1979 Legislative Session: ist

Session, 32nd 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)

MONDAY, JULY 9, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 599 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Bikeways Development Act (Bill M 204). Mr.

Barber.

Introduction and first reading –– 599

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western

College Act (Bill PR 401). Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 599

Energy Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 23). Hon.

Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 599

Oral questions.

Sale of Crown land through realtors. Mr.

Lea –– 599

Health hazard for Provincial Museum

employees. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 600

Dismissal of Margaret Caldwell. Ms.

Sanford –– 600

Salary of Wendy Robertson. Hon. Mr. Curtis

replies –– 600

Timber licences. Mr. King –– 601

Community health and human resource

clinics. Ms. Brown –– 601

Milk Industry Amendment Act (Bill 14).

Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 601

Provincial Homeowner Amendment Act, 1979

(Bill 19). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Skelly –– 601

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 601

section 3.

Mr. Barber –– 602

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 603

Report and third reading –– 605

Committee of Supply: Ministry of

Education, Science and Technology estimates.

On vote 62.

Ms. Sanford –– 605

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 606

Mr. Stupich –– 608

Mr. Lauk –– 609

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 610

Mr. Skelly –– 611

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 612

Mrs. Wallace –– 613

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 614

Mr. Smith –– 615

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 616

Mr. Passarell –– 616

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 616

Mr. Lea –– 617

Mr. Mussallem –– 618

Mr. Barber –– 618

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 621

Mr. Stupich –– 621

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 622

Mrs. Dailly –– 622

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 623

Mr. Cocke –– 623

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 623

Mr. King –– 623

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 624

On vote 64.

Ms. Sanford –– 624

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 624

Metro Transit Operating Company Act (Bill

26). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 624

Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act (Bill

25). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Introduction and first reading –– 624

Presenting Reports

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing

annual report for the year ending December 31, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 624

Appendix –– 625

MONDAY, JULY 9, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: I take great pleasure

today to introduce to the House Mrs. Lois Moss, vice-chairman of the

board of Dr. Helmcken Memorial Hospital in Clearwater; Mr. Fred Braun,

who is the chairman of that board; and Miss Betty Sykes, who is the

nurse-administrator of the hospital. I ask the House to make them very

welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: It's my pleasure today to

welcome to Victoria our guests Dirk Kemp and Janet Kemp, who hail from

Capetown, South Africa.

MR. BRUMMET:

We have with us today from the municipality of Hudson Hope in the North

Peace River riding, the mayor of Hudson Hope, Tex MacKeegan, Alderman

Heather Scorey and superintendent of public works Roger Porter. I would

like the House to make them welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: In

the gallery are Aldermen Frank Lento and Bryon Hill from Fernie in the

Kootenay constituency. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Years ago I started work in a radio station in this city before

electrification came into broadcasting. A young man also involved at

that time now looks as old as I do — well, not quite. I would like to

introduce Mr. John Ansel of radio station CJVI. I believe its frequency

is 900, but it varies.

Introduction of Bills

MR. BARBER:

I have the honour to present a message from the official opposition.

[Laughter.] I was hoping if I introduced it this way — this being the

fourth consecutive year — it might be approved. All agreed?

BIKEWAYS DEVELOPMENT ACT

a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill M 204, Bikeways Development Act,

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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Ritchie, Bill

P 401,

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, introduced,

read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Standing Orders and Private Bills.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Energy Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill

23 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.

Oral Questions

SALE OF CROWN LAND

THROUGH REALTORS

MR. LEA: I have a question for the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I would like to ask the minister

another question in regard to the Hayesville mobile-home subdivision in

Prince Rupert. Is it possible for an individual, a company or a credit

union to apply directly to the government for one of these lots, or

must any of these apply through the Multiple Listing Service?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Arrangements have been made for the multiple listing of 35 of these

mobile-home pads. We still have 17 of these costly mobile-home pads

under remedial work — improvement of drainage and of sewerage — and

they haven't been listed with the real estate board of northwestern

British Columbia. The question the member is asking is one of future

policy and that decision has not yet been made. There is a possibility

that they would be available to individuals. It all depends how quickly

we can dispose of those others in this stagnant development in the city

of Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary

question, will the minister supply a list of every individual, company

or credit union that has applied for a lot in the Hayesville

subdivision, also the dates of the applications and the amount of each

individual offer for lots or for a single lot? I'm asking the minister

to supply this information to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a very detailed

question. Perhaps it would be better to place it on the order paper.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, he doesn't have to give the answer in question period.

It's not a complicated question; only the answer will be lengthy. I'm

asking the minister to supply this information.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I think he should take a lesson from his colleague there —

the empty seat — regarding technical and involved questions. I think

this should be placed on the order paper for reply once the information

is available. I don't think the verbal question period was really

geared to asking questions of a technical nature such as the member has

just asked. As I said a little bit earlier last week, if the member for

Prince Rupert wants to persist in asking questions in the oral question

period that involve a lengthy answer, I have no alternative but to give

him those answers in the oral question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The answer to a

question must not exceed the scope of the question itself.

MR. LEA: Is the minister going to answer

that question? Will he make that information available to the House?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The minister has the question and it is at

the discretion of the minister as to whether he wishes to answer.

[ Page 600 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for Prince Rupert, needless to say

the question has been taken as notice and an answer will be forthcoming

in due course. As soon as I'm able to secure the information and the

answer for him, I will provide it to the House and everybody in British

Columbia, including the people on the Queen Charlottes.

MR. LEA: I have a new question.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be a new question,

hon. member.

MR. LEA:

It is. There's another list that I would like. I would like a list of

all successful offers in the Hayesville subdivision. I'd like to know

the purchasers, the amount paid and the date of sale, and I'd like a

list of commissions that have been paid for successful sales and a list

of commissions to be paid for sales that have been consummated, and to

whom.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Before I could possibly

consider taking that question as notice, I would have to have an

interpretation of what the member means by "offers." Because at the

moment we list these mobile-home pads in Hayesville subdivision at a

stipulated price. My ability to answer the question that he has posed

to me will be contingent on what he means by "offers," Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA:

On a further supplementary, is the minister then saying that there are

no offers considered on these at all — that it's a set price and

first-come, first-served? Is that what the minister's saying?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, he's asking

me a question in response to my answer.

MR. LEA:

I didn't hear the minister's answer because of the noise in the House.

Is that what the minister is saying — that it's first-come,

first-served on a set price?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister

has the question.

HEALTH HAZARD FOR

PROVINCIAL MUSEUM EMPLOYEES

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to answer a question posed last week by the hon. second

member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) regarding the Provincial Museum. I

will be as brief as possible. By way of background, the museum was

closed for about one hour from 12 noon, March 28, 1979, because of an

employee protest about fumes affecting the employees. We have known

that information since the day it occurred.

This matter was

amicably resolved at the museum level by Mr. Edwards, and the employees

returned to work about 1 p.m. the same day. Subsequently a Workers'

Compensation Board inspector identified a problem of insufficient

ventilation in a room where staff were reportedly handling toxic

chemicals, and a copy of the WCB report is attached. If the member

wishes it, I can hand it to him.

The B.C. Buildings

Corporation has investigated the problem in consultation with outside

experts and is proceeding with the improvements to the ventilation

system. Meanwhile, work with the chemicals concerned has been done in

areas with good ventilation elsewhere in or adjacent to the museum.

should also be noted that there is an able and active staff health and

safety committee in the museum which reacts quickly to potential

hazards and which works with management to correct situations which may

arise such as those encountered in the use of chemicals, epoxies and so

on in the manufacture of exhibits.

I thank the member for his question. I think the matter was on

the way to being resolved at the time he asked it.

DISMISSAL OF MARGARET CALDWELL

MS. SANFORD:

The Minister of Labour has been very busy advising the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) on health and hospital problems in the

province, I see. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question.

Who

was the labour representative on the board of inquiry which ruled on

the complaint of Margaret Caldwell, whose teaching contract was

terminated or was not renewed because of her marriage?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the board of inquiry in that particular human rights

matter was not selected with any consideration of management or labour

or otherwise.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, usually in

cases of this nature there would be a labour representative on such a

board of inquiry. I am wondering if the Minister of Labour could advise

us why no labour representative was on that particular board of inquiry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking her question under a misapprehension.

It is not usual that that's the case in board of inquiry hearings.

MS. SANFORD:

A new question for the minister. Will the minister recommend that the

decision in this particular case be appealed to the courts?

MR. SPEAKER: This question is not in order

unless the minister wishes to answer.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

That recommendation will be based upon legal advice, and counsel is

already examining a decision for the purposes of providing an opinion.

SALARY OF WENDY ROBERTSON

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) asked last

week if we could advise the House as to whether or not Miss Wendy

Robertson received $28,800 for the term of her employ in the calendar

year 1978. The answer is that Wendy Robertson was employed in this

ministry full-time during the year 1978, and earned a total of $28,900

for her full 12 months' service to the people of British Columbia.

MR. KING:

On a supplementary to the minister's answer, the minister's

predecessor, in answer to direct questions related to the term of Mrs.

Robertson's appoint-

[ Page 601 ]

ment and her salary, indicated that

she would not

receive $28,800 a year. Will the Premier now call for the resignation

of the former minister, Sam Bawlf? It's one way of escaping one's

commitments to this Legislature. I suppose it's an appropriate one

under the circumstances.

TIMBER LICENCES

MR. KING: I

have a question for the Minister of Forests. Can the minister tell me

whether any timber has been allocated to the provincial small-business

program in any of the forest regions?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I don't know what the member means by "allocated." If he is asking if

there have been any sales processed under the small-business program,

the answer is no. Each regional manager is at present under instruction

to identify areas of timber which can be made available, and under the

small-business program they are doing that. The small-business program

sales themselves, which are the actual allocation process, will be

proceeding in the very near future.

MR. KING: A

supplementary question. I don't know how the minister would refer to it

if not as an allocation of timber that may be put up for sale through

the small business program. It didn't take very long to provide timber

for the large, integrated licence holders. Can the minister explain

what the problem has been? Why has it taken over a year to make timber

available under the small-business program flowing from the new Forest

Act?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The small-business

program

under the new Forest Act is a new program. One of the things we are

doing right now — and I'm sure the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is

aware of it — is a complete analysis of the timber supply areas in the

province. There are some timber supply areas, as currently defined, in

which it is obvious there is a substantial amount of timber that can be

allocated. Other areas, which are tighter, are restricted somewhat in

the amount we can make available; a lot of the timber in those areas

will be coming through what we used to call our district forestry

reserves, as well as timber allocations which have not been fully

utilized by existing licences. It is a new program, it's a very

important program, and it is getting underway now.

If the

member looks at the amendment to the Forest Act which was introduced

last week, he will see that we have had to make a minor change in

defining different classes of small business in order to be able to

fully implement the program. At the present time, if we were to put up

sales before that amendment is passed, we would have to group the

different classes together and it wouldn't give the same opportunities

to the different classes that they will have when the amendment Act is

passed.

COMMUNITY HEALTH AND

HUMAN RESOURCE CLINICS

MS. BROWN: I have a question

for the Minister of Human Resources. Did the minister institute an

investigation of the community health and human resource clinics

remaining in the province last December — or any other time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled answers to questions 5, 6 and 7 on the

order paper.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I

move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 14,

Mr. Speaker.

MILK INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

PROVINCIAL HOMEOWNER

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. SKELLY:

I would like the minister to explain to me why, for people under 65

years of age and who are not disabled, the minimum tax payable, after

the homeowner grant is paid, is $50. In subsection (

a) of subsection

(

d) of

section 7, why is the minimum tax payable $50? What's the object

of having everybody under 65 who is not disabled pay $50 minimum

property tax? What is the minister trying to achieve?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

That was in the Act. Certainly when it was decided to provide the

additional allowances, it was commenced for the seniors' group.

MR. SKELLY: It's not really a good enough

reason, Mr. Chairman, to say the $50 minimum was there because it was

there in the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the debate

should be on the amendment, not on the original Act.

[ Page 602 ]

MR. SKELLY:

It is on the amendment. The amendment still provides for a $50 minimum

tax payable for those people who are under 65 and who aren't

handicapped. The thing is, it's a tremendous hardship on some people on

fixed incomes. I do understand why, in the other sections, the minimum

tax payable is $1. Because you wish to have some token tax payable in

order to maintain the Crown's right to tax the property. But why is it

$50 in the case of people under 65? It is not a good enough reason to

say it's because it was in the original bill. Why are you retaining it

in this bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think certainly

it ought to be recognized that we provide additional benefits from time

to time to the seniors by a variety of means, particularly through

other ministries. We provide bus passes and Pharmacare benefits, all of

which are certainly a recognition of the special needs for that

particular age group and the handicapped. I'm not sure whether the

suggestion is that we charge everybody $50 or what, but we have brought

these additional benefits into place for the elderly and the

handicapped in recognition of their needs.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

But, Mr. Chairman, in spite of the Premier's interjection here, you

brought the benefits in for the senior citizens and we congratulate you

for that; that should have been done. But the price should not have

been taking $50 away from every other taxpayer. The Premier's father

should also be congratulated for making a regressive tax — the property

tax — progressive by adding the homeowner grant, by creating an

exemption on property tax....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

Well, I wasn't against it, Mr. Premier. He should be congratulated for

that. But this Premier should be faulted for eliminating the

progressivity of that tax by having a $50 minimum payment for people

under 65. If you wish to make the tax progressive, create an exemption

starting from zero, or $1, to $480 and then tax them beyond that, but

don't have a $50 minimum, because it simply creates hardship on

fixed-income people who are under 65 and who don't have the benefit, in

this case, of a disability pension.

I know the minister

can't change it and probably doesn't intend to change it in this bill,

but I do hope that he will look to changing it in the future to make

this tax progressive.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder if I may talk about the retroactivity feature of this Act,

especially as it excludes certain people. I was disappointed when I

read the Act. I'm disappointed as I debate this

section to note that

some people have been excluded by what I hope is simply an oversight. I

am referring to the owners of 99-year leases, for whom this feature of

retroactivity will not apply. Let me illustrate, if I may. I know the

minister is well familiar with the matter; it's been brought to his

attention on a number of occasions.

If I may briefly refer

to the current Act, Mr. Chairman, in order that this debate on the

amendment may seem all the more relevant....

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, hon. member, since

you brought the point up, it reminds me to read the

section of the Act,

and it says: "This Act is retroactive to the extent necessary to give

it effect with respect to the current year taxes levied in 1979." So at

this point it is not really appropriate to discuss whether or not

99-year leases should be included under this section. Perhaps it would

have been appropriate under second reading, which is now past.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, they are already included. If you will recall — and

that's why I was mentioning the previous legislation — the government,

to its credit, amended the legislation in 1978 and included the 99-year

leasehold, so I think you'll find this debate relevant, Mr. Chairman.

However

there was a catch then, to which I wish to refer now when debating the

retroactivity of this year's homeowner grant bill. The catch then was

that owners of 99-year leaseholds had to have those registered before

December 31, 1977. Those who did not so register, or who have purchased

a 99-year lease anytime from January 1, 1978, on are excluded from

section 3 of the amending bill. The original intent was this: to

recognize that 99-year leaseholders for all practical purposes are as

much homeowners in British Columbia as are you and I with our

single-family dwellings. It was to recognize that the people in my

riding, in buildings called Orchard House and Villa Royale, are for all

practical purposes homeowners just like everyone else.

argued for some time with the former Minister of Municipal Affairs that

99-year leaseholders should be included in the homeowner grant. I was

very pleased that they were. I was very pleased with the 1978

amendment. However there was a catch in that amendment which I hoped

might have been covered in the

section we are now debating. The problem

with the original Act and the failure of this amendment, Mr. Chairman,

is simply this: as people over a period of time purchase 99-year

leaseholds, by and by the original intent is undermined. If the

government wished to recognize in 1978 that 99-year leaseholders had a

right to the homeowner grant, they could, I think, have made that

feature permanent and universal. It is for all the other homeowners in

British Columbia. There is no cutoff date; there is no December 31,

1977, that applies to you or me, Mr. Chairman. There is, however, as it

applies to 99-year leaseholders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, order, please. I appreciate what you're trying to get at.

However, the point you are trying to make requires an amendment. This

section dealing with retroactivity only applies to sections 1 and 2 and

their subsequent amendments. So the line of debate that you are

discussing requires an actual amendment to the Act rather than the

retroactivity applicable to these sections 1 and 2.

MR. BARBER:

Well, if you're certain of that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to propose

an amendment; and if you give me 30 seconds, I'll have it on your desk.

[ Page 603 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How can an amendment

be in order?

MR. BARBER: Well, what's in order is that

this is a fair request.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, order, please. Whether or not the request is fair is not

the question for the Chair to decide; whether or not it's in order is a

question for the Chair to decide. This retroactivity only deals with

these two particular sections of the Act, and that's the only subject

for discussion under

section 3 of the bill.

MR. BARBER:

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm trying my best to stay wholly

in order and at the same time raise an important point without at the

same time raising the ire of the Chair. I'm sure you appreciate the

problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I anticipate that you are

trying to maintain relevance with regard to this section, and I would

ask that you maintain relevance with regard to retroactivity as it

applies to sections 1 and 2 of Bill 19.

MR. BARBER: I

wonder, then, if I might ask the minister — would this be an acceptable

way to get to the point, Mr. Chairman? — why

section 3 should not

include such retroactivity as would protect all of those homeowners who

purchased 99-year leases after December 31, 1977. I hope that's in

order. I hope the minister's answer is in order, and that he will

indeed agree to such an amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, I think this should have been debated

during second reading of the bill. However, if I might, I will answer

the hon. member this way: the government has attempted to be as fair as

possible through all of its dealings over the years, and in order to

meet a commitment or an understanding that a certain group of people

perceived with respect to 99-year leases, those who were presently

holding such leases were granted the rights of the homeowner grant. It

was not intended to recognize leasing as ownership. Those who were

under the impression, then, that such a benefit was coming to them

received the benefit and are continuing to receive such benefit. If,

however, other 99-year leases are entered into, or if those particular

leases are in turn turned over to someone else, there is no such

commitment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The minister is out of order and the member questioning

the minister is out of order. Might I suggest that question period

would be a more appropriate time for this debate.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, we're not permitted to discuss legislation in question

period. I see Harvey nodding his head; he agrees with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can have some

respect for the Chair. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: Well, I appreciate the answer

of the minister and I'm trying as hard as I can to keep this in order.

wonder if there is any form of amendment to

section 3 as it appears in

front of us that the minister would consider that would eliminate the

discrimination that is now in place between those persons who were

lucky or well-advised enough to buy a 99-year lease prior to December

31, 1977, and those who were unlucky or ill-advised enough to buy it

after that date. It seems to me there is a principle here.

Now

it wasn't advertised; it wasn't common knowledge that 99-year

leaseholders were going to get the homeowner grant when they bought

those leases some time ago. It only became a public debate because we

made it a debate. It only became public law because your government

accepted it as law. And that was a very good thing.

The

merit of that law and the lack of merit in this

section 3 is that

you've established two classes of 99-year leaseholders: the class of

the lucky who got in before December 31, 1977, and the class of the

unlucky who got in after. That just can't be defended; that's just not

fair. If the principle is that the homeowner grant should apply to the

owners of dwellings in British Columbia, and if you have accepted as an

interpretation of that principle that it should also apply to 99-year

leaseholders, then it is not fair to establish two classes of 99-year

leaseholds.

Section 3 is imperfect to this extent, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

There is nothing in

section 3 about 99-year leaseholders, and I see

nothing in sections 1 and 2 on that same subject. I think the member is

well aware of the fact that he's abusing the rules of the House by

taking this opportunity — when second reading may have been the more

appropriate time — to enter into a debate which you would have liked to

have conducted at another time. It's only the duty of the Chair to

enforce the rules of the House as they stand. I would direct you to

discuss

section 3, which admittedly is very difficult to discuss — it's

a two-line

section — or cease your debate. Please continue.

MR. BARBER:

I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair. I was advised that it would be

as troublesome to raise it in second reading as it is in committee; so

I took this opportunity, and I'm sure the Chair would have ruled

similarly in second reading as well.

I wish then, if I may —

and I understand there is a precedent for it — to debate a defect in

this section. I'm told that's in order. And the defective aspect of

section 3 is that it does not include what I'm arguing toward. What I

argue is that there should not be established two classes of 99-year

leaseholders — or, indeed, two classes — save for the salutary

exception that the minister and the government have made in favour of

senior citizens. There is a broad argument for doing that. We respect

that argument. There is no respectable argument that would say that

some 99-year leaseholders should be more privileged than others, none

at all. It just doesn't make sense.

Now from time to time people on this side of the House have

private conversations with people on the other side of the House, and I

would be surprised if many members would find it defensible in debate

of this

section to say that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. BARBER:

No, I won't name names, but I would be really surprised if any good

member in good conscience could say that by the defect of this

section

we should allow

[ Page 604 ]

such an injustice to occur as to

establish those two classes of leaseholders recipients of the homeowner

grant.

From

time to time, discussing this defective section, Mr. Chairman, it may

be argued that the 99-year lease, as it has the gift of a homeowner

grant, could be unscrupulously attached by certain landlords as a

justification for raising the so-called rent that a 99-year leaseholder

pays. Well, there's no material evidence that that's ever occurred, not

since a year and a half ago when this effectively came into force. If

there is such evidence, I'd be glad to hear it, but it's not at hand.

So I'm arguing on behalf of those people, some of whom have been to my

office — I expect they've been to see the minister as well — who wonder

why it is they should be excluded from this defective

section of the

Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please.

You

are now abusing the rules of the House. I must direct you to either

bring your speech into the relevance of

section 3 or cease.

MR. BARBER: Well, perhaps the Chair could

give me guidance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not up to the Chair to

give guidance to a member.

MR. BARBER:

In as courteous and civilized a way as I can, I'm trying to raise the

issue of a defective

section and am hoping thereby to call attention of

the government and of this House to the plight in which those who are

not cared for by this defective

section find themselves.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair has allowed ample latitude for discussion of this

section

which is totally out of order under this section. Now I have been

somewhat tolerant — more tolerant than I usually am. However, I must

now insist that you maintain relevance in your speech and move an

amendment which could be a method of discussing it. But you may not

discuss it under this section. This

section refers specifically to the

two sections before you. I have canvassed them and there is nothing in

them about people with 99-year leases.

MR. BARBER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the advice that you

involuntarily tendered. However having already considered that matter,

I was told that such an amendment sponsored by me or any other

opposition member would be totally out of order and not subject to

debate at all. So I'm stuck.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The determination of whether

or not an amendment was in order would have to be made at the time the

amendment was moved.

MR. BARBER:

Would you agree to this, Mr. Chairman? I shall give you an amendment

with my signature in 30 seconds, and if you promise to take at least

four minutes to consider it, I shall be done and then sit down You may

rule it out of order and the case shall have been made in a fair way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not appropriate, hon.

member.

MR. BARBER:

Well, all right. I'll try again in another direction. Would the

minister be willing to delay passage of

section 3 today in order that

at some speedy time in the near future the government could come back

to us with a more perfect

section 3, which would include those people

who are at the moment in the second class of 99-year leaseholders, and

who didn't buy until after January 1, 1978? Would the minister agree to

delay this

section of the bill today until some future date so that a

more perfect amendment can come back? That's my question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, that's not before us now. The matter of whether leasing

is considered home ownership or similar to home ownership hasn't been

before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps when the member has

a moment he might read

section 19 of our standing orders to save the

Chair the opportunity of reading it. If the first member for Victoria

has a question, please continue.

MR. BARBER: My

question is: why not? You could delay it a day. You could draft it on

the weekend, bring it back on Monday, and we'd support it. That's not

unreasonable. Oh, I see — enforcing orders.

Well, what would

you do if you were me, Mr. Chairman? You want to make a case for your

constituents, but the bill doesn't allow you directly....

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd resign.

MR. BARBER: Resign?

HON. MR. MAIR: Certainly. If I were you I

would.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

There is ample opportunity during the budget speech and the throne

speech debate when all types of debate are in order in this House.

However, during the committee stage of a bill, especially a two-line

section of a bill, I have some difficulty in allowing the latitude that

the member would like to have to discuss whatever subject is available.

You will appreciate the position of the Chair. If I allow unlimited

latitude to you, I must extend that same privilege to other members of

the House. I am charged to enforce the rules of the House and see that

the debate continues in an orderly fashion.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder then if I could ask any member of the executive council, any

one of whom is entitled to speak on this matter, if they feel it is

justifiable to exclude from this defective

section 3 — now this is

surely in order — those second-class citizens who were unfortunate

enough to buy a 99-year lease after January 1, 1978. Is there anyone

over there who finds that discrimination defensible? If so, will you

stand up and defend it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again,

hon. member, I must caution you. It's not up to members to determine

what is in order and what is not in order. That determination is left

up to the Chair. You make assumptions that things are surely in order

when they are not surely in order.

MR. BARBER: A final question. Will you

entertain any amendments whatsoever to

section 3 as we have it in front

of us?

[ Page 605 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

MR. BARBER: I don't think the government

heard my question. Will they entertain any amendments whatsoever to

section 3?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no, Mr.

Chairman.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1979,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(continued)

On vote 62: minister's office, $119,071 — continued.

MS. SANFORD: I have some concerns regarding

the Open Learning Institute that the minister made reference to the

other day.

seems to me that what has happened is that we've had a premature

setting-up of an entirely new bureaucracy with respect to the Open

Learning Institute. I hope that I will be able to express my concerns

about this and have the minister respond to the concerns that I raise

about the Open Learning Institute as it now exists.

The

minister indicated to us that some four courses or more — maybe it's

about seven courses — will be available this fall through the Open

Learning Institute. By January of next year the number of courses will

be expanded and then by September, a year from now, the Open Learning

Institute will be in full operation.

I think it is premature

that he set up the Open Learning Institute which this year, I

understand, is going to cost the taxpayers some $3.5 million. He has

indicated to us that the expense of using commercial satellites is

going to be too high to provide programming through television. He has

also mentioned that he is now interested in approaching the other four

western provinces, at least, in order to discuss the possibility of

coming up with some $50 million for an educational satellite.

What

happened was that the minister, right off the top of his head a year or

two ago, announced the Open Learning Institute without consulting any

of the universities involved and without consulting anyone, as far as I

can determine. It was an idea that came to the minister. He made the

announcement and now he's discovered that his concept of the Open

Learning Institute is going to be far too expensive.

He's

not going to be able to deliver the way that he had hoped to. As a

result, he is now hoping that sometime in the future, $50 million can

be found in order to come up with a satellite that will provide

programming through television for his original concept of the Open

Learning Institute.

I think there are great possibilities in

terms of improvement of educational opportunities for people in this

province through a satellite, but that's obviously some time down the

road. In the meantime, we have an Open Learning Institute which this

year will be spending $3.5 million. I'm not sure that $3.5 million

needs to be spent at this time. Perhaps I can indicate to you why I

feel that way, Mr. Chairman.

Through BCIT there will be

courses sent out by satellite this fall to various community colleges

in the province. But the Open Learning Institute does not involve the

use of television, Mr. Chairman. The federal government, for the period

of one year, has made space available for BCIT to use the Anik B for

that programming. But the Open Learning Institute is not going to be

using television to make courses available to the people of British

Columbia. The Open Learning Institute is making what is basically a

correspondence course available to people throughout the various parts

of British Columbia.

In addition to the basic correspondence

course and the materials that are associated with such a course, such

as articles from periodicals, textbooks, whatever, they will have a few

additional things. They will have access by phone on a private line to

a tutor who is probably located in the lower mainland. In addition to

that, they will have cassettes which will be sent out and which the

student can play, if and when he or she needs that particular

information for the course. I am told that on rare occasions, and only

when essential, will any video material be sent out to students of the

Open Learning Institute.

So what do we have? We have a basic

correspondence type course that is available to students who are

enrolling in the Open Learning Institute. For 50 years, Mr. Chairman,

we have had in this province a distance learning institute in the form

of a correspondence school which has been operating very well. Last

year they had some 13,000 students enrolled and their total budget was

$1.5 million.

I know that the correspondence courses which

have been available are designed for kindergarten to grade 12, but some

of the Open Learning Institute courses are in that secondary level as

well. Why could not the present correspondence branch have been

expanded to include the use of cassettes, and to include a phone system

so that students throughout the province could phone a tutor, probably

here in Victoria or perhaps in the lower mainland? Why couldn't the

correspondence branch have been expanded to involve secondary education

and post-secondary education, just as the Open Learning Institute is

doing now?

We are spending $3.5 million in addition to the

$1.5 million already being spent through the correspondence branch of

the Ministry of Education. Why could we not have expanded that

particular course to include the kinds of things that the Open Learning

Institute will be offering this fall and again in the spring and next

year when, it is hoped, it will be in full operation? I don't see that

the Open Learning Institute at this stage is very much more than

correspondence materials being made available to students, plus the use

of cassettes and a tutor who can be at the end of a phone in order to

answer questions.

[ Page 606 ]

couple of years ago the minister made a very hasty announcement without

any consultation. The only thing he'd read about was the Open

University in Britain, and he felt that would be a good thing for

British Columbia. But it's obviously too expensive for British Columbia

unless we have the kind of satellites which is also obviously some

years down the road. The minister has not yet even approached the other

provinces to determine whether or not a $50 million satellite can be

established. I wonder if the minister would be willing to make some

comments on that.

I have a couple of other things I would

like to raise. I understand there have been studies going on within the

ministry with respect to the possibility of establishing larger school

districts. Instead of the number of school districts that are now in

existence, I think the ministry is looking at a much smaller number of

districts, which means, of course, much larger districts. I'm wondering

if that study is in fact going on or has taken place. Would the

minister be willing to comment on that possibility? If, in fact, that

is what the minister is considering, obviously we're going to have less

local decision-making that we've had in the past. This minister is not

noted for looking with approval on local decision-making.

The

other day I raised a question regarding the minister's former executive

assistant, Jim Bennett. I asked some questions with respect to the kind

of consulting work he will be doing, and whether he will be an

order-in-council appointment or whether he will be working on a regular

basis. I also asked what kind of expertise Jim Bennett has in order to

do the kind of consulting work that the Minister of Education indicated

he wants his former executive assistant to undertake.

In the

throne speech on March 22 the Lieutenant Governor told us: "My Minister

of Education, Science and Technology will double the value of grade 12

scholarships to encourage excellence in academic effort." I've not seen

in the minister's budget this year where this doubling takes place.

Does that mean that there will be only half the number of students who

will be receiving double the amounts? What does it mean? I've not been

able to find it in the budget. Perhaps the minister could answer that

question.

I have another question relating to another

statement the Lieutenant-Governor made in the throne speech. He

indicated that the Minister of Education, Science and Technology will

also advance a program for sports bursaries in our universities, in

order to promote excellence in physical achievement in competitive

fields. Could the minister give us some information with respect to

that?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER:

In answering the questions of the member, I have to say I think she

needs to distinguish clearly between programs of distance learning, as

they have been developed around the world, and the entirely new concept

of beaming programs two ways through interactive teaching by satellite.

Distance learning involves the application of entirely new skills of

delivery, many of which she described,

whereas the other merely

involves taking a lecture as it would be given in any educational

institution and delivering that lecture into the home or to a studio

where the people who are in the studio are in effect members of the

class. The satellite program is going to be done by BCIT, not by the

Open Learning Institute. The people who will be members of that class

will actually be in five of our colleges.

The potential for

this kind of thing in western Canada is enormous. This kind of

interactive teaching has been well developed through closed television

networks in parts of the United States. One is the TAGER system in

Dallas, which I've seen. There you've got some 14 institutions and a

number of industrial firms participating in what is a regular college

program. You pick up something that looks like the TV Guide . It is the

programming in that inter-institutional network of a given week.

That's

different from an open learning institute. Believe me, this was nothing

that either I or the Ministry of Education went into hastily. It was as

carefully thought out and prepared as anything we have undertaken in

the ministry. The fact that it was not received with open arms by the

educational establishment in British Columbia did not surprise me or

the people in the ministry who were planning this. Resistance to this

type of education is universal throughout the world. The Open

University in Britain commenced with the hearty hopes of the

educational establishment in Great Britain that it would fail. There

has been tremendous resistance by the traditional institutions to

something which is perceived as competition. It was inevitable we would

face that kind of resistance in British Columbia. This concept could

not have been introduced without the resistance of the traditional

institutions.

I make no apologies whatsoever and I say,

without hesitation, this will prove to be educational democracy at its

best. Without any handicap of age, financial circumstance, previous

academic achievement, geographic location, people will have the

opportunity to participate in a full range of educational programs

right up to the baccalaureate level through the Open Learning Institute.

educational terms, it's the greatest bargain we have in British

Columbia. In your estimate books you will see some $432 million set

aside for colleges and universities of the traditional type. Here, for

this great new venture, we set aside less than 1 percent of that. Yet

it will reach a whole population who now find the post-secondary

system, through no fault of their own, closed to them.

would think people from the non-metropolitan areas of British Columbia

would be particularly pleased and keen to praise the work done by that

Open Learning staff to put these programs into effect.

People

in the remote parts of British Columbia, those who have so far been

disadvantaged by the system, will be the principal beneficiaries. It

isn't there to serve our traditional academic institutions. Members

have to keep in mind how very hard it is to take tax dollars at the

government level and pass those dollars through to the students for

whom the dollars are intended, and who will be the beneficiaries.

Institutions become the intermediaries along the way. Therefore those

institutions capable of serving students in a completely different

fashion are the ones that deserve special encouragement from the

Legislative Assembly.

You may ask why this needs to be done

through an institute, and why it can't be done through our

correspondence course system. For the very same reason, Mr. Chairman,

that you don't make a high school into a university. The correspondence

division of the Ministry of Education has done a superb job in

preparing correspondence material for people up through the grade 12

level. The

[ Page 607 ]

Open Learning Institute starts where

the correspondence division leaves off.

must say that British Columbia has probably done the best job in the

world in preparing and delivering a correspondence system. We serve

people from many different nations, in many different parts of the

world, through our correspondence program. But its termination is at

grade 12. What we're doing at the present time is preparing programs,

using modern techniques that will go right up through to baccalaureate

level.

The member had a question with respect to school

districts. Now what we've said with respect to school districts that

are very small — where you would have fewer pupils in a whole school

district than you would have in an average-sized high school in the

metropolitan areas — is that we don't want them to have a full-time

superintendent, a full-time secretary-treasurer and all of the

administrative trappings that go with the larger districts. But at the

present time we have no policy to reduce the number of districts. If

such a thing ever were to come to pass then there would be a 'policy

announcement by government on that subject.

At the present

time, all we are saying is: for heaven's sake, keep the administrative

expenditures in any given school district within commonsense bounds.

For a very small school district we see no reason why there needs to be

a full-time superintendent.

The member asked about my former

executive assistant, Mr. Jim Bennett. Mr. Jim Bennett, to my regret,

has left the government service and has opened a store called "The Good

Stuff Games Store" in Bastion Square in Victoria. If you write that

down, it's for adult games, it's in Bastion Square, it has very good

stock, and this is a free commercial.

Mr. Chairman, I want

to say that Mr. Bennett has no contract with the Ministry of Education,

Science and Technology, has done no consulting work for the ministry

and therefore has not received any money. I don't know the origin of

the member's question, but I do say this: we had someone who worked

many long hours on behalf of government and the people of British

Columbia. You say: "What were his qualifications?" He handled problems

for the ministry right up to the deputy minister level.

MS. SANFORD: That's not what I said.

HON. MR. McGEER:

You have no idea, Madam Member, of the mess that the government

inherited in 1975 or the job that we had to undertake with the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the Ministry of

Education, which lacked standards, which lacked organization and which

left enough work for a staff of ten people. In fact, that executive

assistant, Mr. Chairman, replaced three people in the office of the

Ministry of Education, and I don't know how many to help that member

over there handle ICBC. Yes, it was 16 and 18 hours of work a day, and

nobody who has to carry that kind of load for government can do it

without having the kind of experience that would make him a very

desirable consultant in future years, if only, Madam Member, to keep

future governments out of the kind of troubles you left this government

when it came to office.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I

wanted to follow up on just a few of the comments made by the minister.

First of all, with relation to the executive assistant, at no time did

I ever question his qualifications to be an executive assistant to the

minister. As a matter of fact, what I said was that there are often

executive assistants who are appointed to a minister, and who have no

particular expertise in the provincial governmental ministry in which

they are employed. But, Mr. Chairman, if they're going to be used as

consultants within a ministry, then it seems to me they should have

some particular expertise in whatever capacity they might be employed

as a consultant to the ministry.

Now I was under the

distinct impression that Jim Bennett was going to be employed from time

to time, or perhaps by order-in-council, by contract, or in some way to

do contract consulting work for the Ministry of Education, Science and

Technology. My question to the minister was: what qualifications does

Jim Bennett have to do that kind of consulting work? The minister did

not answer that. Now that he has said he has not been employed yet, I'm

wondering if I might ask the minister whether or not the minister

intends to employ Jim Bennett at this stage in some capacity.

I'm not through yet, Mr. Minister.

The

other question that I raised related to the scholarships, and I think

he just omitted to answer that particular question. Maybe he will next

time he is on his feet.

The other comment that I wanted to

make relates to the Open Learning Institute again. Now I am sure that

the concept the minister has in mind of the Open Learning Institute

eventually is to program courses through a satellite, if that is

possible. That is his ultimate objective in terms of the Open Learning

Institute, if that is possible. Now he's separating here the Open

University concept and tying that in with a $50 million satellite which

he talked about the other day.

Mr. Chairman, there is

duplication here. The minister indicated that the correspondence

school, which is operated through the Ministry of Education, could not

handle the work that is being done by the Open Learning Institute

because of the fact that they had been geared toward elementary and

secondary courses, not post-secondary. But there is no reason on earth

why that couldn't have been expanded to include post-secondary courses.

He indicated himself that they've done an excellent job over the years.

They're not a school, such as a high school, as he tried to indicate.

They are different; they are a branch. They have a lot of very

experienced people, and it seems to me the minister could very easily

have asked this particular branch to carry out the work that the Open

Learning Institute is now doing so there wouldn't be duplication. I

already indicated that there was duplication because the Open Learning

Institute is offering some courses which are, in fact, at the secondary

level. So there is duplication there already.

The other

duplication which exists, Mr. Chairman, is with the North Island

College, which is conducting courses in much the same way as the Open

Learning Institute is going to be doing. I feel that money could have

been saved if the minister utilized the existing correspondence school

and expanded that to include cassettes and tutors and phones, and

whatever else the Open Learning Institute has. We could have avoided

duplication and saved taxpayers' money.

HON. MR. McGEER: Coming back to what the

qualifications of Jim Bennett would be to do consulting

[ Page 608 ]

work,

I could only say that they would be unique and very rare

qualifications. Because here is somebody who spent three and a half

years in the minister's office being given virtually every problem that

could come across the minister's desk, and he had the particularly

unique experience — and this is what is so unusual and valuable — of

being in the office at the time we took over the government from the

NDP. He had to help to take over the straightening out of the enormous

mess that was left behind. It is this invaluable experience in dealing

with an Education ministry that was in chaos that would make him such a

valuable consultant. Therefore I think he is a young man of not only

extraordinary ability but incomparable experience to be a consultant.

He could certainly identify all kinds of problems that careless

government could get into, and therefore would be extremely valuable.

Therefore I have no hesitation in recommending him as a consultant to a

Ministry of Education anywhere, particularly if the situation had been

allowed to deteriorate the way it did under the NDP.

With

respect to scholarships and sports bursaries, there has been, as you

probably know, Madam Member, some surplus in the vote in previous

years. But it may be that this year we'll be short of money, in which

case we'll have to go and ask for a special warrant to make up any of

the shortfall. But I want to assure the members that it is our

intention to give both the scholarships and the sports bursaries to all

qualified people, and if this vote turns out to be a little shy, then

certainly I will recommend to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council that

the vote be supplemented so that the young people can be looked after.

may be that this year, with an increase in fees coming at two of our

institutions — and maybe the third — there will be more pressure on the

student aid part of the vote than there has been in the past. So it may

be that some supplementation is required there. The intention, by the

way, with the sports bursaries is that we take our most able athletes,

who for so many years have gone to the United States to receive their

education, simply because sports scholarships have been available to

them across the line but not in Canada, and try to keep them here in

British Columbia. That is the intention. This is really just on a pilot

basis and we'll have to see how the program develops whether it's a

good one or....

MS. SANFORD: Is there money there now for

that for this year?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Well, we hope there will be, but again, if there isn't I'll be asking

for a special warrant. We won't turn able people down for lack of funds.

come back again, Mr. Chairman, to the satellite question, I think

people need to appreciate that what makes an open learning institute so

different from a traditional stand-up lecture type of educational

institution is that people have got to do much of the learning on their

own. Therefore you cannot take the standard sorts of textbooks that

form the basis of a lecture and just assign them to a student and have

that student succeed in picking up the material on their own, even when

it is supplemented with cassettes and with tutoring. What you have to

do to prepare a course so that it can be successfully mastered by

people learning on their own is essentially to rewrite it completely.

Therefore teams of the most able academics and other educators have to

be brought to work for the Open Learning Institute, usually on contract

basis. The types of programs they put together can then be transmitted

by this much more difficult educational mode.

You simply

cannot take people whose knowledge lies in the field of secondary

education and expect them to write university programs. They just don't

have the academic background to do it. Of those professors who've got

the knowledge for these upper-level programs, only a small percentage

of them have the necessary talent to write the sorts of learning

materials that will be successful. So far this is where the

overwhelming majority of effort as gone into open learning institutes

of various kinds. We've purchased a great many materials from the Open

University in Great Britain, which is valuable to us not just for

unmodified materials and using them without the necessity of

duplication. In some cases they have to be adapted to be able to use

the techniques that they have pioneered with standard textbook-type

materials. They are put into a form that can be successfully

transmitted by this new technique, so it's a much more difficult thing.

That's

the preparation part. The delivery is the subject of a long debate, and

I don't want to take up a great deal of time. But the delivery has to

be tailor-made to the particular area. Up in North Island there is a

different problem than in other parts of British Columbia, like the

Okanagan. We're very proud of what they've done in North Island.

There's a fine principal and board there and they've really done a

superb job. I'd like to take this opportunity to compliment them

publicly on what they've done.

MR. STUPICH: In spite

of the inflammatory, partisan political remarks of the minister, I'd

like to say a word about Jim Bennett myself. I had occasion to consult

him on several problems on behalf of constituents, and I always found

him very helpful. I think it says a great deal for him that he was able

to put up with the insufferable ego of the man who occupied the

minister's chair for three and a half years. Perhaps it even says more

for him that he left that office as soon as he realized that minister

would be there for another term.

I have a couple of

questions about things that affect my riding. There's been a

considerable amount of correspondence between the minister and in Mrs.

Joan Jakes about her "Steps to Maturity" program that has been offered

in Nanaimo. It was under suspension for a while, but they've since

found the money to keep it going. In one of the most recent letters

from the minister, he refers to a report on counselling and guidance

services presently being prepared for the ministry. I think the

possibility of any future support from the ministry for this kind of

program depends in part on this report. I'm wondering just how long

this report has been ongoing — or how long they've been working on this

report? When might we expect to have that report produced, and, of

course, will we see that report?

There has been a

long-standing boundary dispute between Nanaimo and Qualicum school

districts. The two school districts have agreed on a new boundary. I'm

not sure whether the minister has had this brought to his attention

yet, but I'm wondering about the next step in the procedure. Is it

likely, now that the two districts have agreed, that there will be

fairly quick agreement reached in the minister's office and the new

boundary might come into

[ Page 609 ]

effect? I'm wondering just how long

that takes and how likely it is to happen fairly automatically.

MR. LAUK , . This is the first time in this

session that I have been able to stand and speak. When I came into the

chamber today, one of the members said: "Well, I see they haven't found

a cure for you yet." After hearing some of the remarks of the hon. —

and I've been waiting since 1963 to say this — second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), I think it's absolutely clear

that the cure for what ails me is a change in government, particularly

a change in the Ministry of Education.

For

any minister to stand in his place and answer even in ordinary

questions in committee that he found the Ministry of Education at any

time — and that means his ministry, Mr. Chairman — without standards

and in complete disorganization is unfortunate. I know he made the

statement to make little debating points in the chamber, because he

fancies himself a wit. My colleague says he's "half right." But he

fancies himself a wit. From time to time — at the expense of accuracy —

he'll make a little joke. It's also at the expense of the morale of

very dedicated public servants who have had years and years of

commitment to public education in this province.

I would not

even mention it if it were the first time. But it is a consistent

pattern with this minister to travel the length and breadth of the

province of British Columbia and undermine the morale of the public

education system, not only by attacking teachers and school boards, but

by attacking the Ministry of Education over which he has had mastery

for three and a half to four years. In three and a half to four years

he still makes suggestions that the ministry he has supervised has no

standards, and is disorganized.

I wish to raise two points

with respect to education, Mr. Chairman, and I realize the subject

matter of Margaret Caldwell was debated last week. But my reading of

the Blues indicates one point still needs to be made. There are two

suggestions, major aspects, to this case of Margaret Caldwell. The one

thing I found when the decision came down on Friday, and from the

information and discussions I've had with ordinary citizens over the

weekend, was that the subject does raise a serious problem that every

member of this chamber has a responsibility to apply himself to: it is

a division in society along sectarian lines. It's unfortunate that we,

as representatives of the public, from time to time have to deal with

questions involving sectarian division within society. It's

nevertheless there, and we're charged with the heavy responsibility not

to inflame it and not to take critical advantage of the situation. As

the decision in the case itself points out, under certain circumstances

discrimination with respect to employment qualification may be

permissible under our legislation. This leads me to the second aspect

of the Caldwell decision.

They use the extreme example of

there being an employment qualification, that ministers of the Anglican

religion be Anglican and that those who apply for the priesthood in the

Roman Catholic Church be Roman Catholic. From that position the board

made a serious and wrong decision. It was wrong in policy for the good

of the community. And it was wrong at law. The distinguished chairman,

who's well known to me as a very adequate lawyer, has placed the

decisions made by courts across this country on separate school and

religious questions into what I would call a procrustean bed, and

forced out of it a principle and a decision that is totally

unreflective of the decisions of the courts of this land. I wonder why.

Mr. Hebenton can read a decision as well as any other lawyer in the

city. The decisions he cited to support his ruling do not in any way

support the conclusion of the decision of the board. A typing teacher

in high school is what we're talking about. To preclude her from

employment because it's a legitimate employment qualification for a

Catholic school.... If I were sitting on that board I would ask for

evidence of how her marrying a divorced person could affect the

catholicism and the philosophical integrity and the religious integrity

of that school and its students.

I happen to have gone to

school in the Catholic school parochial system. It's not bad, I don't

have any resentments, and I appreciate the experiences I've had in that

system. But as a former student I resent very much the authority of

that school, or any other, making the unchristian judgment that the

individual decisions made by a Christian person will preclude her from

her employment, as she is, as is admitted by all, a perfectly adequate

and, indeed, over-average teacher in that school system. That is

reprehensible to me. It is anathema to what I was taught in that

parochial school system. It is an unfortunate position taken by the

archdiocese. Nevertheless, if the decision were based upon the law, I

would support it reluctantly; but I argue that it is not. I charge the

Minister of Labour with the responsibility to quickly find counsel who

will take the appeal and review this situation.

Furthermore,

had this side of the House had any indication that this kind of thing

would take place in the education system, there would have been a much

clearer public forum, not only in this chamber but in extra

parliamentary debate, with respect to the funding of independent

schools. No member of this House can in any way give sanction to this

kind of discrimination. However, I do not think that at this stage —

and I may depart at least in principle from some others on this point —

we can connect funding of independent schools with problems of

discrimination. Certainly it is in keeping with honesty and fairness to

deal with them as separate questions.

Margaret Caldwell has

been described in the uncontradicted evidence as an above-average

teacher. Margaret Caldwell describes herself as committed to the

Catholic philosophy. There is no evidence whatsoever of any other

"defect" in her approach or her personality or anything else. There is

no evidence that the fact of her marrying a divorced person would have

any negative effect upon the students of the school. When you start

calling upon society to give the stamp of approval to that kind of

discrimination as an employment qualification, surely the onus is upon

you to bring forth evidence in keeping with the philosophy of the

school that would clearly indicate it would have a negative effect on

the students.

As the member for Vancouver Centre, I demand

that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) immediately appeal this

decision, because it will lead to far-reaching negative effects on

society if it is not appealed.

I hasten to qualify my

remarks in this regard. In Catholic or other schools with religious

philosophies there are situations where it must be open to their

authorities to give preference to Catholics or whomever, because the

basis of the private school is to espouse and to propagate the

philosophy it holds. It is certainly open to the authority to seek out

and give preference in employment to people of

[ Page 610 ]

that

faith. It is open to those private-school boards to reject or dismiss

any teacher on evidence and for cause, on the grounds of a complete

anti-Catholic view expressed in the classroom. It would be anathema to

expect the authority of the Catholic school system to have a teacher

preaching atheism in a Catholic school — or a Protestant school or

whatever. That's the point. However, that situation is not even

remotely referred to in the decision involving Margaret Caldwell. This

is clearly a decision that has worked a great hardship on a good school

teacher and a good citizen. It is based upon the narrowest view of a

very great philosophy.

The second point I wish to make is

that affecting the question of health services to independent schools,

particularly in the school district of Vancouver — it may affect

others. This is a matter that has surfaced from time to time and has

recently been called into question. It disturbs me because it affects

the same kinds of principles of decency that I just spoke of with

respect to Mrs. Caldwell.

The principle of decency is that

the various levels of government, and indeed the various departments of

government that fight with one another about jurisdiction, during the

course of that fight have caused or may cause hardship to innocent

people who are enrolled in private or independent schools. I'm reading

from a committee report, Mr. Chairman, of the Vancouver School Board.

The minutes are of the committee meeting on Tuesday last.

"D.

Lupini, superintendent of schools, reported that it appears that the

origin of the provision of health services to independent schools dates

back to an informal arrangement in the 1950s between metropolitan

health services and the school board, and that he and other officials

had met with Dr. McLean to discuss the nature and cost of health

services provided, and the legal position of the Vancouver School Board

providing services to independent schools had been questioned. J.

Robertson, head of business administration, reported that he had

contacted the board's solicitor, who advised there is no authority

either under the Public Schools Act, the Independent Schools Support

Act or the Health Act which would permit the school board to fund any

health services to independent schools, and referred to the provision

section 249(

b) of the Public Schools Act, which provides for a

substantial penalty to be levied on the board or individuals approving

an unauthorized expenditure."

Now the school board is placed

in a very untenable position. They have been advised by counsel that

they are breaking the law, and since the 1950s, the school board —

meaning the homeowner of Vancouver — is paying for the health care of

students in the independent school system. Health care is a provincial

responsibility. From time to time school boards — because of a rather

niggardly attitude on the part of the Ministry of Health from time to

time — have through

Part V of the Public Schools Act increased health

facilities and care to the students within its school district, at the

expense of the homeowner. I'm opposed to that. I think it should be

direct provincial funding, both from the Ministry of Education and from

the Ministry of Health — from the Ministry of Health all health costs,

including nurse care and preventive medicine courses and so on.

Where

it becomes borderline is where there are psychological testing

facilities, hearing-impairment courses and other handicapped courses,

which are health related but may fall more within educational courses.

do hope the minister is listening to this. It's a very important

problem that's currently being discussed in the district. Is the

minister interested at all in the problem? Because what we're facing

here is a dispute between you and the Minister of Health and the school

board. The school board may be providing funds for the independent

schools illegally. Now it may be an important time for the Minister of

Health and the Minister of Education to meet with the Vancouver School

Board and decide the basis of a formula for the cost sharing. I urge

you to take that load off the homeowner and place it where it belongs,

on the provincial government, and that the Ministry of Health and the

Ministry of Education decide at the deputy minister level what costs

should be shared between the ministries. I know the problems of

Treasury Board as well as anyone else and I should tell you that that

is no excuse for allowing these innocent students at independent

schools to go without health care. There's every real danger that's

going to happen soon. There's even a call, because there's provincial

funding now to independent schools, that they should purchase their

health care facilities. I think this is probably a regressive step on

the face of it and on its own.

Apart from any dispute in

this House with respect to aid to independent schools, students and

young people come first. They're not much interested in the debates on

philosophy between both sides of the House with respect to aid to these

schools. Health care is a right of every citizen and it certainly is

the right of the students when they are at school. It's an integral

part of their daily routine at school. They've had it since 1950 and

now there's a danger it will be cut off in that school district. I want

the minister to indicate clearly that he will undertake to resolve the

dispute of jurisdiction in this matter immediately between him and the

Ministry of Health; intercede, as is his duty and responsibility, on

behalf of the students, the young people of my school district.

Those are the two points that I have raised.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'll just reply briefly to some of the questions that were raised. The

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) isn't here but the Steps to Maturity

program which he asked about is one of these locally based programs

which is something clearly within the jurisdiction of the local school

board.

It places the ministry in a difficult position

because there are certain parts of the program, the core curriculum,

that we say must be taught, and other things which we recommend as an

expanded curriculum that should be taught. Then there are the locally

developed courses which entirely fall within the jurisdiction of the

local school district. That Steps to Maturity program is one of these.

So the recourse for the member is at the local level on that one.

can't get into the business of picking up all the locally developed

courses when these are clearly something we placed in their courts, so

to speak.

With respect to the boundary argument with the two

school districts in Nanaimo, as soon as we get letters from the school

districts saying they agree to the reapportionment, we will bring

forward an order-in-council and get that done.

We had quite a discussion on Friday with respect to the

Catholic teacher and the decision of the board of inquiry of

[ Page 611 ]

the

Human Rights Commission. I think the member has put his finger on it

when he says that this is a question that really needs to be dealt with

through the Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Labour rather

than the Ministry of Education. I gave an undertaking to the first

member for Victoria that we would have our inspector examine that

particular school under our jurisdiction under the Independent Schools

Act and have him bring a recommendation to me.

I don't think

the proper course here is to punish all the schools by the minister

arbitrarily disagreeing with the board of inquiry of the Human Rights

Commission and therefore taking away funds from all the students. That

clearly isn't the way to resolve a question of that kind. I think the

member has put his finger on how correctly to resolve that particular

issue.

With respect to the payment of health costs, this is

something which has really been a subject of drift for some years, and

we've got to get at the bottom of what's been going on for a long

period of time. The per capita payments for health costs that are made

by school boards vary from 30 cents to $10, I don't know why there

should be a 33-fold difference, one district from another.

MR. LAUK: Because in Vancouver they pay 96

percent of their own school costs.

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, it isn't quite that simple. But in any event, what we're doing is

that we're going at the whole business of province-wide health services

now, trying to come up with a policy that is even-handed and makes some

sense. But in order to do that, we've got to dig out all the

information. There's a lot of historical material involved in all of

this. It's only because somebody raised the question in the last few

weeks that people even became aware at the ministerial level,

certainly, of what had been the practice for many years. We're

investigating that now and we will be announcing a policy as soon as we

are able to bring it all together. We have a problem and we're

addressing it.

MR. LAUK: What about the current situation

where they might cut off funds?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Well, obviously we're going to look after that somehow or other. I just

don't know what the formula will be, Mr. Chairman, because, again,

we've got to dig into this very deeply. It doesn't just involve the

Vancouver school district; it involves the whole province. Therefore a

new arrangement has to be made that recognizes the realities of health

care funding and educational funding today. One way or another we'll

find an answer. It's just that we're not obviously in a position right

now where we can announce government policy. But that will be taken

care of.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister for

indicating that he is concerned and that he is monitoring the

situation, I thank him for drawing to my attention once again the

historical context in which this problem has arisen. But I am aware of

the historical context. I've been aware that it was a problem at least

as far back as October 1978 when other legal problems with such

expenditures were drawn to the attention of the minister and the

ministry. I'm referring there to recreational programs and other cost

expenditures. It may or may not offend the Public Schools Act.

During

the course of those discussions, the question of health to students and

health care to students was brought to your attention. Now the minister

has permitted this situation to develop in the school district of

Vancouver. I want the assurances for the time being, while you're

sorting out how many elephants can dance on the head of a pin, that the

students going to independent schools will not go without health care

because of an illegality pointed out to the school board and that the

Ministry of Education will intercede on their behalf, as is their

responsibility.

If I could have the commitment from the minister on that, I

will end my dreadnought attack on his estimates.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I can

certainly give an undertaking to do my very level best....

MR. LAUK: That's not good enough.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Maybe the member could help me out later on in the session by taking it

up as well with the Minister of Health. Mr. Chairman, sure we're going

to find an answer to this thing. I just don't know what it's going to

be at the present time. But we'll put whatever meagre resources this

minister has at his disposal, in money and in influence, to bear on

this important problem.

MR. SKELLY: I passed a number

of pieces of correspondence to the minister and his deputy. They

involve an incident which happened in one of the school districts in

the province. I prefer not to mention any names or places, but I would

like to have the minister investigate the specific incident. I would

also like to present this case to the minister as an example of the

problems which seem to develop because school districts are able to

treat children without any reference to the system of civil and legal

rights that have developed in society as a whole. They do this based on

a

section of the regulations under the Public Schools Act which allows

school districts to act in the place of parents as "a kind, firm and

judicious parent."

Let me outline the context of the event

in which this correspondence took place. First of all, a small group of

school students was taken to a sports event outside the district — into

Vancouver — and three teacher-supervisors went along. During the trip

one of the students brought out an intoxicating drug and distributed

the drug to some other students who were along on the trip. Some of

this drug was used by some of the students during the trip and in a

hotel room afterwards in Vancouver. One student decided to get out on

the balcony of the hotel and put her life in danger. Another took the

keys to the van and smashed it up on a city street in Vancouver. As a

result they cut short the trip and the students were taken back to the

district. According to the parents, there was inadequate supervision

because two of the three the teachers left the remaining one alone in

the hotel rooms with all of the students.

When they returned

to the school, some of the students were taken by the principal from

their classes and interrogated in the company of another adult for

periods as long as two hours. Parents were not contacted about the

interrogation or about the offence which was under investigation during

the interrogation, which, as I mentioned, lasted up to two hours for at

least three of these

[ Page 612 ]

students.

In fact, parents were not informed at all until the notices of 20-day

suspensions were handed down to three students. As a result of the long

interrogation, three of the girl students who had not used marijuana,

which was the drug involved, finally admitted to having used it, in

order to terminate the interrogation. Once the interrogation was

finished they went home and told their parents that they had been

pretty well forced to say that they had used the drug because of the

length of the interrogation.

The parents were angry because

three of the students were suspended. One of the students who stayed on

at school was the one who smashed up the van and was also reported to

have used an intoxicating drug; but he received no suspension. His

father is a law enforcement officer in the community. Another of the

children who, it was suggested, had been using the intoxicating drug

was the son of a school administrator. He also received no suspension

and he was not disciplined at all. The parents were angry about this

uneven application of justice, or discipline, and as a result they

complained to the principal. The principal privately admitted to them

that possibly he had overstepped his rights and infringed on the rights

of the girls by interrogating them for such a long period; and he

agreed that possibly they admitted to using the drug because of the

long term of the interrogation; and he privately felt that an apology

was necessary. However, the board then held a special meeting. The

parents attended at one meeting and presented their side of the story.

At a separate meeting, to which the parents were denied access, the

staff members presented their side of the story. As a result the board

upheld the suspension. The board based its decision on the fact that it

had a policy that even if a student involved in an event where people

are using drugs doesn't use the drugs himself, he is liable for a

20-day suspension.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

After

the parents came to me, I suggested that they contact a lawyer, because

it appeared that the rights of these students had been violated. It

appeared to me that they had been confined unlawfully and interrogated

without counsel and without any advice from their parents, lawyers or

whomever, or any opportunity to contact their parents or counsel. It

seemed to me a total abridgment of the civil and legal rights of these

children to be confined and interrogated for two hours, until such time

as they admitted to using a drug which they said they did not use.

The

lawyer wrote to the school board, and the minster has a copy of that

correspondence; and the school board replied to the lawyer in the same

way that they replied to the parents: "This is the school board's

policy. The school board has a right to discipline students under this

section of the regulations, which allows them to stand in the place of

parents, and act as a kind, firm and judicious parent."

What

bothers me is that in the International Year of the Child one of the

things we should be concerned about is that students, because of the

fact that they go to school and are enrolled in a public school, are

deprived of the same civil and legal rights that citizens of the

community at large enjoy. They can be confined for periods of up to two

hours; they can be interrogated by somebody who, in the community,

would have no right to question them at all. They can be questioned in

confinement with no right to discuss the matter with their parents, or

with no right for their parents or their legal counsel to be present.

It seems to me that this creates a separate body of citizens in the

province of British Columbia, a body of citizens that is deprived of

the civil and legal rights that we all enjoy as members of the

community at large.

I would ask the minister if he would

investigate this specific situation. All that the lawyer for the three

girls involved is asking is a private apology in the form of a letter

by the school board, because in the absence of this they will carry

this reputation with them, possibly, for the rest of their lives. I

would like the minister to investigate this specific situation.

The

other aspect, I feel, deserves a more public inquiry — the rights of

children enrolled in public schools. Should the public school system be

able to stand in the place of parents and discipline students in the

place of parents, to the extent that their civil and legal rights are

abrogated and they have different civil and legal rights than members

of the society at large? I think that during this International Year of

the Child there are grounds for a wider public inquiry. It's something

that we should be examining, either as a legislature, a legislative

committee, or a public inquiry established by the minister. So will the

minister investigate the specific incident, and what is his reaction to

the suggestion of a public inquiry?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, I'll certainly give

an undertaking to the member to have our officials look at that

particular situation in Alberni.

the broader context, the responsibility for discipline in schools rests

with the principal. If he is effective as a disciplinarian, the school

runs well and smoothly. If he's not, then the school is in chaos. Every

single person who has attended a school recognizes this, and the

principal stands or falls on his ability to be the disciplinarian, the

firm but friendly figure upon which the whole integrity of the school

system resides. I'm satisfied that that principle is sound, that it

requires no public inquiry, and that indeed that principle deserves our

full support of the principal as an individual.

We're not

going to alter that historic dependence on this individual. That is his

key role. Where he fails, then he is replaced. The member will see that

in the amendments that are placed before the House this year we make

provision for those who are not outstanding to be returned to the

classroom with honour and with their reputation and integrity intact,

to make room for other outstanding teachers in the system to replace

them for a new term. The only recourse under the Public Schools Act

before this was introduced was that the principal be dismissed for

cause. So I think we've got, with these amendments, all of the

protection that the member would hope to achieve through this kind of

public inquiry.

Remember that the Public Schools Act does

not deny parents or students the full protection of the law. What we're

talking of now is the administrative effectiveness of an educational

system. The school board has the responsibility for broad policy within

the district. Therefore they can set down in broad terms what

disciplinary policy would be appropriate if students use alcohol,

drugs, steal the keys to the school station wagon, and so on.

Youngsters are going to test the limits of authority and some are going

to get into trouble as a result of that.

The way the Public Schools Act is set up is that the principal

is the responsible disciplinarian in the first

[ Page 613 ]

instance and the school board then

becomes the appeal board. And, Mr. Member, I can't see anything wrong

with the system per se; it may be in the execution in this particular

instance that there was something incorrect. We can certainly

investigate that possibility, but I don't think we require any inquiry

at all.

Mr.

Chairman, while I'm on my feet although I haven't been asked a question

about this I'd like the Legislature to be aware that Mr. Seth Halton is

in the galleries today. He's our chief individual responsible for Education Today ,

which has won no less than three international, awards as a

publication, the most recent of which was just in the past few days.

Once more Education

Today has won international recognition, largely as a

result of his contribution. I wonder if the members would recognize him.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the fact that the minister will look into

this specific situation that I gave him, but also I would like to point

out to him that that specific situation is only one of many that take

place. Certainly the ideal system of operation of any public

institution — whether it's a prison or a school or a Legislative

Assembly — is that there should be a kind, firm and judicious director

of that institution, whether you call him a warden or a principal or a

Speaker or a Chairman, and theoretically he should, in his kindness,

firmness and judiciousness, maintain discipline in the Legislative

Assembly, prison or school. That's an ideal system, and we in this

chamber should know that the facts don't always conform with the theory.

wonder if the minister is saying that we're going to keep that system

in spite of the fact that abuses have grown up within that system that

do permit for differences in legal and civil rights between people in

the system, simply because they're enrolled in the system, and those

outside the system who have access to the justice system in society as

a whole. The Public Schools Act seems to exempt schools from the same

types of hearing processes, from the same rules of evidence, and from

the same rights to counsel as other citizens in society have. Does the

minister feel that it's correct to deprive students of those various

rights that we have?

Almost every organization — whether

it's a legislature or a prison or a government or a school — has built

up an ombuds-role where, when a student feels his rights have been

overridden by the authorities or by the bureaucracy or by the warden or

whatever, he can then approach an ombudsman who has certain ways of

obtaining redress for that student. Yet in the public school system

there doesn't seem to be that redress. Certainly, as in this case, the

parents, after having received some satisfaction, went to the school

board and then even that minimal satisfaction they received was

overturned and the school board saw its duty as backing up the staff.

In order to keep the staff happy they backed the staff up, because they

have certain rights which the students don't have.

So I feel there is a need for an examination of this whole

question of students' rights within institutions. The question is being

examined in jurisdictions throughout the world, throughout North

America, and in some areas legislation has been brought in defining the

civil rights of students within educational systems. I would certainly

hope that the minister would reverse his decision and take a look at

those other jurisdictions that have examined the rights of students and

enshrined them in some form of legislation.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly undertake to examine what has been

introduced in these other jurisdictions and to inquire about what the

consequences of that type of action has been. We'll see, really, what

other places have in the way of experience before we take a step that,

I must confess, gives me the shivers, as it expands the province of the

lawyers into the school system. I would have thought the member from

over there would have left that kind of proposal to the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

MR. SKELLY: That's why I suggested an

ombudsman.

HON. MR. McGEER: Maybe the ombudsman route

is one to go if people honestly need appeal systems beyond what we've

been talking about here.

Let

me conclude by saying we'll look at what they're doing in the other

jurisdictions. But my own personal belief is that this whole system

rides on the integrity and ability of the principal. Any exercise which

undermines his traditional role in the schools would be

counterproductive for the effectiveness of our school system. I

wouldn't want to make any move that would do that. I would make

provision for replacing those who aren't doing well, but not to

undercut the ability of those who can do a job effectively.

MRS. WALLACE:

I don't really want to get involved in the debate, but when the

minister talks about the integrity of the principal being the key in

the case the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has just raised, I have a

few questions that really bother me. If it is, as that member has said,

that the young person who took the keys to the van and crashed it on

the streets of Vancouver received no suspension, and if it is, as that

member said, that the young person who obtained the intoxicating drug

received no suspension, then either the integrity of the principal is

open to question or something is wrong with the system.

have grave concerns not just for the three girls falsely charged, but

for the fact that in this school system we have apparently allowed two

young people who were very much in the wrong to go scot-free. That's

not teaching them good citizenship.

We have to learn it in

school, if nowhere else; and if we don't we are not going to learn we

must be responsible for our actions in today's society. What that

member has pointed out indicates that the school system, in this

particular instance, didn't fulfil its duties in that line. I have some

concerns about that.

I wanted to talk about some of the

remarks the minister made Friday when he was introducing his estimates.

He talked about the programs he was hoping to introduce for the gifted

youngsters in grades 4, 5 and 12. That's a very good move; I'm happy to

see it happening.

Probably the best way I could put it is

that I hope the minister is prepared to put his money where his mouth

is. When the youngsters at the other end of the learning capability

scale were mainstreamed into the public school system, there was no

funding for that. If he is now going to lay on some increased programs

for the gifted child, then I hope he will not only correct his error in

the first instance and provide extra funding to those school boards to

cope with

[ Page 614 ]

the

children at the lower level, but that he will provide the extra funds

required to provide that enriched program for the gifted child.

my own area, the Cowichan school district, they have had such a

program. They have had it, thanks to the dedication of the teachers. It

has been very difficult to make it a worthwhile program without extra

funding. At the other end of the scale, there have been tremendous

problems with the mainstreaming of the children with learning

disabilities.

Because of geography, in one class we may have

as many as seven children with learning disabilities. Because of the

restrictions on finance, limited funding from the government, and with

no extra funding to provide for this extra load, in one instance we

have a teacher with those children with learning disabilities, and who

has no extra assistance. The result is that the teacher is at the

breaking point, emotionally, trying to cope with the extra workload. In

another instance, a parent who is a taxpayer and a contributor to the

school system has had to take her child out of the school system in the

mornings, hire a private tutor, and then let the child go back in the

afternoon so he has the company and the social contact with children.

Those

kinds of things are a result of the financial restrictions placed on

school boards by this Minister of Education. When he took over, the

mill rate was 26 mills. It is now 41 mills.

In Cowichan,

that means that instead of local taxpayers picking up 55 percent of the

school costs, they are now responsible for 70 percent. On top of that,

the school board is extremely limited in what it can do. It's held to

the 5 percent increase in spite of the fact that salaries — by

arbitration, by adjudication — have resulted in more than that kind of

increase. Not only that, school boards are faced with the almost

insulting situation of having their budgets turned over to municipal

councils and regional boards for their input, when they really lack

knowledge about what has gone into that budget preparation and why the

various amounts are in there. Yet this minister has seen fit to turn

those budgets over to municipal councils.

Mainstreaming is a

credible program, but the thing the minister has failed to recognize is

that it's an expensive program. Likewise, the objective of keeping

children in school for the full 12 years is probably a very credible

idea, but it too is an expensive idea if it's going to be successful.

There have been no extra funds allocated. It's putting school boards

and local taxpayers in a very difficult position. I hope the minister

will be prepared to provide in his estimates this year that extra

amount of money that is required to cope with those problems. When you

keep children in school for 12 years, there are a great many children

in the higher grades who need special programs, if it's going to be

meaningful. Those provisions are not there. They cannot be there,

because the funding is not available.

It's all well and good

to say you have made great strides in education — and probably some of

the ideas have been great — but if there's no money to carry through

those programs, then those strides become nothing less than a matter of

just holding your own in education. The school board chairman in my

area has indicated that's about all they are able to do in the Cowichan

school district. There is no possibility of making the kinds of

advancements they'd like them to make, or the kinds of advancements

that I'm sure this minister would like to make, unless the funding is

available from the provincial government. You can't put any greater

load on the taxpayer. It has already increased from 26 mills to 41

mills, a tremendous increase in four short years. It results in an

awful lot of dollars now being paid by the local taxpayers, far more

than is their fair share. The government was elected in 1975 on a

program of getting that tax reduced.

It's not possible to

carry out the kinds of educational programs that should be carried out

in this province unless this minister is prepared to put up the

dollars. I don't see those extra dollars in the estimates, but I hope

I've just overlooked them and that the minister can assure me that

there will be money to cover the mainstreaming of the children with

learning disabilities, that there will be money for that from the

provincial coffers in the coming year. If he's embarking upon an

enriched program at the 4, 5 and 12 levels, I hope that there will be

extra money to ensure that the school boards can carry out that program.

have a couple of specific questions relative to the local area. In the

Lake Cowichan School District 66, they have two peculiar problems. One

problem is that a great amount of their land is forest and, as a

result, their assessments were drastically reduced. Also, they have a

diminishing school population.

They were granted special

assistance last year. They have written and asked the ministry for

special assistance this year. They have a letter from the minister —

they were good enough to send me a copy — which says that every

consideration would be given in 1979. Can the minister tell me what

special consideration has been given Lake Cowichan in the 1979 budget?

other question is relative to the Cowichan School district, where we

have a fair amount of agricultural land. Earlier this session the

minister did mention the reduction in assessment of some of the school

districts as a result of the 50 percent assessments. Can you tell me

what is the amount of reduction in assessments in the Cowichan school

district?

HON. MR. McGEER: First of all, on the

Alberni question, I've agreed to take a look at this system as it

applies elsewhere. I've agreed to look into the specifics of the case.

The one thing that I don't think we ought to do here is to try and

debate the facts as they are presented; they may be right or wrong.

We're obviously not going to be a very good forum for that kind of

thing. Anyway, we won't let it pass by.

With respect to the

programs in education that we're trying to develop, we give the most

generous special approvals in all of Canada; something like $34 million

of these went out last year. We're not ignoring the bookends, if you

like, in our system; nor will we ignore them in the future. Obviously

it's much better to try and set up your funding from the provincial

treasury on a global basis rather than get into a rat's nest of so many

of this and so much of that. They had a system that was totally

unmanageable in the province of Ontario, as a result of having been led

into the trap of a little bit of this and a little bit of that and a

little bit of the other thing every year, so you had such a complicated

tier system of allocating funds that it just got to be unreasonable and

unmanageable.

Just to look at the overall picture, Mr.

Chairman, I feel obliged to make two observations. First of all, the

amount of money that comes from the provincial level, including the

homeowner grant, is about 60 percent or a shade less of all the money

that goes out to operate our public school

[ Page 615 ]

system.

The amount that is actually raised through property taxes is roughly 40

percent, and that hasn't changed over many years. Oh, it goes up and

down 2 or 3 percent, depending on the individual circumstances of the

budget. This year it is going to be of the order of 60-40 percent or

59-41 percent — something in there — so it hasn't changed a great deal.

What

has changed, Mr. Chairman — and everybody ought to be acutely aware of

this — is the number of teachers in the system relative to the number

of students. There was a tremendous quantum leap during the time the

NDP were in office, where some 6,000 new teachers were added to a

system that was not growing in size. There is a considerable financial

commitment to those people. It amounts to maybe $140 million or $150

million a year, every year, to take care of that particular bolus, if

you like, of new teachers being added to the system.

I think

it reasonable that when you have had that kind of a quantum jump in the

personnel available in the system, you should be able to take care of

gifted youngsters as well as those with learning difficulties, if you

weren't able to take care of them before. Really, it falls within the

province of teachers to be able to teach gifted as well as non-gifted

students, particularly when our classrooms are now so much smaller than

they were even five years ago.

Maybe we've got to think a

little more in terms of the bygone era when teachers were not only

capable of teaching the slow learners as well as the gifted, but they

took it in their stride to teach youngsters in many different grades

all at the same time. We can't have a system that has narrow

specialists that can only teach normal youngsters in an average school

for one course. That's really going a little too far. Therefore we

need, as we bring these programs along, to encourage, I suppose, a

certain degree of versatility in our teachers since the classes

themselves are smaller.

The 1978 mill rate for Lake Cowichan

will be 54.5 mills, and for next year it will be 54.18 mills, so the

school taxes will actually go down there next year.

MR. SMITH:

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the minister for trying to balance

the educational needs with the financial needs in his budget, and for

recognizing the serious situation that we are in with declining school

enrolments but rising educational aspirations and needs.

The

subject, however, that I want to say a few words about this afternoon

may produce a bit of levity because it's not exactly what has been

debated here for the past couple of days. The minister has a later

estimate, vote 70, on metric conversion. With your leave, Mr. Chairman,

I'm going to say a few words under his own estimates, and will not

speak when that specific vote comes.

I would ask the

minister, perhaps, to give some consideration to the metric conversion

program insofar as it affects the province of British Columbia,

particularly when the new federal Minister of Industry, Mr. de Cotret,

has stated this last few weeks that he will review metricization

was less conceived by elected officials and more conceived by

weights-and-measures bureaucrats, and bureaucrats as a whole, than the

metric program.

There was never any mandate given either to

change not just the highway speed limits, not just the readings and

temperature, but also to intrude into the housewife's kitchen and to

intrude into every way in which we measure distance or conduct our

business.

I think it is very important that a new look be

taken at the metric program, particularly now that the Americans are

backing off metricization. The major argument in favour of Canada and

British Columbia going on a metric program was that we did no want to

lose pace with our neighbours to the south; we did not want to be at a

trade disadvantage; we wanted to have standardization of products, and

so on. That does not appear to be the case any more, and the Americans

are having serious second thoughts about a metric program.

Also,

metric conversion is very confusing to the consumer. If you were trying

to discover how much more you were paying for gas, it is pretty

difficult to do so when your gas is being sold to you in litres. Under

a program of metricization, price increases can be introduced to the

detriment of the consumer without his knowledge. Consumer protection

demands a second look at metricization.

What I'm going to

suggest to the minister is that we in British Columbia look at a

program whereby the old measurement designations are given alongside

the metric. I'm going to introduce a "truth-through-metric" bill a

little later in this session which requires anyone in British Columbia

who gives a metric designation to give the original designation, so

that the public, particularly the public of my vintage and older who

are not going to be thoroughly educated and comfortable with metric

conversion — unlike my son, who is quite delighted with it — has a

chance to understand and get the feel of what's happening. I realize

that those in this House, like the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) and the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt),

who are golfers, can make the metric conversion very easily because the

difference between yards and metres is only minimal. It just means that

they're losing a little distance — about 10 yards a drive.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH:

Well, I think the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) is probably

losing a little more distance; but it's not because of metric

conversion.

In the area of the kitchen, however, metric

conversion is totally absurd, in my submission. It also makes no sense

in the measurement and sale of land. Who is going to be grabbed by an

advertisement which says you have .42 hectares for sale instead of an

acre? I really don't think that the public has totally woken up to the

implications of the metric conversion. Metric conversion in

temperatures has had some effect on our tourist trade. I quite

regularly meet Americans on this coast who will say to me: "You know,

your weather has got very bad recently — all these readings down in the

15s and 16s." They still think that we're on the Fahrenheit scale. If

the Americans aren't going metric, there's no good reason for us to

proceed on this mad conversion spate. As a municipal official, I voted

against putting in metric signs in Oak Bay; my council thought I was

mad and disagreed with me. But very seriously, if the old designation

was put alongside or underneath, then everybody would be happy and it

would give us some flexibility if the Americans don't go metric.

[ Page 616 ]

I'm

not asking the minister or the House to turn the clock back; I'm only

urging it to be sure that it tells the right time. I would like to hear

the minister's response on this subject, and maybe he could undertake

to look into the cost and the feasibility of a "truth-through-metric"

approach in which we give the alternate designations.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I'm going to do the awful thing and turn loose Mr. Eugene Gosh, our

chief metric conversion man, on the the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Smith),

to give him a little briefing. You give some people a centimetre and

they'll take a kilometre.

I can tell you that what the

member says is quite correct. One of the things that we had to discover

in all these metric conversions was that there were some agencies of

government slipping in a raise on the expenses that they were going to

get for operating their cars by changing kilometres to miles. So you do

have to watch it. We're definitely for truth in conversion, and we'll

certainly provide the double labels, particularly to help those in the

legal profession.

Our commitment to metrication is not

something where we in British Columbia are marching out of step with

the world. We're only keeping up with the commitments that have been

made nationally. Those commitments were not made to keep up with the

United States. The United States is the foot-dragger of the world. We

made those commitments in Canada because much of our trade goes

elsewhere than to the United States. That's why we now cut 2-by-4s —

they're not 2-by-4s anymore — to the metric system so that we can meet

the markets of the world. It's quite a dilemma; but the national

government really sets the pace and the standard, and the provinces

keep up with that by agreement. We're not trying to set the pace nor

are we going to be the holdouts. We'll do our duty; that's my

responsibility. I'll watch very carefully to catch the metric cheaters

and will undertake to see that we get our double labelling.

MR. PASSARELL:

At the outset I would like to extend a welcome to Dr. Hardwick, whom I

am glad to see in the House today. He is a credit to his profession and

I welcome him to the House.

I would like to direct four

questions to the minister. The first deals with a school board for

Stikine. At the present time we share a superintendent who also acts in

the same capacity as the official trustee. We have six schools in

Stikine, and the residents of the area, mainly native individuals,

would like some input into the education that their children are

receiving. At the present time we average maybe a principal a year in

the six schools. What happens is that often the parents who live in the

area have no feedback to the school; they are almost ignored. I would

like to suggest, if the minister could find something, that we put

aside a very token fee so that six individuals could form some sort of

an advisory committee to the school district in Stikine. I have some

suggestions. Maybe sometime the minister would like to sit down and we

could discuss them.

Another topic I would like to talk about

is the high percentage of native students who leave the public schools

of British Columbia to receive education in the Yukon. At the school I

taught, approximately 30 percent of the students went away to Yukon

Hall up in Whitehorse. If there could be some kind of an arrangement

made where we could keep the students in B.C., I think we would provide

a good service. We did at Good Hope Lake, and I would like to see

something arranged where we can deal with students who have problems in

the Stikine school district and have to be shipped off to Whitehorse so

they can find some type of accommodation when their parents are out on

the trap line during the winter months.

Another comment I

would like to make is the good job that the Nishga school district,

School District 92, has done for the residents of the Nass Valley. As

most of us are aware, they had their first graduating class, and it is

to their credit what the Nishga school district has done concerning the

involvement of the native language into the curriculum of the school.

We tried to do this in Stikine and found out that there weren't any

funds available. I would like to see another token sum set aside so

that the high percentage of native students that we have in Stikine

have the opportunity to learn their own language.

The last

topic I would like to mention is the maintenance that is given to these

schools in Stikine. At the present time we have three men who cover the

vast area of School District 87. If they're going to drive from Cassiar

to Atlin, it is 500 miles, or if they have to go down to Telegraph

Creek, it is another 400 miles. The tools and the supplies the men are

working with are just peanuts. I remember one case this winter when it

was 60 degrees below up in Lower Post and the heat was off at the

school. One of the maintenance men had to get a truck and go up there.

It took a good part of the day to get up there, to find out that the

whole problem was that the breaker switch was off and the heat was off

into the school. That took a man away for a whole day while they had

serious problems at another school.

I would appreciate if

the minister could give me an answer on the playfields for the north. I

know we talked about this previously and we had very positive

statements. The schools up in Stikine have come a long way in the last

few years but they still lack quite a lot of items that are taken for

granted on the mainland — for instance, visual aid equipment. I had a

projector when I first came up to Good Hope Lake years back that had

been broken for three years before I got there. When I tried to contact

the school district to get it fixed they said: "Well, okay, send it

through the mail to the school district, and we'll send it to some

person to fix it down in Fort St. John or somewhere." I received the

projector back two years ago. It was a good 18 months that it was being

fixed. Many of the schools up in Stikine are in poor shape when it

comes to visual aid equipment.

Gymnasiums are another thing.

I know that you can't put gymnasiums into every school, but I think

activity rooms can be used. We have an extra room in Good Hope Lake,

left over from the old school, that is just sitting. I've tried to get

approximately $500 from the school district to turn it into a gymnasium

so that when it's 60 or 70 degrees below outside the children have some

place to do some physical activity.

The last topic I would

like to talk about is television. When we talked about the satellites,

I heard from the previous statements that only two schools in the

Stikine out of the six have television. I would like to see a more

in-depth program in which we could use visual aids and ETV systems to

provide taped programs from the satellite programs for the children in

the Stikine. I'd appreciate the minister's comments.

HON. MR. McGEER: We'd be pleased to set up

an advisory committee for the Stikine. It's a little hard when

[ Page 617 ]

you get six schools covering a quarter

of the province. We'd need to work out a way of getting an effective

committee.

I'd

also be pleased to take a look at the high percentage of native

children of the area who are going up to the Yukon. I don't understand

the reasons for that, but I'd be prepared to discuss it with the member

and see if we can find a way of doing things better. We're very proud

of what's happened with the Nishga school district; that's been a great

success. We believe in the advantages of incorporating native languages

into the school curriculum. What do you say when there are three

maintenance men covering a quarter of British Columbia? I don't know

the answers to that, but when you've got school districts that spread

out, we have to think of unusual ways of doing things. I don't know

whether it would mean contracting out, where possible. But if things

aren't working smoothly, come and see us and we'll see if we can work

out a better arrangement. I can't really be more specific, because each

thing is going to have to be tailored to meet the demand of the moment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEA:

I have what is, from the ministry's standpoint, probably a small item.

But for the community of Oona River — and I'm sure other communities —

it's a large item, and it has to do with

section 20 of the Public

Schools Act. If I understand that

section correctly, for people in

rural areas on correspondence courses money can be paid to either lay

instructors or