1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1911 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions

Negotiations on cut-off lands. Mr. Fraser — 1911

Loss of grazing lease. Mrs. Jordan — 1911

Creston transmission line. Hon. R.A. Williams answers — 1912

Columbia permanent engineering board. Hon. R.A. Williams answers —

Loss of grazing lease. Mrs. Jordan — 1912

Reduction of unpaid ICBC claims reserve. Mr. D.A. Anderson . — 1912

Beacon Body Shop appraisals. Mr. Phillips — 1913

Elderly citizens' accommodation. Mr. L.A. Williams — 1913

Additional ferry purchases. Mr. Morrison — 1913

Need for cold beer. Mr. Gardom — 1914

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates

On the amendment to

vote 38. Mr. Schroeder — 1914

Division on amendment to vote 38 — 1923

On vote 39. Mr. Wallace — 1923

On vote 40. Mr. Schroeder — 1938

On vote 41. Mr. Schroeder — 1941

On vote 42. Mr. Schroeder — 1942

On vote 43. Mr. McClelland — 1943

On vote 44. Mr. Wallace — 1944

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): In the galleries today is another

group of students from Comox constituency. This group is from

Georges P. Vanier School at Courtenay and they are accompanied

today by their teachers, Mr. Idris Hughes and Mr. Pete Sanford.

I do hope you give them a warm welcome.

Oral questions.

NEGOTIATIONS ON CUT-OFF LANDS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Premier. With

respect to the 130 acres of cut-off lands taken from the

Capilano band Squamish people in 1922 and located around the

Capilano River estuary in the area underneath the north pilings

of the Lions Gate Bridge, could the Premier inform the House if

he and/or other members of the cabinet will enter into

negotiations with the Squamish people as has been requested by

Chief Joe Mathias?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we had the

delegation in our caucus today. I wish to tell the Member that

we take the question as notice.

MR. FRASER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the past, when

discussing the native people's cut-off lands question, the

government has indicated it is deferring the decision on its

position until the federal government reveals its position.

Does the Premier believe the provincial government will now

enter negotiations on this 130-acre piece of land in view of

the fact that Chief Joe Mathias has been informed that the

federal government is prepared to discuss and/or negotiate this

question?

MR. SPEAKER: It really isn't a supplementary. It's a

separate question which should not really be treated as a

supplementary.

MR. FRASER: I have a last supplementary on it.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish the Hon. Members would agree on this

proposal that we reserve supplementaries until the answer is

given in response. We went into this difficulty. We take up all

the question time delivering a barrage of questions to be

answered on a subsequent day.

MR. FRASER: Well, this is the last supplementary; it's just short, Mr.

Speaker. Has the Premier or any cabinet Minister undertaken any review of the

legality of actions taken in 1922 to secure this 130 acres into the hands of

the provincial government from the Capilano band in view of the fact that events

surrounding this cut-off are part of recent history, are exceptionally well

documented and, in the opinion of some, raise serious questions about the legality

of the cut-off procedures used?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. These 130 acres in Capilano, are,

of course, entirely in government ownership, and the government

could simply give them back. It's an easier question than the

other lands perhaps.

But let me ask the Premier if the Hon. Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has taken advantage of his time in

Ottawa this week, or will take advantage before he leaves, to

have an earlier meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs

than had been planned to resolve these questions at an earlier

opportunity.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The date today, as I understand it, is May

1. He'll be meeting with the Minister on May 5, in four

days.

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

follow up on much the same subject with a different slant.

Certain Indian leaders have taken action west of Prince George

to interrupt the active functioning of the B.C. Railway. I

wonder if the Premier could tell us what action the authorities

on the railway have taken or are planning to take to

re-establish normal service.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The latest report I have is that there is

an attempt to meet with the native people concerned. There have

been meetings arranged, and my information is that there have

been meetings for years under Liberal governments too, Mr.

Member. I think that it is appropriate for the House to

recognize that it would be ill-advised for anyone to make this

a party political issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am suggesting to you that the BCR is

attempting to negotiate.

LOSS OF GRAZING LEASE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Is the

Minister aware that an action of the Lands department in taking

away a long-term grazing lease from a rancher in the Oliver

area is resulting in the breaking up of a viable family

ranch?

[ Page 1912 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

No, I am not familiar with the particular grazing lease. If the Member would

provide me with specific information, I would be glad to follow it up with more

detail.

CRESTON TRANSMISSION LINE

There were two questions yesterday that I would like to

respond to. One is the transmission line in the Creston area

which the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

raised, and I would like to clarify that question. There was a

major transmission line which was scrubbed, as I indicated

yesterday. However, a 500 kv line is being considered by B.C.

Hydro at this time and the matter will, because of the diverse

interests involved in the proposal, probably be referred by

Hydro to the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. I

think that covers that point.

COLUMBIA PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD

The other question was from the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey regarding the permanent engineering board for the

Columbia. I would note that it was established as a result of

the Columbia River treaty and its purpose was to oversee the

implementation of the treaty. It has been working on

operational matters in recent years. The Canadian members are

Mr. McNabb and Mr. Marr, the Deputy Minister of Water Resources

provincially. They, in turn, report to Donald Macdonald, the

federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There are two

American members who report to Dr. Kissinger. They table an

annual report in Ottawa each year and we have copies of that

report.

There is a liaison committee for Canada and British

Columbia, and the members are Donald Macdonald, Mr. MacEachen,

myself and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). This

committee has not met that I am aware of. The committee has an

advisory subcommittee, however, which meets on a regular basis

annually, consisting of Mr. McNabb and Mr. Clarke for the

federal government, and Mr. DeBeck and Mr. Kennedy for British

Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Your Member asked the question, Mr.

Member. The subcommittee produces an annual report which has

been received by my office just today.

LOSS OF GRAZING LEASE

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary to my question.

MR. SPEAKER: This is on the grazing lease question?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. Would the Minister please advise the House

if he received a letter directed to him on April 17, 1975, re

disposition of lot 106, subdivision 6, township 54, Yale

district, from Mr. Henry Blazowski, secretary-manager of the

B.C. Cattlemen's Association, regarding the family farm I asked

him about — the 160 acres? Would he also advise the House if he

received a letter on the same subject addressed to himself on

April 17, 1975, from the White Lake Stockmen's Association, Mr.

R.B. Coleman, secretary? Would the Minister advise the House

whether he will look into this situation and, in so doing,

would he advise the House whether this lease, which is put out

for public auction, has an upset price now of $150,526 to

purchase or $7,526 a year price to lease? Who appraised the

land at this value and who set this upset price?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's enough for one question.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Are you saying it's too high?

MRS. JORDAN: Unrealistic for a producer.

REDUCTION OF UNPAID

ICBC CLAIMS RESERVE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Transport

and Communications, responsible for ICBC: may I ask the

Minister whether instructions were given to reduce the

provision for unpaid claims for ICBC's 1974-75 financial year

below that originally budgeted which thereby substantially

reduced the indicated deficit of ICBC as found in the annual

report?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Not that

I can recollect.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, then, could the Minister take the

question on notice and assure the House at some future date

that no such instructions were given and that ICBC followed

standard insurance practices in establishing an adequate

reserve ratio for unpaid claims, including those unreported at

the end of the year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's stated in the report itself. I

think I was asked a question on this during estimates the other

day and I explained that particular question with regard to the

fact that we handle things much more expeditiously and rapidly

than was the previous case.

[ Page 1913 ]

BEACON BODY SHOP APPRAISALS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Minister of Transport and Communications. I'd

like to quote from an

article in today's edition of the

Vancouver Province , quoting Richard Bradford, vendor to

ICBC of the Beacon Body Shop operation, as saying there were

several appraisals made of the property and assets "and the

figure we set ourselves was slightly under the lowest of the

other appraisals."

The Minister said on Tuesday that he would check and provide

the House with the information on appraisals done to determine

the value of these premises and the business. Can the Minister

now provide this information?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I have

it — I know I've seen it and the information was very good, actually. It's a

reasonable answer. I'll get it for you tomorrow.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker,

on the same subject. The check of the registrar of companies on

the companies T.J. Investments Ltd. and Beacon Body Shop

reveals that together these companies mortgaged property and

equipment with the Industrial Development Bank in the amount of

$195,000. Could the Minister inform the House as to the status

of this mortgage now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll check on it.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary with regard to the

same mortgage: could the Minister tell the House if the IDB

mortgage was current during the time of the negotiation with

the vendors and at the time of the sale of the operation to

ICBC, or was: it substantially in arrears?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll check on it.

ELDERLY CITIZENS' ACCOMMODATION

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A question to

the Minister of Housing. With respect to non-profit elderly

citizens' accommodation constructed with grants under the

Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act, could the Minister advise

whether or not his department assists or gives guidance to

those non-profit societies with respect to the establishment of

their rent structure?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, this is

done but the Central Mortgage and Housing actually sets the

policy more so than we do. We make a grant of 33.3 per cent.

It's Central Mortgage and Housing that has the long-term commitment that

holds the mortgage and really has a more ongoing interest — not

that we are disinterested, not that we are not concerned about

some of the obvious shortcomings of the present set-up as

regards rents. There is a tremendous disparity.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. In view of

the fact that the government by order-in-council exempted such

non-profit organizations from the limitations under the

Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to rent increases, is the

Minister considering establishing in his department a division

which will make assessments and reviews of the rents of elderly

citizens' accommodation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said,

Central Mortgage and Housing still has control. There was

previously political interference, trying to discourage any

sort of an increase in rent. This led to poor provision for

maintenance allowance and many of the projects today are in

very poor shape as far as maintenance is concerned, or were as

a result of that policy. Central Mortgage and Housing used to

kick the ball to the province and it's back in their court as

to controlling rents.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental on that last, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the Minister's obvious concern for the maintenance

of these elderly citizens' accommodation units, is the Minister

not suggesting that it would be wise to undertake the matter in

the Housing department rather than leave it in Central Mortgage

and Housing, which is obviously doing a very bad job?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to know

of some specifics that are of concern to the Member. I would

certainly take this up, and I am sure it can be worked out

between the departments.

ADDITIONAL FERRY PURCHASES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Could the

Minister advise the House whether there are any other ferries

or any other international ferry companies being contemplated

to be purchased? I'm not quite sure how they're going to put

them in that Crown corporation that he said he was going to

form but are you at the moment contemplating any other ferries

or any other companies?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of any, Mr. Speaker.

NEED FOR COLD BEER

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Attorney-General

hasn't been asked a question in many months and he deserves a

question now and then, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the

Attorney-General this: in view of the fact that for the year

ended March 31, 1974, the Liquor Control Board enjoyed profits

of $108 million and that to be added to that is the $5 million

tax, so there would be $113 million profit, and in view of the

fact that based on past experience we can anticipate profits of

a minimum of $125 million expiring March 31, 1975, I would ask

the Hon. Attorney-General if he's prepared to take into account

customer convenience and give his assurance that refrigerated

beer — and wine, for that matter — may be purchased at

government liquor stores.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, that

matter, which has been raised by the Member for Kamloops (Mr.

G.H. Anderson) — the refrigeration matter — is receiving

consideration but I can't make a commitment about it.

But I had out some other questions that I took as notice.

Very briefly, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in

his question was completely right, as he always is: $195,000;

open in 60 days; CCC Terrace.

In answer to the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) about the Cornat Industries takeover, the investigation

has been completed, as far as we're concerned. We put 200

man-hours into the thing. We've looked especially at the short

tendering of shares, as well as any relationship, and we find

that within the Securities Act, which isn't too satisfactory,

the whole thing is as regular as we can see it to be, and the

investigation has been terminated.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

Vote 38: Minister's office, $124,447 — continued.

On the amendment.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The Minister is aware and

knows that one of the reasons for the motion of non-confidence

is the fact that one of the two major concerns of the parents

in the home-and-school associations, one of the results out of

the surveys that we're taking both in Surrey and in

Richmond and in Prince George and in other areas, tells me

that the two concerns were: No. 1, discipline and, No. 2,

special education. In some instances, the frequency of concern

reversed the two. Sometimes it was special education as the

major concern, and discipline fell second.

We heard some debate last evening on the question of

discipline, but my concern today is special education. The ones

in Surrey — home-and-school — and one in Richmond, the same

home-and-school — and also in Prince George…. Now I don't

have copies of these surveys here. All I have are the recorded

results, and I know that the results were that in some

instances the No. 1 complaint was discipline and the No. 2

complaint was special education. They have a press release from

the Minister herself stating in most instances that the report

of the home-and-school associations was that special education

was the No. 1 concern, and this is the one I have in question

today.

The Minister asked last evening, just at closing time,

whether or not we couldn't come to the end of the

non-confidence motion last evening. Yet I needed to have some

explanation from her as to the direction we're going in special

education.

The Minister has stated on various occasions, particularly

in her release in November, that every child has the right to

be educated and that this right should be extended both to

children who have special educational needs and to children who

do not have special educational needs. However, I have drawn it

to the Minister's attention on at least two other occasions

that there are three categories of education. There is the

normal range, the normal capacities. Then there is the special

category on what we might call the negative side. Then there

are the special education problems of children who have greater

than normal capacity. In my opinion, this is as much of a

handicap to those children, and as much of a concern to the

teaching staff, as those who have learning disabilities. It all

comes under one great heading of special education, and my

concern is — and one reason for voting this non-confidence

motion — that I have not seen the type of concern we would like

to see from the department concerning special education.

Now that the research and development is not functioning, it

seems, at least for the next year and perhaps two years, that

we will not see any major advancement in special education

courses. I am concerned that we, in our teacher education, have

stresses in classroom time for those teachers on learning about

handicapped children. Have them learn to recognize what a

handicap is and how to cope with those handicaps. Those

handicaps are as specialized as the individuals themselves and

perhaps need to be dealt with as gingerly as possible. Each

child has his own capacity and his own disability. It needs to

[ Page 1915 ]

analyzed and assessed, and teachers need to be able to

handle these situations.

Now sometimes these disabilities are obvious; they're

apparent. But when you analyse them, lo and behold, these are

not children who are disabled by having their capacity to learn

impaired, but they have a handicap by virtue of the fact that

their capacity is greater than normal. As a result they are

bored in school and they become almost incorrigible in the

classroom. They have capacities to learn far greater than the

teachers can cope with.

I would like the assurance from this Minister, Mr. Chairman,

that this area is also being researched or that at least it is

within the frame of reference of the research and development

department so that we can capitalize on the abilities of those

children, who have perhaps the greatest capacity of any of our

students, and develop from those people perhaps the greatest

leaders in our land. At least we can give them the opportunity.

I agree with the Minister when she says that everyone has the

right to be educated. Those with the greatest capacity also

have that same right and we in our educational system must at

least try to provide for their capacities as well.

I would like to hear what the Minister has to say. This is

not a short subject. This is not something with which we can

deal in just one or two minutes. I would like to know first of

all what the Minister's philosophy on handicaps is and what

steps have been taken already to be sure that handicaps are

recognized and what steps are being taken to make sure that

these are dealt with. I would like to hear what the Minister

has to say.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I am

glad the Member brought this particular subject up because he

is quite right: one of the most important challenges any

Department of Education faces, particularly today, is the area

of handling children who have learning disabilities. We can

also include in that, of course, as you say, the gifted

child.

This is an area to which, I may say, I have given very

special attention. I am glad I have the opportunity to point

out what we have been doing in this area. As you know, for

years one of the problems has been that many of these children,

when you and I were in school, Mr. Member — maybe about the

same time — weren't even diagnosable. People didn't even have

the testing procedure to diagnose the children. This has been

one of the areas in which I have been trying to emphasize the

great importance.

First of all, you have to set up the facilities and the

qualified teachers to be able to diagnose whether you have a

child with a learning disability problem.

MR. SCHROEDER: In our day they just accelerated the gifted

ones.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: They just accelerate the gifted. That's

right, yes.

Often the child who sits very quietly in the classroom and

says nothing is the child who is overlooked. That child can

have a very serious problem emotionally or a very serious

learning problem which sometimes does not come to the forefront

because he sits back very passively. It is in this area that we

have to start.

This is the area in which I have been encouraging

discussions with the faculties of education. We must ensure

that the young teachers coming out of our faculties are given

courses in this. My feeling is that it should be a mandatory

course.

MR. SCHROEDER: Right.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The joint board of teacher education is

working with the faculties of education on this. I don't think

any teacher should go out of the faculty of education without

having taken a course in at least being able to diagnose a

child. That is one area that we have moved on and are moving on

right at this particular time.

Of course, once you diagnose them, the next step is

treatment. In this particular area, the one thing that, of

course, I find of concern is that there are so many people with

so many ideas on how to treat a child with a learning

disability. As the years go on and the months go on you are

always being presented with some new quick way to teach a

child, for instance, how to read if he seems to have a great

problem with learning to read. Yet in the recent international

conference on education, which I think I mentioned before, it

was conceded by a group of top educationalists that no one has

yet found the absolutely perfect way to teach a child to

read.

The one thing we can do is that when there is a child

discovered with a specific learning disability, we have to

ensure that the class sizes are small enough so that the

teacher is given more time to actually spend with the children

in a room so she can diagnose them. Of course, our government

is very proud of the fact that since we came into office, we

have brought an appreciable decrease in the class size. In

talking with the teachers of the province, one thing they say

to me is: "Mrs. Dailly, since the classes are lower, it

certainly gives us a much better opportunity to deal with the

unique problems of the children in our classrooms." So there

are two very specific areas we have moved on re teacher

education.

We also have financed the Jericho Summer Workshop, which I

attended just briefly last summer. I would hope that other

Members would get an opportunity to go this year. We are again

funding teachers to go to this workshop. At this workshop

teachers, parents and students are brought together to discuss

primarily how to treat and deal with children

[ Page 1916 ]

with learning disabilities. They live and work together

right on the Jericho campus. We initiated this with the help of

school trustees and the B.C. Teachers Federation and, of

course, the Association of Children with Learning Disabilities

has been very active in this. We as the government have

encouraged this positively and are going to again this

summer.

I have tried. I have already sent out a letter to all the

teachers of the province informing them of this important

workshop and saying: "Take an opportunity to go to this

workshop. We are ready to finance it for you. We feel that what

you learn there you can bring back to your own district and

help other teachers."

The Ben Chud report. As you know, we commissioned a report

on Jericho. Out of that came some very fine recommendations

from Ben Chud. He is now working with the assistant director of

supportive services in my department. They are working to

present to us a plan for an overall board which would deal

specifically with the whole area of children with special

learning disabilities.

One thing I've discovered in speaking to the Association for

Children with Learning Disabilities on a provincial level and

on local levels, which I've done, is that the parents

themselves want to be involved in this. There are many parents

who on their own, through frustration over the past years

because they didn't know where to turn for help, have become

very knowledgeable in this area. The parents themselves, as you

have suggested, Mr. Member, should be used here. That's why

we're planning to set up this provincial board where the

parents will be involved. That, we hope, will be started very

soon.

I want to emphasize again that there is no one specific

answer; every child is unique and different. But we must enable

the teachers to diagnose them, we must provide the resources

for the teacher once they have diagnosed them, and we must

ensure that there are constant training workshops for teachers

so they know where to turn for specialized help.

Also, on top of that, we have put in since we came into

office, I believe last year, $20 million into just supportive

services. I have here a book, Mr. Member, which I'd be pleased

to send over to you, as you expressed a special interest in it,

which outlines from pre-school right on through what is being

done in the whole area of supportive services by our

department. John Walsh and Frances Fleming in our department

have just completed a complete tour of every school district in

this province where they have met with parents and teachers and

school boards to specifically talk about the whole area of

assisting children with learning disabilities. They are just

reporting to me now the results of those meetings.

To add to that, in essence then, another principle I endorsed that is being

acted upon is that we're getting the people in our department out into the field

to talk with the parents and the teachers in this area, which is one of the

most vital areas we face today.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to ask the

Hon. Minister a couple of questions dealing with dollars and

cents. I wonder if she could inform me of the number of

elementary students in the province and the number of secondary

students in the province, and the average cost of educating a

child in each case, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think this question is of a

general nature. Perhaps we could dispose of the amendment and

then deal with the vote as a whole in a general sense.

MR. GARDOM: Well, maybe….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: What does that have to do with the

amendment? Am I going to be…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could put the vote on the amendment

and then we could get onto the vote.

MR. GARDOM: That's satisfactory with me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

on the amendment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

I want to raise a matter which deals with education and

finance. I think that because of the nature of the comments

that I would like to make, it properly belongs in the

discussion of the amendment.

I share with the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) the

concern about special needs for the children in the school. It

brings me directly into the matter that I would like to engage

in debate with the Minister. In the West Vancouver school

district, the board of school trustees is recognizing the

significance of the problem of children with learning

disabilities, as the Minister has. It provides, in addition to

what is accepted by the department as appropriate in the

educational programme, an additional 4½ teachers and 12

aides, which is entirely outside the basic education programme

recognized by the department and, therefore, paid entirely by

the local taxpayers.

This assists the teachers in identifying children who do

have problems and therefore do need some special assistance.

But as this programme has developed, Mr. Chairman, it is

becoming obvious that, as well as identifying the problem, it

is increasingly

[ Page

1917 ]

necessary to provide facilities and trained personnel who

can deal with the children who have special needs. It is

disturbing to recognize, as I advised the committee a few days

ago, that in West Vancouver, so far as a remedy for emotionally

disturbed children in the schools is concerned, out of an 8,300

school population there is only one teacher — one male teacher — who is employed on an itinerant basis, travelling from school

to school to deal with children who have emotional and learning

problems.

This teacher, spending all the time that is available to him

in this highly specialized task, is able to deal only with

elementary boy students who have emotional and learning

problems. This leaves all of the girl students without anyone

who directly assists them in the solution of their problems and

without any similar assistance being available to those

students who are in secondary schools and who during the course

of their school life may, indeed, have developed emotional and

learning difficulties, whether as a result of their own action

or family problems or whatever the case may be, and an

inability to move into the more senior grades.

It seems to me that this brings us fully into the problem

which is facing my school district and all the school districts

in British Columbia.

I would like to determine whether or not this Minister of

Education, in approaching the major responsibility which is

hers, is looking seriously at where education is going in

British Columbia. Unfortunately so much of it depends upon the

ability of this province and the ability of the local taxpayers

in each of the school districts to finance the need for special

programmes such as those I have mentioned and all the other

programmes which are currently in our schools, or which should

be in our schools, and are being recognized day by day by

teachers, parents, school trustees and departmental officials

who realize that the educational system in British Columbia

must progress.

Yesterday the Minister reminded the committee that again

this year her department, to assist in a financial dilemma

being faced by school districts, has made supplementary and

special grants amounting to $25.5 million. I know that the

school districts have now received notice of these supplemental

grants.

I would like the Minister to advise the committee as to the basis upon which

those grants are made, because I suspect that the secrecy which surrounds the

division of this special fund is part of the problem that indeed led to difficulties

with Dr. Knight and the research group. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, unless

we can identify the formula that is applied by the Department of Education in

allocating these additional moneys, that we are left with perhaps the conclusion

that decisions are made within the department as to whether or not a particular

school district should receive a grant or not, and how much that grant should

be.

Now let me give you some examples. The total net budget for

the school district in West Vancouver is $12.7 million. The

provincial share is $4.1 million, about 32 per cent, the

balance being raised locally. West Vancouver has received a

supplemental grant of $174,000, and no one seems to know

why.

On the other hand, I find that School District 63 in

Saanich, which has a smaller budget and a smaller number of

students — its budget is only $7.2 million — has received

special grants of $328,000, almost twice as much.

The other school district in my constituency, the Howe Sound

school district, has a budget this year of $4.4 million, and

its grant is only $49,000, of which almost half is because of

additional classes which have had to be added in the

September-to-December months of 1974, It is impossible, comparing these figures…. I am not

suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the department has used gross

budget figures only in determining what these special grants

should be. But when you consider that you have large school

districts which are receiving less money than small school

districts, and when you compare small school districts with

other small school districts of similar size, there seems to be

no comparison. I think we should determine, if possible, the

formula that is applied in allocating these special funds.

Now that brings me to another matter, also dealing with the

Minister's administration and the financing of education. I

have obtained a copy of a letter, dated September 18, 1974,

addressed by the Minister of Education to the Premier of the

province. It is addressed to the Hon. David Barrett. It begins:

"My dear Mr. Premier;" it deals with the subject of education

and finance.

The letter says, in its opening sentence: "I seek your

approval in principle to finance education out of general

revenue, as in the case of other public services." Then follow

four pages of very carefully reasoned argument for that

proposition. Included in her reasoning, Mr. Chairman, is this

one paragraph which I think is very significant, and one with

which I agree:

"Sound educational programmes must be based on long-term planning and projection. The mounting

resistance of taxpayers to accept the continuing growth of

school taxes has rendered the local sources of school revenue

unpredictable. The government recognizes the apparent anguish

of the community when mill rates have to be increased.

Accordingly, the government in 1974 further contributed to the

educational costs through supplementary and special aid grants

totaling $21 million."

The Minister then goes on to say:

[ Page 1918 ]

" Ad hoc financing arrangements make it difficult for a

school board to plan effectively. Furthermore, any restraint

that the department could exercise is severely impaired by such

an arrangement."

I repeat the last phrase, Mr. Chairman. The Minister, while

being concerned about the ability of school boards to plan

effectively, says: "Furthermore, any restraint that the

department could exercise is severely impaired by such an

arrangement."

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious from what has happened in the

past few days, with the announcement again of $25.5 million in

supplementary and special aid grants, that the Minister of

Finance, Mr. Premier, to whom this letter was addressed, has

not responded in any positive way to the principle which the

Minister of Education has put to him — namely, the financing of

education out of general revenue.

I would like to know from the Minister whether or not the

Treasury Board and the cabinet have indicated to her that there

is to be a positive programme for the financing of educational

costs out of general revenue and, if so, what positive steps

are being taken by the Minister to carry out that worthwhile

objective. The Minister, in her letter, speaks of decisions in

the courts of the United States, and she quotes them

favourably. In the body of her letter, and she actually

attaches copies of the decisions, she says:

"United States Supreme Court decisions declare that

financing education from local property taxes denies children

equal protection guaranteed under the law, because funding of

education through property taxes discriminates against the

poor. It renders the quality of a child's education a function

of the wealth of his parents and neighbours."

I would like to know whether the cabinet and the Treasury

Board have accepted the view the Minister obviously holds that

such is the case in British Columbia.

In the letter she also questions the equitability of the

present finance formula as between school districts. She

questions, in a very serious way, the disparity that exists on

a regional basis in this province and she says, discussing the

basic programme of education in British Columbia…the

following words I commend to you, Mr. Chairman:

" However, the grants for the basic programme do not

recognize regional disparity, geographic location, social

injustice or variation in costs for the provision of the basic

programme."

The Minister uses statistics to exemplify and establish

those words and the appropriateness of what she has said to the

Premier.

Also in the letter, Mr. Chairman, is the clear indication that the Minister

believes that the matter of the financing of education should be taken out of

the hands of local school boards and that local school boards should then be

freed to direct their energies with respect to the other needs of education

in the particular district. Her conclusion to the Premier is significant:

"This department believes that responsibility for raising

educational revenues lies with the province. No longer can the

provincial government avoid the responsibility of leaving

decisions to the school districts as to how much revenue is to

be raised in each. This position is consistent with the

objective stated in my White Paper — to strengthen the central

relationship in education between the teacher, the students and

the parents.

"Centralization and decentralization are not contradictory

concepts. It is possible to have centralized financing and

decentralized policy making. School board trustees would have

more power to shape the ends of education in their districts

under provincial assumption of education financing. It would

seem that a much-to-be-desired situation would then prevail

where school boards would be free to concentrate on purely

educational matters with time formerly spent seeking necessary

resources."

I think that we should hear from the Minister with respect

to those far-reaching statements. I wish she would explain to

the committee and to the boards of school trustees and to the

parents how she will place in the hands of school trustees the

policy-making decision, and yet control entirely within the

provincial government the financing of the educational system

which those policies will make essential.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister is going

to control all of the money available for education in British

Columbia, then she also puts the school trustees in the

invidious position whereby having made policies as to the

direction education should take in their local districts, they

are left without sufficient funds to carry out those policies.

Indeed, earlier in this letter, the Minister makes it quite

clear that the current programme of financing does just this,

only in a different way.

The niggardliness of government in financially supporting

the basic educational programme throughout the entire province

has cast upon the local school trustees the almost impossible

task of raising those moneys locally. That extinguishes the

amount of funds available to them and thereby interferes with

their policy-making powers.

The Minister and the government have proudly proclaimed the

fact that they are increasing to 40 per cent the amount of

educational grants to reduce taxes this year. But when you look

at the figures on a

[ Page 1919 ]

province-wide basis, you find from the Minister's own

department the statement that the average assessed value of

residential property is $20,000 and the increase in the mill

rate on an average is 7.15. On the average, the taxpayer in the

province is going to pay an additional $140 of school taxes

this year. But the most that the grant can ever go up under the

present formula is $40. Therefore, the average taxpayer in

British Columbia who enjoys the full grant made available by

this government for the reduction of school taxes also enjoys

the privilege of paying another $100 more for school taxes than

he did a year ago — and that's the average.

In the West Vancouver school district I can tell you that

you enjoy the privilege of paying another $120 in school taxes

for the privilege of getting an additional $40 grant from the

government towards the reduction of those taxes. For those who

can afford to pay, it's great. But the educational

opportunities for the children in the province suffer to the

extent that their parents, their parents' neighbours and their

school district cannot afford to pay.

There's another aspect of financial control mentioned by the

Minister in this letter which I think bears comment. In

speaking about the various elements of costs, the Minister

says:

"Teacher salaries are negotiated between the school board and the local of the teachers' association. Yet

considering the homeowner grant and education grant, the

province pays approximately 60 per cent of the costs of

elementary and secondary education. Thus the province is in the

position of paying a significant portion of the costs of

education without participating in the determination of those

costs."

I would like to know from the Minister whether, as part of

this centralization of financial control, it is her proposal

that the negotiation of teacher salaries should also be taken

away from the local school boards. Teacher salaries are the

major portion of the school costs in British Columbia. Will

negotiations for teacher salaries and other staff in the

schools be conducted between those teachers and the provincial

government and not as has been the case heretofore?

Last night there was tabled in this House the report of the

select standing committee dealing with educational matters

which recommended that the collective bargaining system

presently enjoyed in the Province of British Columbia be

continued. I think that it is important, in view of the tabling

of that report, that we ascertain from this Minister whether or

not she and her government are forecasting a change in those

bargaining relationships when she brings about the change in

fiscal control.

Mr. Chairman, there's one other aspect that I think the Minister touches upon

in her letter that I would like to raise with her: the determination of what

the basic education programme in British Columbia should be.

She has said, in response to questions put to her earlier in

debate, that her department is concerning itself with this

particular matter. I would like the Minister to advise the

committee who in her department is making such an examination.

I would like to know whether her department is engaging the

services of educators in the Province of British Columbia who

are currently involved in our educational system; if she is

consulting with Members of school boards; if she has, as part

of this study group, representatives of parents' groups; and if

she has, in this study group, representatives of the business

community who can perhaps give some guidance as to the quality

of students who must come from our schools in order to assist

the economy of this province. I would like to know whether the

trade unions are involved.

I think the Minister should clearly indicate just how she

and her department are going about the revision of what

comprises the basic education programme in British Columbia. I

happen to believe that is the first step that must be taken —

the very first step in resolving the finance mess that we have

in British Columbia. When I say finance mess, I am not

criticizing this Minister, because she didn't create it. It has

been the product of lack of concern for the education system

over decades; it is the product of what was believed to be an

equitable education formula which has not been carefully

tended; it is the product of governments who have failed to

recognize what is happening to the education system. But it is

this Minister's responsibility at this time to do something

about it.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this problem is

so important and so immense that it should not be dealt with by

the Department of Education through committees established by

this Minister. I think that the whole subject of the basic

education programme in British Columbia, the financing of

education in British Columbia, and the extent to which the

moneys made available by British Columbia taxpayers, whether at

the provincial or the local level, can be directed to education

should be resolved in a public way.

I think that this Minister and this government should

announce the establishment of a royal commission into education

and education finance. I think that there should be a thorough

and exhaustive study, free from the controls of government and

partisan politics, into what must surely be one of the most

pressing subjects facing British Columbia today. It affects the

parents; it affects the children; it will affect the children

who are coming into the school system next year and the year

after that and the year after that. It is something to which we

must direct

[ Page 1920 ]

our attention. We have had royal commissions into such

worthwhile matters as workers' compensation. We have had royal

commissions considering what we should do with respect to

automobile insurance. We have had royal commissions dealing

with the problems of the forest industry. Surely anything which

is as important to every person in this province as education

and education finance should be accorded at least equal

treatment.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I would think that this should be the

No. 1 priority of this government at this time, because this

Minister in her attempts over the past 32 months has not been

able to solve the problem. This Minister must now recognize

that neither she nor her advisers in the department can

themselves, doing the job that faces them in the day-to-day

administration, solve this problem. We need to bring the best

minds, the best brains that we can possibly encourage to come

to this province, to dwell on this topic and get it resolved.

Mr. Chairman, if the educational system continues to go in the

direction in which it is presently headed, the system will

suffer, the costs will grow, the resistance of taxpayers, of

whom the Minister speaks in her letter, will intensify and we

will have problems throughout the province, as we have had in

individual school districts, where taxpayer revolt can result

in the dismantling of the educational system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is

embarking on a subject which is not strictly relevant to this

amendment. The amendment, I think, would deal with a lack of

confidence in the administrative capability of this Minister. I

would ask that he confine his remarks to that point.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank you for that timely operation. I

was almost finished, if you'd waited one more second.

I think that I can't say anything more. I feel very strongly

about this particular problem. If government cannot meet this

difficulty, then not only government and the Minister will

suffer, but thousands and thousands of children and, therefore,

the future of this province.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'll start right back with the very first questions

asked by the Hon. Member. He was expressing basic concern about his own district

at the time, and the non-availability of money for special services. I think

he should be aware that this is certain: we can never get all the special services

that we want. I discussed with the Member who spoke from the official opposition

what we're doing in that area to assist school boards, and West Vancouver certainly

gets its share in that area. I'd also like to point out that there are a number

of integrated community resources which I believe are being used and are available

for the West Vancouver school district.

As far as West Vancouver goes itself, you were comparing it,

I believe, to one of the smaller districts like Saanich, and

your basic question was: how are these supplementary grants

allotted? First of all, I want to point out to the Hon. Member

that assessed values per pupil, comparing West Vancouver to

Saanich — I think that was one of the areas you used — West

Vancouver's assessed value per pupil is $26,000 and Saanich is

$16,400. So you can see the variance there between the two

districts, which all ties into the basis upon which we hand out

the supplementary grant. I'll go into detail on that in a

moment.

Also, at the present time your mill rate is approximately

1.74 in West Vancouver — above the average mill rate — and your

per pupil cost is $1,303 where the average provincial cost per

pupil is $1,202. So I just thought we should put those figures

into perspective: $1,262 on the average compared to $1,303 in

West Vancouver.

How do we apportion out the supplementary grants? If the

Hon. Member would have time to read the school Act,

Part X,

under finance,

section 180(5), it outlines there the basis upon

which any department must hand out supplementary grants. I'd

just like to quote to you the

section that's relevant:

"Where in any calendar year, as a result of

circumstances

which in the opinion of the Minister of Education are beyond

the control of the board, there occurs an increase in the

operating expenses included in the budget of a school district,

as finally approved, which causes such expenses to exceed the

cost of the basic education programme in such amount that

notwithstanding the payment of a basic grant, in an amount

determined under subsection 1, there would result great public

inconvenience, or public hardship, or grave injustice to

taxpayers in that school district, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may authorize, whenever deemed

right and conducive to the public good, a supplementary grant" — and

this is the

part I want to bring out, Mr. Member — "payable by the

Minister of Finance up to an amount that bears

to the increase in operating expenses the same ratio that the

basic grant bears to the cost of the basic education

programme."

So you see, it's laid out by statute.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's right, district by district. So

therefore, to begin with, the Department of Education must work

from that particular statute. Also, you must realize that in

handing out the

[ Page 1921 ]

supplementary grants we must first of all work within that

statute, and the grants are also based, of course, upon the

variance in the assessed values in the different districts, and

also the number of pupils in the district. So I can assure you

there's not subjectivity involved here. We are trying to put

out those supplementary grants in the most equitable way

possible, based on what we are told to do in the statute and

also including the variance in assessed values and the number

of pupils in each district. That is the basis upon which they

are done and that's why you see that variance from district to

district.

You quoted at great length an interdepartmental letter. I'm

not sure how it came into your hands, but the fact is you have

it and you quoted from it, and I'm glad to have an opportunity

to reply to you on some of the points.

The first thing I wanted to say is that I feel that it is my

duty as Minister of Education to communicate, on a fairly

continuous basis, with the Department of Finance on my concerns

as Minister of Education with financial problems. Some of those

problems which are listed in that letter I have said here on

the floor of the House concern me. The letter, of course, goes

into much more detail. We are simply doing our job in the

Department of Education, with the help of the officials here,

to provide to the government alternative ways of trying to

solve the present inequities in the school system. That

particular letter is one suggestion from me, as Minister, to

the Minister of Finance. It is not government policy; it is not

written in stone, it is….

I know you are expressing the concern, and I know that I

have had this argument for years with many people in the

teachers' federation and in the school trustees'

association.

Centralized financing — no, I do not believe that it's going

to mean there will be no opportunity for decentralized control

within the school boards. Many school trustees have said to me

that they want to get on with education. If a certain sum of

money is handed out, then it is up to the school boards to make

their own priority educational decisions so they don't have to

spend hours and hours on the whole area 6f financing. Their

prime job, then, is to decide how to allocate those funds. It's

very similar, of course, to the way the universities operate. A

certain sum of money is handed down every year and then they

have their complete autonomy in how to distribute those moneys

within their university. They pride themselves on that autonomy

and never at any time would they suggest that they not have

that autonomy.

I know that this is a debate that could wage between us for considerable time;

but I am confused, Mr. Member, because I thought yesterday that one of the Members

of the Liberal Party seemed to endorse centralized financing. I thought that

that was in your party platform. I seem to recall from your last campaign literature

that the Liberal Party endorsed centralized financing.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): They're split in caucus.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am sure that it could be found stated in

your campaign literature. Maybe you individually do not.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I do.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Oh, you do. Oh, well, I thought you were

expressing great concern that the school boards wouldn't have

autonomy. So then you agree with me that they could maintain

autonomy under centralized financing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Provided the basic education programme is

established at a level that is acceptable to the local school

trustees.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That naturally follows.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS ; Now you are coming to the main point.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, but you and I know that at no time,

Mr. Member, will we ever be able to give the amount of money

that everyone desires. Across Canada we do have some provincial

jurisdictions which are centrally financed. I find it most

interesting when I am meeting with the other Ministers of

Education to talk to those Ministers and see how it is

operating. That's why I find those meetings very helpful. It's

very interesting to ask them specifically what problems they

are running into. I must say, though, that it makes the job

easier in many ways.

You mentioned that you were concerned that out of that,

then, would follow centralized teacher-salary negotiations, yet

you agree yourself that that's the route to go.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not sure about that.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, that's your implication. May I just

say that you know the all-party committee has just completed

its all-party report, and the NDP Members of that committee

soundly endorsed the main recommendations of that report —

which certainly did not endorse provincial bargaining. So I

think that that speaks certainly for our party's stand on

that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And yours?

[ Page 1922 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, and mine.

Oh, yes, you were concerned about who sat on the finance

committee at the moment. You are right: it is simply at the

official level with trustee officials and BCTF officials and

department officials. The intent is to expand it — certainly to

bring in the community, the parents, the teachers and the

elected officials. But I must say that your suggestion of a

royal commission on finance is a most interesting suggestion

and one which I personally would like to give consideration

to.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Too big a job?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: A big job, that's right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's taking all your time, Eileen.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You're right.

MR. SCHROEDER: The debate on this particular motion is now

in its fifth day, Mr. Chairman. I would like the Minister to be

assured that this motion was not made on the opening day

because of any flippant decision. The motion was made because

of the pressure that was brought to bear upon the official

opposition by various segments of society — the teachers'

federation, the school trustees' association. All of these

various groups in their approaches to the official opposition

expressed these concerns, and I would have been very, very

irresponsible if I had not made this motion of

non-confidence.

I think this debate has been a healthy debate with, perhaps,

two or three outbursts to add a little spice and give the

scribes something to write about. Basically, the debate has

been philosophical and perhaps a little hard to report. As a

result, these five days have not been the ones with the

greatest lustre. My prayers have been with the poor people who

have to report these things. Nonetheless, today I would like to

summarize the reasons and perhaps put into succinct form why

this motion had to be put.

The non-confidence motion was born out of these concerns — the pupil-teacher

ratio which, it was clearly announced, was going to be dropped 1.5 students

per teacher each year for a period of three years. The plan has been dropped.

Cited, the budget did not provide for it. In a year when we have the greatest

single increase in revenues in the Province of British Columbia in the history

of the province we have had to abandon the plan that was announced just a year

and a half ago. The pupil-to-teacher ratio has affected the number of teachers

who were hired. Teachers were hired without due regard for spaces — teaching

areas — in which they were to work. Something in addition to 2,000 teachers

hired and only about 750 teaching areas provided. As a result, there is grave

concern out there in the land of education. As a result, the motion has to be

put.

The motion had to be put because of the disintegration of

the research and development branch which was the backbone to

provide the hope for new directions in education. The very

clear directive which the Minister gave at the onset of this

administration taking power in which there were going to be two

ongoing commissions for primary-secondary and for

post-secondary education has been non-functioning. The

commissioner is gone; the entire research and development

branch is in a shambles. As a result, we would be remiss if we

didn't draw this to the Minister's attention and put this

motion.

Then there were the directives of the White Paper which have

also gone by the board. Three have received some note; two have

received extensive study. The remainder of the directives of

the White Paper have received no further attention.

The slowness with which bargaining procedures for 1975 were

introduced…. I recognize that this was committed to a

committee; I recognize that the committee's report didn't come

in until last evening. But the slowness with which the new

bargaining procedures for 1975 came into effect left the

teachers and the B.C. school trustees alike out there in a

state of fluctuation, not knowing what the terms of arbitration

were going to be for the new year. We had to put the motion of

non-confidence.

The fact that school construction was supposed to be

following a catch-up programme and the fact that the catch-up

programme really did not represent increased construction over

any other given year taken on the average over the past — say,

10 or 12 years — makes it necessary.

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: How many classes? The right figure was $91

million, by the way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair, please?

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Through you to that Member

over there, $91 million was the amount that was announced, but

that was the approved expenditure. The actual expenditures are

not in yet, so don't you come to me with the $91 million.

Not only that, but the $91 million represents

$40-per-square-foot construction costs,

whereas in 1971

construction costs could perhaps better be computed at $20 to

$25 per square foot. You're not getting the same number of

classrooms for the same number of dollars. Don't give me the

fog.

School construction is not on a catch-up

[ Page

1923 ]

programme, and that is the reason why the motion had to be

put.

The removal of taxation from property has been a sham. We

are going on phase 2; two-fifths of the taxation is supposed to

be removed this year. Lo and behold, taxes are up on the

average. Somebody's going to have to pick up the extra $100,

whereby $40 is remitted and an extra $100 is taken. You take

with one hand; you give with the other. We had to move no

confidence.

There was an area that we didn't get to discuss: the area of

vandalism and the concern for property losses out in the school

districts. We talked about special education. What about

teachers' training? What about post-secondary financing? We get

telegrams from the various regional colleges that say: "Hey!

We're not getting enough money to carry on the programmes that

we had designated for last year." Then there was a great

discussion last evening on discipline in the schools. The fact

that the teachers have not been given an alternative requires

the official opposition to put this motion.

Then there was the debate on family life. I suggested again

that if parents' councils were assigned to local schools, those

parents' councils could make a decision as to whether or not

that 5 per cent of the family life programme which pertains to

sex should be taught in each individual school. Let the

parents' councils make that decision. Allow that flexibility at

the local level. You talk about local autonomy; let's have

local autonomy, particularly in the area of curriculum. We had

to move the motion.

The Minister's administrative ability has been under review

and under attack by people in her department — the department

that has deteriorated — by people in the B.C. School Trustees

Association, by people in the B.C. Teachers Federation. Her

administrative ability has been under attack, and I would have

been remiss if I hadn't moved this motion.

The Minister has been reticent to move. Lack of confidence

has been expressed from various areas. I've tried to be

specific; these are not general statements. I've tried to be

specific.

The Minister has failed to recognize a very obvious

alternative to the monolithic education system which we have,

the very obvious system which already exists: the independent

schools.

She has failed to recognize and acknowledge that the system

does not exist and that it does lend the flexibility which the

people of the province are asking for. We had to move the

motion. There are other areas, but enough to say that this

summary should be convincing to any and all who listen that

this is not a frivolous motion. It was incumbent upon us to

move this motion; and since the speakers are concluded, I move

that the motion now be put.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure! Closure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the question now be

put.

I want to clarify what has happened. The Hon. Member for

Chilliwack intended to move that we vote on the amendment. The

question is called on the amendment, and the division is on

that vote.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 32

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, on a

point of order, I ask that two votes be negated from the other

side — two Members in their wrong seats. They did it on

purpose; they were just laughing, and they were making mockery

out of parliament.

Vote 38 approved.

On vote 39: general administration, $6,312,017.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, vote 39 deals with

the very important subject of general administration. I think

that this side of the House has had a fair bit to say about

administration and the cost of administration and the increase

in the number of civil servants employed by various departments

of government. This vote certainly is no exception to the

general rule. In particular, we have an increase of

administrative staff from 177 to 270 and an increase of $1.75

million in vote 39.

I wonder if the Minister, who has already referred somewhat

to this criticism when we discussed the

[ Page 1924 ]

budget speech, would answer a few questions.

This vote, as I look back on it, used to be divided into

sections. Now all we have is executive, supervisory and

administrative. Previously there was a much greater breakdown

of the several parts of the cost of administration. There used

to be administrative services, field services, financial

services, instructional services, post-secondary services,

special services, vocational services and general. Now we find

that it's all lumped together into just three main parts:

executive, supervisory and administrative.

Again, I would like to suggest that the more that government

expense is broken down, the better opportunity for the

opposition to both understand and perhaps come up with

constructive criticism. But under vote 39 on this occasion

we've got an added expenditure of 63 per cent. We've got an

increase of staff of almost 100 individuals under the title of

administration. When we are hearing the Minister state that we

cannot continue to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio because we

can't afford to pay more teachers, it seems as though we're

quite able to spend another $1.75 million on administrative

staff under vote 39.

I wonder if the Minister could answer these two particular

questions: why is there not the same kind of breakdown within

different branches of this vote; and, more specifically, if the

department administration has been reorganized, could she

relate the increased sums of money and the increased personnel

to the specific functions to be carried out by these individual

people? I notice that under the executive part the Deputy

Minister has a 19 per cent increase and the Associate Deputy

has a 9 per cent increase. One is 19 and the other is 9.

Perhaps we could have the Minister answer why the distinct

difference in the increase given to two approximately equal

levels of authority.

Another question I'd like to ask in this vote, Mr. Chairman,

is on the fact that I believe there are allocations for three

Associate Deputy Ministers. At the present time it's my

understanding that there are only two that have been appointed.

I wonder if the Minister could comment on whether we can

anticipate an appointment of a third Associate Deputy

Minister.

Under supervisory, an establishment of 27 positions is

called for as opposed to the existing 18, which is a 50 per

cent increase in personnel under supervisory. We would like to

know again specifically the explanation of these new

positions.

Under expenses of vote 39 there are some staggering figures, if I might say

so. Advertising and publicity goes from $100,000 to $0.25 million. Again, I

just have to ask the question: what is the primary purpose of the Department

of Education? Is it to provide well-qualified teachers to teach our children,

or is it to spend a fair hunk of money on administration and advertising? The

more a government advertises in any department, it falls very much into the

error which this party so soundly criticized the former administration for doing

— namely that more and more of the taxpayer's dollar was spent on various forms

of advertising which was nothing but a very obvious attempt to glorify the government's

own achievements or to use the taxpayers' money in a way which is much less

important than using it for specific, direct educational services. Some of these

expenses, I think, the Minister is obligated to explain to the House.

Travel expenses increased by 33 per cent. There's an

increase in office furniture of 100 per cent. Advertising and

publicity I've mentioned. Incidentals and contingencies go from

$68,000 to $130,000 — almost double.

We've got a relocation expense of $40,000. Who's relocating

where, for what reasons, and what is involved? If part of the

administration is moving, could we know if, perhaps, it is

moving into one of these empty buildings that we hear about?

Finally, incidentals and contingencies show an increase of 90

per cent. I wonder if the Minister could answer also that

specific question as to what the incidentals are going to be

spent on?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to

point out that there is, as you pointed out, a suggested

increase of 93 staff. Out of that at the present time, as of

February 28, 1975, there are 88 positions not filled. The

present establishment of the Department of Education is almost

equal to what it was when we came into office.

Out of that 93 for which you've expressed concern, I'd like

to point out that 30 of those vacancies are the professional

vacancies. I was very concerned when I came in that there were

so few in that area. We did not have enough professional

teachers in the department. The idea of putting in these 30

people in this area primarily is to get them out into the field

to meet all the demands for services which we have. The rest of

the staff will break down, of course, into clerical support

staff so I just want to point out that that is not all new,

additional top administrative positions.

When I found out that we had fewer professional people on

our staff than even little Prince Edward Island, and yet we

were expected to contribute to all these demands for services

out there, it was a ridiculous situation. So I'm quite

satisfied that if we're going to provide the service, which the

BCTF and the B.C. school trustees and all colleges,

universities, et cetera are asking for we have to have the

staff so they can move out there and give that help.

You also had distributed to you a restructuring

[ Page 1925 ]

sheet which showed the direction we were going in the

breakdown. In the next year's estimates, I agree, it would be

much clearer for you to have it broken down, and it will be for

next year's estimates. But as we were in a process of

restructuring the departmental staffing and the configuration

of that staffing, there was not time to get it in for this

year's estimates.

You expressed concern over the amount allocated here for

advertising. You seem to imply that the majority of that is

going to be spent on government advertising. I want to give you

a breakdown. Almost $200,000 was spent, actually, last year;

and you can see it's $250,000 this year. In that expenditure

was advertising for scholarships and advertising for student

aid. The student-aid programme, as you know, is an immense

programme and the government has the responsibility to

advertise so people will know where to apply and how to get

their student aid.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Student aid? I don't know. We'll get it

for you. Student aid advertising for the exams for grade 12…. All I'm trying to point out is this is not just

governmental advertising. This is necessary money that must be

spent so that the students and the citizens of this province

know where they can go for their services and know what

scholarships are being given out and where they can get student

aid.

Also, as the Member knows, we have had a number of college

task forces moving around the province. You yourself commended

the department yesterday for the "Towards a Learning Community

College" report which was produced. Those moneys, to advertise

that the task force was going into different communities were

provided by the Department of Education so that it could be

publicized in the local papers and, I believe, some radio spots

also that the task force would be coming to their community. I

haven't the breakdown here but we can give it to you later.

I just want to point out that you have to realize that, in

the Department of Education, which has to provide all these

services, we must have this kind of a budget so we can tell the

people where to go for the services.

MR. WALLACE: We just want to know how you are spending it

all.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's right. That is a legitimate

question.

Relocation. I can understand that word does suggest that we are relocating

the department people. The relocation expense of $40,000 for this coming year

strictly applies. Mr. Member, to the relocation of school district superintendents

to assist them. We have, as you know, over 54 superintendents in the province.

They are moved from district to district. This money is in here to assist in

their relocation moves. Did I cover what you asked there?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Right.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't despair, Hon.

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I am only going to be a

second.

I am at somewhat of a loss, Madam Minister, because I don't

quite know where to ask you these two questions. I think they

might relate to vote 39(019). I've asked you about them

before and I've made a number of statements on them. I wonder

if I could have some answers today.

The first question relates to the committee that was set up

under the Minister's administration to investigate the need and

feasibility of providing hot lunches in the schools. I have

asked and asked but I would like to repeat it again, if I

could. I understand there were three people on this committee.

I wonder if we could have their names, when they were first

appointed, when they first met and how many meetings they have

had. Have they filed a report with the department or the

Minister? If so, would the Minister make that report available

and, if possible, the expenses related to this committee?

The second question relates to the problem of teachers

possibly suffering deafness as an occupational hazard through

the use of the new band rooms that are scientifically designed

for a better teaching environment but may well be producing

this major occupational hazard of deafness for music teachers,

particularly band teachers. Again, I have asked about this on a

number of occasions; I have written to the Minister and she has

kindly answered. All the correspondence indicates an attitude

of suggesting other people should initiate an investigation of

this. I am asking the Minister if she would assure the House

today that her department will take the steps necessary to

initiate a study into this possible hazard.

There are a number of teachers involved. Since I have been

talking about it in the House, from time to time as I am around

the province, music teachers have come up to me and have

written to me suggesting that they feel there is much merit in

the thought and that they would support such a study. All are

willing to take part and do anything they can to define this as

a fact or not. Of course, if this is defined as a fact, it

should be known in order that it can be part of the negotiating

procedure and in order that these teachers who suffer this

occupational disease or handicap will receive proper

compensation. Also, we might well

[ Page 1926 ]

have to re-examine the design and the technical application

we are using at this time for these band rooms.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: On the first one, I remember when the

Member did express her concern about hot lunches, which I share

with her. We both realized that we had to start by examining

just where to start. I think at the time I said I would do a

survey on the whole matter. That would mean cafeterias in our

schools right across which, as you know, we don't have. We have

them in most senior high schools and many junior but not in the

elementary.

All I can say to you at this time is that just the

department officials did a survey, so there is no cost involved

outside of the time which they spent on it. I asked them to

give me a complete survey of the present status of the

cafeterias in this province. That is with me now. Actually,

from there on in, it is up to the government to decide whether

they can actually work with the school boards in the financing

of a comprehensive programme. We haven't made that….

MRS. JORDAN: I think we are on the wrong wicket. I am

referring to a committee that I believe you set up by public

announcement. This, if I recall correctly, was either in the

fall of 1972 or the early spring of 1973. I believe a Mrs.

Hattie Lackey, a school board trustee in School District 22,

was one of the appointees, and a Mrs. O'Neil, from the school

district of Salmon Arm, was the chairman, if I recall

correctly. This is the committee that I am interested in, along

with the other comments the Minister has made.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We are going back quite a bit there, but

if my memory serves me correctly there was no actual

formalization of that committee. I do know those particular

members, those trustees you mentioned, had a specific interest,

and I know that the BCSTA had some of their own members do a

specific thing, but I must say to you at this time that I don't

believe I made a public announcement of a public committee on

this because at no time did I formalize that committee. I just

moved in the direction of examining and serving the cafeteria

needs of our province. At the same time, I have received a

number of briefs, as you can presume, asking for this.

Interestingly enough, though, the parent home and school brief

which came to me has not emphasized this at this particular

time. That committee was never formalized.

The second part you are asking about; after the concern you expressed we did

ask our staff here in the department to bring to the attention of all school

boards the fact that concern had been expressed in the Legislature over the

acoustic hazards in music rooms. What they did was, up to this date they have

asked all school boards, in their construction and also in looking at renovations,

to give particular attention to the acoustic problems of the music rooms. That's

as far as we have gone at this time.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you not think, Madam Minister, that on this

subject it might be a very good idea to be running an

occupational study? There are actually practising physicians in

the world of occupational preventive health who could undertake

such a study and set up a committee so that all music teachers

in British Columbia would take

part in this study and any audiological changes that take place would be recorded. I think its

the actual hearing factor that we have to be concerned with,

and that is going to dictate what, in fact, should be done on

the technical side of the construction of these rooms.

Would the Minister give consideration…. In fact, I'll ask

her if she would set up and take steps to initiate this type of

research project in B.C.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'll talk with the music teachers.

MR. GARDOM: A couple of questions to the Hon. Minister. I

started to raise them a bit earlier today. Surely this must be

one of the most masochistic avocations known to contemporary

man. We are in a beautiful spring day, May 1, the grass is

green, the flowers are popping, the birds are birding. We

should be practising open school and having these estimates on

the front lawn.

I would like the Minister, maybe if her staff could look at

her report, page 149…. I am dealing with the operating costs

per pupil which, based on a daily average attendance, comes out

at $847.74 for the year 1973 to June 30, 1974. Of course, that

figure is going to be tremendously increased for the period

that will next be reported in the House.

I would like to ask the Hon. Minister why the debt charges

of $54 million are deducted, and why that does not come into

account in determining the cost per pupil. I am unaware of the

accounting practices that are being utilized.

Secondly, I would ask the Hon. Minister if she has available

a figure for the amount of insurance that is required for the

school structures in the Province of British Columbia and

whether that is reflected in the expenditure by school

districts for the calendar year as referred to on page 151 of

the annual report. If so, where? Does it fall within plant

operation or auxiliary services? That deals with insurance, and

the first question is why the debt charges are not taken into

account in determining the operating costs per pupil, which

conceivably would increase that figure a great deal in

itself.

The third and last question to the Hon. Minister: I

[ Page 1927 ]

would like to know what financial formula is being utilized

by the Department of Education for educating children who live

on Indian reserves in this province. Is it correct that the

children who live on Indian reserves in the Province of British

Columbia are totally funded by the federal government? The

service is provided by the provincial government, save and

except a few isolated situations, but the total cost is paid

for by the federal government and comes to the provincial side

as a grant, conceivably, from the Department of Northern

Affairs and Indian Development.

If the Minister has the answers to those three questions, it

would be appreciated.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I missed your second question. I may have

to ask you to repeat it. Would you…?

MR. GARDOM: Surely. The second one was dealing with

insurance. Did you get that one?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the second question I asked you, Madam

Minister, was referring to page 150 of your annual report. Is

there a figure in there for the cost of insuring the plan, the

premium cost of insuring the 89 school districts? If so, where

is it located and how much is it?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I'm obviously talking about fire insurance,

casualty, general.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, the first question was about not

including the capital debt charges when we talk about how much

the per pupil cost is. We do not think it would be fair to

include that in the per pupil educational cost because they

vary from district to district and year to year. You would not

really get what we consider an accurate, balanced picture every

year of the per pupil cost.

MR. GARDOM: But it is a cost of operation.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Oh, it is a cost, but we don't think to

include that would actually give you an accurate cost because

of the great variance from year to year and district to

district in the expenditure. Some years, as you know, the

capital expense is up; another year it is down.

Insurance? It's included in the plant operation.

MR. GARDOM: How much is it?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't have that figure yet.

Do you want to get that?

MR. GARDOM: I'd appreciate it if you'd get it. I'll take

your undertaking on that.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: All right, we'll get that if we can.

As far as I recall now, the education of the native Indian

children who are not on the reserve…. Do you mean those who

live on a reserve but go to our schools? Right. The federal

government does pay the same per pupil cost for that child in

the district, and they are matching it completely. That is the

way it operates at this time.

MR. GARDOM: Does the hon. lady Minister know the number of

the Indian children living on reserves who are in the B.C.

school system, and does the Minister have a figure of the

amount of dollars that is placed by the federal government into

the provincial school system to take care of this?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We don't have that right here.

MR. GARDOM: Could you obtain that for me?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We have the answer for you, though not on

your last question. Approximately $3.3 million of insurance.

That's the answer to your cost question.

MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the Indian children, would you be

able to obtain that figure too?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'll get that for you.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much. Also the number of Indian

children.

My understanding is correct. There's not a cost to the

provincial government for educating Indian children who live on

Indian reserves.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, but we cover only average costs per

pupil. There's no question about it, the provincial government

does find themselves bearing some costs.

MR. GARDOM: Well, do you charge the federal government this

$847.74?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's what we do, but it does not cover

the whole cost.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I see. That's the amount you charge.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That's right, and it does not

[ Page 1928 ]

cover the whole cost of educating that particular child. The

provincial government is having to put in extra funds.

MR. GARDOM: Do you know what those funds are?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Okay, but it's an interesting point. I don't

think the public has been aware of the fact that the Indian

children who live on Indian reserves and attend British

Columbia schools are funded by the government to the extent of

$847.74 a head, be they in elementary or secondary or in

between.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much for those answers.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I look to you for

direction or to the Minister for her wishes in this regard. I

would like to discuss briefly the problem of supply of

education facilities.

During her salary vote we spoke about the publication by the

British Columbia School Trustees Association. Mr. Chairman,

would you like it here or under vote 47 — grants to school

districts?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, it's fine with me if he

wishes to bring it here because the administrator mentioned

here is in charge of all those approvals.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam

Minister.

We talked about this earlier or in the discussion relating

to your salary, and you acknowledged at that time that, in

fact, the process was rather tedious. I hope that this

afternoon you could take just a few moments. Surely we could

devote a few minutes in committee to discuss a problem which

obviously takes a great many months on the part of school

districts as they move towards the provision of a new

facility.

In their release, which carries the title: "Problems in the

Supply of Educational Facilities," and was dated March,

1975, at the bottom of page 3, specifically, the B.C. School

Trustees Association says:

" Where the time goes.

"It is our opinion that the present procedure to build a

facility is inefficient, uneconomic and far too cumbersome. The process involves

needless checks in Victoria which cause major frustrations.

"The 51 steps involved are…."

Then, as the Minister knows very well, they're set out,

starting with firstly: "The school board approves the proposed

project. The board and department discuss and agree on

enrolment projections of school capacity." Fair enough. "The

board and department discuss and agree on capital needs" — the

135 programme. "The board may make a submission for special

cases and obtain departmental approval. The department approves

capital needs programme" — et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. A

full page on this submission is given over to steps 3 to 35

inclusive, and carrying over to the top half of page 5 of the

submission, steps 36 to 51 inclusive.

Step 46: "BUILD" — in capitals.

Step 47: negotiate extras.

Step 48: submit extras to the department.

Step 49: the department approves extras.

Step 50: building accepted.

Step 5 1: final payment is made.

There should be 52, I would think, which would be

"Hallelujah" on the part of the school board.

What steps, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, are

being taken to shorten this process? With inflation affecting

construction, as we all know — the brief touches on that fact —

surely this should be shortened, not only in the interests of

getting the facility from the original concept, planning stage,

design, construction and into full use — not only, therefore,

in terms of providing the facility — but in trying to build it

with present-day dollars, rather than, as we might be doing

now, 1976 or 1977 dollars. I would hope that the Minister could

take just a few moments to discuss that.

The other point wasn't appropriate for discussion, perhaps,

in the Minister's salary vote, but I would like to speak on

behalf of the handicapped of British Columbia — as I'm sure

other Members would — who have campaigned with a fair degree of

success recently concerning easy access to public buildings for

those in wheelchairs and those who are otherwise handicapped.

As we see the development of schools in a community sense

rather than in purely an educational sense — a 9 to 3 or a 9 to

4 operation — I would hope that there could be even greater

emphasis on this.

I was very sorry, as an example, Mr. Chairman, to learn that

probably because of tremendous increased costs — this relates

to the point I made earlier — the Spectrum Community School

(Secondary) now under construction in the greater Victoria

school district does not have the basic facilities to

accommodate paraplegic students, or paraplegic adults, for that

matter. I understand that no facilities have been deleted. In

other words, when the school board and the Minister's

department were examining the final

[ Page

1929 ]

drawings for this building and finally said "go" with this,

those items were not deleted. But rather emphasis has been

placed, as I understand it, on some $63,000 to provide for

ramps and other special design work to accommodate paraplegics

at the future Lambrick Junior-Senior Secondary School in

Saanich in School District 61.

This is on the other side of the greater Victoria area, as

the Minister knows. With the great deal of interest on the part

of the community and with the enthusiastic support of so many

people with regard to a community school at Spectrum on the

Trans-Canada Highway in what could be called the western

section of greater Victoria, it just isn't good enough in my

view to see that at some level the decision has been made that

we can't have handicapped facilities in all these schools so

we're designating the Lambrick building, and Spectrum will have

to go by the board.

The paraplegic association has made enquiries of a number of

us, I think, concerning Spectrum; also, I'm sure this

information has reached the Minister or her Deputy. I do know

that the greater Victoria school board is very sorry that

because they had to cut costs to the bone on a new school which

exceeded estimates by a considerable margin something as vital

as this to a relatively few people — but underline the word

"vital" — has been overlooked. I would appreciate the

Minister's comments on both those points.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'll first comment on the matter of the 51 steps. Some of those steps, you know, are not sequential. In

other words, as you go through it you can see that there are

about four paths there where some of them could be processed in

a matter of a few hours.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's still too many. I agree. I'm trying

to work with the department to break down wherever we can. But

at the same time we have to keep control. It's our

responsibility there, too.

But you asked what we have done to date. Well, as I said, I

met with the trustees to hear their concerns and ask the

department to see if some of their suggestions can be brought

in.

I think it's very important to remember that the elimination

of the referendum, Mr. Member, has been one major thing that

has speeded up the process.

Provision of general funding for minor reconstruction, which

is generally approved in bulk and does not any longer require

detailed submissions for each project. That's another step.

Provisions of pre-planning funding a year ahead of estimated start of construction

for larger projects. I think sometimes some school trustees forget about some

of these other changes which have speeded up this whole area.

Acceptance of needs on a three-year projection. That is, a

building to be constructed in 1976 will be planned on 1978

requirements. That's certainly causing a basic speedup.

New elementary school construction is based on an overall

square footage per pupil, eliminating many delays in detailed

examination of plans. That's another major item which I think

is often forgotten. I am not particularly blaming the trustees,

but I think sometimes we don't put together these things in a

package.

All I am saying is that as far as the actual steps, if I can

find any possible way to speed it up, we will. I just want to

point out that I have looked at other provinces to see if they

have better ideas on this, but we still can't find one. They

all seem to have major problems in this area. For instance,

Alberta shares only a very limited extent for equipment — a

maximum of $1 per square foot per school, and only if the

building cost is low. So there is a great variety all across

Canada. We are struggling to try and meet the school boards'

objections where we can. I am sure we are not going to be able

to meet them all.

I agree with you. I was very concerned when I received the

letter which you did from the physically handicapped that there

was a community school without being available to the

handicapped. So I did what I am sure you would expect me to do.

I immediately asked for a reason why Spectrum was not going to

be available to the handicapped, physically. The answer I

received was that it was because the layout of the site, where

this school is being constructed, does not lend itself to this.

I simply was not ready to accept that. I asked the people in my

department to go back to the Greater Victoria School Board and

just see whatever possible means can be done to ensure that the

handicapped can get into that school. I feel as strongly about

this as you do and I am sure the school board themselves must

realize that a community school must be a community school. I

can assure you that I don't intend to let this one drop. I

think we all have a responsibility here.

MR. CURTIS: I understand the Minister to say, therefore,

that the matter is not closed as far as she is concerned with

respect to easy handicapped access to Spectrum. Although the

building is now under construction, provision for a ramp or

ramps may well be provided. I am pleased to hear the Minister

express that concern.

On the 51 steps, which I realize sounds like a movie title,

would the Minister be frank, perhaps, and indicate if some of

this delay occurs at the other end? I raised the matter in this

context this afternoon not simply to be critical of the

department but

[ Page 1930 ]

presumably there is some delay at the school board level

awaiting the next regular meeting of the full board or a

meeting of a committee of board which is given the

responsibility of construction, the transfer back and forth of

correspondence, the transfer of plans and related material

between a school district and the offices here in Victoria, Is

this a factor? If so, has the Minister pointed that out to the

various districts of the province?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'll be quite frank with you. I think that

the blame rests more with the department than the school board

in this area and that's why I am trying to make some changes

there. I did forget to mention to you, although I think I did

in an earlier speech, that one of our problems has been the

shortage of staff in that department. We need more staff.

That's one of the reasons for this increase that you see

here.

MR. SCHROEDER: Three short questions. One has to do with the

examinations.

section 035 is $320,000 this year

whereas last

year it was $280,000, but the dollar value is not the major

concern. The major concern is the policy of the department now

regarding the preparation of these examinations. I understand

that examinations are made available — that is, grade 12

equivalent examinations — but has there been any change in

direction at all in the department on the concept of providing

examinations for students in grade 12? Is there any plan to

make these examinations available, for instance, to independent

schools so that we could all write the same examinations? How

many new people have we had to involve in the preparation of

the examinations? It seemed to me that the policy announcement

a couple of years back was one of trying to eliminate

examinations and yet we see an ongoing expense. I'd like to

hear about the number of people involved and where we are going

in the direction of examinations.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think primarily the same number of

people are involved. I will be announcing shortly a new policy

re scholarship exams. It just isn't prepared yet but certainly

we will let you know first thing about it. We are always

looking at that whole area of the government scholarship

exams.

Regarding the independent schools, they have always had

those exams made available to them.

MR. SCHROEDER: Continuing, then, in the preparation of the revised curriculum,

there is quite an increase in expenditure there. Is the revised curriculum suggested

to the department from teachers — do teachers have input into this revision?

Do trustees have an input into this revision? Does most of this revision take

place within the department itself? Does the research and development department

have a major input into this, and, if so, how has this particular

section been

operating in this last year in the absence of the research and development department?

Some questions.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, first of all, R and D has never had

anything to do with the preparation of the curriculum. That is

an ongoing thing. Under your former administration, too,

teacher curriculum committees were established to advise the

department on this.

Changes in curriculum: yes, I believe that on the major ones

there is trustee input. The increase in cost is primarily

because we're moving into decentralization of curriculum and it

is going to require assistance to those regional and local

curriculum committees. When they set them up they need

assistance. It's amazing; even though people have been saying:

"Look, we want an opportunity" — teachers, et cetera — "to get

involved in designing our own local curriculum outside the

basic subjects," when they're actually given the

opportunity, it becomes quite clear that they need help.

There's a certain amount of financing necessary to set up the

in-service training.

Actually, we're discussing with the universities assistance

for special curriculum advisors because, as you know, to draw

up a new curriculum is not a very simple thing. It requires a

considerable amount of professional background. But we want to

spread this around the province so that more teachers will have

an opportunity to feel they're part of it.

MR. SCHROEDER: One last question. Last year, during the

discussion of the estimates, there was quite some time given to

the number of new personnel that had to be added to the

department. I made reference to it again here today — lack of

performance in some given area because of not enough personnel.

But last year we had quite a catch-up programme in the number

of personnel who were up into general administration. Now this

year I see again 93 new people, 140 people overall in the

department, and this comes after the announcement just before

the turn of the calendar year in which the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) asked all departments to hold the line on

expenditures and in hiring new people. I would like the

Minister to justify these 93 new people in this department.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, despite the figures that you

saw last year, it's quite obvious that we didn't get all those

people. We're back again to working on the specific areas of

immediate need, and I think that all Ministries have to

priorize those needs, especially today. If you want the areas

where I

[ Page 1931 ]

feel specifically we must move, it's certainly in the

capital expense approval department — that's one area — and

also in finance.

You know, when there's a budget over $700 million and our

superintendent of finance here has how many staff — five

accountants and he's the sole superintendent with no other

immediate assistant, right? You can imagine the job that the

superintendent of finance, Mr. Fallen, has in handling the

complexities of not only the public school formula, but the

fiscal arrangements with the federal government, all the

community college budgets, and of course the university budgets

are not quite the same problem now since we formed a university

council. So those areas specifically need help. I also want to

ensure that we can move on the hiring of our director of native

Indian education. I don't know if I've answered your question,

but that's the way I priorize it.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Just a technical

inquiry of the Minister at the outset. I want to ask a question

at some point about the grant to the Education Research

Institute of B.C. Would I be right in thinking that's under

research and development? It's not specifically listed

there.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Fine, I'll wait until then.

The other question I wish to canvass briefly, Mr. Chairman —

I think it's appropriate under this vote of general

administration — is the education report of the Committee on

Health, Education and Human Resources which was tabled in this

Legislature yesterday and is not otherwise set down for debate

and did not have the term of reference of inquiring into

aspects of the general administration of departments. I'd just

like to speak very briefly about that.

The first thing I'd say in a general way is that there was

clearly a great interest around this province. There were, I

think, in excess of 60 briefs received and many of those

persons presenting testimony, in my view, would have liked to

discuss education in ways considerably beyond the

administration of the department, so I would again make a

representation to the Minister that it would be a useful thing

for her to have that committee hold hearings in a more general

way and on a continuing basis.

As to the report that was filed, the first recommendation

related to school district amalgamation. The recommendation of

the committee essentially was a cautionary one, that

amalgamation should be approached with a great deal of

care.

A question that I've has asked of me since that report was made public, and

on which the Minister might have some comment, is: how should school districts

or persons who feel that amalgamation should be made initiate consideration

of such amalgamation? I take it that they should approach the department and

the department would itself initiate hearings of some kind if it thought fit

to change the law. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that. I believe, for example,

that that relate to some of the school districts around Victoria, though I am

not an expert on that. That's where the inquiry to me came from.

The second general comment of the committee is related to

the subject of the administration of collective bargaining in

the educational system in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, if I

might give my view — and I emphasize I am not speaking for the

committee but simply as one individual member of the committee

— the background to this is that this situation was brought to

a head by a disagreement between the BCSTA and the BCTF as to

how collective bargaining should proceed in this province,

whether it should be province-wide or whether it should be

local.

As the committee heard evidence around British Columbia in

several locations, the message that came through to me was that

what was concerning the trustees was their belief that their

primary duty was one of getting on with the educational process

in cooperation with the teachers, not in confrontation with

the teachers, and that they saw the messy business of labour

relations as something that made it more difficult than ever to

get on with the positive education job.

Many of the trustee groups didn't feel competent in labour

relations, didn't feel that they were experts in this matter.

They wanted to hand it off somewhere else. That was one trustee

motivation towards seeking a centralized bargaining system in

this province. The other was the fear or the allegation that

local teachers' groups were whipsawing individual school

districts and pyramiding one settlement on top of another,

using the highest previous settlement as a springboard for an

even higher settlement as each district came into the

process.

The teachers' concern, on the other hand, was for

preservation of local autonomy. They believed that local

conditions varied sufficiently to give good cause for the

negotiation of local contracts. They didn't want to give up

their own individual autonomy to an umbrella group like the

BCTF.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

With these two different views, the two groups coming to

different conclusions, the committee was put in a position

where we were almost asked to choose between one and the other.

Again, just speaking for myself and not for the committee,

[ Page 1932 ]

because the committee does not elaborate on this point, I

would suggest that the recommendations that were arrived at

favour neither one side nor the other. The attempt, rather, was

to say that we believe that there is here

an Act which has

worked pretty well in the past which, if property administered,

can continue to do so in the future with certain changes in

practice, perhaps.

One of the changes in practice that we thought would deserve

emphasis would be a greater shift towards zonal bargaining on a

voluntary basis. This would permit a smaller number of

negotiations throughout the province. It would permit a greater

bringing of labour relations expertise, both on the part of the

trustees and on the teachers, to the smaller number of

negotiations. It would permit a better amalgamation of

information and a quicker settlement of the outstanding issues

in the various areas. Where it could be determined the areas

had a sufficient community of interest, individual contracts

could be quite similar. We suggested, however, that it was

essential that this be entered into in a voluntary way. The

committee had no wish to impose our views on a labour relations

situation that has fundamentally been working well. Therefore,

the exercise of local autonomy was insisted on.

In pursuance of the objective of encouraging zonal

bargaining, the committee proposed that the Minister should

establish tentative zones prior to September 1 in any given

calendar year. I would like to ask the Minister if she would

not give consideration to bringing that date a good deal

further ahead than September 1, surely sometime in the summer,

rather than getting into the fall. The bargaining deadlines are

so tight as set out in the Public Schools Act and zonal

bargaining is going to be sufficiently difficult that I would

hope the Minister could immediately start the consultation

process with the BCTF and the BCSTA in the hopes of having

those potential zones set up by the early summer. I would

appreciate her response on that.

The next

section of the collective bargaining recommendation

suggested that both trustees and teachers take advantage of the

opportunity which the Department of Labour extends of training

in labour negotiations. Mr. Chairman, I want to underline that,

because it seems to me that one of the reasons for the

difficulty which brought this term of reference to the

committee in the first place was exactly that — a lack of

expertise in the collective bargaining process. That is

something which can be remedied by the taking of time to learn

these things and to learn how to bargain, which, as I pointed

out earlier, I believe was one of the difficulties in the

breakdown of the system according to the hearings we had

throughout the province.

The report goes on to reaffirm the thought that arbitration, as provided for

in the Public Schools Act and as amended by the interim arbitration Act, should

continue to be the standard settlement practice in this

section of labour relations

in the province. I would say in passing that it's one that's worked very well

over the years and one which other sectors might well look at.

The final recommendation was that the scope of bargaining

should be as is currently defined in the Public Schools Act.

Just to explain briefly the background of this, Mr. Chairman,

the Public Schools Act is not at the moment, as I understand

it, providing for the bargaining of so-called working and/or

learning conditions. Nevertheless, working and learning

conditions are obviously of considerable concern both to

trustees and teachers. It was my understanding of the

recommendation we made that we leave the scope of bargaining as

defined in the Act to salary and bonus conditions, but that the

teachers and the trustees, being independent agents, are free

to enter into agreements with each other on a strictly

voluntary basis on these other elements so that their freedom

to enter into those kinds of agreements is preserved.

I will not take any more time in committee on that paint

now, Mr. Chairman, but this did seem a good opportunity to

elaborate at least on my position as a member of this committee

on the report that was tabled yesterday.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, since this perhaps is the

appropriate time to comment on the committee which so seriously

impinges upon the success of the school system — namely, the

success or lack of success in bargaining — I would choose to

make a few comments at this time also.

I have to say — and I say this with some regret — that for

the time and the effort and the money which was spent on this

committee's function, I think the report is a very pathetic

attempt to report what we heard. To cover some of the very

important issues which the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) has just touched upon: the report is five and a

half pages long, and the first four are really just defining

the people who came before the committee and spelling out where

we went and when.

I think that something which has the tremendously serious

potential in terms of causing serious disruptions within the

system, when all these MLAs travel to all these different

centres, and teachers and trustees and many other people came

before the committee, I have to say with regret that I think a

page-and-a-half report is little short of an insult. I take

great exception to the very short and flimsy way in which this

report has been brought before the House.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Why didn't you criticize

it when you were on the committee?

[ Page 1933 ]

You had all the opportunity in the world.

MR. WALLACE: The committee chairman asks why I didn't

criticize in committee. I made it plain in committee that I

would not be signing the report. I'm making the point, Mr.

Chairman, that this is an example, in my view, of where we're

falling short as Members of this House in giving a more….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am allowing a certain amount

of latitude in this matter, but I would ask the Hon. Member to

relate his remarks to the administration of this department in

this vote.

MR. WALLACE: This report, Mr. Chairman, has the most

intimate effect on the exercising of the Minister's

responsibility. What's more important than teachers and

trustees getting along together and being able to bargain?

Let's use some sense of perspective in this House. There are

some ridiculous decisions, with respect, coming from your Chair

in this session, and I'm getting a little sick of it. There are

very few things more important to the administrative

responsibility of this Minister than the capacity of teachers

and trustees to bargain.

Why did the committee get this job in the first place to go

around and listen to what the interested parties…? Isn't

this the collegial approach that we're all supposed to

espouse?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: I resent that particular correction from the

Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member may not

be aware that we moved from vote 38 to vote 39. We're dealing

with the general administration of the department.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you could even be

consistent it would help. The Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) spoke for the last 10 minutes

on the same subject; you didn't say anything to him. So let's

have a little consistency.

Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the biggest worries this

Minister must have in the administration of her department…and vote 39 is entitled "General Administration." I can't think

of anything more important under general administration than

keeping employer and employee happy. This has to be one of the

biggest worries on the shoulders of this Minister. We noticed

that from the fact that she had little alternative but to bring

in emergency legislation last year to cope with an impasse.

Since I approve of the committee system and the initiatives which this government

has taken in asking committees to go around the province and listen to the people

most affected by these issues, the least we can do is to try and give some pretty

serious attention to the outcome of such a committee in terms of its deliberations,

its recommendations and any other import that comes out of the deliberations.

The committee had many points of view and many people. I

would just like to say how much I enjoyed the appearance of

many of the people before the committee who were obviously very

sincerely trying to find solutions to some very difficult

problems. Unfortunately, they appeared to be pretty much at

opposite ends of the spectrum. The teachers, by and large, were

almost unanimous that they want to continue local bargaining

and the trustees were almost equally unanimous in determining

that they wanted to centralize bargaining by some mechanism or

another. I don't want to go into all the details of these two

differing points of view, but I do think the function of a

committee of the House is to show a substantial amount of

leadership in trying to suggest where a good solution to the

problem might lie.

One of the reasons why I prefer not to sign the report,

apart from the fact that I think the report is too short and

lacking in some of the substantial detail that I think should

have been included, is that I don't think we really achieved

very much by the kind of encouragement we offer to the parties

to set up zonal bargaining. Leadership often involves making

some statements or decisions that you know are not going to be

popular. I don't think it's the function of any committee of

this House which is given the job of going around the province

to hold hearings on some pretty important issues to come back

with a report which, to say the least, is very neutral.

Like the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson),

it is purely my personal opinion that as a committee we should

have taken a stronger position in recommending that zonal

bargaining be attempted. The language in which the report is

written encourages that we move in this direction, but I

personally would have preferred to see the committee take a

stronger position and go beyond the stage of encouraging the

move in this direction, if only on some kind of pilot-project

basis within certain specific zones. We might have picked one

or two, such as the Okanagan, where it had already been tried.

While it hadn't continued to succeed, it had shown some signs

of success over a certain period of time.

I certainly agree with the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano as to the attitude of trustees to the

bargaining procedure. They would just like to imagine that it's

some kind of responsibility that they could avoid as a trustee — the whole process of collective bargaining. I look forward to

a proposal by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) that

educational facilities and personnel will be available in the

future to assist trustees to become better

[ Page 1934 ]

trained in the actual art, if it is an art — I'm sure it is — of collective bargaining.

It also interests me that when negotiation fails in respect

to teachers, we have under the Public Schools Act what in

effect is compulsory arbitration under this legislation, which

is so completely rejected by this government in any other field

of management-labour problems. The teachers have no other

option, once voluntary efforts to negotiate have failed, but to

go through the arbitration process, the results of which are

binding. I don't think it serves any purpose to indulge in

semantics on the