1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1971 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Request for clarification of Ministerial answers. Mr. Wallace —

Mr. Speaker — 1971

Routine proceedings

School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act (Bill 73). Hon.

Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 1971

Community Care Facilities Licensing Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 71) Hon. Mr.

Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1971

Medical Services Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction

and first reading — 1971

Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 65). Hon. Mr.

Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 1972

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates.

On vote 46.

Mr. Phillips

— 1972

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1972

Mrs. Jordan — 1972

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1974

Mrs. Jordan — 1974

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1975

Mr. Wallace — 1976

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1977

Mr. Wallace — 1978

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1978

Mr. Rolston — 1978

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1979

Mr. McGeer — 1979

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1980

Mr. McGeer — 1980

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1980

Mr. McClelland — 1981

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1982

Mr. Schroeder — 1982

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1983

Mr. Schroeder — 1983

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1984

Mr. Curtis — 1984

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1985

Mr. Curtis — 1985

On vote 47.

Mr. Chabot — 1985

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1986

Mr. McClelland — 1986

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1986

Mr. Curtis — 1987

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1987

Mr. Curtis — 1987

Mr. Schroeder — 1987

Mr. Curtis — 1989

Division on vote 47 — 1989

On vote 49.

Mr. Wallace — 1989

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1990

Mr. Wallace — 1990

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1990

On vote 50.

Mr. Schroeder — 1990

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1991

Mr. Schroeder — 1991

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1991

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the Legislature

today a group of 16 students from the Queen Elizabeth high school along

with their teacher, Ben Horne. I would ask the Members to make them

welcome.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, we have with

us today a group of students from Princeton with their instructor, Larry Hanson.

This is a group of students who are taking an upgrading course, and I understand

that part of that course is communications — how they are to communicate with

civic government, the mayor and town council, the regional districts, the provincial

Legislature, and the federal government. I think this is very important that

more people know how to communicate. I bid you welcome.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery there

are members who are going to be attending the 50th conference of the

United Church of Canada. As you know, the United Church was born 50

years ago. Their conference for British Columbia is in the First United

Church in Victoria starting tonight. I thought you should know there is

a young lawyer who is the chairman of the church, John Jessiman; and

Eleanor Gamble will be the new president-designate. We welcome you to

First United Church if you can come over the weekend. Thank you.

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

raise a point of privilege and perhaps have the record

clarified.

I raised a point last night, which is recorded on page 913-2 in the

Blues, in trying to determine the source of the salaries and expenses

and support staff of Dr. Knight. The Hon. Minister (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

responded that these salaries came under the contingency fund. On the

following page it is recorded that she said that they were in a

contingency fund under the Minister of Finance. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the

letter I read into the record from the Minister to the Treasury Board

on October 7 shows that she requested $500,000 by special warrant. The

interim financial statement shows that that warrant was issued on

December 13, 1974, and that $263,500 was spent on education development

research and evaluation. There seems to be a clear contradiction in the

record, and I wonder if perhaps the Minister would care to clarify her

answer to my questions last night.

MR. SPEAKER: I have to deal first, though, in a sense, with the matter

as a question of privilege — whether it is, in fact, a matter of privilege. I

think usually a matter of this kind is raised in the estimates in the Committee

of the Whole House, and any clarification is obtained there between the Minister

and the Hon. Member when this is brought to the attention of the Committee of

the Whole House. How it becomes a matter of privilege I'm not quite clear at

this moment. It appears to be a misunderstanding between the Hon. Member and

the Minister. I'll take look at your point but in the meantime I would hope

that this matter could be clarified in the Committee of the Whole House when

it meets again. In the meantime I will look at the question you raised and see

if there is anything I can do to assist.

MR. WALLACE: I'll respond briefly to that point you raised,

Mr. Speaker. I made every effort last night to clarify that point

and received the answer three times from the Minister that it

was coming out of contingencies. I appreciate your point that

this kind of matter should be cleared up in committee, but I made

strenuous efforts to get it cleared up in committee last night

and received the same answer three times, which was in conflict

with the documentation that I was reading from.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll look at the matter. In the meantime, I hope you can clear it up in committee.

Introduction of bills.

SCHOOL TAX REMOVAL

AND RESOURCE GRANT ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled school Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act.

Bill 73 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Care Licensing Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

MEDICAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His

[ Page

1972 ]

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medical Services Amendment

Act, 1975.

Bill 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farm Products Industry

Improvement Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 65 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 46: post-secondary education and training,

$268,994,000 — continued.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I'd

just like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. How much

money is in this vote for the community college at Terrace? How

much money is in this vote for the community college at East

Kootenay? How much money is in this vote for the Northern

Lights College in the Peace River area?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): We'll just have it

for you in one moment. Do you want to ask another question

while this one is coming up? I don't want to invite another

one, Mr. Member, but, generally speaking, I can tell you, while

we're getting the breakdown, that approximately $1 million has

been set aside for the four. You want the breakdown.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like the breakdown, if possible. I'd just

like to ask the Minister while I'm waiting for that answer, do

you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would one person be seated?

Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you advise the House if you plan to move

swiftly on getting these community colleges functional?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't have the specific breakdown yet

for each college because, as you know, the order-in-council

will be going through very shortly. I can give you the ballpark

figure of roughly $1 million for starting off services this

September. We're hoping that each one of those new colleges

will be able to provide some services this September. I don't

have the breakdown because it's up to the college boards when

they're appointed to also give us their specific needs.

MR. PHILLIPS: But there is sufficient money, then, in your

opinion, in that $1 million to get all three of them underway

by September?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, yes, but certainly not, as you can

understand, a full-blown college. There is money so that some

services will be able to start in September.

MR. PHILLIPS: They will be able to start hiring staff now.

As soon as the order-in-council goes through, will they be able

to start looking for staff and getting the college council put

together?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's right. The first step will be the

appointment of the college council. Right after that the

college council will move as quickly as they can.

MR. PHILLIPS: When will the people involved be advised to

start working on the college council? Do they have to wait for

the order-in-council?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, they have to wait for the

order-in-council. But I know that the school trustees who are

involved in the participating districts now are already looking

for and selecting their people. I know some of them are already

working on it. They're just waiting for the order-in-council to

officially give them the right to go ahead.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Just a few brief

questions to the Minister. Leaving aside provincial matters at

the moment, I'd like to ask about the Okanagan regional college

and our satellite campus programme.

First, I'd like to thank her for finally getting the title

to the Harvey property transferred to the college council and

the 25 acres for use as a Vernon campus. On this matter, I'd

ask the Minister how much money is allotted to Okanagan College

in total in terms of capital and operating funds for the coming

year. Are those capital funds designated solely for the core

complex development in Kelowna? Does that include the building

of the gymnasium on the Kelowna campus?

Further to that, what funds will be available,

[ Page

1973 ]

either capital or through operating expenses, for the development of buildings

on the Vernon site? Will those funds permit the council to proceed with the

acquisition of the Butler Building in time to be ready for use in September

of this coming year?

I have a few questions, but would the Minister like to

answer these as we go along?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We're making notes.

MRS. JORDAN: All right. I'm concerned that, now that the

land has finally been transferred, there will be the

opportunity to develop new buildings. I believe the staff and

the council are quite willing to consider Butler-type buildings

and that they will be serviced and ready for use by September

of 1975, as well as what money will be allotted for the Kelowna

campus and what moneys will be allotted in terms of capital

expenses and operating expenses for the other campuses,

particularly South Okanagan.

I would like to speak just a moment about the Harvey

property when the Minister has time. As the Minister is aware,

this is approximately 100 acres of land, a magnificent location

basically overlooking Kalamalka Lake, the Coldstream Valley and

the Vernon Valley, that was purchased by the former

administration a number of years ago from a Miss Harvey, a

local citizen. At that time there was a commitment made by the

former administration that this land should be dedicated to

education and educational facilities in the future. This has a

broad context; it is not stipulated that it should be for one

specific educational institution. I wish to make the Minister

aware that the people in this area feel very strongly about

that commitment and they would like to see this land used on

the long term for educational facilities. Certainly the final

sitting of the Vernon campus there is quite compatible.

I don't know whether the Minister is aware or not, but the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) has entered into a

negotiation with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) to commit further acreage to the

Department of Forests for the development of a seedling

nursery. I think that this is something that one couldn't

object to at first sight, but it is a situation that should be

examined. If there are to be buildings built, then I would urge

the Minister to see that those buildings are built in such a

way that it wouldn't prohibit the use of that land in future as

a potential site for a university in the Okanagan Valley. I think the seedling nursery will complement other

programmes we have through the forestry department in the North

Okanagan, and it also will complement the study programmes we

have both in our school and in our long-term projections of

being an ecological study area for the universities.

However, it has also come to my attention that the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources is again discussing with the Minister of Public Works use

of the latter part of this land for the Vernon effluent spray irrigation project.

While most of the people in the area, and certainly myself, support this pilot

programme that has been going on, I would caution the Minister to move immediately

to enter into these negotiations and see that in no way is that land tied up

for a period of longer than one year at a time. I am sure the Minister will

agree that, regardless of what government is in administration, there will eventually

be a university in the Okanagan Valley, although this might not be the first

priority for the next university in British Columbia. Presumably one in the

north would be. But when it comes to sitting of that university, one of the

greatest assets that the Department of Education can have, and the government

itself in utilizing tax dollars, is to have land available. The greatest asset

you have right now, Madam Minister, and which the taxpayers of British Columbia

have right now, is this land that is free, clear and paid for, which is in really

the centre of the Okanagan mainline area, the absolute hub. It concerns the

Kootenays, the Kamloops and the Revelstoke areas to the border area very effectively

as a university. It is in the centre of an area that can contribute greatly

in terms of agricultural programmes, in terms of recreational programmes and

in terms of ecological and scientific programmes for any university to broaden

out its basic base.

If these other two Ministers, the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, who has proven completely insensitive to

people orientation and to educational orientation, and the

Minister of Public Works, who seems to act as tsar of

designation and lease-signing without any reason, get together

and have their way, Madam Minister, and you're not consulted

and you don't stand up and fight for education, the people of

British Columbia are going to lose a golden opportunity to,

when the time comes, establish a university in the Okanagan on

an ideal site on land that is already owned by the

government.

As far as the people of the north Okanagan area are

concerned, they would be extremely concerned to feel that the

sitting of a university in that area would be destroyed and

that the opportunity would be destroyed because two Ministers

have got together and destroyed the availability of that land.

So I would urge the Minister to speak with her colleagues and

to make very clear to them that the land may be used by other

departments for non-educational purposes on a year-to-year

basis, but that there can be no attempt to alienate that land

from immediate use if it's required for the establishment of

higher learning in the Okanagan mainline area.

Perhaps the Minister would comment on these questions at

this time, and if I have some further

[ Page

1974 ]

follow ones she would do so....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I'll

fight for education when I believe that we're going on the

right track. But to suggest that I stand up and fight for,

particularly, a university in the Okanagan, which happens to be

the area in which the Member resides — and I can understand why

she would want it there — is something that I find questionable

until we're absolutely sure in what direction we're going to go

in university expansion. She's doing her job, as a Member in

the opposition, for her area. We can have other Members stand

up all over this House and say: "I want a university in my

area." So to suggest that I'm not fighting for education

because I don't endorse her particular area for a university —

I question the validity of that remark.

The Department of Education, as you know, since we came into

office has increased the number of university services right

across the province on a delivery system. At no time yet has

there been any commitment made to a new university, period, in

another part of the province, irrespective and putting aside

the Notre Dame situation at this time. So this is a debate

which could continue on whether you continue in one form to

deliver university services the way we're going or whether

another part of the province, the Okanagan, Prince George or

some other area should have another university. So I just want

to make that clear right now.

I think you're very fortunate in your area that since we

came into office we have expanded, not only college delivery

service, far more than under the government in which you were a

Minister Without Portfolio, but we've also expanded university

services. I thank you for appreciating and giving credit for

the movement in the Harvey property area.

Now you have asked what the breakdown is. I cannot give you

the specific breakdown on the operating and capital costs of

one college zone; we don't have the breakdown here. You can go

to the college council to get that or you can come to Mr.

Vallen's office and get the breakdown.

But I would like to point out that the budget increase given

to the Okanagan College this year was one of the highest in the

province. It was a 47.29 per cent increase. That was granted

specifically at this high level so that we could meet the

expansion in the areas which you had mentioned — the Harvey

property. That is why the Okanagan College received this very

large increase in comparison to others; it was an area which we

felt did need expansion in the satellite services.

MRS. JORDAN: Is that a commitment that the buildings will be built,

that they will have the opportunity to get the buildings on the Vernon campus

operational by the fall?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I can't tell you that yet. I know that the

college council is eager, and should be, to get the services to the students as soon as possible. Where it rests just at

this moment, I can't tell you. But as far as I am concerned,

the sooner we can get the services in there, the better. As you

know, we have to work very closely with the college council.

They have their own local autonomy and they are working on

the plans now. I know that you are in fairly close contact with

the council. You could discuss that with them as well as check

with my department. So I can't give you a specific answer at

this time as to whether they will be ready in September. I do

want to point out that you can get the breakdowns from my

department or from the college council.

MRS. JORDAN: Further, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I just

can't resist commenting that no wonder people have a lack of

confidence in this Minister, when you ask a responsible

question about a responsible subject and the Minister gets up,

as she just did, particularly in the earlier part of her

speech, and indulges in a lot of political hokey-pokey. Madam

Minister, you are the architect of your own problems in many

areas of education. It is very foolish of you to suggest that

you have no responsibility in the area of a university of the

future, as you did, completely misinterpreting what I said....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think if we return to the

consideration of vote 46....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think so. I would also like to say I

never said I had any responsibility. The former Minister and

present Member of the opposition simply does not listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to....

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister is the architect of her own

problems. Madam Minister, your responsibility, which I asked

you to acknowledge just now, was to see that two of your

Ministers who have proven insensitive to people needs and to

education in this province do not alienate that land, the

Harvey property, that was purchased by the former

administration with the commitment to the community, to an

individual, that that land would be used for educational

purposes. I did not ask you for the establishment of a

university in the Okanagan at this time. For you to climb out

on a limb and saw

[ Page

1975 ]

yourself off like that is, as I say, the reason that you are

in so much trouble as Minister of Education.

Madam Minister, what the people from the North Okanagan want

from you today is a commitment that that Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources in the secret confines of his and

his assistants' office, or the Minister of Public Works don't

alienate that land from its original intent and don't alienate

that land so that when the time comes, when it is seen and

deemed advisable to develop further educational institutions in

the Okanagan mainline area or whatever area it is to serve, the

Minister of Education of that day doesn't find himself thwarted

by your political stupidity, if I may say so, and your

political games, having let that land be alienated under your

administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please. I think the....

MRS. JORDAN: It's time that Minister dealt with some of the

facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think that the term the Hon. Member

just used was somewhat offensive to another Hon. Member and I

would ask her to withdraw the term "political stupidity."

MRS. JORDAN: I was referring to the Madam's political moxie

but I will withdraw it if it is offensive to her. I wouldn't

wish to offend her personally.

Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, does the Minister get the

message? I am not asking for a university today. I am asking

for this Minister to protect, within the responsibility of her

office, that land for educational purposes so that we don't

have high rise apartments, housing developments,

alienation-to-land projects, that would prohibit its intended

use. That's all. Surely that's not too much to ask. It just

requires a meeting among the three of you. I will drop the

Minister another letter on this so that I can have an answer

and a commitment from her in writing.

As to the Okanagan College itself in terms of its financing,

Madam Minister, if I may correct you, you are not quite right

in your

interpretation that it is the council itself that can

designate where the spending is taking place. I wouldn't have

brought this problem up if there wasn't concern there that in

fact the department, whether the Minister is aware of it or

not, has been exerting pressure on the council to complete the

core facilities in Kelowna first.

With the exception of the gymnasium, no one has an objection to the development

of the major core facilities in Kelowna at this time. No one disputes that a

gymnasium is a very worthwhile part of any campus development. But the concern

in the Okanagan is that this pressure is forcing the council into a position

where they would build a gymnasium in one centre as opposed to having the money

to develop basic educational facilities in another centre.

Madam Minister, our concern is that if the money is

available, as you say it is, it be used in the best interests

of basic education in the Okanagan College area. That means at

this time the priority of developing educational units on the

Harvey property, hopefully in time for the fall. It can only be

done and be available in the fall of 1975 if this matter is

cleared up.

The gymnasium would be a most attractive addition to the

core centre in Kelowna. But in light of the fact that there is

not even a recreational programme within the college right now,

it would seem that unless there's some money to cover both,

then the gymnasium is going to have to wait for a period of

time or until the Minister makes the money available. If the

Minister can advise me today that there will be sufficient

funds in that amount that she talks about for the Vernon campus....

There has been subtle pressure from the department, whether

the Minister is aware of it or not. I don't know the reasons

that they've done this, but I do know the reaction in the areas

to this pressure. They want the best judgment to be used and

the basic educational needs of the young people to be met. I

would appreciate this very much.

The Minister's statement about the amount of money to the

Okanagan college is appreciated, except that I would have to

question all her information because I understand that there

are appeals being made to the Minister now from the college

council in concern for the fact that they cannot meet their

budget with any expansion. In other words, with the money she's

given they can only meet their commitments for this year when

they take into account inflation, increased costs of

construction and development and salaries. They're not going to

be able to initiate, really, any new programmes.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I think the Member may be

confusing capital with operating. But I want to assure her that

as far as I'm concerned there would be no pressure put on the

priorities set by a college council. If, when they are ready

and present to us their plans for their gym, as I've done with

other colleges, it's their priority. The money is forthcoming;

it goes through the department for approval. I want to make

that clear. I don't condone any pressure from my department on

the priorities. If we did that, why would we bother to have

local autonomous college councils? So I want to make that quite

clear that I do not condone that. The priorities are up to the

college council — then it's up to them to present it to us.

Then we make the decision, of course — myself and through

Treasury Board — as to when the funds can be released.

In the matter of alienation of land I find it rather

[ Page

1976 ]

ironic to have that Member, who was a Member of the past

government, suddenly being a crusader for non-alienation of

land, when she came from a government which we know very well...

MRS. JORDAN: Recheck the files.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: ...what happened under that government

when it came to alienation of land, and what would have

happened if they'd still been in power today.

However, I want to assure the people of the Okanagan that,

as far as educational priorities go, I work closely with your

college council. I believe there are approximately 200 acres;

the Member is far more conversant, I know, with that.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Close to it, in that area. I know that the

college council comes to the Department of Education and makes

recommendations on the amount that they feel will be necessary

for educational development. I can assure the Hon. Member that

there is consultation with the other Ministers who are involved

in this department. I realize that it is my responsibility if

the college council can show there's a specific educational

need, to not alienate that land when it can and should be

needed for educational purposes. This is certainly brought to

the attention of the other Ministers involved.

MRS. JORDAN: It's your responsibility for the future.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's exactly right — we have to look to

the future. That's exactly what....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That is why we have cabinet committees in

this government — so we work collectively in these areas.

Interjection.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm quite happy to defer to my

friend on the left if you want to distribute the....

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): You beat me!

MR. WALLACE: The Member for Dewdney was also seeking the

floor. If you want to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll recognize the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay first, followed by the Member for Dewdney.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you. I just wanted to ask a few....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I am trying to be fair — that's the point. I

thought maybe you would want to alternate an opposition and a

government Member. I was only trying to be fair. It's so easy

to be misunderstood in the House, Mr. Chairman, even when

you're trying to be fair.

I just wanted to ask a few questions about.... First of

all, the Minister referred in passing to the Notre Dame

situation. As she knows, we've had some communication. I

wondered if she could bring the House up to date with the

government policy regarding the specific purpose to which Notre

Dame is to be put. As the Minister recalls, we had a royal

commission on post-secondary services in the Kootenays. I

remember attending a meeting when the report was discussed, but

that's some time ago. I wonder if the Minister could perhaps

bring us up to date on government policy regarding Notre Dame

University.

I would also like to ask about the concept of college

governments. She mentioned a moment ago in replying to the

Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) something in passing

about autonomy for colleges. I wonder if the decision has been

made to remove colleges from the Public School Act, and give

them their own specific autonomy similar to the autonomy

enjoyed by the universities, for example.

It seems to me that one of the positive and praiseworthy

efforts of this government is to expand the college system.

There has been too much emphasis in years gone by that one

either tended to be a dropout from high school and go into some

manual, unskilled job, or you went on to university. There was

this big gap in the middle, and somehow or other the whole

concept of any kind of college, regional college or vocational

school training was sort of second best. In point of fact, it

is quite obvious from the complexity of our society and the

problems of unemployment that seem to be ever with us that the

greater diversity and choice available in education these days

has to be a top priority for government. I think the government

is trying very hard to provide just that diversity of

educational services through the college system.

I sense a feeling by the colleges and by their statements

that they certainly would be much happier if they had a greater

degree of autonomy with the Public Schools Act. I wonder if the

Minister is in a position to tell us, first of all, if the

government policy decision has been made, in fact, that

legislation will be introduced to give us a colleges

[ Page 1977 ]

Act, and if we can anticipate that at this session.

The other more immediate aspect which concerns me is the

real concern at Camosun College here in Victoria about the

expansion plans which have been impaired by the fact that there

is not as much money available for the courses as had been

planned. I think it is important just to record the details

that Camosun College council faces. They are to receive $1.9

million less than they had budgeted for. I just want to get the

figures correct, Mr. Chairman. The cutback results from the

Minister's department cutting the operating budget from $7.8

million to $5.9 million. The college appealed the Minister's

decision and was granted another $250,000 for academic and

technical programmes and $50,000 for vocational programmes.

This college, as I understand it, in the short few years

that it has been in existence, has been tremendously successful

and has had a steadily increasing number of entrants. While I

am the first person to agree that there has to be some

financial ceiling and that the Minister doesn't have an endless

budget, I do think it is important to make the point that we

can't have it both ways. If we are not prepared to make the

diversity of services available to try and deal with the

unemployment problem and have people educated to fill the kind

of jobs that are available, then we either spend the money on

more educational services or we are spending more money to pay

people who are unemployed. I don't think anyone would doubt

that the most productive and positive way to tackle the problem

is to make available the widest possible range of services at

our colleges.

I know from the remarks made by some of the people in the

college regarding Camosun College in Victoria that they are

very concerned that they will not be able to provide the kind

of expanded programme for which they feel confident people are

eager to enter.

I say again that I realize the pie has only so many slices

and that you can't go on endlessly increasing Education or

Health or Human Resources beyond a certain point within a

certain time. But the Minister did remark this morning that

Okanagan College has had an increase of something in the order

of, I think the figure stated was 47 per cent, in the budget.

If that Member was busy fighting for her area, I'm busy

fighting for Camosun College which didn't get anything like a

47 per cent increase. I wonder if the Minister could perhaps

tell us the rationale or the criteria which tend to result in

one college appearing to get a very substantial increase and

another college being very unhappy.

I wonder if the Minister could just briefly outline government policy regarding

the vocational schools, particularly in some of the areas such as Burnaby and

Terrace. Is there any specific change in policy? What are the long-term government

plans for vocational schools?

The last question for now, Mr. Chairman, relates to the

latter part of this vote regarding student aid and

teacher-training scholarships and bursaries. I notice they are

increased by 167 per cent — that is, by $7.5 million. I receive

quite a few letters from parents and students who seem to be

somewhat puzzled by the ground rules and the qualifications for

some of these bursaries and it may well be simply a

misunderstanding, but I wonder if the Minister could comment as

to whether there has been any basic change in departmental

policy on the awarding of these forms of aid.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think the first question the Hon. Member

asked was re the present situation with Notre Dame. As you

know, we did announce that the government is purchasing Notre

Dame, and that process is taking place now. I also announced

that Notre Dame would be able to continue to grant degrees. In

what form this will be done is now presently being worked out

for us by Walter Hardwick, who was appointed specifically. He

is a former Vancouver alderman and also works at UBC. He is to

give us recommendations on how best those services could be

delivered because at the time I originally announced this I

said that we want to use the three present public universities

to assist in the delivery of those services. So you can be

assured that the degrees will be continued — you will still be

able to go to Notre Dame and get a degree. In what areas, it

will shortly be announced after Hardwick's report comes in —

and in what particular form this will all be delivered. It is

all being deliberated now. I have had a number of interim

meetings with Walter Hardwick, and the final reports should be

ready, hopefully, in a matter of maybe two months. So we are

moving along there but there is no question about it that next

year the status will stay the same as far as the students are

concerned, but the following year it will be under the new

system.

There will be no specific college Act this session. We are

not prepared to move on that in this session. I have discussed

this with the college principals and faculty and they are quite

aware that there won't be one coming up at this session. There

will be some amendments, I presume, relative to colleges but

not a basic college Act at this time.

MR. WALLACE: Has the commitment been made to have one?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes. I have stated that I do feel that

there should be a new college Act for the province, but it will

not be brought forward during this session.

You expressed particular concern about Camosun.

[ Page 1978 ]

I can understand that, because you live in the area, and I

know that the pressures must be on you too about their

costs.

First of all, you compared it with Okanagan. We have to look

at the historical difference here. Okanagan College is in an

area of considerable expansion of facilities at this particular

year and, as you know, we are encouraging this development of

the satellite campus at Vernon. Also they have experienced a

tremendous increase in enrolment. Camosun College certainly has

had an increase, but I don't think to the same degree. It comes

at different periods for different colleges. For instance, last

year Camosun's budget increase given by the government was

32.47 per cent and this year, you are right, it is in the area

of 27 per cent.

So let's look at it this way: each college has to be treated

separately according to their enrolment needs and where they

are going physically at that particular time. We've done the

best we can to try and meet the rapid increase in costs, as the

Member appreciates. The areas that are going to be cut, I

understand, are in programme areas where the enrolment is very

small — where the class sizes are, say, four or five. I think

the Hon. Member would agree that if there have to be some

programme cuts in a period of inflation, they want to be put in

the areas where there is the least impact. I think you will

agree that if there were classes with, say, four or five

students, that's one area that any college would have to look

at.

We have done our best to give Camosun a budget. As you said,

we did give them another increase and we feel assured that the

basic services will be able to continue there except for the

cutting out of some of those very, very small classes.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask one very short follow-up question? One

thing worries me about Camosun. I appreciate that perhaps the smallest classes

have to go. But, for example, I understand there was a very good two-month course

being offered for upgrading of nursing and orderly personnel in the area of

geriatric services. At a time when we are specifically trying to encourage the

care of the elderly, disabled persons in their own home so that we don't have

to go and build more and more institutions, it is vital that we utilize in our

communities the personnel who perhaps haven't nursed for 10 or 15 years but

were willing to do part-time work in the home. I understand that one of the

courses which Camosun will have to cancel will be this upgrading course of nursing

and nursing-aide personnel. It would seem to me that if it's not too late, even

at this stage of the game, in conjunction with the aims of the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) who have,

quite wisely, made the commitment to treat as many people in their homes as

possible and are making more money available for home care. Home care requires,

obviously, skilled people to provide that kind of attention.

It does seem a little bit of a contradiction that if the

Camosun College programme has to suffer, that particular

ingredient also suffers. Would there be some possibility the

Minister might reconsider that, if asked? I'm not sure that the

college authorities specifically have asked about that

particular course, but I must say I was impressed to find that

that was one of the courses cut, and I think it's very

unfortunate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I regret that also. You have brought

it to my attention. I'm certainly not going to stand here and

say, yes, we can put it in. But I regret that's happened and I

can certainly ask my officials about it. That's about as far as

I could say at this time.

Student aid. Yes, it is a complicated business. We're tied

in, as you know, with the federal government student loan plan.

I think you were talking not bursaries but student aid,

primarily. Yes, it is complicated. The forms that must be used

are the forms put out by the federal government. We

periodically send representatives from our department back to

meet with the Ottawa officials to express our concerns when we

consider their problems with these complicated forms. We are

tied in with it.

As you know, we have increased substantially the amount of

provincial grants in aid to the students of British Columbia so

that I think, compared to the rest of Canada, our students have

to incur less of a student loan than in most other

jurisdictions. We will be announcing shortly some possible

changes in that student-aid loan. I don't know if it'll make it

less complicated, but we're always striving for ways to

distribute the money as equitably as we can.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Further on that discussion in

the vote on bursaries and student-aid loans, I understand

generally that there are grants for students taking veterinary

science, for instance, at one of the three places in Canada,

the nearest one being Saskatoon. That's easy to understand.

Being from an agricultural community, I hope that we gradually

get more and more students. I gather it's currently eight

students.

I would appeal to the Minister: I wonder if there isn't room

for grants for programmes to students learning outside of the

province. Maybe there's something comparable available; maybe

there is a special emphasis or quality that isn't available in

the province.

I can think of a student at Agassiz who is studying music and wanted to become

a concert pianist. He had to go to University of Toronto under the

[ Page

1979 ]

Toronto Conservatory of Music to get that kind of programme.

I wonder whether we somewhat unwittingly discriminate against

excellence by not seeing that there are funding, grants and

loans to students outside the province. It would seem that this

is, in a sense, saving you money. Obviously, if the person is

studying at the University of Toronto at a very high level in

music, I'm sure that's costing $4,000, let's say, from the

provincial and federal governments. It would be fiscally

worthwhile, and certainly as far as quality, that maybe that

system can be loosened up. The funding now does, in a sense,

restrict the movement of students. I suppose it is control so

that the Department of Education and the universities can have

a greater sense of how many students actually will be crossing

borders to take programmes.

Do I understand that the budget, which is about 26 per cent

increased for universities, reflects about 15 per cent at Simon

Fraser? Of course it reflects salary increases and operating

increases which are very considerable. I wonder if the Minister

maybe could comment on whether it really is less expensive to

go to a junior college. In the case of Fraser Valley, we're

talking $2,600 for a full-time student for the university

equivalent programme and about $3,200 for a career student

thinking of full-time hours. Certainly, I would gather part of

the rationale for the junior colleges years ago was that it

was, as well as being community-based, local, and helping the

person in first and second year in the transition from high

school to post-secondary, also less expensive. Could we hear

some of the comparable costs of junior colleges? Is there an

average, for instance, for the career students and an average

for the full-time university first and second-year students as

compared to the average cost at the universities? That

certainly would be helpful.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

One of the things at Simon Fraser that's really quite

exciting is the teacher education programme. Of course, at

Prince George, Kelowna, Vernon, Kamloops and other places — I

think Penticton and Salmon Arm and Kitimat — they have

programmes. I think that we should recognize that this is

exciting. This is expensive and this is certainly going to up

their per-student cost by training students out of the lower

mainland. I gather the joint board of teacher education has

recommended this, and this is some of the new thrust of the

Universities Act. We're not just raining students down here.

Also, under this joint board of education we're trying to see

that the three different universities have their own kind of

emphasis or slant so that there can be diversity even within a

faculty within the three universities.

Also, I will ask again the question: have you heard from Mr. Faulkner, the

federal Minister responsible for transfer of payments for post-secondary education?

If you look at this immense vote 46, where are we especially constrained? What

codes in vote 46 are especially tough on the provincial Crown this year? Do

I understand that the feds will only increase 15 per cent over last year's vote

in the various codes, or is it simply a global, 15 per cent increase on the

vote 46 total that is all they will allow? If that is so, the federal government

just isn't responding to the normal growth of new programmes, new colleges.

We have a $3.2 million budget in Fraser Valley College. That just didn't exist

last year. There was just a semblance of a beginning of Fraser Valley College.

So those are just some questions. I don't think the MLAs

realize that the fiscal transfer of payments programme is that

constraining.

That brings up a whole discussion in transfer of payments.

Somebody said that if there were more and more transfer of

payments, an affluent province like British Columbia ultimately

loses because those are transfer of payments to the less

affluent parts of the country. I still feel that transfer of

payments are helpful and keep a federated country together, and

one of the biggest parts, of course, is in this vote 46.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker. First of all,

no, we haven't heard back from the Minister of State, the Hon.

Mr. Faulkner, on our concern over the fact that they've set a

limitation of 15 per cent. All post-secondary institutions are

affected by this, exclusive, of course, of the vocational.

Yes, it is less expensive to go to the community colleges.

Just generally, we have an average cost now of $5,000 for

university, for a student to go, if you take everything into

consideration. That's what it's hitting now; and a community

college would hit more down in the $3,000 level.

As you know, there are groups of Ministers meeting all the

time on co-ordination of programmes and exchange of students.

We have the veterinary school, and in time I'm sure that there

will be more interrelationship with the other Ministers across

Canada. So for a student who wishes to take art and has a

special ability, I think we're going to be able to work out

areas that way, as far as letting them transfer their B.C.

grant to that institution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are the Liberals having a secret

meeting?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I think we're not

doing badly — 20 per cent turnout, about what the government

has. It's a better turnout than the press gallery this morning — a much better turnout than the Treasury benches.

[ Page 1980 ]

Mr. Chairman, the Minister a year ago indicated how

essential it was that we have new programmes in our

universities, how they had to adapt to change and money would

be made available and so on for these new programmes. One or

two of them were implemented, and I think the Minister must

have been pleased and the universities were pleased. But there

are areas of major deficiency that are hard to see being

corrected by the budget currently offered by the Minister. I

made mention that at the University of Victoria some programmes

have been postponed, and I wrongly suggested in the House that

the faculty of law was not going to open this September. It is,

but there have been delays in other programmes.

Still nothing has been done about the medical school in

British Columbia since the NDP took office. We are still

graduating no more than 80 doctors per year. We are still

licensing about 300 doctors per year. We are still turning away

over 500 applicants per year. The situation continues whereby

able young British Columbians who would make fine doctors are

being denied their opportunity to serve the public of British

Columbia because of a lack of educational facilities.

I would like to ask the Minister whether she plans

corrective action this year, and if not this year, next year

and to ask specifically when British Columbia will be

graduating as many doctors as British Columbia is licensing

physicians.

I would like to ask the Minister whether she's contemplating

the establishment of a second medical school in the City of

Victoria and how she sees the development of new medical

schools moving in to fill this gaping void between the numbers

graduated, the numbers applying and the numbers being licensed.

Could the Minister give some schedule? Can it go to 160 next

year? Can it go to 240 the year after? Can it reach 300 and

continue to grow until there is this equivalency? What does she

see as the maximum size of one medical school here in British

Columbia? Can we graduate 300 doctors per year from two medical

schools, in her view? Or might it be a requirement in the

future that we have more than two medical schools? Most

important, Mr. Chairman, when is the government going to do

those things that are necessary to commence graduating more

doctors in British Columbia than we have up to this point?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think the Hon. Member has brought up a matter which,

yes, definitely concerns the government equally as he has expressed his concern.

I personally had hoped that we would have seen more spaces at the medical faculty

by this time. Our big problem, I'm sure the Hon. Member is aware, is in the

area of the clinical facilities. That's the area that is holding back the expansion

we had hoped for. As you know, the whole Shaughnessy, which has been taken over

by the government, is one area which, if it can move ahead as speedily as it

should, will be able to provide extra clinical facilities. So we're hoping that

there'll be no barriers to the procedure in that area of Shaughnessy, which

will give us an opportunity to bring more students in. Ultimately we certainly

see at least, as you suggest, a figure of 160. At the moment we only have 80.

You're quite right; for a province such as British Columbia we must provide

the clinical facilities. That apparently is the area that's been holding us

back.

No, we do not foresee a development of a medical faculty at

the University of Victoria.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, might I follow up on that for just

a moment? It's quite clear that the number of hospital beds is

related to the population of British Columbia. If we expand the

medical school, we're not going to change the clinical

facilities at all. What you do have to do is to undertake a

little administrative reorganization. That doesn't cost any

money. The block is with the basic science facilities, which

are preparatory to the clinical years. The other can be

provided just by reorganization. You've got to have a big

enough dissecting room so that students can study anatomy.

That's where the block is. If all of the hospitals on the

clinical level can't be organized to provide clinical teaching

beds, then just start something in Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, the number of beds for British Columbians

isn't going to change in the future. It never changes when a

medical school is started. Last fall, for example, I visited

the medical school at Galveston where I was lecturing. It's a

small town; it's actually smaller than Victoria. It has no more

beds than the Victoria area; there are 260 medical

students.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Galveston. One can go all over North America and

find that kind of thing. It's a question of how you organize

your hospital beds. The difference is that they've got basic

science facilities. They've got an anatomy dissecting room;

they've got biochemistry labs; they've got the sorts of things

that prepare medical students to the point where they can

safely go on to wards with patients. That's why it falls

directly on the Minister's shoulders. That's why it falls

directly under this vote. Mr. Chairman, that's why the medical

school isn't growing, and that's why we're turning away able

young British Columbians.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I just want to comment.... I must defer

to the Hon. Member, who is very knowledgeable in this area. I

admit that in the basic science facilities there is a need for

some expansion. But a number of MLAs from all parties

[ Page 1981 ]

toured the medical science faculty, and I think we were

quite impressed with the spaciousness and so on. But we're not

the technical people in the area. I'm sure the Hon. Member can

put his finger on maybe some areas that should be improved.

You're right in the basic science. But there again we're down

to priorities set by the university itself.

I think that we have to accept the fact that in areas like

this the government does have to give an incentive. I can

assure you that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and

myself are in consultation with UBC on this and also, of

course, with the medical centre, which all has to be tied in

together. I accept the points you have made, and your

concern.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a few words in this vote

about Trinity Western College, Fort Langley.

It is my understanding that under the federal fiscal

arrangements Act of 1967 there is money available from the

federal government in the amount of 50 per cent of the

recognized college's net operational costs — directly available

previous government, some time ago, did make arrangements to

have this granted to Notre Dame University, probably the only

other university which was a comparable facility to Trinity

Western in Fort Langley.

Trinity Western College is a very important part of the

Fraser Valley and delivers a great contribution to the quality

of life in that area. It has some 400 students. It has now

graduated 2,000 students, many of whom have gone on to other

provincial universities. It's a two-year community college.

Many other students have gone, about 100, to universities all

over the United States and Canada.

Most of the enrolment at Trinity now is Canadian and most of

it is from the immediate area in the Fraser Valley, so it is

serving an important purpose for many students in our area.

I understand too that it is the only college of its kind and

quality in Canada which doesn't get the opportunity to take

advantage of this federal money. The reason it doesn't get the

opportunity to take advantage of it is that it has to be

granted through the provincial government. The provincial

government must make available the means by which the college's

operational budget can be incorporated into the overall

provincial budget for educational costs. In other words, it has

to be the province which is the channel through which this

money can go to Trinity Western College.

I'm told that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec all make

sure the grant money gets returned to their students who are in similar institutions,

facilities. I see this refusal by the government as a discrimination, Mr. Chairman,

against students in a very high-quality educational institution.

Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for a share of provincial

education costs. I think that has to be made very clear. There

will be no money from the provincial government involved. All

we are asking is that this college be allowed to take advantage

of federal money that is already available and waiting, and

should be going to these students. We are not asking the

government to make any commitment to future financing or

present financing. There will be no precedent established. It

is just a simple finance formula which can be followed and

which would see Trinity Western College in Fort Langley take

advantage of operating money already available.

I would just like to read a couple of points that were made

by the students at Trinity College in a brief in support of

their getting this money. I won't read them all, but I will

read a couple of the pertinent comments.

"In view of the fact that the original federal grant to

higher education was made through the Universities Foundation

programme prior to 1967 as a per capita grant, the money

actually belongs to the young people who are the students." I

think that is an impenitent point, Mr. Chairman. "Therefore," and this is a student speaking, "it is our firm belief

that the citizens of British Columbia are being deprived of

their right when federal grants are not made available. It is

also our understanding that one of the aims of the

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1967 was to have

flow back into the province as much of the federal tax dollar

as possible."

So that flow should also happen in British Columbia as it

does in other provinces, Mr. Chairman.

"It is our opinion and sound educational philosophy" — and

this has been mentioned by the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) on more than one occasion in this debate — "that the

more options open in post-secondary education, the more healthy

the climate in higher education will become. Hence we believe

institutions such as Trinity Western should be encouraged by

the provincial government. Colleges such as Trinity Western

save the province a vast amount of money by opening their doors

to young people who would otherwise attend a

provincially-supported college or university at government

expense. To us at Trinity Western College it appears to be a

matter of good business for the province to encourage rather

than discourage such colleges.

"Our last reason, and in our opinion the most important, is

that Trinity Western College is not requesting a share of

provincial revenue." And I went through that before.

But it is important to remember that this money

[ Page 1982 ]

would come to Trinity at no cost to the taxpayers of British

Columbia, no direct cost, at least, in provincial revenues, and

it does bring more of those federal tax dollars back into

British Columbia.

I think it is a simple request. One that I must stress again

would require the government of British Columbia to make no

commitments and set no precedents. It is a simple formula which

can be followed, and I think the government should follow it

in order that all of the students in this province are treated

equally, and that there is no discrimination against either an

educational facility or students within that facility, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I certainly appreciate the concern

expressed by the Hon. Member. The Member for Dewdney (Mr.

Rolston) has expressed similar concern to me. I have also met

with the Member of Parliament for your area and the Premier and

I have met with some of the administration from Trinity. So the

first point I want to make is that this government does not

wish to hold back on designating Trinity College to receive

federal funding.

I'll tell you the problem we face, though. It is not

correct, unfortunately — I wish it were — that if tomorrow we

did designate Trinity College it would not cost the Province of

British Columbia any money. It would. That is the problem we

face.

Now I'm going to try and explain this. There is a 15 per

cent ceiling set by the federal government through the fiscal

arrangements Act. We have written to the Hon. Hugh Faulkner

asking to have that ceiling lifted because British Columbia

faces a very, very special situation, we feel. We are one of

the few provinces in Canada which is experiencing a massive

expansion of post-secondary institutions. Therefore, when they

set their federal share, which is originally supposed to pick

up 50 per cent, and then have set a ceiling of 15 per cent

increase each year when our increases for post-secondary costs

are hitting 25 per cent on an average, and yet all we are

receiving from them is a 15 per cent increase, you can see that

presently the Province of British Columbia is not even

receiving anywhere near 50 per cent of the costs of

post-secondary moneys from the federal government.

So you see if we put Trinity on the list tomorrow and

designated it, it would result in a 100 per cent provincial

cost unless Ottawa lifts that 15 per cent ceiling. I explained

this in detail to the principal of the college and to the local

MP, and I am glad I have the opportunity to explain to you that

this government does not want to stand in the way. We agree

with the students; Trinity should be designated. But as long as

it is going to cost the provincial government money at this

time, and we are having great difficulty in even meeting the

needs of the public institutions, you can see the dilemma we

are in.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Three questions. First, we

are establishing certain small satellite colleges. For

instance, I noted with interest the announcement that we are

going to establish a marine college, or a marine training

facility. One of the news releases calls it a training

facility, and one calls it a college. I am wondering if any of

the plans have been finalized for the marine college. Where

will it be located? Will there be any capital construction?

Will there be a budget established for the marine college?

Where does it fall in this particular vote? Will this marine

college fall into a category similar to the mining school which

the Minister announced back in 1973 — the mining school that

was established at Red Mountain Mine in Rossland which was to

be moved from there to another site just northeast of where

there were some underground workings an old mine site? Where is

this mining school now? Is it functioning now? How many

students are enrolled? Do you have a college site as such, or

is it the mining site? What is the progress of this particular

college in the light of the fact that mining seems to be

suffering in our economic structure today? Those are the

questions.

Second, what is the report of the Minister on the experiment

of the "college without walls" in the Fraser Valley? I noted

that the capital expenditure, which must have been just office

renovation or something like that, was something like $8,000 —

a little more than $8,000. Is the experiment working? Is the

Minister satisfied that a college without walls is a concept

that could be applied over the rest of the province? Is there

difficulty in finding teaching areas? The projected enrolment

by the officials of the college suggests that by 1984 there

could be more than 30,000. This seems astronomical to me, but

the projections are that they could have enrolment of 30,000.

Can a college without walls function with that kind of an

enrolment or are there plans now to establish a campus site for

the Fraser Valley college?

My third question has to do with teacher training. It comes

under, I think, the last

section of this vote. The Minister has

expressed concern, and this Member has expressed concern, that

we move quickly into special education — education for the

handicapped, education for those with learning disabilities.

Since we are not rich within the province in faculty for

teaching teachers, not only to diagnose learning disabilities,

but how to teach those students with learning disabilities, I'm

wondering what the policy is going to be for loans or

scholarships or bursaries, financial aid to put it in basics,

for students who wish to go, for instance, to Western

Washington where they have a good faculty for training teachers

in the area of learning disabilities. I have a couple from my

area who would wish to enrol in Western Washington and who

have been turned down for a student loan or student aid by

virtue of the fact this it is an

[ Page 1983 ]

out-of-province college.

I would suggest to the Minister that until we have good

training facilities within the province, particularly in this

area, the area of learning disabilities, we utilize the

facilities nearby, and that we encourage our teachers to take

further training in this area. What has the Minister to

announce in this area?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, the steering committee for

the marine college is just being created. The report is done

now — that's to actually get it started and to recommend first

of all, of course, the specific site. I think you have a copy

of the report in which three sites were suggested, so the

process we are in now, is to get final recommendation for the

site. Now it could involve the building of facilities or it

could involve the buying of some existing ones, depending on

their recommendation.

One thing that was made clear was that it should be in the

lower mainland. That doesn't mean that there won't be services

provided, say, in Prince Rupert and other areas but the core

would be in the lower mainland. So that is moving.

You asked specifically...no, there is no money in the

estimates for this year. I think it will take us about that

time to get the establishment of where it's going and set up

the board to run it. However, we're very aware of the need for

it, and I know that everyone involved in marine life is waiting

anxiously, and we'll try and push it as quickly as we can.

Mining in Rossland. Actually the enrolment is staying the

same. I haven't got the figures, but the words from here are

that we haven't dropped. Is that correct? Basically, we haven't

dropped and it is a mining site. That's right.

The Fraser Valley. I still endorse the concept without

walls. Certainly it's more economical, and also I think

educationally it can be desirable, but there are areas where

you're going to have to put up some walls and, as you pointed

out, Mr. Member, with those population projections which could

be quite true...enrolment I mean, we may have to put up some

walls there. As a matter of fact, before us now is a request,

as you probably know, from the college for some walls. In

examining the situation, if we find that there are absolutely

no existing facilities which can be used — and that's the first

criteria — then we accept their recommendation that there may.

But I want to keep it as decentralized as we can.

MR. SCHROEDER: Any announcement on funds for teachers

wishing to train in handicapped?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think that's a very good suggestion, Mr. Member,

that until we get our own training programme, why not encourage them to go where

there is one close by? It's an excellent suggestion, and what's happening in

that area is that we're now trying to work out a means in which....

As you know it was pretty inflexible before — the student

was going into the United States, they couldn't take their

assistance with them from the government, their student-aid

loan. We are going to break this down and if possible allow the

student to pick up their loan here and use it down there, which

before was only done for very special courses. We also feel

there should be some sort of reciprocal agreement, right? This

is the area we're working with, but it's an excellent

suggestion and we're going to move on it.

MR. SCHROEDER: Just a follow up. You anticipated my next

area, and that was that I would like to recommend we expand the

entire reciprocal agreement, not just with colleges and

universities in our own country, but perhaps with specialized

colleges south of the border.

For instance, we have a college right nearby, the one that I

have already mentioned in western Washington, which has

fantastic facilities in teaching the area that I've mentioned

in learning abilities. We have other colleges, for instance,

the College of Mines in Western Colorado, to which we may well

wish to send some of our students to equip themselves with the

basic education in mining. I think we should expand this whole

concept of reciprocal agreements with various colleges.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I know that it has to have limitations. It has to be limited

to a number of students and, of course, you have to have an

interest from students of that area who would normally enrol

in, say, the Colorado College of Mines, who would express an

interest that they wished to come to one of our universities.

But I think that the reciprocal thing needs to be expanded. I

wish that the Minister could give me some assurance today that

I could go, for instance, to the couple who have applied

through me, with some assurance that they should be able to

send their application for a loan, if not a bursary or a grant,

to the department. Would the Minister welcome this letter when

it arrives on her desk in a few days?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes. I can give that assurance.

MR. SCHROEDER: Oh, beautiful. Next....

AN HON. MEMBER: Next? (Laughter.)

MR. SCHROEDER: Both! I noticed yesterday that the Minister

was very proud when she said that the increase in operating

grants to universities was

[ Page 1984 ]

something like 26 per cent, 26 point something per cent. If

the needs of the universities were something similar to that

figure, I think that we would stand in the House and commend

the Minister for meeting the need. However, in the University

of Victoria alone, the operational fund requirements show an

increase of some 42 per cent. This was the projection of their

budget, the budget which was presented to the department — 41

per cent was the increased needs.

Now involved in that 41 per cent increase were some new

programmes, to be sure. The faculty of law, the schools of

nursing and social work were to be established. I'm amazed that

there isn't a school for teacher training that would involve

training facilities for teachers wishing to follow the field of

specialized education. Nonetheless, these three programmes are

programmes that were included in this 42 per cent increase and

it is questionable whether these three programmes will be able

to go ahead because the 26 per cent increase is all that these

universities could realize in their operational grant.

I'm wondering whether the Minister is doing any research

into the actual cost of servicing — or providing the services

of education. I'm wondering whether the review teams the

Minister sends out are doing any research into the area of how

come a 41 increase in costs? If 42 per cent is a legitimate

increase, then how could the Minister be satisfied with

offering them a little more than half of that and say: "Here

you are boys, see whether you can't make it this year."

What actually it means is that we are going to have to

withdraw some of the plans for expansion, some of the new

programmes that I am sure the Minister would like to see take

place within the province. We are going to have to withdraw

those plans and be satisfied with status quo and still have a

26 per cent increase in the cost of education.

Are there any designs on assisting local councils and local

boards to assist them in teaching them how to hold costs down?

Is there anything like this?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, first of all, with reference to the

universities: As you know we have the university council now.

We don't send out review teams any more, as you know. We never

did, actually. This was the first year. You were asking about

universities, right?

The university council made the recommendations to us. Out

of interest, the universities get, as you know, $156 million,

roughly, and the universities had asked for $161 million. So,

you see, the university council did not accept the fact after

their research. They are the ones who do the research for us.

They said, "No, we don't think that is necessary." So they

suggested $156 million and, as you know, the government came in

with $156 million, which is a 26 per cent increase. I think in

these times that that is a fairly healthy increase for the universities. I know it does

mean some readjustment of priorities, but it is our feeling

that if they readjust those priorities, they should be able to

keep some of those good programmes going.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): A matter has come

to our attention very recently where the Minister may be able

to assist the committee. Some doubts have been raised in view

of a telegram I propose to read in a few moments with respect

to bidding practices in the construction of various community

colleges and other facilities. Perhaps the Minister is familiar

with this specific. I raise it now because we are obviously

still in this vote and also because it does seem to be of

concern.

In part, the telegram addressed to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

refers to the need to

PREVENT THE AWARDING OF A SUBSTANTIAL

$1,816,491 CONTRACT ON THE CAPILANO COLLEGE TEMPORARY CLASSROOM PROJECT

TO CHIMO STRUCTURES LTD. WHO DID NOT PROVIDE THE MANDATORY BID SECURITY

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. UNFORTUNATELY, NUMEROUS

EFFORTS REQUESTS TO THE CONTRACTINGAUTHORITY,

that is Capilano College

THE ARCHITECTS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICIALS AND THE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN

PREVENTING THIS FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BIDDING

PRACTICE, NOT TO MENTION MORAL AND ETHICAL BUSINESSPROCEDURES.

The telegram continues:

FURTHER EFFORTS TO DATE BY THE AMALGAMATED CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION

OF B.C. ARE BEING UNDERTAKEN TO CONVINCE OWNERS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OF

THE IRREGULAR BIDDING AND CONTRACT-AWARDING PRACTICES. OTHER TENDERS RECEIVED

DID INCLUDE THE REQUIRED $191,000 BID BOND, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE

IN THE EVENT A CONTRACT WAS NOT ENTERED INTO WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SO BEING ADVISED

BY THE OWNER.

The telegram concludes by requesting our assistance in

ensuring that justice is served in this regard. It is a

telegram over the name of R.B. Russell, vice-president and

general manager of Fabco Leasing.

So some very real uncertainty, as I indicated, has been

raised concerning awarding contracts. Does the Minister know,

Mr. Chairman, through you, if an unusual bidding procedure has

taken place in this specific or in any other cases where public

money is being expended? I wonder if the Minister could

take

[ Page 1985 ]

just the few moments necessary in answering to indicate the

guidelines that are set out by the Department of Education.

I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that the telegram, sent by a

well-known company in British Columbia, levels some very

serious charges, and I think that we do require some

clarification by the Minister of the situation as she

understands it today.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, I'm not happy with what you have

brought to my attention, I must say. Unfortunately, right to

this moment I wasn't aware of it. I'm just having a check made

with the superintendent who approves capital approvals. As you

know, the college is the contracting agency, but the department

must be involved in this. He's just doing a check by phone now.

If we have an opportunity later, I will fill you in on what I

find out on it.

I certainly am not happy with what you have informed me, and

we will check it out for you right now.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, this has just

come into our hands in a telegram dated today, and therefore

there was no opportunity to even advise you of it before the

House sat this morning.

Should this vote pass, do we have the Minister's assurance

that she could, with leave of the House or under any other

mechanism available to her, later advise the committee or the

House as to what the inquiries have uncovered?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I will.

Vote 46 approved.

On vote 47: grants to school districts, $436,500,000.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just one brief question to the Minister

regarding grants to school districts and the additional burden of the introduction

of the metric system. I've had some correspondence over the last six or seven

months, some with the Minister of Education and some with the federal government.

I find that in times gone by I've accused the Minister of Education of British

Columbia of being a little slow in answering her correspondence, but it's nothing

compared to the slowness of the federal government, I assure you of that. In

a letter from the Minister to me regarding my view on the costs of the introduction

of the metric system into the educational system, the Minister in one paragraph

says, and this is the letter of October 22, 1974:

"However, I'd like to inform you that at recent meetings of

the council of Ministers of Education all Ministers expressed

concern regarding the added cost to the provinces in connection

with conversion. We (that is, the Ministers) have been working

closely through our officials with federal departmental

officials to clarify and have some idea of the full cost of

this conversion. We certainly concur with you that the federal

government should be making a contribution in some area,

whether that be straight financing or the provision of

material."

I strongly believe that the national government

should be making a contribution. I've written to the Minister

of Finance, Mr. Turner, and about two and a half months later

he wrote back and told me that he was referring this letter to

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is in charge

of the metric commission.

I very recently have received a letter, which disappoints me

very much, from Mr. Alastair Gillespie, dated "Avril le 23,

1975," and it says:

"Dear Mr. Chabot:

"My colleague, the Hon. John Turner, has furnished me with a

copy of his reply to your letter of January 21 regarding the

possibility of federal aid to defray the cost of introducing

the metric system into the schools in British Columbia.

"You will appreciate that education is a matter of

provincial jurisdiction and that the primary responsibility for

distributing costs of education must lie with the provincial

government. The federal government does not have any

jurisdictional responsibilities to intervene in matters of

education costs."

Now that's a lot of nonsense, because it's my understanding

that the Ministers of Education throughout Canada are meeting

with the metric commission or the top officials, probably even

the Minister, regarding some kind of financial contribution

from the national government for the costs that have been

superimposed on the provinces in the introduction of this new

system of measures. We have the Minister, Mr. Alastair

Gillespie, hiding behind the fact that education is a matter of

provincial responsibility. No one's denying that it is a

provincial responsibility, but certainly here I thought that

talks were going on and that cooperation would ultimately

result from these negotiations. I find Alastair Gillespie now

using these words to the effect that education is a provincial

responsibility.

I wonder if the Minister could tell me whether the national

government is going to assist, because I don't really believe

that the new system should be a burden on the local taxpayers.

Certainly we find that the mill rates are accelerating like

they never have before.

[ Page 1986 ]

Now if we're going to have additional costs thrown on the

backs of the property owners of British Columbia, I don't think

it's very fair in view of the fact that the national government

is superimposing this responsibility on the Departments of

Education of every province. I'd like to hear from the Minister

if she can convey to me whether the negotiations have come to a

standstill or have broken off and whether we can believe what

Alastair Gillespie says in his letter of April 23.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We're just as disappointed as you that to

date we haven't received any concrete word of assistance, and

that letter — "it's provincial jurisdiction" — we keep getting

this too. The point is, Mr. Member, that one official from my

department is representing us right at this moment in Toronto

on this whole matter of the metric conversion. We are expecting

to get an up-to-date report from him on where we stand at this

time. But I think you're quite right: it finally will have to

rest with the Ministerial level. There will be a council of

Ministers meeting, I believe, in June, at which time I know all

the Ministers will be wanting to exert more pressure for this.

At the moment I'm as disappointed as you that we have no

specific assurances.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just briefly again, to the Minister, this

may not exactly be in her jurisdiction, but I'd like her to

talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) on

a matter regarding exemptions for independent schools which are

operating in various communities. I have a specific case in

mind which the Municipal Affairs Minister knows about but which

I realize has to go through all of the ordinary appeals. In the

meantime, the Municipal Act requires an assessor to decide

whether or not an institution operating as a school is in fact

a school.

The assessor, who has no training in that field, and can't

be expected to have and shouldn't be expected to have, has to

make that decision as to whether or not a school is actually a

school for purposes of exemption from taxation. I don't think

it's fair for a person, highly trained and trained as an

assessor, to also be asked to make those kinds of decisions.

When they're making those kinds of decisions, I don't know what

criteria they have upon which to base that decision.

So it seems to me that the Minister could consult with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) on the Municipal Act and perhaps have the Act changed

to have that criterion established at least with the Education department —

not with an assessor who is now attached to the assessment authority. I don't

know how many cases there are of this happening — I know of one specific case.

Once the precedent has been established of an assessor refusing exemption for

a facility which is operating as a school, there may be a rush of similar kinds

of things happening. But basically I think it is wrong to ask an assessor to

also be an assessor of educational standards, because that isn't the job for

which he's trained. I really believe that that

section of the Municipal Act

should be amended, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I see the Minister has left, but I will

chase him later and we will discuss it. I think you brought up

a good point. If I can find him I will talk to him about

it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

Can I just bring up one other quick matter, Mr. Chairman?

I'll do it very quickly so you don't rule me out of

order. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister with regard

to education within our local school districts. I know she is

interested in drug education and things like that. I was just

handed a copy of a clipping from a newspaper today about some

students associated with the health education centre in

Victoria who made a dummy called "Nikki Teen." This dummy is

being used to portray the dangers of smoking to young students.

I think it is a heck of a good idea. I would like to pass on to

the Minister for her consideration that the department might

expand this programme and have a couple of other dummies....

(Laughter.) I withdraw that unconditionally, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister could expand into the whole education system

through the local school boards a series of these dummies.

There could be three, I'm suggesting, rather than just one

named "Nikki Teen." We could also have one named "Al Cohol" and

one named "Herr Oin" and have them used as graphic examples

throughout a really accelerated programme of education for the

students and have them used in the schools on a regular basis.

I think it is a really good idea this education centre has come

up with and I would like the Minister to consider its

expansion.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I accept that and certainly we will take

it back to the department and see if we can make further use of

those dummies.

MR. CURTIS: Yesterday the Minister was quite helpful with

respect to provision of facilities or alteration of facilities

for physically handicapped individuals. Reviewing the

Hansard Blues, I see that in connection with the

specific which I raised — that is Spectrum Community School in

the greater Victoria School District 61 — the Minister stated

that she was not very happy. I quote:

I immediately asked for a reason why Spectrum was not going to

be available to the physically handicapped. I simply was not ready to accept that.

I asked the people in my department to go back to

[ Page 1987 ]

the greater Victoria School Board and just

see whatever possible means can be done to ensure that the handicapped

can get into that school.

Continuing to quote

the Minister, Mr. Chairman:

I feel as strongly about this as you do and I am sure

the school board themselves must realize that a community school must

be a community school. I can assure you that I don't intend to let this

one drop. I think we all have a responsibility here.

So we did discuss the specific which I raised and we kept it

in that context of a single community school in this school

district. What we did not do yesterday was to even briefly seek

the Minister's opinion with respect to departmental policy

overall in terms of other community schools and major secondary

schools which are in the earliest planning stage or which are

perhaps moving well along in the planning and design stage and

will go to construction within the next few months.

I think it is an area of concern which should be explored

once more under this vote. What is the policy? What is the

encouragement, or, if you wish, directive, to individual school

boards because of this transfer of funds in this vote to the

individual school districts from the department to just

increase the provision of the ramps, the wider doors, the

enlarged cubicles in washrooms, et cetera, that are so

necessary for the physically handicapped?

The point I made yesterday in the specific, and I make again

today in the general, is that as the province properly moves

into more community use of school facilities for adults by

individuals in the community, then surely these should be

available to people who are otherwise shut out.

So many public agencies now are aware of and responding to

the demand for the kind of easy access which is vital for the

physically handicapped, those confined to wheelchairs and so

on. I would like the Minister to just tell us what the policy

is or how it is evolving and what kind of guarantee we can have

on this side of the House that this segment of public

construction in British Columbia is keeping up with the

rest.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the sincere concern of the

Member on this. We've brought this to the attention of the

school boards. We have met with the physically handicapped

provincial association, and we've passed on to the school

boards and endorsed that the schools should be made available for the

handicapped.

I think the Hon. Member would understand, having been in municipal politics

for so many years, the cost to schools — the cost to renovate, for instance,

old schools in this area, and also the fairly steep costs for even building

new schools with this. So what we've said to them is that where possible, in

every community we want to be sure particularly that a community school has

structure that's available to them through capital grants and their own, to

build their schools with some entry. I just cannot give you any assurance that

every school in the province will have it. I think you'd appreciate that. But

we have sent out the message, and I think this is important. Frankly, it has

been a tragic scene where none of us in the past has given that concern and

even recommended this to be done. I think the scene has changed here; the school

boards of the province are alerted to this. I'll be speaking with trustees on

Monday and I'll have an opportunity there to reinforce this.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CURTIS: I would think that the Minister can go to the

annual meeting of the B.C. School Trustees Association, knowing

that in this specific instance she has the full support of the

official opposition. Of course, not every school can be made to

accommodate or, indeed, need be made to accommodate the

physically handicapped. But you, Madam Minister, have indicated

the community schools in particular. That was the point I

attempted to make yesterday and again today.

I also would point out that the renovation or the alteration

of existing school buildings to accommodate physically

handicapped is clearly very expensive. But in the planning

stage, right from the first stroke of pencil on paper, surely

the cost is relatively low — and I emphasize "relatively low."

A doorway two feet wider, when it is provided for on paper, on

plan, is considerably less expensive than having to remove a

concrete block wall, steel beams, whatever it might be, after

the building is in the finished condition and, in fact, in

use.

MR. SCHROEDER: I can't let the opportunity go by without

calling on the Minister again to end that discriminatory

practice in the direction of school grants which allows no

grant at all to go to that segment of our society which is providing an educational

service for over 23,000 students and is giving no recognition

and certainly no financial assistance. By "none," I'm

using the absolute for the relative.

It wouldn't be so bad if it was just a matter of saying to that segment: "You are on your own; you are

responsible for your own financing. You are responsible for your own administration and for your own

teacher placement. You are responsible for your own capital

construction and you can use your funds do it with." That would

be understandable.

However, that same segment of society pays through the assessment

and taxation programme the same number of dollars in taxes as do the

rest of us

[ Page 1988 ]

who do not belong to that particular community. Their tax

dollars go into the general revenue from which these grants are

made. As a result, it's clear that it's discriminatory and

unjust, in my opinion, that these dollars being siphoned from

them for education are not returned to them so that they can

render the service which all of us agree is due every child in

this province.

And I must, without seeking to be redundant, call on the

Minister again to start even this year — if she started with a

small percentage perhaps — with a commitment that over a period

of perhaps two or three years, these people would be put into

the full flow of the grant programme which is represented by

vote 47. If there was a ray of light that said this year

they're going to get 20 per cent.... I know it's not there and

I know I'm asking for the impossible to have it inserted here,

but I'm speaking philosophically when I say it would be at

least a recognition of the fact that they are offering equal if

not better educational services to a segment of society. It

would be a recognition of that fact if we said to them: "Okay,

this year we are going to take step 1 and we are going to give

you, say, 20 per cent of your operational costs per

instructional unit that is being offered to the public

sector."

I find it unfair; I find it almost impossible to believe

that we in our society could be so unjust as to take from this

segment of the population their tax dollars, tell them that it

is for education, and then not return to them at least a

similar number of dollars so that they can use those dollars

for the purposes for which they were originally collected.

This is the area on which I have spoken several times in

this House, Mr. Member. I think it is very, very obvious; it

should be very clear by now what we are asking for. I think

that it is a just position. I don't think we are asking for

something that shouldn't exist. We are not asking for something

that could be considered as something that looks like welfare.

No way. These people belong to our structure; they belong to

our society; they pay taxes as all of us do. When assessments

are increased again this year for school purposes, as they most

definitely have been, and when tax assessment and mill rates

around the various school districts are 40, 41, 42, 41.6, 41.1

per cent, these people are being discriminated against again.

They pay. What do they receive for those dollars?

The Minister could easily say: "Well, it would be better if

we removed taxation from property." That way the dollars

wouldn't be designated for education and the people wouldn't

have the knowledge that so-and-so dollars are being collected

for education and then not received. Nonetheless, it would be

just as discriminatory if the funds were coming from general

revenue or from resource funds.

Therefore, I call on the Minister again: take step 1; give them some recognition.

Give them the return, this year at least, even if it is just a percentage of

the dollars that have been collected from them for education purposes.

I have to commend the Minister for having taken the step

that says: "We are going to do a review to see what services

can be rendered to these people in independent schools to be

sure that there is equality in education and that every child

in the province shall have the same opportunity for education."

I have to commend her for saying that facilities will be

available.

There is a question about textbooks. She has said that

examinations will be available. I am pleased to announce that

in some areas of the province transportation is being provided

on a non-discriminatory basis. I have to commend the Minister.

She has taken some steps, and we recognize that. But when it

comes to the almighty dollar, there is a tight fist. I know it

is a philosophical difference, but my plea to you today is:

what is so wrong, even economically, with the philosophy that I

represent? I think we owe these people something for the years

of neglect, for which I hang my head. We owe them something for

the years of neglect in recognition and in dollars today.

The year 1975 could be a banner year for education. Let me

tell you why again. This system of education which we call

independent, and which I see as a part of the total, represents

the flexibility in education which we all want. It is at least

a step in the right direction which says that we can have

schools with different structures. We don't all have to be

under the same monolithic form. I am right on, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I was just going to ask the

Hon. Member — he is doing very well — to relate his remarks

just a little more directly to the vote.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, thank you, thank you. Thank you for that

interruption, Mr. Chairman.

I believe that through these grants we could give

recognition that they are offering to our province this

particular service. They are showing us the way, Madam

Minister. They are showing us that our society has the

flexibility that these two different concepts can co-exist

within the province. I think we should show them that we

recognize this by offering them this year at least some token

dollars that say to them: "Hey, help is on the way."

These people show us that there can be a completely

different attitude in the classroom structure and a completely

different attitude between students and teachers, that there

can be such a thing as a highly disciplined classroom and a

loosely disciplined classroom. They show us that there can

[ Page 1989 ]

an open classroom and a more structured classroom. They show

us that the ratio of students to teachers can be far less and

still have a lower operating cost per student than we have in

the public sector. They tell us that the cost per student,

which these grants represent in the public sector, is $1,262

per student. If you move into the independent sector, the last

figures I have from them tell me that their costs are still

around $900 per student, with a lower student-to-teacher

ratio.

The fact is that these students who come through this

particular school system do not suffer in their education. They

are as acceptable at university as we are. Their marks on any

aptitude test or enrolment examination or entrance examinations

score just as high as we do. Therefore they are offering a

system to British Columbia which could well show us the way. We

could do well by saying to them: "Show us how you are doing it.

Let us compare the two." This comparison might do us well not

only in this year but might also do us well in the years to

come. The innovation which we seek is in this structure in

part, I would suggest to the Minister: let's do it. Let's give

them the ray of hope that we care, that we recognize their

abilities and that we appreciate the flexibility which they can

give.

Madam Minister, if you would stand on your feet today, you

would be doing education in this province a great service by

saying: "Here we are; here's a few hundred thousand, a few

million dollars for these particular people." I know I am

asking the impossible but, good heavens, if you don't start

knocking on the wall of the impossible, you can never make the

impossible even pro—bable. I believe that this recognition is

due today.

HON. MRS. DAILY: May I say that I have noted the concerns of

the Hon. Member?

MR. CURTIS: As I see it, as a relatively new Member of this

House — certainly not with the Legislative experience of the

Minister — vote 47 is the essence, the heart, of the education

finance problems which have plagued British Columbia for quite

some time. This represents grants to school districts, and it

clearly is not enough money. It clearly is not sufficient money

in order that education can progress in British Columbia as

most of us would like to see it happen.

So we really have at the heart here, on this line of $436.5 million, the record

of the broken promise of this government with respect to removal of costs of

education from property, from homes and farms. And we see so many disappointments

which have been enunciated by the teachers federation, the B.C. School Trustees

Association and by, most importantly, the taxpayers. This vote is the focal

point of the failure of the NDP in British Columbia to deliver what it said

it would in campaign promises. We are going to oppose this vote, but let it

be very clearly understood why. It's because the funds are insufficient and

the promise has not been kept.

Vote 47 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 13

Smith

Bennett

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Wallace

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, will you have this brought

to the attention of Mr. Speaker, and have it recorded?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I got the message. Agreed.

Vote 48: Teachers Superannuation Fund,

$22,300,000 — approved.

On vote 49: night school grants and training programmes,

$2,000,000.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick question, Mr. Chairman. I'm

interested in the item for new Canadians. We've discussed in

debates earlier the difficulties of children coming into the

immigration is a very topical question at the moment.

I wonder if the Minister could give us some details on this

$ 1.5 million entitled "courses for New Canadians." I think,

indeed, that if we are to integrate various cultures and

various ethnic groups, we perhaps haven't been paying enough

attention to the need to start right at the beginning with the

children from these different backgrounds who may, right off

the bat, even have the language difficulty in not speaking

ridings brought this to our attention earlier in the debate. I

just wondered what this $1.5 million encompasses. What kind of...?

[ Page 1990 ]

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's a bit noisy. Do you think we

could have some order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member, the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and other Members have made the

point that sometimes we get a little disorderly. So I would ask

that we observe general rules of decorum. Carry on.

MR. WALLACE: I just wondered if the Minister could tell us

what the course are to be and who is actually designing the

courses for the new Canadians. Is it to be through the schools

or the colleges? To what degree is it to be dedicated or

directed towards children coming into the system or adults who

are now living in British Columbia who are having language

Above all, I'm interested in how much of this $1.5 million,

if any, is matched by federal funding. The federal government

surely has a very important responsibility, in developing its

new immigration policies, to come with more money for the

widest possible look at the field of education. If we're

getting any federal money, could I ask the Minister if there

are any constraints or restrictions or preconditions which have

been spelled out by the federal government under which the

Minister can take this kind of initiative?

I think the department is taking a wise step in this

direction and deserves credit. But I think it should not just

be by any means a provincial responsibility, particularly in

the financing. If there are matching funds federally, what, if

any, conditions has the federal government spelled out?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The $1.5 million is an agreement between

the province and the federal government which provides

assistance for landed immigrants and adults only. That's the

crux of our problem. That's why, when I'm in Ottawa, we'll be

making this specific demand to have it include the children so

that we can get funds for the students, which up to now have

been paid primarily by the local school boards and the

province. The grants, though, which are made just for adult

landed immigrants and citizens, are made to school boards and

colleges, and are shared one-half by the federal government

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick follow-up on that, Mr. Chairman.

Could I ask the Minister, then, if this is very much a matter

of college and school district autonomy in deciding whether or

not they will seek grants, or is there a certain amount

allocated to each school district? Is it very much up to the

school district, if it wants it, to seek the money?

Furthermore, has the Minister on previous occasions asked

the federal government to extend the help to school children

rather than just landed immigrants and been refused, or has the

request never really been made?

I think there isn't enough publicity given to the fact that

the federal government, in many of its efforts to improve the

overall immigration picture, has perhaps overlooked the obvious

important factor that if parents come to this country as

immigrants speaking another language, while it is important

that they gain employment — and that is contingent upon

communication — surely the fact that the children are landed

with the very serious problem of going into school and not

Minister previously asked the federal government for such

funding and been refused?

HON. MRS. DAILLY : Yes, we have. We have specifically been

before them. I went with other Ministers of Education, and we brought this

to their attention, I think, over two years ago. As you can see, we haven't

had any specific results. But the latest word I have in talking to Members in

Ottawa, et cetera, is that I think the federal government appears to be amenable

to this. So what we have to do is pin down the actual cost-sharing. This is

what the council of Ministers collectively will be doing at our meeting. I see

that there is a distinct possibility assistance can come; I assume that from

what I've heard. But you're quite right; it should have been here long before

this.

The grants are supposed to come through the department.

After we get the enrolments and the needs, then we present that

to Ottawa.

Vote 49 approved.

On vote 50: salary contingencies, $ 1,951,759.

MR. SCHROEDER: The departments heretofore have been

explaining that this salary contingency figure represents

anticipated salary increases for the number of people in the

department. Yet just a quick comparison....

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: Oh!...with from the Department of Consumer

Services, under which we had quite an elaborate discussion of

salary contingencies. Where they have 68 people, their salary

contingency figure is $652,683. A quick computation on the

number of people that are in the Education department — did you

know this, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) — shows

there are 524 people in the department and their salary

contingency is $1,951,000 and a few odd

[ Page 1991 ]

dollars. Now if these salary contingencies are computed on a

basis of percentage increase for the number of people within

the department, if that same percentage prevails, then the

salary contingency figure for the Education department should

be just a little over $5 million. But I want to know how the

$1,951,000 was computed. Maybe it has nothing to do, Mr.

Chairman, at all with an expected percentage increase or the

expected salary settlements for the next year. I want to know

how we arrived at $1,951,759. How was the figure arrived

at?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We're satisfied, if you compare the number

of employees listed and then take into account what is

projected as the increase, which is approximately 24.8 per

cent. Then your possible increases and increments.... It would

work out to that, as far as we're concerned.

MR. SCHROEDER: Madam Minister, it just doesn't add up when

you make a comparison. We got the same answer from the Minister

of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young). Exactly the same answer.

Now she's got 68 people, Mr. Chairman. Her allotment for

contingencies is $652,000....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, maybe I could clear something

up here. In our block vote we also have included under our staff the ones who

teach in the vocational schools — okay? Therefore, if you take that block vote

into consideration and pick up those staffs out there, you can see where it

would add up.

Vote 50 approved.

Vote 51: advances re rural school taxes, $10 — approved.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to inform the Premier that there is a motion

before the committee on the Department of Housing to reduce the

Minister's salary. I hope the Premier hasn't forgotten

that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, we didn't forget that, but we thought

you had. (Laughter.)

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution

and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a

division took place in committee and asks that this division be

recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:32 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada