1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5761 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Safety in highway construction. Mr. Cocke –– 5761

Mr. Lauk

B.C. Hydro lighting subsidy. Mr. Williams –– 5762

Island Pacific Breweries. Mr. Blencoe –– 5762

Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead –– 5762

Centralization of information functions. Mr. Howard –– 5763

Licence plates. Mr. Lockstead –– 5763

Ministerial Statements

Rachel Sharma. Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5763

Mr. Cocke

Medical research centre. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5764

Mr. Nicolson

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5764

Ms. Brown

Mr. Davis

Mr. Rose

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Cocke

Division

Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act (Bill 25). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5777

Mr. Blencoe –– 5777

Mr. Howard –– 5782

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5783

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the members of

the House are all aware that Mr. Steve Fonyo has passed the Great

Divide and is now in British Columbia and tracking west. I'm sure that

all members of the House wish to extend heartiest congratulations and

welcome home to a very brave and dedicated young man.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a number of people to introduce to the

House today: Richard Tallboy, president of the Gulf Islands Teachers'

Association; Warren Munch, president of the Saanich Teachers'

Association; Mavis De Girolamo, president of the Greater Victoria

Teachers' Association; Carol Pickup, chairman of the Greater Victoria

School Board; John Young and June Whitmore, trustees of the Greater

Victoria School Board; Gail Gotto, vice-president of CUPE Local 947;

Terry Smith, secretary of CUPE Local 382; and Laura Acton, president of

the Confederation of Parents' Associations of Victoria. They are all

here to listen to the debate on the Education estimates. Would the

House please make them welcome.

MR. REE: I have the pleasure today to introduce ten young,

positive, free enterprise people from Nanaimo and Cowichan who are in

the gallery above you. They are future leaders of this province. There

is Jason Morton, Kevin O'Donnell, Les Barclay, Darien Tisseur, Jim

Drummond, William Wiersma, Vic Collins, Jonathan Kinney, Richard

Wiersma and Lisa Redding. I'd ask this House to welcome these young

people to Victoria and the chamber.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition we would

like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations respecting the bravery and the success of

Steve Fonyo. We only wish that one of our members had been there to

greet him as he came across the border.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to

welcome a special person today, though he is down here to listen to the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). He is Mr. John Bergbusch,

the president of the Sooke Teachers' Association. I would like the

House to give a special welcome to him, as he is one of the newly

elected aldermen for the city of Colwood.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that Mrs. S. Harry and 28

grade 8 to 10 SHAFT junior high school students from Ioco are in the

House today. I would like the House to welcome them, and I hope that

I'll have an opportunity to meet them after question period.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are going to be 65 grade 11 students in

your gallery around 3 o'clock this afternoon. Half of these students are

from the St. Thomas More school for boys and the Marian High School for girls

in Burnaby, and the other half are from the Charlesbourg school in Quebec. I

would like the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

SAFETY IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm asleep. [Applause.] And they all agree.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a minister.... I'm just proving it every second.

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. The

government's favorite contractor, J.C. Kerkhoff and Sons, has had two

serious accidents at two different worksites on the Coquihalla Highway

project. Has the minister initiated any review of the safety practices

of Kerkhoff Contracting?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I thank the member for his question, Mr.

Speaker. I have asked the Workers' Compensation Board to ensure that

safety in the workplace be important to all areas of construction and

the workplace in British Columbia and to carry out the necessary safety

inspections on each and every project in the province.

MR. COCKE: At one of the accidents the worker was injured,

but no first aid attendant and no ambulance were present. Is J.C.

Kerkhoff Contracting entitled to operate without these safety features?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Again, I thank the member for his question.

To answer the question: no contractor in British Columbia is entitled

to special privileges. All of them will comply with the rules and

regulations of the workplace.

MR. COCKE: One last question: if the minister has obviously

asked for a report with respect to this — the situation in the

workplace vis-a-vis contractors and so on — will the minister make the

report public when he has the report at hand?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I will give that some consideration.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary to the same minister. The accident

that involved these large girders that fell down.... It was only by

sheer coincidence that no workers were in and around the area;

otherwise, serious or even fatal injury would have occurred. Am I to

take it that the minister has asked for an inquiry into that specific

accident and asked for a report back?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I think my comments to the member for New

Westminster were very clear. I will give that some consideration when

the report is available.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister asked for a specific report on those girders falling down?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: To the same minister. It's no good to have inquests

after these accidents happen, and to say: "Oh, dear." Has the minister

asked for a specific report on those girders falling down? That was my

question.

[ Page 5762 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Vancouver

Centre had any experience in the workplace, he would understand that

all accidents are investigated in British Columbia, dealing with worker

compensation matters.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was present when 28 workers at the

Second Narrows bridge were killed, when many complaints about WCB

safety and engineering faults were reported prior to the accident. I

would not like to see that happen in this situation. Can the minister

inform me that he's taking personal interest in this case to ensure

that such a tragedy does not occur?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, if the member would relate to

my work record and history, he would know that I've taken a personal

interest in safety in the workplace ever since I arrived in Canada, and

before.

MR. LAUK: The minister still has not answered my question,

Mr. Speaker. Is he refusing to say that he is taking a personal

interest and has asked for a direct report on that specific accident?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member is having a problem with my Newfoundland accent. I don't know how I can put it any clearer.

B.C. HYDRO LIGHTING SUBSIDY

MR. WILLIAMS: B.C. Hydro announced special subsidies or cut

rates for lighting up empty buildings in downtown Vancouver during the

pre-Expo period. Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources advise whether he has approved this program?

HON. MR. ROGERS: An application was made to B.C. Hydro on

behalf of the Downtown Vancouver Association to know whether or not

B.C. Hydro would cooperate with the Downtown Vancouver Association in

their program to light up buildings in the city of Vancouver. A special

rate for supplying power to those people who were involved in this

pre-Expo celebration of lighting up these buildings was proposed to the

board of directors of B.C. Hydro, who approved it and sent

recommendations to the Utilities Commission. It was approved by the

Utilities Commission, and such rate structure is now in place for

people wishing to participate in the program.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister consider a similar request

from the unemployed of British Columbia for reasonable rates from B.C.

Hydro? There are those who are more in need, Mr. Speaker. Could the

minister comment on providing help to those who have far greater needs?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I think that question begs a great deal

of discussion which might be more appropriately placed during my estimates.

I did answer the question regarding a specific rate which is quite common and

has been done in this province before as part of centennial celebrations. It

is in that light that this special rate was put in place only for that portion

of electricity which is used in an illumination process, and there is a sunset

clause in its rate structure that expires at the end of Expo.

MR. WILLIAMS: A sunset clause with respect to the unemployed

might be when we are down to something like 5 percent in the province,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: This is question period, hon. members.

ISLAND PACIFIC BREWING

MR. BLENCOE: Victoria has a question for the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Victoria has in the last few years been

establishing cottage industries, reacting to the high unemployment in

this area. One industry is Island Pacific Brewing. At the time they

negotiated to establish a brewery on Vancouver Island, the government

indicated it would review its policy and consider allowing small

regional breweries to sell draft beer in restaurants. Will the minister

advise whether he has completed that review and that these regional

breweries will be guaranteed some degree of success?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am pleased that the member raised the

question, because just recently Island Pacific Brewing opened for

business and did so under the current rules and regulations of the

Liquor Control and Licensing Act. I have had discussion with the

principals, and at the present time the policy is that draft beer is

not served in restaurants. That matter is under consideration but has

not yet been resolved, nor has the policy been changed.

MR. BLENCOE: I wonder if the minister can indicate to us when

that policy will indeed be changed, because next week Island Pacific

Brewing will have to start laying off staff. Can the minister advise

whether indeed he will soon be permitting such regional breweries to

sell in restaurants, which is critical in order for these small cottage

industries to survive and, I would say, a real alternative to providing

meaningful employment in so many regions?

HON. MR HEWITT: I appreciate your comment; it's quite valid.

But I wanted to say that the cottage brewery, Island Pacific Brewing,

incorporated and commenced business under the present rules and

regulations. They have that ability, and I'm sure are marketing their

product in a bottle; they can contract with local licensees to supply

Island Pacific products in restaurants. They're asking for the policy

to be amended to allow them to sell draft beer. Until this time that

has not been allowed, primarily because other licensees — i.e.

neighbourhood pubs and hotel pubs — have had it as their domain to

serve draft beer. The concern always has been that you may turn a

restaurant, whose prime service is serving food, into a drinking

establishment serving draft beer, keeping people in there drinking beer

and using it as a refreshment area as opposed to an eating

establishment.

But the matter is under review, Mr. Member.

OCEAN FALLS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). A former Minister of Forests, Mr. Ray

Williston, says he could turn Ocean Falls into a hub of forest activity

if he had his way. Is the minister prepared now to explain to this

House why he is standing in the way of the rebirth of that community of

Ocean Falls, and

[ Page

5763 ]

why he refused the other day to answer questions from the member for Vancouver

East on this same matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am taking no action or

failing to take action where it may be required or in any way standing

in the way of any activity at Ocean Falls, and to my knowledge I have

not refused to answer anyone's questions.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplementary. The licence holders in the

central coast area are exporting high-grade timber at a cost of local

jobs. What consideration has the minister given to allocating timber in

the central coast district in a manner which will stimulate local

employment? I'm sure the minister knows what I'm discussing.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Anyone who may be exporting timber is

doing so under the regulations which now govern the export of timber

from British Columbia. The member knows there is a procedure whereby

timber has to be advertised for sale in British Columbia. It has to

reviewed by the Log Export Advisory Committee, and only after it being

demonstrated that the timber is not currently required or needed by the

local industry can it be approved for export.

A small business enterprise program is providing considerable

opportunity for small operators and businessmen in the logging business

on the mid-coast to acquire cutting rights to Crown timber. I've only

recently added 100,000 cubic metres of undercut from established

licensees to the small business enterprise program in that area to make

sure that adequate volumes of timber are available.

CENTRALIZATION OF INFORMATION FUNCTIONS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Environment, and ask the minister if he was in agreement with

government policy.... Was he announcing government policy when he said

that the government's decision to centralize the information function

of all ministries seriously impacted a communications program of the

Ministry of Environment?

HON. MR. PELTON: The question comes as a big surprise to me, because I don't ever recall making that statement.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask the minister another question then?

Was he relating government policy when he said, with respect to the

transference to the government information services of all advertising

and publications within the ministry, that "this resulted in major

staff reductions and in the ability of the ministry to respond to

information demands."

HON. MR. PELTON: Once again, I cannot take any credit for

having made that statement. I'm sorry. I would like to know where the

hon. member got that from.

MR. HOWARD: I would ask the minister another question then. I wonder

if he would mind inquiring within his ministry then as to who it was that was

responsible for putting those words in the minister's mouth?

Would the minister inquire into his ministry as to the statements that I have just read out to him which he himself made?

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look into

the whole matter if the hon. member would provide me with the source of

his quotes.

MR. HOWARD: The quotes are contained within the annual report

of the Ministry of Environment, 1983-84, which that minister tabled in

the House not too long ago.

LICENCE PLATES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Will the minister confirm that four

different colours are required on the new licence plates for next year,

including not one but two shades of blue, and that this attempt at

sophisticated advertising has caused the plates to be shuffled around

the country, in and out of various printing operations? What is the

extra cost of this bungling in your ministry?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Mackenzie, I'm

not sure what he asked, but it was something about licence plates,

We're going to have the nicest licence plates you ever saw. They'll be

out shortly.

RACHEL SHARMA

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a short ministerial

statement. I'm sure all members of the House will be pleased to learn

today the confirmation that young Rachel Sharma has undergone surgery

at the UCLA hospital. The surgery began at approximately 5:00 a.m.

today. The surgeon advised us the operation was expected to last

between seven and nine hours.

As you would know, Mr. Speaker, Rachel is a four-and-a-half-year-old

youngster from the Island who has been waiting for two and a half years

for a suitable donor liver for a transplant. The youngster was rushed

by air to Los Angeles to receive the surgery, which had to be

undertaken within six hours of the death of the donor. Ministry of

Human Resources is assisting the family with financial support for

travel, hotel costs and babysitting. A local private fund is also

contributing to assist with expenses. All costs of surgery and

hospitalization will be borne by the Ministry of Health through the

Medical Services Plan and hospital programs. These costs are estimated

to be approximately $100,000 U.S. British Columbia, in conjunction with

the federal government and other provinces, is studying the best way to

provide organ transplants. We're hopeful that in future, cooperatively

with the other western provinces, the services will be provided closer

to home.

Mr. Speaker, we will be in contact with the family. I'm sure everyone wishes the youngster well.

MR. COCKE: On behalf of the opposition, we also wish the

youngster well. We also would like to have a fuller discussion on this

whole question under the minister's estimates, vis-a-vis who we pay for

and who we don't pay for outside the province, and the amounts that we

pay. One thing we've learned from these cases is that a significant

number of people are not bothering to place either on their driver's

[ Page 5764 ]

licence or whatever or instruct their families that

their organs should be available for transplanting if they should meet

with an unfortunate death. I think that that's something that we should

all be pressing for in this country. It bodes well for U.S.-Canadian

relations in that it seems to me that people are free-flowing back and

forth across the border for these very important operations. I do think

that that's marvellous, but we should also contribute to the extent

that we can as a smaller nation. That should be pressed for.

MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a brief ministerial statement.

Yesterday the government of British Columbia, in conjunction with

the Welcome Foundation from the United Kingdom and the Terry Fox

Medical Research Foundation, announced the establishment of a

biomedical research institute to be located at the University of

British Columbia, financed by approximately $31 million which will come

from the Welcome Foundation, from scientific research credits, from a

repayable loan from the British Columbia Development Corporation and

from the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation to create in our

province a new institute, staffed possibly by as many as 100 scientists

and research staff, to investigate new methods for the treatment of

cancer, viral diseases and other illnesses.

I should say that as an ancillary outcome of our development of this

project, British Columbia will have in the future a significant

presence in the pharmaceutical industry. We anticipate that a product

licence application for interferon which will be the main

pharmaceutical line for our company, Pacific Isotopes and

Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of the Terry Fox Medical Research

Foundation, will be made possibly within a month and probably within

two months. It's an important day both industrially and for medical

research in British Columbia. An international scientific team has been

assembled to choose the director of this institute, and we anticipate

that it will be one of the most powerful investigative institutes in

the world to took at new treatments for cancer.

[2:30]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party welcomes

the announcement of a new bio-medical research centre, but we would

hope and caution that the government remain firm in its commitment,

unlike other announcements. Announcements are very easily made, but

commitments are more difficult to keep. I would hope that this

government would keep the commitments that have been announced here

today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 17: minister's office, $179,543.

MS. BROWN: I want to speak to the minister specifically about the role

and the importance of education in the lives of women, and see whether he can

answer some specific questions and respond to some very specific recommendations

about how this can be improved.

With the increase in unemployment and the tight economic times, we

are finding that more and more women are returning to community

colleges and to training institutions to upgrade their skills or to

acquire skills so that they can be better able to support themselves.

It seems that this is the worst time possible for colleges like

Kwantlen College and other community colleges to be cutting back on

some of these very important courses which women need. As the minister

will remember, the women's access program, which was introduced by his

government into the system some years ago, operated as counsellors and

gave guidance and assistance to women in terms of what kinds of courses

were available to them and how best they could use these courses. Most

of those women's access programs have disappeared, and now we find that

the Employment Alternatives for Women program at Kwantlen, one of the

few remaining programs, is also in jeopardy.

I know the minister is going to respond that the decision about

whether to eliminate these programs or not is made by the universities

and colleges themselves. However, in every instance we are told by

these institutions that they have no choice; that as a direct result of

budgetary cuts they find themselves having to eliminate these programs.

So my first question to the minister is whether he has considered any

way of protecting these very special programs in terms of reintroducing

the women's access programs and looking at programs such as Employment

Alternatives for Women at Kwantlen to see if there is some way that the

programs can be protected from cuts when the institutions are trying to

stay within their budgets.

The second question that I want to put to the minister has to do

with the scholarship scheme which was reannounced in the throne speech

of this year. At that time it was said that this scheme would reward

students with merit and achievement. I'm wondering whether built into

the criteria for the program are any safeguards to ensure that women

applying for these scholarships are treated equally in terms of their

proportion in the population; in other words, in view of the fact that

there could be something in the neighbourhood of 52 percent to 48

percent of women to men in the school population, whether that's taken

into account when the scholarships are being awarded.

My third question to the minister — and I'm pleased that he's

writing these down so that I'll get a response — is that this province

is the only one in Canada that has an all-debt student assistance

program. Statistics Canada reports that women have a much more

difficult time utilizing such a program because they are primarily

poorer and therefore are limited in terms of their loan repayment

capabilities. I don't know whether the minister has taken that into

account or not, but I'm wondering whether as one way of marking the end

of the United Nations Decade for Women the minister has decided to make

special provisions in this all-debt student aid scheme to ensure that

the financial barriers to women having equal opportunity to this scheme

are eliminated.

The fourth question, Mr. Chairman, which I'd like to put to the

minister has to do with the access that women in receipt of income

assistance have to colleges and universities. The

[ Page

5765 ]

rules and policy regulations of the Ministry of

Human Resources are that if such a person enters university or a

community college they are no longer eligible for income assistance.

This is a very short-sighted policy, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to

me that the government would be better off to continue to pay income

assistance to a person who is trying to acquire skills so that they can

get off income assistance, than to deprive them of that opportunity by

saying that if they attend a college, university or some other training

institution, they no longer will receive their income assistance

payments. When one looks at the statistics and sees how many of these

women are single parents, and how important and vital the income

assistance payments are to them, it seems that they are being penalized

rather than being assisted to become full contributing members to our

society.

So my question to the Minister of Education is whether the Ministry

of Education has discussed this matter with the Ministry of Human

Resources, or whether the Ministry of Education itself has devised some

means to make it possible for single parents or even single women

without children — widows or whatever — who are presently in receipt of

income assistance and would like to upgrade their skills or acquire

training or education...whether there is some system whereby they would

continue to receive assistance from the government, either through the

Ministry of Education or through the Ministry of Human Resources.

Those are my four questions as it applies to women,

Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague the member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) raised a number of questions about the situation in

School District 41, the Burnaby School District. However, I had the

opportunity last Saturday to spend a couple of hours with 12 grade 11

and grade 12 students, and they raised some concerns about the impact

that the education cutbacks were having on them, and I want to share

those with the minister. Insecurity was the number one issue which they

raised — the fact that it was possible to register for a course, do a

couple of weeks in the course and then be told that there were too many

students registered and therefore a number of them would have to leave

that course, and the period of time that was put in would then be lost.

And the other side of the coin: to register for a course and after two

or three weeks be told that since there were only 17 students

registered for that particular course, it wouldn't be eligible for a

teacher, and therefore the course would be discontinued. The students

said they found it very difficult to involve themselves in any sort of

long-term planning in terms of university entrance or further education

because of the insecurity of not knowing whether a course, once

introduced, would be continued.

The other point the students raised was that the courses which would

prepare them for entering the labour market on graduation were the very

courses being cut by the school system. The courses in the clerical

area, in industrial education, vocational courses which would mean that

on graduation from grade 12 they could immediately move into a job

search and hopefully into a job: those were the courses cut. They

wondered whether the ministry took that into account and had any way of

building any security or protection into these courses.

They found that the backup resources which they needed in many instances were

no longer there. Certainly they were finding that the increased number of students

in the classroom, contrary to the comments made earlier by members on the government

side, was having a negative impact on them: they were not able to get as much

of the teacher's time as was necessary in some of these very difficult university

entrance courses they were taking. So they asked me to share those views with

the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the opening

comments by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I'm not in a position.... I

was just waiting for one of my officials to come in, involving the

access of women in receipt of income assistance to a post-secondary

institution. As I recall, there was a program, and I don't remember it

being abandoned or discharged or eliminated. I've forgotten exactly how

much money was involved. This is one of the particulars I'm waiting

for, so I'm not really in a position to answer, but I will answer more

fully later when he arrives.

On the first item involving Kwantlen College, the answer I will give

is obviously the one you expect me to give. I'm not interfering with

the courses being offered at the colleges. I've made mention before

that something like 34 percent of the core is directed by the ministry.

All of the rest is a matter of administration and direction by the

college board. So if they happen to have dropped a particular program —

and I believe you referred to it as a women's access program — it may

very well have been that the demand was not there.

The problem which has been advanced to me on innumerable occasions

by college administrators is the matter of the problem which they have

in filling, collectively, a good number of courses which are offered

throughout the entire regional college system. When enrolment is down,

they are going to readdress the necessity for delivering some of those

subjects.

The other item. It is true that we eliminated grants to students.

What we did provide were interest-free loans for a considerable period

of time, and they are not subject to repayment until, I think, six

months after graduation, which I think is fair enough. Also, the rules

have been relaxed, and one of the reasons that I did relax the rules

was that as far as the provincial participation in the loan scheme was

concerned, we had put it at 80 percent and not at 60 percent as it had

been. The reason for it is that sometimes it's difficult for those who

are enrolled in a program to take more than three courses. In other

words, four courses is pushing a full-year load, and many who wish to

take three would take those three and probably often be employed

elsewhere. So their timetable would be filled, both going to school and

working.

[ 2:45]

1 think that it must be remembered that as a result of the

provincial role it did not affect in any way whatsoever — including

eligibility — the amount of funding which was made available through

the federal loan program. I know that to be a fact, because of the

demands which were coming in and the amount of money which was in fact

loaned by the federal government. The figures which I had in 1982-83

were that 18,900 students received approximately $31.3 million in

federal loans. In the following year, 1983-84, there were 18,500

students — a drop of 400 students only — and the amount they received

in federal loans was $47.7 million. So we know that the students were

taking full advantage of the loans which were made available. The only

difference is this: the loans which were being taken down from the

federal government increased considerably, and I think that increase

was due only partially to the fact that we had eliminated the grant

portion in 1983-84.

[ Page 5766 ]

1 recognize that the member met with some students, and you raised

some of the points that they were concerned about in Burnaby, but I'm

wondering if the cases to which you were referring were really rather

the exception than the rule. The reason I raise that is this. Burnaby,

as we all know, is an area that has suffered a significant decline in

enrolment. It's gone from approximately 19,400 in 1981 to today.... The

September enrolment for 1984-85 was slightly over 17,000, and even for

the September 1985 enrolment we're projecting a reduction again. Even

the PTR in the Burnaby School District for 1984 was 17.1; and of course

that is well beneath the provincial average. So my concern is this: a

PTR that small often reflects quite a significant spread within the

school district. Also, a PTR of 17.1 would indicate to me that there

are a significant number of staff members. So the average which we're

looking at in 1984 is really at the low level in British Columbia. I'm

wondering whether or not the concerns which they have were isolated

cases.

The other item which I would think about is that it's my

understanding that school administrators, particularly on the education

side, spend a great deal of time planning, and it's not just month by

month or semester by semester, but over a period of two or three years.

I think that that type of planning is essential because of the very

nature of the programs which are being offered. Many students are

relying upon prerequisites from one year to the next, and that should

remain in place.

If the member just.... One moment; I want to get a response to that question.

The concern that we had on women's access with respect to women's

coordinators.... The funding that we provided was for a period of three

years, and after that the decision was left to the local board. If they

wish to fund, as boards will make determinations in the rural part of

British Columbia to fund a satellite college campus, that's up to them.

The amount of money added to each college board this year was $2.4

million. The allocations obviously depended on the size of the

institute and the number of people attending their courses — the 1

percent based on the original 95 percent budget. So there may very well

have been funds for them.

It seems to me that the cost of employing a women's coordinator

would not be a very significant portion of the budget, as with any

particular instructor. If they wish to make it available, that's

entirely up to them. I am told there have been discussions with the

staff of the Ministry of Human Resources, but there has not yet been a

solution involving the matter of those in receipt of income.

I would like to tell the member that I'm going to follow that one

through, and I'll tell you why. You have advised the House that

somebody in receipt of assistance would not, as a result of enrolling

at a post-secondary institution, be qualified to receive that

assistance. If that's the case, it's something that I think I ought to

have a good look at. What are you going to do? They're not working, so

they're in receipt of assistance. Because they wish to take a course,

or two or three, and get a second shot at a career or life, I find it

difficult to understand why that wouldn't be available to them. So

leave that one with me. I'm going to take an interest in that.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, about the last issue, I just want to tell the

minister that this is not a new problem at all. This is how I made my living

before coming into politics: working as a counsellor at Simon Fraser University

with people in receipt of income assistance who wanted to go to university.

As soon as the ministry discovered they were in university, they were cut off.

My responsibility was to draw up a financial fact sheet to show the then Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, Mr. Gaglardi, that it would cost the

government more to turf them out of university and keep them on income assistance

until their kids were old enough to support themselves, rather than permitting

them to finish their courses.

So this is something that's been going on for a number of years, and

it's never made any sense whatsoever to me. However, I've heard both

sides of the argument, which is that when you're on income assistance

you're supposed to be out looking for a job or something; you're not

supposed to be trying to improve your academic qualifications. If you

can run that one past the minister and resolve it, I think you would

save the government a lot of money out of the income assistance budget,

and it would certainly benefit a lot of people.

Just very quickly in response to your statement about the students I

met with, they represented six different schools. I asked for

representatives from different schools. In fact, when you look at the

pupil-teacher ratio in Burnaby, you find that it has been getting

worse. Even though enrolment has been going down, the staff have been

cut at a faster pace. In 1981 it was 16.4; in 1982, 16.8; in 1983,

16.8; now it's up to 17.2. As a matter of fact, the "School Talk"

brochure tells us that the average elementary class size is at the

highest level in nine years. So compared with the rest of the province

it may not be so bad, but compared with what Burnaby used to be,

apparently it's worse; the pupil-teacher ratio and class size is worse

than it was in 1976. The result is what the students are saying: that

some of their classes are too large, and some of their classes are too

small. They register for a course, and they never know from one week to

another whether the course is going to continue.

The final thing about the women's access program is that the answer

you gave me is exactly the answer I knew you would give me, because

it's the same answer I've got from other Ministers of Education. What

I'm saying is that the ministry has to aggressively protect these

programs. They can't be treated exactly the same as other programs,

because, of course, the boards will cut them; when there is a budgetary

squeeze, they're going to disappear. What I am asking the minister to

do is make some kind of commitment to do more than just what is

required and aggressively protect these programs, taking into account

that it's one of the only avenues that women have to get out of the

kind of poverty cycle that so many of them find themselves in.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would just like to raise a couple of

items with the member. I understand that we did something with the

program to which you are referring. We took parallel measures with the

Unemployment Insurance Commission. Officials of the Ministry of

Education worked out a program with the federal government so that

those who are on UIC could go to school. But I understand that there

was some limitation on the time for which somebody could be enrolled,

which makes some degree of sense.

The other item is, I think, a little bit different, and it's

something we should look at. I understand that the issue to which you

refer must have been in place for a long time, because you went back to

referring to....

Interjection.

[ Page

5767 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I wasn't. It goes back some way, and

I'm just wondering why there has never been this change. Now that you

have raised that, it seems to me there was a golden opportunity.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I give you a commitment that I'm going to look into that matter again.

Mr. Chairman, could I point out just one closing figure on this?

Burnaby has had a difficult problem. There were 23,000-plus students in

1976. The PTR then, by the way, was 18.08. In September of 1984 we're

looking at something in the order of 17,000 students, and we've got a

PTR of 17.1. So it has been difficult for the Burnaby School Board. It

has been difficult because they have addressed the matter of school

closures. You know, that's never an easy task at the best of times. But

they have done so, and it seems to me that there have been nine

instances where they have done it — and I think they're to be

commended. It's just a function of enrolment. It has declined

considerably. I think the greatest decline in enrolment on a school

basis, percentage-wise, probably occurred in Burnaby. You may be

competing with North Vancouver as well. But even when we look at

Vancouver, where there has been, I think, a decline of something like

12,000 or 13,000 over a similar period of time, percentage-wise, you've

probably experienced one of the greatest....

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry: 1979, not 1976. That's all.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak briefly about

special needs. Various statements have been made in the Legislature,

principally by members opposite, to the effect that special needs,

particularly those of the mentally handicapped and including those of

language, require smaller class sizes; and because smaller classes have

to be created for that purpose, we can't use the global parameters, the

student-teacher ratio, as some measure of the moneys that school

districts should otherwise receive. In fact, as I understand it, there

is a well-defined program covering students with special needs, and, as

a broad generalization, three times as much money is provided by the

ministry for special-needs students to look after those requirements.

In other words, a school district with a high number of special-needs

children, whether their handicap be mental or physical or geographic,

does receive more money, does receive roughly three times as much money

as it would otherwise receive for a typical student. Therefore to claim

that, first, the special needs of certain students is ignored is wrong,

and secondly, that more money should be flowing to some of our school

districts on account special needs being ignored is faulty. It isn't

true. Special needs are covered.

Roughly speaking, 6 percent of those attending our provincial

schools are classed as special-needs students. A large proportion of

are some 15,000 of those in the province, 10,000 of whom are in

Vancouver city. There are some 15,000 native Indian children whose

educational costs are funded by the federal government; they're also in

that category. In the order of 0.5 percent of the special-needs

children are in the category of mentally disadvantaged. It is a

category, and it is recognized. These special needs are recognized;

they have been recognized in the past ten years. They've been

recognized specifically by the ministry and by the government since the

present government returned to power. This is after the period in which

the New Democratic Party were in office. They didn't have programs of

that kind specifically defined and financed through the provincial

treasury. I simply wanted to make that point.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Changing the subject to teachers' salaries, the North Vancouver

School District 44 trustees were in the building today. One of the

concerns they have — this concern must be common to all other school

districts — is the manner in which teachers' salaries, indeed all

salaries related to primary and secondary education, will be determined

in the future. Historically there were negotiations between the school

districts and the various employee groups on a district-by-district

basis. There was arbitration in cases where there was not agreement

otherwise. Latterly, with the introduction of the provincial limited

compensation program, these negotiations, while they've occurred and

produced nominal increases, have been denied by Mr. Peck and his

office. Of course, the question is now being asked, and it's asked with

some force in an editorial in the Vancouver Province today: why

go through all these motions when no increase will be allowed after all

the negotiations have taken place? I'm sure the minister has ideas in

this connection. I'm certain that the government, over the next few

months, will come up with an answer to that question.

I might point out, in passing, the problem that the school trustees

in North Vancouver face. Up until 1981 the school trustees, in concert

with the mayor and aldermen of North Vancouver city and district,

negotiated the wage increases and conditions of employment with CUPE

employees jointly. After 1981 they went their separate ways. As a

result of the recent rulings of Mr. Peck, the employees of the school

district are falling behind in rates of pay, even though they perform

similar and in many cases identical functions, services or jobs, and

there is now of the order of a 4 percent disparity in North Vancouver.

That situation does present problems for our school trustees when they

come to negotiate compensation again next year. I thought I should

mention that problem.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a word about foreign

students. Statistics Canada tells us that there are some 8,000

full-time and part-time foreign students attending educational

institutions in British Columbia today. Of those some 2,000 are at our

universities. First I'd like to know basically what the policy of the

ministry is with respect to foreign students. I'd like to know

particularly what the policy is with regard to public schools — those

financed totally by our British Columbia taxpayers.

I'd like to draw the members' attention to a recent release from

Vancouver Community College, which I believe is fully funded by the

government. This release says:

"In March Vancouver Community College took

part in an educational

fair in Hong Kong, along with 31 other institutions from Canada, the United

States, Switzerland, England and Australia. The college's director of international

education, Norm Henderson, reported more than 16,000 visitors attended the

three day fair. This fall, for the first time, the college will

[ Page 5768 ]

open its doors to about 50 overseas students from Hong Kong,

who will take high school completion through the college foundations division

of King Edward campus. In addition, overseas students can now compete for positions

in other college programs. All programs for foreign students are offered on

a cost-recovery basis. That is, there is no government subsidy to offset the

tuition paid by the individual."

First I'd like to know whether that is government policy. I've heard

that the school trustees in West Vancouver are interested in filling up

some of their classes with students from overseas, the condition being

that these students pay average cost; in other words, that they pay in

full for their tuition in grades 11 and 12 — certainly grade 12. A

number of private organizations are now operating in the province. One

example is New Summits University College, which says in a recent

release that its fees are somewhat less than those proposed for

Vancouver Community College. It says that like Vancouver Community

College, the courses will carry the same provincial government

examination requirements and university transfer credit standings as

those conducted by the public colleges: namely, colleges like Vancouver

Community College.

I, for one, am for offering tuition to foreign students. And I'm not

talking about landed immigrants. I'm not talking about those who have

arrived and requested Canadian citizenship, but foreign students pure

and simple — if we have extra space and if there is no additional cost

to the taxpayer. But that is a condition: they must pay average cost,

or indeed should pay incremental cost if there is any incremental cost

involved. The door is opened in an interesting way to cheaper education

for these young people, because the great majority of them intend to go

on to university. I know that a sizeable number have come in and paid

average cost at our private institutions for grades 11 and 12 — some of

them just for grade 12. They buy a B.C. high school diploma and then in

effect disappear into the woodwork. They become British Columbians;

they enter our universities; they pay our low university fees. If they

continue to claim foreign status, they still pay only a fraction of

cost at the university level.

So our public schools — public and private, government-owned and otherwise —

can have a field day. They can shop around the world and say, "Yes, we'll

charge average cost for grade 12," but the big deal is to go to our universities

at a fraction of the true cost of education. B.C. is thereby advertising to

the world that you get a university education at a bargain basement price, as

compared to the cost of tuition at most universities in other parts of the world.

Private universities naturally have to charge average cost. Universities in

western Europe, almost uniformly now, charge average cost for all foreign students.

A Canadian wanting to go to one of the universities in western Europe typically

will pay at least $10,000 a year to attend courses at those overseas institutions

of higher learning,

whereas a foreign student coming to British Columbia can

get by with $1,500, or something of that order — an amount over and above what

B.C. student pay, but only a small amount over and above what they pay There

is another consideration. In many countries, very few of those leaving grade

12 or form 4 — whatever the relevant level when one completes secondary school

— can get into the local universities. There is limited capacity. In Hong Kong

there is room for 2 percent at most of those graduating from form 4 to get into

university. But they can skip across the Pacific to British Columbia, and if

indeed their form 4 certificate in Hong Kong is not good enough, they can get

a B.C. certificate in short order and then get into our universities, et cetera

— which apparently are begging for more students — at a fraction of cost.

So I would like to end by asking the minister what is really the

policy of his ministry. Are we insisting that foreign students pay

average cost — grades 11 and 12 — and is there any monitoring

whatsoever of these people as they go on to our low-cost, highly

subsidized post-secondary institutions in this province?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make a very short statement with respect to the youngster.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have just been advised by the UCLA

hospital that young Rachel Sharma came through the operation. It was

deemed to be a success and she is reported in satisfactory condition.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour has made some valid points — some valid to the extent

that I would agree; others I am not so sure about. One of the things I

could never understand was when I saw the vitality and the strength of

the economy, and the tremendous commerce which is occurring in

Singapore and in Hong Kong. It's beyond me, with the amount of capital

captured in those markets, why they cannot provide more institutions of

higher learning for their own citizens. It's totally beyond me. Is

their policy not to train as many as they have the financial capability

of doing, or are they doing to us what we as a province did to our own

people who wanted to take vocational training and become journeymen in

any of the crafts?

It would seem to be easier for us in British Columbia and in Canada

to pirate from Europe, primarily, our journeyman than to train them at

home. It was easier and it was cheaper, and you could get the commodity

that you required post haste. That doesn't justify what occurred. But I

don't think that we are really without fault in the overall spectrum.

[3:15]

The member made reference to a meeting which he had with his school

board today. I have said before that collective bargaining — or one

step further, should that not succeed in resolution of an agreement....

Arbitration is available, but arbitration is not mandatory. We were

faced with this particular problem in the choices which we have. This

is one of the reasons why we've had such a wide debate throughout the

community in the last few months. Our teachers, to have full collective

bargaining.... Implicit in that is that they would come under the

Labour Code of British Columbia, and therefore the right to strike....

Or is there to be compulsory arbitration?

We can't have it both ways. If there is to be compulsory arbitration, we

as a government said that we cannot continue to afford to pay the arbitrated

awards which were coming down the pike; hence the introduction of the compensation

stabilization system. That's what we're faced with. I think that we're

going to have to see, after a great deal of thought is given to the problem

this spring and summer.... I'm interested in seeing what the report

will suggest, because that report is to contain a reflection of the views of

our community at large.

[ Page

5769 ]

On the colleges, with respect to foreign students, the policy is

that any foreign student who attends one of the regional colleges pays

the full cost. That full cost is paid for usually by the government of

the country from where that student comes. There is an exchange

relationship as well, if we have students from here who wish to go to

another country. The policy is that the government.... As a matter of

fact, there is a pilot program, and I think the member referred to it,

at Vancouver Community College, where, I am advised, they will be

paying the average cost — and that's the full cost — of instruction. In

the college system I think it is probably around $4,900 a year. I will

not make comment on universities, because that does not come under my

portfolio, but the colleges do.

There is another policy which we have as well, and that is that even

a foreign student who wishes to enrol in one of our colleges cannot

bump a Canadian student.

In the school system, under our legislation, a school board is

obligated to provide instruction to any bona fide resident, as defined

by the federal law in those supporting regulations. If a student

appears at the school board and claims entry, this is allowed. Boards

do not have administrative or legal capacity to determine legitimacy of

residency. They don't have it. So it's left to the federal government.

I think there's something that perhaps we ought to keep in mind as

well. I know that there is considerable cost involved, particularly in

parts of British Columbia where there is a heavy influx of immigrant

students. I suppose it comes down to a matter of social policy. It

seems that if the most senior level of government is prepared to open

the borders and allow entry to our country, we as a provincial

government must provide those services to students of immigrant

families. There isn't any question that there is a cost involved, and

it's a significant cost. But I would like to think that we are a

country that has some degree of wealth and a standard of living which

is quite acceptable, and I think it's obligatory upon us to provide

service to those students.

I think that covers the items on here. On one of the items with

respect to special needs, the amount of money — and I've said this

before — which is going into special education is well in excess of

$200 million annually. It's treated separately; it's funded separately.

Interestingly enough, when we look at the service levels under the

fiscal framework, you will find that they take into consideration in

some detail the needs of a special category of student. It's a very

expensive item.

By the way, to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, when we take

into consideration the learning assistance programs, in addition to

those which most would just look by visibly viewing — those which

require special needs — the percentage is probably closer to 10 percent

to 12 percent than it is to 6 percent. I don't think there would be any

benefit to going through the service levels on special needs right now,

but if the member is desirous of a copy — perhaps he already has it —

of the service levels which we have published through the public school

system, I'd be quite prepared to leave it with him.

MR. DAVIS: Just one point. Statistics Canada annually carries out a

survey of the origins, wealth, destination, courses, etc., taken relating to

foreign students in Canada. The great bulk of the foreign students coming to

Canada come from well-to-do families. They are not on government scholarships;

they are not on government grants. They come here because they can get into

our schools, and particularly into our college and university system, and they

often come because their parents have similarly benefited in the past from overseas

education. We're not talking about special needs students in the sense of

their being disadvantaged in any way. They are the well-to-do. Around the North

Shore where I live, I could name at least a dozen locations where numbers of

foreign students live, and they drive Mercedes, etc., to the university, and

so on. They are not poor students. So the great bulk of the foreign students,

as distinct from landed-immigrant students, come from well-to-do families.

MR. ROSE: I would just like to comment on a couple of things

mentioned by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. According to the

information that I have — at least in one college — at a recent PDK

conference attended by the assistant deputy minister and I last

Saturday morning, one of the sessions was given by the head of

Malaspina College. He made a big point about the entrepreneurial nature

of the internationalism in Malaspina. He made the point that they make

$50,000 to $100,000 per year on their international services. I asked

him whether or not he wasn't concerned that the more money he made the

more he would lose from the Ministry of Education by carrying on that

way. He might get so competent that the Ministry would get off the hook

entirely, just as it has with universities, and get all its funds from

the kids or the feds, which would be a delightful dream. I imagine the

Minister of Education would enjoy that.

I won't go into all the things that they did, because this whole

debate bristles with so many topics that we haven't even really touched

on. We haven't really touched on ESL. I haven't really touched on the

colleges, and there are a great number of other things. Maybe we tend

to gravitate toward those things that tend to be more dramatic, but

there are all kinds of things.

I receive briefs all the time from districts talking about the

effects of the cutbacks within their district. I know that the lobby

groups that come here are rather anxious that I put these into the

record. It's impossible, even though the minister knows that we've been

at this for a little more than a week now. Total number of sessions

isn't very much. The total number of hours for such a budget for public

schools, which amounts to $1 billion and another $500 million on the

various colleges, is probably not too much time for an opposition and

government to talk about these things.

A journalist — a newsperson — suggested this morning that a lot of

good things have come out of this debate, and I said: "Well, that's

interesting. How come you haven't printed any of them?" So I thanked

her. When I left her, I said: "Well, keep up the fair work."

There are all kinds of other things that we could talk about. The

psychologists have sent me a brief showing that because of very

difficult social concerns and lifestyle problems — not only ESL but

unemployment, single-parent families and all the rest of it — there's a

crying need for child psychologists. Youth suicide rate is up and youth

drug participation may be up. I don't know. Anyway we're way below. The

American psychologists' organization says you should have one

psychologist for every 2,500 students. In Vancouver today we're running

about one to every 3,193 students.

You can go through all kinds of things and make comparisons like

that. But there are a great number of people out there in the

constituency — and I'm talking about the general public — interested in

education, mental health, human

[ Page 5770 ]

rights and anti-discrimination, and a whole myriad

of people are really anxious and look to the schools for some help. So

it isn't just the schools' duty or obligation, as the minister and his

officials there well know, in today's society to teach the three Rs.

There's a much greater load in terms of socializing and mental health

and a number of other things, even including nutrition and food, that

the schools are asked to do today, for a clientele that goes up in

terms of retention rate. I believe, it is around 92 percent who go

right through school, compared to say 20 percent or even less than that

in my day.

There are lots of things we could talk about. I would like, though,

to make a little correction to what the minister said this morning. My

researchers tell me that contrary to what the minister said, that B.C.

has fewer school-aged children than any other province, my information

is — it may be a little bit picky — that Alberta has fewer, and most of

the provinces have a very, very similar per pupil school-aged children.

So to say that you could justify the cut in educational expenditures on

the basis merely of the numbers I don't think is justified.

[3:30]

The Canadian average of the budget spent on education is 21 percent.

B.C. is spending 15 percent. If the minister wanted to know the average

population of school-aged children for each of the provinces, he's

welcome to it. I won't attempt to read it into the record. But I did

want to make the point clear that B.C. is not significantly lower. As a

matter of fact, it isn't even the lowest; it's second to Alberta. But

the averages are roughly the same. They're all in the low twenties or

thereabouts.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, but most of them are under 30 percent. But the

budget cuts have been about 20 percent. I don't know how you can relate

those two, and I haven't had time to think about it.

I want to ask the minister, though, about a few things. Some of us

are concerned when we look at the flow sheets of the department over

the years. There seems to be a change away from the department emphasis

on programming and school services and social services and educational

services into the number crunchers, an emphasis on those people whose

primary concern really is educational finance, not education itself. If

you look at the flow sheets you'll see quite a change.

In 1981 in the old department we had a management operations department with

five subsections, a school department, field services, special ed and teacher

services. The post-secondary one had responsibilities for colleges and continuing

education, an educational finance department with the ADM being the ministry's

chief financial officer. In 1983 the organization has changed. The management

operation, educational finance were now a two-headed hydra losing their separate

identities. In 1984, more propaganda machine for information services reported

directly to the deputy minister along with an internal audit branch. Then in

1985, the educational finance function was taken over directly by the deputy

minister's office under a new umbrella called policy and planning. Well,

that's interesting. I would recommend that to the department, policy and

planning. I don't think we've heard enough about that. We've heard

all kinds of things about money, but we haven't really talked very much

about educational policy and planning — save, in effect, the new grad requirements

which contradict the "Let's Talk About Schools", "Do we need

more diversity".... The minister and the department are taking away diversity

in the schools. It isn't adding to it, unless diversity can only be under

the umbrella of separate or independent schools. But within the high schools,

within the public system, there's less diversity, not a greater amount than

there was five years ago.

Anyway, I'm concerned that the new organization is much more highly

politicized than the old one, and I think that they have to bear a lot

of responsibility for the box that the school boards are finding

themselves in and the conflicting space standards contained in the new

schools facilities manual. I can go on and on about that.

But the box that the boards are in is a very serious one, and to

this date no board.... At least the Victoria board just reported to me

a half an hour ago that they had not received any instructions from the

ministry as to how to grapple with the catch-22 which I talked about

yesterday between the Curtis directive, the minister, the

responsibilities under the contract with their teachers and also the

responsibilities under the School Act and whatever role the

Compensation Stabilization Commission takes in this whole mess.

So I think that maybe a little policy and planning might be in order

there. Here the Shuswap teachers ask, since Mr. Heinrich has suggested

that they want more money in the classroom.... I want the minister to

note this, and maybe he can answer it when he gets up. Should a

district manage to reduce its administration expenses, would the money

saved be available to retain teachers? For example, if an assistant

superintendent went on leave of absence, could the school board use the

superintendent's salary to retain classroom teachers rather than hire

temporary replacements? That wouldn't downsize the system, though.

That answers the question. I don't know if it went into Hansard , but the minister answered in the affirmative: yes, they could use it for another purpose in the school.

The ministry has published the new school buildings manual, and I

would like whichever one of Larry, Moe or Curly over there who is

responsible for that side of it.... Well, that's better than yesterday.

You know what you were yesterday, or at least what you suggested you

might be if the minister really did run that house that I accused him

of, or of being the piano-player anyway.

The ministry has published a school buildings manual. All the

drawings showing the class sizes, arrangement and sizes have been

removed. All the sizes of the arrangements of rooms and drawings have

gone. And so what we have instead is some rather contradictory

standards. I'd like to talk just a little bit about those, and here are

the ones. Sections 2.23 and 3.8 say that the area of each main

classroom shall not be less than 80 square metres.

Section 3.8 also

says that in an elementary school there should be 2.8 square metres per

student. But

section 3.8 also says that while the local school board

has discretion, each main classroom should be capable of accommodating

at least 35 pupils. Problem: if you have 2.8 square metres given to

each elementary student, then only 28.6 students can fit into a

standard 80-square-metre classroom, or if 2.8 square metres is to be

allowed each student, then 98-square-metre classrooms must be provided.

If 40 students are to be crammed into a class, then 112 square metres

must be provided. Well, I don't know what the message is from the

ministry. If we insist on 2.8 square metres for each elementary

student, should school boards ignore this

[ Page

5771 ]

and cram 35 more students into the classroom? Well,

you see these are the confounding things that the boards are going to

be up against.

AN HON. MEMBER: Translate that into rods and furlongs.

MR. ROSE: Well, I can't do that; I can't even fathom it.

I'd like to know whether the 35 which is suggested by this thing —

whether this edict relates to the fiscal framework. I don't know what

the next revision in the fiscal framework will be, but maybe it's going

to be allowing 35 students in the elementary school for one teacher,

which is a cut of 30 percent. So if the deputy minister wants to get

this little note that I read for the reply, he's quite welcome to come

over here and get it, if he's allowed on this side of the House. We're

not allowed any experts over on this side of the House except the

speaker.

Here's another one for policy and planning. Here's an impact of new

graduation requirements on small secondary schools. Now here's the

problem. Small secondary schools are not able to teach all the course

options available compared to larger schools. That's obvious. Maybe

that's the reason why we have fewer and fewer course options available.

Ministry officials do not understand the problem, claim some people. If

a student has a single course conflict or deficiency, that student may

not be able to graduate.

Listen to this: The ministry recommends that in a business program,

some students. The ministry recommends consumer ed 11 be taken in the

grade 12 year. It gets more electives into grade 11, but if the student

fails this one course, he can't graduate. How could the ministry

program this student into organization and management 12 without a

grade 11 prerequisite — either business 11 or marketing 11, according

to the graph circular? How could the student be programmed into both

typing 12 and office procedures 12, since there are no such courses as

typing 12...? This was outlined in the minister's letter.

"Office Procedures has now replaced...." How can the ministry say

that communications 12 is acceptable for entering into most community colleges,

when the colleges refused to confirm that — allowing communications 12 as acceptable

— as recently as two weeks ago? How can high school teachers help the students

plan their careers when the ministry itself — and I have the letters and the

documents — doesn't understand the implications of its own programs? If

the minister would like a little confirmation of this, I can give him that as

well.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to deal with one other aspect before

I sit down, and I don't know if I can do it in the one minute. I'll do

it though; I'll try.

I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he's aware of the fees charged in some school districts.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What?

MR. ROSE: User fees for certain courses — up to $80 in Langley. I'd

like also to know whether he's aware that the free-of-charge provision applies

only to courses or activities in which the student is required to participate.

There may be charges for optional courses or activities, providing these charges

are specifically approved by the school board. But what kind of courses are

being charged for? Is it really an option for a student to be charged fees for

business education when that student is majoring in business education? That's

happening. Is it really an option for a student to be charged fees in industrial

education if that student is required to major in industrial education? I'm

not just talking about wood for a cupboard for mama or a dress for a girl or

a young student. I'm talking about this.... I think it's illegal. I

think they're in conflict, because when is an option really not an option

but a requirement?

HON. MR. GARDOM: This morning when I made a few remarks, Mr.

Chairman, I did mention there was one additional topic that I would

like to discuss, and that is just to have a few general words and a few

specific words about curricula content. Again, harkening back to the

message that the hon. minister relayed to the assembly — that he's

looking for a White Paper and more public input into the general area

of education — perhaps during those considerations there would be more

public and parent input into curricula formulation.

As the hon. minister well knows, ever since I was elected in 1966

I've been long interested in and concerned about the lack of effective

instruction regarding democratic concepts and the rule of law in our

secondary education curricula. Over the years, regretfully, there

seemed to be quite a degree of resistance — or perhaps lethargy is a

kinder word — on the part of the educational community to bring that

about. In an excellent paper entitled "Law in the British Columbia

Secondary School Curriculum" of October 1983, Miss Wanda Cassidy stated

and located a quotation: "The subject of law does not lend itself to

pupil activity as do most subjects." That apparently was taken from a

Ministry of Education law 11 guide in 1975, I'm told, at page 9.

I disagree with that premise completely. I say that the subject of

law does lend itself to pupil activity, as do most subjects, and I'd

say the general public agree with that premise as well. The point that

I wish to make is that democracy is a fragile thread, and so to an

extent is all of our democratic law and our democratic order. These

principles not only have to be taught but require nourishment. They

cannot become neglected, it cannot be thought that because they were

here yesterday they will be here today. There is no way. These types of

things require daily effort, and they have to be worked upon.

I think it's trite to say, but it bears repeating that democracy and

the rule of law are not philosophies or ways of life for the lazy.

Freedom has been mighty hard to come by, and only at a price. For those

who have paid that price, surely we have the responsibility to maintain

it, say what it is, how it came about and how we live under it. It's my

plea, Mr. Chairman, that these basic concepts of democracy, our

democratic institutions, parliament, legislatures, courts, freedom of

the press, the administration of justice and the rule of law, with its

principal components, rights and responsibilities, all have to become

more extensively taught.

All of our students, in my view, in all of our provinces in Canada,

should be educationally exposed to these subjects before they graduate

from high school. It's something just far too precious to be left to

osmosis. No one is suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the school curricula

should become loaded with legal complexities or intricacies; just that

our educational system teach enough of the basics to give our young

[ Page 5772 ]

people, upon leaving high school, a good grasp of

the philosophy, the concept and the subject, which after all does

manage all of our human activity in Canada.

What we're seeking is neither novel nor new. It has been the

consideration of a number of learned groups, even one as far away as

the Scottish royal commission on legal services, which, when I was the

Attorney, I had the pleasure of spending a little time with when they

visited British Columbia. Here are a couple of quotes from their 1980

report, Mr. Chairman. I think they're pretty cogently articulated, and

I would like to refer to them.

[3:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

"Providing some element of legal education in the

school curriculum has obvious attractions, because we do not think that

people are fully fitted for adult life if they lack basic knowledge

about how the law affects them and how to use legal services. Indeed,

it seems to us a proper task for the schools to ensure that school

leavers have a basic knowledge of how laws affect them and how the

legal system is a key part of society.

"We think that pupils leaving school should have

acquired an understanding of the distinction between civil and criminal

law, the work of the courts and the role of civil law in regulating

disputes in the community. We also think that they should have an

understanding, in broad and simple terms, of a few of the absolutely

basic concepts of the law."

Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot but totally agree with those

sentiments. As Miss Cassidy said in her paper in 1983, only one course,

law 11, really falls into the pure law category, and it is a mighty

popular course. Again, I am quoting her report. "The course attracts

students from all streams, not just those academically inclined, and

is...one of the most popular of all secondary school electives.... A

recent study shows that approximately 11,000 students enrol in the

course per year" — and that of course is an elective.

I want to commend very much, if I may, the efforts of the Canadian

Bar Association, its interest and support nationally — I say, with a

degree of regret, only over the last three of four years, but

provincially since the late 1970s. I'd certainly like to recognize the

efforts of ex-president J.J. Camp of the B.C. branch of the Canadian

Bar Association, Mr. Les Little, the current president, and of course

special mention to Miss Wanda Cassidy and Kevin House. Also to the Law

Foundation's Mr. Norman Severide, who would be providing the funding

from Law Foundation dollars to the University of British Columbia and

to Simon Fraser for support to teach teachers how to teach law.

Mr. Chairman, in concluding I would very much like to commend the hon. minister

and his ministry for being prepared to accept and take a new line. I think they

have effectively listened to and recognized a requirement for what I have been

talking about, and I think they've responded well to the advocacy of the

Canadian Bar Association. I think what they're proposing will certainly

be accepted by all British Columbians, because what we wish to have in the new

social studies curricula is a good product, and one that can do the job. In

all likelihood it's going to be in place for another 20 to 25 years, and

not to have the topic that I'm talking about as part of the mandatory instruction

I think would be pure folly.

During late December, my colleague the first member for

Vancouver–Point Grey and I distributed in our riding of Vancouver–Point

Grey a mailer, and we posed the following question: should school

curriculum include instruction in basic concepts of our democratic

institutions, parliament, legislature and the rule of law? I'd say the

response was overwhelming: yes, 94 percent; no, 6 percent. I know some

colleagues might be interested in the numbers in question — this was in

response to a questionnaire. The numbers were 241 to 15. I think if

that question were posed to every citizen in the province of British

Columbia, we'd say to the hon. minister that 94 percent of us are now

totally in support of what you're proposing to do. I thank him for it

and congratulate him for it.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few remarks to make

as we close out the education estimates, but in keeping with what the

member who just spoke had to say, I have some concerns that I want to

express to the minister about class size exactly in relation to the

kind of basics that the member for Point Grey was just talking about.

To give you an example, Mr. Chairman, in the secondary schools, and

there are four of them in my riding, the actual average class size is

in excess of 22 at the moment. Next year it is going to go to 24. In

all probability, because any surplus funds will be expended by the time

the 1986 school year rolls around — even with no further cuts in

funding and even with no salary or wage increases — the average class

size in high schools is going to go to 26.

Now this is going to have an even greater effect in the core

programs — and that's the official word for what the member for

Vancouver–Point Grey was calling the basics — because the fact is, as

the minister I hope is aware, that you can't easily increase class

sizes in such areas that require shop work, lab work, computer work,

kitchen work and so forth. So what happens is that the class sizes will

social studies, math and science. Those areas are already in most cases

approaching 30 students. They are probably going to go into the

neighbourhood of 35 or even more as a result of this average increase

in class size. What you can't do with those kinds of classes is give

proper instruction, or the same instruction that people are getting

now, in these core programs or, to use the common terminology, in the

basics.

I also want to relate this to elementary school class sizes in my

riding right now. It's about 25 on the average, next year it will go to

27, and in 1986 if nothing changes it will go to approximately 29. In

addition to that, now the number of split classes is going to increase.

For instance, in the Trail district there are already 28 split classes

at the elementary level. That's going to go to 36 next year and

probably to over 40 the year after that. I would like to point out that

this is a fairly urbanized district. We're not talking about a

widely-scattered district; we are talking about an urbanized district

which has in fact closed two schools entirely in the last few years,

totalling, I believe, almost 25 classrooms. To say that the district

hasn't said, "Gee, we're going to try and cut down the number of splits

by closing schools" is incorrect. They have closed two schools right

within the city of Trail in order to save money but also to avoid the

necessity of having split classes. Even so, by 1986, in all

probability, the number of split classes at the elementary level is

going to exceed 45 percent of the total number of elementary classes in

that district.

[ Page

5773 ]

It is very difficult especially to look after students with special

needs, whether they be gifted students or students with learning

problems, at the elementary level when over 40 percent of your classes

are already split classes and the average class size is in excess of

29. That's the situation they're going to be facing.

I just want to make one other note here, and that is that in

addition to the class sizes growing and the number of split classes

growing, there has also been an even larger drop in the level of

support services. In other words, even whatever support services are

there — when it comes to teaching aides, maintenance staff, librarians,

secretarial staff and so forth — are being spread much more thinly than

it would appear simply by the numbers that I've given in the chamber

here this afternoon.

I would hope that the minister is listening, not just to this member

but to all the members in the House who have raised these concerns. The

fact is that it is getting more and more difficult for the school

system to deliver those core programs — let alone the special programs

— which the Minister of Education and I think everybody in this chamber

agrees are absolutely essential with these drastically increasing

average class sizes which we see this year and will see even more next

year and even more the year after that.

MR. COCKE: Just a few words on Douglas College. Douglas

College I think probably is one of the examples of just how great the

college system is in British Columbia. It is and has been right from

the outset a real contributor to the community of New Westminster and

its environs and the outlying areas as well. Douglas College is

continually developing programs, and I was sad to see some of the

programs over the last few years begin to wane because of the fact that

there couldn't possibly be the support by virtue of the fact that there

was a reduction in terms of their budget.

Their productivity has increased 40 percent over the past two years

through larger classes and enrolment increases. The grant is down

$900,000. They were expecting $500,000 plus in program cuts, hitting

part-time faculty, service reductions, and combining classes and

courses; $110,000 has been cut in their general nursing program and

$70,000 in their social services program. That includes child care and

so on. So the class sizes are considerably larger.

Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is going to indicate that there

was $1 million more in the program, but that was because they moved the

psychiatric nursing program from BCIT to Douglas College and took the

$1 million with it. So actually if you net it out, the grant is down

$900,000. I think we're really barking up the wrong tree for a college

such as BCIT. We should be reinforcing that level of training. Instead

of that, for some reason or another we're making it more difficult for

them.

There is some argument whether or not Bill Day's suggestion that there

were no service or staff cuts recently.... What I see is some service and

staff cuts. So I'm just not going to get into an argument along that line.

But I will say that Douglas College is a very important aspect of our education

system in B.C. One of the reasons I say that is because they are continually

acting as a catalyst in the community. For instance, the program that they have

going right now is a program that's trying to create, through their cooperation

with the business community, a consciousness of the need to expand that business

community, particularly in New Westminster. It's been very badly hurt by

government policy vis-a-vis the waterfront, which has been badly hurt because

there's a lack of understanding of what that community is to B.C.

Recently the college met with a group of Conservative MPs, and I'll

just give you a

summary of the suggested changes they were asking for

at that time. They were talking about support to smaller enterprises —

to employ students and to share in the training process through

cooperative education the reintroduction of student grants, targeted at

our most vulnerable students — investments in our human capital.

Those student grants were cut off by this government. Heaven only

knows why, other than the pecuniary aspect of it. But certainly the

government must recognize that as a society we in B.C. cannot compete

with other parts of the country and with other nations of the world

unless we assist in the best possible way we can. I believe — I'm not

positive about this — that we're about the only jurisdiction in the

country that no longer has grants.

MR. ROSE: That's right.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of elitist

proposition I would expect to hear from the minister of science and

technology: if you do well and excel, you can get some remission and so

on and so forth; if you don't do well you can go to hell. Look, as far

as I'm concerned, I'm talking with the Minister....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Shame is right. Shame on that kind of elitist attitude.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have a chance to participate if they wish.

[4:00]

MR. COCKE: That's right, and all members should be sitting in their seats when they're yapping across the floor.

Anyway, to go on, Mr. Chairman, they want a reintroduction of the

student grants, and further, assistance to long-term unemployed people

to get training adequate to compete in the market. "Cooperative

education programs are especially promising in this regard." They want

to encourage "the rate of formation and survival of small businesses

through training and education centres at the local level." That's the

kind of thing that colleges do in communities, particularly a college

like Douglas, where they try as best they can not only to be an

educational institution but also to be a catalyst in the community — to

provide the kinds of services they can, and to provide the coordinated

effort to make things happen. I feel that Douglas College is suffering

to the extent that I think it's going to reduce their effectiveness in

our community and, from that standpoint, for the whole province. So I

hope that Douglas College is looked upon more favourably than they seem

to be heretofore. Certainly I think that the ministry should remember

that Douglas was one of the most active in the early areas of the

colleges.

[ Page 5774 ]

I just want to ask the minister a question. Is there any truth in the rumour that PVI and BCIT are going to merge? If so, why?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to PVI and BCIT, I mentioned

in the House.... I think the question was up yesterday. We talked about

it. The member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) raised the question,

and I thought I gave a full answer then. I have received countless

approaches on the possibility of bringing those two institutions

together, and I'm giving consideration to the proposals which have been

made.

MR. ROSE: I hope — and I imagine it's a fervent hope shared

by all members of the House — that I will in this next session be able

to complete my remarks on this debate; and if I manage to do it, I

would like to thank the minister and his officials for being here. I

don't think this holds a record for an education debate in terms of

length, because we've had it on some short days as well. Nevertheless,

I think that no one could complain that we haven't had the attention of

the ministry and the minister to our remarks or not had ample time to

ventilate a lot of topics. There are a lot of topics that I haven't

touched, and I feel guilty about that. I don't know that we could ever

do them all, such a large and complex industry is the education

industry.

I guess I would like to break up this 15 minutes that I have into

three segments. The first one I'd like to talk about is just a general

idea, the revision of the School Act. Next I'd like to talk about

levels of service. In the final five minutes or so I would like to talk

about what I see as needed in the coming years for the next generation,

in terms of education, and how I think the ministry's direction is

somewhat wrong-headed.

First, the minister keeps talking about a new School Act. I notice

that he's softened his words a little bit recently. He guaranteed a

School Act a little while ago, in his earlier remarks; now he talks

about a White Paper, or a draft act, or a School Act. Some of us think

that it's already written; however, the minister has assured us that

he's keeping an open mind on all this, and that his School Act is going

to be a result of the deliberations of the "Let's Talk About Schools"

committee. I'm not sure.... He also tells us that he has an

arm's-length relationship with that committee and its deliberations. I

don't know how he explains that with the fact that his own deputy

chairs the committee, but that's some sort of tortuous logic known to

the minister and unknown to me.

Nevertheless, the School Act revisions have a long and glorious

history. It started in 1979 when the then minister, McGeer, established

a committee to revise, and even had researchers and a lawyer from UVic

on it to do the committee. Then we had Mr. Smith, who was the next

Minister of Education. He shelved McGeer's committee. He kept stating

that they had had a draft act but intended to put out a mandate

statement that should be a sort of

preamble to the discussion of this

act; for that, we had Smith. Then Vander Zalm shelved Smith's work,

talked about a new School Act and put out a list of deregulations for

the schools; that's as far as we got with him. It seems to me that Mr.

Heinrich, the present Minister of Education, shelved Vander Zalm's work

and published this "Let's Talk About Schools."

Some people think it was merely to confuse the public; that he'd already

made up his mind as to what he had determined. The minister doesn't like

to hear that. I said that some people think that. I think sometimes, though,

some of these things are done for cosmetic reasons. I feel that "Let's

Talk About Schools".... I'd like to get into details about that at

another time, because I think there are lots of things you could say about the

questionnaire and the various kinds of discussion papers. There's lots of

critical stuff on that. I haven't echoed those in here. As a matter of fact,

I urged people to participate. That was my approach to it. I suggested that

maybe it was a cosmetic thing, but if we were silent on the whole process we

would be accused of sins of omission; that we really had no excuses left if

we decided to boycott the thing. Nevertheless, I think a lot of confusion is

the result. I think the whole thing was discredited by the fact that the superintendent

of Burnaby wouldn't go on it, the fact that the research executive director

of the B.C. School Trustees' Association declined — he said he was too busy

— and the fact that the former vice-president of the BCSTA, Joy Leach, found

that she was too busy. That really discredited the whole process, at least in

the eyes of the public. So I don't know how much credibility there is in

that now.

That really is the history of this School Act thing. It will be a

real miracle if this minister delivers a new School Act. I suggested

earlier that our approach to that same thing would be to publish a

draft act and then go around the province with a parliamentary

committee to hear submissions. Whether we'll have an opportunity to do

that in the near future, I think, depends on whether the minister

persists in his attack on the schools. I really believe that there is a

genuine attack on the schools. I don't need to be unpleasant about it.

We don't have to be outraged at one another, but I think the direction

is absolutely wrong-headed.

Look at what's happening. Here is just a quick list, and I know

these shopping lists are really boring for people, but I think it

indicates what's happening: 47 percent of all elementary students are

in oversized classes in Burnaby; 46 percent of grade 10 classes are

over 30 in Vancouver; 93 secondary classes are over 40. I'm not going

to read the whole list of it, but you take even a place like West

Vancouver — a rich area like West Vancouver — where 31 percent of

kindergarten classes are oversize; 39 percent of primary classes are

oversize; and 66 percent of grade 4 classes are oversize. There's no

excuse for that in a community like West Vancouver, none whatever.

Then we have people like the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) getting up and saying: "There's no statistical evidence to

indicate that large classes make any difference to learning, and there

are other more critical things, such as the ability of the teacher."

I agree that the ability of the teacher is crucial, but there are

teachers and teachers, just like there are lawyers and lawyers. Some of

them are extremely capable of handling large classes and other aren't.

marking classes for 40 or marking classes for 20, I would see that

individual attention was given to the smaller classes just from a

straight mathematical division of my minutes by each child.

Here is Langley. It has the highest PTR in the province. Class sizes

are the third worst in B.C., next to New Westminster and Vancouver.

Teaching staff was reduced last June by 3 percent despite increases in

district enrolment. Elsewhere we hear the same thing. Langley talks

about levels of service. Levels of service have shrunk. In one of these

communities — I think it's Surrey — they've lost one teacher for every

6.5 drop in student enrolment. It may not be Surrey;

[ Page

5775 ]

part of my notes are missing on that score — at least I don't see them before me,

The point is well made that a place like Langley, which has always

had a tradition of parsimoniousness in educational spending — let's put

it that way — is suffering, although it was granted an increase or a

relief under the equity system. Langley, I said before the last break,

is charging fees for a terrible variety of things. I don't really think

that they should be doing that, but the same story occurs everywhere

you go.

I've got all kinds of comparisons of levels of service — pre and

post this year. Here's a Vancouver survey done by a man by the name of

Ronald LaTorre. He talks about programs and courses, and says that

multiple-program classes have increased; modified classes have been

eliminated; field trips are reduced; music programs have been

cancelled; PE programs, such as swimming, are eliminated or reduced;

learning-assistance programs are reduced; special-needs programs —

here's special needs and learning-assistance — have been reduced;

counselling programs are reduced; written assignments are far fewer;

drama programs are cancelled; transitional ESL classes, reduced; art

programs, reduced; economics 12, cancelled; German 11 and 12,

cancelled; Latin 11 and 12, cancelled; data processing, earth sciences,

office practice, marketing, social sciences tutorial are all cancelled.

You can't say that's providing diversity. "Let's Talk about

Schools." Is that providing diversity in education when you take all

these options? This isn't in a little school system. This isn't

Vanderhoof; this isn't a small high school. This is a big urban

situation. I can go through the same thing about the class sizes in

terms of the various grades. They are all up at least two to three in

number — every one — and they are up from the previous year too.

Let's talk about maintenance. It's the same story there. Maintenance

and school supplies are down 11 percent. Art education supplies are

down 10 percent. Field studies, curriculum, outdoor environmental

education are down 13 percent. Libraries.... Somebody approached me at

the BCTF convention and said: "Mark, don't forget to talk about

libraries." Their libraries are being decimated. Well, maybe that's a

little strong. Maybe he didn't mean that; that's what he said. But he

said: "Don't forget, this is really the heart of the school, and we

can't teach library skills if we've got to enrol classes in there and

still do a decent job as a librarian." That deals with some of the

funds.

Emotionally handicapped children, down. What are you doing for

special education? Down 9 percent. Emotionally handicapped, down 2

percent. Elementary learning assistance centres, down 5 percent. So the

depressing story goes and goes, and there's no getting away from it.

How you can claim that you can maintain the quality of education when

every bit of evidence is to the contrary, I don't know. I don't know

how you look in the mirror and say those things without blushing. I

just can't understand.

[4:15]

The Surrey situation is just the same. I'm not going to read that

depressing list. Here's another survey of Vancouver elementary schools

— the same thing. Here is Victoria: elimination of programs, outdoor

ed, various secondary electives, and they've got another series of

horror stories right there. So there you have it.

It's a very, very serious thing. It doesn't even make sense economically.

I can cite the evidence if you like. You can talk about California and Silicon

Valley. You can talk about areas that are attracting people. We're talking

about the lower proportion we spend of our GNP. We've gone over that. But

here is a study done by Mr. Bertram: Staff Study No. 12 for the Economic Council

of Canada, June 1966. It's an oldie but a goodie. He makes the point or

attempts to make the point and documents the point that the reason our income

and our economic activity and our earning power has remained persistently one-quarter

below the United States since the turn of the century is that we have failed

to spend the money on public education that the Americans have done.

MR. R. FRASER: I don't believe that.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't care if you believe it or not. You're

an engineer. You make bridges that fall down. Just because somebody has

some expertise in one area....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, the member has made a

personal suggestion that I help bridges fall down. I don't think he

really meant it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess it can be considered a personal remark

against another hon. member of this House, although it doesn't really

offend parliamentary procedure. The member may wish to withdraw it.

MR. ROSE: Yes, I don't mind, if I have offended the member. I

know he didn't make that bridge, but I'm just saying that because a

person has some professional expertise it doesn't mean that he knows

all the answers about everything. If he doesn't believe this, he's

entitled not to believe it. It's an assertion; it's a monograph. But as

an educated man he should really examine this before he makes such

strident remarks.

I wonder if you'd consider the member as an intervening speaker, Mr. Chairman. You wouldn't?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was a point of order.

MR. ROSE: He certainly was an intervening speaker. No question about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll give you another minute.

MR. ROSE: Did you add a minute to my time? You might provoke me into speaking more, you know. I might have another intervening speaker.

Anyway, this Mr. Bertram of the Economic Council of Canada says:

"Part of the explanation of the neglect to analyze

education and human capital as a factor in economic growth may be in an

unwillingness to regard education as an investment in human beings.

Theodore Schultz has argued, however, that wealth exists only for the

advantage of people, and human capital or wealth does not contradict

this concept since people can enlarge the range of choice available to

them by investing in themselves."

That's what a lot of teachers have done, much to their own chagrin.

I think that the whole concept or philosophy behind the government

cutbacks, as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) pointed out

yesterday, is to cut education about 1 percent this year after roughly

5 percent in the previous

[ Page 5776 ]

years, plus another 13 percent, adding up to 18 or

19 percent across the board, while the provincial budget has grown 14

percent. It's obvious that education has been targeted. While the

minister said that he believes he is the advocate for education, if he

fought for education, then he lost. Or else he believes in what he's

doing, and that's even more terrifying. Not that he isn't a hard worker

or affable and agreeable; nobody is making personal charges to the

contrary like that. But as the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education

might recall, I made some remarks at the Phi Delta Kappa conference on

Saturday about my view of what education should be.

If I've got a minute.... How much time do I have? Thirty-five

seconds? Well, I can't complete it then. Perhaps I could have an

intervening speaker so I could just wrap this up in about five minutes.

MR. HOWARD: I think that's a very, very enlightening speech

that we've just heard from the member, and I'm looking forward to a

little bit more of it.

MR. ROSE: I would like to thank the member for Skeena for his

intervention. Anyway, I think that there's a large hunk in "Let's Talk

About Schools" of indoctrination and training rather than education,

but that maybe will be a debate for another time. But I'd like to share

with the House.... I even hate that phrase "share with." I'd like to

say to the House that we've got certain challenges facing education,

and I think the first challenge is to try to restore the kind of

investment in education that we once had.

Yes, I think it's important to examine it. I think the minister has

made an important contribution by going through and analyzing the

various components and the various functions within the educational

framework. I don't like his inflexible imposition of those, but

nevertheless I think that the work has been a valuable one — the

examination of the various functions within the school. I think there

should be guidelines; I don't think that they should be prescriptive.

But nevertheless I think the analytical work has been useful. It's

certainly going to be a lot of help to secretary-treasurers who like

pigeonholes like that, except that I wish that maybe the pigeonholes

were more elastic than they are. Instead of being made out of steel,

they might be made of something a little bit more flexible.

So I think we're going to have to get the cutbacks restored so we

can have the kind of investment we can afford to do in this country. I

feel the cutbacks in education about equal the expected deficit of

Expo, so that education in this province has paid for the Expo debt, as

far as I'm concerned. Now whether we get a return on that is open to

question.

I think we're going to have to return local autonomy too, because I

think that it's much better to have as many local decisions made as

possible by those people who are going to be affected by the decisions.

You don't achieve that by controlling budgets and controlling a

flexible curriculum, a core curriculum that has all core and nothing

else, with students not having the options they need. Nor can we afford

to offer them in many instances, in small schools for reasons we've

gone over, and in larger schools — and I just mentioned it — because of

the restraint program.

But I think the thing is, what kind of an education should we have for the

next generation? I'm convinced that what we need is a broad general education

with lots of different kinds of options, and it should have a broad liberal

kind of base.

That isn't to denigrate at all the vocational or the technical. But

the narrow specialty is a very dangerous thing, because jobs are going

to change and society is going to change, so we need people with an

education to provide them with the ability to accept change, to

analyze, to criticize and to not be swayed by propaganda or false

advertising — probably not the aims of the government. A narrow kind of

special education is what I think you're embarked upon.

On the other hand, a lot of thinkers tell us that we're not really

going to know what kind of an education is going to be needed, and

therefore a more liberal one.... So you can have a genuine education, a

liberal general education upon which you can build specific skills and

the ability to change as those jobs become dead-ended or disappear.

That has to do with the changing nature of society. If you think of

society right now, or since the turn of the century, as diamond-shaped

with a lot of well-paid middle-class people clustering around its

centre and the very few very rich and very poor at each end, that is

changing, because with technology the automation is making a lot of —

immature industries especially — those high-paid unionized jobs in

steel, in forestry and in automobiles disappear. They're disappearing,

and they're going to be replaced by automation.

So what you're going to have then is not very much of an increase in

the high-tech kind of necessity, because you need only a few of those.

You don't need many people to run word processors. They don't have to

be highly skilled people. So from what we can see the real projection

of what is going to be needed in the twenty-first century.... And the

jobs that are expanding.... The ones that are shrinking are the ones

that are highly paid, the middle-class kinds of jobs in mature

industries, and the ones that are growing are the low-scale ones — in

high-tech as well. They're not creating jobs. There are going to be

more janitors needed, more building superintendents, more waitresses,

more people at McDonald's Hamburgers — unfortunately.

What does that mean for education? Well, it may mean what I think is

happening right now in education. I have a little problem. I don't know

whether you guys over there are smart or dumb in what you're doing —

whether it's Machiavellian or whether you're not concerned or aware of

what is happening to society. That's what bothers me — all right? If

you recognize that you're not going to need as many skilled people,

then you'll do what you're doing. You'll cut down the number of kids

that are going to graduate on university programs. You're going to make

your high schools more academic, and you're going to raise your

standards to the point where few can pass them, so there will be a

large number of dropouts. If you do that, and then also couple with

that what you're doing in your junior colleges — playing down your

university transfer programs so the colleges like Douglas are going to

be turning away 500 people next year — then you're going to have fewer

people prepared to knock on the doors of the universities, which is

fine with the Minister of Universities, because he thinks universities

are too big and too costly anyway.

So what you've planned then is a de-scaling of society. Now if that

is your aim, you're going about it the right way. If that's not your

aim, then I would want to examine very carefully the wisdom of what

you're doing. And that worries me, quite frankly; it really does.

So in conclusion, I would like to thank the minister and I recognize

all the things we didn't talk about including independent schools and

ESL and all the rest of it — for his

[ Page

5777 ]

courtesy and his efforts. I'd like to close with a motion that vote 17 be reduced by $1.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Williams

Lea

D'Arcy

Brown

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Brummet

Segarty

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

R. Fraser

Parks

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Davis

Mowat

Reid

Ree

Veitch

Reynolds

[4:30]

MR. NICOLSON: A point of order. I noticed there were a few

people in the gallery who stood up as well, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps

the vote was a little closer.

Vote 17 approved.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, under the new rules and I

can't give the citation — we are permitted to say: "On division." On

vote 17 I shouted, "On division," and I'll be doing so on all these

votes, unless we have a standing vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're absolutely right. In any voice vote a

member may ask the Chair to announce to the House or committee that the

motion in question was carried or defeated "on division" — that is the

term — without an actual division being taken under standing order 16.

Upon the Chair so announcing, the Votes and Proceedings

shall record the fact accordingly. We did have an actual division on

the amendment, but it is the request of the member that practice order

16 be put in place with respect to vote 17. The Chair announces that

vote 17 passed on division. Thank you.

Vote 18: management operations, $24,238,265 — approved on division.

Vote 19: public schools education, $1,064,554,825 approved on division.

Vote 20: post-secondary colleges and institutes, $312,105,535 — approved.

Vote 21: independent schools, $27,105,867 — approved on division.

MR. REE: On a point of order, just for clarification, I

notice that you have been saying "On division" when members have left

the chamber since the last count in division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a different process, hon. member. I

would commend to you page 36, practice recommendation No. 1, of our new

standing orders, and upon perusing that you will understand what we are

doing here. It is a new procedure. I think it's working very well, and

we'll leave it at this point.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported a resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP ACT

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride indeed in

standing to make very brief comments in respect to Bill 25,

Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act. It's quite obvious that if

economic renewal is going to take place out there, it's going to take

place at the local level. I would like to report to the House that the

response to this program has been overwhelming. Workshops have been

held in Penticton, Parksville and Kimberley. Surrey's was held today,

with a full house. Indications are that in excess of 80 municipalities

have expressed their sincere interest in the program. Those

municipalities represent all those with a population of 7,500 or more,

representing approximately 94 percent of the municipal population.

Also, it really gives me a great deal of pleasure to report to the

House that my critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), has

also expressed his support for this program. Hopefully he will be true

to his word that indeed little time will be taken up in passing this

legislation, knowing the importance of getting things moving at the

local level and assisting us in getting people back to work.

I now move second reading.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I have a few things to say about this

legislation. I don't anticipate going beyond the half hour, Mr.

Speaker, but I indicate now that if I do, I will be the designated

speaker.

First let me say that for some time now, we on this side of the

House have been calling for proper consultation and recognition of

local government as a major factor in economic recovery — or economic

reconstruction, as we term it — in British Columbia. If the members

opposite recall, a year and a half ago now, I guess, I spent some time

in this Legislature detailing how I thought local government could

participate in economic recovery; how their talents and their expertise

could be a part of economic reconstruction in the province. Given

particularly that it's our belief, and the belief now of well over 60

to 65 percent of British Columbians, that this government has proved

itself to be incompetent and has

[ Page 5778 ]

mismanaged the economy of British Columbia, they

are now waiting for a change in government. We have indicated many

times how we think positive reconstruction could happen in British

Columbia.

I am pleased that this government is finally paying attention to

local government. I have to say, however, that some of the attention

they're paying is most unsatisfactory. They continue to centralize

operations in Victoria, into the provincial government. I once again

say, before I start specifically on some sections of Bill 25, that we

believe in the autonomy of local government. We believe that they have

the ability to participate if the programs are decent and will help

them in recovery. We believe they can be an important component in

economic reconstruction in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, before us we have legislation that unfortunately is the

only deal in town for local government. It's the only thing they're

being offered. I have taken time, as other members of our side of the

House have done, to listen to local government's views about this piece

of legislation. In my estimation, it is a minor piece of legislation.

It's basically a public relations stunt to try to convince local

government that the provincial government is serious about their

problems and their concerns and the financial responsibilities they

face today.

Suffice to say then, Mr. Speaker, that I don't intend to spend much

time on this piece of legislation. I think there are flaws in it. I

don't believe it does the job that local government requires today. I

believe that all evidence from other jurisdictions is that when local

government gets into giving tax breaks through the back door, they run

into serious problems down the road.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a far more positive agenda for local

government, one whereby all the various infrastructure problems they

have been facing over the last few years have to be faced by senior

government and in particular provincial government, and we need to take

a look at front-loading our support for local government. If there was

ever a time for a positive megaproject in the province of British

Columbia, it would be spending our time and our effort and our

resources rebuilding the municipalities.

All studies indicate, Mr. Speaker, that where they are having

problems today is in ensuring that their infrastructure and their

plants and their operations are maintained properly, and they have the

finances and the dollars to ensure that their municipalities are

healthy physically, environmentally, economically and socially.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is only one component, and a minor component,

in ensuring that local government is healthy. On a scale of 1 to 10 it would

be number 10, because if you're looking to attract new industry to a town

or a village or municipality, industry doesn't look just for tax relief.

They look to the general welfare and the general health of that community. All

the evidence shows that when industry moves into a community or into a province,

they want to know that the general community is healthy. They want to know that

the education services are intact and not being ravaged or cut back. They want

to know that the universities are intact and are supported and the political

climate is good for universities and therefore research and development to help

private industry. They want to know that the cultural attributes are healthy

and the recreational system in good shape.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia those very aspects that go towards

making a healthy community are not in good shape. In the last two or

three years we have seen this government ravage those very aspects that

make a community healthy, particularly in the education, health,

cultural and social areas. I'm saying that those items I'm listing are

the other ingredients in attracting industry to any province or any

community, and a few tax relief dollars out the back door are not going

to bring the industry that you want or the captains of industry that

you think you can attract. We have to have a climate that is conducive

to bringing those people to our province. You take a look at why

industry moves into certain parts of California. The state of Texas

spends reams of money on universities, far more than British Columbia

does, and yet that's considered a very right-wing government.

What I'm trying to say to this government is that if you're going to

bring economic development and economic reconstruction to the province

of British Columbia, a minor component is tax relief. Unless we have a

healthy province in all the other aspects that I've outlined, you're

not going to get people to come here. They're going to stay away from

British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the perception of the climate today is

that British Columbia is not a good place to go; it's not a good place

where you want to invest your private dollars, if you're a particular

company. It's a place you stay away from, because the political climate

that has been created is one of confrontation, not cooperation or

conciliation.

Those ingredients must be part of any program you introduce to bring

developments or industry into the province of British Columbia. I

happen to believe that local government can be a serious part of that,

but I don't think forgoing taxes that those local governments are going

to need to maintain their operations should be a long-term objective of

any government in the province of British Columbia.

However, it is the only deal that this government is putting

forward, or the only opportunity for local government to participate in

anything this government has offered in the last close to two years. As

a consequence, it is not our intention to oppose this legislation, as I

have already indicated; it is not our intention to obstruct the

government in its attempts to do something for local government. God

knows, local government needs some kind of support from this

government, because every time I attend any conference, association

meeting or UBCM meeting, the overwhelming response to me is: "When is

this government going to recognize that we are an important factor or

ingredient in the fabric of the social and economic health of this

province?"

Last week we were debating the Islands Trust; this week we are

talking about the government's cooperation program. It is som