1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5627 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Finance Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading (voided at page 5643) –– 5627

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 54: ministers office –– 5627

Mr. Lauk

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Howard

Division on an amendment

On vote 55: management operations and educational finance –– 5642

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 55 –– 5643

Mr. Cocke

Division on the amendment

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction of amendments –– 5643

Tabling Documents

List of grants made under the School Act.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 5643

FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have in

my hand a button just extended to me the rest of my colleagues feel

discriminated against. On behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, we

want to extend our best wishes and congratulations to Mr. Claude

Richmond, MLA-elect for Kamloops, and our congratulations to the

Premier for conducting a successful campaign. I'm sure the Premier

won't be offended if I don't wear the button.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I would be pleased if the House would welcome two very special visitors

today. We are very privileged to have had Pastor Maureen Gaglardi offer

the prayer on behalf of the Legislature. On behalf of my colleague from

Vancouver–Little Mountain, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I

would like the House to welcome Pastor Maureen Gaglardi of the Glad

Tidings Temple. The members will remember that Pastor Gaglardi's uncle

served this House well for many years in the province of British

Columbia.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I really would like to take

this opportunity to welcome my husband Ray, who is on his first visit

to the House this year.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would like

to draw the attention of the House to a distinguished visitor in the

members' gallery today. He is Mr. J. Jacob, Deputy High Commissioner

and counsellor of India in Ottawa, who is visiting Victoria for the day.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming a group

of students from Booth Memorial Junior Secondary School in Prince

Rupert, along with their teacher Bert Slater, who are visiting the

buildings today. They're going to be observing us for a short wide in

the House, so you know what you have to do — be real good.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, again this Session we have been fortunate in having four

very excellent interns in our caucus. On behalf of the Social Credit

caucus, I would like to extend our appreciation and best wishes to

those interns. They are Sheila Burns, Karen Layng, Kevin McColl, and

Rosa Munzer. I would ask the House to join me in wishing them well in

their future endeavours.

MR. LEA: Along with the chairman of the Social Credit caucus, I would

like to thank all of the interns, especially those who worked in our caucus.

They worked hard and well over the past while. We also wish them the best of

luck. I hear they're going to Ottawa for ten days, and they're going

to need a bit of luck when they go down there. Also, it is another birthday

for someone from CBC who has been closely connected with us for a great long

while; today is Jackie Melville's birthday. I've been informed that

Jackie will not be with us that much longer. It's nothing to do with the

age she's reached; she has been transferred to Toronto, or at least to central

Canada somewhere. So congratulations to Jackie on her birthday and best wishes

to her in the future.

MR. SPEAKER:

The members should be aware that this is the last day on which those

persons involved in our internship program will be with us while we are

sitting.They depart at the beginning of the week for Ottawa and, when

they return they will no longer be in the program. This will be our

last opportunity to wish them well,

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act.

Bill

13 introduced. read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the'House after today.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(Continued)

On vote 54: minister's office. $225,957.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Chairman. In discussing these estimates yesterday the first member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) made a particular charge in relation to

some questions. He made the charge that a number of special aid grants

made by this ministry under the provisions of sections 181 and 187 of

the School Act were made, as he put it, "out of political. partisan

motivation." He went through those grants and suggested that moneys had

been given to constituencies that were represented by government

members for partisan purposes. Yesterday I supplied him with a

breakdown of all those grants, and today I would like to file with the

House the details of those grants and how they were broken down.

Quite

apart from being motivated by any partisan considerations, the

breakdown of these grants shows that the only grants that were

discretionary were some $1.2 million of special aid grants. The rest of

the items he referred to were grants made according to the act based on

enrolment increases in certain school districts, which the ministry

then credits back to the districts for the increased enrolments. Those

districts were, understandably, the growth districts such as Surrey,

Abbotsford, Langley, Howe Sound and so on. Later figures showed that

those were moneys under the formula that those districts would have

got. The other feature of these grants were that they were given for

all the considerations of these grants are set out in the sheet. The

only items that were discretionary were the special aid items, which

were given to nine school districts for reasons of low assessment base,

alteration in expenses, sudden emergencies such as a school burning

down or start-up costs for a new district such as Stikine. Quite apart

from proving my friend opposite's argument that these were given for

partisan purposes, if these figures were analyzed they would show that

of the $1.2 million some $730 million went into constituencies

[ Page 5628 ]

represented

by members opposite and not to government constituencies. The truth is

that who represented the school districts in this Legislature had

nothing to do with these grants whatsoever. They were given on a

totally fair, educational basis.

Knowing this member

opposite is a fair-minded individual, that he's a member of the bar and

so on, and also knowing that these grants are carefully prepared by

officials that he deals with during the year, I'm sure he'll do the

right thing and give an unqualified apology to this House — and do it

with a little bit of grace, hon. member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if we address the Chair in our remarks, it greatly helps in the tone of debate.

MR. LAUK:

I want to improve the tone of debate, and I'll do the right thing. I do

not accept the minister's or his deputy's explanation or the material

that was sent to me with respect to justifying the minister's overall

position on special aid grants, and I do so on the following grounds.

The list fails to address the question — and even in my discussion with

the minister's staff.... How can the public be sure that a district

with a specified set of circumstances — and I've analyzed all the

figures — is treated in a similar manner to another district with the

same circumstances'? I have not been satisfied on that count, Mr.

Chairman. The original charge that I made still stands. There's no

point telling me that you have statutory compulsion for these grants. I

say nonsense, and I'll tell you why for a number of reasons. Carefully

analyzing the information — which, by the way, we requested many days

ago and which the minister's office steadfastly refused to provide us,

except in what he thought were the twilight hours of his estimates — is

the right thing to do. We carefully analyzed what this minister is

doing and whether he's doing it according to law, partisanship or what

have you.

The list that I was provided purports to be

details of grants made under

section 181(5) and

section 187. Therefore

I sought the legal approval for the grants as outlined in the School

Act under those sections. But the amounts are identical with those on

order-in-council No. 1034, which says its authority is

section 187

only. It may seem like a minor point, Mr. Chairman, but the point I

want to make by bringing it to the committee's attention is that this

minister has used

section 187 — a very broad

section — to grant

special-need-and-special-aid grants, and he's making these

special-need-and-special-aid grants on the basis of unknown criteria.

If you look at it from district to district, he cannot justify making

grants for high enrolment in some areas and not in other areas. That's

one thing.

I also noticed something here that I had never

heard of, although we try to monitor the ministry extremely closely. If

there is a press release or statement from the minister that I've

missed, perhaps he'd be kind enough to bring it to my attention. What

steps has the minister taken to advise all school boards that it is

possible to obtain moneys in adjustment of transportation for 1980 in

the 1981 calendar year? Is this retrospective adjustment policy

applicable to items other than transportation'? If so, where can we

find that information? Why was the adjustment necessary in the cases

that have been pointed out on the sheet that the minister has provided

for me? Why could the cabinet not simply pass an order-in-council for

the necessary special aid in the calendar year to which it applies? Why

is the transportation aid given in the subsequent calendar year applied

to the particular districts that got the aid? Did others apply for aid?

Did others know about this application under the law? Perhaps not.

Section

187 is worded as a catch-all. According to the form, it has been

formalized into a series of sections and special maintenance grants.

Did the minister make any representation — and this is the gist and the

most important part of this whole debate — to Treasury Board to secure

relief for the general property taxpayer, either under

section 187 or

by reducing the mill rate or by asking for an increase in the homeowner

grant? Did he take any of those three steps? He'd be doing the right

thing, as a member of the bar and as the jolly good fellow that he is,

if he'd stand up in the chamber today.... Do the right thing by

relieving the home owning taxpayers of this province, instead of

playing games with their money.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr.

Chairman, the provision of grants for enrolment increases and for

transportation adjustments is well set out in policy documents of the

ministry, which are in the hands of all school boards. These

readjustments are made annually on the basis of figures. Similarly with

secret about this policy or how it's applied.

MR. LAUK: Do all. the boards know about it'?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, they do.

MR. LAUK: Can you file the circular with the House'?

HON. MR. SMITH:

There are policy statements that contain this. Districts have been

sending in statistics for these grants for years. There is nothing new

about this procedure at all. As for the argument that this member makes

that the special aid provisions of this act could have been used to

relieve high assessment school districts, Mr. Chairman, I dealt with

that very fully, both in this House and in my press release at the time

of the setting of the basic levy. To take a step such as that, as this

member knows, would have been to have robbed from the amount of money

in the estimates — the basic grants for school districts — and taken

away from all other districts in order to provide...

MR. LAUK: Nonsense!

HON. MR. SMITH: It is true.

...to try to provide a small pot of money.

MR. LAUK: If you believe that, you don't understand the financing formula.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Hon. member, when you sat on the treasury benches your government liked

to create pots of discretionary grants and sprinkle them around in a

way that didn't have guidelines, but we don't do that.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, the minister is obviously doing something that I find

unusual for his practice. He's stating a situation which is not the

case. Under the NDP Minister of education there were fewer

discretionary grants. The lists that are given to me boggle the mind.

This minister is playing Marie Antoinette with the school districts of

this

[ Page

5629 ]

province. He's starving them on the basic education program and then at

the end he is sprinkling these little pieces of cake that he calls special grants,

which his predecessor, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), brought in as amendments to the education act, so he could give awards

for excellence. Awards for excellence — what arrogance, what audacity and what

disrespect that government holds for school board trustees across this province.

Feed them cake. Let this minister, who is so very touchy about his own stomach

and a proper breakfast, wander about this province passing out crumbs of cake

to the trustees.

Let

me tell you what the special grants are that should be built in on a

formula based on the McMath commission. Let the record show that this

minister has not given an answer at all to the charges of the

opposition that he is riding on the backs of the local taxpayer, the

homeowners of this province that he has not fairly dealt with the

homeowners of this province; that he has dissembled in his attack on

trustees throughout this province. He has not given an answer

throughout two days of debate. He refuses to stand in his place and

answer for his actions on the basic education program and not providing

a sufficient provincial share.

Here are the pieces of cake

that this minister is handing out under

section 187 — discretionary

grants, like some paternalistic, Rudyard Kiplingesque white man's

burden.

HON. MR. SMITH: Racist!

MR. LAUK: Have you had enough of that?

Let

the record show that this minister has not answered the charges. He has

accused the former NDP administration of handing out discretionary

grants. We had nothing in the way of discretionary grants such as this

as if that should be at the foot of the throne: special aid grants — if

the poor dears lose a school by fire, they can beg the minister for a

calendar year and apply under the facilities manual to try to get some

grants.

Others, such as the disabled, have to beg. The

minister likes to use the word "handicapped." I got a note from someone

yesterday hearing this debate, who was a handicapped person. He said:

"Mr. Lauk, I appreciate your trying to correct the minister and all

other hon. members who use the word 'handicapped.' The origin of the

word is 'hand' and 'cap' and the disabled people of this province know

full well where that word comes from." Now we know why the minister

likes to use it so much. Grants to the handicapped, the disabled

persons begging the minister so he can hand them out at the end of the

year. It makes him feel good, Mr. Chairman; he's got power; he's now

the Crown.

It says "other." Let's take a look at that —

section 19, correspondence supervision in school districts. My

goodness, if that can't be standardized into some formality, if that

can't be built into the basic education system, why not?

Lippincott program, regional support centres, primary development and so on

— all of these things are year-end adjustments: handouts, where people come

and beg the king, the Crown, for handouts. This man is not an egalitarian. He

is not a democrat. He refuses to be one. He's centralizing power in the

Ministry of Education. He's turning his back on the locally elected school

boards. Let the record show that he has not answered the charges.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to get in the way of a debate

between members of the bar, who are oh so fair. I don't know, what that

does to my status. In any event, I'll muster up the temerity to proceed.

would ask the minister to give me an answer with respect to the matter

I raised yesterday afternoon — not the letter from the Revelstoke

Teachers Association blistering the minister for rudeness, which I

suppose is between the minister and the school teachers, but the more

important issue of disabled people. I think the bulletins from the

department and from various other ministries designate them as

handicapped people, which is perhaps not a very flattering term to use.

Perhaps we should be talking about "disabled people who have special

learning needs." I raised with him the problem of people requiring

these special classes from Revelstoke and many areas of the interior,

like Clearwater and a variety of small communities. who must rely on

the Overlander School in Kamloops to gain the kind of special attention

that they need. I asked the minister whether or not the $300-a-year

grant that is made to the visually and hearing impaired people would be

extended to all disabled people requiring this care. The minister

indicated that the grant level might be increased this year, but he did

nothing to assure me or the committee that this grant will be applied

equitably and fairly across the board, rather than in what I view as a

discriminatory fashion — just to the visually and hearing impaired.

Certainly if that is the standard, it should be applied fairly and

equally to all disabled people requiring special education.

The

other problem which I raised — the minister didn't really answer it

satisfactorily — was with respect to boarding facilities in Kamloops

when these students are obliged to seek entry into the Overlander

School. It's been acknowledged, and I think the minister and his

colleagues are aware of it, that there's just not adequate private

housing facilities in Kamloops for youngsters in this category.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

Last

January I met with a group of people in Revelstoke — representatives of

the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education along

with local representatives — to see what might be done to find

accommodation for these people. I was given to understand by the very

great interest of the representatives there and their good cooperation

that there's a problem between the Ministry of Education, the Ministry

of Human Resources and perhaps one or two other ministries. It's kind

of a bureaucratic problem in terms of who has jurisdiction and basic

responsibility. I think that's a real crime when government ministries

quibble over jurisdiction while children who should be attending that

school for disabled people are unable to gain entry because they have

no place to stay, particularly when a government facility — such as

that which exists at Tranquille — could accommodate them in the interim

period, with some modest renovation.

I note the press

releases that come out of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing:

"Province Will Fund Handicapped Housing Units in Vancouver," "Group

Home for the Handicapped in Vancouver Is Given Conditional Approval for

Shelter Assistance," "Province Will Fund Housing for the Physically

Disabled in Prince George," and on and on, My appeal to the minister

is: for gosh sakes get your act together over there. I don't care

whether it's the Minister of Education, the Ministry of Human Resources

or the Ministry

[ Page 5630 ]

Lands, Parks and Housing, but for about eight students that I can

identify between Revelstoke and the North Thompson area that need the

opportunity for entrance to the Overlander School — the only facility

in the area that can accommodate them — it's just totally unacceptable.

It's stupid and incompetent that the government can't make a hard

political decision and pull the responsibility together under one

agency and say that they're not going to hide behind this overlapping

jurisdiction anymore, and that a political decision is going to be made

to find facilities for these people. They need education, and it's

basically the government's responsibility to make sure that the

facilities and the housing are available for them to gain entry

immediately.

I would like a commitment from the minister on

those two points: the equalization of the grants available for all

disabled people, not only the visually and hearing-impaired; and the

provision of living accommodation, either at Tranquille or in some

other area that the government is able to establish on an interim

basis, at least, for all students wishing to gain entry into Overlander

School. I don't think that's too much to ask. I certainly urge the

minister to give that consideration and to make the commitment. It's

not a major budgetary item; it's a matter of political will.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly look favourably to extending that

larger grant to other special-needs categories. That point is very well

taken. I think we should extend it. How far we extend it will depend on

the numbers and the resources.

Secondly, the overlapping of

responsibilities in the field of special-needs children exasperates me.

We do have an Interministerial Children's Committee which has worked

reasonably well in some areas. I think that that committee call get

this matter together to pinpoint some responsibilities for the housing

problem that these students attending Overlander face. I thank the

member. I think those are two very positive and constructive

suggestions.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the Greater

Victoria School Board is, I think, widely recognized across British

Columbia as one of the most enlightened, progressive and imaginative of

them all. What I wish to do this morning is describe some of the

problems our school district has in the capital city with the

provincial government's basic educational program. As well, I'd like to

describe a few of the achievements of the Greater Victoria School Board

over the last several years. I'd like to talk about some of the ways in

which they have been able, under very tight and difficult financial

circumstances, to broaden the base of community participation in

education and to provide all educational service to students young and

old, of which I think the people of greater Victoria are enormously

proud.

The Greater Victoria School District has four municipalities within it and

is the third largest by way of enrolment in all of British Columbia. Yet, given

the sheer numbers of it, it should be observed as well that our school district

has over several years, including this year, been enormously cost conscious and

prudent in its financial planning. There are 75 school districts in British

Columbia. The second lowest — number 74 out of 75 — in regard to gross operating

costs per pupil is the district of Victoria. Seventy-three more districts spend

more per pupil in terms of the gross operating cost than does our district.

It can certainly be argued that they've been extremely prudent with

public funds. Yet I think it's a matter of great pride to the people

of Victoria that in the face of declining provincial participation in the budget

requirements of our district they have nonetheless been able to simultaneously

hold costs down and expand the range of community and special programs, as well

as, of course, provide the basic educational services necessary.

Let

me talk for a moment about what the Greater Victoria School District is

up against. In 1975 its total budget was $42 million. The provincial

government contributed 44 percent of that the school district itself 51

percent. There is a small column for "other," each district often

having these resources that was in the amount of 4 percent. In 1981 the

budget is $67 million. What is the provincial contribution? It has

declined from 44 percent to 28 percent since 1975. What is the school

district's local contribution? It has risen from 51 percent in 1975 to

67 percent this year. I recall when the now Minister of Education was

running in Oak Bay. He said he thought the McMath formula of 75-25 was

pretty good. He committed himself, as I recall his campaign literature

saying, to attempting to introduce that program. What's happened under

his government? Just the opposite. What achievements can he point to?

Just the opposite, and even worse than his predecessors. It is a shame

and a disgrace that the people of Victoria have had to pay from 51

percent up to 67 percent by way of Social Credit contributions — to put

it ironically — since 1975. It is a shame and a disgrace that that sort

of thing should be happening, especially in the light of the minister's

personal campaign promises to the contrary.

In 1975 the

province paid 44 percent of the school budget in Victoria; this year

they paid 28 percent. There's no excuse for that. It's widely

recognized that school districts have one basic source of revenue, and

that's the property tax. The property tax is inherently regressive and

unfair, especially in a community like my own where so many senior

citizens attempt to retain ownership of their own homes and attempt to

do so in the face of ever-increasing taxes. It's especially unfair and

unreasonable, I argue, in the capital city, which has the highest

proportion of seniors of any community in British Columbia, that so

many of those seniors, because of the neglect, failure and deliberate

intent of Social Credit to underfinance education — as they are

currently underfinancing medicare — should find themselves being the

personal victims.

Let me repeat. In 1980 the gross operating

cost per pupil in greater Victoria was the second lowest out of 75

districts in all of British Columbia. It cannot be argued that our

district in this capital city is spending money foolishly. To the

contrary, it's been argued by many people in the professions that

they've not been able to spend enough money. I think the reasons for

that are fairly obvious.

Nonetheless, personally I am

extraordinarily proud of the achievements of our school district

over-the last several years, and I want to talk about some of them for

a moment.

I think it's important to know how, even in the

face of declining provincial participation, one school board — School

District 61 — has been able to broaden the base of important and vital

educational services. I want, if I may, to talk to the committee about

the achievements of School District 61 in a very difficult field, I'm

referring to native Indian education.

Every level of

government pays lip-service to helping native people. and to the

extraordinary dropout rate — if you will, the educational mortality

rate among native Indians in this province. There are all sorts of

reasons for that.

[ Page 5631 ]

their credit the school district of Victoria has now established a

Native Indian Education Commission. That commission comprises

representatives of the professional teaching community, citizens at

large and, of course, most importantly, native Indians themselves, both

status and non-status. This commission is, now putting together

programs for the district and administering those which currently

exist, most particularly at the S. J. Willis school — a junior high

school from which I was proud to graduate. It is an attempt — against

the face of declining provincial participation — to assist native

Indians to have full and personal access to every educational program

available, preferably up to and beyond grade 12. It's an attempt as

well to involve the families of native children in the education and

encouragement of their own children, that too being an important and

vital link. This year the school district in Victoria is contributing

another $250,000 to make that program work. I would argue it is one of

the leading and most progressive school districts in all of British

Columbia in that field. I think they deserve great credit for that

great achievement. They've taken a lead that the province hasn't taken,

They've achieved things that many other districts have yet to achieve.

and they've done so in the face of declining provincial participation

in their budget.

Career education is also extraordinarily

important. The notion of being prepared for a competent apprenticeship

through the school system is a notion that many people support. The

notion of establishing cancer schools where kids who were ordinarily

considered somehow unfit for what were thought in the old days to have

been the better forms of education are now properly and rightfully

being told that it is an important and proud contribution they make to

be trained to participate at many levels in all the workforces of

British Columbia.

Once again, the achievements of the

Greater Victoria School District are remarkable and important. This

year in our school district an extra $154,000 is being spent to

guarantee that one of the principal results of the educational policy

in greater Victoria shall be to ensure that any person, female or male,

who wishes to take up a career via the pre-apprenticeship program, via

the career training program or via all the special services and

facilities — many of them very costly — shall be allowed to do so, in

order that the workforce of British Columbia shall be more trained and

better able to compete, in the name of all of British Columbia, with

our overseas and American competitors, who are often much better

trained through their school systems than our kids have been trained

through this school system.

I think it's extremely important

that school districts be encouraged to do this. However. It's very

difficult for them to be encouraged to do so when in 1975 the province

paid 44 percent of the school budget and in 1981 they are paying 28

percent.

Why is the property tax unfair? Let me offer a

second argument here. It's unfair because the province has a rational

option unavailable to school districts. The province can call on the

resource revenues of the whole province of British Columbia: the

stumpage. the royalty, the mineral rights and the petroleum leases —

all the revenues from the great assets of this particular part of the

planet are available to the province to finance education and

everything else. The resource base of the province of British Columbia

is far greater than the resource base of School District 61 or any

other, because in my district, as in all the others. the only resource

base is the property tax. The province has 100 times broader a base,

and is therefore far more obligated to contribute by virtue of the

greater vastness and applicability of its tax sources.

congratulate School District 61 for pioneering. pushing and making real

and important a cancer education program in the face of declining

provincial participation.

There's another program which our

district has been heavily involved in in the last couple of years. I'm

personally very proud of it, and the minister made reference to it in

his opening remarks. These are programs for the gifted. I strongly feel

that in the interests and the name of academic excellence giftedness

must be recognized, enhanced and encouraged in every way. This costs

money, and it's hard to do. In this instance I congratulate the

minister and his predecessor for responding to the many demands — not

just here in the House, but across the province — that have been made

in the name of programs for the gifted. That does not mean that

programs for learning-disabled children are unimportant — not at all. I

wouldn't, for any reason, attempt to disqualify or disfranchise any of

those kids. They are also and equally important. But I hold that one of

the assets we've not dealt with, one of the resources we have not

properly used, is the resource of wit, imagination and creativity, and

sometimes a special quality of genius that can be found in the very

most gifted and talented of the young people in this and every other

district.

To the credit of School District 61 they have this

year launched a major new initiative based on the proven success of the

initiative started two years ago in Esquimalt. They now propose to

expand that program across the district, They propose to spend another

$100,000 this year to guarantee, in the name of academic excellence and

the highest learning, standards, that kids capable of the highest

learning achievements shall be given the opportunity to do so. The best

and brightest students in the district are now being challenged to

reach their potential, and thereby to make the richest and greatest

possible contribution to the whole society. This is money well spent. I

only urge the province to contribute a more important part of those

moneys that have to be spent in order to obtain such academic

excellence.

There is another reason why the basic

educational programs is unfair. School boards that wish to decentralize

find it difficult and expensive to do so. School boards that wish to

engage in the pioneering, revitalizing and reanimating programs of

community schools find it, initially, costly. How do we pay for that?

Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman. they have only one source — the property

tax. The province has 100 more sources, but since 1975 the province has

cut its share in Victoria from 44 percent to 28 percent. Nonetheless.

the Greater Victoria School District, under the leadership of several

able chairmen over the last six, seven and eight years — and in

particular through the James Bay Community School, which is an

outstanding example of success in community and neighbourhood

participation in schools — has great achievements to show for the money

that the people of Victoria have spent.

There are currently

three community schools flourishing in Greater Victoria. These

community schools are based on two operating principles. First of all,

family, neighbourhood and local interests shall have a say in

determining the course and the content of educational materials made

available. This is vitally and democratically important in a school

system like ours and. I argue, in every school across the province.

[ Page 5632 ]

Secondly,

young people are thereby trained, encouraged and given the opportunity

to learn something about being co-responsible for their own education

when, as my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has

pointed out, at the South Park family school — also in Victoria — a

pioneering effort in cooperative education managed by the parents and

financed by the school district.... The kids themselves regularly come

down to these parliament buildings and pick up the newspapers that you

and I leaf through quickly and throw away, and contribute that to their

own recycling project. They deserve a heck of a lot of credit for that.

That's one of the achievements here in this district of the South Park

family school, which exists only because we have a school district

sufficiently progressive, enlightened, able and prudent financially to

be able to put it all together. I congratulate those kids and their

parents, and I observe that that is the second great principle of

community schools. It is that notion of students becoming

co-responsible for their own education and learning in an increasingly

mature way how to derive and develop their own education from the best

possible sources: academic, theoretical and practical. This too is what

community schools do. We now have three in the Greater Victoria School

District. Hopefully there will be more in the future. More are being

planned right now.

Community schools finally make a prudent,

I think, and efficient — I know — use of tax dollars, but it's

difficult to get them going. It requires a lot of work, a great deal of

organization and a particular kind of discipline of approach that's

hard and takes a lot of time. Once again, I congratulate the school

district of greater Victoria for what they've been able to do in the

last several years in that field. That's important and it's necessary.

want to talk briefly as well before I sum up about the special

educational programs that our school district has been able to put

together and finance in the last several years. I would remind you for

the last time that they've been able to do so in the face of a province

and a provincial educational finance formula which in 1975 picked up 44

percent and this year picks up only 28 percent. The local taxpayers

have had to make up the difference and yet, again, in 1980 our gross

operating cost per pupil was the second lowest in the whole province —

right here in greater Victoria.

Special programs that have

been set up by our school district include the challenge to provide

special educational services for the disabled. "The full-services

model," as the board by policy has described it, includes and

incorporates all of those kids to the maximum extent in the public

educational services and systems of greater Victoria. They are not

excluded unless the parents wish something special set aside. They are,

rather — personally, humanly and in the most profoundly civilized way,

as disabled persons — encouraged to participate 100 percent. The

importance of that humanity and decency can't be measured in simple

bucks: nonetheless, it does cost money to do it. Our school district,

has found the money, and yet kept the gross operating cost per pupil

well below the provincial average.

Our school district is

providing special education services for the learning disabled, for

emotionally disturbed young people, for physically handicapped young

people and for young people of — if you will — relatively minor levels

of mental retardation who do not belong in institutions, whose families

cannot look after them directly and who do, by right of franchise,

belong in the public school system. These programs, too, are being

provided. Our school service provides education in hospitals, education

for autistic children, and for pregnant teen-aged girls, who should be

encouraged to stay in school and in the mainstream of society, instead

of running off in shame and humiliation. never to enter the schools

again and never to learn another thing in their lives except to be

humiliated for their mistake. Our school system provides special

education programs for troubled young people, for the deaf, for the

visually impaired and for many others. It does all of this with an

extraordinarily prudent budget and in the face of declining provincial

participation.

We have French immersion programs that are, I

think, one of the beacons and one of the highlights of all French

immersion teaching in British Columbia. Our school district has evening

programs for high school dropouts; it has beginners' programs in

multicultural and multi-language education — most particularly at

George Jay Elementary School, which I had the privilege of attending as

a student years ago and as an MLA at recent graduation ceremonies. The

notion of enfranchising persons who come to our community, who live in

extremely important. The Vancouver School Board has had experience in

this for years and years, to their credit; so too is the Greater

Victoria School Board now accepting its responsibilities and prepared

to help pay for it as well.

I think that the achievements of

the Greater Victoria School Board are those to make every one of the

five MLAs, including the Minister of Education, personally proud. I

think we could be a great deal prouder of future achievement if the

province would reconsider its commitment to financing of education and

would thereby offer a more fair and reasonable share. The purpose of

this speech is to demonstrate how one school board can be fiscally

responsible and prudent and, nonetheless, at the same time pioneer bold

and innovative programs and approaches in the educational system. I

call on the minister to reconsider; I call on the minister to restate a

provincial financial formula and to be more generous across the

province and to be more responsible for the basic obligation this and

every other provincial government has to finance the highest standards

of career training and academic excellence that are available. In

British Columbia we can afford to do no less.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I most certainly could endorse the comments

the member has made about many of the good programs that are being offered in

my own school district. I'm aware of the work that is being done by the

community schools and I admire the James Bay community school. I have a number

of neighbourhood elementary schools within the physical boundaries of my constituency,

and while they are not, in the technical sense, community schools, they have

a great deal of community involvement also. This school board does very good

work in the field of special education. It does a lot of good work in ESL and

also in the immersion programs that it's been running. The initiatives in

education for the gifted — of course, I share this view with the member — are long

overdue and must proceed.

The

financial situation here, though, hon. member, I don't think is quite

as bleak as you paint it. The basic program is really the figure that

has been used as to percentages, and while your figures may be correct

on gross operating budgets. I do notice that the provincial share on

the basic

[ Page 5633 ]

program

in the Greater Victoria School District has risen in the past year from

32 percent to 34 percent. That would be, I suppose, because under the

formula the rate at which assessments rose here was still considerably

less than that at which they rose in the lower mainland. So there has

been an increase in the basic program percentage.

Another

factor that is sometimes lost sight of is that the reduction of the

assessed value for homeowners has had quite an effect in Victoria.

According to the Assessment Authority, the average tax-roll,

single-family home in Victoria district this year is worth about

$88,500, and the assessed value of that for tax purposes is $9,745.

That same home in 1980 was $64,000, and the tax paid at the 14.5

percent figure was $9,285. So that did hold down the impact of

assessments considerably for this district. It didn't do as well in

Vancouver, where the rise was higher, but it had an impact here. For

the homeowner, in any event, there was that direct relief.

would like to see more provincial help in the area of special

education, and there is going to be more provincial help in that area.

We've put additional money into the Victoria budget for ESL and the

refugee programs. But I share generally in the hon. member's praise of

the work of this district, and that's often lost sight of when we talk

about budget increases. They did have a hefty budget increase this year

— I think it was about 22 percent. with a declining enrolment — but

that, of course, only tells part of the picture; you have to look at

the initiatives they undertook. I thank the member for his comments.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the minister in terms of his role

as chairperson of the International Year of the Disabled. I'd like to

ask him a couple of questions about that. I notice there has been a

proclamation that May 1981 is to be known as Disabled Persons Awareness

Month. As we're about halfway through the month of May now, I'm

wondering whether the minister will let me know what his ministry or

his committee have done in terms of this proclamation. It's been very

difficult to see anything that has actually happened.

I also

want to ask him whether he has read the report "Obstacles." It's the

report of the Special Committee on the Disabled that was tabled in the

federal House. Specifically I'd like to deal with some of the

recommendations in that report dealing with education. There is one

recommendation about provincial Ministers of Education being encouraged

to develop course material and teaching aids about physical and mental

disability for use in teacher training programs. I'd like some response

as to whether they've started to implement that recommendation or not.

The

other recommendation about encouraging the inclusion of material

dealing with learning and mental illness in the curricula is the

subject of my next question. I want to know if he has done anything

about that or not. I also want to draw a press release to the

minister's attention which was issued in January 1980. It announced

that the Ministries of Health, Education and Human Resources were

forming an interministerial team to conduct a survey of the special

needs of and the services available to the severely disabled children

and adolescents throughout British Columbia. The news release said that

the team began its work in January 1980 and was expected to complete

its task by the end of that year. That would have been December 31,

On May 6 of this year, the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) directed a question to the Minister of Health about this

report to find out if it had been completed by the end of the year and

when it was going to be released. At that time, the Minister of Health

said that it would be released in time, but he was waiting for some

kind of input from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

and the Minister of Education.

We've made some inquiries,

and we discovered that there were four draft reports finished at the

end of January. The final report was ready by the end of March. There

was a limited edition printed about three weeks ago, and that's where

the matter rests. There have been some problems in getting the report

past the deputy ministers, and I'm sure this does not include the

Deputy Minister of Education. That means that the Minister of Education

would have seen the report. If so, in view of the fact that it cost the

taxpayers of this province $150,000 to have public hearings and to

finance the research which was done on this report, I wonder if the

minister would undertake an agreement at this time to table that report

at the end of the estimates. I realize that you can't table documents

during the sitting of the committee. But since there is some reluctance

on the part of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to do so, and

we have no idea when we'll be dealing with the estimates of the

Minister of Human Resources.... I know the Minister of Education must

have seen the report, so I'm wondering if he would be willing to table

this document for us.

A great deal has been said about

physical disabilities and the programs being introduced in the schools

to deal with the physically disabled. By the way, I'd like to support

the comments of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). The

word is "disability" and not "handicapped."' In fact the disabled tell

us that the only handicap they have is the attitude of people towards

them.

However, in terms of social disability, which surely

has to be looked at at the same time, I want to bring to the minister's

attention a program known as the Tree and Leaf program in Burnaby. I'm

sure the minister has heard of them. This is an alternative education

experiment, which unfortunately started out being funded by the federal

government on one of their famous three-year grants. The grant has now

run out as the three years are up. All of the students for one reason

or another did not fit into the traditional school system and could not

learn in it. Most of them became behavioural problems and. In most

instances, were referred by Human Resources to this particular program

which, as I said before, had originally been funded by the federal

government under one of its LEAP programs.

The Tree and Leaf

program is a vocational program. Instead of concentrating on reading,

writing and arithmetic, the program concentrated on using their hands

and was broken into two halves. The Tree part of it had to do with

agricultural training. They were learning about planting and growing

things with a view to going eventually into the nursery business — like

the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — or whatever, but

certainly getting a job in agriculture of some sort. The second part of

the program dealt with carpentry. When I visited the Tree and Leaf

program about two months ago, they were working with cedar and making

cedar chests. which were being sold through department stores in other

areas. They have a very high success rate. The program is open to both

male and female students. Unfortunately, it's going to close down next

Friday unless it gets some funding from somewhere.

[ Page 5634 ]

The

first contact that they made was with the Ministry of the

Attorney-General, because so many of these students in the program are

students who also have come into contact with the law for one reason or

another. Through the social worker and the probation worker, as the

case may be, some of them were referred to this program and were helped

by it. In fact, it resulted in a saving to us as a province, because

through their rehabilitation they didn't go on to ending up eventually,

in jails and places like that.

However, the

Attorney-General's department decided that their responsibility did not

cover education and so referred them to Human Resources. Human

Resources, which as I said before is responsible for most of the

referrals, looked at the, program and decided that it really had too

large an educational component for them to be responsible for funding

it, and so they turned it down. It is my understanding that you, Mr.

Minister, as the Minister of Education are their last resort. If the

Ministry of Education turns them down, that's going to be the end of

the program. When I spoke to them on the phone yesterday, they told me

that as of that time they had not received a word, so the program was

going to be closing on Friday of next week.

I don't know

whether this comes under the mandate of the funding which is covered by

the budget for the International Year of the Disabled or not. But I

would like to suggest to you that social disability can be as much of a

handicap as physical or mental disability. I would ask you to take a

serious look at the request. I shouldn't have said Burnaby the program

is actually New Westminster. They actually work out of a storehouse in

New Westminster, but a large number of the referrals are from the

Burnaby school district.

I, too, would like to say a word or

two about what the funding is doing to the Burnaby school system and

what the taxation philosophy of the government is doing to the Burnaby

school board and to the Burnaby school system. Like Victoria and every

other municipality, Burnaby is experiencing a tremendous increase in

terms of property values and, at the same time, a decrease in terms of

the province's contribution to school costs. I can use the same kinds

of statistics that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) used,

which was that in 1975 — dealing primarily with direct provincial

grants — the provincial government made a contribution to the budget of

40.6 percent. and the municipality took up the balance. At that time

the mill rate was 41.550. We find that in 1980 the provincial

contribution had dropped to 20.3 percent of the budget and the mill

rate went up to 51.140. Between 1980 and 1981 property values in

Burnaby — like everywhere else in the lower mainland — just went

absolutely berserk. Everyone anticipated that there would be a decrease

in the mill rate to sort of soften the burden on the homeowner.

Instead, what actually happened was that the provincial contribution to

the budget dropped to 14.8 percent, and the mill rate was actually

increased to 55.267.

Maybe I should tell you a little bit about what that has done in terms of the

taxpayers of Burnaby. The information that I got from the school board was that

based on the mediuan value of houses, there was, in fact, an increase of something

like 17.9 percent over last year's tax demand. It says that where the standard

homeowner grant applied, and is deducted, the percentage increase is even higher.

The figure they give is something like 69.8 percent of the smaller base. I

gave you the figures before about 1975, when it was 40.6 percent; in 1976 it

dropped to 36.3 percent; in 1977 to 34.0 percent; in 1978 to 27.6 percent; in

1979 to 21.8 percent; in 1980 to 20.3 percent; and this year to 14.8 percent.

All the time, the mill rate was increasing as the percentage of the provincial

budget was decreasing.

What

they're saying is that superimposed on the basic education program —

paid for by the 41.8 mills; the Minister of Education makes that

decision, and they have no control over that — is the very broad

mandate to provide, first of all, education for all children,

regardless of handicaps, linguistic status, health, etc. They're saying

that these create additional costs which, with increased expectation

for services to each pupil, creates an additional demand of 13.47 mills

on the local taxpayer in 1981. The end result is that, while raising

for provincial basic program needs some $36 million, the B.C.

government actually returns by way of direct grants only $7 million to

this facet of the total school costs.

It talks about the

fact that the ministry allows $36,200 for each unit of 20 pupils for

each school. In Burnaby, where we have 52 schools, they worked out the

budget and applied it. I'm very happy to table these figures with the

minister. It says something like the basic program was $727,600, and it

added to that figure salaries, benefits, teaching supplies and central

office administration, which brought it up to $862,900. The result was

a deficit of $135,300 from the basic program as defined by the

ministry. It said that if you apply this to the 52 schools, then

Burnaby taxpayers must finance $7,035,600 simply to accommodate basic

program costs in today's economy. Then it goes on to talk about the

direct grants as well, which are inadequate to deal with the special

programs. I'm going to speak in more detail later about some of the

language. I'm not sure that the minister recognizes how serious that

program is to Burnaby, because of the very large immigrant component in

the community.

The

summary of the school board's report is

that this inordinate increase in the demand on the local taxpayers over

the years by way of provincial fiat has to be dealt with in some way,

that it just cannot continue to increase. They made a number of

recommendations to you, in terms of grant increases to the public

education system, in keeping with post-secondary levels, and asking in

particular for an honest consideration of the McMath commission

findings and some implementations of that report.

On behalf

of Burnaby, I just wanted to add to what was said by other members here

that the taxing formula as it is now, with the government picking up

less and less of the tab, is really creating a hardship for those

people in Burnaby who still would like to maintain their own homes.

Like Victoria, we have a very large senior-citizen community there, and

that should be taken into account.

Everyone accepts as fair

the McMath recommendation of 75 percent provincial and 25 percent

local. No one accepts as fair 14.8 percent provincial and 85.2 percent

local. That is definitely not fair.

Since I'm asking for

money, there's one other issue I just want to throw in. I do this every

year and I'm doing it again — that is, the whole business of the Home

and School Federation. I know that I may as well save my breath to cool

my porridge, but I'm going to do it again. For 27 years the B.C. Home

and School Federation has received funding from the Ministry of

Education in the form of operating grants. I'm reading from the brief

which was submitted to you, so it's dejá vu. I'm going to keep

repeating it — you know, the old Chinese water torture routine — until

something happens. Every other province in Canada now provides such a

grant to

[ Page 5635 ]

its

home and school federation, but for the past four years the B.C. Home

and School Federation has received no funding from the ministry — not

one cent. Everyone knows what a valuable contribution the parents of

children in the school system make. Everyone knows, that the school

system couldn't function without the voluntary contributions and input

which the Home and School Federation makes. Yet the minister and his

government continue to refuse funding to this very important community

resource. I think that by so doing they are doing the students of the

province a disservice. They are doing all of the people of B.C. a

disservice by so doing. I would like to appeal to the Minister of

Education to take a second look at that decision because it is a

decision which is penalizing us all. We will certainly continue to

repeat that request until he accedes to it.

The minister was

very proud of the fact that he has agreed to fund once again the

women's access program. I wish that I had been able to stand up and

congratulate the minister for doing so. I find that I cannot because

again it's too little, too late and it's not going to do the job. It's

diminishing. It's going to disappear even before the programs have a

chance to become crystallized and formalized in the system. Another

brief which was presented to the minister had recommendations on behalf

of the women's access program. It asked, first of all, that there be a

five-year plan so that if there were going to be diminishing

contributions it would take place over five years and not over three

years: that it start out with approximately $60,000 per college that

asked for this fund; that the ministry pick up 90 percent in the first

year, which would be $54,000, and the applying institution then would

have to pick up 6 percent; that the ministry pick up 75 percent in the

second year, 60 percent in the third year, 45 percent in the fourth

year, and down to 30 percent in the fifth year. This formula was based

on the recognition that the colleges and institutions are starved

anyway for funding, they are operating on very tight budgets and they

cannot afford to make a larger financial contribution to this

particular service than $6,000 this year, maybe $13,000 next year,

$22,000...and so forth.

Instead. the minister has introduced

a program which is based on a three-year formula. It's a three-year

formula, isn't it? That's right. The formula goes something like

two-thirds in the first year, 50 percent in the second year and

one-third in the third year. That would be fair enough if the colleges

weren't so strapped for funding. If they had budgets with which to meet

the needs of the community, that formula would probably work. But

certainly the colleges that have been in contact with me have pointed

out that it is not realistic in terms of their specific budgets.

want to deal with one in particular and that's Camosun College, which

I'm sure the minister is very familiar with. Camosun College started

out without any funding at all for Women's Access. Out of their own

budget they hired one one-third-time person, who had other

responsibilities as well, to be a program coordinator and do the job

that Women's Access would do. She was going to be a counsellor and

program coordinator. The minister is suggesting that under this formula

he will give to Camosun College $20,000 and Camosun College has to find

$10,000. Camosun College doesn't have it. Camosun College is not

financially able to find $10,000 in order to fund the other third of

the cost of this program. What is going to happen is that the position

of women's coordinator — she has already been terminated because the

college ran out of money and could not afford to pay even her one-third

salary — has not been refilled. It's finished, wiped out, done. The

college is not financially able to find $10,000 to pick up the other

$20,000 from the Ministry of Education, so Camosun College is not going

to be able to have a women's access program.

I don't know

whether the minister recognizes how important these programs are. First

of all, I want to suggest to the minister that the programs address

themselves primarily to mature women — women who are re-entering the

workforce, women who are re-entering the labour market, women who are

upgrading their skills and retraining themselves, Those are the people

who are served by Women's Access through counselling, workshops,

designing guidelines for them, exploring life skills, shepherding them

through the training programs and encouraging them in one way or

another to make decisions which are going to enhance the quality of

their lives. Most of the women who use the women's access program are

women on their own — women who are widowed, divorced. separated or

women who find they have to enter the workforce because the incomes

earned by their spouses are inadequate because of today's inflationary

demands and those kinds of things. It's the mature women in the

community who use these programs and who need these programs. These

programs operate out of community colleges for the most part, not out

of other institutions. So there is a double bind here: they lack

funding because the colleges have such a tight budget, and because they

primarily address themselves to people who themselves have very limited

financial resources they are totally dependent on the institutions for

their funding.

What I really want to say to the minister

about the women's access program is that I would like him to rethink

it. I've received a copy of the brief which Cariboo College made to him

and a copy of the brief which Camosun has prepared for him. The

Sunshine Coast is trying to put together a women s program. They all

say the same thing: that the financial resources are not there except

through the Ministry of Education, and there isn't any point in

offering two-thirds, 50 percent and one-third because they have no

financial resources to come up with the matching percentage to make the

programs work.

The task force on older women which travelled

around this province and accepted briefs from older women found that

the number one thing they talked about after discussing poverty and the

lack of funds was retraining, re-education, upgrading skills,

re-entering the workforce and re-entering, the labour market. They get

the counselling and guidance to do that and to develop some of the

skills and self-esteem through the women's access programs. So this is

a plea on behalf of the mature women, Mr. Minister of Education. I'm

specifically asking on behalf of women with no financial resources.

They cannot finance their education themselves. They haven't got it, so

it's got to come from the ministry — it can"t come from anywhere else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

MS, BROWN:

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I only have three minutes, because I

language program. Very briefly. In the Burnaby school district

second language therefore they are an incredible burden on the school

district, and the kinds of financial support that they

[ Page 5636 ]

must

get from the Ministry of Education in terms of training staff and

helping them meet their budgets cannot be stressed to strongly. In

teachers need to be trained. The whole training program and budget the

Burnaby school district needs in order to really give these kids a

start in life and to give them a good education is something the

minister really should address himself to.

If I have one

second more, I just want to say that I want the minister to talk about

what's happening to nursing education in the colleges now that he's

cutting back so heavily on the funding for the colleges. Maybe I will

speak about that after he has answered these questions.

HON. MR. SMITH:

The initiatives of the International Year of the Disabled had, I

thought, been pretty well publicized. Thousands of application forms

for grants are already out in the field, and we anticipate a very heavy

run of applications for the grant funds. The advisory committee that

has been set up has been meeting and functioning. It is setting out

guidelines, and has been publicizing the program of the international

year. In fact, this committee had a meeting in Victoria this week

chaired by Doug Mowat. There has been quite a bit of publicity and

interest in the committee and in the program. There's been quite a bit

in the press.

Yes, I do have a copy of the parliamentary

committee publication, "Obstacles." I can't say that I've studied it

carefully. I just wish that the federal government had spent money in

this area on other things than their publication and travel of the

members of the committee, because they didn't make much of a financial

contribution towards giving any assistance to the international year. I

think that their total amount of money for the whole of Canada was $1

million. But be that as it was, the publication is useful.

You

pointed out the teacher-training aspect of disabled persons. That's a

subject that I've taken up quite directly with several of the colleges

of education that I visited. You may be aware that only one of the

three faculties of education actually require special education as a

course for a teacher who's being trained to come into the school

system. I have told them quite directly that I think that every college

of education should require training in special education. I intend to

do more than just say that. I intend to take further steps if that's

not done.

The other thing that we've done is that we have

tried to improve the training of teachers who are now in the system and

never had any opportunity to study or work with children with special

needs. We have a fairly extensive provincewide, in-service training

program which is continuing this year.

The committee report

on the severely handicapped that you mention is not a report that I've

studied, but I will be studying it. It is presently in the hands of

government, will be analyzed and, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) said, will certainly be eventually laid before this House. But

I have not had an opportunity to study that report. I hope to do so,

together with the analysis and evaluation, because I'm sure it will be

of great assistance to us in this field.

Your program in New Westminster — the Tree and Leaf program — I am not

familiar with. From listening to your description of it, it would probably not

qualify for special education funding but it would be a program that a local

school board could operate if they wished to do so. The three-year program deadline

on that might be a deadline that the local board put on it. I'd be happy

to look at it if you wish me to do so. Maybe it had Human Resources funding.

MS. BROWN: No, it was federal. I'm using criteria for the socially disabled.

HON. MR. SMITH: It wouldn't fit under our present special education criteria. That I can tell you, but I'd be happy to look at it.

note your remarks about Burnaby taxes and say to you, as I did to my

friend the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), that reducing the

assessed taxable value for homeowners did provide considerable relief,

but it didn't provide sufficient relief where there were market-value

increases in excess of 50 percent or 60 percent. The school tax

committee is set up to recommend to government ways that we can assure

that this sort of thing isn't repeated.

Your comments about

the Home and School Federation, from which, I must say, I heard some

good briefs on my tour — not just from their provincial association,

but from some of their local associations.... My non-funding of them

really has nothing to do with my admiration for them or my belief in

their importance; but there are a number of other organizations that

represent parents in education across this province. You've encountered

a lot of them, as I have — parents' advisory groups, many groups that

deal with various learning disabilities, many school committees and

consultative committees. The difficulty is that if you fund one even

though it might be the original sort of umbrella organization from

which all the others sprung — you really have to fund all. I have said

to Home and School that I would be quite happy to assist them in a

specific project, but I do not favour the notion that they receive an

annual operating grant.

MS. BROWN: I just want to

finish very quickly. I'm wondering whether the minister would be

willing to share the report with us — I'm talking about the

interministerial report on needs of severely disabled children and

adolescents — so that all of us could look at it, study it and assess

it at the same time he is doing so — without prejudice, I think is the

legal way of dealing with that. Maybe he would be willing to share the

report.

The other thing is that he didn't comment on my

the schools, and the fact that in Burnaby — at last head-count anyway —

primary tongue. I just wanted to point out that I have before me a

brochure for a symposium to be held in Vancouver that is talking about

the significance of the number of children in the early age group —

they call it. They're saying that in some areas it's rapidly

approaching 50 percent of the school population in kindergarten. The

over for years. Certainly ever since I've been a member of this House,

we've been talking about the inadequate funding to help the school

districts deal with this. I would appreciate it if the minister would

comment on that. He did not comment on the Women's Access, which I

asked him to do, at great length.

I have one final thing

that I want to read into the record; it concerns the continuation of

sexist material in the curriculum and in the textbooks that people use.

I don't know what the

[ Page 5637 ]

minister

can do about it, because a number of these textbooks are required

reading. They're part of what is recommended out of his own ministry.

There's one book in particular that I want to talk about. It's a grade

It has things in it like: "This woman was bony and angular, and she

wore horn-rimmed glasses. She spotted the first woman and walked over

to her, treading the deck in the deliberate military fashion of all

spinsters. The woman with the fat ankles turned and looked at her."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

haven't gone through and checked all of the textbooks, but certainly

the B.C. task force on the status of women and the research done by

Professor Lorimer at Simon Fraser tell us that there are still

textbooks included in the recommended curriculum — a large number of

them — which contain sexist language. I don't know what the minister

can do about that. The former Minister of Education wiped out the

committee which had responsibility for looking at sexism in the

curriculum. It has not been replaced by anything else. We find in 1981

that kids in school are still reading about stereotypes, such as the

one included in this textbook describing the military fashion of all

spinsters, women with fat ankles and those kinds of things. I've never

read about a man with fat ankles. I'm sure there are no textbooks that

talk about men with fat ankles. We could write poems about men with

skinny legs if we really wanted to. That's not required reading for

grade 9. I wish the minister would do something about it.

HON. MR. SMITH: I must admit that last comment is really very close to the bone.

The curriculum branch will look at The Quickening Pulse .

I am sorry that I did not respond on Women's Access, but I had a note

to do so. The bringing back of this program on a three-year basis, I

thought, was an important step. I would point out to you that it is all

provincially funded. It isn't a case of 60 percent direct funding and

the other 40 percent being raised by fees or by some local levy. As you

know, it all comes out of provincial revenue. The purpose of having

some of it come out of the college budget is to try and have the

college give a program commitment to Women's Access, so that it will be

built into the budget and into their programming, and they'll continue

it if it's successful. I will monitor the results of this program. If

the colleges are not taking it up or are not interested in taking it

up, I will try to find out why. I recognize that a five-year program

would be better than a three-year program. The higher percentage would

be more attractive. The money put into post-secondary operating budget

increases this year was very considerable, as you know — 19 percent

lift. I know that colleges are readjusting priorities. I would hope

that in the readjustment of priorities, though, there would certainly

be room for a Women's Access program. I'll be delighted to look at that.

of the program in a number of schools that I've been in. We've rapidly

expanded the funding under the special approval system. This allows

school boards to get rapid approvals for funding additional classes,

but that's on the basis of shareable funding, which isn't as much help

to your district as it is to some others. But the $3,000 grant that we

brought in last year for refugees was, I think, of great assistance to

that particular class of students in ESL.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister some specific questions and

hope for some specific answers. I'm wondering if I can have the

minister's attention for a moment, because it's a fairly important

question, and if the big minister for small business will....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I draw the Chairman's attention to standing orders with respect to quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member. the Chair, having due regard for the point raised by the member, notices that there is a quorum present.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Are you counting him? Oh, well, if you're counting that chap, all right.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Further. hon. member, it should really be the responsibility of the

member who is speaking, if he so desires, to bring to the House's

attention a matter of a quorum.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr.

Chairman, my question deals with the per capita grant for independent

schools. My understanding is that at the present time there is a

per-student grant going to the independent schools, but the student

must attend for the full year before it is granted. I also understand

that requests have been made on behalf of the independent schools that

that be put on a pro rata basis: in other words, if the students fails

to attend the full term there would be a pro rata grant rather than

losing the whole grant for that particular year.

My question

deals with the timing. I understand the minister has looked favourably

upon this particular request but may have some problems in funding or

with Treasury Board. When will their decision likely come down? Also,

where is the pool of money that the minister will be able to find to

honour this particular request? Obviously it's going to cost more money

if we fund those students on a larger basis than ve are now. I know the

amounts might not be that significant, but then again they may be. I'm

wondering if the minister would advise me whether there will be any

reduction in the public school

section of the budget in order to honour

the request for the pro rata grants to independent schools.

That's

my first question I prefer to put all the questions to the minister

rather than interrupting him. I think we can make more progress this

way.

My second question deals with the problem of racism in

the school system and the problems of education with respect to racism.

Specifically, I'm wondering if the minister or his officials can tell

us how many of the school districts in British Columbia are using the

film which showed the history of race relations in British Columbia. It

was a controversial film — I understand Surrey rejected it — and I'd

like to know specifically, if you have the numbers, how many school

districts are using that particular film.

The reason I ask

that question is that, frankly, I think this is a continuing problem in

our society, and it's reflected in many of our schools and in our

school system. I'm sure the minister is sympathetic, but I'd like to

see more leadership from the ministry in terms of alleviating bigotry

in our

[ Page 5638 ]

society

and particularly in our school system. I think we have to put ourselves

in the position of a young elementary school person of East Indian

extraction, where a significant amount of' bigotry has been expressed

from time to time. I think that we have a continuing problem it won't

go away by ignoring it or pretending it's not there. It seems to me the

minister has a role here to provide leadership to see that the

educational system tells the history of race relations in this

province, and also to make sure that the history of the various ethnic

groups of British Columbia and their contribution to the total society

is being fully told.

The difficulty we have had in our

educational system has been that it looks like the WASPs discovered and

created the province and so on. We have not been fair to the many

ethnic groups and the very major contributions that they've made, and

that unfairness begins in the educational system. The second area of

unfairness deals with our attitude to the original people in the

province. We continue to tell our students that somehow the province

was discovered by Captain Cook, etc.,

whereas in fact native people

have been here for probably 12,000 years, making a very interesting

society without any help from white society. It seems to me that that's

a story that remains untold. I'd like some specifics on my second

question to the minister. How many school districts have accepted the

film that was proposed for the curriculum? How many have rejected it?

I'd also like him to advise us what steps he intends to take in terms

of his own officials in his department to provide some leadership in

teaching the racial and ethnic history of the province with a view to

fairness to the minority groups — for example, the Chinese, who have

made a fantastic contribution to construction of our rail system, and

in other fields.

I won't bore you with all of the various

contributions. The minister is aware of them, but I'd like to know what

plans he has now to see that that story is being fairly told in every

school in the province of British Columbia.

The last

question deals with the vocational side and what we're doing in terms

of skill training. We are in the process in this province now of having

a labour shortage in a variety of skills. Please don't, give us a

political response; I'm trying to make this a non-political question.

It seems important to me that the public school system address itself

to the problem of skill training, particularly in the trades. There

should be an examination of BCIT with a view, perhaps, to putting

another BCIT here and there, because that school is making a tremendous

contribution to that particular skill level or need in British Columbia.

I'll leave it with those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, and hope that the minister can perhaps address the first two questions.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Chairman, the film produced by the BCTF has been introduced, I

know, into some schools, but I couldn't tell you what acceptability

it's had, They could tell you better. I could find out, but they could

probably tell you immediately. One thing we've done is give funding and

support to the development of a course which is being prepared by a

committee largely under the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews,

They are preparing a film on racism which will be introduced on an

optional basis into the schools, probably at the level of the middle

grades.

We have a member of our ministry on that committee,

and we see that as a good. positive step. This committee is better able

to develop it than we are, That's a first step. The other issue of

trying to reflect the ethnic composition and history of this country in

materials has really been sadly lacking right across Canada. We do have

a social studies revision which I hope will be effective by September

1982, and I would expect that in those materials in social studies

there would be some emphasis of this. The books on Canadian history

I've seen used in the schools of this country are quite inadequate in

that regard.

I'm not just thinking of the portrayal of the

native population, but also the coverage of Chinese-Canadians,

Japanese-Canadians, Ukrainian-Canadians in western Canada, and others.

It simply has not been adequately covered,

I think I would

prefer to respond to the very much broader question of trades training

and another BCIT at a later date when I can make a more considered

response.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, the minister

didn't touch on the per-capita grant situation, the independent school

system and the question of prorating the grant. I understand this is

now under favourable review by the minister, and my question dealt with

the timing in terms of approval of that request. Can the minister give

the House some assurance that it won't come out of the public

educational side of the budget?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I take it that if it doesn't, you think it's a good idea.

MR. LEGGATT:

If you want to be cute about it, I'd be very happy to tell you. I think

we have to have a public educational system strong enough to compete

effectively with the independent school system. One of the problems is

that your responsibility is to see that that public educational system

is strong and can attract and make up for the weaknesses the system has

had in the past. In that way we won't have continuing debate on the

question. But leaving that aside, I still think the question merits a

reasonable response. I think we're entitled to know whether you're

going to be cutting back on the public education side in order to meet

the request for grants. By the way, I think that's fair; it's just a

question of where you're going to get the money.

HON. MR. SMITH:

There certainly wasn't any cutback on that basis in the present budget.

I'm trying to find the item. The increase was from $10.9 million in the

grants for independent schools to $12.6 million, which is really not a

large amount of money out of a budget, compared with the public school

education budget of $772 million. The entire budget, as you know, for

the independent schools is tied to the per pupil number that qualify. I

am considering that question that you mentioned of addressing the

inequity of the pupil qualifying equivalent. It is inequitable, in my

view, that an independent school should receive no funding for a

student who slips below that magic number of days. I will be making an

announcement regarding that in this House in the very near future. It

is under consideration, and an announcement will be made. That will be

addressed, and not at the expense of public school system funding.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5639 ]

MRS. WALLACE . I'm really pleased to have two guests in the gallery

today from Norwich, England. The husband, as a matter of fact, is almost a childhood

friend. I grew up with him in the Cedar area. I introduced him to his wife

when we both worked here in Victoria as parliamentary secretaries, many years

ago. I'm very pleased to have in the gallery today Ron and Florence Riley

from Norwich, England.

MR. HANSON:

There are basically three subjects I would like to canvass with the

minister. First is the funding of the public school system: second is

the funding of the special needs program for children in the public

school system and third is a number of suggestions on curriculum that I

would like to make to the minister.

On the financing of the

public school system, on this side of the House I believe we have a

basic philosophical difference with the government members on that

side. I think tying the quality of education to the cost of real estate

is probably the most regressive way to finance public education that

has ever been conceived of. I think all members of this House and all

citizens of this province want their children to grow up to have happy,

productive lives where they're equipped through an education process to

make a contribution to society, to be able to live with one another in

harmony and just to live the kind of life that we envision as being

good and productive. In my judgment, if public education is financed by

shifting it onto property at an ever increasing rate, year after year,

one doesn't have to be a genius to see that further down the line, with

the local taxpayer paying the cost of education, the children of this

society are going to be caught in this squeeze. That is my concern and

that is the concern of the members on this side of the House.

I'm

not the first member in this debate to raise this question, but I'm

certainly a member that wants the minister to know very clearly that I

oppose the policy of the government. In Robert McMath's report — that

of the commission of inquiry into property assessment and taxation — he

made 75 recommendations. I don't think it is any accident that the

number one recommendation in the report was that 75 percent of the cost

of education be borne out of genet all revenue, and only 25 percent by

the local taxpayer — and, in addition, special grants for special

needs. We adopt that report. We endorse that recommendation. We don't

understand the philosophical orientation of the government and how they

can possibly see that educational possibilities for children would be

enhanced by tying the cost of education to real estate.

Also,

regarding the cost of financing of special needs, I agree with the

programs of mainstreaming and including the special needs in the

mainstream of the public educational process, but at the same time, in

the classroom that teacher must be supported with all of the backup

support, with training, with aides and so on to do the job and actually

meet those special needs that are now being placed in that local

classroom. You can't then abrogate your responsibilities and say that

from general revenue we're now going to shift the responsibility of

special needs back into the classroom and at the same time not offer

the support and infrastructure necessary really to do the job

adequately. I'm not the first one to raise that point with the

minister. The minister operates on the basis of special grants. Our

position is that it should be general revenue that provides

high-quality education to the greatest percentage and that these

special needs should be paid for out of general revenue. Costs and

responsibility shouldn't have to be picked up locally entirely.

The

third point I want to discuss with the minister — if I can get his

attention — was touched on briefly by the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt). As members of this House, we are constantly meeting

school groups that come to visit the parliament buildings. Often I ask

these groups of different ages questions about British Columbia — our

geography and history, the Indian people, the composition of our

Legislature, how many women sit in the Legislature. I'm always struck

by the extent to which children are ignorant of these aspects of our

society. The minister touched on that briefly in his response to the

member for Coquitlam-Moody.

I suppose part of my background

is showing; my training was in anthropology. I think the Greatest

antidote to the racism raised by the member for Coquitlam-Port Moody is

an understanding of the other cultures, through anthropology or through

sociological Studies.

It is clear that we have what is

described as an ethnocentric view of our history and culture. It's from

the view of Europe, the United Kingdom and so on. We're carrying that

with us. But we must recognize that we are living in a multicultural

world. We pay lip-service to the fact that we in Canada and in British

Columbia live in a Intercultural society, but we don't understand the

contribution the Asian people, for example, have made in British

Columbian history — their traditions, values, historical

accomplishments and other aspects of their culture. They are not

understood by their young cohorts sitting in adjacent seats. They

should be inculcated into the classroom and the curricula.

suppose that the most glaring example, one which we touch on so

frequently, is the Indian people of the province, and the complete and

abysmal lack of education and understanding that non-Indian children

have of Indian culture and accomplishments.

The Minister of

Education — I believe it was yesterday afternoon — made mention of the

Nishga School District. I certainly applaud the member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly) for granting, when she was Minister of Education,

the Nishga people the responsibility to run their own school district.

I think that was a wonderful decision. It has certainly greatly

benefited the Nishga people. They appreciate it very much. The Nishga

people are one small group within the Tsimshian people — there are

several others — but what about the Coast Salish, the Interior Salish,

the Kwakiutl, the Haida, Tlingit, the Athabascan people, the Kootenays

and so on.

This crosses party lines. It has nothing

whatsoever to do with partisan politics. I look forward to the day when

the Indian people in every region of the province are co-existing with

the non-Indian community, when in the curriculum of the school system

the non-Indian people have an understanding and appreciation of the

Indian culture, and at the same time the Indian community has an

opportunity to learn its own culture and language. One of the great

things about the Nishga experiment is that it shows quite clearly that

the Nishaa people are really able to handle all aspects of the

curriculum in their own language — mathematics. social studies and so

on. Everyone knows that, but it's demonstrated quite clearly. It should

be used as an example for people all over this province to expand those

possibilities.

To increase and enhance our understanding, as

people from different ethnic groups. traditions and values.... If we're

really going to go beyond lip-service, we are going to have to

recognize in our school system that those facts exist, that what we're

seeing in overt aspects of racism is a complete

[ Page 5640 ]

lack

of understanding in one cultural group of the values and traditions of

another. You know, sometimes those are not easy things to understand

unless they're dealt with in a formal way — understanding the kinship

system, the traditions and the way the family is structured. It's a

shame that we're ignoring that. It you really want to do something in

education, the Ministry of Education must address that question in a

serious way. The Indian example is certainly the most obvious one, but

I would like to see it for the East Indian community. I would like to

see an appreciation and understanding in an aspect of social studies

that would actually deal with East Indian people — which would explain,

in a meaningful way, the colonization of British Columbia by East

Indian people over time, where they've come from, their values and

traditions. Cut off this racist phenomenon emerging in British

Columbia. If we don't seriously address this in the educational

process, we're going to have a much more difficult time later on when

it becomes full-blown. There are people who want to exploit that for

their own personal and sectarian advantage.

To summarize, I

want to say that the McMath formula for financing education is, we

believe, the fair one. In my own riding here in Victoria the school

board, as are school boards all over the province, is being made the

meat in the sandwich between a provincial government that wants more

and more of the cost borne by local government and.... That conflict

between trying to provide the best possible education for children and

at the same time trying to cut corners to make sure the costs are not

borne unduly by local taxpayers is an extremely awkward and difficult

situation that you've put them in.

I'm very supportive of

our school board here in Victoria. I feel that they have done their

utmost to try and walk that tightrope between fiscal responsibility and

that quality of education which is so much a right that all our

children should expect it.

MR. HOWARD: Following the

discussion we had yesterday about the situation in School District 88,

I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. I understand

that a gentleman by the name of Wall — the last name I was provided

with — from the ministry was in Terrace within the past couple of

weeks. If that is the case, was he in Terrace for the purpose of

discussing with the school board the subject matter of the two

principals I'm talking about? The minister shakes his head. Thus I

should put on the record that the minister is saying: "No, he was not

there for that purpose."

Yesterday, the minister mentioned in reply that perhaps there was some deficiency

section 120 of the act, denying people transferred or demoted under that

section the normal appeal or review procedures in the act, and also a vacuum

insofar as the opportunity provided to the aggrieved person to be told the reasons

for any transfer or demotion is concerned. I took that statement as reflecting

the possibility that the minister, fairly new to the job, didn't know about

that situation before. I'm advised that that is not the case and that there

have been many representations to the minister, not only about the deficiency

in that section, but deficiencies of a similar nature throughout the School

Act extending over a period of time. One time the minister's predecessor

went — I'm sure this document is in the ministry — to the point of a precise

and careful analysis of those deficiencies in the School Act which set teachers

apart from the rest of society in terms of their opportunity to get fair and

just treatment and fair play in dealing with any grievances they may have. I wish

the minister would have outlined that yesterday and been a bit more candid and

perhaps followed it up by saying in a declaratory way that he was intent on

correcting those deficiencies. I'd like to know whether he is so intent

and, if so, when we can expect alterations to the School Act to come along in

that regard.

The

third thing I want to pose to the minister is this. The minister said

yesterday that his policy with respect to reviewing matters which arise

as a result of

section 120 that come to his attention is to appoint a

tribunal or a three-person board of review and a third chairperson

representing both sides. Am I correct then in understanding that a

review panel will comprise somebody whom the aggrieved party nominates

or appoints and somebody representing the school district? Is that what

the minister was saying? The minister's nodding his head. I have to put

it on the record then. As I read it, by nodding his head the minister

is in fact saying that the aggrieved person will have the opportunity

to appoint someone on that board of review representing the aggrieved

person or persons.

HON. MR. SMITH: Right.

MR. HOWARD:

And that the school board will have the opportunity to appoint someone

to that review panel representing the position of the school board.

Right? That's what the minister is saying. In the absence of him really

saying something, perhaps he could clarify that.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm told what has happened in the past is that both parties — I should

say the B.C. School Trustees Association and the B.C. Teachers

Federation — have submitted lists of names of people who would be

acceptable to them as their nominees. From those lists the nominees

have been selected, and then the ministry has selected a chairman. When

I said that I thought the

section should be reviewed, I don't just mean

that it should be reviewed in the context that you mentioned. I think

that the process of appeals should be reviewed in the act generally.

MR. HOWARD: A review is fine, and legislative action is something else, and that's what we're asking.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I'm talking about legislative action in a

revision of the School Act next year, which I hope will be an extensive revision,

and won't just involve that section....

MR. LAUK: Next year.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, that would be about ten years earlier than you people got around to it.

MR. HOWARD:

That's the kind of snarky, rude remark that one could expect from a

person in that position. One should not expect it, but we do. We are

trying to deal with something of substance here — something involving a

group of people who have been denied fair treatment under the act for a

long period of time. These are people who, under the previous minister,

were able to conduct a thorough analysis of the act and make a

representation about it.

Next year is not good enough, in my opinion, to deal with unfair elements in the School Act which discriminate against

[ Page 5641 ]

people.

If that's the minister's case — that he's going to do it next year — I

suggest he do it this year, because maybe he won't be there to do it

next year and we'll then be faced with some other obscure situation

which puts things off into the future.

One aspect of the

third question I want to put to the minister involves the third person

on this panel of review. The minister said he appoints that third

person. Even though that may have been the practice in the past, I

think it is offensive to the concept of fair play, justice and equity

in these types of boards of review, arbitration boards, or anything of

that nature.

I submit that what should occur is what occurs

under other pieces of legislation where a third-party tribunal has the

opportunity to examine a conflict of opinion or grievance about

something: the two representatives of that panel of review have the

opportunity to mutually agree upon a third person. They do not have

that third person imposed upon them.

I put that to the

minister: will he depart from normal practice in the future, providing

the representatives from the aggrieved person and the school board —

however they happen to get appointed — with the opportunity to agree

mutually on a third party? If you can do it that way then you're not

subject to the charge later on that perhaps there was not partiality on

the part of the third person. Would the minister agree to alter that

policy a little bit? He doesn't need to wait for an amendment to the

School Act to do that. He can just declare it out of a sense of justice.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm already looking at doing that. I don't have any problem, if parties

can agree to a chairman mutually, with letting them select him. But if

they don't agree, somebody ultimately has to make the appointment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put it in the legislation.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Well, it isn't going into the legislation until there's a broader

revision. It doesn't need to go into legislation to do that, as this

member said. A review committee can be set up in that form. I have

absolutely no objection to the parties selecting the chairman. If they

can't select the chairman then the chairman will have to be selected by

me. But the act needs a general revision; it doesn't just need a lot of

piecemeal patching. We did bring in some revisions to some of these

procedures in the act last year, arising out of the Evans report. A

number of these things were taken care of. You can go on about this

section, hon. member, for about a half an hour, but you really don't

have to. I'm quite convinced that this

section needs some overhauling.

I'm prepared to operate in these teacher-transfers appeals in the

manner I've outlined — that is that I've said what the criteria will be

for the transfer appeal being granted and that the parties will be able

to submit lists of names of people they want to sit on there to

represent them. If they can agree on a chairman, I'm happy to take the

chairman.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the minister doesn't need to be so offensively patronizing in his response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's wait until the Chair recognizes a member. It certainly makes it easier for Hansard .

MR. LAUK:

We now hear from the minister that we're going to get a revised School

Act next year. For two years, under his predecessor. we had a promise

of a revision of the School Act and nothing happened. On page 2939 of Hansard last

year I outlined, topic for topic, the things that the minister would

find if he took his tours. All of the topics are listed in his press

release. I also told the minister what he would find under each topic:

disabled children, scholarships, pensions, portability of sick leave.

career preparation. credit allocation plan, noninstructional days,

facilities — I went on for some time on facilities — and the women's

access program. All of the Women's Access program, some of the areas

which were covered, and many more that were covered....

The

minister still has not moved in amending the School Act. The minister

still has provided inadequately for the administration of medication in

schools, and I refer the minister to the minutes of the executive

committee meeting of the B.C. Teachers Federation of November 7 to

November 8, 1980. They moved as follows:

"That

the following be adopted as interim policy on medication for

recommendation to the representative assembly: teachers have a duty to

render assistance in an emergency; teachers shall not be called on to

administer medication on a regular or predictable basis; school boards

should establish policies that require schools to establish systems for

administering medication after consultation with parents, family

physicians, the public health nurse and the medical officer of health;

the administration of medication should be the responsibility of

appropriate health personnel, except for those mature students capable

and trained in self-administration. If isolation or other exceptional

circumstances prevent the foregoing policy from being applicable, and

teachers are requested to administer medication, the following

conditions constitute prerequisites: appropriate amendments are made to

the Medical Practitioners Act; teachers volunteer to provide the

service; teachers receive training for such a service and payment for

any services rendered by teachers....."

What was the minister's response?

"Except

in emergency situations teachers should administer or supervise the

self-administration of medications to pupils only if the following

conditions are met: the medication is required..."

Isn't that brilliant'?

"...a parent has requested the school's assistance

and has signed a release; written authorization has been received from a physician;

the public health nurse — wherever she may be at the time — has been informed;

the teacher has received adequate instructions from the public health nurse

concerning the administration of the medication."

That's

pretty backwater stuff for a province the size of British Columbia, and

a pretty inept response to a problem raised by the school teachers.

Circular

144 is the only real evidence we have of the direction in which the

Ministry of Education is moving. Circular 144 has been dealt with

before. It is an authoritative school circular from the department

following upon the forums conducted by the minister, and it indicates

clearly that this department is an authoritarian, non-supportive

ministry which will continue to centralize control and absorb power

[ Page 5642 ]

unto

itself. The minister has expanded his discretion both in the use of

funds and in dictating curriculum and dictating policy throughout the

education system. Apart from what the minister has said at the forums,

he has done nothing to improve that situation and has done everything

to make it worse.

Mr. Chairman, I have challenged the

minister to respond to the criticism not only of the NDP, but of the

School Trustees Association and the B.C. Teachers Federation. It has

all been directed towards the minister's handling of school finances

and the continuation of an ancient, outdated and totally unjust

financial formula. He has failed to respond. He has not given one word

in defence of his position, and the reason is that there is no defence.

I've

looked at the minister's office and at the same time I think about the

thousands upon thousands of taxpayers who must pay taxes on the value

of their homes, which is no indication that they have the ability to

pay these taxes. I've seen the profligate waste in the ministry itself,

as opposed to the very careful budgeting going on in the school

districts. I've seen the Minister of Education and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) unfairly attack school boards

for being irresponsible with the planning of their budgets. At the same

time there is the profligate waste, the fat and the unbelievable

expenditures made by these people sitting in their stuffed leather

chairs and their fancy offices, taking expensive trips and forums

across the countryside at the expense of the taxpayer — just to find

out what we already knew. That was in Hansard , the record of

last year's session, and brought to the minister's attention by me, by

the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and others on the opposition

side. It was also brought to his attention by the School Trustees

Association and by the Teachers Federation. Yet he travelled around the

province at great public expense.

In the minister's vote

itself, I'd like to point out the increases which occurred from the

last session to this session. Travel expense has increased by $5,400,

office expense by over $2,000, and even furniture expenses have gone

up. I don't know what he bought — gold ashtrays? You should have seen

his office last year, Mr. Chairman. This minister is like the other

ministers in that cabinet. They look down on the school boards from

their fancy offices and say: "Pare your budgets. How can you be so

wasteful?" They've got 1 percent, 2 percent or 3 percent to play with

to pay for the projects that have been forced upon them, if you like,

by ministerial policy decisions. What a nerve! At the same time the

minister's office has increased in those three categories alone by

$7,950 — travel, office expense and office furniture. What a total

waste, Mr. Chairman.

Does it go to work reducing the

taxation for any homeowner in the province? No, it doesn't. Does it

provide one scholarship for one student in the province? Does it

provide one microscope, one piece of equipment in the public school

system? Does it contribute in any way to the busing and the conveyance

expense of any school district? No, it contributes only to the ego and

to the extravagance of the minister' s office. I therefore move, Mr.

Chairman, that vote 54 be reduced by an amount of $7,950

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following, division:

YEAS — 17

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

NAYS — 26

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 54 approved.

On vote 55: management operations and educational finance, $7,759,647.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, as this minister calls upon the school boards to pare

their budgets when it's next to impossible to do so, and as this

minister places upon the backs of the property owners of this province

a tremendous tax burden and pleads poverty on behalf of the provincial

treasury, will all hon. members look at vote 55 and see the tremendous

increases in expenditures in areas that should be pared back and places

where they can be pared back but the minister has failed to do so?

Travel expense is up by 33 percent to $278,000 — almost a $69,000

increase in travel expense under this vote. That's hardly necessary

unless, of course, you want to maintain a tightly knit centralized

control over the education system and you have to send your police all

over the place. Office expense is up 25 percent. Office furniture and

equipment is up, 26 percent. An increase of $69,608 in travel expense,

$43,000 in office expense and $42,000 in office furniture. I'm sure

that the civil servants in the Ministry of Education don't need the

extravagant expenditures on office furniture proposed under this vote.

In relation to this, there's an excess amount on those items alone of

$155,334. Out of an increase of $155,334, not one dime goes for

scholarships for ordinary school kids. Not one dime goes to reduce the

heavy and onerous tax burden on property owners in the province of

British Columbia. Not a nickel of that $155,334 goes to improve the bus

system in rural areas to transport children who have to walk miles to

school. Not a penny of that $155,334 goes to improve the heating system

in the schools at Fort St. James, goes to give a new gymnasium to Fort

St. James — which the ministry just turned down — or goes to build a

new school in Fort St. James — which the ministry just turned down, Not

a token of that $155,334 goes for the benefit of ordinary people

involved in the public education system.

Interjection.

[ Page 5643 ]

MR. LAUK:

I therefore move that vote 55 be reduced by an amount of $155,334,

seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom).

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: The

reason I rose was that I felt the minister had to gather his wits, and

I was just giving him some time to answer the charges laid by the first

member for Vancouver Centre. This waste has to stop, and ministers have

to defend this waste. They have to get up and tell us: how come these

enormous increases? Are you stowing it away like squirrels? You act

like one, you look like one, and now you're stowing money away like one.

Mr. Chairman, the questions that the first member for Vancouver Centre asked demand answers.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

NAYS — 26

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 55 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions. was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members. before we proceed. an incorrect message was inadvertently

presented to the House, and I would recommend, therefore, that the

proceedings earlier today relating to Bill 13 be declared null and void.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would so move.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that today's proceedings at the commencement of the sitting in relation to Bill 13 be declared null and void.

Motion approved.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill 13,

Intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981, and recommends the same

to the Legislative Assembly,

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I ask leave to move that the message and the amendments

accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having

in charge Bill 13.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same

be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled a list of the grants made under the School Act referred to and presented in committee.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada