1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 1095 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Education estimates.

Mr. Brousson — 1095

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1100

Mr. Lauk — 1102

Mr. Schroeder — 1103

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1105

Ms. Brown — 1106

Mrs. Webster — 1108

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1110

Mr. McGeer — 1111

Mr. .McClelland — 1113

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 45: Minister's office, $72,464.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. This is somewhat different from other years in the

estimates of Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). In past

years the Minister and I cooperated at times, or shall we say,

agreed to an extent on some of the things we've said. I don't

really think tonight I am going to have very much to say in the

way of criticism. I hope perhaps I can make some constructive

suggestions. Maybe I'll have some questions to ask the Minister

for clarification.

I should point out to the Minister before she answers any of

my questions, that very recently, about a month ago, my company

moved its office to a new building and I just realized this

afternoon, as a matter of fact, because this is my office not

my home, that I am now, at least from the point of view of my

business, a constituent of the Minister's. So she should be

very careful about how she considers the answers to my

questions.

I was pleased, Mr. Chairman, to an extent, with the

Minister's announcement last December regarding scholarships

and bursaries in the field of post secondary education. I think

some of the questions I have raised along with one of my

constituents perhaps, prompted some review of that subject. I

think it is unfortunate the manner in which this release was

made. The way in which it was handled by the Press has caused

confusion in a number of people's minds.

To refresh your memory, Mr. Chairman, on December 12, 1972,

when the Minister announced the new programme of post secondary

scholastic awards, the point she was emphasizing was that the

marks were to be recognized primarily in awarding of

scholarships, but when it came to the programme on provincial

bursaries this would be changed and the matter of need would

become perhaps the most important thing.

Unfortunately some of the Press stories at the time gave the impression the

whole programme was going to based on need rather than scholarship. I have had

several phone calls and letters from people who were concerned about this. As

a matter of fact the headlines said: "Government bursaries to be given on need

rather than marks."

The difficulty here is that most people in the public don't

understand the difference between bursaries and scholarships. I

think the Minister might clarify this situation because as I

understand it, she still very clearly means the post secondary

higher education scholarship programme is based entirely on

marks — on scholarship results on agreed upon examinations.

Whereas the bursary programme is altogether different.

This is a special grant and it is given for a combination of

things on marks plus need. But certainly in the way the story

was written and the way the people have been commenting to me,

there are misunderstandings here.

I would suggest the Minister might not only tonight in

answering my questions, but perhaps later might make a more

detailed release that would explain this very carefully to all

the families and parents and young people concerned.

I does appear though, Mr. Chairman, when you examine the

proposals the Minister has made here, or the policies she has

announced, that the amounts seem to be greatly reduced. In the

past, if a student, for instance at UBC, received a scholarship

based on three-quarters of his full sessional fees, he received

$321 or he might receive half, in which case it would be about

$214. The Minister's new programme is only $200 per school

year. So there is quite a reduction in terms of the proportion

that the student might receive of his total cost of fees.

In other words, the total cost of the fees at UBC might be

$428. If he gets half, he gets $214; if he gets three-quarters,

he gets $321. But under the new programme he only gets $200

which is less than half.

In the past the policy was I think, and I stand to be

corrected here, Mr. Chairman, but I believe the top 5 per cent,

in the old days, received three-quarters of the fees, the top 6

per cent received half and the next 6 per cent received about

one-third. That is a total of 17 per cent getting varying

percentages of their actual fees.

Under the new programme the same 17 per cent all get $200.

It is my understanding this is now expanded to include, I

presume, BCIT, regional colleges and so on. The fact is, now we

have the thing a little bit out of proportion. This is great

stuff for the student of the regional college who receives

nearly 100 per cent of his fees because in many cases the fees

at regional colleges are only about $200 or thereabouts.

BCIT fees are much less than, say, the University of British

Columbia. It seems to me when we get also into some of the more

professional schools, again the fees get much higher at UBC or

any of the univer-

[ Page 1096 ]

sities. The proportional system had some merit to it, taking

a percentage of the fees at the institution the student elected

to attend. If a student is attending a junior college with low

fees, for the same marks he can earn almost the entire year's

fees.

Whereas at UBC for the same marks, he must get much

less.

I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister has

spread this across a broader spectrum of post secondary

students. I support the idea of the scholarships for the

regional colleges, for BCIT and that kind of thing. But I think

the percentage programme had something in its favour.

I also very much support the Minister's announcement that a

school like SFU that had the semester system allowed the

student to get, let's say, $100 for the first semester and

$100 for the second semester. In other words 50 per cent of the

year. This was one of the inequities of the former system which

the Minister corrected very properly and I am very pleased that

she has.

Perhaps when she answers some of my questions she might

expand on this thing and explain the system at greater length.

Explain the difference for the benefit of the public, between

scholarships and bursaries and the whole policy, because

certainly there is confusion. There is confusion in my mind,

there is certainly confusion in the minds of some of the people

who have written me letters and given me phone calls to ask

what it means.

Mr. Chairman, my main concern this year is in the post

secondary field. The Minister's background, of course — and I

am delighted that we have a Minister who has been involved in

the educational process as a teacher, as a trustee — but her

whole background is in the public school and high school field.

I am concerned at what she is going to do therefore in the post

secondary field, or perhaps she has less personal

background.

I am very glad the Minister has appointed a separate senior

member of her staff for the post secondary field to report

directly to her. I think this was a step forward and I support

it. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that personally I would support

a separate Deputy Minister reporting to a single Minister of

Education in the post secondary field. I am not meaning by this

that we want two totally separate departments, but I would

support the concept of a Deputy Minister specifically on post

secondary education.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, it is out of order to refer to

legislation that is presently on the order paper or on

legislation that might come in, but I am sure it isn't out of

order to refer to previous bills of past years, Mr. Chairman. I

don't think you can find this out of order. I go back to the

year of 1969, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about a past bill in

1969, when I moved a bill as

an Act to Provide the

Establishment of a Commission on Higher Education .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would just draw the attention

of the Hon. Member to the fact we are not to discuss

legislation, period, but rather the administration of the

department.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm just referring to the fact, Mr. Chairman,

that four years ago I did move a bill of this particular

subject and the way things are going this year, I may just

present it again. That was the only comment I wanted to

make.

I would commend the reading of this bill to you and to the

Minister and to the Members of the House. I am going to make

sure that one way or another, they get copies of this bill of

four years ago.

My philosophy at that time, in talking about the

establishment of a commission on higher education, Mr.

Chairman, was to include not just the universities but also the

junior or regional colleges, the vocational schools and the

technical institute, BCIT, all in the sphere of post-secondary

and higher education.

At that point four years ago, if people talked about higher

education, most people thought only of the universities. I

think that philosophy has changed, and I think the Minister

approves of this philosophy, that these should all be brought

under one roof and that we want to greatly emphasize the

importance of the vocational and technical side of this for a

great many reasons.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that in the two commissions

that the Minister is appointing to study education in British

Columbia, both have the same chairman. I don't know the

gentlemen, but reading his qualifications I am sure he's very

well qualified. But it seems to me that his entire background

and experience is all in the public school field, elementary

and high school area, and that his background and training and

interests have not been in the field of post-secondary

education. So I have a little bit of concern that he's

responsible for both these areas.

I'm not questioning the Minister's sincerity in her approach

to the post-secondary field. But as I've said, she does have

little experience in this area herself and the chairman of the

commissions she's appointed, as far as I can understand, has

little personal background in the post-secondary field.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) again I

think this afternoon have referred to various phases of the

problems of a veterinary or agricultural college in British

Columbia. I don't think, in the previous references to this

subject that the House was told exactly what the problem is. I

think that this is important enough that the Legislature should

understand just why we have such a major problem in this field

of veterinary medicine in British Columbia.

Under the programme as it is at present, if you wish to

become a doctor of veterinary medicine in

[ Page 1097 ]

British Columbia, you go to UBC and you take two

years of pre-veterinary programme. Then, if you are accepted, you take

four years at the College of Veterinary Medicine in Saskatoon. But the

trick is to get accepted at that western college.

The figures work out about like this, Mr. Chairman. There are 60 people elected

each year — 20 come from Saskatchewan, 15 from Manitoba, 15 from Alberta, 5

from miscellaneous sources and 5 from British Columbia. Now those are not exact,

but that's approximately the proportion each year, within one or two people.

That's been the story as I understand it for some years.

Then we ask, "Why doesn't B.C. get a little fairer shake?" The

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) mentioned this the other day

when it came up in his estimates. He said, "We've just discovered from

the files of the previous government that B.C. has only been allotting

$2,500 per year to that programme," — I think that would be $2,500 per

student —

whereas the basic cost in Saskatoon is $9,000 per student per

year. Again, those are round figures, but I think they're in the

ballpark, Mr. Chairman.

It's quite clear why the Saskatchewan Western College of Veterinary

Medicine is not accepting very many people from British Columbia. We

have not been paying our fair share of the bus fare.

It was interesting last fall that there was a representative from

the Saskatoon veterinary college who went to UBC and addressed the

students who were interested in taking a veterinary medicine course.

There were 150 young people who turned out to hear that lecture. Each

year B.C. can only get five people into that programme and yet 150 were

interested in learning more about it and had some interest in going

there.

A young lady who's writing to me in this particular letter says:

"I've worked for a veterinarian for three years now,

on weekends and on holidays. I've been associated with animals all my

life. I've decided this is to be my chosen profession. I applied to

Saskatoon with the completion of my pre-vet years at UBC and waited

hopefully, only to face rejection. I decided to complete my bachelor

programme."

She's taking at UBC the bachelor programme in agricultural science.

"It would be false optimism to hold very much hope. My

only chance really is to move to Saskatchewan and complete my master's

degree at the University of Saskatoon, although I really wouldn't be

considered a resident of Saskatchewan for at least four more years. But

only in this way will I be considered a Saskatoon applicant and

increase my chances of acceptance."

Mr. Chairman, it's quite true that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

said that this was being studied and that something might be done some time

in the future.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) raised this and

asked the question.

I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we consider the young

people who are in the position of this particular student.

Quite obviously she wants to make a career in this field, and I

think she ought to be given the chance. I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that, without waiting for further studies by the

Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Education, something

could be done right now for the session 1973-74, the one coming

up in September, 1973 in Saskatchewan.

Let's ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if the Government will

announce right now that B.C. is prepared this year to equalize

contributions with other provinces in this programme and if, on

this condition, the Saskatoon Western College of Veterinary

Medicine will accept, starting in 1973, a larger incoming class

from British Columbia, perhaps at least 15, not just five.

Beyond this, Mr. Chairman, I certainly feel, as I think has

been mentioned in various ways by several Members, including

the Minister, that we need to study what B.C. really needs in

the field of agricultural training. This includes agriculture,

the field of farming, animal husbandry, a whole vast area of

training. Do we need only graduates with degrees in agriculture

or veterinary medicine? Is there a place, for instance, for

technicians? Should BCIT have a programme in this field, a

two-year programme in the technical side of agriculture without

the four or five year programmes of a university like UBC?

Could one or more of the regional colleges be involved in

this kind of a programme? Is there room for a two year

programme in agriculture or allied sciences at one or more of

the regional colleges?

One of the great advantages of the name "regional colleges" — I used to call them junior colleges or community colleges — is that they do become identified with a specialty of a region.

I know that Selkirk and Castlegar tried to do some particular

things that were specialties for them and I think this has been

true of each one.

Perhaps, just as a suggestion, Mr. Chairman — I don't think

you can legislate these things — the Okanagan regional college

might want to involve itself with some direction — encouragement if you like — from the Minister in the field of

some special agricultural, vocational or technical programmes.

I think a great deal of study could be done in that area. Maybe

they could do some of the pre-veterinary programmes. Maybe they

could do some pre-agricultural programmes for those that want to

take agricultural engineering at UBC in the third or fourth year,

and so on.

How about courses in the regional colleges to

[ Page 1098 ]

upgrade those people who are now in the farming business

across the province? We've been talking a great deal in the

last week or so, and I rather suspect we're going to talk a

great deal more in the next week or so, and I rather suspect

we're going to talk a great deal more in the next week or so,

about the problems of the farmer. Maybe one of the things we

might do for the farmer is provide some means whereby in short

courses, in night courses, in some of these regional colleges,

he gets a better chance to upgrade his skills from a technical

point of view to be a little more efficient in what he is

doing.

The key thing here is that we have to — and again the

Minister mentioned it in a different concept this afternoon — survey the market. We have to study what the market is. Then we

must do something about it in the educational system. I think

the key words here, from my point of view, Mr. Chairman, are

"study the market" and "market survey."

I'm a businessman basically, and I couldn't live in my

business without doing market surveys — not always very

sophisticated or very complex, but we try, before we make a

product or decide to buy a product for resale, to study the

market and see if there's a possibility of something happening

to it. Or we do the reverse; we look at the market and say:

what does it need, where can we find what it needs?

But we so rarely do this in education. Somebody in an ivory

tower decides that a certain course ought to be given, and

there it goes. Then the students come along and they look down

the list and we wonder why they don't find relevance in all of

these programmes. So we have to find out what the market will

absorb, what the market wants and then provide the courses for

the people that are there.

Mr. Chairman, this is the third year that I've been telling

this House about the shortage of trained technical people in

British Columbia. I've talked about the problems I've had in my

own company and that my own people have had in getting people

with any background whatsoever in our industry, which is a part

of the construction industry.

Right now, we're participating in the federal government's

TOJ, Training on the Job programme. I know that this comes as a

tremendous help because we can't get people that are trained,

so now we're training them on the job with subsidization. I

don't want to knock that programme — it's a very fine one, it's

a very good one. But I find that the educational system in

British Columbia at the vocational school and the BCIT level is

reacting very, very slowly in these areas. I don't think it

should react overnight. I think there should be a certain delay

while the thing is studied. My experience is that it takes four

or five years to get the thing shaken up to the point where

these programmes are changed.

Certainly, in my view, the amount of vocational and

technical training that's going on in British Columbia lags far behind the demand for it. The Member for

Chilliwack (MT. Schroeder) earlier today talked about the

Chilliwack vocational school being cancelled. So far we haven't

had any substitute mentioned for it, Mr. Chairman, and I

suppose a year or two will go by before those facilities will

be available, wherever they're going to be.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, I told the Legislature something

they had never known before — the story of the $26 million of

federal funds that were given to the Government of British

Columbia, earmarked to build vocational schools. When I asked

the former Minister of Education (Mr. Brothers) about that, he

said, "Oh, don't ask me about it, ask the Minister of Finance."

It turned out, Mr. Chairman, that it was the Minister of

Finance that had the $26 million of those funds in his kitty

that came from the federal government earmarked for one purpose

only, to build vocational schools.

That's a hangover from the earlier programme, for originally

the federal government offered to share dollar for dollar

matching and things of that kind. It finally came down to the

end of the programme and Ottawa said to British Columbia,

"Here's your share left, $26 million. You take it, but all you

can do is spend it for vocational school construction." I

haven't been able to learn what the deadline is, but eventually

the provincial government in British Columbia will have to

spend that on some vocational school construction. But until

that time, the previous government kept that in the Minister of

Finance's pocket.

Now, I'd like to ask the new Minister of Education, Mr.

Chairman, where's that money now? Has she got it in her pocket,

or has the Minister of Finance still got it in his bottom

drawer? I'm glad you got in, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, last year, after some discussion on this

subject, we went back and forth a little bit, and the former

Minister of Education promised me across the floor of the

House, twice in public and he confirmed it to me privately, a

commitment that the Department of Education, the provincial

government, would build a vocational school on the North Shore — I don't say North Vancouver because we are talking of all of

the North Shore, North and West Vancouver — as part of or

associated with Capilano College. This is part of the melding

programme, only this would be a completely new structure. The

Minister at that time, last March, made it very clear that he

was committed to that. As I say, this was both twice across the

floor of the House and afterwards, privately.

I don't want to go into a great deal of description tonight

on Capilano College, Mr. Chairman. I'm very proud, I think all

of us on the North Shore are proud of Capilano College.

Perhaps, in British Columbia, it was the pioneer of the concept

of the regional

[ Page 1099 ]

college, the community college that built itself in

temporary quarters. You know the old folk song about little

boxes. Capilano College built itself out of little boxes. They

stacked a box here and put another box on top of it, another

box on top of that and a few more. Out of those boxes piled up

on the hillside along Mathers in West Vancouver, they built

Capilano College.

They're now going into some larger premises. I think they're

following the Minister's concept of diversification or

spreading themselves out. They're going to work with a central

campus which will provide the administrative headquarters and

that sort of thing, but they're going to spread themselves from

Squamish to Deep Cove at the other end to adequately serve the

entire community. But they are going to, I hope, in the next

year or so have their permanent headquarters.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Do they have some

land?

MR. BROUSSON: They have some land now, fortunately. But, Mr.

Chairman, in their planning at Lynn Creek, in the Two River

area, there is certainly room there for the vocational college

facilities, vocational school facilities that I've been talking

about. I would like the Minister to say tonight if her

department is prepared to honour the previous commitment made

publicly by the previous Minister of Education to include

vocational school facilities as part of Capilano College.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a final topic I want to talk

about in this Minister's estimates, or at this time anyway. I

want to make it clear, because of what I'm going to say, for

those who don't know my chequered background, that I was at one

time a teacher. In the past I was very much involved with the

executive of the UBC alumni association, and up until last

June, I was a member of the UBC Senate. So if what I am going

to say is perhaps to some extent critical of the university

establishment, I want to preface it with those remarks.

I was talking to one of the senior people in the university

establishment, Mr. Chairman, about a month ago, and I asked him

how things were going at his particular university. He said,

"You know, I think the action has moved on." I thought that was

a very significant remark, because, Mr. Chairman, there are a

great deal of new attitudes today in these areas. I think we

need to think about them a little bit, not because we're going

to legislate directly on these things, but we're going to

influence and we're going to give direction, and that's the way

we do things in this area.

Certainly, there's a feeling today more than ever before that learning isn't

just something that happens in an organized process up to age 18. It's a life-long

process. Therefore, education should be and is being democratized to all levels,

to all incomes and to all ages, Mr. Chairman. That's a new concept.

A friend of mine today on the North Shore, at a little over

65, is taking a programme in training as a day-care attendant.

I had to give her some help to get her accepted — the people

didn't think she'd be a very good prospect for day-care

training. It turns out she's turning into a wonderful day-care

teacher. This is the kind of new thing that's happening in that

area.

Mr. Chairman, we've seen clearly in recent years how young

people want a voice in the student affairs. A lot of people

step aside; they leave their training very early in their

university career, or don't even go to university. They go

someplace else. They don't opt out. They step aside and maybe

years later they will come back into the educational stream. So

education becomes not only a preparation for life; it becomes a

part of life.

Along with these, there are a lot of other changing factors — the increased rate of technical and social change, the

necessity because of this for perhaps changed training for

several different careers for many people. Women are returning

more and more to the employment field, staying at home for some

years to raise their families or whatever and then coming back

into the employment stream, wanting to learn new things. People

are looking for new values, because they've lost their interest

in some of the older values such as religion and that sort of

thing.

Because of all of this, Mr. Chairman, there's been

tremendously increasing interest in the whole field of

continuing education. This means a wide range of miscellaneous

programmes. Some of these are credit programmes, and by

"credit" I mean those that entitle you to receive a degree, a

diploma, a certificate. Some of them, of course, are

non-credit. Those are for the people that just want to learn

something new for their personal satisfaction.

There are a tremendous number of people in these later

years, past the age of 21, past the time when they can spend

full time going to school, that do actually need, for a variety

of reasons, to get that certificate. They need the degree, the

diploma, the certificate, the evidence that they passed certain

courses or have received certain knowledge.

This becomes more and more difficult for the student who has

passed that early age when he can live at home and go to school

pretty cheaply. So the university community, post-secondary

school community, has reacted to this in a lot of different

ways. They have made it possible for the mature student to go

back to school, even though he doesn't have all of the grade 12

diplomas or whatever.

They have sometimes offered the daytime courses at nights

and on weekends. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, little of this

has happened in British Columbia. If you want to take the

ordinary daytime

[ Page 1100 ]

courses at the university level at night-time or during the

weekend, some time like that, in B.C. It's very, very

difficult.

There is a variety of courses by correspondence. Again,

we've sent lecturers away from the campus, to the interior and

places like that. We've seen the open university experiment in

other countries, where it's done by telephone and a variety of

things like that. The University of London has an external

degree programme. Some of the American universities have what

they call the "university without walls." All of these are

attempts by the university community to meet this new kind of

need of the last five, six, seven years, perhaps 10 years at

the most.

The question I want to ask and make some suggestions about

and hope the Minister will comment on, Mr. Chairman, is: what

can we do in B.C. to react to these needs and meet these

situations? Well, of course, one would be to simply encourage

the universities and colleges by policy statements in this

direction. Or you could do it with financial means, such as

Manitoba does. Manitoba has a programme where the person

registered in a one credit course as a part-time student is

counted as .35, roughly one-third of a full-time equivalent

student for grant purposes.

In B.C., as I understand it, this is only .2. A part-time

student receives credit for grant purposes only as .2 of a

full-time student.

In Oregon they have a state-wide division Of continuing

education, which acts as the director, if you like, as a bureau

of continuing education for all of the different universities

and institutions in the state and provides coordination and

organizes these part-time degree programmes. Many states in the

United States have programmes of this kind.

Perhaps there's something that in B.C. we might call the

provincial university concept. This would be a university, Mr.

Chairman, that would have no campus of its own; rather it would

have only an administrative headquarters. It would be, if you

like, a credit bank, where the student would bank his credits,

whether he got them at this university or that regional college

or some other university. It would be a credit bank to provide

an advisory counselling service, to provide the administrative

headquarters.

The students could take their courses anywhere, at any

college in British Columbia. They might for some reason want to

go to some other university or college, even outside British

Columbia. But if they were residents of British Columbia they

would have the opportunity here to bank their credits, as they

got them in these various places, with our provincial

university.

This is, I suppose, a little bit of the concept which in the

States they call the "university without walls." It's a little

bit of concept they call the "university without walls." It's

a little bit of that concept.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that the present existing universities and colleges

and so on could increase the flexibility to do some of these things. I must

say it's my personal opinion, and the opinion of a number of people with whom

I've discussed some of these concepts, that that isn't going to happen.

I think that unfortunately — maybe I shouldn't say

unfortunately, because maybe it's a good thing that our

academic institutions don't move too easily, and maybe they

should be conservative and not react to these new ideas too

quickly — you're too rigid and too conservative to go into some

of these new things. I think by the time they react somebody

else is going to have done it. I must say personally that I

think the challenge of the idea of the provincial university

concept would be something that we might well explore.

These are all possibilities, Mr. Chairman. I think the

traditional role of the university, as it was in the dark ages,

where it was kind of a repository, where the knowledge was

preserved as the dark ages went by, is gone. But I think some

of the universities haven't realized that they're being

bypassed in this regard. I think we must find means for our

institutions of higher education to be relevant to the 1970's

and the last third of the 20th century.

While I don't think the Government should legislate how the

universities operate, I think it must provide the leadership,

the direction and, if necessary, the facilities for some of the

other kinds of machinery, the other kinds of institutions that

I've been talking about.

I hope the Minister will comment on some of these points,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I always

appreciate hearing from the Hon. Member who just took his seat,

because he certainly researches well in the whole field of

educator. It's always a pleasure. I've never had the

opportunity to answer before. I'm glad to hear you're in my

constituency now.

MR. BROUSSON: Only my office.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I believe you brought up the

matter of scholarships and bursaries. You were concerned that

there isn't too much clarification on this. I think the Press

release was fairly clear, but if you have letters of concern

I'm certainly glad to clear it up here in the House right

now.

We certainly haven't gone out of the scholarship field

altogether. We still have a combination of scholarships and

bursaries. Perhaps where the misinterpretation came was that we

have decided that it's

[ Page

1101 ]

better to put the emphasis on the bursaries rather than the

scholarships. In other words, we're putting more money into

bursaries because after all the bursaries go to those who are

in need. Scholarships, as you know, have been basically money

for marks.

There can be a philosophical argument on whether one should

go in just one direction entirely, perhaps just go into

bursaries. But we at this time have decided to compromise. We

still have scholarships, money for marks, but at the same time

we have increased the money for bursaries.

My personal inclination is to assist those students who need

the assistance economically to get into higher education. So I

hope people out there will be quite aware now that for children

who are able, as far as the marks go, their scholarships are

available.

You also expressed concern…

MR. BROUSSON: Can we have a publication?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes. Actually, Mr. Member, through you,

Mr. Chairman, we're planning to put out a publication, which I

think is sadly needed in the Department of Education, to pass

this information out. It is needed.

You were concerned about the fact that there was a variance

before in the money for a student going to college or

university and now it's a straight $200. I think you would

agree with me, however, that a scholarship is not based on

need. Really that is the principle behind that.

You also know we've made it more flexible so that a student

may use that money as he or she desires, which we consider is

the way to go today. If the student wishes to take the money

for travelling, so be it. That can be an educational experience

also.

As you know, we've lifted what I consider the rather

ludicrous restriction of the former government which made it a

very inflexible use of the scholarship programme.

Now, one of your other points was that you did express some

concern that I had just appointed one chairman and this

particular person doesn't seem to have a particular background

in universities — including myself. I would like to say

why I have appointed one chairman. I think really that if you

were consistent, Mr. Member, it follows your basic philosophy,

too. Because later on in your remarks you mentioned that

education is a continuing thing; it's a flowing procedure. From

the time we're born and right to the end it should be

continuing.

I feel, therefore, that if these commissions are to go in the right direction,

there must be one person who makes sure there's continuity and continues that

flow. That's the way we want to go from kindergarten right through to continuing

education. That's why I feel it's very essential to have one person who is ensuring

that we're looking at education completely, right through. I think that's really

consistent with your philosophy.

The chairman in question perhaps may be better known for his

innovations and work in public schools, but he is presently at

Dalhousie and I think you will find that his background in

universities will also be most acceptable.

I would like to point out that I really wasn't concerned in

selecting the person whether we could say, "This is a

university person," or "This is a public school person."

I was looking for a person who would be a real catalyst, who

could communicate, who would get out there and do some of the

very things, or suggest and recommend with the help of his

commission the very thing that you were mentioning at the end

of your speech — changing the educational system,

particularly in the universities, into a more open type of

university system.

I'm sure that this chairman, who will be assisted by B.C.

people who are knowledgeable in the post secondary institutions

of British Columbia, will be able to create, I'm very hopeful,

some needed changes in that area, in fact in all areas.

You also mention concern about the veterinary college. I

must say too I was shocked to find out that B.C.'s contribution

is lower than some of the other provinces. I only discovered

that when I went back to a meeting of the four western

Ministers of Education. They were delighted to see me there and

said, "Welcome to Confederation," because of course they

hadn't had the opportunity to have the Minister of Education

attend too many, in fact, hardly any of those western

conference meetings, which started fairly recently, but I don't

think he had attended them. I find these conferences very

helpful because we were discussing the very point you were

bringing up. It was there I learned of course that

— Saskatchewan naturally informed us that perhaps B.C.

should be increasing the amount they pay per student. This is

certainly going to be looked at, and I am sure that I will be

recommending that this increase be made to this college.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you recommend this for the next

session?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think there's quite a possibility of

doing that, yes. Because, like you I don't like to see any

students in B.C. denied this right. There has to be at least

the same ratio, and just five coming from B.C. I consider

shocking.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's right. Right. But I certainly don't see the

point, and I hope you would agree with me, through you, Mr. Chairman, of building

another institution, veterinary college, in

[ Page

1102 ]

British Columbia. This is one thing the four Ministers of Education decided

we can do on a very positive basis, is sit down together as four provinces and

let's make sure we don't have redundant expensive facilities. Let's work together

and cooperate. Now this is established in Saskatchewan, I think if we pay our

fair share, we should be able to assist our students to go there. So I find

this cooperative meeting between the Ministers most helpful. I can assure you

that we'll look into that particular problem.

You're concerned about some of the courses being perhaps too

lengthy — four years. You mentioned this particularly.

This was another concern of the Ministers. This is felt right

across Canada, that perhaps some of these courses could be cut

down from four year courses to two year courses, and they could

perhaps be diversified into some of our other institutions. I

can assure you, that since I came back from that meeting and

found out that we're all in the same wave length on this, I'm

discussing it with my own departmental officials, and with the

college councils, and in due course — it really concerns

the college councils and BCIT primarily — with the hope

that we can perhaps drop down the length of time for some of

these courses. I think through the years we have become rather

bound into this traditional idea that you mistake the four or

five year course for these specified subjects.

You also mentioned your concern about the matter of the

technical and vocational capital assistance agreement, which is

now defunct. You're quite correct. However, I would like to give

you the facts as they exist right now under the new government.

There was $25,601,080 which had not been claimed from Canada,

you're quite right. This was prepaid to the province in 1971,

and to date, only $12,230,151 has been expended. This leaves an

unspent balance of over $13 million. I can assure you that this

money is going to be used by the Department of Education to

expand our technical and vocational facilities in the province.

The deadline by the way is in 1975.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. DAILLY: I know, right. So this will certainly assist us

in moving on these. You expressed your concern at how long it

is going to be and the other Member from Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) did also. This money being available is certainly

going to be helpful in moving.

I think another point you made, Mr. Member — well

generally you were speaking about the need for nighttime

degrees…

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the vocational school on the North

Shore?

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, your vocational school, right, on the North

Shore. You mentioned that there was a commitment from the former

government. This is a new government and you have a commitment from the

new government that we will certainly move on the matter of a

vocational division of the community college. It will be part of the

community college. As a matter of fact, there are negotiations going on

as you know, in your own area for the buying of land in that area which

will certainly include vocational facilities.

I certainly agree with you on the whole matter, Mr. Member,

of opening the universities up, and I like particularly the

idea of the bank credit — the credit bank. You know,

there's also talk about the academic passport, which is another

term that some people use, that I think is an excellent idea. A

person gets credits, not only formal credits, but credits for

other things. All of this is written out — wherever they

go, they can present it to whatever post-secondary

institution and, hopefully, the post-secondary

institutions will accept this as a credit for them.

So we have many exciting things to do, but we must do it

with the co-operation of the universities and the

colleges, and this is why I'm particularly very excited about

the commission which is set up, which will be set up and named

shortly. I think they will be able to get out there and be the

catalyst and, in consultation with people such as yourself, I

hope, Mr. Member, and other at the universities, we can really

move into a new era. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver Centre.

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You know, in every community of this

province there are, groups of people who, for one reason or another cannot get

out to social, educational or cultural events either by reason of age, or infirmity,

or some handicap — or some groups of children.

I think that it's important that where we can find within a

provincial government structure some departments that can

contribute in a way that isn't directly associated with the

particular work of that department, to the activities of a

community, I think we should make every attempt to do so.

Now these people need transport. There are various organizations in communities,

especially in rural ridings. I know I'm from a city riding, but we have largely

a similar problem. These people need transport, they need to go on outings and

field trips, and my suggestion is…the other day I was thumbing through the

Public Schools Report for 1972, and I found that there were approximately 850

to 900 school buses. If my assumptions are correct, these 900 buses sit idle

between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. during school days, and certainly might sit

idle during

[ Page

1103 ]

the summer months.

I would suggest that we work out some sort of integrated

programme to provide these school buses to local and community

groups for their use in taking these people out to the events

that I've described. I would ask the Minister to consider that

— perhaps ask the local community groups to make

suggestions with respect to how these buses can be used during

those hours perhaps, or even in the evenings.

Now, you know there is a group of boys and girls from the

West End King George High School and the teacher — I've

forgotten his name for the moment — suggested to me and my

colleague from thy riding that perhaps these buses could be

more in use during school hours for senior students who,

especially in the month of June, have relatively nothing to do.

They've written their final exams, and it's really a holding

operation. I think in most post-secondary schools

everywhere it's more like a holding operation as I say —

a sort of a senior day-care centre. If these students

could get out and use this transportation to do so, perhaps on

a subsidized programme of field trips, visits to museums, and

so on, that would be a good way to integrate the school bus

system.

And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of

Education wouldn't consider a full-scale subsidy for

school children throughout this province to come to the

Parliament Buildings and watch the House in session.

It seems to be an opportunity for many students in the lower

mainland area to do so, but it seems that up-country

— and again I know I'm from Vancouver where even there

the King George students were telling me that it cost them $5

each for their transportation and so on — and I have the

feeling that when I talked to a lot of them, that some students

were left behind for economic reasons. I would hate to think

that is the case, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the Minister of

Education to perhaps look into that and maybe provide some sort

of subsidy, a direct provincial subsidy to provide, to make

available these trips to Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I listened with interest a

few weeks back to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, when she gave us

her major address. I believe it was in response to the budget.

I welcomed at first the announcement that said, "We're going to

keep scholarship examinations but we're going to do away with

all other examinations." That is, at the conclusion, as I

understood she meant it, of the grade 12 year.

I remember back a few years to the time when I was in the twelfth grade. I

welcomed very, very much the scheme that was in vogue at that time — they called

it "recommendation." I believe they still do. The fear of writing those examinations

at the end made me work like a trailbreaker on a dogsled team.

I was fortunate enough at the conclusion of that year to

obtain a complete recommend. I can see now with the

announcement that this could be the joyful lot of everyone who

finally gets to the end of the twelfth grade which, in the

opinion of some, is the end of the educational road, but which,

in the opinion of the rest of us is only about one-third

of the way through.

As I stopped to think about the announcement, and as I

related it to the entire educational process, I could see a

severe problem. I know that the Minister of Education would not

make a decision such as this deliberately, so I think that it

was without enough foresight that she made the announcement

— perhaps a little prematurely.

Let me tell you why, Mr. Chairman, and then perhaps, Madam

Minister, you could run it through one more time. Here's the

problem.

We have an ever-increasing number of independent

schools in the province. I went to these independent schools to

see whether I could find a thermometer as to whether or not the

independent schools were increasing or decreasing in number,

what the forecast for the future was. Shall they decrease or is

it the opinion of those who are involved in independent schools

that they are on the increase and that they are gaining more

and more favour? I would think that in the next 10 years we'll

see a fantastic increase in the number of independent

schools.

Here then is the problem of the independent school as it

relates to final examinations. As you know, in the Province of

British Columbia we do not have either recognition of or

funding for any independent school. I don't wish this evening

to get involved in a debate that talks about whether we should

have or shouldn't have either of these two. I just want to have

the Minister, through you, Madam Chairman, recognize the

problem.

Up until now those students who complete the twelfth grade

in an independent school have one standard by which, if they

measure themselves and if they succeed, they can gain a diploma

and hence be recognized as a twelfth grade graduate. That

standard is by writing the departmental examination as it now

exists.

However, if the departmental examination is abolished, then

all independent school graduates have no standard against which

to measure themselves and hence they cannot gain a diploma of

graduation, unless they wish to compete in the scholarship

programme.

This bears an unfair pressure upon the student, because the examination for

competition is not the same examination as the examination for graduation. Am

I still coming through?

[ Page

1104 ]

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not

she would consider retaining the departmental examination,

particularly for those who are involved in the independent

school system. I know that it would be condescending and I know

that it would be giving a measure of recognition to their

educational system, but I'm not quite convinced that that would

be all so bad, Madam Chairman.

I think that we are creating a crisis by this abolition for

which perhaps we'll be sorry a little later on and we'll have

to deal with it anyway. I would say let's retain the

departmental examination, if for no other reason than just to

provide this standard of measurement for the graduates of

independent schools.

I would love to have been seated and let the Minister answer

as to her thoughts on that question. However, I find it so

difficult to gain the floor that I think I'll just

continue.

A second issue came out of that same…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: No. I'm trying to be very kind.

A second statement which interested me very much in the

Minister's address was the fact that she said we should be very

careful in our teaching process not at any time to let the

student feel that he might be a failure. You remember saying

that don't you, Madam?

I would like to say that life is not made up of successes

only. The very fact that you have a word "success" presumes

that there is a word "failure." Sometimes in life we have to

learn to cope with failure, even if it's only at an August 30

election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even if you're in the Opposition.

MR. SCHROEDER: As I still coming through? (Laughter).

By the way, I agree 100 per cent that the education process

is not locked into an 18 year period; nor do I believe that the

education process is locked into a course of studies that says,

"You sit for this many minutes in this classroom for this many

days, and you are educated." I don't believe that for a

moment.

However, I think that somewhere in the process of education,

Madam Chairman, you must learn how to cope with this thing

called "failure." I am not here to decide. It is up to the

Minister to decide when it is that you learn about failure. But

I'd like to suggest that the sooner the quicker.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the quicker the better.

MR. SCHROEDER: You got that, didn't you?

That was one of the disappointments that I noted as I

listened to the speech of the Minister.

The other one was this: I was amazed to find that a lady who

had been involved in the science of pedagogy, as I have, for

many, many years, should have…

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that word?

MR. SCHROEDER: P-e-d-a-g-o-g-y. Have you never heard of it?

I couldn't imagine that someone who had learned the science

of teaching as well as the Minister has should have missed this

point. There is a security that comes with punishment. For

someone to have gone all through the learning process, Mr.

Member, and to have come up with a distorted opinion that says

"punishment is equated with violence," is to admit sheer

ignorance of the process of learning. I'm sorry I have to be

that cruel on a beautiful evening like tonight.

I think that to equate violence with discipline is to

misunderstand discipline in its entirety. I think to equate

violence with discipline is to say that the greatest authority

that we have as regards human nature, the greatest authority

that we have in hand in a day like today, is wrong.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That's the best kind of

discipline.

MR. SCHROEDER: Well, when I give you the authority I'll let

you be the deciding factor.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's too impatient.

MR. SCHROEDER: I read in the book of wisdom which, after

all, is likely the best authority for human nature, since the

author of the book of wisdom is also the creator of mankind. I

think He'd be best in a position to know what makes us tick. It

says this: "Punishment does not equate with violence but

punishment equates with love." Now there's a big difference,

Madam Minister.

As a matter of fact I read in the Book of Books that: "If a

man loves his son, he chastens him betimes." It's an old-fashioned word but it just means sometimes; in my case

it was often. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He still got the strap in school. And look

how he turned out.

MR. SCHROEDER: Still did.

But I think that to equate violence with discipline is to

misunderstand both discipline and violence.

I would say this, Madam Minister. If we wish to abolish the

use of the strap in the classroom, we

[ Page 1105 ]

should leave that to the discretion of the teacher in the

classroom. Because just in case the decision to take the strap

out of the classroom was a wrong decision, we do not have the

right as Ministers of the Crown to foist that warped opinion

upon the entire population of a province as fine as British

Columbia. I do not believe we have that right.

What I'd like to do is to give you an opportunity to respond

to that. I'm just dying to hear what you've got to say.

MS. CHAIRWOMEN: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I'd like to respond to the

Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's right. Let's get back into the 21st century.

He had a good point on the use of school buses. I want to

assure the Member for Vancouver Centre that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and I are discussing this

whole matter of making far more use for the citizens of our

province of the school buses. Many of them are only used for a

very short period of the day.

As a matter of fact I will be proposing legislation which

will create the flexibility for the school buses to be used for

community resources. I think this is the very point you were

bringing up. I think that was your main point, wasn't it?

Right.

Mr. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), I think the first

matter you brought up was expressing great concern about the

matter of the examinations. The more you smile the more

reactionary you become, Mr. Member. (Laughter).

Mr. Member, in the matter of retaining the high school

graduation exams, I have no intention of retaining them. No

intention whatsoever. I want to point out to you that when you

made the suggestion that this was just done off the top of my

head, I can assure you the departmental officials right here in

the Department of Education have been studying this for three

years in consultation with the teachers and with school boards.

Your main objection, obviously, seems to centre around the

independent schools.

We met with the independent schools and I agree they had a

point here. They were concerned about what happens if the exams

go. But the point we were trying to make is that every school

is back to square one. The student is going to have to be

assessed on term papers. I think you're trying to suggest now

that the student just passes through blissfully without any

evaluation whatsoever. This is not so.

The student will be assessed on the school's own term evaluation of the student

as he passes through the years. When we discussed this with the independent

schools, we decided that the best way around this, and we faced the fact that

there is a problem there, is to start consultation, Mr. Member, with the universities.

Because surely if it can be shown that these students who go to independent

schools have gone through certain accredited subjects, I think it's up to the

universities to accept this. It means dialogue between the independent schools

and the universities. If we can assist them in this we certainly will.

To return to the examination, Mr. Member, after we've

studied this for so many years, I think it would be a very,

very foolish, reactionary move. I think that most of the

schools in the province are delighted, because this gives them

an opportunity for further decentralization, for further

flexibility within their curriculum.

I think you and I both remember the days when you had

teachers who taught from an exam and were delighted to find an

old exam paper, and that's what we were taught from — the

exam paper. I've had many teachers say to me, "This is great,

because no matter how flexible I wanted to be in my teaching, I

always knew that the government exam was sitting around there

and there were certain things I had to gear my student to"

— which might have been completely irrelevant to the very

exciting educational experience they were having at that

time.

With regard to the matter of success and failure, Mr.

Member, I think you completely missed the whole point of my

speech. Again this shows the complete difference in philosophy

and you don't. There's something missing somewhere.

(Laughter).

Mr. Chairman, the Member was very concerned about the fact

that we have to go through life and we have to accept the fact

that there is success and there is failure. Certainly. But I

was talking in my speech about failing something and succeeding

in something, which is quite different from considering

yourself a failure. There is a very, very different precept

involved in that. I don't think you really understand it. I

don't think you understand it at all, Mr. Member.

On the matter of the strap, I know we could go on in this

House all evening. You must have had many, many letters and

I've had many letters on this. I admit there are a number

coming in that agree with you and there are many that agree

with my stand on it. May I also say that I did consult, Mr.

Member, although you didn't bring this up particularly but

others have, I've had a great many consultations with teachers

and I mentioned it to parent-teacher groups also and

with school boards. They were quite aware that I was

considering this move and I listened to them and talked with

them.

As I said in my speech, there are certain things which as

Minister I do feel you have to make decisions on. Without the

assistance of all of you

[ Page 1106 ]

here, I hope, and all the educators and the consumers of

education out there, we can't move into a new era and maintain

all the old rituals and uses, such as straps, that belong to

the old era. We simply cannot move into it.

This nonsense about "when you strap a child it shows you

like the child" — you know, I think this is more or less

what you were implying. Also the point of the "love"

relationship. Mr. Member, please, you can look up at the Press

gallery when you're making your speech. I'd appreciate your

looking over here just now.

The matter of the "love" relationship. I am sure you must

agree that a parent and a child have a love relationship. But

we can't accept the fact that that always exists between a

teacher and a student. That seemed to be the premise for one of

your arguments.

I want to point out something to you, Mr. Member. I didn't

want to get too emotional on this strapping issue, but I don't

know, it might have been good if you could have experienced and

seen strapping take place in some of the schools in British

Columbia. I have been in situations where I have seen little

children of 8 and 10 being pulled off the floor crying,

"Please, don't strap me. Please, don't strap me." All

right.

I don't want to be in any position, I don't want to preside

over a system where that can happen to one child in this

province — not even one.

You mentioned the strap is not used very much. But there's

an interesting thing in my research. You know what I found out,

Mr. Member? In some schools you write, "never used." Then you

look at another school. In a matter of three months there are

200 strappings, or 80 strappings.

Why should one child be thrown into a situation like that,

where someone is using the strap, you must admit, in a most

indiscriminate manner. Another child is in another school where

it's not used at all. We can't condone that, Mr. Member.

I realize in removing the strap that certainly it's a

challenge to the teachers. It's a challenge to all of us and

those of us in government. We have to provide backup services.

We know there are very difficult children in the classroom. But

I'll tell you that those difficult children are the ones who

have been strapped over and over again. They are still

difficult. Strapping is not the answer for their problems.

They're deep seated; they're emotional. The Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) and

myself are the ones who really have a responsibility here to

help those children. The strap will not help them.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you very

much, Ms. Chairwoman. I finally made it.

I'd like to ask the Minister one question. And this has to

do with women in education, not just women as teachers or women

as faculty members, but women as students, not just in

university but in high school as well.

On January 28 a group of women known as the Women's Action

Group at the University of British Columbia released a document

which had six findings in it:

(1) women make up a very small proportion of the faculty of

the University of British Columbia;

(2) women are paid less than men in every academic rank;

(3) with the same qualifications as men, woman are lower

rank;

(4) the work of women staff members is paid less than the

work of men staff members;

(5) women do not occupy supervisory and administrative

positions on the staff in the same proportion as men;

(6) the university educates fewer men than women and it

educates them less.

One of the things that came out, for example, in dealing

with the faculty and women, is that there are no women in the

Faculty of Law, for example; there no women in the Faculty of

Commerce; there are no women in the Faculty of Forestry. Even

in those faculties where most of the students are women, they

make up a minority. There are far fewer women in these

faculties than there are men.

Because faculty rank is attached to earning power, what we

have at the University of British Columbia is that men earn

approximately $1,740 annually more than women do. This is with

all things being considered equal. When every characteristic is

the same except their rank, men earn over $3,000 annually more

than women do.

When we look at the staff, and I recognize, Madam Minister,

that you have nothing to do with the staff situation, we find

there is an average of approximately $1,744 a year less than

women earn than men. Part of the reason for this, of course, is

that there are fewer women graduating from the university and

we recognize this. What we have found is that in most

faculties, in the professional faculties such as medicine, and

law, which is improving this year, or engineering, forestry,

commerce — these faculties accept far fewer women than

men. Even though in faculties such as nursing and arts, there

are more women graduating, they still do not make the top

academic ranks of the university.

One of the strange statistics that came out of this was, on

the whole, women perform better than men in the university.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

[ Page 1107 ]

MS. BROWN: It's true. What we find is that 10 per cent of

the women in the graduating class in arts were in the top 10,

whereas only 8 per cent of the men came in this category.

Of course, when you start to compare UBC with other

universities in the province you find that it's actually quite

far ahead of Simon Fraser, which is the university with which I

am most intimate since I used to work there. What we have at

Simon Fraser is the complete absence of women in the top ranks

altogether. It is a shame. Of course the president is a man, we

take that for granted now. All the vice-presidents are men, all

the academic deans and directors are men. There is only one

woman with top ranking at Simon Fraser University and she is in

drama.

So the situation at Simon Fraser is really quite a bit worse

than the situation at UBC. Here again we find in terms of men

as professors, we have one woman at Simon Fraser who is a full

professor. One woman in the entire university. And we have 70

men.

We have nine women who are associate professors and we have

109 men — this, despite the statistics which I read to

you earlier, that is that women do better at universities than

men do. More of them end up in the top of their graduating

class than men do.

I haven't got the statistics for the Victoria University and

I would be very pleasantly surprised to find that it was any

different to the statistics I have from UBC or from Simon

Fraser. This is not a situation which is peculiar to British

Columbia, of course. The studies which I have which were done

in Ontario, show the same thing; that the women are, for the

most part, lecturers and instructors and some of them even

become assistant professors. But the heads of departments, the

deans, your full professors, usually those are men. This is

also true in the United States.

What this means is that first of all, for any sort of change

to come about, it is going to have to start, not so much in the

university itself, but in the high school. One of the things I

would like to ask you, Madam Minister, is what is going to be

happening in our secondary schools? What is going to be

happening in our elementary schools in terms of dealing with

the image which young women develop of themselves? Is there

anything planned for the curriculum in terms of women's

studies. For example, the arts faculty at U BC has just

approved a women's studies programme. I understand that Simon

Fraser just turned one down, which is quite consistent with

Simon Fraser.

We still have streaming in our high schools. We still have

boys being streamed into working in shop and the girls being

streamed into home economics. The reason being given for this

still is that there isn't enough money — the facilities

are limited so this is why the decision is made on this basis.

Have you got any plans to ease this up in any way?

One of the things we have found in our research is the content in the text

books which are still being used in our secondary and in our elementary schools.

Jane is still sitting around watching Dick have all the fun. This kind of thing

is still going on. She is still standing there with mother, as mother does the

dishes while dad and the boys do all the exciting things that happen. When are

these things going to be changed?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MS. BROWN: When is Jane going to have a picture of mother as

a politician for example? This is what my kids keep asking me,

Why not?

Then the whole business of counselling, Madam Minister. We

still have in our schools counselors who are counselling girls

to grow up to be ladies. Of course, there is nothing wrong with

being a lady as long as you have the freedom to be what you

want to be. But what the counselors are teaching and what the

counselors are counselling the girls in our schools is that

ladies go into nursing — girls grow up to be ladies who

go into nursing, who go into teaching and go into professions

like that. They do not go into agriculture and they do not go

into engineering and they do not go into other things because

that is where men are, and that's no place for a lady.

MR. BROUSSON: Ladies are where the men are usually.

MS. BROWN: Right — but not as their equals and that is

the problem.

The other thing that I would like to bring to your

attention, Madam Minister, is the statistics of the women in

the secondary and elementary schools. We still find that

although most of our teachers are women, very few of them

become principals and I am not sure whether any of them every

become superintendents of schools and this kind of thing. I

wonder, are making plans to ease this situation too?

I was very pleased with the announcement of your commission

and I was wondering whether this was one of the things our

commission would be looking at? Would it be looking at the

whole area of women in education? Would it be addressing itself

to curriculum content? Would it be addressing itself to text

books? To counselling? To the whole business of girls and boys

and women through the system?

The second question I would like to ask you about is the

whole business of tobacco and drugs in the schools. As you know

the system that we operate under now is that you are not

allowed in most schools to smoke. The children are advised that

if they want to smoke, they will have to do it off the

premises.

We had at our committee this morning, and you were there

— the welfare committee when it met — a

psychologist who told us that the students started

[ Page 1108 ]

smoking in elementary school because it was considered cool

and because it was considered adult and mature. Usually by the

time they got to grade 11 and grade 12, they had become

reasonably addicted to tobacco and by then they found it was

almost impossible to give up smoking. I would imagine this is probably the

same thing that happens with the use of drugs. They start using

them because it is cool and it is what all their friends are

doing.

Are you taking this into account in terms of education in

the elementary schools? I know there are a lot of films being

shown in high school — of lungs rotting and this kind of

thing. Since it has been brought to our attention that it

starts much earlier than that, will you be thinking in terms of

taking this kind of education into our elementary schools?

Thank you very much.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you Madam Chairman.

I am very happy to be able to speak and address a few words to

the Minister this evening I am also very pleased to know she has appointed two

commissions on education with one chairman so that there will

be a drive and new direction for education and that they can

point as to where the direction for education should go. I

would like to speak on a different problem this evening from

what has been spoken on before. It relates mainly to the

training of teachers.

As you know, Madam Chairman, over the last few years we have

had a great shortage of teachers, and the school boards and the

Department of Education has had to advertise abroad and we have

gotten teachers from England, from other parts of Europe, from

the United States and from Australia.

Suddenly, about two years ago, we were just swamped with

teachers. As a result, we weren't able to place all those that

graduated from our own universities; we found there were many

unemployed teachers among the ranks. However, there is one area

in which there has never been an oversupply of teachers and

that is in the field of home economics.

I was looking through the public schools report for 1971-72 and the very last statement here is:

"The shortage of fully qualified teachers in home economics and community services has remained critical.

Home economics departments throughout British Columbia are

located in 272 schools. There are 747 teachers of home

economics in British Columbia which was an increase of 76 over

the preceding year. Of that total number of home economic

teachers, degrees in home economics are held by 52 per

cent."

Here is something I would like the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) to note: 25 men are instructing in one or more food courses. During the

past 20 years there have been courses in home economics for boys. I am more

concerned at present not with course content so much as with the actual training

of home economics teachers.

I hope, Ms. Chairwoman, the Minister will consider some

way of getting the message across to the commission that is

going to be looking into education, particularly in relation to

teacher training, that sometimes prerequisites for courses hold

people from going into those courses. I have heard it said over

and over again that one of the prerequisites that holds young

people back from going into home economics is that there is far

too much chemistry required.

Now I'm not thinking by any means that we should water down

the courses that are there or do anything to destroy the

standards that have been set by the home economics department.

I realize that if we are going to have good research scientists

in nutrition, in the field of home economics, that we need

people with chemistry. If we want dieticians, they need a back

ground of chemistry; but teaching home economics in the high

school I think is entirely different. I don't think they

require quite that much chemistry.

Not once during the past 20 years have the schools

throughout British Columbia been able to get enough home

economics teachers from the university to supply all the

schools' needs. As a matter of fact, they very rarely are able

to supply even half the number of teachers required; usually it

is about one-quarter. According to this 1971-72

report, as I have stated before, there were 76 new teachers

required — that is new openings — in home

economics.

Of those that are now teaching, approximately 54 per cent

are home economics graduates; 19 per cent more have a bachelor

of education with a major in home economics; many of the other

teachers in home economics are teaching on what they call a

letter of permission.

Each year the school districts still have to advertise in

the other provinces and abroad to be able to meet the great

shortage that continues to exist. This year, for replacements

and new openings, they will require 100 home economics

teachers. But at the University of British Columbia they are

going to be graduating 23 home economics teachers. That means

they have to find 77 teachers from other sources as not every

teacher who graduates from home economics goes into

teaching.

While many of them are married before they graduate, they

still may spend several years teaching before starting a

family. But others marry and drop out of the occupational field

because they want to be full-time housewives or because

they go where their husbands find employment and there might

not be employment for home economics teachers in that

particular district.

Madam Chairman, for those home economics students entering university for the

purpose of teaching later, I would suggest that the heavy prerequisite of chemistry

might be dropped. I would like to make that as a suggestion for the Minister

[ Page

1109 ]

carry over to the head of the commission on education. These are people who

are not necessarily going to be specializing in advanced chemistry in relation

dietetics or food or textiles. Their requirement is in a more technical subject

as required for distinguishing nutritional standards and things of that kind.

I'm concerned with them being able to teach proper

nutrition, to teach the quality of food, to teach the choice

and the preparation of food, consumer buying and budgeting. I

would suggest that the same thing is needed in the field of

clothing teachers. The young people who take home economics in

the classroom should be able to learn something about clothing

selection; they should know something about the new materials.

But they don't have to know the very highly technical applied

science in relation to textile chemistry of food chemistry.

Madam Chairman, to be able to supply teachers in industrial

arts where they have also had a problem of shortage, the

industrial arts department, over the past 20 years or more,

have taken journeyman tradesmen or men out of industry and

trained them at the B.C. Institute of Technology or at the

vocational school. They have used methods of in-service

training. They have also used weekend seminars, summer school

training and methods of that kind to be able to supply enough

teachers throughout the province. They use approximately the

same number of teachers as are required in home economics.

About 20 years ago, just after the war, there was a great

shortage of home economics teachers. At that time they took

married women whose families had grown but who wanted to get

back into the teaching stream. They trained them through summer

school and special courses. If they took two or three summers'

training they would become fully qualified. That is the type of

thing they probably should be doing again, or we should

investigate new ways of training them.

I am quite convinced that right now home economics is one of

the most important subjects in the schools. I was looking

through a magazine just recently called Nutrition Canada

of 1971. It gave a report of a nutrition survey that was made

by two doctors throughout Canada, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Sabry.

They found that in Montreal and Toronto alone, in two hospitals

they had over 400 cases of rickets. They were such serious

cases of rickets that they had to be hospitalized and treated

because they had led to serious eye problems and

deformities.

Now this is 1967. We though that rickets was conquered as a disease in 1932.

But some of these diseases are showing again. One reason why some of these diseases

are starting to show again is because we're in a new world of technology. Many

of the food products that we get are different from what we used to have. We

can't depend anymore on the Canada food rules, for instance, because it's too

hard to tell what is in some of the new foods.

We used to be able to think that if we got milk, eggs,

cheese, protein foods, meat, fruit and vegetables and a certain

amount of bread every day, we would have a good diet.

But now 17 per cent of the meals eaten by Canadians are

eaten outside of the home, that is, in restaurants and cafes. A

great number of people eat TV dinners or they have instant

breakfasts. Many of the prepared cereals and prepared foods are

synthetic. Rather than having juices, you will find they will

say "drinks" — grape drink or orange drink. It probably

contains ascorbic acid and little else but sugar.

Whether young people are going into the world on their own

as businesswomen and businessmen and have to provide their own

meals, or whether they have to provide meals for a family, I

think that they should know a little bit more about nutrition

and good quality of nutrition. I believe they also have to know

a little bit more about consumer buying. That is another thing

that most qualified home economists spend a great deal of time

teaching to young people in the classroom.

These are problems and I think that that is something of

exceeding importance. So often in the past we have heard of

home economics being called a "frill". It's anything but a

frill, Madam Chairman. Home economics is one of the most

important subjects that can be taught to young people. We must

try to prevent diseases. We must try to prevent malnutrition,

and there is a great deal of malnutrition right now.

In the same

article in Nutrition Canada, the survey

showed that there are a great number of senior citizens too who

are either undernourished or malnourished. They noticed that

because of the change in diet, people tend to eat less potatoes

and cereal. They eat more instant meals and snack foods.

They're more inclined to eat out. They're more inclined to eat

prepackaged convenience foods. Part of it is because of our

whole change in pattern of living.

Another thing that they have to know something more about in

relation to our technology in the newer type of food

preparation is the type of food additives that are in foods, or

the non-nutritive substances that are in foods. They

should also know how to select any of the foods on the

market.

When you buy pork and beans, for instance, you'll notice

that the first item mentioned on it is beans. Sometimes it

doesn't mention pork until way down. The reason is because the

item that takes the largest part of that particular can of

goods has to be mentioned first. In a TV dinner the item that

is mentioned first is the one that has the most important part

of that TV dinner.

These are the sort of things that they have to be taught.

They have to be taught something about budgeting. On this we

have to have well qualified home economics teachers in our

schools, not only just for the boys and girls who are going to

high

[ Page 1110 ]

school, but also probably in continuing education centres so

that young married people can learn a little bit more about

these subjects.

I think we are going to run into more problems of the same

kind — of malnutrition and degenerative diseases of

various kinds — in relation to poor diet.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if any

consideration will be given to new methods or other methods of

training teachers to be able to provide a good supply of

teachers in these fields where there is a shortage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Young): Certainly I think we need to bring

up the problem of discrimination in any form, particularly

sexual discrimination, in the education estimates. This is

certainly most pertinent and the place to bring it up because I

think one of the areas where we're going to solve this whole

problem of discrimination is in the field of education.

If we can start in the early grades with our young children,

as you pointed out — start with the little boys and the

little girls realizing that they shouldn't be placed in

stereotype roles — I think that we can do much to create

it later on. I know I've been trying for six years in this

House to educate in this matter. Some people are pretty

conditioned, so perhaps we will have to start — although

there are very promising signs of changes anyway.

I know myself, as a Minister, I found discrimination. As you

know, it certainly doesn't exist just in education. I recently

went back to a Ministers' meeting and I was the only woman

Minister of Education. The meeting was held in a men's club.

They didn't quite know what to do with me because I don't think

women had ever been in this club before.

These are just examples of discrimination that women run up

against every day. I think we do have to keep bringing it to

the attention of all people in our society.

The whole matter of women's studies — I think that

report is excellent. I'll be quite candid. I haven't had time

to read the whole thing in detail but I know that the women

involved did a tremendous amount of work. I was talking to the

chairman of the academic board and he told me that the

university is actually discussing the report. This was my

understanding. I know that the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) would not accept just discussion. I

know you want to see action. I would hope that the university

will take action on this.

As you know, as Minister it's rather a fine line I have to play when it comes

to suggesting what courses should go into a university. Most certainly, I think

the university knows how I feel about the matter of discrimination. I think

this women's study is going to give an impetus, particularly to UBC, and I agree

with you that it should spread to the other universities. I know that in other

parts of Canada they have actually taken steps to eradicate this discrimination.

In the public schools system, I know that when I was on the

school board in Burnaby, I was very concerned that there were

no woman principals. Every time I asked why they would say, "No

women applied." This is something I think you would also agree

with me that we have to educate women themselves to enter these

roles. We haven't got one woman district superintendent. I've

asked our officials if they've applied and the answer is

"no".

I think many women have become discouraged throughout the

years because they think that if they apply, they'd never be

accepted anyway. But times are changing. I would make a plea to

the women out there in the educational circles — there

are so many capable women — to put in your name for

application for principalship; put it in for district

superintendents. Times are changing but the names have to come

in. They have to, themselves, show that they're willing to

stand up there and take their chances. I know that women don't

want special treatment but, as you said earlier, they want

equal treatment.

On the whole matter of textbooks, I've said that if it is

brought to my attention that there is any sign of

discrimination in any form, I'll look into it immediately

through the Curriculum Advisory Committee, who have already

taken action when some of these have been brought to my

attention already.

The matter of the discrimination with reference to women, of

course, is a study in itself. I know that it's already been

done by the women's group. So we have the material. All we have

to do is give it to the advisory committee on curriculum and

ask them to look it through for us. I think that all the points

that you have brought up are very pertinent and, as Minister, I

completely agree with you on it.

To the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster), you have

brought up a very valid point. It's a ridiculous situation

where we do not have enough home economics teachers. I think

your point is again very valid — that we should look at

the course structure. Is it necessary to have physics and

chemistry to be a home economics teacher? I think this is

something that must be reiterated at the Joint Board of Teacher

Education, which I believe is a board combined from the three

universities in which they discuss the problems of teacher

training, et cetera.

I think it should be brought up very definitely with them;

that there is a shortage of home economics teachers in the

province and what are the universities doing about it. I think

they could do something.

If they don't feel that they can lower their course

requirements without watering down, I think then perhaps we

could turn to the colleges and perhaps see some specialized

courses set up there. Thank you.

[ Page 1111 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you "Mur"

Chairperson. I don't suggest there has been any discrimination

in this chamber this evening, but it's been really hard to

break into this hen party.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Nevertheless I want to associate myself very

strongly with what the Second Member for Vancouver–Burrard (Ms. Brown) has said and certainly greet with

approval the response of the Minister of Education. The points

are extremely valid and the Minister of Education does have

ways — tangible ways — of correcting this.

The first of these is to see that women are appointed to

this commission of investigation as an absolute

requirement.

And secondly, "Mur" Chairperson, the Minister of Education

can be certain that people who are on the Board of Governors of

the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser are women.

This is quite within the cabinet's hands and they can take

immediate action to see that the appropriate people are placed

there just as they are in this chamber to see that these

injustices — and they are very real — are

corrected.

Now, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter). I would like to talk of some

other problems that universities are facing, rather than just

depriving themselves of the opportunities to have women take

full responsibility for educating at higher levels. And I do

want to associate myself with remarks that were made earlier

this evening by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis). (Laughter). I mean the Member who is undoubtedly at

another meeting this evening. Just today there was a headline

in UBC Reports quoting the President of the University

of British Columbia saying that that university faces great

financial difficulty in the year ahead. UBC is going to need to

seek economies in all directions. That certainly applies to the

University of Victoria and Simon Fraser as well.

Quoting from the president of UBC:

"'The money is simply not going to be available to do

all the things that our faculty and administrators believe we should be

doing'… 'We are now taking a hard look at all our activities to see

where expenditures can be reduced.' The president noted that this

year's increase in provincial operating grants of only $6.5 million is

the smallest increase both in dollars and in percentage of operating

grants since 1967-68 when the federal government withdrew from direct

support of Canadian universities."

This is a disappointing thing, Mr. Chairman, to bring up. In one

sense I owe a note of apology to my colleagues on the right because I

was so often critical of the former Social Credit government. I accused

that government of being anti-educational. I said that they were mean

and penurious towards universities.

And yet, Mr. Chairman, even in my wildest nightmares I never

thought the day would come when I would say that a New

Democratic Party Government would make this group look

generous. (Laughter). And yet, Mr. Chairman, that is the case

today. All those speeches that were made in support of

education and how important it was; when the day came for the

opportunity to prove the sincerity of those in the Columbia

riding or in the far stretches of the province, who are facing

increases in room and board — because you have to pay the

people who are on the staff more money this year because of

inflation.

And so it's a sorry day for universities and a

disappointment that this Government which held such a hope for

so many people should have disappointed them in this most

important regard.

The president of the university warned only today, Mr.

Chairman, that it may not be possible to mount some proposed

new programmes even though they have been approved by the

university Senate and the Board of Governors.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what are some of these new programmes

— and the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) has told us what one of the most important of these is

— a new programme on women's studies. And, Mr.

Chairman, won't it be the irony of ironies if one of the

programmes that must receive the chop this year for lack of

funds is the women's studies programme.

Mr. Chairman, this increase in operating funds being the

smallest in six years and one of the smallest in modern times

to our universities means that in real terms the universities

this year will have to reduce their programmes because the

increase in dollars does not match the inflationary expenses

that universities like everyone else have to face.

It was hoped this year, Mr. Chairman, in addition to women's

studies, there would be an aggressive new approach to part-time students so that those who are working during the

day would be able to come out and take their degrees in the

evenings. It was hoped that there would be money for

equalization for students that live in the north or south

Peace, in the Columbia riding or in the far stretches of the

province, who are facing increases in room and board —

because you have to pay the people who are on the staff more

money this year because of inflation.

It was hoped, Mr. Chairman, that there could be an increase

in day-care facilities because, as the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and, indeed, the Minister

both know, there's been a change in the make-up of

students at our universities. More married students are going,

some with children, and they need to put them in these day-care centres.

When the amount of money which is made available to the

universities is so small in its increase

[ Page 1112 ]

that they can't even keep up with inflation, it only makes

common sense that the universities don't expand and go into

these new programmes but do what anybody would have to do in

those circumstances which is actually to reduce their

programmes. And this is the true situation at the University of

British Columbia with which I am most familiar and therefore

can quote with the greatest degree of assurance.

The deans of the university now must cut $4.2 million from

the budgets that they had had approved by the administration

and the Board of Governors. Those budgets, Mr. Chairman, had

only been agreed to after they had previously been slashed by

the university, before they ever came before the provincial

government.

So what has happened is that the deans who have had to take

what they wanted to do, slash them down so that the

administration itself would be able to present a package to the

government, then found that the government with all these

moneys has cut them back further. So here they are today, given

this budget, and no choice but to try and cut collectively $4.2

million from their programmes.

Mr. Chairman, none of us can say with assurance where those

cuts are going to come. But it's fairly obvious that they must

take place in those new and expanded areas, like women's

studies, that were going to be added in addition to what these

faculties had the previous year.

The Minister did say to the Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis) earlier today that she would be prepared

to take a second look at the university budget. Mr. Chairman, I

hope right now that the Minister is conferring with the

Minister of Finance on that particular point. She did indicate

that if the University of Victoria, at least, could establish

that hardship would be worked on students — for example,

women students — she would be prepared to sit down and

take a look at that budget and perhaps adjust it to where it

should be.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the Minister might be

prepared to take that second look at the budget of the

University of British Columbia; to sit down with the

administration and the Board of Governors — the present

one or a new one with some women on it, as there should be

— and adjust this budget to the point where a proper job

can be done. I'm just looking for a little nod, an

indication.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to elaborate a little bit. I don't

think it's enough for the Minister just to sit down with the

university and try to repair the damage that is obviously being

done to the limited plans that were set forward by the deans

and the administration.

We have had decreases in university enrolment. I think everybody recognizes

that. That's common knowledge today. Those decreases have tended to come in

arts and education. But there have been increases in other areas such as agriculture,

which should please the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and forestry,

which should please the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

Mr. Williams).

What it says is that the young people today are not do

— nothings who are rejecting the work ethic. They're

youngsters who are trying harder than any group in history to

equip themselves and make their contribution. There are some

faculties, like agriculture, forestry and business

administration, that can expand and take additional people on.

But there are other faculties which cannot do so until their

budget is enlarged to provide the facilities. Mr. Chairman,

these are the really critical ones.

We can talk about restoring, perhaps, the $4 or $5 million

this year to make it tolerable for the university to operate.

But that will not touch law, medicine, dentistry, veterinary

medicine and some of these other professions where there are

young British Columbians today lining up at the doors to get

in. In medicine, which is the one I'm most familiar with, there

are 10 students applying for every one who gains admission.

There are four students applying…

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they have the standards?

MR. McGEER: Yes, over 250 would easily have the endowment to

be fine doctors, who have the interest, the determination and

the qualifications — no question — who will spend

years preparing themselves just for that chance to be one of

the lucky 80 who get in. Yet they find the doors are

locked.

We deny to our young British Columbians this opportunity to

enter a profession where they can make their contribution to

British Columbia and enjoy the satisfaction of working hard and

doing good for people. Yet they're denied this, Mr. Chairman

— no question about it.

While this is happening — while we are graduating

today only 60 and in the foreseeable future, only 80 — we

are licensing to practise 300 doctors each year. That means

that every single year that we delay the expansion of these

facilities, there are 220 young British Columbians who are able

to be doctors, who are being told "no".

The opportunities are being given to those from outside the

province — and in many cases from outside the country

— who are not as well trained as those from our own

province and who, in the case of the foreign doctors, are more

badly needed in their home countries than they are in British

Columbia.

But thanks to a very fine programme introduced by the former

government…and it is a fine programme. There's no question

that it's extraordinarily popular with the people and it's

doing its job. There are difficulties and we all know about

those. But the point about it is that it's a successful

programme. It places a demand on the resources of the province

to supply doctors to carry it on into the future. Because of

that, people do want to come here

[ Page 1113 ]

from all over the world. But they are needed in their own

countries and we have ample of our children who want this

opportunity.

None of that, Mr. Chairman, is touched in the financial

amounts that I've described in my speech today. I just appeal

to the Minister and to all the Members of the House to see this

problem. It's your children and the children of your friends

who are being denied this legitimate opportunity in the highest

callings that we have in our province because of the

foolishness of this House in not seeing that the facilities for

their education are provided. We're the losers and they're the

losers. The money is here in the provincial treasury. No way

could it be better invested than this.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply disappointed that this year

we've got such a small increase. Looking into the future, we're

not able to grasp this opportunity. I would hope that we could

appeal to the Minister this evening, Mr. Chairman, to give a

second look at this budget and to seize the responsibilities

and opportunities of her office — not just to see women

in British Columbia come to the forefront, but all the capable

young people of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the words we've just heard

from the Member who just spoke, because I know he has spoken

for many years on the cause of the universities. We too have in

many areas.

The point we're trying to make in the budget allotted this

year to the universities is simply that we do feel the time has

come for justification of university expenditures. We don't

feel that this has existed in the past. It's not a question of

the amount of money, of course. It's how the money is spent. In

the past under the former government moneys were given, to my

mind, with no pattern whatsoever. I don't think any

justification was asked for the expenditure. This is all we're

asking for.

I mentioned to you earlier today that in the case of the

University of Victoria, which feels that some programmes are

going to be curtailed which will impede the progress of the

students, we would be glad to meet with them and discuss it. As

I said earlier, we're concerned with what happens to the

students. The same is going to happen to the University of

British Columbia. If they can come to us and show us that the

students and certain programmes beneficial to the students are

going to suffer because of their budget, we're willing to

listen.

This isn't patchwork. This is simply preparing the universities of the province

to come before the government, or whatever body will be structured for them

to deal with, with a justification — a complete explanation of the programmes

going on. Because I know that even you Mr. Member, who happens to be on the

faculty at the university, must certainly agree that there has been waste in

the university. Perhaps there are some courses that are irrelevant. Perhaps

the universities must take a look at these courses. I think this is simply the

message we're trying to put across to the universities.

We are a pro-university government but we're also a

government that feels responsible for the expenditure of public

funds. We feel very, very strongly that the universities have

to take a serious look at themselves. This is one of the

reasons we're setting up this post-secondary

commission.

We've realized that there are many fine things going on in

the universities of this province, and I don't want to

downgrade them whatsoever. There are some exciting things going

on. But as one of your Members of your party said just a few

minutes ago, they have a long way to go in moving into a new

open era of university life, so that we can truly open the

university to all the public; so that we can provide programmes

that are new and relevant.

I think the Member must agree that it is time the

universities looked at themselves very seriously in this

manner. The budget that has been put out here is simply to lay

on that message.

But as I said earlier, if we find that any of the students

of the university are seriously suffering and their programmes

are being cut — the students' programmes which are

relevant programmes, worthy programmes — we certainly

are quite willing to meet with them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman I just have a

couple of questions I'd like to ask of the Hon. Minister of

Education. I was going to ask about the cutbacks in university

but that's been adequately handled by our friend on the left.

Well, a little to the left at least (Laughter).

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Minister of Education if she

will, if not this evening perhaps tomorrow, to elaborate on her

comments about experimentation in sex education for school

boards. (Laughter). By school boards, pardon me.

I'd like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if there will be specially

trained people available to the school boards…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter).

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of

Education has considered the possibility that I raised earlier

that has been a factor in the discussions about sex education

and family life education in California particularly —

the problem of division in the community. There was a serious

problem in the communities of California when this issue was

first raised and I'd hate to see that happen in British

Columbia. If there can be an orderly

[ Page 1114 ]

transformation here, so much the better.

I wonder too when we're talking about experimental

programmes — and the experimental

part is the thing that

bothers me — do you intend to insist that the parents are

consulted before a school board adopts any kind of an

experimental programme whether it be sex education or any other

kind of experimental programme of education?

Will there be, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity for the parent

to have the right to opt out of any programme with which that

parent objects, particularly in experimental types of

programmes?

Mr. Chairman, is the Department of Education going to come

up with any solution to the problem of performance evaluation

among teachers in the classroom and the problem that now exists

of virtual guarantee of tenure after a relatively short period

of time with a particular school district regardless of

competence? Is the Department of Education going to look into

those problems and are they able to come up with any

solutions?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask too if the Department of

Education is going to consider any controls or education

spending or will it be allowed to just spiral upward and upward

and upward with no way to apply the brakes which ultimately

will threaten the entire education system with bankruptcy.

This can happen quite easily. It's happening in other

jurisdictions in North America right now notably in the United

States. Many areas are facing bankruptcy in their school

districts and it's a serious, hardship on the students, the

parents and the taxpayers.

I was reading a story just today from Chicago, They're

calling it the "Chicago crisis" in that education spending has

gone so far out of control and cutbacks have now become

necessary. Of course, the first things to suffer are the so-called frills in education. There, their music

programmes have all been cut out. Arts programmes, drama

classes and all of those kinds of things are about to be cut

back from their education system. It's vitally important, Mr.

Chairman to the Minister, that we consider the costs of

education and that we consider some kinds of controls, not only

on the actual spending on educational programmes but also on

the problem of teachers' salaries.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister a brief question about a problem

that exists in my constituency. That has to do with Trinity Western College.

I'm sure the Minister is quite aware of the problem there. I think it's one

of serious discrimination, in that an independent junior college is not receiving

the same kinds of grants that another independent junior college in the province

does receive. I understand that these are basically federal funds. Nevertheless,

we have two schools of a similar stature, Trinity Western College and Notre

Dame College in the Kootenays. One gets the grants; the other doesn't. I believe

that's a case of discrimination and I wonder what the Minister plans to do about

it, if anything.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like too to comment briefly on the

problem of education as it relates to the community, and

particularly community schools and the plans for the future are. I'd like to refer to an

excellent brochure called "An Educational Plan for a Decade"

put out by School District 35 in Langley. If the Minister is

not aware of this publication, I'd advise her to get it. It's

excellent. It's not new — it's a couple of years old

— but the comments it has about the community school are

more than adequate even today.

The opening sentence in the

chapter about the community

school says: "The time is indeed here when the public feels it

can no longer tolerate in silence the duplication and

underutilization of public buildings." Although that statement was made two years ago, it's perfectly valid today.

The statement goes on to say:

"The need to serve all the members of the community, both

young and old, with the same public facilities, efficient and

economical service to the public, requires co-operative

planning and organization among all public bodies, boards of

school trustees, municipal and city councils."

I'd like to brag just a little, Mr. Chairman, and say that

in our community of Langley a lot of that is happening already.

But it's happening under very difficult circumstances, because

the educational restrictions and regulations don't really allow

it to happen. You have to kind of go around through the back

door and make it happen that way. I'm talking about the joint

use of facilities, such as parks and schools. There's the

problem of buying land at the kind of prices that we can afford

today. The school board isn't allowed to do it so the

municipality does it — through the back door once again

— and sells it to the school board later on. But still

get that saving for the taxpayer, which is really what it's all

about.

The problem is in the thinking of the education board, which

doesn't allow us to pursue those kinds of programmes, which all

of us know are necessary and all of us know will ultimately

save the taxpayer money. I wonder what kind of a route the

education department is going to approach to solve these kinds

of problems?

The community school concept is one that has been pioneered,

I guess in the States. Basically with privately funded

organizations, they have at least been most successful —

the Ford people in Michigan primarily. But it can work here.

All it needs is a little help from the Department of

Education.

Briefly too, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to ask the

education Minister about her stand on the removal of education

taxes from residential and farmland. One of the reasons I think

there has been so much complaint from the public and municipal

councils about this form of tax has to do with the increasing

incidence of home ownership. I'd like to refer to another

report about the increasing incidence

[ Page 1115 ]

of home ownership. The proportion of owner occupied non-farm

dwellings has increased substantially since 1941. Between 1941

and 1951 the increase amounted to 40 per cent. Another 34 per

cent from 1951 to 1961; 11 per cent from 1961 to 1966; and on

and on and on like that, so that today two out of three B.C.

households are faced with a property tax bill, which wasn't the

case…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that the matter you're discussing

now is not contained within the estimates before us. I think

that it's a matter to be considered….

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the education Minister must

obviously be very interested in taxes and how she is going to

pay for her schools.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I do believe they are a consideration

under the estimates for the Department of Finance, which have

already been considered.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about …

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think that if the remarks are brief

and relevant to the estimates, you may continue.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, they will be. I don't want to continue

tomorrow. I'd just as soon finish and sit down and let the

Minister answer and go home.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we're coming close to the closing hour.

We need unanimous leave of the House to go past 11:00 p.m. Whatever the House

wishes.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the House rules call for adjournment at 11:00

p.m. I don't want to change the House rules. I'm to be guided by the House.

The House rules are 11:00 o'clock p.m.

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's fine. Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada