[ Page 8053 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas Fund annual report 1981-82

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 8053

Oral Questions

Expenses of Finance minister. Mr. Howard –– 8053

Mr. Lauk

Air travel expense of Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Hall –– 8054

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Macdonald –– 8054

Tabling Documents

"Developing a Pension Policy for the Future," a discussion paper.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8055

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

On vote 22: minister's office (continued) –– 8055

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Davis

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. King

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 22 –– 8074

Division

On vote 23: management operations and educational finance — 8074

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 23 –– 8075

Mr. Barrett

Division

On vote 24: public schools education –– 8075

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 24 –– 8075

Division

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have two visitors from the fair city of Vancouver: Mr. Donald Hudson, president of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and Mr. William Irwin, vice-president of regulations and membership of the exchange. I would ask this House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's my pleasure to introduce Corporal Cardy Launey, who is with the air force branch of the Canadian Armed Forces in Baden-Sollingen in West Germany. It will interest the House to known that Mr. Launey is a member of the ski patrol system of Canada, and has returned to attend the annual general meeting of the Canadian Ski Patrol Association in British Columbia. He has been ski-patrolling for a year in Feldberg, the largest ski area in southwest Germany. I would ask the House to extend a very warm welcome to this young Canadian.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the precincts today are the president and some of the directors of the B.C. Recreation Association, who have just concluded a productive meeting with government caucus members. I'd like to introduce the president, Mike Brow; executive director, Bill Webster; and provincial director, Bob Vaughan.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas Fund, 1981-82.

Oral Questions

EXPENSES OF FINANCE MINISTER

MR. HOWARD: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask the minister if he could tell the House how much money he has personally refunded to the taxpayers of B.C. for tickets relating to some Broadway show, the name of which he didn't advise the House yesterday.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is correct that in a statement yesterday I did not identify the two Broadway musicals which were the subject of the statement. One was Sweeney Todd, and the second one was Evita. With respect to the main part of the member's question, as of this moment I have not refunded the money to the Crown, but I have directed the Deputy Minister of Finance to determine the amount which I owe and the amount which is owed by others who were involved in the group visiting New York at that time — the end of February 1980 –– I have indicated that I would like that information just as quickly as possible and then a personal cheque will be written.

MR. HOWARD: The minister has knowledge of the people who attended those particular shows. The one in particular that he referred to yesterday cost the taxpayers $1,200. Can he tell the House whether the total amount of money that he intends to refund personally will be equal to the $1,200 that it cost to take all those other people to the show?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. Mr. Speaker, that is not my intention.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the minister obviously has no intention of refunding the $1,200 for those tickets.

MR. SPEAKER: No debate, hon. member. The question, please.

MR. HOWARD: That was the premise of the question, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: It sounded like debate, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: If the minister will not do that, will he at least then supply the House with the list of the names of those people who attended those theatres, so the taxpayers of B.C. will know how generous they were and to whom they were generous?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think there was a question there. Yes, I will provide, in due course, the names of those who attended the two performances in the latter part of February 1980. If the statement made in the House yesterday — and subsequent statements — left any doubt, I certainly intend that those British Columbians who attended and are, as in my case, elected, or are, as in the case of others, in the public employ.... I restate the intention today that the appropriate Canadian equivalent will be returned to the provincial treasury at the earliest possible time,

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as it was the minister's fault and the minister's doing. Why doesn't he pay it all directly back to the taxpayers of B.C. himself? It's his responsibility.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that that was not my intention, insofar as there were two distinct groups present — in fact, three distinct groups — if one can describe the total party as groups, or groupings within the party attending in New York in the latter part of February 1980. There were those who are clearly representatives of the province of British Columbia. Secondly, there was a representative of the office of the Canadian consulate in New York — then and now — and his spouse, and others who are involved in underwritings or in the activities associated with underwritings undertaken by the Ministry of Finance on behalf of British Columbia Hydro and other Crown corporations.

MR. HOWARD: Is the minister telling the House that it’s quite proper and appropriate for the taxpayers to take underwriters in New York to Broadway shows and to host them?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, is the member seeking a legal opinion?

MR. HOWARD: No. Just an honest one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 8054 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday after his ministerial statement the minister referred to a cancelled cheque, or cancelled cheques, together with vouchers and other documents. I rose on a point of order and brought it to Mr. Speaker's attention, and the minister from his seat indicated that he would table those documents. Has he now decided to table the cancelled cheque, or cheques, and all vouchers and attachments relating to the two New York visits referred to in his statement so that the opposition, and thereby the public, can have an accurate view of what financial transactions have taken place?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to table at an early opportunity the documentation which I believe hon. members would want to have available in connection with the statement made yesterday. That relates particularly to the personal cheque dated November 12, 1980, with respect to the two theatre tickets, which were not, contrary to some reports.... Again I may be at fault for being somewhat unclear on the point yesterday, but for the two tickets for the October performance.... Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I was going to table a personal cheque and associated material. The cheque in this instance was dated November 12, 1980, for, I believe — and I'm subject to correction — $54.66 covering two tickets.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the balance of the question, I first of all made a statement yesterday as an hon. member indicating that what I said occurred in fact did occur. The misunderstanding which may have developed, and I may be responsible for it, is that, in fact, the October performance, which I attended, was not charged to the people of British Columbia. It was instead forwarded to the office of the Ministry of Finance for payment and was caught at that point. And it was at that point that we deducted the amount in question for each of us who attended the October performance. Therefore I want to make it very clear that it was not a question of refunding money to the Crown in connection with the October performance that I attended, but rather of paying the amount for the theatre tickets in order that it not be charged against the Crown.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. One of the difficulties is that the opposition has a view of some of the financial transactions involving both that minister and many others. From the information that we have, the minister's statement caused some confusion. I know that the minister would like very much to clear that up before the matter becomes further confused. Therefore the first question I have is: if the Ministry of Finance, of which he is in charge, caught that mistake, does the Minister of Finance have an explanation for the system breakdown on the other issues involving himself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question in as much detail as the Chair will permit. As I indicated yesterday, considerable debate in this chamber over the past number of months has dealt with the tightening of controls on a gradual and continuing basis within the Ministry of Finance, in the office of the comptroller-general and in Treasury Board — Treasury Board staff in particular — to bring, in conjunction with the Financial Administration Act, financial controls in the province of British Columbia into the late twentieth century. That is why the Financial Administration Act was developed, why it was issued at first as a discussion paper and why it came, in a revised form, to this assembly and was approved and given royal assent.

The member knows, of course, that the process of proclamation of various sections of the Financial Administration Act continued for a number of months following royal assent to the bill. I can assure the members of this House and the people of British Columbia that the system of controls now in place is superior to that which was in place several months ago, 12 months ago, 18 months ago, 24 months ago or, indeed, in the period from 1972 to 1975. It has been a long and continuing process. When the member asks how one expenditure was caught in October and November 1980 and not in February and March 1980, I believe my answer is that the process and the development of the Financial Administration Act is the reason why one cannot compare the early part of 1980 with the latter part of 1980.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister now decided on a date that these documents will be available so we can confirm the procedures that were employed on all of these occasions?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will bring those to the House at an early opportunity.

AIR TRAVEL EXPENSE OF
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Did the minister travel from Ottawa to Vancouver on Tuesday, February 23, 1982, just five days following the Premier's prime time broadcast on restraint?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question as notice. I haven't any recollection of those dates, but I'd be pleased to bring the answer back to the House.

MR. HALL: I have a further question. While the minister is checking into her diary, at the same time she brings that answer to the House could she tell the House why she decided — as she is also the Deputy Premier — to travel first-class in spite of the announcement of the restraint program, and what was the cost of that extra extravagance to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I took the original question as notice. If I recall, the last time I travelled to Ottawa I travelled with my deputy minister, and we had some specified work to do. When I have work to do in regard to the government I sometimes do travel first class. It is done in those conditions because we can get more work done.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Premier. On June 1 the Premier took as notice simple questions to which he should have had the answer at that time, relating to the expenses of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I ask the Premier: has he decided to answer those questions today?

MR. SPEAKER: The member has not yet taken his seat, so I cannot recognize another member.

[ Page 8055 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Another question. Did the Premier discuss with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the matter of making a refund of part of the expenses he had incurred?

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the question that was taken as notice?

MR. MACDONALD: It is a simple question. The Premier knows the answer and he sits silent there. Why the silence about public affairs?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have the honour to present a discussion paper entitled "Developing a Pension Policy for the Future."

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 22: minister's office, $299,040.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few remarks to the minister and pose a few questions to him. There are things we have discussed, many of them through correspondence.

One of the concerns that I have relates to the small schools that are in my constituency. As a result of the restrictive funding policy we are facing some very serious problems with schools like the Lake Cowichan school, the Thetis Island school and the Chemainus schools, where those schools are either having to be closed or else the quality of education is not going to be as good as it should be. This seems very unfair to me, particularly in Lake Cowichan where we have a community that is very much on its own; it's not part of the Duncan community or part of any other community in the valley. It has been hit very hard by the recession in the forest industry: permanent closure of one mill, partial closure of another, and layoffs in the logging industry. Certainly the per capita earnings of the people in that area are very limited. I know that that particular school did receive some special consideration from the minister, but the situation there is still not satisfactory.

One of the things that concerns the school board, the teaching staff and me is the fact that in order to maintain the teaching staff and the human facilities there, any new computer equipment — the more technical types of equipment — should be available if the elementary and high-school students are going to graduate from that school system on an equal footing with people from West Vancouver or other areas. It's just not going to be possible if the school board is not able to provide that kind of equipment. So I certainly have concerns about that.

Thetis Island is a different situation, of course. It's an elementary school on an island. The difficulties that the school board is having in trying to keep that school operative under the restrictive terms of the financial restraint bill from this government have certainly put some real hardships on the operation of that school. To the best of my knowledge, the last time I checked, the school was going to operate for the coming year. I'm not sure that that's really final, but they're trying to keep it open. I think the minister should be aware of the kinds of problems that occur in those areas.

Speaking of islands, of course Kuper Island is also in my constituency. It is a little different situation again. The kindergarten, and possibly grade 1 and 2.... It's completely an Indian school on the island. The problem occurs in transportation. I have tried unsuccessfully to convince your colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who is responsible for the Highways ferry, to change the scheduling of that ferry so that there aren't such long waits. The youngsters have long waits, particularly in the afternoon, because the ferry leaves just before they can catch it. They have an hour or more just hanging around downtown Chemainus. It's not a desirable situation for the children or for anyone. There are small stores around there. Perhaps the minister has more influence on his colleague the Minister of Transportation than I had in getting that ferry rerouted. I would like to refer that particular matter to him.

Another item of concern relates to Cedar Lodge; it's of very grave concern. It's the sort of thing that happens when we get interministry involvement. I think there comes a time when the rules have to be suspended for a little while. The Minister of Education is quite adamant that funding cannot be made available for that school unless they fit the criteria and standards established by the Ministry of Education. Because that is a very special school, the kinds of things being done there...it's not humanly possible to do them and still conform to the minister's standards. The local school board would be quite happy to get involved, but if they do the school has to conform to those standards. That's a ruling of the minister, not the local school board. The local school board would be quite happy to move in and fit into the integrated system, which is partially Human Resources, partially Health and partially Education. You can't let those young people fall through the cracks because of some bureaucratic decision that this or that must be done. Certainly the funding has been a real problem there. I would urge the minister to have another look at Cedar Lodge. If we lose that facility, we're losing a very valuable service to many island families, not just those in the Cowichan area.

Those are the sort of specific local things I wanted to talk about. I also want to deal just briefly with the problems occurring in community colleges. They have taken a pretty drastic cutback in funding. The statistics I've seen show about a 4 percent reduction in college funding. When you realize we're trying to get to a point — at least, I hope we are — where there is equality in education and fairness of opportunity, it just isn’t so for those people who have to go into the major centres. Just look at what's happened to the cost of housing in connection with the various universities. If young people can stay in the community and live at home, they have a much better opportunity of getting one or two years of post-secondary education under their belts. Sometimes, just from the standpoint of ability to get along on their own at age 17 or 18, it's a good feature to have that home influence at hand. They're still part of the same community. They still have contacts with the home or are living in the home. It's a transition period for them, apart from being economically

[ Page 8056 ]

much more viable. It is an opportunity that is afforded to many young people to take that post-secondary education.

What I'm hearing from the people responsible for setting up the courses and administering those colleges is that, under the financial constraints laid on by this government, many of the programs are having to be curtailed and the quality of education being offered in those post-secondary community colleges is not up to the standard it should be. That's strictly a result of the financial curtailments laid on by this minister.

I was interested to note from discussions with my local college, Malaspina, that there has even been a change in the structure of the board, with more government appointees being placed on the community college boards. They had the feeling that it was probably as a result of the number of questions they were raising and the concerns and criticisms they were expressing to the ministry that the structure of the board was changed so there were more government appointees than people chosen at the local level.

The people who are administering these post-secondary institutions are really concerned. The one I'm particularly talking about, of course, is Malaspina. One of the things they've had to do is entirely remove the housing grant that has been paid since the inception of that college to students coming from Lake Cowichan. That was something that was put into the original referendum in order to establish the college. Because of the distance that Lake Cowichan is from Nanaimo, it was decided that there would be a housing grant made to Lake Cowichan students, should Lake Cowichan agree to go in with the total regional area. That was to be in effect as long as there was some local funding being raised to support the community college. Now that the provincial government is paying the full shot, they have refused to pay that. That means that Lake Cowichan — again, this disadvantaged area I'm talking about — is further disadvantaged by the fact that students who wish to go on to Malaspina now have no housing allowance to partially cover their stay in Nanaimo. It wasn't a very large allowance, but it was a bit. It was something that did encourage them to go to that local college. It's too far to travel back and forth. It's rather difficult for those Lake Cowichan people, as I have indicated, to move back and forth with the very limited income that's facing them.

Mr. Minister, those are the questions I've been hearing this year relative to education in my constituency. I would refer you to your letter to the chairman of the Lake Cowichan School Board, where you indicated that the government was aware in imposing the restraint program that there would be implications for social programs. It seems to me that those implications have really come home to roost in these rather hard-pressed, small areas that are far removed from the metropolitan areas. That, to me, is most unfair, because it isn't quality education.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll just try and deal with these questions as they arise; I think it's probably easier while our memories are fresher.

We would, I think, agree with what you say about the necessity of computers being available for smaller schools and smaller school districts that do not have residential tax bases to pay for those out of their J account receiving assistance. What you say about Thetis Island I'm not directly familiar with, but I'm familiar with similar transportation problems on other islands. There have been occasions where ferry service has been changed to accommodate school children's hours, and I would certainly support that, as I have in the past.

MRS. WALLACE: This is at Kuper.

HON. MR. SMITH: At Kuper, yes. That's the first time that the Kuper reserve school problem has come to my attention on the transportation side, but I'd be glad to look into that and make representations to my colleague.

Cedar Lodge is unfortunately not as simple as the member indicated — and I think the member knows that too. It has a pretty complex background. I visited Cedar Lodge in the fall. I had a tour up there; I was taken up by the chairman and spent an afternoon. I've always been impressed with the work they've done there for the severely neurologically impaired children and the tie-in they have with the excellent psychology testing department at the University of Victoria. But as you know, the Cedar Lodge board for a long time wanted nothing to do with the school district, and the school district was really very lukewarm about being involved in Cedar Lodge. So what I did this year was to go there and intervene, and my ministry became involved. We kept the operation, with the assistance of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), funded as it had been before, with an increase. We evaluated it overall, but the Cedar Lodge people really don't want to be under a school board and a conventional program. I mean, that's the gist of it. So it's better to keep it going some way without having it under a board, if that's possible. That's really what I've supported, not because it was cheaper for us but because it seemed to fit their program better.

You mentioned college funding and Malaspina funding. Actually, this year, with all the approvals, allotments from the various councils and the special approvals that it received, their total overall funding is up about 11 percent. Now that isn't what their budget called for; they wanted more, as was true with most institutions. But the overall college funding is up by an average of 12 percent; the increase is less than last year, but of course this year the wages are restrained from April 1 onward.

I note that there are some program changes at Malaspina, which you mentioned. They are not all deletions either, hon. member; there are new programs starting there in licensed practical nursing and word processing. At the same time they have got out of some of their perhaps more appropriate vocational programs which they did in the past — the heavy equipment operation program and the chokerman program — and those may be the ones that concerned you. But I haven't made any more appointments to that board than I did in the past. The chairman of that board stepped down and took a position with the OTC, so there was a replacement appointment, but I haven't made any additional appointments that I know of.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few brief remarks and questions for the minister as well. I want to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) for deferring, because I'm going to be very short.

Before I proceed with my presentation, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome 23 grade 7 students and their chaperones from Powell River Assumption School, who are in the precincts this afternoon. I'd like the House to welcome them.

[ Page 8057 ]

The bulk of the remarks that perhaps could have been made under estimates have been made under the bill that was before this House three or four weeks ago. I don't intend to rehash that bill, except to say, Mr. Chairman, that the government, in my view, is effectively centralizing the education system in the province — as has been mentioned several times here in debate — and leaving local school boards with the task of taking the local political flak for decisions that are forced upon them. They have had to cut back on some programs and cut back on teacher personnel. In School District 47 there will be 18 fewer teachers starting next September, and in School District 46 I understand there will be eight fewer positions. In spite of that fact, the population is increasing in School District 46. There is one question I would like to ask the minister directly, and the minister will be very familiar with this. We've had considerable discussion and correspondence on this matter. It concerns the $750,000 requested by School District 46 from the Ministry of Education to proceed with the addition to the Chatelech Junior Secondary School at Sechelt. We note that there are crowded conditions. Perhaps the minister would be good enough in his response to let the House and the board members of School District 46 know exactly where that project is at at this time. I know there are complications with Treasury Board and all of these things, but it's a very serious matter in that particular school district. Perhaps the minister could let us know what is happening to that particular project.

I'm a bit concerned as well, Mr. Chairman, about the fee increases and the cutbacks in programs at the Malaspina campus in Powell River, as my colleague over here discussed a few minutes ago. Fee increases have been greatly increased for the next semester. I don't have the precise figures, but I understand in some cases they have almost doubled, which will obviously reduce the number of people attending these courses that are available. More than that, I understand that a number of courses have been dropped because of funding restrictions, and perhaps the minister could comment once again on these matters, if he hasn't already.

I know what the response to the other questions is going to be, so I don't care about that....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't care.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I care, but I've heard the answers many times, Mr. Premier. The minister's reply to the $750,000 for the expansion at Chatelech Junior Secondary School in Sechelt would be interesting.

HON. MR. SMITH: The expenditure for Chatelech Junior Secondary School has been approved, and I am remiss in not telling you that, I guess. The funds were released from the 1981-82 budget. Those were expenditures that were held in the Treasury Board review, but that has been approved for the junior secondary school at Sechelt.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Do they know?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. I normally would tell you at the same time, and I regret not doing that.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I will confine my remarks to a particular topic on the estimates of the Minister of Education, and that topic is visa students. Visa students are not Canadian nationals, nor are they landed immigrants.

They are nationals of other countries who come to Canada for part — or in a few cases all — of their education. We have always had some. There has been an increasing number of visa students coming to Canada, and particularly to British Columbia in recent years. One reason there is a growing number coming to British Columbia, and especially in grades 11 and 12, is that our universities in this province have among the lowest fees in Canada, and British Columbia still does not charge a differential fee for non-Canadian nationals as is becoming the rule across Canada.

I want to deal specifically with one matter, the visa students that come to secondary schools here, and particularly secondary schools who go out looking for visa students — who go, for example, to Hong Kong and recruit a large number of students each year. We have some half a dozen schools which do this now, and what they basically have to sell is four or five years of low-cost university tuition when these students graduate from grade 12 in British Columbia.

There is concern not only in respect to the cost to the British Columbia taxpayer of this kind of thing, and not only about the lack of opportunities to go to certain of our university faculties because they're over-populated with students from all over the place, but also the concern in some of these countries in which these students are originating. A letter appeared in the Vancouver Province in the middle of May, signed by William S. Yip, president of the Canadian University Association in Hong Kong. Essentially, he's complaining about the quality of the education given in British Columbia to these visa students who, in the case of Hong Kong, come with very little knowledge of English and get a grade 12 education in a few months in a pressure-cooker kind of situation. They get a British Columbia grade 12 diploma, qualify for university in British Columbia and enter a low-priced, high-value university similar to Simon Fraser and the University of Victoria. Because of four or five years of low fees, it's possible for these particular schools to charge an arm and a leg for their five, six or seven months of intensive tuition. William S. Yip said a month ago — and I'm quoting from that newspaper:

"In the late 1970s the number of students going to Canada" — that's from Hong Kong — "began to increase, with 2,600 in 1979 to 4,000 in 1980 and 5,300 last year. For various reasons, the upward trend will continue" — not the least of which, of course, is the fact that only 2 percent of high-school graduate equivalents in Hong Kong can get into a university in Hong Kong. The figure is more like 20 percent here — in other words, there is ten times the opportunity here. The fact is that education, particularly in the Chinese culture, is regarded as the one certain way to self-realization and, more importantly, a good job in the future.

"It is estimated that there are 21,000 students from Hong Kong now studying in Canada, many of them in high schools" — many of them in high schools in British Columbia. If we simply had our 10 percent figure pro rata we'd have at least 2,000 of them here. Other figures I've seen indicate that the figure short of university — in other words, a few of them primary, a lot secondary, and a good many other education here — are of the order of 5,000.

"Unfortunately, many of the so-called visa high schools in Canada that advertise in all the major Hong Kong newspapers to recruit innocent students are not entirely reputable, putting profit before quality education. Many recruiters misrepresent their schools,

[ Page 8058 ]

their equipment and the quality of teachers. Most of the innocent students are teenaged newcomers in Canada" — they do not know the language — "and do not know where to lodge complaints about such misrepresentation. In the past few years we have had numerous complaints about such schools. The complaints have caused great concern here among reputable Canadian educational institutions.

"Since education is a provincial matter, we would urge your provincial governments to take the measures necessary to safeguard the interests of Hong Kong students in order to avoid loss of their time, money, the opportunity to acquire good education and, most important of all, their confidence in Canada."

This is a new phenomenon. It's happening in other provinces. There are schools providing secondary education, particularly grades 11 and 12, in other provinces, the principal reason being entrance to a North American university or, more particularly, to Canadian universities with good quality education at the university level and, very importantly, low fees — fees of, say, 10 percent of operating costs, not including capital costs. Clearly, university education is very highly subsidized, generally by the taxpayer in Canada and in British Columbia, and this is one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why these students are coming here in increasing numbers.

There are estimates of how many students. In 1977 David Neece and Peter Brawn of the Canadian Bureau of International Education published a book, which was financed by the international bureau, and they said at that time that there were some 23,000 foreign students in Canadian universities. They were talking about visa students. These are not immigrants or landed immigrants; they're foreign nationals who, presumably, intend to return home. They describe these students:

"Most of these foreign students come from status privileged sectors in their own societies. Some two-thirds cited professionals or owners and managers as fathers, the most frequently mentioned professions being engineers-architects, professor-teachers and accountants. Business owners and retail trade owners dominated the owners and management segment. It is evident that the bulk of foreign students are the children of entrepreneurs and businessmen."

The great majority come from families in which one or both of the parents have already been educated outside the country from which these children originate. In the case of Hong Kong students, 72 percent had family members who had preceded them to North America a decade or two ago. They said, incidentally, that students from Hong Kong are rated lowest in language skills among the various countries sending visa students to Canada. Many of them intend to emigrate, so perhaps a portion of these young people will end up in Canada. Certainly that becomes the intention of some who are here.

That was in 1977. More recently, a study carried out by Statistics Canada talks about 26,000 foreigners at Canadian universities in 1979. The figure rose sharply thereafter, increasing by 24 percent from 1979 to 1980, and by 31 percent from 1980 to 1981. This study, published by Mr. Max von Zur Muehlen, senior analyst with Statistics Canada, estimated the cost to the Canadian taxpayer at the university level alone to be in the order of $300 million a year. He said, furthermore, that an increasing number of these young people were coming from the relatively affluent countries, the great majority from home circumstances where the parents could well afford to pay the full cost of the children's education anywhere in the world. However, Canada is a bargain. Fees at our universities typically have been in the range of $500 to $1,000 a year. In the United Kingdom today you can't get to any university for less than $10,000 a year. Most western European universities are upwards of $10,000 a year. United States universities are $5,000 a year and up. The better-known ones, and certainly the private ones, are $10,000 a year and up.

So Canada is a bargain; Canada is the place to go. If you can get a grade 12 diploma and get entry into a Canadian university, then come to Canada because you will save in the order of $10,000 a year for four or five years spent in getting a BA degree. If you stay longer for more advanced degrees, you are saving not $50,000 but maybe $70,000, $80,000 or $90,000 per student. That, of course, is paid by the taxpayer. That is of some concern. It is of concern in other provinces. Quebec has recently put up its fees for foreign students, now in the order of several thousand dollars a year. Ontario has increased its fees this year and will increase its fees again next year, with the intention, in the third year, of covering costs. Therefore all foreign students entering Ontario universities three years from now will be paying around $10,000 a year for a university education. I can well imagine that the incentive for schools to go abroad searching for students so as to give them an education for a year or two in Ontario will diminish substantially. There are differential fees for foreign students versus others in Alberta. Other provinces are looking seriously at this problem.

An example of schools in this province is a new one that started up in the last 18 months: Western Canada College at Shawnigan Lake. A November 25 article in the Vancouver Sun talks about Western Canada College, and says it appears similar to other high schools. It has highly academic instruction based on the B.C. curriculum. There are school uniforms, structured schedules including mandatory evening study periods, etc. The college was formerly the Shawnigan Lake Inn: "Western Canada was opened after Albert Cheng, Jack Say Yee, Tony Hoy, Stanley Knight and Henry Yu spent about $1.5 million to buy the seven-acre Shawnigan Lake Inn and upgrade and equip the facilities for educational purposes."

The college initially enrolled 50 students from Southeast Asia, mainly Hong Kong, and 20 from Vancouver Island, with hopes to increase the total number to a maximum of 122. "Tuition, boarding and related fees are $9,550 each per academic year — about the highest among B.C. independent schools." Mr. Cheng was interviewed and he said that there was a healthy market for providing foreign students with a high-school education, one recognized by North American universities. I think he meant, more particularly, our British Columbia universities. The article also mentioned that Cheng's group is bidding for the former Strathcona girls' school, being sold by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for use as a second Shawnigan Lake campus.

There are half a dozen other schools in the province that are receiving, and a number of them actively recruiting, students from abroad, and charging substantial fees for a short course which gives the great majority of these students the equivalent of a grade 12 diploma. I can just see those who are organizing these schools also going to the University of

[ Page 8059 ]

British Columbia, Simon Fraser and the University of Victoria as soon as the enrolment opportunity occurs at these universities, and making quite sure as part of their contract to the parents that these young people are registered at our universities for first-year university. Then their job is done when these young people have been accepted.

Our universities basically take our young people on a first-come, first-served basis. There are many of them who work during the summer and don't arrive back at the registrar's office until September. They're not first come; they're definitely not first served. Some of them, in some disciplines, find that all the openings are taken. These young people from abroad with their education paid for, often by their parents, will be getting full value, in this sense at least: they will have qualified for grade 12 graduation. I wonder whether they're then registered at the universities as British Columbia students and not visa students. But in any case, they get into our universities. The great majority of them are hard workers, they're good students and they persist. They will continue through at least to their first degree here.

The numbers at UBC, Simon Fraser and the University of Victoria are now in the order of 3,000. That's what the universities tell us. If you take the Canadawide figures and give B.C. only 10 percent, you get a figure almost double that. I'm wondering why the discrepancy between the 3,000 our universities acknowledge as being visa students and the simply pro rata 5,000 or 6,000 that....

MR. LAUK: A lot of them became landed immigrants.

MR. DAVIS: Well, these are visa students. If they become visa students in the five or six months they're in the pressure-cooker school, maybe they're legally qualified as landed immigrants, but this is, again, what these schools are selling abroad. They're not only selling a low-cost university education and a priority in getting into our universities due to being Johnny-on-the-spot, but also perhaps Canadian citizenship — hopefully, in the long run, from their point of view.

MR. LAUK: What's the solution?

MR. DAVIS: I believe that students who enter this country as visa students — as non-Canadian nationals and not as landed immigrants, or not with an intention to stay — should pay cost. They should not pay the 90 percent subsidized fee — in other words, only 10 percent of the cost which we charge our own students. That, I believe, is the solution.

One jurisdiction after another around the world has done this. Worthy students abroad have a scholarship program. That would at least give students from lower-income families an opportunity to come to our country and get an education. These, in the main, are from privileged families or families that can afford it.

Ontario is jacking its university fees up from, say, $800 to $10,000 over a couple of years. The result is that we're going to get more of these people here. Our schools here who are giving this kind of education and are doing this kind of marketing abroad will have no problem selling any space that they can mobilize. That concerns me. I know that this is a new problem. It has developed over the last couple of years. It is going to continue to grow as a problem. It is occurring — partly, at least — at the secondary school level because of these pressure-cooker courses aimed at our universities.

I am concerned about this letter from the gentleman in Hong Kong who is concerned about quality of education in British Columbia, the bad reputation and so on. I know that some of his concerns are warranted. I would like the minister, if he would, to comment on how young people coming from outside Canada with virtually no knowledge of the language can get a grade 12 diploma in half a year; how they can be accepted by our universities — perhaps this is not his area — on the same basis as our young people; and whether or not the quality of education in these pressure-cooker schools, which are expanding now, is up to the standard which he would expect to be met by our own schools at home and the standard which our own students have to meet before they can get into our universities or into any other educational institution.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will be very brief on this, because some of it is outside my scope. First of all, the so-called visa schools are not under the independent schools legislation. They don't receive or seek funding, and we don't evaluate them. We have nothing to do with them. Maybe we should, but we haven't. We have respected the independence of a number of schools that don't care to come under the umbrella of state aid. We have nothing to do with them in that regard.

The second thing is that the visa problem is a federal immigration problem, and even if this province were to enter into a special agreement with Ottawa to restrict foreign students it would not be an effectual move, if that was the objective of the province, because they would simply migrate here from other provinces that didn't have such agreements. The policy of granting visas to students who have placements here in so-called visa schools, as you call them, is a direct federal matter.

The other side of it is the admission to post-secondary institutions and whether additional fees or surcharges should be charged. They are generally not admitted to colleges and institutes. There are some exceptions in the case of dependants of diplomats, refugees or special agreements entered into with an international organization or another country. The problem does occur, as you describe it, at the universities.

The issue of whether the universities should charge additional foreign fees, or whether any post-secondary surcharges on fees should be imposed in this province, is one that my ministry is presently studying. We have in the past taken the view that this was not the way to go, but I must say that I am becoming increasingly concerned as other jurisdictions do it. It is being done in Ontario and Quebec. It is being done in a number of the states to the south. It puts additional pressures for numbers on our universities. My colleague Dr. McGeer is probably the one to address that to. We are making a study of foreign students and fees and the implications of surcharges at present.

MS. SANFORD: The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) expressed some concerns about what was happening with the community colleges and the fact that they had to cut back. She also expressed the view that these colleges were very valuable in that it was cheaper for students to be able to live at home and to attend courses in their own region without having to travel outside.

I certainly concur in the concerns she expressed and know that courses are being cut because of the kind of budget restraints that have been imposed by government. For instance, at Douglas College all the women's programs have

[ Page 8060 ]

been eliminated because they don't have enough money to fund them. The college principal there, Bill Day, has admitted that the program's cancellation will be damaging to the college and its reputation, because it has built a reputation on being willing to establish women's programs whenever they were needed. He also said there would be public outcry in that particular area with respect to those cuts. But he indicated that in the long run it would cause the least damage to the institution if those were the programs that they cut. I think that that gives some indication of the seriousness of the cuts that the various colleges have to make because of those budget restraints.

The other thing is that the students who will be attending either colleges or universities this fall are going to be faced with huge increases in fees. The government has cut back on funding and the institutions, in an attempt to try to save some of the courses and programs, are forced to raise fees for students attending those universities and colleges, and at the same time the government cuts back on the amount of money available for students who get employed in the youth employment program. So the government, no matter which way you cut it.... They've done so many things. They've raised all the fees, user charges and everything you can think of. After they cut the youth employment program, they reintroduced it with great fanfare. But this year the students will be working the same length of time and will be earning less money, even though they're going to face increases in the college and university tuition fees. I've raised this before. For instance, students who will be employed through the tourism branch as a result of the youth employment program are going to be faced with a cut of 11 percent in their income.

Therefore I think the minister should have a look at the increases that students are facing this year and see whether or not there is some way those students can be assisted, because there's very little employment available, and the employment that is available pays less than it paid last year because of the cuts in the youth employment program. I would like the minister's comments on that when he gets up to respond.

Another issue I want to raise relates specifically to my own constituency. I have talked to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), education officials and the Deputy Minister of Finance. It relates to the deplorable conditions at the Bowser school. This school need replacing. The Ministry of Education has agreed that it needs replacing. The school board has done all of its work. The plans are ready to go. The parents are very concerned about the present situation. To give you an indication of the deplorable situation at the Bowser Elementary School, I was informed just today that the custodians who go in to clean the school after the students have gone find the conditions so deplorable that they leave the doors of the portable units open for a period of time before they can get enough courage to go in there. Yet we are asking children to spend all of their day in facilities as deplorable as that, and are not in a position, are not willing, or are not concerned enough to approve the necessary funds for the school which is already planned, approved and through all the stages.

I've been informed that a cabinet committee is looking at the priorities for the construction of facilities, including schools. I'm not sure how many people are on that cabinet committee. I have been informed that these cabinet ministers are looking into the problems around the province. One of the things they're considering when they are awarding funds for the construction of various facilities, including schools, is the level of employment in that area. It's not just whether the school is deplorable or whether the situation is such that the custodians won't even go into the building until it's been aired out, but it's the level of employment they're looking at in that particular area before they decide whether to approve construction of that building.

The school board is very angry about this. They've tried to meet with the minister and have not received a date for a meeting. The parents are very angry. They get together in the evenings in order to write letters of protest to the government, because they do not feel their children should be in facilities as inadequate as that Bowser school.

There's a possibility that the Ministry of Health may be involved in closing that school down. I know the school board is now considering going through the Ministry of Health in order to have testing done, including testing of the sewerage facilities in the Bowser area, with the hope that the Ministry of Health might close the school down so the government is forced to build a new school. That's a shocking situation. I don't know how the minister can possibly expect students to continue or obtain an education in a facility like that.

There is one other point I would like to raise with the minister. It's now a year since Richmond School District closed down 70 portable classrooms because of the formaldehyde gas levels. Another two, I think, were closed down by Penticton School District. Just last week 17 of the 28 portables in School District 71 in the Courtenay area were closed because of formaldehyde gas levels. I would really like the minister to explain to this House why he hasn't ensured that every one of the 1,600, I think they are, portables is tested for formaldehyde gas. I realize some of them are old and may not have the formaldehyde gas problem, because it's relatively new — within the last five or six years. The students attending classes in those portables are complaining of headaches, sore eyes, sore throats, dry cough, lack of concentration, sleeplessness — just a host of symptoms occur when students are forced to remain in a portable classroom for the number of hours that they attend school. The minister has interfered with decision-making at the local level on so many issues; yet the only thing he has done is send out a memo to the school boards suggesting that it might be an idea to have these portables tested. That's not good enough, Mr. Chairman. I think the health of the kids of this province requires more than that from the minister. I think that the minister should undertake to test those portables through the Ministry of Education, and not leave it up to the school districts, based on a memo suggesting that it might be a good idea, and that the Ministry of Education should assume the cost of testing those units. School boards are going to be reluctant, with the kind of cutbacks they've had to make, to undertake any additional expenditures. Within District 71 they've already spent $6,000 on the testing of those units.

Not only that, but there is the additional problem that has arisen with respect to alternative facilities and with respect to the lease itself. The lease has been signed. What happens? Do they continue paying the company that they've leased these portables from, even though the Health ministry has closed down the portables? What sort of legal problems are there on this? Should the board continue paying? They are not acceptable as portable classrooms. It's about $10,000 a month for School District 71 alone to pay the rent on those portable classrooms. I'd appreciate the minister's comments.

[ Page 8061 ]

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments in a couple of different areas — perhaps as suggestions to the minister and the ministry. Whether they're possible situations for response at this time I'm not sure. But before I do that, I'd just like to thank the minister and his ministry for their recognition of the special problems in the smaller communities that had a very high industrial tax base, and for their swift action in alleviating those problems where so much of the local tax base was industrial that even the small percentage left of the total school budget meant a severe tax increase. The ministry responded with a third level grant to cap those tax increases at 7 percent.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

It's a bit ironic that the opposition critic, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), wrote that letter to, I believe, all the newspapers in the province. It's a bit ironic that the Fort Nelson News, where his letter appeared saying that the increase in residential school taxes in Fort Nelson was 52.9 percent, came up with an increase of about 18 percent in residential taxes, and since this total school budget has gone up by almost 17 percent it was fairly well in line. I don't know where the 52.9 percent figure came from. It is also interesting that in that letter he said the average residential school tax increase would be 32 percent. In School District 60, the other district in my own constituency, the tax increase was some 3 mills, or about 6 percent. It is unfortunate that some of the fears were created by presumably factual letters by the opposition critic on education. However, I guess those things happen in the field of politics.

I would like to suggest one thing. Sometimes it is a bit risky to speak against motherhood issues, but despite all the suggestions about what more the education system should include and what more the schools should provide, I think government, through its various agencies, is now far too involved in the personal lives of the citizens of this province and country. Certainly it is good politics, whenever society finds a problem, to agree to let the schools handle it. In a sense, it is a chicken-and-egg situation, where we try to provide, through the agencies of society — local governments and provincial governments — for all the needs of our citizens. In turn, our citizens are encouraged to ask the government to provide everything that they see as a need.

For instance, we have had suggestions that there should be far more family-life training in the schools, and that may well be true. However, I believe this idea stems from the fact that we, as a society and as parents, like to absolve ourselves of the responsibility of training our own young people. "Let the schools do it," is the cry that comes out. There has been a lot of discussion about why schools aren't doing more, about what they are and aren't doing, but I suggest that you cannot get involved in sex education in the schools without the question of values. I have been there. I have approved programs in my own school at the junior secondary level and at the elementary level, and I have seen some of these programs. I have seen the programs dealing with birth control and I suggest that this immediately implies a value in our society. In effect, those programs are saying that since you are going to start indulging in sexual activity at a very early age, we must therefore take the responsibility of teaching you how not to get burned in the process. Immediately, values are inculcated. I am also a parent. I have had three young children who, of course, turned into teenagers, and they are now adults. Often, even as a school principal, I had to ask myself this question: when sex education or family-life skills are taught, which one of these teachers, according to the values that particular person possesses would I want to teach my own children? What values would they be consciously or unconsciously inculcating in my own children? I tried to do it in terms of other children from that point of view.

There could be a whole debate, really, on sex education or family-life education in the schools. I recognize that society demands it, that schools probably have to respond to society demands, but I think we have to be careful. We cannot teach sex education objectively. That is perhaps a personal point of view. I think values are involved. Mind you, values are involved in much of what is taught in the schools.

We have tried to get the schools to do the job training of our young people and we've made a lot of progress. I suppose it's easy enough for people who are not directly involved in the timetabling or programming of students, classes and teachers to believe that if we need to spend more time on teaching job skills, then we should spend more time on it. People don't realize that this obviously means less time must be spent on something else. I sometimes question whether the schools are really that well equipped to do a lot of the training that we demand of them. We make some impossible demands on our school system and then we criticize it for falling short of those ideals. It has been mentioned that child care should be included in the school system. I sometimes wonder why it is that it should be the responsibilities of the publicly funded schools to provide child care. Should it not be the responsibility of parents? If those parents are not in a position to provide it then perhaps it should be some other agencies. But surely the schools should not provide — probably in its crudest term — babysitting. That should not be their function. I think other agencies can do it much better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. BRUMMET: Because schools are there, theoretically at least, to do the job that they can do best. That job can be training in the fundamental skills, communication skills, mathematical skills, culture, art, and that sort of thing. Schools cannot and should not be all-encompassing in trying to deal with all facets of our lives, unless we as a society want to personally abandon our responsibility for the upbringing of our young and say: "Let government take it over." If we want to do that, then I think we have to be prepared to pay the bills. If the taxpayers really want our children to be raised from cradle to grave by government, then there's going to be a big bill for that. Personally I'm frightened by that prospect, because the schools can influence the thinking and the cultural values. They're a very potent force, when we turn over our children from cradle to grave to government. That is very evident in some societies where the government, in effect, becomes the total force in people's lives, in deciding what is good and what is not as good, and that frightens me. I think people should decide those things and should let their government run the other affairs that they are more capable of, but certainly they should not decide our values.

I'd like to suggest, in keeping with this, that in recent years we have put a lot more funding and more programs into our schools. This is not just in British Columbia or in Canada; it's in North America. I can't help sometimes but think about what progress we have made in that sense. For instance. I mentioned the family life education program. A

[ Page 8062 ]

great deal more has been done than when I first started in the educational system, yet we have more teenage pregnancies and we have more troubled teenagers. I know it's easy enough to say that if we didn't deal with them then we'd have an even worse situation. I'm not convinced. I've read quite a bit about the Swedish example, which has done a great deal to provide almost anything and everything that the young people need, yet their problems with teenage pregnancies, abortions, etc., are probably much greater than our own. We have put a lot more money into programs for reading, arithmetic, etc., and I don't know that those skills have improved that much.

I'm quite willing to admit that pupils have a much broader education in this day and age than they had years ago. But on the basis of some of the fundamental skills.... I think part of that has been that we have assumed that all we have to do is tinker sufficiently with our educational system to make it a little more efficient, and then we can inculcate all the skills into every single person. I think we can teach life skills to every young person, regardless of mental ability, or ratings, or whatever the case may be. But we've tried to translate that.... If we only do it a little better, we will get everybody to be able to handle university courses; and in doing so, in trying to get that many more people further up the educational ladder, we have, in effect, brought the lowest common denominator down. If you're trying to get everybody through school, you really do have to bring down the passing level, if you like, in order to get everybody through. Of course, the schools have perpetrated the feeling that you have to get a university degree to amount to something. I really feel that in some cases this has done a disservice to our young people.

As I see it, the universities originally responded to the needs of people, to their curiosity and to their commitment to learn from people who were more knowledgeable than themselves. Unfortunately, I think that that got twisted around a bit as society got more prosperous and as the great American dream spread — that anybody can be up there at the top. I think the emphasis has been on getting that certain type of certificate, and in order to make that certificate possible, we've had to structure and restructure courses so that more and more people could get that certificate.

Unfortunately, the real and true commitment to learning is no longer what it was. At one time when people went on to university it was for the learning, and the degree was a sign of that higher learning, but I don't think the commitment can be there when we try to put 85 percent or 100 percent through university. I know I can be accused of being an elitist, but you can't make a sprinter out of every athlete and you can't make a mathematician out of every student. I think we have to accept that. You can teach mathematics to every student and you can teach running to every student, but you cannot make exceptional people of all of them in the various fields.

We've succumbed to the belief that learning takes place best in a highly structured system. We've tried to improve the structure in education, and I'm not sure that that has done any more than develop a tighter system where people then have to fit the system rather than learning what people want and responding to their curiosity and to their needs.

I think we've reached a point where we feel that learning takes place best when we have highly institutionalized instructors — instructors who sometimes went from school to higher training and then to teaching in a particular field without ever having actually functioned in that field. Yet what counts in the higher education is the more letters you get after your name. So we have these people who, of course, need a lot of time off in order to improve themselves, and we have a very elaborate and unnecessarily expensive system that has developed. In a sense, our whole society, not just in education, has come to believe that quality comes with higher prices. It may be true in some instances; I don't think it's necessarily true in human relationships. Education is probably one of the more formalized levels of human relationships.

In conclusion on that particular area, I think there's sort of a double reason for the perpetuation of our system and the expansion and the growth of our system in that as parents and members of society we've learned to absolve ourselves of our individual responsibilities, one to another, and we have asked society to take over those personal responsibilities. If we want that, then I think that as politicians we have to be honest with people and tell them that when we do that it's going to cost us a great deal.

I think that we have many people in the academic world who actually believe that this is the best way to go because that is how they got there. In other words, they believe that the formalized institution is the best way that education can happen, and they have the sincere belief that it can be done better this way and that they can do it better. Of course, I would think that in some cases there's a vested interest in job security, because if you allow people to learn on their own, then that means less jobs.

Before I sit down I'd like to comment briefly on what I see as the community colleges system in this province, which I think was a fantastic system. I was in the educational field before the community colleges came and I've seen a great deal of what they have brought to the communities. As I see it, the original intent of the community college system was to serve the needs of the community. I am a bit afraid that it has almost swung around so that the community must now serve the needs of the institution. I recognize that that is perhaps an overstatement to make a point. But we have structured and systematized that system. I don't know that we are responding that directly now to community needs.

Certainly there is a community need for university-type education closer to home, and that is a legitimate cause, but the funding for community colleges certainly favours full-time instruction. In those communities we have an awful lot of people who would love to both work and go to school, but the funding system, the powers that be that make those decisions, more or less make it so that there is much more funding available, the cost is cheaper and support is much greater if people will switch to a full-time day program.

Here is just one example that I think could happen. I think there would be many employees and employers who would be best served in a community if people could work four days and provide the talents that their employers need and then take one day to go to school. As far as the instructors, equipment or facilities are concerned, all you have to do is recognize now that most instructors have an hour of preparation time for every hour that they teach, so in effect they are only instructing half-time. If they instructed one day and had the next day off, that would mean that a group could come in for a full workday Monday — the same as they work on the job — and, say, again on Wednesday, and perhaps on Friday. I think that it could serve a need without the expense of assisting people to attend these full-time courses, or subsidizing them, when in effect they could be paying their own way.

I think we are doing education in these systems the expensive way. I would like to suggest that there is a great need for evening courses, weekend courses, one-day-a-week

[ Page 8063 ]

courses or a variety of workshops. The evening courses, again, allow people to work and allow people to take training. Unfortunately, we have gotten caught in that straitjacket of saying that if you want to take a typing course you must take so many hours, and then you get a certificate. There are many people who can type now — word processors are coming in — who would love to take evening courses in word processing. One of the things that blocks that is that the full-time instructors have the power in the community colleges. If a course is in their field, they don't want anyone else to teach it. They want to teach it at overtime rates in the evening. I think that could be rescheduled so that they don't have to put in more hours a week but the hours could be flexible in order to serve the needs of the community. Or if they are teaching full-time in the daytime, then perhaps there would be no problem in having someone teach at regular rates in the evening. Those people are available.

There is a fantastic demand in the communities for the workshop type of courses. These workshops can cater, for instance, to nurses in a community. They can cater to bookkeepers upgrading. They could cater to mechanics, where most of the employers or employees, being fully employed, would be quite willing to pay the fee. These are self-funding courses, and all it would take is one coordinator — or one programmer, as they call them — to organize these courses and pay their own way. There is a great demand for them.

I could give you an endless list, really, of the things that could happen in the communities. There are just a few that I have listed here. There is computer training. Many people don't want to become fully trained computer operators but both they and their employers would benefit from their knowing a little more about computers. If they then took an interest, by all means carry on into a full-time course. A great deal could be done in two nights a week for six weeks. I know that some of this is happening, and it has happened under the old night-school program, but I also know that the funding discourages that type of programming, and the organized system tends to discourage it. But there are things like word processing, English-upgrading, management skills, marketing skills, mechanics, reading-upgrading — many people would love to take speed-reading — electrician, first aid, job safety and welding. I know it can be said that a great deal of this is now happening in the community colleges. I'm concerned that as restraint comes in too much of the emphasis is to maintain the full-time courses because of the no-release clauses of some of the instructors, and the funding is taken away from community services. In budgeting the increases — just to use a couple of examples — for academic it's 8.9 percent, for vocational it's 13.2 percent — this is for full-time courses, so it's about a 10 percent average increase — and for community services, which cover the night-school courses and so on, it's zero. I'm concerned about it. The increase in administration was almost 9 percent. What's happening is that many courses that would not need to be cut are being cut simply because the system, to put it in its bluntest terms, has become paramount. We now cater far too much to the system, not just in our post-secondary but also in our secondary schools.

What I'd like to suggest is that we really take a look at what we're doing — how the colleges are serving the community needs — that we really try to break out of our straitjacket, that we become more flexible and that we do everything we can to change this system.

I'd like to speak either later or in the Ministry of Labour debate on the work-skills training program. I think we could do a great deal there. It's much cheaper and much better than catering to the system, or having the system form the mould to which all the programming has to fit. I'd like the minister to consider that. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't know whether it's possible to respond, because I didn't ask that many questions. I'd like it to be some food for thought. Maybe we've got to really look at serving the real needs of the communities, rather than allowing the system to be paramount.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'd like to thank the member for a number of very thoughtful and knowledgeable comments on a variety of subjects.

On the last subject of the community colleges serving the real needs of the community — and I include in the community not just the local community but also the province — that is precisely one of the things we are reviewing in the act and in the mission statement on colleges and institutes. It's one on which I think we need to hear more. Some of the programs that you mentioned you're concerned about, that are having difficulties getting funding, are probably having those difficulties because of the structuring of some contracts that were traditionally entered into with instructors who may not now fit the needs of part-time students and students who want to take adult basic or vocational training in the evenings. I think those problems are widespread throughout the post-secondary system. Some individual college boards are addressing them very well and others have not done so yet.

I thank you for those comments and your other comments about universities and the role of the school. I think I said in my introductory remarks that schooling cannot look after all the educational needs of children from the cradle to the grave. I don't think anyone expected it to, but we are going to try to define what the duty of the school is as opposed to the lifetime goals of education, which are shared.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who patiently awaited my response to her, mentioned the funding of womens access programs in some of the institutions. It is true that some have not continued with women's access programs, even though we provided two-thirds of the costs of those programs in the first year and a half and the second year — that would be this year. I think some of them have made some reductions in womens access programs. I tried to put a clear priority on those. But if an institution makes that judgment, it's difficult to do anything about that judgment, because they do have the right to decide what programs they're going to change.

You mentioned the plight of students with the job situation and then the tuition fees. I've been looking quite closely at proposed tuition fee increases this year, and I do not believe that tuition fee increases are going to be major. There certainly will be some across the system, but I think that the average increases are somewhere between about 15 percent and 25 percent. Most of the fees in the colleges have been low. The average fees in the college system will still probably be about $400 for the two semesters — a pretty good bargain when you consider that there haven't been major changes in those fees in a number of institutions until the last year or so.

I recognize, though, that we certainly have a responsibility to try to provide additional student aid. The total budget for student aid is up by about 12.6 percent over last year; the largest increases will be in the student assistance

[ Page 8064 ]

program, where the living allowances will be between 12 percent and 14 percent, depending on the category. There will be an increase, we believe, in the number of applications this year, because of job opportunities. Whether we'll have the funds to take care of all of that or not — I'm hopeful that we will — we have budgeted for an increase in the number of applications; I'm sure we're going to have an increase.

In your remarks you also mentioned your concern about Bowser school. Bowser school was not funded for construction this year in the capital program, but it was funded for design — $150,000. That, as you know, is in a district which has an increased enrolment, but the Bowser area does not. This year we approved a major capital project at French Creek for the new elementary-secondary school — $3.1 million. That was a very major expenditure in that district, and it was not possible to provide from the capital funds available the total funds for the construction of Bowser school. But we did make a commitment and provided funds for design, so that is on the way.

You also mentioned urea formaldehyde. I thank you for bringing to the attention of the House the problem in Courtenay, which I was aware of and which my ministry has been following. I think that we've done a little more than sending out a memorandum to school districts. We certainly have recommended testing and agencies to do the testing, and we have also made it very clear that the cost of testing and remedial action as well will be paid out of the approved capital-sharing fund. I will endeavour at a later time, I think, to bring back to the House a statement on urea formaldehyde generally across the province and to speak of it generally, as opposed to just in your district. Because as you know, it's been a problem in other districts — Richmond in particular. In many cases the problem has been a curable one; in some cases it wasn't. Also, some differences have arisen between medical health officers as to the standard, and some medical health officers have felt that the standard was not the correct one, but that a lower standard should be the standard of danger. I'm quite aware that in Courtenay there were a number of symptoms on the part of students for quite a period of time before the medical health officer there finally took action.

I don't think it would be proper for me to try to answer the lease questions, but I'm sure the board can get advice on that as to what they should do in respect to the payments. I will endeavour to give you a further statement a little later in the session on the urea formaldehyde situation across the entire province; I think it's that important.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it's not just the urea formaldehyde which is contained in insulation; it's the formaldehyde which is used in the glues and so on. It's not just urea that we're concerned with here; in fact, in most cases I don't think it is.

Mr. Chairman, the $150,000 which has been set aside for Bowser school for design and planning — as I understand it, the minister has said for this year.... I fail to understand how that money is going to be spent, because the design is ready; it's been approved through the ministry. They are completely finished with the design; it went forward to Treasury Board a long time ago, and it's been sitting at Treasury Board for approval. In order to keep the project on stream — I am told, through your ministry — they had to come up with this $150,000, which they have designated for design and planning. The board would like to know how they can spend that $150,000. The design is done, the approval has not been forthcoming but the $150,000 has been allotted to them. Can they spend that on the work on the grounds? Can they do site preparation? What can they do with that $150,000, since the design is ready?

HON. MR. SMITH: The member is not completely correct on that, because the size of the school proposed was larger than what was required, because of declining enrolment. It has to be redesigned. Whether all that money is required or not I can't say. If they do the redesigning and they wish to make application for some site money, they can do so later this year.

MS. SANFORD: With respect, the school board was informed just this last week that their enrolment projections were not out of whack, the projections are right on, and the design, which has been accepted, is not going to have to be redone. Initially they thought they would have to reduce the size of the activity room or make some other adjustments, but the school board has been informed that there is no need to make any alterations in that initial design, because the projections are correct. I was informed of that this morning.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member's understanding of this and mine differ. I will go back and examine it and talk to her later.

MR. STUPICH: Concerns have been raised about — I've forgotten how the minister phrased it now — his belief that education had to be supported in this period and the government's conviction that that is the case, yet concerns have been raised about the extent to which government is not supporting education. Some of this has been widely circulated. I would like to read first from a telegram from Emily Carr College:

IN TIMES OF DEEP RECESSION AND HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT, IT IS OF THE MOST VITAL IMPORTANCE THAT EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS ARE EMPHASIZED AND PROMOTED FOR OUR USE, NOT ONLY IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING BUT ALSO IN THE LIFE-ENHANCING CREATIVE OR CULTURAL AWARENESS THAT THIS COLLEGE IS ENDEAVOURING TO FULFIL.

I had an opportunity to spend some time at Malaspina College, and the same concern was expressed to me at that time: in times of recession and unemployment it is particularly important that the educational opportunities be presented as widely as they can be. When people are unemployed they have time to attend educational institutes like Malaspina College, to upgrade themselves, or perhaps even to learn things that are not going to help them in their careers but that will help them live as citizens in our community. That concern was expressed in Malaspina College by staff people, by instructors and by the president. I am not satisfied that the government has really met that concern in the programs announced by the minister to date.

A letter from someone from Gibsons expresses her personal concern as the mother of a severely handicapped child; she is concerned about what is going to happen for the special needs of that child. There is another letter from my own constituency, from the Davis Bay Elementary School parents who are concerned about the proposed budget cuts. I know that it is the Nanaimo School Board that has to deal with the budget, but it is limited by the funding available from the provincial government.

[ Page 8065 ]

"We feel that our children are our most important resource for the future, as they will be the adult population in British Columbia in just a few years. If we cut back in their education now, how can we expect them to be well-rounded adults? There are many young children in our school system with special needs such as speech, hearing and emotional problems, to name a few. We feel that the government should be aware that if we cut back on special programs to help these children adjust to or overcome the problems while they are young, these are the children who may not develop enough life skills to become independent citizens."

That concern has been expressed to me by many people in the community. If there have to be cutbacks, so be it, but there should not be cutbacks in the funding for special-needs children. I feel that very strongly.

The minister said in his opening remarks that the amount of money provided in these estimates shows the government's commitment to education. He pointed out that it is a 12 percent increase. Actually the increase is 6 percent. If you include the $54.9 million employment development account program — I am not sure that that should be included: I want to ask the minister something about that — it then works out to just under an 11 percent increase, not the 12 percent that he mentioned. At least, that is that way I calculate it. It is just under 11 percent if you include that $54.9 million program. Has that $54.9 million program been allocated? What decisions have been made? Has a portion of the $54.9 million, for example, been allocated to Malaspina College'? If so, how much? With respect to the so-called 12 percent increase, in the case of post-secondary colleges, without that special program....

Reading from the estimates before us now, I know there's a reference to the $54.9 million, but it's not in the estimates. Without those estimates the amount of money for post-secondary colleges and institutes is actually down 4 percent from last year. That's the figure they have to work with up to this point, and that means they do have to cut down on programs. They have to cut down on policies such as the one talked about by my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

When Malaspina College was first being dreamed of, when the plebiscite was first being planned, it was announced that they were going to do what the minister said he wanted to do, which was to reduce the physical barriers to education with respect to community colleges. In the case of Malaspina College, when they got it going they did reduce the physical barriers by making an allowance available to those students who were commuting so that their cost of attending college at Malaspina was equalized as much as possible with the cost of people who actually lived in the community. For people who lived beyond commuting distance there was an additional allowance to make up for their living costs in a community away from home.

Once again, insofar as was possible, it was to do what the minister said he wanted to do, and that was to reduce the physical barriers to attending that particular regional college. I think that's a great idea. It's an idea that I supported publicly in the community and campaigned with them to see that the plebiscite passed, and I campaigned with them further to try to widen Malaspina College's area. When we were presenting the idea of starting Malaspina College in the various communities, one of the things that persuaded the communities away from Nanaimo to join in was that Malaspina College was going to reduce the physical barrier to attending that particular college. Now because of budget constraints Malaspina College is having to drop that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now they do have to travel.

MR. STUPICH: They still have to travel. They accept it, as they are part of the college district. My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat talked about people who travel from Cowichan Lake. It's also other people in the Malaspina College district who are having to travel, who are having to board away from home, and there now is that physical barrier. It is perhaps more difficult now than when Malaspina College was envisioned to find the funds to live in a community away from home. In any case, the proposed spending for post-secondary colleges is down by 4 percent.

The funding for public schools education is up by only 9.6 percent. Mr. Chairman, that's a cutback. When they know that the salaries alone are going up by some 15 to 17 percent, when they know that the cost of all of the supplies, all of the utilities has gone up by 20 to 30 percent, there's no way of looking at a 9.6 percent increase, other than to say that that is a cutback.

Because the minister is obliged to cut back in the funding for public schools education we are finding that school boards are having to do things such as reduce the opportunities for those students with special needs to improve their education. In spite of what the minister told us about their commitment to education, the figures show that there just isn't that commitment. The one area that has gone up 12 percent, Mr. Chairman, and we'll have more to say about this later, is spending in the minister's office. Perhaps that in itself shows the commitment of this government to delivering services. When it comes to the minister's office expense they go the full 12 percent; when it comes to delivering the services, in every instance the figures are less.

With respect to Malaspina College, depending upon what the minister has to say about the employment development account, there will be more than 12 percent in that one area. It will be about 15 percent. Even that 15 percent increase, when one considers the rate at which the costs of delivering the service have gone up — and it's too late to change that; we can't roll the clock back.... Even the Premier in his announcement said he had no intention of rolling the clock back on salary increases that had already been committed. So the 15 percent, in the event that it is the figure, is still a cutback in terms of college instruction.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I have about 12 questions to the minister. It's good to see his able deputy in the House again. The first question to the minister is about a situation that arose about three weeks ago and was brought to the minister's attention concerning the principal situation in Stewart. There was a problem in which the one principal had two teaching assignments in both the elementary and high school. It caused a bit of controversy in the community. I don't know whether it has been resolved yet, but there was talk that there would have to be a change in the School Act to allow one principal to teach in two different schools. I would like to hear what the minister has to say about the Stewart situation.

The second question is about the use of the Provincial Museum for lectures. Presently the Provincial Museum is

[ Page 8066 ]

doing a number of field studies in the north, and they're working under very limited travel budgets. I was wondering if some type of program could be used in which the ministry stays in contact with the Provincial Museum. They're doing historical digs, working on wildlife.... I was talking with some individuals who were doing this work in the north. They said they would be welcome to go into the schools and have this discussion with children and show exactly what's happening, but they are finding out that there could be some problems with the ministry in setting up some kind of arrangement. I would like the minister to look into it, if possible. It deals with very limited amounts of transportation fees. If we have experts in the north or in rural areas, they can look into where exactly these Provincial Museum people are, so they can bring the children on site or bring specimens....

The third question is about playing fields. A number of times over the years I have raised this issue concerning the improvement of playing fields in the north, but we won't dwell too long on that. I'd like to state to the minister that when you're dealing in rural areas, there are very limited spaces for playing fields. When they see money spent on football stadiums in Vancouver, it's of concern to parents who live in small communities, who find out that there aren't enough flat areas for children to play in. I was just wondering if the ministry is undertaking any new programs to develop playing fields in rural areas, particularly in the north.

The fourth question is about the native-language program. I haven't seen any new proposals or new programs coming out of the ministry. Could the minister elaborate on whether there are any new native-language programs being devised for the predominantly native communities, for which the ministry would finance the majority of the funding, to provide native-language programs in the school itself like the excellent New Aiyansh program.

The fifth issue concerns the textbook exchange. When I was teaching, just three short years ago, there was quite an overrun of books, with the school reordering year after year. You'd come into a classroom, and what was ordered one year would be reordered the next year. This cost quite a bit of money. I know the ministry was bringing in programs in the last two years to cut down on this textbook exchange. What new programs or new methods of scrutiny is the ministry using to cut back on districts ordering the same books time after time — perfectly good books that weren't even used in the classroom? Sometimes in rural areas teachers would try to get a little bit extra and would order texts over and over again.

The sixth question concerns budget cuts in the districts. The BCTF newsletter asked: what was the budget cut in your district? In Nishga it was $195 per pupil, the second-highest cutback in the province; in Stikine, district 87, it was $144 per pupil, the fourth-highest cutback; and the third school district, a sub-local of Terrace, district 88, had a cutback of $136, sixth-highest. I'd like to know whether or not the minister agrees with these figures, and what his position is on these cutbacks. If he agrees with these figures — I'm sure BCTF would come up with the appropriate figures — why are the three northernmost schools in this province at the top of the list of schools being cut back? I know there is a problem with the Nishga; $195 might be misleading because of the transfer payments, if I'm not mistaken, concerning the federal programs. I'm concerned about the $144 cutback per pupil in the Stikine district and the $136 per pupil cutback in Terrace district.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The seventh question concerns work-related programs. I know there is often the problem in rural areas, particularly in high schools, of work experience. Has the ministry approached any government agency in the smaller communities for the exchange of work-related programs? Specifically, I'm looking at the situation where a child in high school might desire to get into heavy mechanics. Many rural school districts, particularly district 87, always have a Highways camp in the community. What type of programs is the ministry looking at for children and young adults who would like to get into heavy mechanics to be able to use a government agency like a Highways maintenance camp to be able to learn some type of training?

The eighth question is on travel assistance for children. I know that year after year it's difficult for children who live in rural parts of this province to get the funding to enable them to come down to Vancouver and Victoria. School districts are finding, with the restraint on their budgets, that it's becoming more and more difficult for students to come south. I'm just wondering what the ministry is looking at to encourage and put in more funding for travel assistance for children. I know that when a class is going to put on a program to come down south, they have a bake sale and a car wash. A suggestion to the ministry is that maybe the minister could change the priorities so that the children would be able to have the funding if they wanted to come down to Vancouver and Victoria and see their part of the government and, if the ministers of this government wanted to travel around this province, they would have to hold a bake sale or a car wash first to get the funding.

The ninth question is on the teachers' program, particularly in the universities and colleges. Has the ministry started a prerequisite for teachers who are going into northern and rural areas to take a native or northern program? This is of immense value, because teachers who come up into the north for a year or two years are having difficulty adjusting to rural areas in the north. I'm wondering if the ministry has started any type of a program in teacher training whereby it would be a prerequisite for teachers to take some type of northern or native program before they move into the north.

The tenth question is on post-secondary colleges and institutes. Last year the figure was $10 million more than this year. I'm wondering why we have a cutback of $10 million in post-secondary colleges and institutes.

The eleventh question is on transfer payments to the province from the federal government, particularly for the first citizens of this province. I think the figure right now is about $2,400 per student, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe the minister could clarify that aspect. It works out to about $2,400 per student that the federal government pays to the province for every native student in this province. I have a number of questions in this regard. First, how much money was transferred last year from Ottawa to the province by the DIA for the first citizens of this province? Secondly, where does the money go to? Does it necessarily go into general revenue, or does it go right into the ministry's estimates? The third question in this regard is: can this money be allocated, particularly for a school district like School District 87, to have a good percentage of this money — the transfer of payments from the federal government — go right to the school district itself instead of going into general revenue in Victoria?

[ Page 8067 ]

The twelfth question is on the cutbacks that we've seen in this budget this year. We see school programs down by $200,000 and teacher services down by $300,000 — an approximately 38 percent decrease from last year. Why such a cut in teacher services for this year? Grants to reduce local school taxes down by $1 million — I'm wondering why that. Post-secondary management down by S100,000 from last year, and this particular program includes the student loans and the scholarships — I'm wondering why this program is down by $100,000.

The last question is in regard to independent schools. We've seen that one of the biggest increases in the ministry's budget, percentage-wise, is going to private schools. Mr. Chairman, the question I pose to the minister is: while we are cutting back on certain programs to the public schools, four of which I've just gone through in the last few minutes, why are we dramatically increasing the grant of taxpayers' dollars to private schools?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against it?

MR. PASSARELL: I certainly am, Mr. Minister. We're cutting back in public schools and we're encouraging sending more money to private schools. Maybe I'm not as fortunate as the minister for South Peace River who has many private schools in his riding, but I know that up in the north there are very few private schools — almost none. Parents send their children to public schools in the north, not to private schools, and they'd like to see their tax dollars go to public schools, Mr. Minister for South Peace.

Those are thirteen or fourteen questions I raise to the minister, and I would like his response to them.

HON. MR. SMITH: First of all, I'll deal with some of the matters raised by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He's quite correct that the $54.9 million in the employment development fund is money that was allocated to the councils in the normal way, but it was shown in that fund. On first reading of those estimates, it was a bit confusing to see those figures on grants, and then you had to go back to that fund to find out that the funding had indeed not gone down but had gone up basically 12 percent when you add the two together. That money has been allocated to the occupational training council, which in turn has proposed the allocations to the various colleges, including Malaspina. With the requested additional funding, Malaspina's total allocations came to about an 11 percent lift over last year's budget, when you consider what is called the RACs.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said less.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, lift. They are all lifts. None are less.

Another figure you were dealing with was the school district grant. Several amounts of money make up that global amount. When I said the grants were up 12 percent, I meant the amount that represented what was previously the direct grants to school districts was up 12 percent. Another amount in that vote, some $87.9 million, includes a lot of other items, such as debt servicing, ICBC and directly funded programs. The amount we used to allocate for direct grants to districts went up from $428.5 million in the previous fiscal year to $479.9 million this year. That is up 12 percent. I am sorry if my statement didn't seem clear on his perusal of the estimate; that is my fault and not his.

I will try to deal with some of the questions from the member for Atlin. I don't propose to deal with them all because there was quite a string of them. I will have to get back to him on some of them, privately or else on the order paper.

The principal situation at Stewart is still not resolved. I sent an official there from my ministry to try to bring about a resolution. The position I have taken is that the decision to hire a second principal is entirely the decision of the local school board. Given the way in which they have organized those two schools, since both have more than ten teachers, they are required, as the member knows, to have a principal for each. If the board decides it wishes to endeavour to reorganize them into a combined school, that would be the board's prerogative; it's not for me to tell them to do that. It's not for me to tell them how they should organize their schools in Stewart. They have a trustee from Stewart and the board represents the whole district. The board must make those decisions; those decisions should not be made in Victoria. That is the position I have taken.

I will look at his suggestion on the use of the museums and the implications of funding for that. His comments on playgrounds are valid, I think. We have to recognize that we need to spend more money on playgrounds in the north and the interior. There is about $14 million in the capital budget this year for site development. That is not as much as last year, but more than the year before. I have tried to ensure that the priorities of that funding go to parts of the province where weather is a real problem. and that the money is given a higher priority in the northern and interior parts.

The native programs that he was urging are under the special education branch. They have increased in funding. He also made an interesting suggestion that it should be a prerequisite for teachers who go into the north to take some training in Indian education. I have gone so far as to suggest that the universities should require a course on special education of everyone in their teacher training program, and I consider Indian education a part of special education. UVic does require a course in special education. None of the university faculties requires courses in Indian education but, as you know, they are offered. I think you certainly could make a very good case that somebody going into the north should have a familiarity with native education. We are instituting a new internship year in education on a pilot project basis. I think that is something that could well be considered in that internship pilot when it starts.

I think the textbook system is working better now than it was in the past under the credit allocation system. We are not having too many of the examples that he gave which used to occur in the past.

On the budget cuts in Nishga, Nishga District, as you know, has a very high per-pupil cost. After the budgets were calculated, the cost per pupil as a result of the restraint program — not one year over the other, but the reduction in the budget that restraint brought about — brought the per pupil cost from $6,575 to $6,381. That is not a huge reduction in percentage terms. although it does appear to be large in dollar terms, because the average per-pupil cost across this province is about $3,300.

I think I would prefer to answer the question on the Indian Affairs grants, to take that and give him a proper answer directly as to how it works. It is certainly my understanding

[ Page 8068 ]

that the grants go directly to the districts on a shareable basis, but I'll give him an answer on that.

The suggestions on travel expenses and particularly the suggestion he made that government agencies should encourage work experience are ones I favour.

I'm informed, hon. member, that the grants do not go directly to the district, but I'll give you a proper answer on that.

MR. PASSARELL: The last question I had was the one I posed regarding the independent schools.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I'm sorry to have overlooked that one, because it was a very important one. The funding for independent schools appears to be showing a major increase, but that increase is due largely to three factors. First of all, due to an increase in the public school district per-pupil operating costs of the preceding year, which is what the grants are based on, those increases in the public school system are 19.5 percent; so that, at a 30 percent funding level, amounted to part of the increases. Another part of the increase, 10.4 percent, was due to increases in enrolments in all independent schools, and part of the increase in enrolments was brought about by slightly earlier qualifying requirements, which that member and all members of this House voted for when amendments were made to the independent schools act last year which allowed earlier qualifying and allowed the pupils as well to qualify for a partial year: when a pupil doesn't attend the school for the whole year but moves from one school to another, they can be partially qualifying. So 10.4 percent was due to increases in enrolment, partially due to earlier qualifying of the school, and 4.45 percent was due to grants for partially qualifying pupils. The result of all that was that the independent school grants increased as a result of a statutory formula brought about by different qualifying regulations, increased enrolments and increases in the cost of educating students in the public school system in that district. Those brought about the funding.

There has been no increased funding in percentage terms to independent schools but the level has been maintained and the law has been broadened and, I think, made fairer to the independent schools. I make absolutely no apology for that funding level at all, when you consider, hon. member, what it would cost if those students were all to move to the public school system — what it would cost in capital replacement and what it would cost as well to pay the education costs of those students, not to mention the loss of freedom of choice their parents have. I think it's a very modest investment in maintaining a system of independent schools.

MR. PASSARELL: One further question to the minister. Last year the grants to independent schools were $12.4 million; this year they are $17.4 million. There is a two-year program supposedly on education under the restraint program. With the increase this year in grants to the independent, private schools, is the minister going to restrict private schools next year, as he is doing to public schools this year and for the next year?

HON. MR. SMITH: They will feel restraint later, because what will happen is that with the restraint program, the per-pupil operating costs in the districts, which their grants are based on, will be lower because the districts will be on restraint, so they will feel the effects of the restraint program later than the public school system. In fact, when the public school system is coming out of the Education (Interim) Finance Act, the increases in the grants to the independent schools will be lower than they have been in the past, because of the lag. But there has been no change in their grants; it's been reflected by the costs in the public school system.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister some of the problems that are being faced by the Greater Victoria School District, and especially how that particular problem is affecting part of my riding, the Esquimalt municipality, and the adjoining area of Vic West. The minister is well aware that there has been a population shift in the Esquimalt area in terms of students going to school. Over the last few years within the school district there has been a reorganization of the school components. For a period they experimented with the elementary school, middle school and senior school. They had grades 1 to 7 in the three elementary schools, grades 7 and 8 in Harbour View School and grades 9 through 12 in another school. The two years in the middle school were not that effective. The parents found that the children were not in the school long enough to really have an identification to a particular school, and that the senior students of that school were too young to really give any leadership in the district.

In February 1981, I believe, a group of concerned parents, teachers, students and officials from the school district formed what was loosely called the Esquimalt Area Reorganization. The desire of the group was to establish within the school district a certain system so the children, as they progressed from the elementary areas into the high school, would have a more secure connection to the school. In elementary the grade 1s, 2s, and 3s could look at the older ones in grade 7. When the children went into the senior schools for grades 8 to 12, the grade 12s would have that role model that was needed to show some leadership and discipline in the school system.

For one who was in the police force and watched the problems of the old junior high schools, there was an area from grades 7 to 10 when you had the kids who traditionally dropped out of school in grade 10 who, in many cases, were not the role model that kids entering that particular junior high should look to. That was the end of the school system for the majority of the troublemakers in the school. There was a shift away from the junior highs. The reorganizing committee was trying to set up two structures in the Esquimalt area.

After a lot of studies they have made many presentations to the school board, which has passed it on to your ministry. It's the utilization of the various schools. This development calls for the elementary schools that are presently in effect in Esquimalt. It also calls for the development of an additional elementary space in the Vic West area. For the progress from the elementary levels, it calls for the consolidation and further development of Esquimalt Senior High School.

This leaves the one school called Harbour View School out in left field. It was formerly known as Esquimalt Junior High and Highrock School. The proposal they made for the utilization of this school was that it become the French immersion section of the Greater Victoria School District. Traditionally, and maybe historically, the French immersion program in the greater Victoria area was pioneered in the Esquimalt area because we had the largest concentration of service personnel that, within their own organization, did have many French- speaking Canadians from other parts of

[ Page 8069 ]

the country. The DND, in their wisdom, had provided the initial French program for their students known as Ecole Victor G. Brodeur. This has grown over a period of time so now they are pushing between 150 and 200 students that are being taught through DND. Proposals have been made to the Greater Victoria School District and your ministry that the Greater Victoria School District take over the administration of the French immersion programs.

They have also made suggestions to both the Saanich and Sooke School Districts that those who desire to send their children to the French immersion program could fit into a program of French immersion at the Harbour View Junior Secondary School. There is a potential there of 400 students. This is where the problem arises at your particular level. Before you can reorganize the elementary teaching in the various schools in the municipality and in Vic West you have to establish the grade 1 to grade 7 level. Before you can eliminate the middle school, we have to provide the facilities in the Esquimalt Senior Secondary School.

If we are going to be able to get the three programs into operation, it is going to take your 100 percent cooperation or it's not going to be successful. At the present time it is being stalled. Your ministry will not give the go-ahead for new construction at Victoria West Elementary School to pick up the need for the elementary classes. There is also no go-ahead for the development of an enlargement of the Esquimalt Senior High. If we in Victoria are going to live up to our new constitutional programs — that we are going to provide a full French immersion program where the demand is — then I feel that we can't continue to stall this year after year.

In the Esquimalt and Vic West areas, though the enrolment of those areas has been slipping for a time, we have now had a large development of apartment buildings in the View Royal area and a potential housing development coming onstream in the Songhees industrial reserve. Before we have these students coming onstream, we have to plan for providing the facilities so that they will be there. The facilities must also be provided so that the standard of education for all those who are serviced in the Esquimalt area will be kept up to the standards of the rest of the greater Victoria area.

If you make any studies of where the money has been spent for new schools, it is very interesting that most of it happens to be in the minister's own riding of Oak Bay and Gordon Head. In studying the money for that new development it is quite obvious — maybe not intentional — that that is where the money has been going. The Esquimalt area has been left out. I feel that if we are going to maintain that quality, the facilities for career opportunities for all students — it doesn't matter what particular area they grow up in — for technical training and secondary development....

Since all kids are not going to graduate into the universities, the technical facilities must be built into the school system, both in Esquimalt Senior and in the new additions that should come into the Vic West schools.

This is the leadership that we can't afford to keep putting off, because the costs keep growing. I think one good example is the addition to the George Jay School that was stopped in 1976 by the Ministry of Education. It was stopped in 1976, 1977 or 1978, and the initial estimate on the addition was $300,000. Now it is coming onstream and it is over $1 million. Then you have the problem that if you put it off, those kids who are caught in that one- or two-year time period are being denied a proper education. We can't afford that.

I bring to the minister's attention that the Esquimalt area organization was a group of citizens from all walks of life. They have the sincere belief that there is a need for reorganization in the school system. They are the parents, teachers and the technocrats from the Greater Victoria School District who have put in a lot of time and effort, but it seems to have hit a blank wall within the ministry. Leadership is not being given to come out with a strong program to be brought into the system to have a complete French immersion unit for the greater Victoria area.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few brief points that I want to raise with the minister. I've had a good deal of concern expressed from my riding, particularly the Shuswap and Revelstoke School Boards, respecting the Minister of Municipal Affairs' (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's) objectives regarding a county system. While this is not directly the Minister of Education's responsibility, certainly an element of it is of interest with respect to the autonomy of local school boards. I would appreciate a reaction from the minister to a resolution that was passed by both the Revelstoke School Board and the Salmon Arm school board which reads as follows:

"The board of school trustees of School District 89 has been advised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is proposing a county system of local government. We inform the Premier and the cabinet and all local MLAs that this board believes that any system of local government, county or otherwise, must adhere to the following principles so that the sovereign rights of parents to control their education of the children locally and directly is protected, The public school system must be governed by people locally elected for the specific and sole task of governing the schools and having taxing authority for that purpose."

One is signed by Terry Killough for the Revelstoke School Board, and the other is signed by Cliff Michael, the chairman of the board of school trustees for School District 89. The minister may know that gentleman.

I'd be interested in receiving the minister's response to that concern, which is a legitimate one in terms of the local people who are duly and democratically elected controlling education at the community level. If indeed there is a danger to that process from any intrusion into the minister's portfolio by a colleague, perhaps he could let us know what his reaction is and to assure us that he is the custodian of education and will make those determinations rather than some oblique interference from one of his colleagues.

There is another matter that again is on the periphery of the minister's responsibilities, but nevertheless is basically an education problem. This relates to deaf children in the province of British Columbia, who over the past years — I don't know a great deal about the institution, but as I understand — have attended Gallaudet College for the Deaf in Washington. There is no facility in British Columbia to provide the kind of learning options that are available at that institution. I believe they attended that institution with subsidies from the Ministry of Health in the past.

While they have a learning disability in the way of deafness, it is still basically a question of access to educational opportunity. I would think the Minister of Education would not only have an interest but a responsibility to ensure access to that institution with financial assistance. There is one such boy in Revelstoke, and his father has contacted me. The

[ Page 8070 ]

information that I have is that this funding for entry into this college in Washington has been available through the Ministry of Health, through CVRS, community vocational rehabilitation services, for the last 21 years. This year the parents were advised that they would have to pay 60 percent of the child's entry, and then they were advised that no funding at all was available — that they were on their own. I believe there are nine or ten entrants from British Columbia who have been attending, and they have now been cut off from financial assistance through the Ministry of Health. There are six to nine new applicants waiting for enrolment in that institution, provided there is financial assistance available. I certainly will be raising this with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I raise it with the Minister of Education because it seems to me that there's a heavy education responsibility here too. Perhaps he could help to facilitate, through discussions with his colleague, what is going to be done about making educational opportunity available to these unfortunate students in the province of British Columbia who are hearing-impaired. Certainly they have their full faculties in terms of every opportunity for receiving higher education.

I have problems regarding school safety in a number of areas. One of them is the Big Eddy area of Revelstoke, where children are obliged to walk arterial highways. Another is the rural area of Falkland Westwold Elementary School. The principal of that school, Mr. Hatch, has communicated with the Minister of Highways on that, as have I, and we are not really finding any answer to the problem. I think the Minister of Education should be concerned. Mr. Hatch cites alarming statistics that show the incidence of accidents and deaths in motor vehicle accidents to be highest for children under 14 years of age. Many children are obliged to walk the highway with no walkways available. Some of them are too close for school bus services and obviously must walk. Quite frankly, and much to our disappointment thus far, we have received precious little cooperation from local highway authorities. I would ask the Minister of Education to intervene and at least ensure that everything possible is done to improve the standard of safety with respect to access to those schools. Perhaps I could provide the minister with my files on both these cases so that he'll be more aware of precisely what the problems are. I would appreciate his cooperation in that respect.

Just one or two other things. I think the minister received a report from Okanagan College proposing a new course for that institution, basically a land-use planning technology course, and requesting funding and support from the ministry for that kind of course in the interior area that is served by Okanagan College. It is quite an exhaustive document. I have looked at it and I hope the minister has also. I would appreciate receiving some indication from the minister as to his reaction to this proposed new course. I believe the course was not planned for this year but rather for 1983 when, hopefully, the economy may be in a little better shape.

On the general question of cutbacks, I have received a goodly number of letters from people in my riding expressing concern about the reduced services and reduced budget for education in the area, and I have passed these along to the minister. I just want him to know that there is a very active concern, particularly by parents rather than by those people actively involved in the educational community, with respect to cutbacks in programs and funding in my area. That concerns me, and in all cases I have passed those along to the minister for his edification and his response.

Those are the points I wanted to raise with the minister. I would appreciate hearing from him, particularly with respect to this Gallaudet College, as to his views on how we might open up and assist those unfortunate students in the province of British Columbia to ensure that they have access in the future to that institution.

HON. MR. SMITH: That is a most serious issue, because the availability in the world of institutions that can provide university degrees for deaf students is very limited. I think the council of ministers in this country must take the lead to find alternative facilities or to try to persuade Gallaudet to expand its entries. I will also look into what you have related to the committee about funding. I have no reason to believe that what you say is not absolutely correct. It's a health ministry matter and I'd be quite prepared to get involved in it. I will do so directly.

I stated my position on the county system earlier. I think I've done so twice today. I generally do not favour that system for the running of school boards.

The Okanagan College course in land-use planning is being reviewed. It has to go through a review system and go to the Academic Council to see whether it's recommended. I know that a very keen instructor circulated that proposal throughout the system, but as I haven't seen the results of the ministerial review committee, I think it's premature to comment.

On your request that I look at the safety access at Big Eddy and Falkland West, yes, I most certainly will.

If I could just turn for a moment to the member for Esquimalt's comments, I am well aware of the needs and problems in his area with the schools, and I recently met with the Victoria School Board planning facilities committee on that. I think that was a week ago, and I hope to have some good news for this member very shortly. I should tell him that there will not be any move of the French program from Victor G. Brodeur School because the Department of National Defence is not yet ready to move it. It was thought that they were, but they're not. I certainly concur in what he says about the need for some vocational shop areas to be added to Esquimalt Secondary, and I hope I will be able to give him some good news very shortly concerning the Esquimalt area.

If another part of the school district has received some capital money in recent years, I guess I should be thankful to the school board and to the fact that in that part of the district enrolments haven't declined as they have in some other parts. Gordon Head enrolment has stayed fairly steady, whereas in other parts of the district, as the member knows, enrolments have unfortunately gone down. So if some capital has been done in Gordon Head, I guess I'm the beneficiary of enrolments that are holding and of decisions by school boards. I think the member is saying to me that Esquimalt is a time that has come, and I agree.

MR. KING: I have a very brief followup. I just want to make it clear to the minister that I was in no way implying that Gallaudet College had tightened up on their eligibility. The problem is simply one of parents being able to afford to send their children there. The funding through the Ministry of Health is the problem, as I understand it.

MR. LORIMER: I have a couple of questions for the minister in connection with the cutbacks at BCIT. I'm advised that the number of students for the nursing school has

[ Page 8071 ]

been cut in half. I appreciate the fact that hospital wards are disappearing at the present time, but we're still going to need nurses in the future. The potential nurses, who are graduating from high school, are having difficulty in obtaining jobs and so could very well spend their time improving their educational situation and could take up the nursing profession. Also, I'm told the business division of BCIT has been reduced substantially; over 20 teaching positions will not be in place next year due to the cutbacks in that particular area.

I appreciate that the economic problems at the present time are causing a considerable amount of unemployment. It would seem to me beneficial to the province if these training facilities were expanded rather than reduced so that those who are probably unemployed at the present time could improve their situation and their abilities, could upgrade themselves and their training, and be ready to go into the workforce when the economy improves. It seems to me that if we don't follow this plan, when the economy does improve, we'll have to import people to take these jobs, and our own people will still be in the untrained category. At a time like this we should be trying to give training and upgrading to the students we have at the present time — not necessarily to students, but to those who have been in the workforce and want to upgrade their qualifications.

It seems to me that maybe the BCIT doesn't have the ear of the minister as they should have, and I would like to hear the minister's comments on what he has in store and what his plans are for BCIT at the present time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I want to give the Education spokesperson's response to the minister — an overview of the administration of the Education ministry and the minister's role in it. We had a fairly thorough debate with respect to the finance bill, and in the budget debate generally, on the drastic effect of the government's policy with respect to financing education in this province, on its disastrous effect on local control and the sovereignty of the family through its elected school-board members, and on the vast reduction in the quality of education as a result of these ill-conceived financial arrangements and formulas that have been devised solely for political reasons. The minister has not shown — and I say this with due respect — the kind of courage and strength necessary to defend this sacred duty of his, akin only to that of the Ministries of Health and the Attorney-General insofar as it is a separate responsibility, apart from his political affiliation, as a minister of the Crown.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: You were for the program when it was introduced.

MR. LAUK: I'm always stunned by the interruptions of the member for Omineca, Mr. Chairman. He is so incredibly and consistently off the point, even in his cross-comments. He's known as the marshmallow from Omineca, the man who describes himself privately to the press as that wily old maverick from the north, the marshmallow who says that he's going to come down here and take on the cabinet, and that he's got a hit list. So far — largely against the rules, Mr. Chairman — he has sat with his feet up, reading the newspapers, hoping he'll see his name there some place.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Check the want ads, says the member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 22, please.

MR. LAUK: I would think, Mr. Chairman, that the results of that formula.... As I was saying before, there are three ministries that appear to me the most important ministries as far as keeping some sense of independence from political partisanship is concerned. The most critical, of course, is the administration of justice under the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) — and we'll deal with that under his vote. The second most critical, it seems to me, is the Ministry of Education. He just didn't do the job; he fell far short of it. He gave in to political contrivances and manipulations, and he has allowed the education system and the quality of education for an entire generation of British Columbians to suffer greatly.

One of the aspects of the education debate that's been going on through this session is colleges, and I have not dealt in any detail with colleges. I'd like to deal with them for a few minutes this afternoon. Anticipating the drastic results of Bill 27, maybe some of the colleges are overreacting — I don't now. But I want to run through the items that I have received from the various colleges.

The president of the Okanagan College Faculty Association, Eric Buckley, sent a telegram around. I'll just briefly refer to segments of it. It was received at the message centre on April 13.

B.C. HAS THE LOWEST POST-SECONDARY PARTICIPATION RATE IN CANADA.

I'll interrupt there and suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's explanation this afternoon about post-secondary participation rates is unimpressive, that our figures are not in accord with his explanation that part-time equivalents and all the rest of it have any bearing on the very real issue of the post-secondary participation rate. It is now rock-bottom. Newfoundland and P.E.I. — with great respect to those jurisdictions — historically have been on the bottom of the list. B.C. is now tenth in all of Canada. It's not a very proud record; it's an embarrassment. This aspect of the ministry — colleges — certainly has a much greater participation rate than even universities. But there is a criticism that has to be made. It's really an embarrassment that we are tenth.

I will go on with Mr. Buckley's telegram:

B.C. HAS THE LOWEST POST-SECONDARY PARTICIPATION RATE IN CANADA. AS RECENTLY AS 1968 WE HAD THE HIGHEST RATE. IT WENT DOWN A BIT AND THEN IN 1973-74 IT WENT UP QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY. THEN AT THE RETURN OF THE SOCIAL CREDIT ADMINISTRATION IT WENT DOWN DRAMATICALLY AND NOW IT IS ROCK-BOTTOM.

EDUCATION AT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEVEL BENEFITS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. IN 1981 OKANAGAN COLLEGE ACCOUNTED FOR 5.6 PERCENT OF THE PROVINCIAL TOTAL OF STUDENT CONTACT HOURS BUT RECEIVES ONLY 5.4 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR COLLEGES. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EQUITABLE TREATMENT....

That is from the Okanagan district. I would be interested to know briefly from the minister what reply he sent to that. I understand it may have gone as an inquiry to his office as well.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has advised that 5,000 additional tradespeople will be needed by 1984 — a significant choice of years. Most of our 250,000 — and rising — unemployed are under age 25 and do not have the

[ Page 8072 ]

skills to take available jobs even today, nor will they be ready as skilled workers to accelerate that advantage in any economic recovery period. In the face of this need to train our young people for available jobs, the minister has shortsightedly caused courses that develop these necessary skills to be cut. The College of New Caledonia has announced that six instructors who teach heavy-equipment operation, surveying, logging and forestry will be laid off effective July 31. Mr. Rod Maides, of that college, said that the programs cut relate to resource-based industries, for which jobs are likely to be in high demand as projects such as the northeast coal, which is touted by the government, come on stream.

There are several examples of college cutbacks throughout the province. It seems to me rather shortsighted just to stand up and say: "Well, according to our figures there has been an increase, and we also have this $54 million that is designated." My colleague from Nanaimo asked a question about that $54 million. I don't think that there was an adequate explanation of how that is going to be dispensed. I have already dealt at great length with the fact that this minister seems to take control over slush funds that can be used to punish or reward colleges, institutes and school districts as he sees fit. With all his decency, and some commitment to the democratic and parliamentary process, this minister has a solemn responsibility to indicate in black and white, and with some precision, the guidelines that apply to the $75 million fund that will go to school districts, and also the guidelines that will apply to that $54 million fund for vocational and technical training. We do not have that kind of precise guideline.

We cannot be asked to trust the minister or the government. If any person in a democratic system says, "Trust me," I advise all electors in that democratic system to do the opposite. Everybody knows that historically in the British parliamentary system we are very suspicious of anyone who says, "Trust me," because the system doesn't allow for it. It requires good and honest elected officials to state precisely what they are going to do and to have it enacted in law and promulgated through law and regulation. That is how our process operates.

HON. MR. SMITH: Trust the OTC.

MR. LAUK: That is a loaded question.

I am glad the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is here. The replies that are coming from the back bench of the Social Credit members to the telegrams that have been sent from various colleges that may touch upon their constituencies are very interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. LAUK: The member for Dewdney, and we will deal with the intellectual wing in a minute.

There is a contagious delusion among the back bench that I want to talk about. The member for Dewdney has written an excellent response — excellent for its complete naivete, I suppose, or its intended manipulation of the people he was going to send the telegram to. Anticipating the drastic results that Bill 27 would have on colleges and other educational institutions, as I said before, a telegram lobby has clearly been set up from these institutions. They have been sent to Social Credit government backbenchers by educators. In response to one such telegram the member for Dewdney showed his understanding of the situation. He says:

"Thank you for your telegram regarding funding for Douglas and Kwantlen Colleges. I think it is important to note that there have been no cutbacks in funding. The recently announced budget allows for a 12 percent increase in the operating grants to colleges and institutes. I have spoken with my colleague Brian Smith, and he anticipates that there will be little if any reduction in the quantity of service, and no reduction in the quality of service provided by the college and institute system.... "

Here's the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) writing these responses to the principals, administrators and faculty of various colleges. I know the minister would never send such a telegram. I wonder if the member for Dewdney really thinks that these educators of British Columbia are as gullible as he seems to be. The Minister of Education's anticipation cited in the telegram I've just read is far from the reality being experienced by colleges and institutes throughout British Columbia. He would not be able to make the statement that there will be little if any reduction in the quantity of service and no reduction in quality, because it would be misleading the House. It simply would not apply.

The real facts are that 16 full-time faculty have been laid off at Douglas. He should have put that. I say to the member: I have already put that in the letter of inquiry to that person for you. There are cuts of six and a half full-time equivalent jobs in the academic area, eight full-time equivalent jobs in the applied vocational area — dental and soft technology — and half a job in the commercial services. That's a memo I attached to that letter a month ago. I don't know what the current status is.

I could go through all of the various cutbacks in the college system. I suppose there's little point in covering each and every job that's been cut. It's unfortunate for the teaching and other staff of colleges. It's even more unfortunate because a whole generation of college students.... These students are not the archetypal student, age 18 or 19, young, going on to university. These people are senior citizens in many cases. They are 40, 50 or 60, or even older; perhaps as old as the Attorney-General. Many of these people are going to colleges part-time. They've enhanced the quality of citizenship and community in their own neighbourhoods. They've done that with the help of the college system. That's what the college system is designed to do. In addition, the vocational component and the technical training component of these colleges has contributed greatly and has been underplayed, not advertised or spoken of enough as contributing skilled workers and people with technical training to take middle-management positions and so in the major industries in this province. These positions are being cut in many colleges.

It is a sad situation. As I indicated at the opening of my statement this afternoon, it is needless and penny wise, pound foolish. The minister knows it. He's just playing the lapdog to the political manipulations devised by the Premier and other more Machiavellian types in the cabinet that they hope will attract voters. It's too bad that a generation of college students and school kids have to suffer because of political manipulation. Nevertheless, that's what has happened.

I was surprised this morning that the minister indicated that he's going to do yet another tour of the province of British

[ Page 8073 ]

Columbia. I am just amazed. Maybe I didn't hear him right; I'll check the Blues. He's most well-travelled through all the school districts. He listened — at least he was there — at meetings. He called forums where people showed up and gave him all kinds of ideas. He says that when the new act is published he's going to go around and get feedback. I admire his desire for consensus, but at a time of restraint.... I'd like to point out the items still outstanding on his glossy $8 or $9 report that was a result of the last trip.

These are the items still outstanding. He said: "Work will begin on a new women's studies course. Completion is more than two years away." The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) pointed out that you're cutting back on women's studies in colleges. The report mentions the possibility of setting up regional tribunals to hear appeals from parents against local placement decisions; with respect to special needs, children will be examined; in 1982, some basis of funding will be in place to allow financial support of programs for the gifted; the School Act will be changed to make the principal paramount in disciplinary matters regarding student behaviour; school board authority will be removed. Well, we'll argue about that, but it's something he said he was going to do. I would like to see what he means. Regulations will be developed that will define the role of the parent; consultative committees for the schools of the province. I'll quote part of he said: "I intend to draw from the new education bill in the United Kingdom, Bill 48, the bill to make provision for children with special education needs." I made a note of other outstanding points. An administrative structure to accommodate the portability of sick-leave benefits will be established; regulations giving school principals the authority to prevent the distribution of racist literature will be strengthened; by September '82 a provincial family life education course will be available for optional use by the board. He made some comment on that today.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, there's a lot of work to do. I don't know why he wants another trip. Maybe he likes to travel. Maybe he likes the breakfasts available in the Okanagan. I really do think the minister's idea of how to be the Minister of Education is sadly mistaken. The travel budget is something that really disturbs me. I'll deal with that in just a moment.

There is a little something that came up that bothered me greatly. It shows the kind of fuzzy thinking and thirteenth century attitude that the minister apparently has. On reflection, though, I thought that perhaps it was the minister's idea of public morality, or perhaps he thought it was a political move that he was going to make. There were 1,500 copies of a book — I think you know what I'm getting at — is it Composition 2 or 11? Curriculum Guide and Resource Book for Teachers. Remember, this isn't going to students, this is going to teachers, and it's for 1982. They were published by the Queen's Printer for the Ministry of Education, curriculum development branch, at a cost of $3,000; that's $2 per book.

Here's the final production of this book. The cover was designed by print services, Ministry of Education, in Richmond. The cover design, front and back, showed a reproduction of an excerpt of a manuscript by a noted British Columbia author, Ethel Wilson. Here is the reproduction as it was intended. Here is the final. This, you will notice, was blanked out. Do you follow what I am saying, Mr. Chairman? How did this come about? This created some curiosity. Included in Miss Wilson's excerpt, which was supposed to be the design of the cover of the book, was the word "virgin" — like the Virgin Islands and that kind of thing. This word obviously offended the Minister of Education. Maybe he'd never heard of the word before, I don't know. The 1,500 books were sent back to the Queen's Printer with orders that the covers were to be ripped off, new covers were to be printed without the censored word, books were to be prepared to receive new covers, new covers were to be put on and then the 1,500 books were to be sent back. All this work and expense — estimated to be another $3,000 — was because someone was offended by the word "virgin."

Even if it were intended for kids, I don't think it would be a great surprise to them that that word exists in the English language. I am just wondering what kind of mentality we have over there. It is a minor point but it shows you, Mr. Chairman, the problem we have. Is there some sort of lack of understanding? This was the design of a cover and for $3,000 he shoved the book back because he was afraid of the word "virgin." Can you imagine what kind of censorship problems and moral dilemma the hon. minister has on a daily basis? You can just imagine the moral struggle that great thirteenth century mind is going through from day to day. We've got to eradicate any reference to virginity in any of these books.

I want to get to a more serious problem of profligacy within the Ministry of Education. This is the first year that the Minister of Education is asking to become a millionaire traveller. Last year the ministry's total travel budget — this is all votes for travel — was $924,221. This year the ministry's total travel for all votes was $1,241,893. That is a 34 percent increase. ministry-wide, on average. Averages can be very misleading! The minister has decreed that public school travel will only increase by 3 percent. However, for independent schools it is up 20 percent. For post-secondary it is up 32 percent, and management travel goes up 67 percent over 1981. I want the members of the committee to guess who takes the prize for the greatest travel increase in the whole ministry. Can anyone guess?

MRS. DAILLY: Is it multiple choice?

MR. LAUK: Well, you throw out a guess and we'll see; the first two might be wrong.

MR. LORIMER: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams).

MR. LAUK: No. In the Ministry of Education. Does anybody know?

MR. NICOLSON: Is it the deputy minister in charge of financial services?

MR. LAUK: Almost, but no.

MRS. DAILLY: Let's try the minister.

MR. LAUK: It's the minister himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. LAUK: That comes as a shock, I'm sure, to all hon. members. It is up a colossal 166 percent over last year; that's more than 50 times the increase that the minister plans to allow public school staff. "Is all this travel really necessary?" I hear you ask, Mr. Chairman. Well, pressing the flesh

[ Page 8074 ]

and procrastination are the hallmarks of this minister. Surely in times of restraint, however, it would be more efficient to try to cut it down. I refer to him as the Vasco da Gama of education. He's got a budget that's simply phenomenal.

I want to point out something about that budget. Under vote 22, which we're dealing with now, he's had an increase of $3,325, or 15 percent, in his office expenses. Office furniture has increased by $144 — well, we'll let him have the new briefcase. Travel for the minister has gone from $29,000 to almost $80,000 in one year; this is for the Minister of Education alone.

In the face of this profligacy he's asking school districts and colleges to pare back. Really, Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder that people less charitable than myself are accusing the minister of being hypocritical? He's asking on the one....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who could be less charitable than you?

MR. LAUK: The former Attorney-General and now minister of "intra-governmental" affairs has asked who could be less charitable than myself. There are one or two.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. LAUK: Seek and ye shall find.

Mr. Chairman, I would not be one of those to actually say, especially in parliament, that the minister is being hypocritical; but the figures must speak for themselves.

This morning there was an allusion by the minister to a mandate for education. He doesn't quite understand what is being required of him. He alluded to some aspects of the mandate. What's required of the minister is a statement of philosophy of education. Not only have I demanded or asked for this, but others within the educational community have asked for it. What on earth is your idea of the education system in a free, democratic society? The minister's indications this morning were that it was a much more detailed statement, and probably it had to do with policy but not a statement of philosophy. What the education system needs is this government's statement of philosophy so that we can be guided, both in our critique and in our performance in the education system.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you what mine is. I'm glad that small gentleman in the front row, smoking the cigar, asked the question. He asked what my statement of philosophy of education is. Well, I won't state mine; I'll state what is essentially the party's statement. In a democratic society education is lifelong for all its citizens. Are you listening? Such an education must be made available to all persons as their right of citizenship without discrimination or barrier. The education system should reinforce democratic and egalitarian values, recognizing the following principles: (1) the sovereignty of the family through locally elected school boards; (2) education services should be consistent with the needs of individuals in society at every stage of their development as human beings; (3) the preservation of the democratic model in government, community and the family.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That's the kind of philosophical statement that I would like to hear the minister adopt, but he cannot, because he knows that we in the education system and in the political system of this province will hold him to it. And in this government and in this time he cannot possibly fulfil even one of the tenets of that statement, because he has been bought and sold by political manipulation and partisanship. He has allowed himself to become involved in an inconsistency such as his minister's office, where the $52,822 increase that I've just mentioned under vote 22 is a thorough indication that this minister is not serious when he asks ordinary people to restrain themselves in a bad economic time. He himself wants an extra $50,000 to travel with. Therefore I move that vote 22 be reduced by $52,822, being the excess over 1981-82 of the minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order, hon. members.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 22 approved.

On vote 23: management operations and educational finance, $12,447,315.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the opposition is of the view that cutbacks in education have caused a serious problem.

MR. KEMPF: Stand up.

MR. LAUK: Ohhh.... Is the medication not working?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I am sure we would all like to press on, wouldn't we, Mr. Chairman?

[ Page 8075 ]

Under management operations and educational finance, we are of the view that there are cutbacks that can be made because they are increases that are unnecessary. We believe that the cutbacks that the ministry has made have caused a problem in the quality of education for young people across the province. However, I should point out that in office expense under this vote there has been an increase of $60,000. I am just going to give round figures. Under professional and special services there has been an increase of a quarter of a million dollars. Under travel there has been an increase of $188,000. Under office furniture there is an increase of $382,000. Under advertising and publications there has been an increase — in a total budget of $207,000 — of $46,000. Building occupancy rates have gone up from $2.5 million to $2.8 million, an increase of almost $250,000. Other expenditures, which we feel have gone well over the board and are not required, particularly in a restraint period, are $20,000. The total unnecessary increase under this vote is $1,195,380. This is not money that is going to reach one student, open one classroom or buy a football or a baseball glove for a school. This is not money that will go for teachers' salaries or money that will actually go into the education system, but it is money for expensive furniture, travel and other unnecessary increases, Mr. Chairman. I therefore move that vote 23 be reduced by $1,195,380.

On the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Doesn't the minister wish to defend himself on this motion? Have you nothing to say?

Speaking to this motion, Mr. Chairman, I would expect that the minister would at least get up and defend the increase in travel and the increased expenditures all the way through this. Can the minister not tell the House why he needs these increases? Are you going to say something? Where are you going with all this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let's address the Chair.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would have welcomed the Leader of the Opposition earlier today.

The travel increases in this ministry are major because the ministry has been reorganized. A number of people who were district superintendents employed by school districts are now employees of the ministry. We have also taken over a major financial reorganization and additional financial responsibilities. Of course added to that is the Education (Interim) Finance Act and the new education finance formula. There are a number of responsibilities that didn't require the travel that is required now.

On what the member calls furniture, most of the amount of $343,000 of increased equipment and furniture is for word-processing equipment — leases, maintenance and administration — and the introduction of new systems. It is not for office furniture as such. There is some new furniture with the addition and moving of staff. My staff is moving into the Douglas Building annex this year. So there are some additional costs. It's not for furniture in my office.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 23 approved.

On vote 24: public schools education, $966,085,922.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, we are substantially in favour of this vote because it's going to the education system. In terms of other areas that need expansion, we wish that some of the money that we're asking to be trimmed in other areas would be put into public education. But I want to point out that in public schools education you have the travel budget, and I don't know why that was increased — by 3 percent, but it was still increased. Professional special services were increased by $320,000 in a time of restraint. You have office expenses increased by $40,000. You have advertising and publications.... This is a government that loves advertising and publications. If they aren't trying to climb on the backs of the Canucks and improve their own tarnished image with the public, they're using public money to advertise faces of the ministers, to produce propaganda and so on. That's gone up $40,000. Building occupancy has gone up by $1,700. So even in vote 24 we can see some room for paring, for taking that money and putting it into some worthwhile cause. Mr. Chairman, $418,420 should be pared off this vote, and I so move.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

[ Page 8076 ]

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 24 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: Before we proceed, at the afternoon sitting of June 3, 1982, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on a matter of privilege relating to questions taken on notice by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and answered during question period. Essentially, the hon. member for Skeena stated that the answers of the minister were not, in his own words, "in accordance with the facts." The member for Skeena then read from and tabled certain documents, including a Telex stamped "Received June 11, 1980," and a memo dated December 2, 1980.

The Chair, when examining matters of privilege founded upon allegations of misleading the House, must examine the evidence as presented, but only to the extent necessary to determine whether a prima facie case exists. Such an examination discloses statements by the minister relating to limousine transportation and a Telex touching inter alia on the same subject matter. The minister says, "I did not order this limousine," and the hon. member for Skeena says that the material filed contradicts this statement of the minister. Unless there is evidence that a member has deliberately misled the House, a matter of privilege has not been established. See May's eighteenth edition, on page 138.

The Chair's examination of the Hansard report and the material filed by the hon. member for Skeena leads to the inescapable conclusion that this falls within the broad category of a dispute as to allegations of fact, which, as stated in Beauchesne's fourth edition in citation 113, "does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

A similar matter of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) on Friday, May 28, relating to statements made by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). An examination of this matter leads the Chair to the same conclusion, in that the minister and the member have disagreed as to what percentage of certain contracts have been let inside British Columbia and what percentage have been let outside British Columbia. This is clearly another dispute as to facts and, accordingly, does not qualify as a matter of privilege.

It might be appropriate to observe that in this chamber, by its very nature, countless disputes relating to allegations of fact will arise, and with great frequency. To routinely convert those disagreements into what amounts to a charge of deliberately misleading the House would be contrary to well-established traditions observed throughout all parliaments. This tradition states that all hon. members will accept the word of all other hon. members, a tradition which I commend to this House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:05 p.m.