and humiliation. never to enter the schools again and never to learn another thing in their lives except to be humiliated for their mistake. Our school system provides special education programs for troubled young people, for the deaf, for the visually impaired and for many others. It does all of this with an extraordinarily prudent budget and in the face of declining provincial participation.

We have French immersion programs that are, I think, one of the beacons and one of the highlights of all French immersion teaching in British Columbia. Our school district has evening programs for high school dropouts; it has beginners' programs in multicultural and multi-language education — most particularly at George Jay Elementary School, which I had the privilege of attending as a student years ago and as an MLA at recent graduation ceremonies. The notion of enfranchising persons who come to our community, who live in the inner city and whose command of English is originally not great, is extremely important. The Vancouver School Board has had experience in this for years and years, to their credit; so too is the Greater Victoria School Board now accepting its responsibilities and prepared to help pay for it as well.

I think that the achievements of the Greater Victoria School Board are those to make every one of the five MLAs, including the Minister of Education, personally proud. I think we could be a great deal prouder of future achievement if the province would reconsider its commitment to financing of education and would thereby offer a more fair and reasonable share. The purpose of this speech is to demonstrate how one school board can be fiscally responsible and prudent and, nonetheless, at the same time pioneer bold and innovative programs and approaches in the educational system. I call on the minister to reconsider; I call on the minister to restate a provincial financial formula and to be more generous across the province and to be more responsible for the basic obligation this and every other provincial government has to finance the highest standards of career training and academic excellence that are available. In British Columbia we can afford to do no less.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I most certainly could endorse the comments the member has made about many of the good programs that are being offered in my own school district. I'm aware of the work that is being done by the community schools and I admire the James Bay community school. I have a number of neighbourhood elementary schools within the physical boundaries of my constituency, and while they are not, in the technical sense, community schools, they have a great deal of community involvement also. This school board does very good work in the field of special education. It does a lot of good work in ESL and also in the immersion programs that it's been running. The initiatives in education for the gifted — of course, I share this view with the member — are long overdue and must proceed.

The financial situation here, though, hon. member, I don't think is quite as bleak as you paint it. The basic program is really the figure that has been used as to percentages, and while your figures may be correct on gross operating budgets. I do notice that the provincial share on the basic

[ Page 5633 ]

program in the Greater Victoria School District has risen in the past year from 32 percent to 34 percent. That would be, I suppose, because under the formula the rate at which assessments rose here was still considerably less than that at which they rose in the lower mainland. So there has been an increase in the basic program percentage.

Another factor that is sometimes lost sight of is that the reduction of the assessed value for homeowners has had quite an effect in Victoria. According to the Assessment Authority, the average tax-roll, single-family home in Victoria district this year is worth about $88,500, and the assessed value of that for tax purposes is $9,745. That same home in 1980 was $64,000, and the tax paid at the 14.5 percent figure was $9,285. So that did hold down the impact of assessments considerably for this district. It didn't do as well in Vancouver, where the rise was higher, but it had an impact here. For the homeowner, in any event, there was that direct relief.

I would like to see more provincial help in the area of special education, and there is going to be more provincial help in that area. We've put additional money into the Victoria budget for ESL and the refugee programs. But I share generally in the hon. member's praise of the work of this district, and that's often lost sight of when we talk about budget increases. They did have a hefty budget increase this year — I think it was about 22 percent. with a declining enrolment — but that, of course, only tells part of the picture; you have to look at the initiatives they undertook. I thank the member for his comments.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the minister in terms of his role as chairperson of the International Year of the Disabled. I'd like to ask him a couple of questions about that. I notice there has been a proclamation that May 1981 is to be known as Disabled Persons Awareness Month. As we're about halfway through the month of May now, I'm wondering whether the minister will let me know what his ministry or his committee have done in terms of this proclamation. It's been very difficult to see anything that has actually happened.

I also want to ask him whether he has read the report "Obstacles." It's the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled that was tabled in the federal House. Specifically I'd like to deal with some of the recommendations in that report dealing with education. There is one recommendation about provincial Ministers of Education being encouraged to develop course material and teaching aids about physical and mental disability for use in teacher training programs. I'd like some response as to whether they've started to implement that recommendation or not.

The other recommendation about encouraging the inclusion of material dealing with learning and mental illness in the curricula is the subject of my next question. I want to know if he has done anything about that or not. I also want to draw a press release to the minister's attention which was issued in January 1980. It announced that the Ministries of Health, Education and Human Resources were forming an interministerial team to conduct a survey of the special needs of and the services available to the severely disabled children and adolescents throughout British Columbia. The news release said that the team began its work in January 1980 and was expected to complete its task by the end of that year. That would have been December 31, 1980.

On May 6 of this year, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) directed a question to the Minister of Health about this report to find out if it had been completed by the end of the year and when it was going to be released. At that time, the Minister of Health said that it would be released in time, but he was waiting for some kind of input from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Education.

We've made some inquiries, and we discovered that there were four draft reports finished at the end of January. The final report was ready by the end of March. There was a limited edition printed about three weeks ago, and that's where the matter rests. There have been some problems in getting the report past the deputy ministers, and I'm sure this does not include the Deputy Minister of Education. That means that the Minister of Education would have seen the report. If so, in view of the fact that it cost the taxpayers of this province $150,000 to have public hearings and to finance the research which was done on this report, I wonder if the minister would undertake an agreement at this time to table that report at the end of the estimates. I realize that you can't table documents during the sitting of the committee. But since there is some reluctance on the part of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to do so, and we have no idea when we'll be dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources.... I know the Minister of Education must have seen the report, so I'm wondering if he would be willing to table this document for us.

A great deal has been said about physical disabilities and the programs being introduced in the schools to deal with the physically disabled. By the way, I'd like to support the comments of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). The word is "disability" and not "handicapped."' In fact the disabled tell us that the only handicap they have is the attitude of people towards them.

However, in terms of social disability, which surely has to be looked at at the same time, I want to bring to the minister's attention a program known as the Tree and Leaf program in Burnaby. I'm sure the minister has heard of them. This is an alternative education experiment, which unfortunately started out being funded by the federal government on one of their famous three-year grants. The grant has now run out as the three years are up. All of the students for one reason or another did not fit into the traditional school system and could not learn in it. Most of them became behavioural problems and. In most instances, were referred by Human Resources to this particular program which, as I said before, had originally been funded by the federal government under one of its LEAP programs.

The Tree and Leaf program is a vocational program. Instead of concentrating on reading, writing and arithmetic, the program concentrated on using their hands and was broken into two halves. The Tree part of it had to do with agricultural training. They were learning about planting and growing things with a view to going eventually into the nursery business — like the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — or whatever, but certainly getting a job in agriculture of some sort. The second part of the program dealt with carpentry. When I visited the Tree and Leaf program about two months ago, they were working with cedar and making cedar chests. which were being sold through department stores in other areas. They have a very high success rate. The program is open to both male and female students. Unfortunately, it's going to close down next Friday unless it gets some funding from somewhere.

[ Page 5634 ]

The first contact that they made was with the Ministry of the Attorney-General, because so many of these students in the program are students who also have come into contact with the law for one reason or another. Through the social worker and the probation worker, as the case may be, some of them were referred to this program and were helped by it. In fact, it resulted in a saving to us as a province, because through their rehabilitation they didn't go on to ending up eventually, in jails and places like that.

However, the Attorney-General's department decided that their responsibility did not cover education and so referred them to Human Resources. Human Resources, which as I said before is responsible for most of the referrals, looked at the, program and decided that it really had too large an educational component for them to be responsible for funding it, and so they turned it down. It is my understanding that you, Mr. Minister, as the Minister of Education are their last resort. If the Ministry of Education turns them down, that's going to be the end of the program. When I spoke to them on the phone yesterday, they told me that as of that time they had not received a word, so the program was going to be closing on Friday of next week.

I don't know whether this comes under the mandate of the funding which is covered by the budget for the International Year of the Disabled or not. But I would like to suggest to you that social disability can be as much of a handicap as physical or mental disability. I would ask you to take a serious look at the request. I shouldn't have said Burnaby the program is actually New Westminster. They actually work out of a storehouse in New Westminster, but a large number of the referrals are from the Burnaby school district.

I, too, would like to say a word or two about what the funding is doing to the Burnaby school system and what the taxation philosophy of the government is doing to the Burnaby school board and to the Burnaby school system. Like Victoria and every other municipality, Burnaby is experiencing a tremendous increase in terms of property values and, at the same time, a decrease in terms of the province's contribution to school costs. I can use the same kinds of statistics that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) used, which was that in 1975 — dealing primarily with direct provincial grants — the provincial government made a contribution to the budget of 40.6 percent. and the municipality took up the balance. At that time the mill rate was 41.550. We find that in 1980 the provincial contribution had dropped to 20.3 percent of the budget and the mill rate went up to 51.140. Between 1980 and 1981 property values in Burnaby — like everywhere else in the lower mainland — just went absolutely berserk. Everyone anticipated that there would be a decrease in the mill rate to sort of soften the burden on the homeowner. Instead, what actually happened was that the provincial contribution to the budget dropped to 14.8 percent, and the mill rate was actually increased to 55.267.

Maybe I should tell you a little bit about what that has done in terms of the taxpayers of Burnaby. The information that I got from the school board was that based on the mediuan value of houses, there was, in fact, an increase of something like 17.9 percent over last year's tax demand. It says that where the standard homeowner grant applied, and is deducted, the percentage increase is even higher. The figure they give is something like 69.8 percent of the smaller base. I gave you the figures before about 1975, when it was 40.6 percent; in 1976 it dropped to 36.3 percent; in 1977 to 34.0 percent; in 1978 to 27.6 percent; in 1979 to 21.8 percent; in 1980 to 20.3 percent; and this year to 14.8 percent. All the time, the mill rate was increasing as the percentage of the provincial budget was decreasing.

What they're saying is that superimposed on the basic education program — paid for by the 41.8 mills; the Minister of Education makes that decision, and they have no control over that — is the very broad mandate to provide, first of all, education for all children, regardless of handicaps, linguistic status, health, etc. They're saying that these create additional costs which, with increased expectation for services to each pupil, creates an additional demand of 13.47 mills on the local taxpayer in 1981. The end result is that, while raising for provincial basic program needs some $36 million, the B.C. government actually returns by way of direct grants only $7 million to this facet of the total school costs.

It talks about the fact that the ministry allows $36,200 for each unit of 20 pupils for each school. In Burnaby, where we have 52 schools, they worked out the budget and applied it. I'm very happy to table these figures with the minister. It says something like the basic program was $727,600, and it added to that figure salaries, benefits, teaching supplies and central office administration, which brought it up to $862,900. The result was a deficit of $135,300 from the basic program as defined by the ministry. It said that if you apply this to the 52 schools, then Burnaby taxpayers must finance $7,035,600 simply to accommodate basic program costs in today's economy. Then it goes on to talk about the direct grants as well, which are inadequate to deal with the special programs. I'm going to speak in more detail later about some of the special programs we have in Burnaby, in particular English as a second language. I'm not sure that the minister recognizes how serious that program is to Burnaby, because of the very large immigrant component in the community.

The summary of the school board's report is that this inordinate increase in the demand on the local taxpayers over the years by way of provincial fiat has to be dealt with in some way, that it just cannot continue to increase. They made a number of recommendations to you, in terms of grant increases to the public education system, in keeping with post-secondary levels, and asking in particular for an honest consideration of the McMath commission findings and some implementations of that report.

On behalf of Burnaby, I just wanted to add to what was said by other members here that the taxing formula as it is now, with the government picking up less and less of the tab, is really creating a hardship for those people in Burnaby who still would like to maintain their own homes. Like Victoria, we have a very large senior-citizen community there, and that should be taken into account.

Everyone accepts as fair the McMath recommendation of 75 percent provincial and 25 percent local. No one accepts as fair 14.8 percent provincial and 85.2 percent local. That is definitely not fair.

Since I'm asking for money, there's one other issue I just want to throw in. I do this every year and I'm doing it again — that is, the whole business of the Home and School Federation. I know that I may as well save my breath to cool my porridge, but I'm going to do it again. For 27 years the B.C. Home and School Federation has received funding from the Ministry of Education in the form of operating grants. I'm reading from the brief which was submitted to you, so it's dejá vu. I'm going to keep repeating it — you know, the old Chinese water torture routine — until something happens. Every other province in Canada now provides such a grant to

[ Page 5635 ]

its home and school federation, but for the past four years the B.C. Home and School Federation has received no funding from the ministry — not one cent. Everyone knows what a valuable contribution the parents of children in the school system make. Everyone knows, that the school system couldn't function without the voluntary contributions and input which the Home and School Federation makes. Yet the minister and his government continue to refuse funding to this very important community resource. I think that by so doing they are doing the students of the province a disservice. They are doing all of the people of B.C. a disservice by so doing. I would like to appeal to the Minister of Education to take a second look at that decision because it is a decision which is penalizing us all. We will certainly continue to repeat that request until he accedes to it.

The minister was very proud of the fact that he has agreed to fund once again the women's access program. I wish that I had been able to stand up and congratulate the minister for doing so. I find that I cannot because again it's too little, too late and it's not going to do the job. It's diminishing. It's going to disappear even before the programs have a chance to become crystallized and formalized in the system. Another brief which was presented to the minister had recommendations on behalf of the women's access program. It asked, first of all, that there be a five-year plan so that if there were going to be diminishing contributions it would take place over five years and not over three years: that it start out with approximately $60,000 per college that asked for this fund; that the ministry pick up 90 percent in the first year, which would be $54,000, and the applying institution then would have to pick up 6 percent; that the ministry pick up 75 percent in the second year, 60 percent in the third year, 45 percent in the fourth year, and down to 30 percent in the fifth year. This formula was based on the recognition that the colleges and institutions are starved anyway for funding, they are operating on very tight budgets and they cannot afford to make a larger financial contribution to this particular service than $6,000 this year, maybe $13,000 next year, $22,000...and so forth.

Instead. the minister has introduced a program which is based on a three-year formula. It's a three-year formula, isn't it? That's right. The formula goes something like two-thirds in the first year, 50 percent in the second year and one-third in the third year. That would be fair enough if the colleges weren't so strapped for funding. If they had budgets with which to meet the needs of the community, that formula would probably work. But certainly the colleges that have been in contact with me have pointed out that it is not realistic in terms of their specific budgets.

I want to deal with one in particular and that's Camosun College, which I'm sure the minister is very familiar with. Camosun College started out without any funding at all for Women's Access. Out of their own budget they hired one one-third-time person, who had other responsibilities as well, to be a program coordinator and do the job that Women's Access would do. She was going to be a counsellor and program coordinator. The minister is suggesting that under this formula he will give to Camosun College $20,000 and Camosun College has to find $10,000. Camosun College doesn't have it. Camosun College is not financially able to find $10,000 in order to fund the other third of the cost of this program. What is going to happen is that the position of women's coordinator — she has already been terminated because the college ran out of money and could not afford to pay even her one-third salary — has not been refilled. It's finished, wiped out, done. The college is not financially able to find $10,000 to pick up the other $20,000 from the Ministry of Education, so Camosun College is not going to be able to have a women's access program.

I don't know whether the minister recognizes how important these programs are. First of all, I want to suggest to the minister that the programs address themselves primarily to mature women — women who are re-entering the workforce, women who are re-entering the labour market, women who are upgrading their skills and retraining themselves, Those are the people who are served by Women's Access through counselling, workshops, designing guidelines for them, exploring life skills, shepherding them through the training programs and encouraging them in one way or another to make decisions which are going to enhance the quality of their lives. Most of the women who use the women's access program are women on their own — women who are widowed, divorced. separated or women who find they have to enter the workforce because the incomes earned by their spouses are inadequate because of today's inflationary demands and those kinds of things. It's the mature women in the community who use these programs and who need these programs. These programs operate out of community colleges for the most part, not out of other institutions. So there is a double bind here: they lack funding because the colleges have such a tight budget, and because they primarily address themselves to people who themselves have very limited financial resources they are totally dependent on the institutions for their funding.

What I really want to say to the minister about the women's access program is that I would like him to rethink it. I've received a copy of the brief which Cariboo College made to him and a copy of the brief which Camosun has prepared for him. The Sunshine Coast is trying to put together a women s program. They all say the same thing: that the financial resources are not there except through the Ministry of Education, and there isn't any point in offering two-thirds, 50 percent and one-third because they have no financial resources to come up with the matching percentage to make the programs work.

The task force on older women which travelled around this province and accepted briefs from older women found that the number one thing they talked about after discussing poverty and the lack of funds was retraining, re-education, upgrading skills, re-entering the workforce and re-entering, the labour market. They get the counselling and guidance to do that and to develop some of the skills and self-esteem through the women's access programs. So this is a plea on behalf of the mature women, Mr. Minister of Education. I'm specifically asking on behalf of women with no financial resources. They cannot finance their education themselves. They haven't got it, so it's got to come from the ministry — it can"t come from anywhere else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

MS, BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I only have three minutes, because I had intended to speak at some length about the English-as-a-second- language program. Very briefly. In the Burnaby school district approximately 20 percent of the school population uses English as a second language therefore they are an incredible burden on the school district, and the kinds of financial support that they

[ Page 5636 ]

must get from the Ministry of Education in terms of training staff and helping them meet their budgets cannot be stressed to strongly. In terms of English and being able to go to school in English, 20 percent of the school district needs assistance. English second-language teachers need to be trained. The whole training program and budget the Burnaby school district needs in order to really give these kids a start in life and to give them a good education is something the minister really should address himself to.

If I have one second more, I just want to say that I want the minister to talk about what's happening to nursing education in the colleges now that he's cutting back so heavily on the funding for the colleges. Maybe I will speak about that after he has answered these questions.

HON. MR. SMITH: The initiatives of the International Year of the Disabled had, I thought, been pretty well publicized. Thousands of application forms for grants are already out in the field, and we anticipate a very heavy run of applications for the grant funds. The advisory committee that has been set up has been meeting and functioning. It is setting out guidelines, and has been publicizing the program of the international year. In fact, this committee had a meeting in Victoria this week chaired by Doug Mowat. There has been quite a bit of publicity and interest in the committee and in the program. There's been quite a bit in the press.

Yes, I do have a copy of the parliamentary committee publication, "Obstacles." I can't say that I've studied it carefully. I just wish that the federal government had spent money in this area on other things than their publication and travel of the members of the committee, because they didn't make much of a financial contribution towards giving any assistance to the international year. I think that their total amount of money for the whole of Canada was $1 million. But be that as it was, the publication is useful.

You pointed out the teacher-training aspect of disabled persons. That's a subject that I've taken up quite directly with several of the colleges of education that I visited. You may be aware that only one of the three faculties of education actually require special education as a course for a teacher who's being trained to come into the school system. I have told them quite directly that I think that every college of education should require training in special education. I intend to do more than just say that. I intend to take further steps if that's not done.

The other thing that we've done is that we have tried to improve the training of teachers who are now in the system and never had any opportunity to study or work with children with special needs. We have a fairly extensive provincewide, in-service training program which is continuing this year.

The committee report on the severely handicapped that you mention is not a report that I've studied, but I will be studying it. It is presently in the hands of government, will be analyzed and, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) said, will certainly be eventually laid before this House. But I have not had an opportunity to study that report. I hope to do so, together with the analysis and evaluation, because I'm sure it will be of great assistance to us in this field.

Your program in New Westminster — the Tree and Leaf program — I am not familiar with. From listening to your description of it, it would probably not qualify for special education funding but it would be a program that a local school board could operate if they wished to do so. The three-year program deadline on that might be a deadline that the local board put on it. I'd be happy to look at it if you wish me to do so. Maybe it had Human Resources funding.

MS. BROWN: No, it was federal. I'm using criteria for the socially disabled.

HON. MR. SMITH: It wouldn't fit under our present special education criteria. That I can tell you, but I'd be happy to look at it.

I note your remarks about Burnaby taxes and say to you, as I did to my friend the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), that reducing the assessed taxable value for homeowners did provide considerable relief, but it didn't provide sufficient relief where there were market-value increases in excess of 50 percent or 60 percent. The school tax committee is set up to recommend to government ways that we can assure that this sort of thing isn't repeated.

Your comments about the Home and School Federation, from which, I must say, I heard some good briefs on my tour — not just from their provincial association, but from some of their local associations.... My non-funding of them really has nothing to do with my admiration for them or my belief in their importance; but there are a number of other organizations that represent parents in education across this province. You've encountered a lot of them, as I have — parents' advisory groups, many groups that deal with various learning disabilities, many school committees and consultative committees. The difficulty is that if you fund one even though it might be the original sort of umbrella organization from which all the others sprung — you really have to fund all. I have said to Home and School that I would be quite happy to assist them in a specific project, but I do not favour the notion that they receive an annual operating grant.

MS. BROWN: I just want to finish very quickly. I'm wondering whether the minister would be willing to share the report with us — I'm talking about the interministerial report on needs of severely disabled children and adolescents — so that all of us could look at it, study it and assess it at the same time he is doing so — without prejudice, I think is the legal way of dealing with that. Maybe he would be willing to share the report.

The other thing is that he didn't comment on my concerns expressed about the English-as-a-second-language component in the schools, and the fact that in Burnaby — at last head-count anyway — 20 percent of its school population did not speak English as their primary tongue. I just wanted to point out that I have before me a brochure for a symposium to be held in Vancouver that is talking about the significance of the number of children in the early age group — that's kindergarten — who do not speak English as a "home language," as they call it. They're saying that in some areas it's rapidly approaching 50 percent of the school population in kindergarten. The whole issue of English as a second language is one that we've agonized over for years. Certainly ever since I've been a member of this House, we've been talking about the inadequate funding to help the school districts deal with this. I would appreciate it if the minister would comment on that. He did not comment on the Women's Access, which I asked him to do, at great length.

I have one final thing that I want to read into the record; it concerns the continuation of sexist material in the curriculum and in the textbooks that people use. I don't know what the

[ Page 5637 ]

minister can do about it, because a number of these textbooks are required reading. They're part of what is recommended out of his own ministry. There's one book in particular that I want to talk about. It's a grade 9 English anthology called The Quickening Pulse. It has things in it like: "This woman was bony and angular, and she wore horn-rimmed glasses. She spotted the first woman and walked over to her, treading the deck in the deliberate military fashion of all spinsters. The woman with the fat ankles turned and looked at her."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I don't know why we need to teach English using that kind of textbook. I haven't gone through and checked all of the textbooks, but certainly the B.C. task force on the status of women and the research done by Professor Lorimer at Simon Fraser tell us that there are still textbooks included in the recommended curriculum — a large number of them — which contain sexist language. I don't know what the minister can do about that. The former Minister of Education wiped out the committee which had responsibility for looking at sexism in the curriculum. It has not been replaced by anything else. We find in 1981 that kids in school are still reading about stereotypes, such as the one included in this textbook describing the military fashion of all spinsters, women with fat ankles and those kinds of things. I've never read about a man with fat ankles. I'm sure there are no textbooks that talk about men with fat ankles. We could write poems about men with skinny legs if we really wanted to. That's not required reading for grade 9. I wish the minister would do something about it.

HON. MR. SMITH: I must admit that last comment is really very close to the bone.

The curriculum branch will look at The Quickening Pulse. I am sorry that I did not respond on Women's Access, but I had a note to do so. The bringing back of this program on a three-year basis, I thought, was an important step. I would point out to you that it is all provincially funded. It isn't a case of 60 percent direct funding and the other 40 percent being raised by fees or by some local levy. As you know, it all comes out of provincial revenue. The purpose of having some of it come out of the college budget is to try and have the college give a program commitment to Women's Access, so that it will be built into the budget and into their programming, and they'll continue it if it's successful. I will monitor the results of this program. If the colleges are not taking it up or are not interested in taking it up, I will try to find out why. I recognize that a five-year program would be better than a three-year program. The higher percentage would be more attractive. The money put into post-secondary operating budget increases this year was very considerable, as you know — 19 percent lift. I know that colleges are readjusting priorities. I would hope that in the readjustment of priorities, though, there would certainly be room for a Women's Access program. I'll be delighted to look at that.

As for English as a second language, I am very impressed with a major part of the program in a number of schools that I've been in. We've rapidly expanded the funding under the special approval system. This allows school boards to get rapid approvals for funding additional classes, but that's on the basis of shareable funding, which isn't as much help to your district as it is to some others. But the $3,000 grant that we brought in last year for refugees was, I think, of great assistance to that particular class of students in ESL.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister some specific questions and hope for some specific answers. I'm wondering if I can have the minister's attention for a moment, because it's a fairly important question, and if the big minister for small business will....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I draw the Chairman's attention to standing orders with respect to quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member. the Chair, having due regard for the point raised by the member, notices that there is a quorum present.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Are you counting him? Oh, well, if you're counting that chap, all right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further. hon. member, it should really be the responsibility of the member who is speaking, if he so desires, to bring to the House's attention a matter of a quorum.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, my question deals with the per capita grant for independent schools. My understanding is that at the present time there is a per-student grant going to the independent schools, but the student must attend for the full year before it is granted. I also understand that requests have been made on behalf of the independent schools that that be put on a pro rata basis: in other words, if the students fails to attend the full term there would be a pro rata grant rather than losing the whole grant for that particular year.

My question deals with the timing. I understand the minister has looked favourably upon this particular request but may have some problems in funding or with Treasury Board. When will their decision likely come down? Also, where is the pool of money that the minister will be able to find to honour this particular request? Obviously it's going to cost more money if we fund those students on a larger basis than ve are now. I know the amounts might not be that significant, but then again they may be. I'm wondering if the minister would advise me whether there will be any reduction in the public school section of the budget in order to honour the request for the pro rata grants to independent schools.

That's my first question I prefer to put all the questions to the minister rather than interrupting him. I think we can make more progress this way.

My second question deals with the problem of racism in the school system and the problems of education with respect to racism. Specifically, I'm wondering if the minister or his officials can tell us how many of the school districts in British Columbia are using the film which showed the history of race relations in British Columbia. It was a controversial film — I understand Surrey rejected it — and I'd like to know specifically, if you have the numbers, how many school districts are using that particular film.

The reason I ask that question is that, frankly, I think this is a continuing problem in our society, and it's reflected in many of our schools and in our school system. I'm sure the minister is sympathetic, but I'd like to see more leadership from the ministry in terms of alleviating bigotry in our

[ Page 5638 ]

society and particularly in our school system. I think we have to put ourselves in the position of a young elementary school person of East Indian extraction, where a significant amount of' bigotry has been expressed from time to time. I think that we have a continuing problem it won't go away by ignoring it or pretending it's not there. It seems to me the minister has a role here to provide leadership to see that the educational system tells the history of race relations in this province, and also to make sure that the history of the various ethnic groups of British Columbia and their contribution to the total society is being fully told.

The difficulty we have had in our educational system has been that it looks like the WASPs discovered and created the province and so on. We have not been fair to the many ethnic groups and the very major contributions that they've made, and that unfairness begins in the educational system. The second area of unfairness deals with our attitude to the original people in the province. We continue to tell our students that somehow the province was discovered by Captain Cook, etc., whereas in fact native people have been here for probably 12,000 years, making a very interesting society without any help from white society. It seems to me that that's a story that remains untold. I'd like some specifics on my second question to the minister. How many school districts have accepted the film that was proposed for the curriculum? How many have rejected it? I'd also like him to advise us what steps he intends to take in terms of his own officials in his department to provide some leadership in teaching the racial and ethnic history of the province with a view to fairness to the minority groups — for example, the Chinese, who have made a fantastic contribution to construction of our rail system, and in other fields.

I won't bore you with all of the various contributions. The minister is aware of them, but I'd like to know what plans he has now to see that that story is being fairly told in every school in the province of British Columbia.

The last question deals with the vocational side and what we're doing in terms of skill training. We are in the process in this province now of having a labour shortage in a variety of skills. Please don't, give us a political response; I'm trying to make this a non-political question. It seems important to me that the public school system address itself to the problem of skill training, particularly in the trades. There should be an examination of BCIT with a view, perhaps, to putting another BCIT here and there, because that school is making a tremendous contribution to that particular skill level or need in British Columbia.

I'll leave it with those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, and hope that the minister can perhaps address the first two questions.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the film produced by the BCTF has been introduced, I know, into some schools, but I couldn't tell you what acceptability it's had, They could tell you better. I could find out, but they could probably tell you immediately. One thing we've done is give funding and support to the development of a course which is being prepared by a committee largely under the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, They are preparing a film on racism which will be introduced on an optional basis into the schools, probably at the level of the middle grades.

We have a member of our ministry on that committee, and we see that as a good. positive step. This committee is better able to develop it than we are, That's a first step. The other issue of trying to reflect the ethnic composition and history of this country in materials has really been sadly lacking right across Canada. We do have a social studies revision which I hope will be effective by September 1982, and I would expect that in those materials in social studies there would be some emphasis of this. The books on Canadian history I've seen used in the schools of this country are quite inadequate in that regard.

I'm not just thinking of the portrayal of the native population, but also the coverage of Chinese-Canadians, Japanese-Canadians, Ukrainian-Canadians in western Canada, and others. It simply has not been adequately covered,

I think I would prefer to respond to the very much broader question of trades training and another BCIT at a later date when I can make a more considered response.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't touch on the per-capita grant situation, the independent school system and the question of prorating the grant. I understand this is now under favourable review by the minister, and my question dealt with the timing in terms of approval of that request. Can the minister give the House some assurance that it won't come out of the public educational side of the budget?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I take it that if it doesn't, you think it's a good idea.

MR. LEGGATT: If you want to be cute about it, I'd be very happy to tell you. I think we have to have a public educational system strong enough to compete effectively with the independent school system. One of the problems is that your responsibility is to see that that public educational system is strong and can attract and make up for the weaknesses the system has had in the past. In that way we won't have continuing debate on the question. But leaving that aside, I still think the question merits a reasonable response. I think we're entitled to know whether you're going to be cutting back on the public education side in order to meet the request for grants. By the way, I think that's fair; it's just a question of where you're going to get the money.

HON. MR. SMITH: There certainly wasn't any cutback on that basis in the present budget. I'm trying to find the item. The increase was from $10.9 million in the grants for independent schools to $12.6 million, which is really not a large amount of money out of a budget, compared with the public school education budget of $772 million. The entire budget, as you know, for the independent schools is tied to the per pupil number that qualify. I am considering that question that you mentioned of addressing the inequity of the pupil qualifying equivalent. It is inequitable, in my view, that an independent school should receive no funding for a student who slips below that magic number of days. I will be making an announcement regarding that in this House in the very near future. It is under consideration, and an announcement will be made. That will be addressed, and not at the expense of public school system funding.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5639 ]

MRS. WALLACE. I'm really pleased to have two guests in the gallery today from Norwich, England. The husband, as a matter of fact, is almost a childhood friend. I grew up with him in the Cedar area. I introduced him to his wife when we both worked here in Victoria as parliamentary secretaries, many years ago. I'm very pleased to have in the gallery today Ron and Florence Riley from Norwich, England.

MR. HANSON: There are basically three subjects I would like to canvass with the minister. First is the funding of the public school system: second is the funding of the special needs program for children in the public school system and third is a number of suggestions on curriculum that I would like to make to the minister.

On the financing of the public school system, on this side of the House I believe we have a basic philosophical difference with the government members on that side. I think tying the quality of education to the cost of real estate is probably the most regressive way to finance public education that has ever been conceived of. I think all members of this House and all citizens of this province want their children to grow up to have happy, productive lives where they're equipped through an education process to make a contribution to society, to be able to live with one another in harmony and just to live the kind of life that we envision as being good and productive. In my judgment, if public education is financed by shifting it onto property at an ever increasing rate, year after year, one doesn't have to be a genius to see that further down the line, with the local taxpayer paying the cost of education, the children of this society are going to be caught in this squeeze. That is my concern and that is the concern of the members on this side of the House.

I'm not the first member in this debate to raise this question, but I'm certainly a member that wants the minister to know very clearly that I oppose the policy of the government. In Robert McMath's report — that of the commission of inquiry into property assessment and taxation — he made 75 recommendations. I don't think it is any accident that the number one recommendation in the report was that 75 percent of the cost of education be borne out of genet all revenue, and only 25 percent by the local taxpayer — and, in addition, special grants for special needs. We adopt that report. We endorse that recommendation. We don't understand the philosophical orientation of the government and how they can possibly see that educational possibilities for children would be enhanced by tying the cost of education to real estate.

Also, regarding the cost of financing of special needs, I agree with the programs of mainstreaming and including the special needs in the mainstream of the public educational process, but at the same time, in the classroom that teacher must be supported with all of the backup support, with training, with aides and so on to do the job and actually meet those special needs that are now being placed in that local classroom. You can't then abrogate your responsibilities and say that from general revenue we're now going to shift the responsibility of special needs back into the classroom and at the same time not offer the support and infrastructure necessary really to do the job adequately. I'm not the first one to raise that point with the minister. The minister operates on the basis of special grants. Our position is that it should be general revenue that provides high-quality education to the greatest percentage and that these special needs should be paid for out of general revenue. Costs and responsibility shouldn't have to be picked up locally entirely.

The third point I want to discuss with the minister — if I can get his attention — was touched on briefly by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). As members of this House, we are constantly meeting school groups that come to visit the parliament buildings. Often I ask these groups of different ages questions about British Columbia — our geography and history, the Indian people, the composition of our Legislature, how many women sit in the Legislature. I'm always struck by the extent to which children are ignorant of these aspects of our society. The minister touched on that briefly in his response to the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

I suppose part of my background is showing; my training was in anthropology. I think the Greatest antidote to the racism raised by the member for Coquitlam-Port Moody is an understanding of the other cultures, through anthropology or through sociological Studies.

It is clear that we have what is described as an ethnocentric view of our history and culture. It's from the view of Europe, the United Kingdom and so on. We're carrying that with us. But we must recognize that we are living in a multicultural world. We pay lip-service to the fact that we in Canada and in British Columbia live in a Intercultural society, but we don't understand the contribution the Asian people, for example, have made in British Columbian history — their traditions, values, historical accomplishments and other aspects of their culture. They are not understood by their young cohorts sitting in adjacent seats. They should be inculcated into the classroom and the curricula.

I suppose that the most glaring example, one which we touch on so frequently, is the Indian people of the province, and the complete and abysmal lack of education and understanding that non-Indian children have of Indian culture and accomplishments.

The Minister of Education — I believe it was yesterday afternoon — made mention of the Nishga School District. I certainly applaud the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) for granting, when she was Minister of Education, the Nishga people the responsibility to run their own school district. I think that was a wonderful decision. It has certainly greatly benefited the Nishga people. They appreciate it very much. The Nishga people are one small group within the Tsimshian people — there are several others — but what about the Coast Salish, the Interior Salish, the Kwakiutl, the Haida, Tlingit, the Athabascan people, the Kootenays and so on.

This crosses party lines. It has nothing whatsoever to do with partisan politics. I look forward to the day when the Indian people in every region of the province are co-existing with the non-Indian community, when in the curriculum of the school system the non-Indian people have an understanding and appreciation of the Indian culture, and at the same time the Indian community has an opportunity to learn its own culture and language. One of the great things about the Nishga experiment is that it shows quite clearly that the Nishaa people are really able to handle all aspects of the curriculum in their own language — mathematics. social studies and so on. Everyone knows that, but it's demonstrated quite clearly. It should be used as an example for people all over this province to expand those possibilities.

To increase and enhance our understanding, as people from different ethnic groups. traditions and values.... If we're really going to go beyond lip-service, we are going to have to recognize in our school system that those facts exist, that what we're seeing in overt aspects of racism is a complete

[ Page 5640 ]

lack of understanding in one cultural group of the values and traditions of another. You know, sometimes those are not easy things to understand unless they're dealt with in a formal way — understanding the kinship system, the traditions and the way the family is structured. It's a shame that we're ignoring that. It you really want to do something in education, the Ministry of Education must address that question in a serious way. The Indian example is certainly the most obvious one, but I would like to see it for the East Indian community. I would like to see an appreciation and understanding in an aspect of social studies that would actually deal with East Indian people — which would explain, in a meaningful way, the colonization of British Columbia by East Indian people over time, where they've come from, their values and traditions. Cut off this racist phenomenon emerging in British Columbia. If we don't seriously address this in the educational process, we're going to have a much more difficult time later on when it becomes full-blown. There are people who want to exploit that for their own personal and sectarian advantage.

To summarize, I want to say that the McMath formula for financing education is, we believe, the fair one. In my own riding here in Victoria the school board, as are school boards all over the province, is being made the meat in the sandwich between a provincial government that wants more and more of the cost borne by local government and.... That conflict between trying to provide the best possible education for children and at the same time trying to cut corners to make sure the costs are not borne unduly by local taxpayers is an extremely awkward and difficult situation that you've put them in.

I'm very supportive of our school board here in Victoria. I feel that they have done their utmost to try and walk that tightrope between fiscal responsibility and that quality of education which is so much a right that all our children should expect it.

MR. HOWARD: Following the discussion we had yesterday about the situation in School District 88, I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. I understand that a gentleman by the name of Wall — the last name I was provided with — from the ministry was in Terrace within the past couple of weeks. If that is the case, was he in Terrace for the purpose of discussing with the school board the subject matter of the two principals I'm talking about? The minister shakes his head. Thus I should put on the record that the minister is saying: "No, he was not there for that purpose."

Yesterday, the minister mentioned in reply that perhaps there was some deficiency in section 120 of the act, denying people transferred or demoted under that section the normal appeal or review procedures in the act, and also a vacuum insofar as the opportunity provided to the aggrieved person to be told the reasons for any transfer or demotion is concerned. I took that statement as reflecting the possibility that the minister, fairly new to the job, didn't know about that situation before. I'm advised that that is not the case and that there have been many representations to the minister, not only about the deficiency in that section, but deficiencies of a similar nature throughout the School Act extending over a period of time. One time the minister's predecessor went — I'm sure this document is in the ministry — to the point of a precise and careful analysis of those deficiencies in the School Act which set teachers apart from the rest of society in terms of their opportunity to get fair and just treatment and fair play in dealing with any grievances they may have. I wish the minister would have outlined that yesterday and been a bit more candid and perhaps followed it up by saying in a declaratory way that he was intent on correcting those deficiencies. I'd like to know whether he is so intent and, if so, when we can expect alterations to the School Act to come along in that regard.

The third thing I want to pose to the minister is this. The minister said yesterday that his policy with respect to reviewing matters which arise as a result of section 120 that come to his attention is to appoint a tribunal or a three-person board of review and a third chairperson representing both sides. Am I correct then in understanding that a review panel will comprise somebody whom the aggrieved party nominates or appoints and somebody representing the school district? Is that what the minister was saying? The minister's nodding his head. I have to put it on the record then. As I read it, by nodding his head the minister is in fact saying that the aggrieved person will have the opportunity to appoint someone on that board of review representing the aggrieved person or persons.

HON. MR. SMITH: Right.

MR. HOWARD: And that the school board will have the opportunity to appoint someone to that review panel representing the position of the school board. Right? That's what the minister is saying. In the absence of him really saying something, perhaps he could clarify that.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm told what has happened in the past is that both parties — I should say the B.C. School Trustees Association and the B.C. Teachers Federation — have submitted lists of names of people who would be acceptable to them as their nominees. From those lists the nominees have been selected, and then the ministry has selected a chairman. When I said that I thought the section should be reviewed, I don't just mean that it should be reviewed in the context that you mentioned. I think that the process of appeals should be reviewed in the act generally.

MR. HOWARD: A review is fine, and legislative action is something else, and that's what we're asking.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I'm talking about legislative action in a revision of the School Act next year, which I hope will be an extensive revision, and won't just involve that section....

MR. LAUK: Next year.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, that would be about ten years earlier than you people got around to it.

MR. HOWARD: That's the kind of snarky, rude remark that one could expect from a person in that position. One should not expect it, but we do. We are trying to deal with something of substance here — something involving a group of people who have been denied fair treatment under the act for a long period of time. These are people who, under the previous minister, were able to conduct a thorough analysis of the act and make a representation about it.

Next year is not good enough, in my opinion, to deal with unfair elements in the School Act which discriminate against

[ Page 5641 ]

people. If that's the minister's case — that he's going to do it next year — I suggest he do it this year, because maybe he won't be there to do it next year and we'll then be faced with some other obscure situation which puts things off into the future.

One aspect of the third question I want to put to the minister involves the third person on this panel of review. The minister said he appoints that third person. Even though that may have been the practice in the past, I think it is offensive to the concept of fair play, justice and equity in these types of boards of review, arbitration boards, or anything of that nature.

I submit that what should occur is what occurs under other pieces of legislation where a third-party tribunal has the opportunity to examine a conflict of opinion or grievance about something: the two representatives of that panel of review have the opportunity to mutually agree upon a third person. They do not have that third person imposed upon them.

I put that to the minister: will he depart from normal practice in the future, providing the representatives from the aggrieved person and the school board — however they happen to get appointed — with the opportunity to agree mutually on a third party? If you can do it that way then you're not subject to the charge later on that perhaps there was not partiality on the part of the third person. Would the minister agree to alter that policy a little bit? He doesn't need to wait for an amendment to the School Act to do that. He can just declare it out of a sense of justice.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm already looking at doing that. I don't have any problem, if parties can agree to a chairman mutually, with letting them select him. But if they don't agree, somebody ultimately has to make the appointment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put it in the legislation.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it isn't going into the legislation until there's a broader revision. It doesn't need to go into legislation to do that, as this member said. A review committee can be set up in that form. I have absolutely no objection to the parties selecting the chairman. If they can't select the chairman then the chairman will have to be selected by me. But the act needs a general revision; it doesn't just need a lot of piecemeal patching. We did bring in some revisions to some of these procedures in the act last year, arising out of the Evans report. A number of these things were taken care of. You can go on about this section, hon. member, for about a half an hour, but you really don't have to. I'm quite convinced that this section needs some overhauling. I'm prepared to operate in these teacher-transfers appeals in the manner I've outlined — that is that I've said what the criteria will be for the transfer appeal being granted and that the parties will be able to submit lists of names of people they want to sit on there to represent them. If they can agree on a chairman, I'm happy to take the chairman.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the minister doesn't need to be so offensively patronizing in his response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's wait until the Chair recognizes a member. It certainly makes it easier for Hansard.

MR. LAUK: We now hear from the minister that we're going to get a revised School Act next year. For two years, under his predecessor. we had a promise of a revision of the School Act and nothing happened. On page 2939 of Hansard last year I outlined, topic for topic, the things that the minister would find if he took his tours. All of the topics are listed in his press release. I also told the minister what he would find under each topic: disabled children, scholarships, pensions, portability of sick leave. career preparation. credit allocation plan, noninstructional days, facilities — I went on for some time on facilities — and the women's access program. All of the Women's Access program, some of the areas which were covered, and many more that were covered....

The minister still has not moved in amending the School Act. The minister still has provided inadequately for the administration of medication in schools, and I refer the minister to the minutes of the executive committee meeting of the B.C. Teachers Federation of November 7 to November 8, 1980. They moved as follows:

"That the following be adopted as interim policy on medication for recommendation to the representative assembly: teachers have a duty to render assistance in an emergency; teachers shall not be called on to administer medication on a regular or predictable basis; school boards should establish policies that require schools to establish systems for administering medication after consultation with parents, family physicians, the public health nurse and the medical officer of health; the administration of medication should be the responsibility of appropriate health personnel, except for those mature students capable and trained in self-administration. If isolation or other exceptional circumstances prevent the foregoing policy from being applicable, and teachers are requested to administer medication, the following conditions constitute prerequisites: appropriate amendments are made to the Medical Practitioners Act; teachers volunteer to provide the service; teachers receive training for such a service and payment for any services rendered by teachers....."

What was the minister's response?

"Except in emergency situations teachers should administer or supervise the self-administration of medications to pupils only if the following conditions are met: the medication is required..."

Isn't that brilliant'?

"...a parent has requested the school's assistance and has signed a release; written authorization has been received from a physician; the public health nurse — wherever she may be at the time — has been informed; the teacher has received adequate instructions from the public health nurse concerning the administration of the medication."

That's pretty backwater stuff for a province the size of British Columbia, and a pretty inept response to a problem raised by the school teachers.

Circular 144 is the only real evidence we have of the direction in which the Ministry of Education is moving. Circular 144 has been dealt with before. It is an authoritative school circular from the department following upon the forums conducted by the minister, and it indicates clearly that this department is an authoritarian, non-supportive ministry which will continue to centralize control and absorb power

[ Page 5642 ]

unto itself. The minister has expanded his discretion both in the use of funds and in dictating curriculum and dictating policy throughout the education system. Apart from what the minister has said at the forums, he has done nothing to improve that situation and has done everything to make it worse.

Mr. Chairman, I have challenged the minister to respond to the criticism not only of the NDP, but of the School Trustees Association and the B.C. Teachers Federation. It has all been directed towards the minister's handling of school finances and the continuation of an ancient, outdated and totally unjust financial formula. He has failed to respond. He has not given one word in defence of his position, and the reason is that there is no defence.

I've looked at the minister's office and at the same time I think about the thousands upon thousands of taxpayers who must pay taxes on the value of their homes, which is no indication that they have the ability to pay these taxes. I've seen the profligate waste in the ministry itself, as opposed to the very careful budgeting going on in the school districts. I've seen the Minister of Education and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) unfairly attack school boards for being irresponsible with the planning of their budgets. At the same time there is the profligate waste, the fat and the unbelievable expenditures made by these people sitting in their stuffed leather chairs and their fancy offices, taking expensive trips and forums across the countryside at the expense of the taxpayer — just to find out what we already knew. That was in Hansard, the record of last year's session, and brought to the minister's attention by me, by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and others on the opposition side. It was also brought to his attention by the School Trustees Association and by the Teachers Federation. Yet he travelled around the province at great public expense.

In the minister's vote itself, I'd like to point out the increases which occurred from the last session to this session. Travel expense has increased by $5,400, office expense by over $2,000, and even furniture expenses have gone up. I don't know what he bought — gold ashtrays? You should have seen his office last year, Mr. Chairman. This minister is like the other ministers in that cabinet. They look down on the school boards from their fancy offices and say: "Pare your budgets. How can you be so wasteful?" They've got 1 percent, 2 percent or 3 percent to play with to pay for the projects that have been forced upon them, if you like, by ministerial policy decisions. What a nerve! At the same time the minister's office has increased in those three categories alone by $7,950 — travel, office expense and office furniture. What a total waste, Mr. Chairman.

Does it go to work reducing the taxation for any homeowner in the province? No, it doesn't. Does it provide one scholarship for one student in the province? Does it provide one microscope, one piece of equipment in the public school system? Does it contribute in any way to the busing and the conveyance expense of any school district? No, it contributes only to the ego and to the extravagance of the minister' s office. I therefore move, Mr. Chairman, that vote 54 be reduced by an amount of $7,950

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following, division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 54 approved.

On vote 55: management operations and educational finance, $7,759,647.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, as this minister calls upon the school boards to pare their budgets when it's next to impossible to do so, and as this minister places upon the backs of the property owners of this province a tremendous tax burden and pleads poverty on behalf of the provincial treasury, will all hon. members look at vote 55 and see the tremendous increases in expenditures in areas that should be pared back and places where they can be pared back but the minister has failed to do so? Travel expense is up by 33 percent to $278,000 — almost a $69,000 increase in travel expense under this vote. That's hardly necessary unless, of course, you want to maintain a tightly knit centralized control over the education system and you have to send your police all over the place. Office expense is up 25 percent. Office furniture and equipment is up, 26 percent. An increase of $69,608 in travel expense, $43,000 in office expense and $42,000 in office furniture. I'm sure that the civil servants in the Ministry of Education don't need the extravagant expenditures on office furniture proposed under this vote. In relation to this, there's an excess amount on those items alone of $155,334. Out of an increase of $155,334, not one dime goes for scholarships for ordinary school kids. Not one dime goes to reduce the heavy and onerous tax burden on property owners in the province of British Columbia. Not a nickel of that $155,334 goes to improve the bus system in rural areas to transport children who have to walk miles to school. Not a penny of that $155,334 goes to improve the heating system in the schools at Fort St. James, goes to give a new gymnasium to Fort St. James — which the ministry just turned down — or goes to build a new school in Fort St. James — which the ministry just turned down, Not a token of that $155,334 goes for the benefit of ordinary people involved in the public education system.

Interjection.

[ Page 5643 ]

MR. LAUK: I therefore move that vote 55 be reduced by an amount of $155,334, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: The reason I rose was that I felt the minister had to gather his wits, and I was just giving him some time to answer the charges laid by the first member for Vancouver Centre. This waste has to stop, and ministers have to defend this waste. They have to get up and tell us: how come these enormous increases? Are you stowing it away like squirrels? You act like one, you look like one, and now you're stowing money away like one.

Mr. Chairman, the questions that the first member for Vancouver Centre asked demand answers.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 55 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. before we proceed. an incorrect message was inadvertently presented to the House, and I would recommend, therefore, that the proceedings earlier today relating to Bill 13 be declared null and void.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would so move.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that today's proceedings at the commencement of the sitting in relation to Bill 13 be declared null and void.

Motion approved.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill 13, Intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 13.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled a list of the grants made under the School Act referred to and presented in committee.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.