1976 Legislative Session: ist Session, 3ist Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1787 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Future of Emily Carr house. Mr. Barber — 1787

Hospitals strike. Mr. Gibson — 1787

Extended-care charges. Mrs. Wallace — 1788

Funding of UBC hospital. Ms. Brown — 1788

Community Recreational Facilities Fund grants. Mr. Nicolson — 1789

Treatment of young U.S. visitors. Mr. Wallace — 1789

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Gibson — 1790

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1790

Mr. King — 1791

Mr. Speaker — 1791

Mr. Gibson — 1792

Mr. Speaker — 1792

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1792

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Mr. Wallace — 1792

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1796

Mrs. Dailly — 1797

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1798

Ms. Brown — 1799

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1799

Ms. Brown — 1799

Mr. Wallace — 1800

On vote 40.

Mrs. Dailly — 1803

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1803

Mr. Macdonald — 1804

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1804

Ms. Brown — 1804

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1805

Mrs. Dailly — 1806

On vote 41.

Mr. Gibson — 1806

Mrs. Dailly — 1808

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1808

Mr. Gibson — 1809

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1809

Mr. Gibson — 1809

Ms. Sanford — 1810

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1812

Mrs. Dailly — 1812

Ms. Sanford — 1813

On vote 42.

Mrs. Dailly — 1810

Ms. Brown — 1810

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1810

Mr. Nicolson — 1810

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1811

Mr. Gibson — 1811

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1811

On vote 43.

Mrs. Dailly — 1812

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1812

Mrs. Dailly — 1812

Ms. Sanford — 1813

On vote 44.

Mrs. Dailly — 1813

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1813

Mr. Gibson — 1814

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1814

On vote 45.

Mr. Gibson — 1814

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1814

Mr. Gibson — 1814

Mr. Wallace — 1814

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1814

On vote 46.

Mr. Wallace — 1815

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1815

Department of Environment estimates.

On vote 48.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1816

Mr. Lea — 1817

Statements

Premier's meeting with governors. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1819

Mr. King — 1819

Mr. Gibson — 1820

Mr. Wallace — 1820

Clarification on status of Mincome. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 1820

Mr. Levi — 1820

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to introduce to the House the Hon. Murray Hill, Member of

the Legislative Council from Adelaide, Australia. Mr. Hill is here with

Mrs. Hill and their daughter Elizabeth. I know that all sides of the

House would bid them welcome and a pleasant stay in British Columbia.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, sometime this

afternoon in the gallery will be a group of approximately 20 women from

the Social Credit Women's Auxiliary Group in my constituency. I would

like the House to make them welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce in the House Mr. Mel Hickman, who is a visitor to Victoria

from Portland, Oregon. He has come here this afternoon in order to see

the British parliamentary system and how it operates, and I would ask

the House to make him welcome.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): This afternoon in the

gallery we have a distinguished guest from Vancouver South, a

world-famous aviator. I would ask you to welcome Mr. Donald Brenner to

these premises.

Oral questions.

FUTURE OF EMILY CARR HOUSE

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I have one question in two parts to

the Hon. Provincial Secretary. First, can the Provincial Secretary

confirm a report that the Emily Carr Art Centre is to be evicted from

the Emily Carr house located at 207 Government Street in Victoria?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I cannot confirm that, Mr. Speaker. I

have no knowledge of it but I'd be pleased to find out and to report

back to the member.

MR. BARBER: While the Provincial Secretary's inquiring about

that perhaps she could inquire about the second part of my question

which is: can the Provincial Secretary confirm a report that the

government intends to remove the roof from the Emily Carr House of All

Sorts, contrary to the express wishes of Emily Carr herself?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take both questions as notice and bring the information back.

HOSPITALS STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

would ask the Provincial Secretary in her capacity as House Leader, in

view of the increasing community suffering due to the hospital strike,

if she would agree to call immediately this afternoon the estimates of

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) or the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) in order that this House may have an opportunity

for debate.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, it is an entirely proper question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Members. The request to the House

Leader to call estimates out of order can be considered by the House

Leader. It doesn't mean that it would necessarily follow that you would

consider the estimates out of the order that has been presently called.

Although I think the question is proper in question period, if the

minister wishes to reply to it or take it as notice, that's her

prerogative.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the order of the business

will be discussed among the Whips and the House Leaders and will not be

replied to in the question period.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House Leader just how much evidence of suffering she wants before

she'll agree....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is an improper question.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Minister of Health with regard to the hospital strike situation,

and particularly with regard to statements made by Dr. William Jory,

the new president of the BCMA, and pediatrician Dr. Roberts, among

others, that certain patients requiring medical help aren't being

admitted to hospitals because of the strike situation, if he has

received any report from his monitoring personnel to the effect that

certain patients — and in particular I'm concerned with one example of

one single patient with a brain tumour — who should be in hospital are

not being admitted because of the strike situation.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health):

[ Page

1788 ]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Oak Bay, the answer

is no. Our monitoring personnel would have a difficult time obtaining

that information since they're monitoring inside the hospitals. The

instruction that they have is to ensure that patient care is being

maintained inside the hospitals.

I might say that I have had no direct communication from Dr. Jory,

from the pediatrician you mentioned, or from anyone from the British

Columbia Medical Association at this time. If I get that communication

from them I'll certainly consider it immediately.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I respect the

minister's frankness. His answer recognizes the fact that it is

extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure the cases that

perhaps should be in hospital since the monitoring is confined to

in-hospital patients, and on that basis could I ask the minister, in

the light of that answer and the facts as we all recognize them to be,

if he has made any request of the Minister of Labour to designate as

essential personnel all the employees who would be necessary to

maintain the full regular

schedule of cardiac surgery operations for

that very same reason that it's difficult to measure the effect of

patients on the cardiac waiting list who otherwise by this time would

have been in the hospital had not the strike occurred?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member again, we

haven't talked about that specifically. However, the whole range of

problems that are obviously building up in the community is under

discussion at the present time. The Minister of Labour and myself met

this morning. All I can say is that we're assessing the whole

situation. As I've said right from the beginning of the strike, if the

assessment between all of us involved reaches the point where we feel

that patient care is no longer being maintained at an acceptable

standard, then we have to take some other kind of action.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's comments

then, and the particular fact that he has not heard from the B.C.

Medical Association, would he be willing to listen in conjunction with

the Minister of Labour to that kind of specific request that I've

outlined in respect of cardiac surgery or patients who would otherwise

have been receiving treatment had the strike not occurred?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Of course. That's the kind of

information we'd welcome from the community whether it be from the

BCMA, from yourself, or whomever. We need that kind of information if

we're going to do a proper assessment and we're happy to listen at any

time.

EXTENDED CARE CHARGES

MRS. B.C. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my

question is also to the Minister of Health and it's further to the

question I raised yesterday in connection with charges for extended

care. At that time the minister indicated he had replied to my

question. The reply I have is dated April 14, when he said: "We're

currently developing regulations that we hope will assure no person,

particularly families with young children, will suffer further hardship

because of the government's action." My question is: inasmuch as there

are now only 14 days left until June 1, when does he propose to

announce these regulations?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, I'll announce them when those regulations are in

place. I assured this House in question period that there wouldn't be

any hardship for people in special circumstances. I've told this House

on two occasions now that those people who cannot afford to pay will

not have to pay, and that those people in special circumstances would

be looked after in a special way.

The member, I hope, will understand that it isn't just as simple as

doing something ad hoc. We want to do it right. I've told the member

that the announcement would be made before June 1 in letters to her and

in letters to many other people who have sent in requests. I wish I

could give you an answer this minute, but I want to give you the right

answer and I want to make sure that we have it covered so that no one

will suffer, Madam Member. That answer will be forthcoming before June

FUNDING OF UBC HOSPITAL

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, is the

Minister of Health transferring Department of Health funds previously

allocated to improving maternal health hospital care to the building of

the new hospital at UBC?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I don't quite

understand the question from the member. I don't know of any transfer

of funds. Certainly there are no funds allocated in this budget which

is under consideration now to any project that the member refers to.

MS. BROWN: If I can clarify it, Mr. Speaker, there were funds

for the improvement of maternal health care in the province. What I am

asking the Minister of Health is whether these funds are being

transferred into the building of the hospital at UBC, which will have

no obstetrical beds, and, if so, how much.

[ Page 1789 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In answer to the member, I don't know

which funds she speaks about. When we took over this government, the

government was bankrupt — there were no funds left. We have committed

$30 million to a new children's hospital in Vancouver which will be

started this year. A hole will be dug and the building will be

underway. We have committed the rebuilding of Grace Hospital to look

after high-risk maternity cases. We have committed millions of dollars

in our first four months in office, Mr. Speaker. What else can you ask

for?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There are no funds transferred. There is a lot going to happen in the field of health care in the greater Vancouver area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In replying to the question, Hon.

Minister, in future would you please confine yourself to the question

that was asked? That was a suggestion of a transfer of funds from one

application to another.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, on a

supplemental, the minister indicated that the former government was

broke. If that were the truth, it would still be totally irrelevant

because those are borrowed funds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your question?

MR. COCKE: Those are borrowed funds, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I

ask the question: is the minister saying that there was no commitment

from the prior government for the children's and maternity facility? Is

that what he's saying?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious there was no

commitment of money. The government was not only bankrupt of money, it

was also bankrupt of ideas. This government has lots of ideas.

MS. BROWN: Supplemental. Mr. Speaker, I didn't get a response

to my first question so I am going to try and clarify again. The

maternal and health facility was supposed to be integrated with the

children's hospital, but the decision made by the previous government

has been changed. Would the minister explain to me why the decision was

made to rip off the maternal facilities from the health facilities?

Were those funds transferred into the building of the new UBC hospital

which is not going to have any obstetrical beds? Can he answer this

without giving me a political diatribe as he did on the previous

occasion?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. It is my observation that

political diatribes have come from both sides of the floor in matters

of question period.

MS. BROWN: I just asked a question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL

FACILITIES FUND GRANTS

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Provincial Secretary. It has been the custom that applications

under the Community Recreational Facilities Fund be announced

quarterly. As an announcement would normally have been expected around

April 1, has the minister yet reviewed the current applications with

her staff? When will she announce the next round of grants?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund was overexpended when I took office by $2.8 million.

Very many applications had been given approval just prior to the last

provincial election. My department is looking at those very many

applications which were given approval in that month. The whole

community recreational fund situation is under review. There will be an

announcement made in the near future as to the disposition of funds in

the future under that fund.

TREATMENT OF YOUNG

U.S. VISITORS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Human Resources a question with regard to his stated plans to limit the

provision of funding to persons coming to Vancouver for Habitat, and

with regard to his statement that young visitors from the United States

without money will be given bus transportation to the border at Blaine.

Could I ask the Minister if similar plans will be implemented to bus

young Canadian citizens between the ages of 16 and 25 to the nearest

provincial boundary?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member: we have no such plans as yet.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm a little

fearful of the "as yet" part of the answer, but in light of the

minister's statement that immigration officials at the border have not

been as cooperative as they might be, has the minister held discussions

with the federal department of

[ Page 1790 ]

immigration asking them to take action at the

border to ensure that those individuals from the United States with no

funds not be allowed entry to British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, a meeting is being

arranged with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Hon. Mr.

Andras) in Ottawa for early June to discuss this very subject.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver-East): Stalag '76!

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period, hon. members.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

under the terms of standing order 35, I ask leave to move adjournment

of the House on a matter of urgent public importance.

The matter is new evidence coming to light in the hospital strike,

now in its 15th day at Vancouver General and in varying amounts at

other hospitals, clearly illustrating examples of public suffering,

inconvenience and danger. To illustrate the urgency, I'll briefly cite

examples relating to Lions Gate Hospital in my own constituency.

(1) Friday night, apparently as a result of a misunderstanding,

a woman, an HEU employee, because of the strike circumstances and the picket

line felt unable to visit her mother in the hospital. She arranged for someone

else to visit and that night her mother died. The death was not due to lack

of medical attention. The inability to visit was not due to official picket-line

policy. But the incident shows that even with the best will in the world, tragic

accidents of this kind can take place during such a strike.

(2) Volunteer workers are operating large and complex laundry

machinery in the hospital. As a result of a shortage of supervisory help there

have been three serious near-accidents involving high-speed extractor machinery

and possible steam scalding.

(3) Representations are beginning from constituents or

their relatives who require exploratory surgery — with respect to brain damage

in one case, apprehended cancer in another and other grave illnesses — made

impossible for the time being because of the strike, and causing severe emotional

stress.

These instances of community suffering will certainly increase

rather than diminish. It is submitted that this subject is a matter of

urgent public importance requiring the immediate attention of this

House.

Attached is an

article giving further specific instances and an excerpt from Hansard

giving the views with respect to urgency by the present Premier when he

was opposition leader in August of 1974 in a similar circumstance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member forward the urgency motion to the...?

MR. GIBSON: Somebody's going to die one of these days, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Read what your own Premier said on August 9, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the hon. member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has raised a matter under standing

order 35 of this House, asking for adjournment of the House to discuss

a matter of urgent public importance. He's raised it at the correct

time within the proceedings of the House, and it would seem that his

request for the motion is based on new evidence coming to light about

the hospital strike, now in its 15th day at Vancouver General and

varying amounts of time at other hospitals, and clearly illustrates

examples of public suffering, inconvenience and danger as a result of

the hospital strike continuation. I would take that to be the nucleus

of the matter which he has put before me, and that is that he is now

suggesting that new evidence has come to light which would, in itself,

allow or qualify the member's request for a debate.

I would first of all like to refer the hon. member to Beauchesne ,

4th edition, at page 90, and draw to the attention of the hon. member

and all of the members of the House the position of the Speaker in

trying to determine the urgency of debate. An urgency, within this

rule, does not apply to the matter itself, but it means urgency of

debate when the ordinary opportunity provided by the rules of the House

does not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public

interest demands that discussion take place immediately. It is

therefore the Speaker's duty to determine not upon the matter itself —

because I think all members of the House on all sides will agree that

it is a matter of grave concern to all of the people in the province of

British Columbia when a hospital goes out on strike — but to decide

whether sufficient grounds have been put forward by the member for

North Vancouver-Capilano for an emergency debate. In discussing and

considering that, I must take into consideration a number of things,

one being the fact that the hon. minister today, and on several

previous days, has indicated to this House that people within his

department and within the hospitals themselves are continually

monitoring the situation with respect to the health of the patients

that are in the care of the hospitals. It's a matter that he has said

repeatedly

[ Page 1791 ]

is under close and intensive investigation.

Now it may be argued that the matter is not under intensive enough

investigation, and it may be argued by the hon. member for North

Vancouver-Capilano that situations have occurred or are about to occur

which are detrimental to the health of patients in the hospital. In

that respect I would draw your attention to page 365 of Sir Erskine

May, 17th edition.

It has been held that such a motion as you wish to propose has not

been acceptable when facts are in dispute, or before they are

available. It is also recorded on page 365 of the same edition. The

fact that new information has been received regarding a matter that has

been continuing for some time does not, in itself, make the matter one

of urgency.

In considering these things, Hon. Member, I must say to you that

your request for an emergency debate does not fall within the narrow

confines of standing order 35, particularly since it is a known fact —

by all of the members of the House — that the Department of Health has

been closely monitoring the situation, that the minister himself has

indicated close liaison with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)

in this particular situation, and I must therefore respectfully say to

you that the request for a debate under

section 35 is not admissible on

the grounds that I have quoted you.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, I am at somewhat of a loss to understand the

meaning of rule 35. It was my impression — and I would welcome some

clarification from the Chair — regarding the issues which can properly

be considered by Mr. Speaker when this kind of motion is put.... It was

my understanding that the urgency of the issue was a proper assessment

for Mr. Speaker to undertake consideration of.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member state his

point of order? We cannot become engaged at this stage of the

proceedings in a full debate on what constitutes a proper motion under

standing order 35. It's for the Speaker to determine if the motion as

put to him qualifies under

section 35.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm seeking clarification from

you, sir, in terms of applying the rules of this House so they are

understandable to the members. The point I wish to make is that it is

my understanding and my position that it is improper for the Speaker to

consider the adequacy of positions which the government has taken, or

is about to take, or may take, in terms of dealing with an emergent

problem. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the only proper point for your

office to take into consideration is whether or not a public emergency

does exist relative to the issue raised by the hon. Liberal leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is quite incorrect, hon.

Leader of the Opposition. It's quite incorrect. It's a matter for the

Speaker to determine if the request qualifies under standing order 35,

together with the references that we have available to us in May and Beauchesne .

I cannot predetermine the result of a request for a debate under

standing order 35. I can only deal with the matter as it's put before

me, and I can only say to the hon. members of the House that if you

review the Journals of this House you will see examples which

clearly show that on occasion the Speaker has ruled in favour of a

debate under standing order 35.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The old Social Credit government voted him down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

It is also very clear that the Speaker has denied a debate on many

occasions under standing order 35. This is a matter of record. It is a

matter of record in this jurisdiction, under the responsibility of many

Speakers prior to my own election to this chair. So I do not intend to

try to predetermine a matter before it has been placed before the

House. All I can do is deal with the matter as it is being presented,

and in so doing I've quoted to the hon. member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) the authority, the provisions, the

things that have happened in this House. I have said to that hon.

member that his request for a debate does not meet the test of standing

order 35, and therefore fails on that basis.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, to conclude my point of order,

if I may, I think you've misunderstood my point. My point is that you,

sir, gave us, as part of the reason for your decision, the fact that

adequate attention and adequate remedies were being proposed by the

government. I am submitting that there is not a proper foundation upon

which to make that judgment.

I submit, and suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the only allowable

criterion is to the question of whether or not a real emergency does

exist in the community surrounding the issue raised by the leader of

the Liberal Party and whether or not an opportunity exists to debate

this matter, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it has not obtained prior

to this point.

MR. SPEAKER: I just refer the hon. member to page 364 of the

quotations from Sir Erskine May, 17th edition. It is true that facts

may be in dispute, and there is more than one side to the specific

problem, but when they are in dispute it is clearly pointed out in Sir

Erskine May that it is not an acceptable matter for an urgency debate,

under standing order 35. So I refer you to that reference, sir.

[ Page 1792 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to your ruling and with

respect and based on my different

interpretation of the state of the

world, I would respectfully appeal the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no appeal to the ruling.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, there is.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course there is.

MR. SPEAKER: I would refer the hon. member to Beauchesne , fourth edition, page 90: "Speaker's ruling on a matter of urgency is not appealable."

MR. GIBSON: Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, I would challenge that ruling.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: That is a proper challenge then. Shall the Speaker's ruling be upheld?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Fraser

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Curtis

Chabot

Jordan

Schroeder

Bawlf

Bawtree

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Veitch

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Lauk

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 39: minister's office, $126,940 — continued.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, one or two issues

that I'd like to raise with the minister if I can be sure of his

attention. I'd like to ask the minister a question in regard to

semester courses in our high schools. I've had it drawn to my attention

by teachers in Oak Bay that the provincial curriculum is designed for a

total of 120 hours per course at the senior level for most subjects.

Under the semester system about the best number of hours that can be

made available is 100 hours. The result, of course, is that the

teachers chop and change the topics covered as much as they can to try

and ensure that an adequate number of hours is provided to the students

in these courses. It's particularly hard in competing for scholarships

inasmuch as some of our students at Oak Bay are competing against

students elsewhere who are not on the semester system, who might have

had as much as 140 hours on certain subjects.

I wonder if the minister could let us know in the matter of

designing the core curriculum if this inequality, or this lack of

uniformity.... First of all, is he aware of it? If he is aware of it,

what proposals, if any, does he have to put forward?

Many schools are on the semester system but many are not. It would,

in fact, be rather interesting, if the statistics are available, to see

what the scholarship...where the majority of the scholarship winners

are educated. Are they being educated under the semester system, or are

they on the former traditional system?

I'm glad to have the support of the Attorney-General on that one.

There's another issue, Mr. Chairman, that the minister could perhaps

comment upon fairly briefly. It's the very severe lack, at least in Oak

Bay, of access to equipment in teaching computer courses. I don't know

how often in this House in debates we refer to the tremendous

importance of computers in our day-to-day living, and it would seem

that since it is a relatively new technique our curriculum again should

be emphasizing courses in computer technology and the overall way in

which they should be used.

I gather again that in the case of the greater Victoria school

district, and particularly in Oak Bay, there's not only lack of courses

but there's some difficulty in obtaining consistent access to computers

to do the actual training — to do the teaching, rather.

My information — and the minister can correct this or confirm it —

is that no funds are provided by the Department of Education to any

school district to buy or lease computer hardware for instructional

[ Page 1793 ]

use in the schools. On the contrary, I learn that

in the province of Ontario there are six or seven courses developed by

the Department of Education and also funded by the province.

It is very interesting that just yesterday the minister talked about

us being the wealthiest province, or perhaps the second-wealthiest

province, in Canada. I find that comment most interesting because it

seems that in many respects we like to brag about being the wealthiest

or the second-wealthiest province in Canada, but when it comes to

providing some of the services to the people of British Columbia, there

seems to be a consistent cry — as there was during the throne speech

debate — that we're just so short of funds that education and health

are going to suffer in this province for many years.

I'd just like to quote from Hansard of Friday, March 19, when this same minister, when he was talking about financial problems, said as follows:

"These losses — and I say this particularly to the

member for Oak Bay who had so much to say about this heartless

government — must be paid out of current taxes; they will be general

taxes. As the Minister of Education I don't welcome funds being used

for today's taxes that otherwise would go to education. I don't welcome

funds being used out of today's taxes that would otherwise go to

hospitals.

"But, Mr. Chairman, this is going to happen this year, next year, the year after and until this debt is paid."

He is referring to the debt of ICBC.

Mr. Chairman, I just don't think you can have it both ways. In one

voice yesterday the minister is telling us we are the wealthiest

province in Canada; in another breath, we are in so much debt that we

can't properly provide education and health services. Of course, in a

point that I want to raise in a minute, the proof is right there: the

tax structure that the minister is proposing for the present fiscal

year in regard to the added burden that is to be passed to the

municipal taxpayer to pay for public education.

I am just making the point that even in a specific, such as this

teaching of computer technology in the schools, we are far behind in

British Columbia — certainly far behind Ontario. Yet as I say, we are

told yesterday that British Columbia, if not the wealthiest, is the

second-wealthiest. I presume the minister might have been referring to

Ontario as the wealthiest. We talk so frequently in this House about

providing adequate education and opportunities to our young people, but

surely if there is one new field of employment that has flourished in

the last few years, it would have to be the field of computer

technology. But at least in Oak Bay there is a shortage of funding, a

lack of courses and no departmental provision to allow schools to

acquire some of the hardware that is so essential to teach these

courses.

I don't want to talk at great length about the family-life

programme, which other speakers have touched upon, but I would like a

clarification of the kind of contradictions for which this minister is

rapidly becoming famous.

I happened to see the minister's interview on television last

Tuesday evening when he was asked about family-life programmes. He

said: "No, we are not phasing out family-life programmes." But I happen

to have here, Mr. Chairman, a circular from the instructional services

of the Department of Education, dated February, 1976. I'd just like to

read what that circular says. The heading across the top is:

"Family-Life Education."

"Provincial policy in respect of family-life education

programmes has been reviewed in the context of developments at the

school district level. The acceptability of family-life education

programmes has varied considerably between school districts. Under

these circumstances the Department of Education will not continue to

engage in programme development work at the provincial level."

If that isn't a very clear-cut statement that the department will

not continue to engage in programme development work, I don't know what

else any of us could deduce from that statement.

The next part of the statement goes on: "Accordingly, the

publication 'Family-Life Education: Guidelines For The Development Of

An Elementary School Programme' is withdrawn and will not be reissued."

I agree that family-life education programmes should be very much

the choice of the local school districts and, more particularly, of the

parents of the children in that school district. I'm completely agreed

on that point. But it seems very unusual to have the minister making a

categorical statement on television that the department is in no way

withdrawing from the area of family-life education when back in

February we've got this very distinct statement to that effect from the

instructional services circular, dated February 24. I wonder if the

minister could tell us just exactly what the department's position is

in regard to family-life programmes.

I wanted to touch on the question of the local taxpayers' problem in

paying school taxes this year. I have a list of the figures dealing

with the situation in Oak Bay where the average homeowner will be

paying somewhere around $100 to $150 more in Oak Bay this year and

about two-thirds of that will be because of the increased cost of

education.

I'm very sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Esquimalt (Mr.

Kahl) isn't in his place — oh, he's in the chamber — because I feel

that I would like some clarification on statements that were made when

all the local MLAs in the greater Victoria area met with the Victoria

school board two or three weeks ago. The taxpayers of this area, facing

increased educational costs, are very justified to ask, as we all

[ Page 1794 ]

do,

about the cost of administration. Many citizens and parents have talked

to me and said that they feel that more and more highly paid employees

in the public school system don't finish up teaching our students, but

in fact spend substantial amounts of their time on administration.

I think the meeting was a very good one, a very fruitful one, and at

that meeting the member for Esquimalt made the statement that School

District 61 had the highest administrative costs of any school district

in British Columbia. When the member for Esquimalt was questioned on

this matter, he stated to the chairman of the school board, at that

meeting, that there was some study within the department on

administrative costs which had revealed that fact....

Interjection.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You just came on to Hansard .

MR. WALLACE: Hansard 's come to life at exactly 3:09 in the afternoon.

But if these facts that I'm asserting are incorrect, I would

certainly welcome any comment, either from the member for Esquimalt or

from the minister. But it was such a....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I said the information was available. I didn't say that they were doing a study at that time.

MR. LAUK: Don't speak out of your chair.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member's correction that

it was not a study that was done, but that the information was

available — that's the crucial element in the dispute.

I would like to know the information the minister has to indicate

that School District 61 has the highest administrative costs in all of

British Columbia. If that information is available, it has not been

made known to the chairman of the school board in the greater Victoria

area that it is available. And one of the points that was raised in

the course of that debate was the fact that all school districts don't

compile their budget in quite the same way in delineating where

administrative costs should be recorded in the budget. I understand

that the sections in the budget are entitled from A to J, and that

certain costs are supposed to be clearly included under certain

sections.

I want to say that in my connection over the years with the Victoria

school board trustees, I have the highest respect and trust in their

judgment — not only in their judgment but in the efficiency with which

they compile their budget. I hope the minister is listening very

carefully because I think this is a crucial matter for the public, and

it isn't just in relation to School District 61. The fact is that in

School District 61 every possible hour of administrative time, at the

request of the former government and the department, was included under

section A of the budget.

Now it stands to reason, Mr. Chairman, that if other school

districts are placing some administrative costs throughout various

sections of the budget and, in other words, to a degree, obscuring

precise total administrative costs, then it would be unfair in the

extreme to suggest or state publicly that School District 61 has the

highest administrative costs of any district in the province.

I note that the minister is busy reading a document at the present

time, which might make it difficult later on for him to remember the

questions I'm asking. I've no wish to drag out estimates on education,

but as I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), there are some times I'll stand here all year if I have to

to get some of the answers.

The answer to this question is particularly important because the

public — the taxpayers and the parents — want to know precisely about

administrative costs in the public school system. They want to know,

and I'm sure I want to know, if each school district in its submission

of its budget to the minister uses precisely the same formula and the

same format, so that when administrative costs in one school district

are compared with another you are, if I could use the hackneyed phrase,

comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. The school

district trustees in the greater Victoria area were quite

understandably angry when the statement was made that in fact their

administrative costs were the highest in the province.

I hope the minister will be fair and answer that question, because

if he doesn't, I'll be up on my feet for as long as it takes to get the

answer. We might as well have it now rather than prolong the debate.

Someone earlier on in the debate, Mr. Chairman, talked about the

publication Education Today and said that it should be abolished, that

it was not a good use of money. Well, I happen to disagree. I think

that this newspaper entitled Education Today is a very useful source of

information for those of us....

MR. KAHL: Political propaganda.

MR. WALLACE: Somebody interjects that it's political

propaganda, but in fairness, Mr. Chairman, the accusation is levelled

at just about anything that a government puts into writing that it's

propaganda. Surely there should be some discernment by the reader to at

least make use of the non-propaganda that's in this kind of document.

[ Page 1795 ]

In the issue of May, 1976, there's a very detailed

article which

starts off saying the following: "The finance formula for British

Columbia public schools has long been a mystery, understood only by the

financial experts in the Department of Education and school districts.

For the non-experts Education Today presents a step-by-step explanation

of the formula." I would agree, Mr. Chairman, that this document goes

on to give a fairly straightforward explanation of what is a

complicated formula.

So I think it would be wise, if the minister's thinking of

disbanding or discontinuing this publication, to take a second look. It

does provide a lot of basic information. Although some of the

interpretations, as the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) has

interjected, can be politically slanted, nevertheless I would suggest

that there's enough positive value in Education Today that it should be

continued. This particular

article on explaining the cost-sharing

formula, I felt, was a very reasonable job of explaining something

that's fairly complicated.

To get back to the whole question of public school financing and a

formula, I hastily assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not going to

debate the formula as such, but in the meeting we had as MLAs with the

Victoria School Board, they made a very eloquent and, I think, very

just plea that there be at least some better evidence of consistency in

how financing formulas are applied, not only as to the very unsuitable

timing such that the school boards go on during the year waiting to

have a budget approved in April or May when they're already four or

five months into the year, but particularly in relation to the

so-called special grants.

Nothing seems to cause the school trustees more heartburn than the

difficulty in understanding the allocation of special grants. I know

that the minister has replied that it is basically a question of

student enrolment and so on, but there really is more to it than that.

The minister provided a list of the 1976 distribution of these special

grants totalling $7.525 million, and the interesting thing is that not

all the schools which received the grants are on that list. For

example, just to take school districts 62 and 63, being Sooke and

Saanich respectively, I understand that they both received special

grants, but there's no money listed on this list of school districts,

which are numbered from 1 to 92.

I just have to ask the question: how can you avoid causing

unhappiness in school districts which don't receive special grants when

first of all they're not sure how the grants are allocated to the lucky

school districts, and not only that but they come across a list that's

incomplete.

I can't recall the precise figures we're talking about, Mr.

Chairman, but I do know from checking locally that grants were made

available to Sooke and Saanich, and they're not on the list. Of course,

people like the trustees in the city of Victoria say that first of all

they don't know till April or May what the budget's going to be. They

don't know whether they're going to get a special grant or not. Then

that very momentous day arrives that certain schools got a special

grant and others don't, and then on top of that the list that's

provided publicly doesn't give you accurate details. So there's a

suspicion which develops among responsible trustees like those in the

greater Victoria area who don't feel that the present system is

efficient and, perhaps even worse, they are not fully confident that

they are getting a fair shake when they go out of their way to do their

job responsibly.

So I wonder if the minister would comment on that to some degree.

For example, the Victoria school district got $1 million last year as a

special grant but nothing this year. The minister's rather simple

statement that it was all due to pupil enrolment doesn't really

completely gibe with all the figures as they relate in some of these

other school districts.

The next point about public school financing has to be this

government's platform in the last election that they would remove, as

soon as possible, school tax from homeowner properties. All the

homeowner in Oak Bay knows this year is what he reads in the clipping

in the newspaper — that Oak Bay ratepayers face an average hike of

$112. How this government can seek election and did seek election as a

basic commitment to remove education tax....

MR. KAHL: When possible.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes. There's the escape hatch from the

member for Esquimalt — "when possible." The government, in seeking

election, didn't go into that amount of detail. They simply stated that

their commitment was to reduce school taxation from property.

All around me, Mr. Chairman, I sense that the Socred backbenchers

protest too much. They are making great protests here, all around me,

that that was just a commitment...

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Stick to medicine, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: ...at the election, that somewhere down the road when the money was available....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I wish I could use that answer to my wife when we need more money to run the house — that she'll get it when it was available.

MRS. JORDAN: They'll get it when they need it.

[ Page 1796 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, regardless of the outpourings of

protest from the Socred backbenchers, this is the question that is

certainly being asked in Oak Bay: how come this government got elected

on a promise to reduce the school tax on property and all we find the

very first year of their first budget is that we are paying $112 more,

on an average?

MRS. JORDAN: Tell them to get an MLA who understands financing.

MR. WALLACE: It's a reasonable question from the homeowner,

Mr. Chairman, and if the government was so well aware that there was a

massive debt from ICBC, the government must have known at election time

that they could not bring about a reduction on any kind of taxation

when they had to meet this kind of debt.

So I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, that the Social Credit Party was a

little less than complete in outlining the kind of commitment that it

was making to the relief of the hard-pressed homeowner paying education

tax on his property. Even allowing for that degree of licence which I

think the Social Credit Party indulged in, we find that basically for

the total provincial budget in education, the minister really is about

$60 million short in the money that he should be making available to

school boards if the election commitment was to be anything close to

being met.

Maybe I've asked enough questions now that the minister would like to answer these and I can pursue a few other questions later.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just go ahead. Let's have them all.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to correct the point that the minister informed

the House — I'm sure innocently in error — when he answered my question

about the extensions to the two elementary schools in the greater Victoria area,

which are of frame construction. He had already assured me that this government's

policy was to have fire-resistant materials only in new construction. I checked

back after his answer the other day, Mr. Chairman, and I discovered that approval

for the two extensions that I had referred to was granted by the Department

of Education on February 17, 1976. Now I seem to remember that this government

took office on December 22, 1975. So I think the record should just be set straight

that this minister who, perhaps, was just finding his feet in his job as Minister

of Education, and harassed as he was by the ICBC crisis, may not really have

been aware of all the goings-on in the Department of Education. But the record

shows that approval to use frame construction at these two elementary schools

— Glanford and Gordon Head — was approved on February 17, 1976.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 39 pass?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, wait a minute! He said he'd answer questions. Come on, none of that.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I'll

just deal very quickly with some of these matters because many of them

were canvassed at length in prior debate.

The matter of semesters, of course, is something which is a local

option — how they organize their programme — and something which the

department is monitoring. Like the member, we will be very interested

in the results of scholarship exams, but it's not our purpose to limit

the degree of local option in organizing the programmes at the school

district level.

Computers of course, are something which, again, would be quite

available for any local school district that wished to pursue such a

programme. We give local grants, as the member probably realizes, but

once those grants are given they're available to the school districts

to use in any way they see fit.

I have talked, inside and outside the House, at length with regard

to family life, which, again, is a local option, and the Department of

Education has never considered this part of the core curriculum and it

is not now considering that it will be part of the core curriculum.

We did meet, Mr. Chairman, at the instigation of the member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), with the chairman of the Victoria school board,

Mr. Ross, to go over the budget with him. He's going to be going into

further consultation with the members of our department with regard to

comparative costs, and the member for Oak Bay would be most welcome to

attend those meetings if he wishes. Certainly the department has no

information that it isn't quite prepared to share with that member or

any other member of the assembly.

MR. WALLACE: Do we have the highest costs?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, but again it's not a.... The member's

quite right. You can't exactly compare the way one school district sets

up its budget with another. But what we are attempting to do, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, is to make much more information

available to the elected trustees at the local level as to how their

district compares with other districts with regard to these and other

costs, because we feel that each of the local school boards does

require better yardsticks than they have at present in drawing up their

budget.

Perhaps the member would have some suggestions as to the precise

ways that we might go about developing those criteria, but Mr. Jack

Fleming — he's

[ Page 1797 ]

not in the assembly, but the members all know him — has been charged

with that particular responsibility. So again I would suggest the

member meet with Mr. Ross and with Mr. Fleming and other members of our

department to go into this question in detail. We're quite pleased to

have any input that members would care to give. Anyway, our general

objective is to make available to all elected trustees criteria for

setting up the budget.

Now with regard to Education Today , I rather think I agree with the

member for Oak Bay. The member for Esquimalt had got to me last week, I

must admit, but after reading some of the accounts of the debates in

this assembly I really felt it necessary to reassess the position about

Education Today . They say that the objective of papers is to separate

the wheat from the chaff and then print the chaff, and that seems to

have been the case of some of the debates here.

I felt particularly keenly about a rather major statement that was

made last week with respect to post-secondary education, where the

stakes involved are in excess of $25 million a year — an unparalleled

windfall available for post-secondary education in British Columbia —

where we want to make all those associated with the educational system

aware of the degree to which British Columbia has been shortchanged

over the years, to encourage them to join with us in trying to get

justice for this province. Yet if we had no publication such as

Education Today , there would be no way in which we could even make them

aware of the problem, because of this "wheat from the chaff" system

that apparently exists in some of our other publications. I could go on

and on about this particular problem, but I don't want to bore the

members of the House with the difficulties that one has in....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Will I resign? The member is far too

optimistic, Mr. Chairman. In any event, many of the subjects we have

already canvassed, but I want to assure the member that the Department

of Education is open to him for any.... Oh, yes, he mentioned the areas

of Sooke and Saanich. They both got increased grants because there was

increased enrolment. As far as I know, that was published information;

certainly it is not confidential information.

MR. WALLACE: What about a list?

HON. MR. McGEER: I haven't got the list that you have, but

here's my list which is available to all members. If it is different

from your list, then I don't know how your list originated. But in any

event....

MR. WALLACE: I got it from your office.

HON. MR. McGEER: What did you ask for — special aid?

MR. WALLACE: How do you decide and...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: You know, there are special aid grants, Mr.

Member. Neither Sooke nor Saanich got special aid grants, but they both

got a grant for enrolment increase. Perhaps you don't have a list of

the grants that were given for enrolment increase. But in any event,

there isn't anything that our department has in the way of figures that

isn't available to the members. I would urge them to seek details of

this kind by consultation.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): There are two areas I want

to bring up very briefly to the hon. minister. As we were not given the

opportunity to hear the traditional minister's speech when he took his

place as Minister of Education in the Education debate, we have found

it necessary, of course, to pose a number of questions to the minister

which I don't think we would have had to if he had given the House an

opportunity to hear something about his own personal goals and

philosophy for education in this province and perhaps show us what

leadership he is going to give to the province, not only in public

school education, of course, but in post-secondary.

There are two areas where I am particularly concerned in hearing the

minister's statement of philosophy. Despite the fact that there have

been a number of questions to him on family-life education, we still

have not heard from the minister personally. I think any Minister of

Education should be able to stand up and tell us, as he has, may I say,

very clearly on value schools — he has repudiated them, from listening

to him. I must say that I agree with the comments made by the minister

relative to his comments on value schools, But when it comes to

family-life education, the minister has been very evasive. I simply

want to ask him: does he believe that family-life education programmes

should be in our school system?

I know the minister evades it by saying: "Well, it's up to the local

school boards." That is not enough of an answer for the public. I think

the public would like to know if this minister is going to give

leadership in family-life education in this province when we know that

over 75 per cent of the parents of this province do want family-life

education. Is he going to encourage it or is he simply going to sit

back for the minority of this province who do not want it and give no

leadership and give no incentive in the development of family-life

education? I feel it is

[ Page

1798 ]

about time that the minister stood up and told the

House where he

stands personally on family-life education. Specifically, is he going

to give consideration to the family-life co-ordinator, which the school

boards of the province have asked for? If the answer to that is yes, I

hope he then will also make it quite clear that he does endorse

family-life programmes in our school system.

The second point on which I'd like to hear the comments of the

minister is relative to the whole area of autonomy. Now the minister

yesterday was very clear in the House when he said he believes very

strongly in autonomy for the universities of this province. But, you

know, he's been rather silent when it comes to autonomy for college

councils. I realize there is a dilemma faced, as I know I faced also,

particularly when it comes to the area of fiscal restraints and how you

can control financing and, at the same time, keep autonomy within your

college boards.

You do have college boards, Mr. Minister. You must believe in them

because you have continued appointments to them. I won't go again into

that area, but obviously you believe in the local college board

structure. So my question to the minister is: if you do believe in

college boards, why then was one of your first actions to strip the

college boards of this province of autonomy? I am referring to one of

your first ministerial actions, which was to announce to the boards of

the province that they were not to move at all in the area of

personnel. If I am correct, one northern college council was repudiated

quite strongly and, shall we say, rather — I won't say strapped by the

minister, as he used to refer to some of my actions — almost strapped

by him for having the audacity to want to go ahead and hire on their

own and make a decision on their own in reference to their own

principal — a new principal. They were told by the minister: "No, you

are not to make any moves in that direction."

I cannot see how the minister can espouse university autonomy and be

so silent when it comes to autonomy for college councils. I'd like to

hear him tell us: does he believe that college councils — community

colleges — should have the same autonomy as the universities of this

province? If he does, why has he taken some punitive action towards the

college councils of this province, which obviously seems to suggest an

erosion of their autonomy?

While I'm on community colleges I would also like to ask a question

of the minister in reference to a new college Act he has announced he

intends to bring forward perhaps next session, whenever that is. I know

there was a working paper prepared; there's a new minister and I'm sure

he wants to go over that. But my question to him is: will he release

that working paper, or if he makes changes to the working paper, will

he release the working paper, which will be a prelude to college

legislation, for public consumption and input before he brings down the

new college legislation?

I have a number of other questions, but I think it would be to the

benefit of all of us if, following some of these answers, we could move

on, I hope, to the individual votes, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, again very quickly, family

life — I guess I'm getting a little repetitive here — it's a matter of

local option; it's not part of the department's core curriculum. There

was a suggestion put forward by the Home and School Federation that we

appoint a co-ordinator, and we said that we would take a look at that

one. Family life is something which I believe should be a local option,

not part of the core curriculum.

Similarly with value schools — school boards have a right to do

their own thing. We have said that we don't intend to interfere with

that right.

MR. LAUK: Family life or fluoridation — which will you have? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. DAILLY: Would you like your children to have it in school? Family life?

HON. MR. McGEER: I can't really answer that because I'm just

not familiar with the programmes, but I'm told that a lot of the local

school boards have introduced successful programmes, so that's a great

example of the effectiveness of local autonomy — something, again, we

encourage.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: As far as the colleges are concerned.... What was that?

MR. LAUK: Are you still in favour of fluoridation? (Laughter.) It finally got through, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 39, please, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: The colleges. Once more, certainly we

believe in the autonomy of the colleges. In no case have we acted

without the request of the colleges themselves. It is a partnership and

I think that one has to realize that there's a great deal of

competition going on, for supplying exactly the same services of a

post-secondary nature. That's why we appointed the Winegard commission.

As far as the new colleges Act is concerned, there are three

principals at the present time who have come to the Department of

Education to help work

[ Page 1799 ]

on it. There's no working paper, and it isn't their objective to

produce a working paper as such. I can assure the member that there

will be very wide consultation on the nature of that particular Act. We

are working towards the idea of programme funding because, again, while

each institution can and must have autonomy, obviously the funding you

put forward is going to be based on the programmes that are available.

You don't want to fund the same programme three times over in three

different institutions.

I think the only way in which the partnership could be expressed

between the Department of Education and the local colleges would be in

the matter of to what extent a programme might appropriately be funded

if a competitive programme somewhere else was being offered. That would

be for economy and efficiency, not any desire on the part of the

Department of Education to interfere with the academic side of what any

institution was hoping to accomplish.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering

whether the minister would like to make some comments about community

schools. In particular I want to talk about the Burrard Bayview

Community School.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the community schools are involved in an

integrated and co-ordinated way in terms of the community at large. A

lot of other groups use the schools, the parks board, the health units

in the particular riding, and various other community groups in the

riding use the community school. In fact, it is really a very practical

and useful way in which the educational facility should be used, rather

than the traditional way.

The problem with this is that traditional funding doesn't cover the

running of a community school and in fact the community school calls

for a more flexible kind of funding formula.

The, Bayview Community School, for example, services an area that has

courses for senior citizens, as well as some of the more traditional

things like consumer education, adult education classes, French classes

for children, music lessons for adults — all these kinds of things. It

has had a lot of support from the parks board as well as from various

other groups in the community — the Vancouver Resource Board and this

kind of thing.

In October of last year there was a conference held at the Bayview

Community School to deal with the whole concept of community schools

and the inability of the traditional funding methods to meet their

needs. At that time a letter was sent to the provincial government

requesting that a task force be set up to look at the whole business of

overhead funding for community schools in B.C.

What I'm asking the minister is whether this task force has been set

up, and what decision has been made about a more flexible formula for

funding community schools, not just in the Vancouver area but wherever

they may come into being.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there are three successful

community schools operating in the greater Vancouver area. It requires,

as the member I'm sure knows, co-operation on the part of the parks

board, the school board and so on to fund these things. The Department

of Education, of course, is delighted to make its buildings available —

the more use the better. But again, this is not part of the basic

education programme for British Columbia, so it doesn't come under the

purview of the Department of Education to fund it. The appropriate

place, really, to take up this cause is with the local parks board or

the local school board. We're happy to make the buildings available.

MS. BROWN: A supplementary to deal with the same thing.

Mr. Chairman, it is part of the educational process. The Vancouver

school board and everyone agrees that what goes on in the community

schools is a part of the educational process. Courses dealing with

teaching French to children are part of the educational process.

process. Consumer education, you know, Greek classes for children, the

course dealing with health care for seniors, that's part of the

educational process. That's not part of the school board.

Educators agree that there is more to education than, you know, just

what's laid down in the textbook from 9 o'clock in the morning until

whenever school is over at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. That was the

reason this conference was called in October, and these resolutions

were passed asking the Department of Education to look at the business

of a more flexible funding formula just to cover the overhead costs of

the community schools. Of course, the parks board is going to pay a

part of that. They have already committed themselves to that.

At the Bayview Community School, for example, even the merchants in

and around the neighbourhood have funded some of the programmes that

take place at the school. Everyone is pitching in to help, but, you

know, Mr. Chairman, I think it really doesn't come under the purview of

the Department of Education. In its broadest sense it is part of our

education, and all that the community schools advisory council is

asking is that the minister set up a task force to at least look at the

business of funding for community schools wherever they may exist.

It is true that there are three very successful

[ Page 1800 ]

community schools in operation in Vancouver — so much so that the

trend is to go into more and more community schools, because really

that is the kind of school all schools should be like, if the truth

were known. The Department of Education should be in the forefront of

this kind of struggle, not dragging its feet behind everyone else. So I

hope the minister will rethink his position on this, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question

of the community colleges and the kind of example of management that

leaves a great deal to be desired. I'm talking particularly about the

example in Capilano College, on which I've asked questions in the

question period. I want to thank the minister for making the report

available to me, and presumably to any member of the House on that

particular instance. I want to make it very plain that I'm not here to

attack or criticize personally that particular principal who resigned.

I want to take a little bit and ask some questions about the

background procedures that are used to engage senior people at this

level, in the hope that perhaps we can prevent this kind of situation

recurring in the future.

The very quick and simple facts of the matter are that the principal

of Capilano College resigned and was given severance pay of $41,700,

which was in keeping with the terms of his contract. The point I want

to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the degree to which management by college

councils can be questioned in such a situation as arose in this case.

Without going through all the details, the report make it very clear

that the college council was dissatisfied with the performance of the

principal. Yet it's clearly stated in a letter from legal counsel,

dated May 3, 1976, bottom of the page.... In a letter to the chairman of

Capilano College, the legal counsel states:

"We also understood from you at that time that

although certain council members had expressed dissatisfaction at being

unable to obtain information from the principal, the council itself had

not provided any specific directions to the principal concerning

objectives and priorities."

How can anyone in management expect the best or even an adequate

performance by someone in a senior employment position if you can't at

least give the principal some guidelines and an outline of what the

objectives and priorities of the college are? It's quite clear. It says

here in black and white, in one and the same breath, that the college

council were unhappy with the situation but admitted to the fact that

they were not giving any specific direction to the principal as to what

the goals and objectives were or how he might more adequately perform

under these guidelines. The letter continues later on by saying that

the legal counsel had advised the college council:

"In the absence of any specific directions from

council, and in view of the imprecise nature of the dissatisfaction

with the principal, and in the absence of any specific incidents in

support of such dissatisfaction, the council, in our view, could not

establish a case for dismissal for cause against the principal."

So here we have a situation where a college council feels obligated

to discontinue the services of the principal. They can't seem to define

what's wrong with the principal or what he's doing that he shouldn't

do, or what he's not doing that he should do, and when they take the

matter to the question of seeking legal counsel, they can't even spell

out to the legal counsel why they're so unhappy with the principal.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour this to great length. All I

am trying to say is: there is one thing that is very important to

establish, and that is to try and get the trust of the taxpayer in all

the money that's being spent on education, whether it's at the public

school level for teachers or paying principals, or councils of

community colleges, or whether it's university principals, or whatever.

But this kind of example that's spelled out very clearly in the

report on this Capilano College situation really leaves me, as a

taxpayer, just wondering what members of a college council want. They

want to express their unhappiness with the principal and perhaps ask

him to resign, and yet here we have a clear statement in the report

that they couldn't put into words what was inadequate or inefficient

about the principal. As a result, they received, I suppose, the only

kind of legal advice you would expect — that he could not be dismissed

for cause, and therefore he had to be given one year's severance pay in

keeping with the terms on which he was employed. I just don't think,

frankly, that that's good enough if this report is accurate in

describing the wishes and the thinking of the members of the college

council at Capilano College.

As I say, I don't want to quote this at great length, but I just

want to leave the general thrust of my comments. Anyone who cares to

read this report can only come to the conclusion, for reasons that are

very vague and which the college council members apparently are either

unwilling or unable to put into writing, that they felt that the

principal should resign. Apparently there was no clearly definable

cause that they could put into writing to ask for his resignation. They

admit that there was not just cause to dismiss the principal, and yet

they were sufficiently dissatisfied that on one date — I believe

February 17 — certain members of the council moved a motion of no

confidence in the principal. That motion was defeated, I understand, by

eight votes to four.

At any rate, the minister has said that he is looking

[ Page 1801 ]

at a college Act and that there will be new legislation. I'm like

the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly). I believe we should

have the greatest possible degree of autonomy in our educational

system. But, Mr. Chairman, any measure of autonomy carries with it very

substantial responsibilities, none greater than when you're spending

the taxpayers' money. With that autonomy there has to go some very

visible evidence of responsibility by those who hold office on college

councils.

I wonder, first of all, if the minister would state whether the

matter of the Capilano College resignation is to be taken any further

by his department, or does he feel that it's just an unfortunate

circumstance where $41,700 has had to be paid out twice, since

presumably someone is succeeding the principal at the same time as the

principal's enjoying one year's severance pay? In other words, even

prior to new legislation, is this the end of the saga at Capilano

College?

Secondly, has the minister taken any specific steps to try and

prevent this situation developing in the future as, for example,

setting out some guidelines regarding the terms of contract? The

college council, in a somewhat defensive way in a letter, has tried to

justify its position by quoting that principals of universities get

even a better contract and that their terms of employment, moneywise

and otherwise, are even superior to those that usually apply to college

principals.

Well, that kind of argument really doesn't wash at all; it's the

specific way in which a council either meets its responsibilities or

not. Mr. Chairman, one interesting statistic is that the principal, who

proved to be less than the college council felt was adequate, was

chosen out of 114 applicants — 114 applicants and they managed to

choose somebody whom they found was, for whatever reason, not suitable

or not efficient. Then to crown it all, they can't come out and put

into writing why the principal should be asked to resign. Mr. Chairman,

I think I've established that point and I hope that the minister just

won't sort of waffle around when he answers my question.

Here are taxpayers' dollars that do not appear to be being used very

wisely. I know that one example doesn't justify any kind of blanket

criticism, but it's a large sum of money and I think the minister

should give us some assurance that he's taken steps to minimize this

kind of problem in the future. I wonder if he could tell us to what

degree he plans to introduce provisions in the new legislation that

will either restrict or limit, or in some way provide greater

safeguards than appear to be in vogue at the present time.

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) talked about the

importance of teaching French in our schools. I understand, from a

question that was asked in the federal House on April 4, that the

Secretary of State, James Hugh Faulkner, replied that the federal

government provides 9 per cent of the funding of any programmes for the

teaching of French.

I'll quote precisely the answer which the Secretary of State gave to

the Hon. Mr. Corbin, the MP for Madawaska-Victoria (New Brunswick.) The

Secretary of State replied:

Mr. Speaker, I discuss this question continuously with Ministers of

Education of the provinces. There is a formula in place under which the

federal government agrees to pay 9 per cent of the additional cost of

any extended French-language training programme. That provision is

available to any province which wishes to take advantage of it.

Mr. Chairman, on a previous date in the House of Commons, a written question

was answered which, I think, shows some very devastating figures which I hope

the minister will take note of. A Mr. Gauthier, who is the MP for Roberval,

had asked how much federal funding had been granted for the promotion of the

French language as part of bilingualism. The second part of his question was:

within these programmes?" I just want to quote you the total sum of money

that has been spent: in British Columbia, between the years 1970 and 1975, a

total of $5.4 million was spent on French education programmes. In answer to

the second question of how much had been granted to Quebec, the sum total for

the same period of years is $196 million.

So it would seem that we're not really spending much money on

French-language programmes, or we're not availing ourselves in a

proportionate kind of way in acquiring federal funding in the manner

that the Province of Quebec has acquired $196 million in these years,

and British Columbia $5.4 million. There seems to be quite a disparity

and I wonder if the minister could tell us how the funding we have

received has been spent — on which grades, and what in brief is the

general way in which the money is used.

Secondly, have we availed ourselves of all the federal funding for

the teaching of French that could have been used? What plans does the

minister have in his tenure of office to try and expand both the

programmes in French teaching and the amount that we should acquire

from federal sources?

The last point I want to make is one which I don't think the

minister answered when I asked it earlier, at the closing part of an

evening session, and that was the Social Credit Party's commitment to

discontinue the compulsory nature of membership in the B.C. Teachers

Federation. This was clearly passed as a majority wish at the Social

Credit convention.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

[ Page 1802 ]

MR. WALLACE: That's just clearly on the record, Mr. Chairman,

that the delegates to the Social Credit convention suggested that it

would be appropriate as party policy not to make membership compulsory.

I am not going to take more time of the House to debate the freedom of

choice that I believe professionals should have, and this whole

question of union membership, but I certainly take issue with a comment

made by the member for Nelson-Creston subsequent to my earlier comments

that the BCTF isn't some strong political machine.

I have got a copy of one or two recommendations that were passed at

their convention just a few weeks ago. One of the recommendations is a

reserve fund of $1 million for political action. The most significant

part of the recommendation, Mr. Chairman — I really hope the minister

is aware of this part of the resolution — mentions the $1 million

"....which is disbursed at the sole discretion of the representative

assembly."

Later on there is another recommendation which makes it very plain

that the B.C. Teachers Federation.... I'm not disputing its right to do

this. It has got every right to indulge in using the methods it feels

are best to represent the financial interests of its members; that's

what organizations are for. But just don't come into this House and

tell me that the BCTF isn't a strong political body. It's because it is

so grossly or greatly involved in political activity that I am saying

that it would not be a bad idea to separate its essentially academic

and professional activities in the realm of education from its purely

political activities.

So I would appreciate knowing first of all if the government has

made a conscious decision not to follow the resolution that its

delegates passed at the convention. I'd like to know the minister's own

personal view on this question of compulsory membership in the BCTF. I

would also like to know.... I particularly ask this because I know the

Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, is a physician. He and I know very

well that the granting of a licence to practise medicine and the

essentially disciplinary and professional requirements of a doctor are

decided by an essentially non-political body set up under statute,

under the Medical Act,

whereas the B.C. Medical Association negotiates

with the government for doctors' fees, which is a highly political

issue, the key being that any doctor who does not wish to be a member

of the BCMA has that choice.

I would just say again that the minister himself, when he became a

politician and was elected to this House, exercised that freedom of

choice by discontinuing his membership in the B.C. Medical Association.

I presume that the minister elected to discontinue his membership for

the reason that he felt there might well be a conflict of interest. But

as far as his licence to practise medicine is concerned, that is, as it

should be, based on his qualifications and training and established

expertise and his adherence to the rules and to the discipline of our

profession — not in any way subjected to the possibility of political

interference or leverage through a trade union or its equivalent.

I think this is an important fact. Certainly I know of at least

one teacher in my own riding of Oak Bay who is conscientiously and

sincerely trying to fight this regulation as it now exists. However

well qualified you are to carry out your professional job, you can lose

your right to do that job in this province if you refuse to join the

BCTF. I just think that democratically, in a so-called democratic

society, that is wrong.

I know that the minister, certainly when he was on this side of the

House as a Liberal, was strong in defending the rights of individuals

and the freedom of choice, particularly within professions. I'd be very

disappointed if I thought or was given reason this afternoon through

the minister's comments to think that just because he's changed the

side of the House that he sits on he has changed his basic conviction

about something as important as a professional teacher's right to be

able to indulge legally and openly in the teaching profession simply

because he would not conform to a compulsory regulation that he also be

a member of the teachers' union.

The last point I want to raise at this moment, Mr. Chairman, is the

question of substitute teachers. The public school system depends a

great deal on trying to provide consistent teaching to all students,

even though the particular teacher is not available for a day or two or

a week or two for reasons of illness or otherwise.

I have a letter from one of my constituents explaining how they are

just poor relations in the teaching profession. I won't take a lot of

time to recite their fate in relation to salaries over the last several

years, but between 1966 and 1973, as far as the greater Victoria area

is concerned, their payment has actually gone down. That has to be

something of a record. Perhaps only the MLAs can claim equality with

the substitute teachers, as we've just had our income reduced by 10 per

cent. I understand that in 1966 the substitute teacher was paid $24.28

a day, plus 4 per cent holiday pay; in 1973, seven years later, this

teacher received just $24. That's an actual reduction — not a lot, I

agree, but when you consider how the cost of living has increased

between 1966 and 1973, to be paid the same amount, I think, is very

unfair. I believe at that point of time the schools had difficulty

getting substitute teachers, and in October, 1973, their daily rate of

pay was put up to $30 a day. That $30 in 1974 was put up to $32.64 in

1975, and it's stayed there since; there's no increase again this year.

The point this lady makes is very valid. What

[ Page 1803 ]

difference does it make that you're a substitute teacher? You have

the same cost-of-living expenses, you have the same background and

training, you have the same teacher's certificate, and if substitute

teachers were not available there would be just that much more

impairment of the teaching available to those students whose regular

teacher takes ill, or is out of the city, or whatever.

This lady makes the point very clearly, Mr. Chairman — I hope the

minister can perhaps research this matter, or have his department look

into it — that they are paid very little more than they were paid 10

years ago. Their negotiating capacity is very weak, and as a result

they more or less have to accept whatever daily rate of salary is

offered to them. I feel that while they may not expect the same kind of

continuing remuneration as does a teacher with a year-to-year contract,

there is a very substantial disparity. Substitute teachers certainly

fill a vital

part in the system, so I wonder if the minister would tell

us what his department's position is in trying to get the substitute

teacher a fair financial deal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 39 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 39? I'm sorry, Mr. Member, according to the rules of the House the time limit for your speaking...is it concluded?

MR. WALLACE: I don't know. He hasn't answered the question! He was getting ready to stand up. How come everybody...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the question again: shall vote 39 pass?

Vote 39 approved.

On vote 40: department administration and support services, $4,922,992.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, in vote 40 we have a very sizeable

increase in the research and development money. According to the

figures I see here, last year's original estimate was for around $2.3

million, but I know the minister is aware that we revised that estimate

down to $1.3 million. So according to my calculations you have

estimated for the coming year $2,475,000 for research and development,

and if you add on the other $1 million I see the total vote now for

research and development to be approximately $3,482,000 — that's adding

the surplus that was not used by the former department.

As that's a very sizeable increase in research and development, I

wonder if the minister could give us some details on what his plans are

in the area of research and development for the coming year. It's

obvious there must be some major plans when the vote has been increased

to such an extent. Could the minister answer that?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of

specific programmes that fall into this general category. One of the

most important of these is a financial planning study.

The answer partly bears on a question raised by the member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) with respect to the contracts with college councils.

What we want to do is set up a complete set of financial guidelines for

the colleges and for the school districts which will give them a basis

upon which they can set their own budgets and on which they can

determine appropriate contracts — the appropriate remuneration for

various categories and what sorts of financial systems they should set

up to analyse the data.

Another question that was raised by the member for Oak Bay was on

substitute teachers. The cost of substitute teachers varies enormously

from district to district. It doesn't bear any relation to illness

patterns, and we are looking into that. We are studying patterns of

that kind. But in order to have reliable financial data available we

have to set up a whole financial services division that can do this

kind of thing.

We want to get much of the data available on computers. We want to

be able to establish appropriate inventories for the school textbooks

that are out there in the system. There is some estimate that there may

be as much as $50 million of textbooks that are out there somewhere

that we don't have track of. All of these things require the

introduction of 20th century systems instead of 19th century systems.

So that's going to be a fairly substantial part of it.

We've announced one commission to investigate the delivery of

post-secondary programmes throughout British Columbia. The Winegard

commission would also fall under this particular vote. The learning

assessment programme and core curriculum development programme is

something that's going from the pilot plant stage to the full-scale

operation, and that also is going to require financial resources so

that we can strengthen the core curriculum development and the learning

assessment programme.

Very shortly we're going to be announcing the secondment of other

people to the Department of Education for the purpose of looking at

ways in which we can develop methods for funding the

[ Page 1804 ]

separate schools and ways in which we can condense the secondary-school programme to make it articulate with the

post-secondary system, with the view in mind to saving students' time

and avoiding duplication. That's something that I talked about before

the school trustees association — again requiring financial resources.

So all the initiatives the Department of Education will be undertaking

in the next year are really encompassed under this particular vote.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the minister explaining what it's being

used for. It seems to be the large emphasis, then, on this sum of money — which

is over $3 million — will be mainly for preparation of, as you say, more up-to-date

financial systems, particularly for post-secondary schools. My only concern

is that under the former government a sizeable amount of that money was used

for developmental programmes such as grants to local school districts, grants

to groups that we felt were setting good, innovative, new measures in education.

I remember the great number of people who came to us. My concern is: if you're

going to spend the majority of the funds on your financial structure — which

I realize is necessary — is there going to be anywhere, in any vote, that school

boards and other groups, such as particularly the native Indian groups, can

come to get some assistance in grants?

HON. MR. McGEER: There are $70,000 available for grants of

various kinds. Mr. Currie, who's right behind, chairs that particular

committee, and you can discuss details with him. Of course, he's

available to you.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, the

minister mentioned a number of things under this vote, but not any

examination into what I would call teacher evaluation. Just to put it

shortly, there are good, bad and indifferent teachers, as well as good,

bad and indifferent lawyers. That's the heart of the matter, and that's

the heart of sort of the malaise of the school system. Where there are

teachers who do not present an exciting portrayal of the subject, the

pupils are turned off and the dropout rate is increased. We have police

teams now in the city trying to get the children back into high school.

So what does the minister think of teacher evaluation? They may have

security of tenure in a district, they may have security of tenure at

UBC, but I think all professions — and this is a profession — have to

think in terms of retraining and evaluation of performance, in the

interests of the students. Really, there should be worked out with the

B.C. Teachers Federation and with faculty associations of the

universities some way whereby the teacher can give his or her best, and

whereby those teachers who are not able or unwilling to give their

best.... There aren't too many of them but they do exist. They're a

disaster for the student who has to spend his time in that particular

class.

How can they be evaluated? Should it be by student opinion to some

extent and, if not, why not? I would think certainly at the university

level the opinion of students is, perhaps, one of the best guides as to

whether the teacher is doing a good job. Why aren't you studying, Mr.

Minister, this thing of teacher evaluation?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, under this particular vote

there's $15,000 set aside for the joint board of teacher evaluation,

under Mr. Leskiw of the department, which has the direct responsibility

for precisely this matter.

In addition to that, for teachers who do need upgrading, in the next

vote, 41, there's $375,000 set aside for professional development. It's

not something which is being ignored, but it is, as the member said,

something which needs improvement, and it's a difficult question.

The school superintendents, of course, have the job of evaluating

individual teachers in their school districts, and we're going to be

asking the superintendents to beef up their reporting methods, because

we think that the matters raised by the member for Vancouver East are

very legitimate ones and that we should be developing better tools for

evaluating the teachers — I might say not just the unsatisfactory ones,

but the ones who are doing an excellent job. Again, I said to the B.C.

Teachers Federation that we wanted to be able to identify the

outstanding teachers. We wanted to be able to recognize them in some

way.

Some teachers put out a great deal of extra effort and never get

recognized for it. I might say I was booed for making that observation,

but it's one that I nevertheless....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, it's quite true. But I still believe in

it, that we should recognize the good ones and we should be able to

identify the ones that need improvement. I think the school

superintendents are going to help with that.

In any event, to deal with the specific money that's been set aside

under the vote, there is this $15,000 for the joint boards under Mr.

Leskiw, and there is $375,000 set aside in the next vote for

professional development.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, maybe you can advise me whether this

is the correct vote or not. I'd like to ask a question on the advisory

committee on sex discrimination in public education, and I'm not

[ Page 1805 ]

sure whether it should be dealt with under this vote or under vote 41.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would this be the proper vote? Just one moment.

MS. BROWN: Is it vote 41?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under this vote.

MS. BROWN: Okay, fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, on January 12 the chairperson of

this committee received a letter from Mr. Meredith thanking her for the

work of the committee and expressing the thanks of the department for

the work of the committee and saying that the activities of the

advisory committee had been temporarily discontinued. Temporary I think

is the key word that I hope the minister is listening to.

On January 14 a telegram was sent to the Minister of Education

asking for some official clarification of the status of the committee.

No response was received. So on January 20 the chairperson again, Ms.

Nadine Allen, wrote a letter to the Minister of Education asking once

again for some clarification of the position of the provincial advisory

committee on sex education. Again there was no response. So on March 11

again a letter to the hon. Minister of Education...this time asking

just for a reply to the two previous letters. That is all.

On May 6, Mr. Chairman, this time a letter was sent to the deputy

minister asking again for some kind of clarification as to the

temporary status of this committee being discontinued. The letter went

on to explain that one of the reasons that the committee had been

established by the previous administration was because we recognized

how important the whole setting-down of stereotypes was to young people

in the school system and that, in fact, this committee was to help to

deal with not just curriculum content but textbook content and other

things as well in terms of dealing with stereotyping in the school

system.

What I'm asking from the Minister of Education, on behalf of the

chairperson of the committee, is: would he give me a response to these

four inquiries? I will take this response to Ms. Nadine Allen. What is

the official status of the advisory committee? How temporary was the

word "temporarily discontinued"? I realize that Julia Goulden is still

being retained by the department until June. We would like some ideas

as to what she is doing in the department. Is her contract going to be

removed after June?

Also, what else is being done in the department in terms of dealing

with this whole business of sex stereotyping, not just in the

curriculum content but in the textbook content of the books used in the

system as well?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I suppose this comes under the

category of the Julia Goulden lobby. I must say that I became

acquainted with this lady by being accosted in the hall one day by the

press who asked me if I had a statement about Julia Goulden. I said:

"Well, who's Julia Goulden?" They said: "You just fired her." So that,

in effect, Mr. Chairman....

MR. WALLACE: Are you proud of that?

HON. MR. McGEER: No. And as a matter of fact, we hadn't; that

was just the comment of the press. I tell you how it began in the day

of a life of a minister.

Mr. Chairman, the history behind it is that the former Minister of

Education (Mrs. Dailly) appointed an advisory committee to her, and, of

course, advisory committees to the minister are committees that are

established for the purposes of that particular minister.

Miss Julia Goulden and her committee did work and provided valuable

advice to the department, and much of that was incorporated into future

programmes. But, again, this was not to be a long-term, continuing

thing. If it was the understanding of Miss Julia Goulden or her

committee at that particular time that it was to be a long-term thing,

then there was apparently some misunderstanding between herself, that

committee and the department.

We wish to thank the committee. They did very excellent work. The

department has taken their recommendation seriously and some action

will be taken, but if the member believes that this was to be a

long-term, continuing programme, I think that was an incorrect

impression. Now perhaps at some future time the committee will become

active with a new set of recommendations, but this was a special

project funded for a limited period of time, perhaps to be

reconstituted at some future time to see if there's a further set of

recommendations that can be implemented. But no, Mr. Chairman, it's not

policy to have a continuing committee on this special aspect.

MS. BROWN: If I may be permitted to clarify that I'm not a

part of the Julia Goulden...I forgot what you called them — lobby. I'm

not interested in who heads this committee. I'm solely interested in

the function of the committee.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the committee was indeed established to advise

the Minister of Education on the business of sex stereotyping, not just

in the textbooks used in the schools but in the curriculum content in

the educational system as well. The committee's work has not been

completed; there are still textbooks being used in the schools. There

is still sexist content

[ Page 1806 ]

in the curriculum being used in the schools in the province today.

It doesn't make sense to me for the minister to say that it was a

temporary committee which has now been disbanded when it says here in

the letter from the deputy minister that the committee is under review,

that proposals are going to be made for maintaining progress in this

area. Really, this is all I'm interested in, not who heads it or who

doesn't head it.

What kind of proposals are forthcoming for maintaining "progress in

this area"? Because it's an area that still needs a lot of work. Also,

if I can quote again from Mr. Meredith, superintendent of educational

programmes, "temporarily" was the word used when he mentioned

discontinuing the activities of the advisory committee at least

temporarily. Now that's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in

Julia Goulden, and I'm not a part of her lobby, or whatever. She did an

excellent job and will continue to do an excellent job, if the minister

has the foresight to allow her to continue in her job. But the job that

was started by this advisory committee had not been completed, and I'm

asking the minister what's going to happen to it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the member

that staff work in the department is continuing with Mr. Meredith and

his staff. Its work has been by no means abandoned. I thought I made

that clear in the first trip around. At the same time, grant requests

are being made by outside groups for workshops, and those applications

can come to Mr. Currie of the department. Both these people would be

delighted to discuss progress in the individual things that are going

on with the member herself.

MS. BROWN: Is someone monitoring it?

HON. MR. McGEER: That's Mr. Meredith.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member is indeed welcome to go and

discuss this matter in detail with Mr. Meredith. As far as grants are

concerned, well, she can appeal to Mr. Currie. There's a limited amount

of money available, but it's dispensed in a very fair manner, and we're

aware of the legitimate concerns. There have been policies implemented

as a result of the Julia Goulden committee, and everybody is very

grateful for the work she did. As I say, work is continuing.

MRS. DAILLY: Just a couple of comments and a question to the minister on this subject.

First of all, the minister keeps referring again to the Julia Goulden Committee

and congratulating them on their fine work, but I would like to point out that

the committee was struck over two years ago and the first chairperson was Reva

Dexter. I'd like it to go on the record that Reva Dexter did an excellent

job for the department also. Julia Goulden was appointed the second year.

Now my only concern is.... I think it was the first time in Canada

that such an advisory committee was established to the Department of

Education — in this particular case, to the minister — and they do have

a big job to do. Now if the minister does not like the structure and

approve of the structure that was set up by the former minister, that

of course is understandable. I think all we're asking for is more

assurance from him that the whole area of sex discrimination in

education is going to be looked at by his department. I know you said

that Mr. Meredith will be looking at it and I think, in view of that,

all we can do then is wait until the year passes and then we will have

further questions on the development of the programme. I have great

respect for Mr. Meredith. My only concern, having been in that

department, is that I know the tremendous load which the

superintendents carry. It is difficult for them to spread themselves

over too many areas. So I just hope that if Mr. Meredith has been given

that, he is also being given some assistance to carry out this work.

Vote 40 approved.

On vote 41: basic education K-12 programme, $523,492,978.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have just a few questions for the minister under this heading.

First of all, I'd like to have it clarified for the various school

districts around the province the exact situation they're facing on

fire insurance for the coming year. I appreciate there's been some

discussion of this earlier on in the estimates, but I'm not clear yet

in my own mind as to what is going to happen in the future. The

minister says that the actual insurance situation, in terms of coverage

for the districts, remains as it always was with the amounts under $1

million being covered by a special fund. But in the future, Mr.

Chairman, I would ask the minister: who is going to pay for fire

insurance costs? It was in recent years shifted from the local school

districts to the central Department of Education. Now can the minister

give us an undertaking that that situation will continue, however

arranged, however he provides his funding, or whether there will be an

attempt to shift this cost back onto the local school districts,

thereby being an extra item of cost at the local level? I would hope

the minister would clarify this point for us.

[ Page 1807 ]

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Next, there has been some recent discussion in this committee, under

the minister's vote, on the question of French language education in

the province. The only suggestion I have for the minister in this regard

is that he should go after 100-cent dollars from the federal

government. I would suggest that second-language education in this

country is a matter that is peculiarly important to the field of

national unity and that this is a particular responsibility of the

national government. I believe that the minister should be seeking not

50-cent dollars, but 100-cent dollars as he considers his activities in

this valuable area of instruction.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all?

MR. GIBSON: No, that's not all. I was just wondering if you were listening, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, no. I just was wondering if you're keeping

note of what's being said or if you're listening to one conversation

with one ear and another with the other.

MR. LAUK: I'd sooner hear your conversations. What's going on over there? Speak up.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like to ask the minister if he will give us a

policy now, or undertake to examine a policy in the matter of gradual

integration of day care with the public school system. It has to be

gradual, Mr. Chairman, because there's a financial problem, which is

that the province currently receives a federal sharing of much of the

cost of day care under the Canada Assistance Plan and we would not

want, through any particular moves that were made to integrate with the

school system, to lose that cost sharing. This is one of the reasons

why, in this area and so many others, British Columbia should seek to

withdraw from a lot of these programmes and receive tax points instead,

in order that we can better determine our own priorities in our own

province as to how these dollars are to be spent.

But given the solution to that problem, which I have little doubt

can be worked out in federal-provincial conferences in a fairly short

time given a sufficiently aggressive stance on the part of the

provincial government, given the solution to that problem, I would like

the minister to agree that a policy of gradual integration of the

day-care system into the public school system would make sense.

Most logically, I would suggest, it would be brought about by the

gradual extension downward through the grades of the kindergarten

system currently functioning in many areas, and efficiently, at the

five-year-old level, functioning in other parts of this country very

well at the four-year-old level on a voluntary basis as far as parents

and their children are concerned, but on a voluntary basis which is

very well accepted by most of the population.

This, to me, Mr. Chairman, is the most important potential

development in education in the next decade, because I feel very, very

strongly that the important years in a child's education are the early

years, and in this I agree with what the hon. member for Esquimalt (Mr.

Kahl) said the other day, and I've been saying it in this chamber for a

couple of years, Mr. Member. I agree with it very much.

Those are the years where you learn how to learn. Those are the

years where your enthusiasm about the whole educational system in this

whole world is developed.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, and the educational spirit can be destroyed in those years, that's right.

I think the hon. member for Esquimalt, if I read his remarks

correctly, suggested that up until age 14 the child only spends, I

think you said, 10 per cent of his time in school. Now we can improve

that percentage a little bit and improve the educational experience, in

my opinion, by extending downward the outreach of the public school

system, on a voluntary basis, but extending it down progressively to

age four and eventually age three.

I would like the minister to tell us that this is a goal that he is

prepared to work towards, or have his department study working towards.

It makes sense in terms of such questions as the use of physical plans,

but far more important than that, it makes sense in human terms.

Then I would have just one more question under this vote, Mr.

Chairman. It's a philosophical question but it's an important one. The

minister has, for many years in this House as a private member, I know,

been concerned with education, and over that period I believe he would

have developed some ideas of his own about what should be the

educational goals of the public school system, this vote that we're

debating right now.

Certainly I'll give you some of my views: life skills has to be one

of the things the system looks at, the idea of a well-rounded human

being; the idea of a core curriculum, which I think the minister

endorses, and at the centre of that core curriculum, the whole idea of

communication and analytical skills, the two languages, the spoken

language and the language of mathematics, by which we perceive and

communicate about and analyse the worse. And there's the development

under that head, too, of creative and expressive skills and motivation

and a positive

[ Page 1808 ]

outlook on the world which I suggested before are important in the early years.

It would seem to me that education goals should include such things

as preparation for the world of work, and that has perhaps been a

little bit down-played in our school system in recent years.

I want to commend to the minister's attention the need to develop

more work-experience programmes in high schools in particular — work

experience in the community with cooperating employers which can have a

very good impact — and not limited, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to vocational students.

Everybody should know how to work before leaving school, in some way

or other have a feeling for it, regardless of whether they are going

into vocational trades or other fields of endeavour. Work is an

essential life-skill, if I could put it that way.

Another educational goal that I think hasn't had sufficient

attention in our public school system is what I would call preparation

for civic responsibility, and that is the political process and the

economic process and the question of the area of social rights and

obligations. As government becomes more and more heavily involved in

our lives it becomes more important for the citizen to understand the

problems that government is grappling with, so that the citizen can

press government in intelligent ways for the solution of our problems.

I would remind all the members of this House that simple rhetoric

only works on voters that don't understand a complex situation, and the

best defence of democracy is an educated population.

I would finally, under this heading, suggest that preparation for

parenting, for raising one's own children in later years, is something

that is given insufficient attention in the school system. There is no

greater single duty on all of us in this world than to do our best for

those that will come after, and parenting is an important part of that.

In the attainment of these things, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest

there are two basic principles: one is the emphasis on early years,

which I spoke of before; the other is a strong insistence by the school

system on application and hard work by the student. This is a favour to

the child and it's a favour to society, for each to reach their full

potential.

I am of the opinion, based on having gone through the British

Columbia school system myself and seeing my own children go through it

now, and many of their friends, that it is possible to get a lot more

achievement out of children than is average at the present time, if

there's more motivation, if there's more insistence that they put the

effort in to get the product out.

It may seem like hard work at the time but, Mr. Chairman, I suggest

to you it's the greatest favour we can do to our children. I would ask

the minister to imbue the school system, insofar as he can give it that

moral leadership, with that kind of spirit.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, in this vote I notice there's been

quite a change, and I think the change is good, the way you have pulled

together some of the descriptions for the members to understand what is

going on in the department. So I congratulate whoever was in charge of

pulling this together in this form.

There is therefore a

section here called educational support

services, which includes native Indian education. My question very

briefly is: as the research and development vote now seems to be

primarily, even though it is close to $3 million, or over, for

financial studies, I would first like to suggest that perhaps you

should change the phraseology of that vote because it is really a

financial study vote now primarily.

Part of it is, I know, for innovation, but very small. Out of that

we did give sums of money for native Indian education. I see here,

however, that in this vote 41, under educational support services,

there is $416,000.

My question then really is: how much is being allocated for native

Indian education this year? Because it is rather hard — although I

think the way you've broken it down is fairly comprehensive — but as

it's the first year it is hard for those of us in opposition now to

break down. For instance, what is going to native Indian education?

Could we have a rough estimate of that?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll answer quickly to the points raised by

the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). We've been over

the fire insurance question, I think, several times with you and also

when you haven't been here, and I don't know what more I can say to

make the point.

The member originally asked if I thought it was consultation that

had been started by the department. I said yes. The member was very

critical of that, but really, Mr. Member, no changes of any kind have

taken place except the necessity for ICBC to choose a new vehicle for

re-insurance because of the very, very high cost.

This is a question that if I were to answer to the member now, I'd

be guilty of the very thing that he wrongly accused me of before,

namely to give answers before consultation had taken place.

This is something that will go on between the school trustees and

the department in the weeks and months to come, so don't ask me to be

guilty of something that you wrongly accused me of by coming back again

and asking for answers before the consultations that we promised would

take place have taken place.

Now secondly, with respect to French, B.C. does

[ Page 1809 ]

have the greatest number of special projects under the minority

language programme of any of the provinces in Canada, and we're trying

to get as much money as we can, and of course that gets passed directly

on to the school districts.

With respect to day care; that's a matter for Human Resources, and I

would refer the member to those votes. We look after the K-12 programme

and day care is Human Resources.

Now with respect to the educational philosophy, I think that we've

gone into that fairly exhaustively in the past. We're trying to develop

this core curriculum. Incidentally, I see, Mr. Meredith who is in

charge of that, is up in the galleries today. He must have a déjà-vu

experience because he was last in here several days ago when we were

discussing this very thing, so if progress seems a little slow it is

because we're covering territories for the second and third time.

But the core curriculum is being developed in terms of skills that

it is anticipated every youngster in the school system will develop.

The skills will be specified and the way in which the specific academic

programmes are designed to fulfil those skills will be spelled out as

well. Then, in order to determine whether or not the skills are, in

fact, being developed, there will be a provincial assessment programme.

This is all on stream now and will be available in the kind of detail

that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano would like to have now and

which we would like to have, but it is on the way.

In addition to all of that, we're encouraging local school districts

to carry out testing in the schools. We think parents want their

youngsters to be tested. There are plenty of standard tests available.

Every school district, every school, every teacher can have those and

determine precisely where the youngsters stand relative to North

American norms. We've said enrich, as much as possible, the kind of

basic core educational programme that we are trying to promote.

Indian education, Madam Member, is definitely a problem. We are looking for a co-ordinator for Indian education.

There is some money in the K-12 programme, some money in the

research and administration for this particular purpose. I don't intend

to filibuster my own vote, but I want to introduce, however, to the

House another member of the Department of Education who is on the floor

of the House for the first time today, Mr. Andy Soles, who is the

associate deputy minister for post-secondary education.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for the

answers he gave. I will overlook the non-answer on day care, which I

think was a pretty shabby evasion of responsibility.

I want to say that his answer on fire insurance is just plain

nonsense. The question is: will the minister guarantee that the

Department of Education will continue to pay school insurance premiums?

However he chooses to finance it internally, that's his business. Will

he guarantee he will not shift these costs to the school districts?

That's a perfectly open-and-shut question. That doesn't require any

consultation with anyone.

You can be assured, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that

the school districts will be absolutely delighted if you will continue

to bear that cost. Now will you simply assure the House that that will

be the policy of the government? That's all I ask.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, our commitment is to meet with

the school trustees on this question and consult with them on the best

way to finance the losses that occur when fires devastate the school

system in British Columbia, as well as how to prevent them. That's the

commitment we have given. As I explained to the member, it's the

taxpayers of British Columbia who will benefit if we find ways of

reducing the fires. If the Department of Education pays all the

premium, then of course that comes off the grants that the department

would otherwise give to the local school districts. It is all very well

for the member to say that the school districts would be absolutely

delighted with that policy of the department simply deducting from what

they otherwise would give them on the cost of the fire insurance. But

that is really not getting at the question which we want to get at —

how to prevent school fires.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think I should