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)

FRIDAY, JULY 6, 1979

Morning Sitting

[ Page

581 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Forest Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 581

Tabling Reports

Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development annual report.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 581

Ministry of Economic Development annual report.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 581

Routine Proceedings

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 14). Second reading!.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 581

Mrs. Wallace –– 581

Hon Mr. Hewitt –– 582

Provincial Home-Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 19). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 582

Mr. Skelly –– 583

Mr. Mitchell –– 583

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 583

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology estimates.

On vote 62.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 583

Ms. Sanford –– 587

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 589

Mrs. Dailly –– 590

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 591

Mr. King –– 592

Mr. Barber –– 593

Ms. Sanford –– 594

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 594

Mr. King –– 595

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 595

Mr. Hanson –– 596

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 597

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing orders and Private Bills, first and second reports.

Mr. Mussallem –– 598

FRIDAY, JULY 6, 1979

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I don't have an introduction from the gallery but I do have an

introduction to the members of the House from the agriculture industry

in British Columbia. On your desks you will find a glass of beautiful

cherries, freshly picked and brought to the House in conjunction with

the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, by the two southernmost members of

the Okanagan Valley, the member for Boundary-Similkameen and the member

for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett). I don't know whether cherries

are ready in the North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) yet, but if they are

we'll include the member for North Okanagan. These are beautiful

Okanagan cherries, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I trust,

hon. members, the Fruit Growers Association will appreciate that we

have suspended the normal practice of the House of not having food in

the chamber. I hope they have a keen appreciation of this.

MR. KEMPF:

We don't have any cherries in the north, but certainly we have some

very, very fine people. With us in the gallery today is a former member

of this House, a very fine representative from the northern part of

this province: Mr. Howard Lloyd.

Howard, leaving this

chamber, had an historical connotation. He was the last member for Fort

George to sit in this chamber. As well, in asking the House to make him

very welcome, we must remember, as members of this House, that it took

two members to replace him. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill

22 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.

Hon.

Mr. Phillips tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Tourism and

Small Business Development for the year 1978, and the annual report of

the Ministry of Economic Development for the year 1978.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

MILK INDUSTRY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker,

this bill is the result of a decision made in the Supreme Court of

Canada a few years ago regarding the authority of the federal

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, and it is necessary to bring this

amendment into our Act to allow for the delegation of authority

regarding removal of surplus milk products in the province. As members

will recall, we did the same thing last year with the Natural Products

Marketing Act, and this bill does the same thing with the Milk Industry

Act. You might say it validates something that is being done, but

because of the Supreme Court of Canada decision it is necessary for us

to amend the Act.

You could call it housekeeping. However,

it does correct something that could result in a serious problem if the

Act weren't amended. It also validates collection of levies already

made by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. In that respect, the Act is

necessary in order that there be no call on the agency as a result of

the Supreme Court decision.

With those comments, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister has indicated this is more or less a housekeeping matter.

I agree with that, but I have a couple of questions. Why are we having

this bill introduced now? That is the same judgment that affected

vegetables and other products that was corrected last year. It's rather

strange there has been a whole year's delay, when we were in

contravention of the law as a result of that Supreme Court of Canada

finding.

I'm surprised it has been left this long and that

it wasn't brought in last year when a similar amendment was brought in

to the Natural Products Marketing Act. I assumed at the time that

perhaps the reason it wasn't brought in — I didn't really think it was

an oversight on the minister's part; I thought he was aware we also had

a Milk Board, as well as those under the Natural Products Marketing Act

— was because of the problems with the milk surplus quota, which is

really what this Act is all about.

When the milk surplus

quota was established to create marketing control — and I'm not opposed

to that — B.C. got the short end of the stick. We in B.C. had kept our

house in order. We had produced a reasonable amount of milk. The

figures are evidence of the point I'm making. When that milk surplus

quota was established B.C. got about 3 percent of the total, yet we

have 11 percent of the population. Ontario, with 37 percent of the

population, got 31 percent of the quota; Quebec, with 27 percent of the

population, got nearly 48 percent of the quota. That's a very unfair

distribution of that quota.

The result has been that farmers

in British Columbia have been forced to buy Class 1 milk quota; this

has forced the price up. The result has been a penalty applied to our

farmers, which has meant that our milk processing plants can barely get

enough milk. Plants of milk powder production, cheese and butter are

operating at very low capacity.

I had hoped the reason for

the delay in introducing this bill was because the minister was going

to use the requirement for this bill as a lever to increase our surplus

quota in British Columbia. I'm a little disappointed to find

[ Page 582 ]

the bill coming in with no related announcement that this has been accomplished.

Now,

a year later, in contravention of the finding of the Supreme Court of

Canada, we've failed to bring in legislation which could just as well

have been brought in last session. Evidently there's been no effort

made to increase the B.C. share of the milk surplus quota before

introducing this legislation. I'm very disappointed in that. I would

like the minister to comment on that.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The member for Cowichan-Malahat is quite correct. The bill before you

now is before you for the very same reason as the Natural Products

Marketing Act was changed with regard to eggs. The last one, if she

recalls, was brought in late last year in the House. Then the ministry

looked at this bill. It wasn't brought forward, but it was to be

brought forward in the next sitting of the House and, of course, we're

dealing with it at this time. There has been no action against us. The

industry, of course, is quite receptive to the system that is in place

and has been in place for a number of years. Again, that's why it's

more or less just housekeeping as opposed to doing something to avoid

an action. We have cooperation with the industry and they're very

supportive of the bill.

The MSQ is probably a little outside

the scope of this bill, but I would like to comment on it. MSQ is the

milk surplus quota. The member mentions that we kept our house in

order, and I agree, Madam Member; the milk industry in this province is

second to none in Canada. It's because of that fact that we are a

little concerned, because we have 11 percent of the population and

approximately 3 percent of the surplus milk quota. I should say first

of all what that does, for the benefit of the members. It affects our

milk processing industry, and that's one of the concerns that we've

expressed to the federal Minister of Agriculture and on occasion to the

Canadian Dairy Commission, and we will continue to have those

discussions. I intend to bring the matter forward again when I meet

with the federal minister later on this month.

But the

interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is the MSQ. The milk surplus quota

system was brought into being in October 1973 and I would have thought

that the administration of that day would have been a little more vocal

so that we would have had a better deal for the milk industry of this

province. As opposed to having to change something, we should have

fought a little harder at that time.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

14, Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

HON. MR. GARDOM:

He was here a moment ago. He certainly surprised me there. Well, Mr.

Speaker, this is a very interesting bill. It is Bill 19, and it is

entitled....

MR. SPEAKER: May I recognize the hon. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it has just come to my attention....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I hear a point of order. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly).

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs I was

the first member on my feet, and I'd be more than willing to move the

bill. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: Facetious, I'm sure.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, it has just come to my attention that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs has entered the chamber and I'd like all members on

each side of the House to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Provincial Home-owner Grant

Amendment Act. I think all British Columbians are very proud of this

particular program, which was introduced some years ago, and which has

been of tremendous benefit, particularly to our seniors and those who

are handicapped, in alleviating the burden of property tax to a great

degree. We have seen considerable change over the years, in that it

started out back in 1957 at $28 per homeowner, and we've seen it

increase over the years. I'm very proud to say that over the last four

years we've seen some hefty increases applying to not only all

homeowners but especially seniors and the handicapped. The category of

handicapped was added several years back, and we felt there should be

some special recognition of their particular needs.

In 1975

the homeowner grant stood at about $280, with a provision for those in

a given income bracket to receive an additional $50 of credit or

benefit, to a maximum of $330 for those 65 years of age and over. We've

seen increases in the interim, and we are now very proud to present, in

this particular bill, an increase of $100 for all residents, making a

total of $380 off their taxes to go, first, to the educational tax, and

$580 for those in receipt of the handicapped allowance or who are 65

years of age and over.

It certainly goes a long way toward

alleviating to a very large degree the property tax burden for a lot of

British Columbians. Not only does it benefit most people over 65 years

of age and those in receipt of handicapped benefits — not only does it

take care of much, if not all, of the school taxes — but it goes a long

way to reducing, if not completely eliminating, the municipal general

tax burden as well.

The minimum required for anyone to pay

is $50, except for those 65 years of age and over or those who are

handicapped. They are required to pay only the minimum of $1.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 19 — a very progressive Act — the Home-owner Grant Amendment Act.

[ Page 583 ]

MR. SKELLY:

In general we support the increase in the homeowner grant. We do agree

it is progressive legislation. It has been copied by other provinces,

including Saskatchewan. Unfortunately they abbreviate the homeowner

grant there; they call it the property improvement grant, but they also

make it available to small businesses. The abbreviation of "property

improvement grant" is PIG,

whereas in B.C., it's HOG. Possibly the

minister could consider changing some of those acronyms to make them

sound a little more generous on the part of the government. But, in

general, we support the legislation.

One problem is that for

people under 65 there has been no homeowner grant increase for the past

three years, so this increase for those people is long overdue. For

those who don't fall within the terms of the

section which allows more

generous benefits for people age 65 or over, or people who come under

certain classes of disability pensions, unfortunately there still are

problems with people on disability who aren't receiving the $1 minimum

and the more generous homeowner grant. We'd certainly like to see some

changes in it.

Since the Social Credit government came to

office after 1975, you have had to pay $50 before you qualify for the

homeowner grant. This turns around what is essentially a way of making

property taxes progressive and makes it regressive for people under 65.

I hope the minister would take a look at this aspect of it.

There

are many low-income people under the age of 65 who are living in very

modest housing; yet they must pay that minimum $50 tax. It becomes a

real problem at tax time for them to raise $50. I would hope the

minister would take a look at that in further amendments to the

homeowner grant, to see that the problem of this $50 minimum is

removed. It changes the whole idea of the homeowner grant, which was to

make a regressive tax a little more progressive for those people who

had modest housing and a fairly low income.

You have done

the same thing as the government on B.C. Hydro by having a fixed charge

on power. Regardless of whether you use power or not, you still have to

pay a service or connection charge. On the people who are conservative

with their power, who are attempting to conserve electricity, it's a

penalty. They must pay that minimum amount, regardless of whether or

not they are conservative with the use of energy.

I hope the

minister will consider that the $50 minimum really undermines the whole

principle of the homeowner grant for those under 65 with modest homes

and modest incomes. Other than that problem with the bill, the NDP will

support this change.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, there

is one thing I would like to bring to the attention of the minister,

and that is the principle that is embodied in the additional benefit to

those on the War Veterans Allowance. Those who qualified for the War

Veterans Allowance, if you go back into history, were people who

because of war experience had aged prematurely. And today, in our

growing and highly developed sophisticated society, the stress of many

businesses has caused a lot of people to age prematurely. We're finding

this within for the superannuation and many pension plans where,

because of illness, because of heart attacks, because of the stress of

working, people have aged earlier, and they have been forced — with

medical certificates — to retire at an earlier age. I feel that these

people too qualify as much as those on an old-age pension or other

pension that is equally fixed. If they had normally progressed in their

employment they would have lasted until 65, but because of illness they

were forced to take an early retirement. I sincerely ask you — through

you, Mr. Speaker — to give consideration to giving those who are on an

early retirement pension, who because of illness have qualified and

must get out of the workforce, the additional benefit that is granted

to those over 65, those on a handicapped pension or those on the War

Veterans Allowance.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, certainly we have moved to make it available to a larger

category of people by adding those who are handicapped and those in

receipt of the federal disability allowance. I'm sure all of us here

would like to see it expanded to include even more disadvantaged

groups, but there are difficulties. These particular groups are very

identifiable and it has made it relatively easy to make it applicable

to them; it's not quite as easy when you begin looking at some of the

other groups that might be in receipt of various benefits, be they

provincial, federal or otherwise. But I agree with the member that in

time we certainly ought to find ways of expanding these benefits to

those he's referred to — and to many others as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

19, Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

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

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this bargain vote and the very good value

which comes to the provincial Legislature, I wouldn't want to suggest

any conflict of interest. I would like to have the opportunity, since

there are many new members in the House — not all present today — who

may not be familiar with the scope of the Ministry of Education, to

introduce it to them very briefly as a basis for any questions that

they might like to ask during these estimates.

The House

will be asked to approve slightly over $1.1 billion, second only in

expenditure to the Ministry of Health. But if you include the amounts

of money not included in these estimates, but which the public spends

on the educational enterprise in British Columbia, the figure is closer

to $1.6 billion, and represents the largest single public expenditure

in our province.

We have total enrolments in our educational

institutions in formal programs of 675,000 young people. In addition to

that, one adult in seven is involved in a continuing education course

of some form or other. So the enterprise itself is not only very costly

in public terms but it reaches

[ Page 584 ]

directly

and indirectly almost every citizen of our province. The Ministry of

Education itself is a funding agency. We give to the various

institutions in British Columbia over 99 percent of all the money that

you vote in the Legislature. What is retained by the ministry for

purposes of pursuing the effectiveness of these dollars on behalf of

the taxpayer is considerably less than 1 percent.

The

Ministry of Education itself, with only one or two exceptions, does not

run educational programs. Those are conducted by professionals who work

in the various institutions around the province. How many of them are

there? There are roughly 1,600 schools; there are 14 colleges; 6

provincial institutes; 3 public universities. So these are the basic

institutions that receive funding from the moneys that you vote.

The

method by which we pursue these tax dollars when they're given out to

the institutions on behalf of the people of British Columbia, who

through their taxes fund this enterprise, is in three ways. First of

all we pursue all the activities in a program sense, making sure that

the academic offerings are of sufficient depth and calibre to satisfy

the developmental needs of the people of British Columbia. Secondly we

follow the dollars from an administrative viewpoint, making certain as

best we can that the way the institutions themselves operate provides a

form of fiscal accountability to us, and through us to the public.

Finally we administer the capital programs of the province to be

certain that the buildings and the necessary capital facilities are

there.

Within our ministry we have a deputy minister, who

sits next to me, Dr. Walter Hardwick, and three associate deputy

ministers; one is for post-secondary education, Mr. Andy Soles, whom I

see in the gallery up there today; Mr. Jack Fleming handles all the

financial aspects; and Mr. Jim Carter, who is presently away in Europe,

does all the primary and secondary programs. These people are available

to all members of the Legislature at any time for questions that they

might have. This is the broad scope of the department.

Looking

at each of the individual divisions, I'd like first to spend a moment

or two to describing the primary and secondary system which operates

under Mr. Carter, and how we handle the academic, administrative and

capital systems that are part of the accountability mechanism that

exists within the Ministry of Education. The most urgent problem that

we faced as a new government was to introduce systems of academic

accountability into our primary and secondary school system. During the

permissive years of the late 1960s and early 1970s academic

accountability had slipped away not just here but throughout most of

the western world. This is why we brought in the core curriculum and

the Provincial Learning Assessment Program. The person who really

spearheaded that whole movement is also sitting up in the galleries

today. He is a veteran of 32 years in the Ministry of Education. He has

been a stellar performer for the public of British Columbia during his

total career in the public service, and will soon retire — Mr. John

Meredith. I wonder if the members will recognize his contribution.

We're

satisfied that the core curriculum and the Provincial Learning

Assessment Program have completely turned around the attitudes in our

primary and secondary school system. The whole objective of bringing

this two-pronged attack into the academic accountability side of our

primary and secondary system was to make certain that every youngster

in our school system received a basic education program that would

ensure at least survival skills at the time of school leaving. In those

cases where that floor — that necessary basic program — was not being

met, we have been able to identify this through the Provincial Learning

Assessment Program, so that remedial steps can be taken before you have

the much more costly exercise of redeeming people who've gone through

the system, but who haven't yet acquired the skills.

Now

we're beginning to examine more than just the basic program in the

schools. We're beginning to look at the standards that are being

achieved at the time of school leaving. To this end we have been

working on developing at the operational level the administration of

standardized examinations that will give the teacher in the classroom

some idea of the performance of the youngsters at a particular level in

a particular subject — not that this is to be the total judgment as to

whether or not a student is fit to pass or fail, or has acquired the

test was done with that purpose in mind. Now there are tests being

developed in chemistry, in the 11 and 12 program, in math at grades 3,

8, 10 and 12, and hopefully others. We've got tremendous cooperation

from the teachers in the system in the development and administration

of these tests. I think it's going to do a great deal to satisfy

everybody in the system that we've got appropriate academic achievement

and academic accountability.

We discovered upon inquiry that

there were not standard systems within British Columbia for grading and

promoting students in the system. So now we're in the process of

rewriting the administrative bulletin for schools that will hopefully

achieve some kind of a rational system whereby the student, the parent

and the teacher will know exactly how much progress is being made and

approximately where the youngsters stand relative to the system as a

whole.

I've spoken at the Council of Ministers of Education,

on more than one occasion, for the need to develop across Canada a

standard, national core curriculum, so that students in one part of the

country in a given grade would be receiving approximately the same

material as students in another part. I can't appreciate why there

math or in any of the skills that are common not just to all parts of

Canada but to all parts of the world. I can't see why the program needs

to be different in Halifax than Victoria, but that is indeed the case

today, and until people come to grips with this problem on a national

scale we're going to continue to have a certain amount of drift in the

system.

We're paying particular attention on the academic

side in our school system now to the ends of the scale. We've never had

a program in British Columbia for gifted youngsters. As a consequence

of that, all during history we've had intellectual wastage of larger or

lesser degree among our most capable youngsters. This year, starting in

September, we're going to go into what might be described as an

advanced pilot program in grades 4, 5 and 12, specifically to enrich

the academic offerings so that these more gifted youngsters will

receive appropriate challenge in the school system, and hopefully will

develop the superior skills that will allow them to make a far more

than average contribution to society when they enter into the world of

work after school leaving.

[ Page 585 ]

This

is the Year of the Child and we're also now giving particular attention

to dealing with the problems of learning disabled and handicapped

children, again providing appropriate educational facilities for people

that have been deprived in their birthright of the equal physical and

mental gifts of the average youngster. To give them the enrichment that

they deserve equally as citizens in this province is something we need

to address, and we need to develop suitable programs throughout the

system. This is underway.

I would like to leave the academic

side and talk briefly about the operating side — what we do in the way

of attempting to rationalize the finances of the system. We've

requested school boards around British Columbia to submit to us

five-year forecasts of what their budgets are going to be. They have an

opportunity to scrutinize their future projections in relationship to

other school districts and in relationship to the total commitment that

can be made in education to this particular side of the educational

enterprise.

To my knowledge, this is the only five-year

forecasting that goes on in any government in Canada or really any

ministry of government in Canada. I'm very pleased with the way the

school boards have cooperated. In my personal view, if we were to begin

forecasting five years ahead in all ministries, in all aspects of

public expenditure, we'd be able to bring far more rationality than we

have today to the matter of taxation and budgeting in the public

sphere, something which I think would add tremendously to the economic

health of our country. But for the moment it's permitting us within the

Ministry of Education to take a far more rational view of how we should

be projecting our own expenditures within the total budget of British

Columbia.

We have gone this year to the local employment of

superintendents. You will be asked to approve legislation which will

provide for term appointments of superintendents and other

administrators in the system. The whole idea of this is to provide

additional opportunity to the most capable of our teachers in the

system to find entry into the administrative ranks.

At the

same time, we've provided security of tenure for those who may cycle

through the system and back to the classroom again. Perhaps it's a

little like the university model where you have a rotation of

administrators and where it is regarded that the highest calling is to

be in the classroom itself as a teacher, and that the administrators

are really on a tour of duty.

With respect to the capital

side of our public school system, this is an aspect that you do not see

in your budget estimates. We are currently spending in the order of

$100 million a year on providing new school facilities and upgrading

the existing school facilities. It's a very large capital expenditure

each year. Nevertheless we aren't able to satisfy all of the requests

that are put in. Ever since the referendum was removed for school

construction, something which I think was a very positive step, it has

encouraged school boards to apply for capital funds, and those requests

have exceeded the borrowing capacity of the province.

What

we've done is to try and order all of the requests that are submitted

on a priority basis. We have a five-scale basis of priorities. Top

priority goes to the building of new schools in suburbs and those areas

where there's a growing population, where if you didn't get the school

built in a hurry, the youngsters would have to go on shift. Bottom

priority goes to administrative offices for school trustees and garages

for school buses and non-essential renovations to schools.

don't refuse people and say: "No, you're never going to be allowed to

have that capital facility." What we do is apportion the money we have

available, and people who are in the category five end of things may

have to wait a few years in order to get their particular project

completed. So the priority system allows us to get the most important

things done and to delay the less important things hopefully not to the

hereafter.

Mr. Chairman, if I could speak briefly about what

happens at the post-secondary level, while we have modestly declining

enrolments in primary and secondary school levels, particularly

secondary — it's going to go down 15 percent in the next six or eight

years — at the post-secondary level we still have growth. The

universities have pretty well capped off in the last three years but

the colleges and institutes are still experiencing major growth,

particularly in the career and technical areas, so you will note in

your estimates that more is asked for. A considerable jump takes place

this year in the budget of those colleges and institutes.

[Mr. Ritchie in the chair.]

operate in British Columbia 14 regional colleges, which now cover every

major area of British Columbia. In addition to that, we have six

institutes, five of them newly created in the last year or two, which

take on specialty areas and have a provincial mandate to fulfil a

particular skill requirement. The most important of these and the one

to look to for the future is the Open Learning Institute.

promised, they will be offering their first courses this September, two

in the academic field and a number in basic adult education. There will

be a second phase, commencing in January, where more academic offerings

will be provided and then they'll be in modest, not quite full-scale

operation, but certainly operating like a fully fledged institution a

year from September. Remember that the whole purpose of the Open

Learning Institute is to bring the full range of post-secondary

programs to the individual right in their home; to make it possible for

people, no matter what their previous academic achievement, no matter

what their financial status, no matter what their geographical

location, to have an opportunity to have all of the benefits that can

flow from any of our institutions delivered to them on-site. We'll be

using print, cassette, videotape, tutoring — a galaxy of methods — to

provide the necessary service so that people can learn in their own

area, mostly on their own, and they've got to have support in order to

achieve that.

Sitting in the background with all of this is

something which is potentially far more significant. About a year ago

we did a small pilot project in beaming an educational program from

BCIT via satellite to a number of local communities, including a

logging camp. That pilot project was a success and will be expanded

this year where BCIT will be beaming several programs via satellite to

five of our colleges using one of the channels on Anik B. If we can

achieve success with this, therefore making it apparent that you can

deliver a lecture from one centre to everywhere in British Columbia via

satellite, with voice-over participation on the part of people

collected in studios or even next to their telephone, wherever they may

be, we'll be in a

[ Page 586 ]

position

to consider launching a satellite totally for educational purposes. One

satellite can cover the area of western Canada and has 32 channels on

it. I just want you to think for a moment about the possibilities of

being able to have 32 channels available at all times, so that you

could initiate any educational program in one location in British

Columbia, and have the people participating in that particular lecture

sitting at their television set — 98 percent of all homes have

television sets — where the voice-over could come back through studio

microphones or telephones and where....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Yes, the feasibility of that was demonstrated in our initial pilot

project a year ago. That's going to be expanded with several full

courses being offered this fall between BCIT and a number of our

community colleges. The voice-over is where you see Dr. Hardwick giving

a lecture, and you may be in Fort St. John listening to it. You have a

question and you ask him and it comes back into the studio. Two-way

communication where your picture would be beamed back is difficult

because you would have to have a television camera on you, but the

voice-over can be done by telephone. So we may not be very far away in

Canada from the time when we could begin to consider delivering our

educational programs in this fashion.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

is a development which deserves to be watched very closely because the

potential of it is truly enormous. The cost of putting a satellite up

runs just under $50 million. But the satellite stays up there for a

number of years and it's shared by half a country.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

You're going home and ducking in the basement at night, I gather,

waiting for Skylab to fall. Well, obviously the newer satellites are

going to have to take into account the behaviour of sunspots. I don't

know how much we've got in the way of scientific prediction about

sunspots in the future. In any event, this is what we have on the

academic side.

We've established, from the financial

accountability point of view, a new and standard accounting system for

our colleges which is available now, not just as a model for the

educational system but as a model for government as a whole. In order

to determine how best to apportion the available money among our

colleges and institutes, we found that we needed to create a system

that would provide full financial details and permit comparisons on a

program basis. We're very proud of this new system. I'm extremely

pleased with the individuals in the ministry who have created it.

Similarly,

we've developed a capital funding program. People should realize that

our colleges academically have developed far in advance of their

physical facilities, so we're probably 10 to 15 years behind. We've got

several hundred million dollars worth of permanent buildings to put in

place around British Columbia; that cannot be done overnight. Again,

we've developed a method through the management advisory council, which

has the chairmen of all the college boards of British Columbia working

on developing priorities, so that if money does become available, we'll

be able to apportion it on a fair basis, taking into account the

necessary geographical distribution as well as the priorities within

each college.

Some people are going to have to be a little

patient, because all of this cannot be achieved overnight. There's a

fully developed program which should be implemented within the next

five to ten years — we're into a catch-up phase — and we're not going

to achieve that overnight.

We're particularly keen to

develop more opportunities for youngsters in the vocations. I have no

hesitation in saying that the systems we have developed to date have

not served our young people well. Getting into trades and vocations is

frequently the most difficult of all educational exercises. We really

must devise more intelligent schemes that not only open opportunities

to our young people coming along in British Columbia but will give us

the necessary skill and versatility in our work force to take on the

challenges of building Canada in the future. So often in the past we've

denied our young people opportunity, and then when we've needed skilled

people we've gone to Europe and we've gone to Asia — we've even gone to

Australia and New Zealand — and brought in skilled people, while

putting our own able youngsters in a position of inferiority to the

people we've brought in simply because we haven't given them the skill

opportunities.

I mention my own field of medicine as one of

the most glaring examples. We register between 300 and 400 doctors per

year. This year we're only taking in 100 students, despite the fact

that maybe 800 apply. Therefore what we're doing is denying our own

youngsters opportunity, because the educational system is too

inflexible to accommodate them. We're placing our able youngsters years

down the road in an inferior position to people who will be given

educational opportunities in England, in other parts of Canada, in

Europe and in Asia, and who will then come in and take the best

positions in British Columbia while our own have to do without.

Really

we should consider it almost an educational crime that we do not

provide full opportunities for our own youngsters, not just in all of

the professions but in all of the vocations and skills. As you move

about, you are going to find that people will say: "No, we don't want

more of these; we've already got enough." That's always the argument

that's offered when you restrict opportunity. We never seem to take the

point of view that we should ensure that every youngster in British

Columbia has an opportunity to have a skill as his or her right.

Whenever you restrict size below the interest of the people who want to

develop that skill, you're forcing the individual into an inferior

place in life by narrowing the educational gate. We do that in British

Columbia, and I hope we are going to cure that instinct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Have I been talking this long? I'm filibustering estimates!

This

is not really for the benefit of the crusty old members who've been in

this House so many years, but for the new people who've been handed the

torch by the electorate of British Columbia to contribute to debate and

to bring new ideas. We wouldn't want these people to be

[ Page 587 ]

deprived of the opportunity to know what the veteran members know so well.

Mr.

Chairman, we try to develop administrative systems in our universities

which are appropriate for the tremendous expenditures that you are

asked to approve through these estimates. The Universities Council of

British Columbia has asked our universities to provide admission

statements, and they're examining the matter of academic

transferability and financial accountability. We have, by

an Act of the

Legislature, created the Educational Institutions Capital Financing

Authority Act, which has made it possible for educational institutions,

for the first time, to get over the backlog. There's something like $76

million worth of building going on at our universities today. The gap

is closing; we should be able to catch up within five to ten years,

because we've established this borrowing authority by act of the

Legislature.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there's a new endeavour

in the ministry that you'll be asked to look at this year, and that's

the science aspect of education, and the tie-in that that provides for

what we will hope becomes a full-scale industrial thrust in British

Columbia, based on the exploitation of our educational skills and the

development of novel, high-technology industries. We know that such

industries grow, in terms of employment, nine times as fast as

low-technology industries. British Columbia historically has provided

its employment through resource industries that are renowned for being

capital-intensive but extremely slow growth in terms of employment

opportunities. This is because machinery to do the standard jobs

replaces people continually. Therefore the numbers that are employed in

mining, forestry and so on are not increasing.

So if we're

to say to the people in British Columbia that this is an area, unlike

many parts of the world, where young people can have productive and

satisfying careers without moving somewhere else, without going to a

frontier in some different part of the world, then we've got to have

the kind of industrial activities that will provide those opportunities

and careers. Therefore we must look to those things which we know will

provide rapid employment growth, where the tariff barriers that are

really set against our labour are not going to be an impediment, as

they are with so many standard manufacturing items that have formed the

history of the national policy in Canada.

This is a totally

new thrust, and we're using the offices of the Ministry of Education to

promote through the Discovery Trusts, through Discovery Parks, and

through our interest in high technology the kind of industry that will

provide that nine times as rapid growth for our young people, as we

have in industries that are already established today.

Have I talked too long, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: According to the Committee of Supply time, you have, Mr. Minister.

MS. SANFORD:

I am rather pleased that we do have the rules with respect to time

limits, because once the minister gets involved in science and

technology and post-secondary education we can expect him to go on and

on and on, because that's where the interest of this Minister of

Education, Science and Technology lies; that's where it is. He

dutifully outlined for the benefit of the new members of the

Legislature what was happening in the schools of the province,

kindergarten to grade 12. He went through that step by step, but did

you notice how enthusiastic he became when he started talking about

science, technology, research and the medical field? That's where his

interest lies. That’s where it has always been since he became Minister

of Education in this province.

I'm rather pleased that

they've finally tied the title of "Science and Technology" onto the

Education ministry portfolio, because it really belongs there as long

as that minister is in charge. His interest lies in the elitist,

post-secondary field. He doesn't have the interest in those hundreds of

thousands of kids that go to school each day, nor in the teachers who

are working in the kindergarten to grade 12 educational system of this

province. He's never had any interest in them, and he's never even

tried to find out what happens in the schools of the province unless

they are at college or university level.

Last night there

was a flurry of activity in our caucus rooms at about 5:45 p.m. when

the minister suddenly discovered that the Education estimates might

have come up for discussion last evening. A courier was dispatched from

his office just before the adjournment at 6 p.m., and came in to speak

to our staff in the NDP caucus rooms and asked whether or not he could

possibly get into the mail boxes of each individual MLA some

information before the estimates of the Minister of Education, Science

and Technology came up for discussion. Well, I was quite interested in

this, Mr. Chairman, because I thought the minister was finally going to

give us some information about what was happening in the public school

system — kindergarten to 12 — but not so. I'm sure you saw the

particular pamphlet that was produced yesterday and hurried into our

caucus rooms with the request that the material be distributed before

the estimates of the Minister of Education, Science and Technology came

up. Mr. Chairman, did you receive one of these? It's called: "Science

and Research." This was dispatched from the Minister of Education's

office so that we'd be ready for his estimates based on this material

which had to be hurried into our boxes so we could read it.

Mr. Chairman, I've never seen such a glossy production in my life.

MS. BROWN: Not since Captain Cook.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, not since Captain Cook. You're right. Captain Cook was almost in the same category, but not quite.

certainly shows where the interests of the Minister of Education,

Science and Technology lie. Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if perhaps this

beautiful, glossy booklet might have been prepared before the election

and somehow got delayed in printing and didn't come out until now. It

certainly indicates again and confirms to us on this side where the

interests of the Minister of Education, Science and Technology lie. I

would like to know, Mr. Chairman, how much this booklet cost. I'm

wondering whether the minister would make a note of that so that he can

provide that answer at some point during the discussion of these

estimates. What did it cost? How many copies were printed? Who is going

to receive a copy of this particular booklet?

Mr. Chairman,

the minister had an executive assistant by the name of Jim Bennett. Jim

Bennett has now left the ministry as an executive assistant and is

setting up a game

[ Page 588 ]

and

toy store in Victoria. Again it confirms my impression and our

impression on this side of the House as to where the interests of the

minister lie, because we had an announcement and a press release come

out indicating that Glen Mitchell is now going to be the ministerial

assistant to Education, Science and Technology. The interesting part of

all this — and I hope that the new members of the House are making a

note of this — is that "the new executive assistant is going to assist

my office by liaising with the numerous agencies which are involved in

developing the new science and research policy of the provincial

government." There is nothing to do with the public school system from

grades 1 to 12. Again, he gets rid of an executive assistant and brings

in a new one to deal with the new aspects of science and technology. It

ties in well with this beautiful production that we had rushed into our

boxes last night.

I have a few questions for the minister

with respect to the work of Jim Bennett, who is now operating a game

and toy store in Victoria. I understand that Jim Bennett will be acting

as a consultant from time to time to the Minister of Education. I'm

wondering whether the work that will be undertaken by Jim Bennett will

be done through order-in-council. Will it be done by contract? Will he

be there on a regular basis, two days a week, three days a week? What

kind of money will he be receiving? Lastly, Mr. Chairman, what

qualifications does Jim Bennett have to be a consultant in the Ministry

of Education, Science and Technology? We all know that he acted as an

executive assistant to the Minister of Education, and I know that a

number of executive assistants have no particular expertise in the

particular field in which they have been working as executive

assistants to ministers. What sort of qualifications does Jim Bennett

have to do the consulting work that we have been informed the Minister

of Education wants Jim Bennett to do? I would assume that Jim Bennett

will probably be glad to do some consulting work, because I know it's

difficult getting a business started, and that there have been a lot of

bankruptcies and so on, but I would like the minister to answer

questions with respect to Bennett's particular expertise and how he

will be employed in the Ministry of Education.

I'm sorry the

Premier's not here this morning because I think — since the Minister of

Education, Science and Technology has displayed virtually no interest

in the hundreds of thousands of children who attend school from

kindergarten to grade 12 — it's time to split that portfolio. I know

people sitting on the back bench have interest in education. Leave the

minister as the Minister of Science and Technology, and let's bring

someone into that position — somebody from the backbench, perhaps. I

see Mr. Brummet back there — sorry, Mr. Chairman, I must not use his

name — I see the member for North Peace River in the House. I know he

has an interest in the educational field. Mr. Chairman himself may have

an interest, and I'm sure he's concerned that the present minister has

not shown the interest over the last few years in education in the

province.

Teacher morale is not that great. I have never

heard the minister give a word of praise for the work that's being done

by the teachers of the province. I haven't heard that, and I'm really

looking forward to the day when we have a publication that's as glossy

as this, which shows what is happening to the children in the schools,

the learning process, and which gives some indication of what's going

on in the public education system. I don't think we're going to see a

booklet like that on public education. We'll get it on science and

technology from this minister.

The teachers have been

concerned that the minister has shown very little interest in what they

are doing, or in the contribution they are making. I was interested

this year to note the Okanagan teachers put on a special conference to

deal with the fact that the public generally does not hold them in a

good light, and with the fact that there is a crisis of confidence in

the schools and in what teachers are doing in the schools. They were so

concerned they put on a special conference to deal with this particular

crisis of confidence in public education. The minister has never given

a word of encouragement or shown that he is interested in what is

happening or what is going on with those youngsters from kindergarten

right through to the post-secondary level.

But the one

aspect of the public school system the minister is very good at is in

placing the load of paying for public education at the local level.

Since this minister has taken office we have seen a continual increase

in that load. The mill rate has gone from 26 mills in 1975 to 41 mills

this year. That is what the local taxpayer has to pay for that basic

education program. This is in spite of the fact that four years ago

this government indicated to the people of the province the system of

financing for public education is outmoded, and that the load must be

taken off at the local level. The McMath report has recommended that

the education costs should be paid for 75 percent by the province and

25 percent at the local level. What we have now is a steady increase in

the percentage at the local level. This year it's gone up to 61 percent

paid for at the local level, with the province picking up only 39

percent. In 1975 the province was paying 48 percent of the total costs

for that basic education program. Now it's 39 percent. I see no

indication that the government has any intention of reversing that

direction. The taxes raised for the basic education program will

continue to be borne at the local level.

I have no doubt the

minister will make some reference to the homeowner grant. But he knows

that, traditionally by the Socred Party, that grant has been applied

just before an election. The people of the province can expect to see

nothing again until the government has had a chance to build up a

surplus and can give out another homeowner grant as an election gimmick

to obtain votes.

He is taking away the operating costs of

the colleges, Mr. Chairman. The colleges are no longer funded locally

and he made a great to-do about making an announcement with respect to

removing the operating costs of colleges and assuming those at the

provincial level. But the operating cost of the community colleges last

year was 1.88 mills. The increase in the mill rate this year is more

than 1.88 mills. So who's kidding whom here? The mill rate has been

increased this year again by 2.25 mills. He's made a big production

about removing the cost from the local people, but he's added a mill

rate that's even greater than what it cost to pay for the operation of

those community colleges.

I was sorry, Mr. Chairman, that in

the opening remarks of the minister he did not mention an event which

took place this year in relation to the Nishga school district. For the

first time in the history of the province, there was a high-school

graduating class from the Nishga school district. The minister made no

recognition of it at any point, as far as I know. He certainly didn't

mention it today in his remarks. But this was the first native Indian

school district,

[ Page 589 ]

established in 1974 by the previous Minister of Education, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly).

This

was an attempt to give an opportunity for the development of native

languages and culture within their own school district. It's been a

very successful venture. The first graduating class went through this

year, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister of Education made no mention of it.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm very concerned about an

article that appeared in the

paper this morning with respect to a decision made by a board of

inquiry under the Human Rights Code. We have found that a board of

inquiry has decided that it is quite okay for a school board to fire a

teacher who has married outside of the Catholic religion. I am

referring, of course, to the funding that is made available by this

minister to independent schools and in this case, to a Catholic school

which has fired a particular teacher because she has married outside

the Catholic religion. That firing has gone to a board of inquiry. The

board of inquiry has ruled that under the Human Rights Code that is

acceptable. That is a shocking decision.

Now I know that

perhaps it is the Human Rights Code that needs to be amended and I

certainly can't discuss that under these estimates. But I want to ask

the Minister of Education this morning whether or not he intends to

continue funding schools which practise clear discrimination in terms

of hiring. In spite of what the board of inquiry has said at this

point, in spite of the fact that

section 8 of the Human Rights Code

obviously needs amending in view of this decision, in spite of the fact

that boards of inquiry are appointed by a given government and that

boards of inquiry, as do so many other agencies of government, reflect

the attitude of government, I am wondering if the Minister of Education

intends to continue funding those schools which clearly practise

discrimination in hiring of teachers.

Mr. Chairman, I'll take my seat at this time and he can answer some of those questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before the minister carries on, I would point out to all members that

we are allowing a lot of latitude during the estimate votes. But we

should try and contain our remarks to the administrative action of the

ministry because that is what is open to debate. The nineteenth edition

of Erskine May also says that "estimates do not afford the proper

opportunity for discussing how a minister should be chosen." I would

point that out to all hon. members.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could commence by sending over some other

glossy publications that we're quite proud of in the Ministry of

Education. The first of these is a booklet on post-secondary education

in British Columbia. This gives a description of every post-secondary

institution, the system generally, and at the back has an index showing

all the various programs of a post-secondary nature that our young

people can enrol in. This is the glossy form, and that particular

publication has gone to every graduating high school student in British

Columbia — not the glossy edition; for the big edition we used

newsprint, but that was just to save on the cost. Then I'd like, Mr.

Chairman, to provide her with another glossy publication of the

ministry. This is the report on education for 1977-78, which has been

completely redeveloped in its form to try and provide the public and

members of theLegislature with a more logical description of educational activities.

MR. LORIMER: Have you read it?

HON. MR. McGEER:

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon is reminiscing about the days when he

was a minister, when he wouldn't have given any thought at all to

reading the departmental reports. But that's not the way we're

operating in the Ministry of Education today.

The booklet —

which I'm glad the member enjoyed — has been distributed around the

world, mostly to scientific companies. We've had a very encouraging

response. We've had hundreds of inquiries from organizations that might

consider establishing their future research activities in British

Columbia. Now we may only get a few. If we get one, the investment has

more than repaid itself.

The member wondered whether this

might have come out just at election time. The publication got off the

presses in time for me to take a few of these to China, when I was a

member of the Canadian delegation that went over there, and it was well

received in that country. I haven't reported to the House, Mr.

Chairman, on that visit; but it might be of some interest to the

members here to know what has gone on in China, and what we in the

Canadian educational system are intending to do to help that country,

deputy, Dr. Hardwick, was the head of our negotiating team that worked

out the details with China whereby that country might send some of its

scholars to Canada starting in September. We can scarcely comprehend in

the western world the educational holocaust that struck China at the

time of the Cultural Revolution. Nothing like it has ever taken place

in the western world at any time in history. The net result for the

Chinese people has been that since the Cultural Revolution commenced

they have not graduated a single class of engineers, technologists,

doctors or professionals of any kind. So for a period of 13 years that

country has gone without the benefits that the higher educational

system can provide in terms of industry, culture, and social

development of every kind. At the time of the Cultural Revolution gangs

of sloganeering students and others invaded the institutions, and

ridiculed — and in some cases beat to death — the professors who were

teaching the young people of that country. There has been no

opportunity for China, since it has not had any students coming along,

to develop any new faculty of an adequate kind. When the government

dismissed the Gang of Four and moved to rehabilitate the post-secondary

institutions, they found themselves not only without students, but

without adequate professors to teach the students. The only faculty

with knowledge and qualifications that they could muster were those who

had been in place prior to 1966, and yet these people had been absent

from their particular specialties for over a decade, and now for 13

years.

China has moved in two ways to correct this

decimation of the intellectual and teaching class. The first thing that

has been done is to begin admitting high school students on the basis

of political recommendation. Approximately 20 million students are in

each age group in China, and thus would graduate from their secondary

school system; 6 million of these write state examinations now; and

280,000 are successful in being admitted to their post-secondary

institutions. That process has been in place for two years and is now

entering its third year. It has had a most dramatic

[ Page 590 ]

effect

on the quality of the secondary system in China because now the stakes

are very high in having high-quality secondary education.

course, the introduction of national examinations itself has had a

dramatic impact on the calibre of the people who are arriving at these

post-secondary institutions. There is an enormous difference in the

calibre of the students who are in the first and second years, as

opposed to those who were operating under the cultural revolution

system and therefore weren't properly qualified in the first place.

Unfortunately,

in Chinese post-secondary institutions they do not have faculties which

are aware of the state of knowledge in their particular field to teach

these people as they come along. So China, about a year ago, began to

approach 13 western nations, of which Canada was one, appealing for

assistance to help rehabilitate the educational system. We have

responded in Canada, not to the extent I would have hoped, to give

assistance to this country. In September we will be accepting 200

scholars — these are pre-1966 faculty members — to give them exposure

to their discipline for a brief period of time in this country, then to

return them to China to spearhead their educational rehabilitation. We

should be accepting more of these people in Canada.

In my

opinion, we should not be driving a hard financial bargain. We have no

friendlier trading nation than China. They permit us a trade imbalance

greater than any major nation in the world. They buy huge amounts of

our wheat and export to our country relatively little in the way of

goods in return. So for the most populous nation on earth, one of the

poorest nations, a nation that has limped along now in modern times

without the benefit of what an intellectual class and a good

post-secondary system can provide them, they are using their limited

hard currency to give us an enormous trade imbalance.

think the least we could do for the Chinese would be to create a

thousand or more wheat scholarships in recognition of the favourable

trade that we have in that one commodity. That would permit them to

send to our institutions some of their faculty and most promising

students so that they would be able later to go back to China, do a

great deal for the development of that country and, at the same time,

build better relations in the future than we have today.

MR. HANSON:

On a point of order, perhaps the minister could focus the scope of his

treatise on the commitment of his ministry to Indian education in the

province, and move it from China.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not an appropriate point of order. The debates on supply, in fact, discuss the administrative action of a ministry.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, I was going to come to the efforts that have been made

for Indian education in British Columbia. I might say that we are short

of those books now. We'll probably have a second press run of them in

the near future. If members want additional ones I'll try to supply

them. On the other hand, if you don't want them I'd be happy to have

them back. We will have a supply, I hope, in the next month or two.

MS. SANFORD: How many?

HON. MR. McGEER: There were 6,000 of them. I'll try and get the printing costs; I haven't got them yet.

With

respect, however, to the cost of basic education, a question raised by

the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), the amount that is contributed from

provincial funds in total is roughly 60 percent of our cost of

education in our primary and secondary systems. Without the increase in

the homeowner grant, just with the removal of college costs from the

property tax this year, virtually everybody in British Columbia will be

paying lower school taxes this year, in absolute terms, than last year.

The provincial average mill rate has gone down from 50.39 mills to 49.1

mills. So in absolute terms, without the increase in the homeowner

grant, people will be paying lower taxes.

As everybody in

the Legislature knows, the concept of the homeowner grant is that the

money initially goes against school taxes, so that that $100 extra,

which really goes first to people living in the most modest homes,

gives them a major reduction in their school tax — another $100 off the

cost.

Incidentally, I've got the cost of these booklets. The printing was $24,650 — $4.10 per booklet.

With

respect to Indian education, I agree with what the member says. The

Nishga school district has been an enormous success. I happened to be

out of the country at the time of that graduation, but our Assistant

Deputy Minister of Education was up at that graduation and was most

impressed by what was going on. I could take time and give you a

complete rundown of the overall program that we have for Indian

education in British Columbia. I don't know whether I really want to

take the time right now to do it, but if members are particularly

interested in it we could call in the person who is the head of our

Indian education system, Mr. Saul Arbess, and go through the whole

program with you.

As far as the Catholic schools are

concerned, I'm not going to try and second-guess the Human Rights Code

of British Columbia. This is

an Act of the Legislature — given, by the

way, to a friend of your party to administer — and if it's acceptable

to the Human Rights Code and those who administer it, I'm certainly not

going to attempt to exceed my legislative jurisdiction in order to

interfere with those kinds of decisions. It would be entirely

inappropriate. The Independent Schools Support Act is the Act that we

have to administer, and that in no way interferes with the Human Rights

Code and the particular decision that was made by that board of

inquiry. So please don't ask the Ministry of Education, or the

minister, to exceed the authority of legislative Acts and impose our

prejudices — or yours — on what might be a decision of people who are

properly qualified and constituted to make those kinds of social

judgments.

MRS. DAILLY: I personally found the

comments on cooperation between the ministry and the educational system

in China most interesting. I think we're all pleased to know that this

is taking place.

I would like to go back to a couple of

points right now. The minister has given, first of all, an example of

some of the books which his ministry has been putting out. Putting

aside the information in the books and how well they're done, there is

a basic issue here which I'd like to bring out. A few minutes ago the

minister held up a book for all of us to see called Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia ,

and he was pointing out to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) that

there are other materials that have been sent out to the high school

students to show he does have some interest in that area, and that

they're done on rough paper and not too expensive. But the point I want

to make about this book is not about the contents; I want to talk about

when it arrived in the schools of British Columbia. I was in my

campaign room the day before the election when a student arrived from

one of our high schools in Burnaby and said: "Mrs. Dailly, look what

we've just received on our desks, to take home to our parents."

Now

I notice the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) walking out in

apparent disgust. I'm glad you're disgusted. I'm disgusted with this

blatant misuse of public funds, and I'm glad you share our disgust.

Here

we have a picture of the minister on the front page. What do we find?

It says: "Introduction: a message from the Hon. Pat McGeer. It talks

about the past three years in education being dynamic ones for the

province of British Columbia — straight political propaganda put into

the hands of the students of this province the day before the election.

Now I hope that minister realizes that the example of political ethics

which is being set by this Minister of Education, who is supposed to be

an example to the students of this province, is at a pretty low level.

You know what the book that was brought to me had written on the back

page? It said: McGeer's election propaganda for the 1979 campaign."

That's what some of the students thought about that book. It's too bad,

you know, because basically the thrust of the book is good. It's trying

to acquaint our high school students with the opportunities in

post-secondary education when they graduate. What did he do? In their

terrible desire to be re-elected, they didn't care if they misused the

taxpayers' money. They are turning our students into cynics about their

politicians and their Minister of Education.

The member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) opened up a very serious matter, to which we've not

had a proper answer from the Minister of Education. We now find that

many of our fears which were enunciated when the Independent Schools

Act was first brought in to this Legislature are right here in front of

us today. At the time that Act was brought in — I think if you check

back in Hansard you will see

our quotes on it — I personally made the point that one of the reasons

we objected to the passage of the Independent Schools Act was that we

could foresee that public funds in this province would be going to

schools and institutions in this province which practise

discrimination. We said this would happen. We never did get an answer

from the minister or from the government. They were completely evasive.

At that time they were looking for votes, and they figured that by

pushing this Act through they would gain votes from certain groups in

this province. But in order to gain votes, this government has

completely abrogated their responsibilities as members of this

Legislature to uphold in this province that no discrimination should

exist.

We have a case this morning of a human rights board

upholding the right to fire a teacher because that teacher happened to

have married a divorced Protestant; she was fired from the Catholic

school where she was teaching. The minister says: "I have nothing to do

with the Human Rights Code; our Legislation is separate." The point is

that this minister was the architect of this Act. He pushed it through

this House. He obviously sold it to the rest of his colleagues. From

the time he's been in this Legislature — and that's longer than I have,

which is a fair amount of time now — he has advocated aid to

independent schools. So he got his way. He has assured that the people

of British Columbia are now being forced to see their tax money given

to institutions which practise outright discrimination.

personally have always fought against all forms of discrimination; my

colleagues have. In our party we have a tradition going back to the

days when we fought against the internment of the Japanese in the

1940s. Because we fought against that, many of our members went down to

defeat. But at least we went down on something we were proud of and

which had to be done.

Once again, this minister is forcing

us to take

part in discriminatory practices. His answer is not

satisfactory. Aside from the fact that we have open discrimination

being adhered to and supported by this minister, and that our funds are

being used in the area of this particular case, what do we also have?

I've looked through the amounts of money given to the independent

schools of this province, and of the schools that are receiving the

largest sums of money in amounts of $200,000 to $300,000, do you know

which are the main ones? They are the exclusive schools of this

province, which also practise discrimination. They practise

discrimination on grounds of sex. You can't get your girl into

Vancouver College or St. George's School; and, vice versa, you can't

put a boy into some of these exclusive girls' schools such as Shawnigan

Lake and so on.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Whichever one it is. It's the one up-Island — Crofton.

The

point is that hundreds of thousands of dollars of our tax money is now

going not only to uphold discrimination based on religion, but it is

also going to uphold discrimination based on sex and economics. This

was said in this House when this bill was brought in. We fought against

it. We argued against this. This government has proceeded on its merry

way. Now I know we're going to be faced with more inroads. In due

course, I'm sure, this minister will be making moves which will

increase aid to these schools.

This minister did not give a

satisfactory answer on this whole matter of discrimination. He cannot

hide behind the fact that he has nothing to do with the Human Rights

Code. I'm asking this minister to stand up in this House and let us

know that his government does not believe in discrimination. The only

way to prove that to us is to remove public funds from any institution

in this province which practises it.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I owe an apology to a lot of people in my Education ministry, because I

nagged and badgered and bullied them to get this booklet on

post-secondary education out far sooner than it was apparently

delivered. I think the timing of delivery was impeccable. I wish I

could claim some credit for that, but all I can really do is to

apologize to all the people I bullied to try and get it out sooner.

apparently didn't achieve what the member deems to have been a

political objective because I regret to say we didn't do better in

Burnaby. So maybe she's right that the book had a negative political

effect.

[ Page 592 ]

any event, we did manage to get the booklet out before the students

left the schools, and this is the thing that they needed to have

because we didn't have a method by which we could have delivered it to

their homes.

As far as the Independent Schools Act is

concerned, that member has her own prejudices and there's really

nothing I can do about that. The Act spells out precisely the terms of

reference for grants to independent schools, and it is based on the

academic performance of those schools, the fact that they offer the

same curriculum, that they submit to academic accountability, that the

teachers become certified and that the schools be inspected.

can't open up every independent school in British Columbia to every

person from anywhere in the province. These schools, like our own

public schools, are limited in size, and we practise a geographical

discrimination with respect to our public schools. We don't let every

youngster in British Columbia attend one public school. You've got to

take the physical plant that is there and apportion it among the people

who are in that particular neighbourhood. The independent school has

got to operate by admitting people that can be accommodated in the size

of that school.

If they violate human rights, there's a

Human Rights Code to take care of that. If they practise

discrimination, there's other legislation to take care of that. It

isn't in the Independent Schools Act for us to impose our individual

prejudices, mine or the member's for Burnaby North, on that system.

We're educators in the Ministry of Education and we look for the

quality, in a professional sense, of the teachers.

By the

way, whether they are in the public school system or the independent

school system, we don't hire teachers in the public school system

either. School boards do that. We certify the teachers, public or

independent. That's an exercise the ministry undertakes. We inspect the

schools, public or independent, and we ask them to give the same

curriculum and submit to the same assessment examinations, public and

independent.

We don't look behind that as educators, either

in the independent or the public school system. They are treated

identically except for one thing. The independent schools get 30

percent of the cost of the public schools. So there is financial

discrimination of a very major degree practised against the independent

schools. Now it's not the will of the Legislature or of the government

that independent schools be given equal funding. But make no mistake,

that discrimination is there. Historically the discrimination against

the independent schools was 100 percent discrimination, not 70 percent.

But it was there and the member was quite satisfied with that financial

discrimination.

That just happens to separate the philosophy

of this side of the House and that side of the House. That's why the

Independent Schools Act was brought in, because it makes good

educational sense, good social sense and good fiscal sense. You may

disagree. Indeed, I suppose, the time to have expressed that

disagreement was on second reading. That's when the opposition was

afraid to stand up and be counted. When the election campaign came

along, they were afraid to stand up and be counted again.

When

we get into debate in the House on the details, it all spills out. It

spills out except when the time comes for you to stand up and be

accountable to the voters of British Columbia when it comes to second

reading in the House, when it comes to your election platform. That's

when you run for cover. When it comes to niggling away, standing up in

debate, asking us to be prejudiced, that's when it all comes out.

would ask for that party over there for once to translate the kinds of

things they say now into firm stands that the public can understand.

When it comes to second reading in the House, stand up and be counted.

When it comes to election campaigns, make your policies clear. Don't

come in and ask us to exercise your prejudices when you don't have the

courage to take those stands before the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Just before debate continues I would once again like to remind all hon.

members that during estimates the administrative action of the ministry

is open to debate, but not the necessity for legislation or matters

involving legislation.

MR. KING: With respect to the

minister's last remarks, I find it rather refreshing that he objects to

the particular moral approaches of the official opposition. Because I

can tell you that if a renegade Liberal, a political turncoat, ever

started endorsing and sanctioning the moral characteristics of our

party, we would indeed be in trouble and have to review the situation.

The

issue involved in the case of Mrs. Caldwell, who was fired from St.

Thomas Aquinas School, is one that should be debated in this

Legislature, and should be looked at very carefully. I want to read a

portion of the judgment from the Human Rights inquiry with respect to

the very things the minister has just commented on; they refer to the

academic qualifications of that individual teacher and her performance

as a teacher academically within that institution, which the minister

says is the only legitimate interest of his ministry. On page 16 of the

judgment is this subheading:

"The discriminatory effect of the school's employment policies on Mrs. Caldwell:

"In

the five years she was employed at St. Thomas Aquinas, no one ever

reprimanded Mrs. Caldwell for failing to carry out her teaching duties

properly. Her appraisal form, exhibit 6, completed by Mr. Stewart as of

March 31, 1978, states that she is above standard as a teacher. In his

written comments on the form, Mr. Stewart stated: 'As a classroom

teacher in commercial courses Mrs. Caldwell is excellent'."

His

comment goes on to explain that Mrs. Caldwell is not being asked to

return next year, because of her marriage to a divorced man outside the

church. Mr. Stewart gave Mrs. Caldwell a strong letter of

recommendation in which he stated, among other things, that she has

handled the entire commercial program of the school with exceptional

competence and responsibility.

"In his

testimony before the board Mr. Stewart stated that Mrs. Caldwell was a

cooperative member of the staff and that there was no question of her

ability or competence as a teacher. The respondents make it absolutely

clear that the only reason for the failure to renew was the marriage.

Mr. Stewart took the same position in March 1978. The respondents

consistently maintained that position when the Human Rights officer

tried to settle the complaint and throughout the hearing before the

board of inquiry in May 1979. Mr. Stewart stated

[ Page 593 ]

frankly that if Mrs. Caldwell had been a member of a Protestant

faith, which accepts marriage to divorced persons, she would have been offered

a contract for the following year. The school employed an Anglican teacher who

was divorced, and who had remarried. Mrs. Caldwell was treated in a different

manner than she would have been if she were not a Catholic. More was expected

of her because she was a Catholic."

Mr.

Chairman, what we are dealing with here is the public funding of a

religious philosophy which is clearly in conflict with a large number

of the citizens and taxpayers of this province who through their tax

dollars subsidize the very discrimination which was admitted by this

particular school. That, I suggest to the minister, is rubbing salt

into the wound. I suggest the minister has an obligation. In light and

in defence of the academic qualification of teachers in this province,

he has the responsibility and obligation, as Minister of Education, to

protect the integrity of academic excellence in this province, and also

to ensure that no teacher is going to be discriminated against when

that academic excellence is beyond question and still they are deprived

of their employment opportunity because of a conflict in religious

philosophy.

The question is not whether the Catholic Church

should have the right to pursue their philosophy and apply their rules

to their particular denominational school. That is not the issue; that

is not the question. The issue and the question is a moral one for the

minister, and this Legislature. It is whether or not public funds

should be forwarded to an institution which chooses in its own privacy

and wisdom to set up a denominational school along their own religious

philosophical lines.

When anyone other than a Catholic reads

the finding of this particular human rights panel where the statement

is embodied that more was expected of her because she was a Catholic, I

want to suggest to the minister that he is contributing to religious

conflict in this province, because that statement cannot but be

offensive to all of those who are non-Catholic in the province of

British Columbia. The minister is subsidizing that conflict with the

taxpayers' money. That's the issue. If he has any moral turpitude, Mr.

Chairman, he will stand up and say that despite the Human Rights Code

and any deficiencies it may have, which will be subject to review in

this institution at the appropriate time, as a matter of policy and as

a matter of obligation he should and must withdraw public funding from

this kind of institution.

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Caldwell's

marriage was in accordance with the laws of this nation and this

province. She did not violate a law. There is no breach of the civil or

criminal law. The irony of this case — and it's stated openly in the

decision — is that Mrs. Caldwell quit the Catholic church and took out

membership in a Protestant faith so that she would still be employed as

a teacher at St. Thomas Aquinas. In fact, it's noted that an Anglican

teacher in that same institution married a divorcee and was allowed to

continue in employment simply because she was of another faith. But for

a Catholic to marry outside the church is grounds for discrimination by

that institution.

Now what kind of nonsense, what kind of an

anomaly is that situation? Is that the kind of healthy tolerance for

conflicting religious beliefs that should be funded by public money? I

suggest it is not. For the minister to try to hide behind geographical

allocation of public schools and facilities is an absolute charade. It

really goes beyond the imagination for a person of the good doctor's

background to use that kind of convoluted argument to support his

obvious desire to fund discrimination with the taxpayers' money in the

province of British Columbia.

That's the single and sole

issue. There is no question of the right of any denomination to

practise its own religious freedom. There is no question of their right

to set up their own denominational schools and teach the particular

religious philosophy that they adhere to. But I suggest there should

not be licence to discriminate against people in the course of their

employment based on those religious parameters — certainly not to the

extent that they are subsidized by the very people they are offending.

That is the stuff that conflict and intolerance is made of. I suggest

that it’s a dangerous precedent, and it falls right on the minister's

shoulders and right on his head if from this kind of example there

flows controversy and resentment and bitterness which is predicated on

religious lines in the province of British Columbia. It's regrettable,

it was predictable and was predicted by the official opposition in the

debate on the private schools bill.

Mr. Chairman, I was appalled at the minister using the other argument that

it was somehow wrong for the opposition to raise these matters in the Legislature.

Does the minister suggest that there is some agency where members are more accountable

than they are in the Legislature of British Columbia? Has he become so arrogant

that he no longer considers it the right and the duty of elected members of

the Legislature to raise matters concerning public policy within the very institution

that we are elected to represent our constituency in? Nonsense! The issue is

a clear and simple one: will the minister review and consider withdrawing public

subsidy to any private school, be it a denominational one or another kind, that

offends the human rights and the human dignity of any member of the community?

That's the issue that the minister should address himself to, and I request

that he do so.

MR. BARBER:

My colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has made a very

important point and asked some important questions. The minister has

the authority to deny, if he wishes, moneys to those schools that

practise discrimination. The authority is found in

section 5 of the

Independent Schools Support Act.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

questions to the minister are these: First of all, has the inspector of

independent schools, to date, provided any evidence whatever of

discrimination practised on grounds of racial or ethnic superiority,

religious intolerance, persecution or social change through violent

action? Has any evidence whatever been forwarded to the minister from

the inspector of independent schools that would encourage him to take

action under

section 5 of the Act, which he's entitled to do? If so,

could he give us the details of that? Would he be willing, if such has

not been the case to date, to instruct today the inspector of

independent schools to take a look at the particular case raised by my

colleagues — to do so under the authority of

section 5 and to report

back to this House as quickly as possible? It is for us,, through you,

Mr., Chairman, a highly important matter. On the basis of the

[ Page 594 ]

only evidence at hand there appears to be significant discrimination here.

Discrimination

by itself, no matter what its origin, is an offensive thing; even

Thomas Aquinas himself would have agreed with that. Arguable as his

philosophy might have been on other grounds he would certainly have

agreed with that. But discrimination is made all the more offensive

when it's subsidized by you and me through the public purse; it becomes

all the more difficult to defend. Our cousins to the south, with really

quite magnificent federal law and precedent established since the case

of Brown v. the Board of Education, 1952, have repeatedly said that

they will not in any fashion subsidize discrimination on any racial

grounds, and increasingly on any other grounds, in that country.

They've paid a heavy price for that commitment. They've paid a very

heavy price for the upholding of that moral principle which says that

the state shall never ever, to the extent that it can be advised and

will take action, support any form of discrimination at all. They've

paid the price. They've had the guts and the simple moral courage to

say it is wrong and they will not support it.

The minister

has the authority to instruct the inspector to look into this case. The

minister has, we think, the duty to tell this House whether or not

there have been any other cases that have come to the inspector's

attention. Those are my questions. Have there been other cases? If so,

what are the details of them? If there have been none, that's, fine.

Would the minister instruct the inspector to examine this case under

the authority of

section 5?

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer to the first question is no, Mr. Chairman, and the answer to the second question is yes.

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

MS. SANFORD:

I was rather interested in the pious attitude that the Minister of

Education has taken with respect to the decision made by the board of

inquiry in relation to this particular firing of a teacher in the

Catholic school system, for it was that very minister who was

responsible for ICBC when ICBC fought, right to the Supreme Court of

Canada, a case that had been decided under the Human Rights Code of

this province. That very minister was responsible for ICBC at that time

and took a completely different attitude than he is taking now on this

particular issue. I am wondering whether the minister will reflect on

his actions at that time as the minister responsible and, in this case,

review the funding that is going to the independent schools who are

using discriminatory hiring procedures; and whether he will consider

cutting off the funding for those particular schools; and whether he

will at the same time pressure his colleague, the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams), to rectify the inadequacy of

section 8 of the

Human Rights Code.

Mr. Chairman, he is saying that we have

to accept this decision, that it's a law of the province. But he is one

of the lawmakers over there, and he certainly can make decisions with

respect to funding for the independent schools under the Act which is

under his jurisdiction. What a complete reversal! The minister says:

"Oh, no, we shouldn't even discuss it in this House. It's been

decided." But when he was minister responsible for ICBC he certainly

made no effort to ensure at that time that it wasn't discussed. As a

matter of fact, ICBC at that time pursued the decision of a board of

inquiry into the courts. How can he justify those two positions as

Minister of Education?

HON. MR. McGEER: I think

elected members of the Legislature, whether they serve in opposition or

in government, make excellent ombudsmen and champions of human rights.

However, they make extremely poor judges and frequently even worse

juries. We set laws in the province, and your vote is equal to mine in

whatever law of the province may be established. But we leave to others

the task of interpreting those laws. I've given an undertaking to the

member for Victoria that I would be pleased to have our inspector

examine this particular school. That's appropriate under the Act.

But

if we've got a violation of the Human Rights Act, that's for the Human

Rights Commission to decide, not for me and not for you. I don't

disagree with the appropriateness of raising questions about it. I do

disagree with the appropriateness of a Minister of Education becoming a

judge in this matter when the opinion has already been set forward,

contrary to your judgments but nevertheless by people who are properly

constituted to consider that question. I can have our inspector look at

it again, but I'm certainly not going to make moral judgments about

questions of this kind as a minister. I just don't think that's an

appropriate task. I'm sorry.

I think it appropriate to

establish a reasonable body of others to make those judgments, and if,

in fact, such bodies are not in place, then we should probably see that

they are put in place. As far as I'm concerned, the Human Rights

Commission is there and that is an appropriate area for consideration.

If there's a violation under the Human Rights Commission, then it seems

to me that we do have a mandate to do something about it.

Mr.

Chairman, the member also raised the question of the Heerspink case. I

make no bones about the fact that ICBC was very foolish not to write an

insurance policy for that particular gentleman. But the issue was

whether or not an insurance company must insure everybody who comes

through the door. Insurance companies have never accepted that

obligation. That's the whole purpose of competitive underwriting.

law, when it comes to automobile insurance, we do, under ICBC, take

everybody who comes through the door. You must. That's what the law

says. But for the general insurance business, where ICBC is competing

with other insurance companies, they operate by the rules of the

industry, which do not oblige a person to write insurance. That right

may be thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada and that will have

important implications to the insurance industry as a whole. But don't

expect again someone like myself to make that kind of judgment. That's

what we have the courts for. I think that people in this chamber should

be the last ones to invite a minister to begin to make arbitrary

judgments of one kind or another, because if you are lucky enough to

have Solomon being the Minister of Education, or any other portfolio,

he wouldn't be there for long. Therefore the chances of having somebody

who would be an effective judge — and I certainly can tell you I would

never be one.... You're going down the wrong road in what you

anticipate a minister should do.

So, Madam Member, the circumstances were very different in those two cases. But in both instances it would

[ Page 595 ]

have been incorrect for a person like myself to try to act as the judge.

What

we do in the case of the teachers, whether they're in the independent

school system or the public school system, is that we grant them a

licence. We do not employ them. We don't employ teachers at the

Victoria High School any more than we employ teachers at Sir Thomas

Aquinas. But we certificate them, and this teacher certainly retains

the provincial certificate just as somebody in the public school system

retains their provincial certificate unless they have individually done

something wrong. But just because they have a certificate, that doesn't

guarantee them a job at any particular school, and schools do change

their teachers.

Certainly the independent school system

provides far less tenure than the public school system. I happen to be

against tenures, so I think that's generally healthy. But again, if in

the choosing of the teaching staff they violate human rights, then

fine. Then it's appropriate to do something about it. But it's not for

the minister to make that judgment.

MR. KING: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to tell the minister that I don't really want

Solomon for the minister, or Judas or anyone else. I think the people

have chosen and we have to live with the consequences of that, at least

until the next election. But be that as it may, it's interesting that

the minister is so reticent about making moral judgments with respect

to subsidy with the taxpayers' money. It seems to me I recall that the

minister was not at all reticent about making moral judgments with

respect to teachers who were charged with drug offences.

seems to me that under those circumstances, before that teacher ever

had his day in court to determine whether or not the charge was a valid

one, the minister was quite prepared to intervene on moral grounds and

deprive that teacher of his livelihood. So it depends whose prejudice

is being suited. Apparently the minister is prepared to act with a very

heavy hand, and before the day in court for teachers in certain

circumstances, but he is not prepared to intervene in defence of the

rights of teachers.

It's true that the Human Rights board of

inquiry has made a decision; and it shall be the purpose of members of

the opposition to discuss that decision, and the adequacy of the Human

Rights Code, during the consideration of the appropriate minister's

estimates. What we're dealing with here is something quite narrow, and

clearly within the ambit of this minister's responsibility — and that

is whether or not public funding should be extended to an institution

which clearly and admittedly practises discrimination on the basis of

its religious philosophy. You can extend this from the sublime to the

ridiculous, and suggest that institutions may believe in all kinds of

wild things as a religious philosophy. And certainly there are cults in

this province and elsewhere which have been a bit frightening: Social

Credit for one; Jimmy Jones for another. I don't know whether there's

any affinity there or not; I guess that's for the members to judge.

suggest that the minister has no responsibility to withdraw public

funding from institutions which have the right to pursue and to

practise their own beliefs...but they should not have the right to

discriminate against other members of the community who have a

conflicting religious philosophy. That is the very stuff that conflict

and intolerance is made of. That is the stuff that creates the

ghettoization of people based on religious grounds. I have always

disagreed with that kind of approach.

I believe it's

absolutely wrong to start choosing friends and associations on

religious lines, or, indeed, political lines. I even have coffee with a

Socred once in a while to show how tolerant I am. But, Mr. Chairman,

that's the kind of implication involved in this particular decision.

It's dangerous, and it should be nipped in the bud by the minister. He

clearly has that obligation, and that's the narrow point that he should

address himself to.

I'm not finished yet, Mr. Minister; relax for a moment.

With

respect to the other implications, as I say, it's not really

appropriate to discuss the adequacy of the Human Rights Code under the

Minister of Education's estimates. We shall address ourselves to the

question, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you, with vigour and with tenacity

when the first occasion presents itself.

In the meantime,

let the minister stand and say whether he believes in expending public

money, the taxpayers' dollars, for any and all kinds of restrictive or

discriminatory clauses, whether they pertain to religion, race, creed

or any other grounds. That's obliquely what he has said to the House

today, and I want him to have the fortitude to get up and spell it out.

He's a very articulate and very well educated individual. He must

recognize the principle, and surely he can muster his courage and

address himself to that principle for once in his life.

HON. MR. McGEER: I just missed that last phrase, but perhaps it's just as well.

I'm

glad that the member has exposed himself to the broadening effect of

coffee occasionally with the members of Social Credit. I think that he

ought to pick up on that and perhaps broaden it a little more.

MR. KING: That's how you started your transition.

HON. MR. McGEER: Who can tell how much the broadness of his own debate might improve under that sort of exposure?

any event, the member raised the question of drug offences as far as

teachers are concerned. I underline once more, without any hesitation,

that there is no room for drugs, hard, soft or in between, in the

public school system or the independent school system. And if it comes

to the lifting of licences of teachers who are found in court to be

guilty of drug offences, they will be lifted. I give that warning in

advance. We have not done it, but we have given fair warning to the

system. It's an obligation, Mr. Chairman, under the Public Schools Act.

There was a technicality whereby somebody could be brought into court,

plead guilty, be found guilty of a drug offence, and because of a

loophole in the criminal charge be technically not guilty, which is

absolutely counter to the intent of the Public Schools Act. That's why

I gave that fair warning, and that fair warning is still out there to

the teachers in the independent or public school systems: "Don't be

found guilty of a drug offence, because we will lift your licence."

That's very different from lifting the licence of somebody in this

situation. They are licensed to teach. Our function is to license

teachers, not to guarantee them a job; that's a different question

altogether.

I've given an undertaking to the member for Victoria that the inspector will look specifically under

section 5 of

[ Page 596 ]

the

Act. He's brought no evidence to me. I will not be the judge of a

situation such as that. I've made that very clear. We have appropriate

bodies to consider matters of this kind, and if those bodies don't

exist or are not in place, perhaps we should find others. I can give an

undertaking to do that. But don't ask the minister to be making moral

judgements, particularly ones that suit your purposes. We don't share

the same political philosophy. I'm sorry about that. The public will

render its judgment again at some future time.

I must

observe, though, as I've observed before: if you feel this way, why is

it that during the election campaign the quiet letters go out from the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) to all the private

schools, including the one we're discussing today, guaranteeing that

the NDP, if elected, will support them? That's what they said by

private letter during the election campaign. It was dropped on the

doorsteps, mind you, around the edges of these schools. "Pssst, it's

really okay. It's safe to vote for us." That's what the party says

during an election campaign. Then you come in the House and take this

high moralistic tone. All we say is: for once be true to your

principles. Don't go, "Pssst, it's okay to vote for us," on the quiet

during an election campaign, and then come in here and take a high

moral tone and pretend you would never, ever do a thing like that. Just

be consistent and straightforward.

If you say to St. Thomas

Aquinas, "We're going to support you," on the sly during the election

campaign, don't come in and ask me to lift the money; that only

punishes the students who are attending that school. I presume that's

what you would like me to do; that's what you are inviting me to do

now, right here: "Say today you won't give them any money — punish the

children who are attending that school." Mr. Chairman, I don't intend

to do that; I don't think it's appropriate.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Chairman, we've heard discussion about hardware which the minister

is fascinated with — bouncing signals, laser beams and thin sections of

modula oblongatas and hypothalamus and all that sort of stuff. What I

would like to talk about just for a minute is the content — what is

taught in the schools. We've heard discussion on money; we've heard

discussion — or we probably will have — that the minister deprived his

colleagues in academia of the right to organize themselves into a

bargaining agent.

I want to talk about content in two areas

of a system which, I feel, are seriously deficient. I alluded to that

when I interrupted the minister when he was embarking on a geographical

sojourn around the world. I'd like to bring him back home. I'd like to

talk to him about approximately 100,000 people here in the province of

British Columbia of Indian ancestry. About 50,000 of them are status

Indians, about 50,000 are non-status. I'd like to talk to him about the

peculiarities of that particular population distribution — it is a very

young population.

In the past, I think the powers that be

thought that if the Indian people were just ignored, the whole

situation would go away. What happened, in effect, was that the Indian

population has expanded very greatly over the last 10 or 15 years. So

the normal Bell curve which the minister is very familiar with, which

is used to assess people throughout their schooling — whether they fail

or whether they succeed or whether they are normal — does not apply to

the Indian population, because what you have is an extremely large,

very young population with a very low mean age. It's a relatively small

working-age population with some older people there. So what you have

is a small working population supporting a very large population.

very large population of young people look toward the future in British

Columbia. What do they find when they encounter the educational system?

In most instances, they encounter teachers who have not been trained in

any way and who, through no fault of their own, have no respect,

appreciation or understanding of the Indian history of this province.

They

have probably learned most of their Indian history from the grade

dusters. They probably think the Indian people of British Columbia rode

horses and wore head feathers as they did in the Great Plains of the

United States. Only to the member for Kootenay River and Columbia River

riding did that ever occur.

The educational system has not

imparted to the people of British Columbia, in its colonial history,

any understanding of Indian history of this province. Most people

aren't aware of the linguistic divisions, the cultural divisions, the

different kinship systems, the different social organizations, the way

resources were exploited, the technology, the adaptation, and so on and

so forth.

That's important. When the minister starts beaming

his messages through lasers and various circuitry, and off these shiny

bits of aluminum foil, some of the content should include an

understanding, a way of transmitting something about the Indian people

of this province.

The minister said he would like to bring

in his expert who understands all the good things that are happening in

education in the province. I see the Minister of Environment sort of

peering over his shoulder. Someone from Kamloops, I think, should have

a good understanding of the Indian people in his area. All along the

North and South Thompson Rivers, all the archaeological sites that were

there, right at the junction which is an industrial park, were

destroyed in the last few years, gone forever. You would be doing the

people in your riding a service to blow into the minister's ear and

say: "Come on. Let's do a little something. Put it on the laser beam.

It's about time."

From as non-partisan a position as I can

take, I say it is about time that this become a serious priority in our

curriculum. There are no textbooks. There are no good books in British

Columbia that could be introduced in grade 3, 5, 9, 12 to explain these

things. They don't exist.

One of the best books was a book

written by the late Wilson Duff, The Indian History of British

Columbia . The minister knew Wilson Duff, I'm sure, as he knew the late

Carl Borden. In fact, the late Carl Borden had a picture of the

minister on his wall, for others reasons I'll tell the minister

privately.

I'm sure the minister recalls Harry Hawthorn.

Harry Hawthorn worked in a survey of contemporary Indians of Canada —

two volumes, 1967 — one with a large

section on Indian education and

another on recommendations. I won't read them all, but perhaps the

deputy, or one of the deputies, should go through the recommendations

of the Hawthorne report to see how you're moving along and what changes

you're making. Perhaps he should report back and tell us how it's going.

The

minister referred to the Nishga school board. Certainly that's good.

We're all proud and pleased to see that happening. But there are many

other bands in the

[ Page 597 ]

province.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows the Indian people in his

riding need access to education that meets their needs. I'm sure that

he would support a positive approach on the part of the minister.

would like to run through just a couple of the recommendations, though.

Again, this was written for the Department of Indian Affairs, so these

are not recommendations made to the Minister of Education provincially;

but I think that he should be cognizant of them.

Basic

recommendations on education: teachers should be encouraged to learn as

much as possible about the background and culture of their Indian

students, and should get to know individuals.

The Department

of Education at the University of British Columbia, I know, does have a

small

section which deals specifically with Indians and counselling and

so on, but I don't think that the student teachers get a very good

education on the culture and history of Indian people. The Indian

Affairs Branch, through its curriculum division and by arrangements

with outside specialists, should develop materials on Indian languages

which could be used as guides for classroom teachers.

You

know here in British Columbia we have very few linguists who are

actually working on the disappearing Indian languages. There are three

people over at the Provincial Museum, in the tower, working very hard.

There are a couple of consultants who get money from the federal

government, a little bit from the ministry. It's not enough though.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON:

Teaching in Aiyansh, the minister says. There are many linguistic

groupings that are not getting any help at all. There is no one working

on the Tlinget. There is very little work going on — probably no work

at all going on in the Kootenays.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: There's enough? Not enough! Very good, there are two votes; we've got Omineca and we have Kootenay.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Perhaps you can relate this to the specifics of the

Minister of Education's vote. We are getting somewhat off the estimates

of the Minister of Education. I would just remind the member that in

committee we should stick to the specific votes.

MR. HANSON: I think that if we can journey to China, Mr. Chairman, we can talk about Kootenay.

Here

is another point that I would like to bring to the attention of the

minister regarding curriculum. Some texts continue to include material

about Indians which is inaccurate, over-generalized and even insulting.

Such texts should be eliminated from the curriculum. Where elimination

must proceed gradually it is recommended that teachers immediately

correct the Indian content by reference to books and other sources,

which should be available in school libraries. Well, again, I'm telling

you that the books don't exist. So here is a question of the minister:

would the minister initiate a contract, either in-service or

out-service, to have textbooks drawn up that could be used in the

school system in British Columbia? It is 1979; I would appreciate it if

the minister would give serious consideration to developing a number of

accurate books to be used in the school system.

I would like to just make a couple of remarks regarding the minister's comments on high technology.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Five more minutes.

MR. HANSON:

You can take five more minutes of me? Good. If I could get his

attention, I'd probably be inspired to move on a little quicker. I have

a couple of ideas here.

Regarding the high technology, I

think one of the things that could benefit Vancouver Island and

Victoria in particular would be to look at technology as it relates to

the 200-mile limit. In terms of marine exploitation and utilization of

marine resources, there are many clean, high-technology industries that

could be used in the research of our marine environment: the harvesting

of shellfish, of fish, of other organic materials, and the planning of

all sorts of fancy equipment and hardware. They could be based in

Victoria and provide jobs; Vancouver Island would he a very good

location for that.

I'm making specific requests of the

minister, proposing ideas to him that he consider some of these things.

Actually I would sit down if I could get an answer on the books for

Indian education, and perhaps some consideration of high technology in

the marine industry for Vancouver Island. I'd be happy to sit down and

hear the minister's response.

HON. MR. McGEER: We're

working a little against the clock. We already have the kind of work

that you describe underway, not yet in textbook form, but in curriculum

form for the teachers. As you know, there's a special Native Indian

Teaching Education Program at the University of British Columbia, so

we're trying to bring along both a supply of people who can go into

these areas as well as a supply of special educational material,

including language development in four different areas. We can work

towards other areas in the future, but we are covering four. There's

the Nishga, the Gitksan, the Carrier and the Coqualeetza. But we'll

expand that. I'd like to invite the member to come and familiarize

himself with the total galaxy of things that we are doing in that area.

Certainly we agree with his suggestions. We've already anticipated

some, perhaps not to the degree he'd like, and I'd be happy to expand

on that afterwards with him.

With respect to high

technology, this is definitely a priority area now that we've got the

200-mile limit. We're hoping to have a branch of Discovery Park right

out there at Patricia Bay next to that federal station, and we're

currently negotiating for the land. Perhaps the member could help with

that, because it belongs to the federal government.

We've

also made $300,000 available to the Science Council which will go

specifically for this purpose through a new program that's being

developed at the B.C. Research Council. That's housed over on the

Vancouver side, and you're quite correct that we should try and expand

on what we've already got a Bamfield and out there near Patricia Bay as

well as at the University of Victoria. So we hope they'll be good

physical locations, and it would definitely be on our list.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 598 ]

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

Presenting Reports

Mr.

Mussallem, from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills, presented the committee's first report, which was read

as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and private Bills begs

leave to report as follows: that the standing orders have been complied

with relating to the petition for leave to introduce a private bill

intituled

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, except for

late filing. But with respect thereto, the petitioner has paid double

fees in accordance with standing order 98(3). Your committee

recommends that the petitioner be allowed to proceed with the said

bill, all of which is respectfully submitted. George Mussallem,

chairman."

Mr. Mussallem moves the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Mr. Mussallem presented report number two of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Mr. Mussallem moves the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

ASSISTANT CLERK: Report number two, July 6, 1979.

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and

Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: that certain private

bills hereinafter listed did not proceed past the second reading stage

during the sessions of the Legislature of 1976, 1977 and 1978. These

bills are as follows: Bill 52, Vancouver Stock Exchange Act 1976; Bill

PR402, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act 1977; Bill PR404, British

Columbia Accredited Public Accountants Act 1977; Bill PR401, Royal

Canadian Legion Amendment Act 1978; St. Vincents Hospital Act. Your

committee recommends that one-half of fees paid by petitioners be

returned to them in accordance with Standing Order 98, all of which is

respectfully submitted. George Mussallem, chairman."

Mr. Mussallem moves the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada