1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5603 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Private sector competition with BCSC. Mr. Levi –– 5603

Exeter Estates real estate practices. Mr. Mussallem –– 5604

Mr. Leggatt –– 5604

Hospital construction. Mr. Leggatt –– 5604

Hospital bed shortage. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 5605

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

On vote 54: minister's office –– 5608

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Howard

Ms. Sanford

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Levi

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. King

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very honoured today to introduce a very special guest

in the members' gallery. When I was a young student at St. Peter's

parochial school, a teacher who had a very profound effect on my

education — and I'm not going to blame her for everything — was a

sister of St. Ann, Sister Mary Carmina, who is now principal of St.

Anthony's parochial school. Would the House please make her welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, in case you haven't noticed, this week in the constituency

of Surrey we are all wearing western attire. This weekend we'll be

celebrating — I believe for the thirty-seventh time — the annual rodeo

in Cloverdale. It is the second largest rodeo in Canada. I take this

opportunity to welcome all members and any other British Columbian to

travel to Surrey if they have the time this weekend and take in the

greatest rodeo anywhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it sounds like a commercial.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

There are guests in the House today who probably shuddered a bit when

the first member for Surrey got up and made those comments. They

haven't seen a Dutch cowboy before. I refer to the directors of the

B.C. Cattlemen's Association: president Tim Bayliff, Harold Allison,

Frank Dangel, Grant Huffman and Larry Campbell, along with their

secretary, Mr. Henry Blazowski. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Minister of Agriculture in

welcoming the executive of the B.C. Cattlemen, who are in the precincts

today to meet with our caucus. As a matter of fact, we met for some two

hours this morning with the resource committee.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the gallery is a very old and good

friend of mine with whom I was associated in the retail florist

industry some years ago. He is in Victoria to make it his home. I would

like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Joe Whitmore.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have four people

all the way from Rossland, along with the fifth member of the family, who is

in the precinct somewhere. I would like the House to welcome Angie, Ron, Bill

Jr. and Desiree Profili. Mr. Bill Profili Sr. is in the precincts going about

his duties as mayor of Rossland.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked under standing

orders that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) table a document which he cited when giving answers

to questions with respect to the flight of Social Credit members on

government aircraft into and out of Kamloops during the current

election. The minister failed to file such documents with the table. I

wish to refer Mr. Speaker to Sir Erkine May, nineteenth edition, page

431, the

section titled "Citing Documents not Before the House":

"Another

rule or principle of debate may be here added. A minister of the Crown

is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper

not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table.

This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law,

which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been

produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not

been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has

been generally acquiesced in. It has also been admitted that a document

which has been cited ought to be laid on the table of the House, if it

can be done without injury to the public interest. A minister who

summarizes a correspondence...."

Well, that's a different rule. But "a document cited ought to be

laid on the table." I also refer to the fifth edition of Beauchesne,

page 115, where almost the same wording in support of the contention

that this is a rule of the House occurs. I would therefore argue that

the minister is, in good honour, duty-bound to lay upon the table the

document to which he referred when he gave answers in question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. If the member had

read just a little further in his citation, it says: "A minister who

summarizes a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is

not bound to lay it upon the table. The rule for the laying of cited

documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda."

There are some exceptions, and for this reason it is left to the

discretion of the minister. However, I would remind the minister that

if, indeed, he did quote from a public document which can be laid upon

the table without doing injury to the public interest, then it would be

wise for him to do so.

Oral Questions

PRIVATE SECTOR COMPETITION WITH BCSC

MR. LEVI:

I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who's responsible for

the Systems Corporation — I'm looking forward to a reply today. In 1977

the minister's predecessor gave an undertaking to the private sector of

the computer industry that after two years the industry would have an

opportunity to compete for work with the Systems Corporation. I asked

the minister the same question last April as to what the policy was in

respect to the private sector competing. Unfortunately he didn't come

back to the House. Can the minister tell the House what the B.C.

Systems Corporation policy is in allowing the private sector to compete?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam,

I think that with the odd exception there is a good relationship

between the B.C. Systems Corporation and the private sector now. There

is certainly an involvement by the private sector in a number of pieces

of work which are, if you will, farmed out. Perhaps that is not the

best phrase with respect to the Systems Corporation; but quite clearly,

quite a bit of work is turned over to the private sector, depending on

the workload at the corporation itself.

MR. LEVI: Last Thursday night the president of the B.C. Systems Corporation spoke to the conference which is

[ Page 5604 ]

known

as CIPS, the conference of information processors. He was asked a

question at that time: "When are we going to be allowed to compete with

the Systems Corporation?" He replied: "The Treasury Board has now made

a decision that no competition will be allowed." That's what he told

some 200 people last, Thursday. Can the minister tell us: does this

represent a change of policy?

MR. BARNES: They have a monopoly.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the interjection notwithstanding, I indicated in my answer

to the hon. member that I think there is a very good relationship, with

the odd exception, between the Systems Corporation and the private

sector of that particular activity.

MR. LEVI: My God, he answered the question worse than his seatmate did.

said to the minister, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that the president of

the corporation said last week that the Treasury Board has announced

that there will be no competition — it will not be allowed — for the

private sector. I'll go one step further. They also asked him why. He

said that until the ministries have got more technical expertise to

deal with the data corporations, they will not be allowed to do it. My

question to the minister is — and I hoped he would answer the other one

— if they're going to allow the ministries to deal with the

corporations directly, what do they need the Systems Corporation for,

which is costing us about $50 million a year?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

With respect to the question of competition, I think that can be dealt

with more effectively and at greater length — indeed, at almost

unlimited length — in my estimates. I invite the member to be present

for the estimates this year. He was unable to be present last year, and

he's made that point. He was "out of town on government business."

One

of the very satisfactory developments which has taken place at the B.C.

Systems Corporation in its relative infancy is the establishment of a

users' committee. In answering an earlier series of questions posed by

the hon. member, we've had a series of very good meetings between the

representatives of user ministries, and particularly I refer to the

larger ministries who on a regular basis meet with senior management of

the Systems Corporation and are able to define problems, to identify

problems as they arise and to seek, with the Systems Corporation, the

resolution of those problems. Quite clearly the Systems Corporation is

working very well, it can improve and, as I indicated — I think this is

the third time this afternoon — there is an involvement with the

private sector as far as data processing for the province of British

Columbia and its agencies are concerned.

MR. LEVI:

With respect, the minister hasn't answered any questions. He knows less

about the operation of the Systems Corporation than his predecessor. He

knows absolutely nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam was recognized on the premise that he did have a question.

MR. LEVI: I'm too annoyed to ask it.

EXETER ESTATES REAL ESTATE PRACTICES

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Is the minister aware of an issue that is becoming quite widespread, in

which real estate companies are trying to buy land from unwary citizens

for prices very far below their true value? I have in my hand a form

letter sent to one of my constituents indicating the description of

land and offering $21,300 — I'll make this letter available to the

minister — when the property is actually worth over $200,000. Some

unwary person who is not in possession of the facts might be tempted to

get involved. Is the minister aware of this?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

The member for Dewdney is the first of various members in this House

who have mentioned this matter to me privately to raise it in here, and

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the problem.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Some members may laugh, but it happens to be a very serious problem affecting a lot of senior citizens in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe the member for Dewdney is referring to what appears

to be a form of mass mailing on the letterhead of Exeter Estates Ltd.

to property owners in various parts of the province. The mailing is not

in the form of an offer to list property for sale, but rather is

basically an offer to purchase the property. Our view is that there is

nothing in law prohibiting a company from making such a mass mailing of

offerings. However, the concern is that particularly senior citizens

who are not conversant with rapidly rising land values may look at the

figures quoted, find them attractive and enter into an agreement to

sell their property, only then realizing it's to their detriment.

Therefore our advice to all members is to advise the public to be

certain to get a current, independent appraisal as to their property

value if they're interested by these letters.

More

particularly for any members who have complaints from constituents,

particularly senior citizens, who have signed such acceptances, please

forward the particulars to us. We're looking at the validity of the

offer and the question as to whether or not people who've signed the

acceptances are, in fact, bound by them.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, on the same subject, the minister has had notice of this

problem from several members in this assembly for at least three

months. Has the minister investigated the law on this subject? Is he

now telling the House that he can do nothing, in terms of the law, to

protect these innocent victims of speculators?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the member for

Coquitlam-Moody has his issues mixed. I suspect he's referring in his

question to the general issue of flipping, by licensed real estate

people or otherwise. The Exeter Estates issue has come to our attention

only in the last week.

HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION

MR., LEGGATT:

My question is to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as chairman

of Treasury Board. On January 20 of this year all the final plans and

specifications for a 250-bed acute-care hospital in Port Moody, known

as Eagle Ridge Hospital, were completed by that hospital. The Minister

of Health authorized construction to begin on that hospital in April of

this year, but it was subject to Treasury Board approval. On an

inflation basis this Treasury Board delay is costing the taxpayers

$10,000 each day the con-

[ Page

5605 ]

struction of that hospital is delayed. Would the

minister advise the House why Treasury Board has refused to approve the

commencement of construction of this hospital, particularly in view of

the emergency in acute-care beds in this province and also in view of

the fantastic waste these delays cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In answering the hon. member, I want to make it very clear that I do

not necessarily accept the statements he used in his

preamble. The

Treasury Board of the province of British Columbia is processing an

exceedingly large volume of requests with respect to capital

construction in three ministries — Health, Education and the Ministry

of the Attorney-General. I'm proud to be a member of a government which

is embarked upon the largest capital construction program in hospitals

in the history of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the questions in silence; perhaps the answer could be listened to in silence.

This government will not rush into a variety of capital programs without understanding the financial impact of those programs.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, they don't like it, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Perhaps we could continue question period in silence. If members can

show the Chair under what standing order they can interrupt those who

have possession of the floor, I'd be happy to entertain the thought.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Without taking too much of the time available to us in question period,

I simply want to point out that the Treasury Board process — not just

the ministerial review but the staff review — exists now to a very

finely tuned point. It did not in the period 1972-75. We have a series

of Ministry of Health requests at various stages of the approval

process. I assure the member that they will be given approval at the

earliest possible time. I would not want any member of this House to

think that these requests are stalled somewhere; they are being very

actively processed.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to point

out to the minister that that fine-tuning on this particular project is

costing $1 million of the taxpayers' money every four months.

this particular project, as a result of decisions by the ministry, the

plans that have had to be scrapped totalled $2 million. There has been

$2 million worth of waste on this project because of ministerial

decisions. My question is: given the acute-care emergency in British

Columbia, would the minister put his priorities where his mouth is and

approve these hospital beds, instead of spending all his time on the

other giant projects like B.C. Place, etc.?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't think the member really bothered listening

to the answer which I gave. The approval process is proceeding at a very good

rate. Indeed, the Minister of Health and his senior officials will be meeting

with the Treasury Board on Tuesday morning next. That meeting was arranged in

view of the very large number of approvals which have been processed and are

ready for ministerial review by the Treasury Board. I think we're making

very good progress.

MP. HOWARD: My point of order relates to an event which took place during

question period. I raise it not because I want to interfere with what is obviously

a very important subject: I refer to the question asked by the member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem) and the response given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), who said himself that it was a very urgent question

and had been brought to his attention on many occasions. I do not think that

question period should be used as a disguise to give a minister an opportunity

to make a ministerial statement, which he should do on his own initiative, and

which he should have done some days ago.

MR. SPEAKER:

The point is well taken. But, hon. members, every member in the House

has an opportunity to stand in his place to ask a question.

HOSPITAL BED SHORTAGE

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question I took as notice

yesterday. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) asked about a

Richmond resident who is apparently suffering from cancer of the brain.

The member asked if I was willing to explain to this patient and to the

House the circumstances surrounding this Richmond resident's experience

on Saturday, May 9.

The member for New Westminster said that

this man was struck by a seizure the morning of May 9, and that when

the ambulance arrived at his home at approximately 1:30 they took this

man to the Richmond General Hospital as an emergency patient. The

member for New Westminster said the resident was advised upon arrival

at Richmond General Hospital that there were no vacant beds, so the

ambulance crew had to try elsewhere. The member for New Westminster

said the patient was then taken to the Vancouver General Hospital,

which could not admit the patient in its emergency ward either. The

member then advised the House that finally, four hours later, at 5:30

a.m., the patient was admitted to the Shaughnessy Hospital.

Mr.

Speaker, I've asked members of the Ministry of Health staff to

investigate this incident, and have been provided with the following

information. The patient's wife called the family physician on the

morning of Saturday, May 9, when she found her husband in bed staring

at the ceiling and not responding to any stimulus. The doctor called

the ambulance at 1:43 p.m. When the ambulance crew arrived, they found

the patient to be conscious, lucid and talking. The family advised they

would like to have the patient admitted to a private room in the

Richmond General Hospital.

There are four private rooms at

that hospital, and rarely would one be open at any time for an

emergency admittance. The ambulance crew spoke with the duty officer at

the Richmond General Hospital, who later, spoke with the family

physician. A decision was made at that time that if the patient was

comfortable he should be allowed to remain at home. The ambulance crew

stayed with the family to see if there would be a recurrence of what

may have been a seizure. When things seemed to be in order, the crew

departed.

[ Page 5606 ]

4:10 that morning, the crew was again called by the patient's wife, and

when they arrived at the home the patient's wife, her daughter and her

son-in-law advised the crew that there had been no recurrence of a

seizure, but the family felt they were not able to manage the patient,

and requested he be transferred to a hospital.

The crew

attempted to contact the family physician, but he was not immediately

available. The ambulance crew then contacted the duty officer at the

Richmond General Hospital and were advised that there was no private

bed available at that time. The duty officer then contacted the

Vancouver General Hospital — all of this by telephone — who advised

they would accept the patient in the emergency ward that night, but

they did not have a permanent bed available at that time.

Arrangements

were then made with the doctor on the Shaughnessy Hospital staff to

have the patient admitted. The patient was found not to have been

eating and drinking well, and he was dehydrated. The patient is now

reported resting comfortably, and will be moved from the Shaughnessy

Hospital to the Richmond Hospital today.

Mr. Speaker, the

information provided to the member for New Westminster — from a

citizen, I believe — was apparently incorrect, in that the patient was

not driven to the Richmond General Hospital to be denied admittance,

then to the Vancouver General Hospital to be denied admittance and then

to the Shaughnessy Hospital. The patient was transported only once —

from, his home directly to the Shaughnessy Hospital in a non-emergency

situation.

Mr. Speaker, it's important that complaints or

concerns be responded to quickly by responsible members of the Ministry

of Health — as they have been in this case. There is no doubt that

responsible officials of the hospitals and the ambulance service, as

well as the doctors, responded with the most professional efficiency in

dealing with this specific matter.

Finally, the member for

New Westminster stated yesterday that two emergency wards in Vancouver

were closed down that night. I am advised that that statement is

incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to reply.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

The

procedure in the House is that if a question is taken as notice and

responded to in question period, supplementary questions are then

allowed. If the minister giving an answer determines that the answer is

too long to be given in question period, he decides to give the answer

following question period, which procedure was followed in this

instance, and I recommend this procedure. No supplementary questions

are then allowed. The only way the member for New Westminster would now

be able to proceed would be by unanimous consent of the House. That is

what the member has requested, and I ask: shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some noes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, can we proceed?

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the point

of order raised by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in

regard to the tabling of documents in the House when they've been

referred to by a Crown minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, we dealt with that point of order.

MR. LEA: I don't think we have, and I'd like to raise it again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We have dealt with the matter.

MR. LEA: I would like to raise another point.

MR. SPEAKER: A new point of order?

MR. LEA: No, the same point of order on the same subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have dealt with that point of order.

MR. LEA: I would like to raise something differently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If it's a new point of order I can recognize the member.

MR. LEA: Call it what you want.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have a new point of order?

MR. LEA:

Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that all of the criteria laid

out by Mr. Speaker in regard to this point of order have been met.

Everything you said that would require the minister to table the

document is in place, and yet the minister hasn't done so. My point of

order is: when all the requirements have been met, as they seem to have

been, does Mr. Speaker have any authority to make the minister do it?

MR. SPEAKER:

With great respect, the matter lies at the discretion of the minister,

because the Speaker cannot determine from this vantage point whether

the document was quoted from or merely referred to. It is for the

minister to decide, and I'll remind hon. members that the minister has

not spoken. Therefore we do not know whether or not the document was

quoted or whether it was merely referred to or summarized.

MR. LEA: It's obvious that the document was....

[ Page 5607 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We could clear the matter entirely if the minister involved would assist the House in this matter.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm always glad to be of assistance, Mr. Speaker. If you read the

Blues, I think I said: "Information supplied by the dispatch office." I

don't remember quoting from....

MR. LEA: You had it in your hand.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I wish the members over there would calm down. I think I was very

careful not to quote from any particular document. Every hon. member in

this House is responsible for what he says, and the documents by

statute or order will be tabled in due course, the members will have

the information. What I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, is in the record,

and it stands. If they can prove at a future date that I was misleading

the House, then certainly I'll apologize to the House...

MR. LAUK: Will you resign?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...because I happen to be an honourable member — unlike you, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We now have the minister's undertaking. I think that concludes the matter.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, the hon. minister said, "every honourable member,

unlike you, " pointing at me, Mr. Speaker. I ask for his unconditional

withdrawal of that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister would be happy to withdraw that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker; I certainly would not want to....

MR. SPEAKER: The minister withdraws. Thank you, hon. member, that's sufficient. Order, please.

MR. LEA: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a, new point of order?

MR. LEA: On the same point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter is concluded, hon. member.

MR. LEA: It may be to your mind, Mr. Speaker, but it is not on mine.

MR., SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member undertaking to lecture the Chair?

MR. LEA: Are you undertaking to lecture me?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will take his seat.

MR. LEA: Okay, but I'll be back up. A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a new point of order?

MR. LEA: No, on the same point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: We have concluded the matter.

MR. LEA: I have not.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is very willing to recognize the hon. member if he has a new point of order.

MR. LEA: I have the same point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: That matter has been concluded.

MR. LEA: Not in my mind, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member....

MR. LEA: My point of order is this....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please take his seat.

would remind the member of the provisions of standing orders 19 and 20,

and perhaps on reflecting for a few moments the member would be of a

mind to accept the decision of the Chair in this instance. Standing

order 19 says:

"Whenever any member shall have

been named by Mr. Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the

Whole House, immediately after the commission of the offence of

disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of abusing the rules of the

House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the

House, or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed by such

member in the House, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a

motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed...."

I speak this only to remind the hon. member that if a House

is to carry on business in an orderly fashion, we must have a Speaker,

we must an authority vested in that Speaker, and the rules must be

observed. I'm sure the hon. member would acquiesce, as he did when he

made his opening oath.

MR. LEA: I have a new point of

order. I think it leaves us in a bit of a quandary, Mr. Speaker, when

you come down with a ruling that was obviously fair and just, and one

that I believe by the rules of this House can be enforced by Mr.

Speaker, and it is not being enforced by Mr. Speaker. I believe that

everyone in this House knows that. If that is allowed to continue, it

will be an unruly House and one that we cannot live with. I believe

that it goes two ways in this House, Mr. Speaker — not only us, but

your high office. I believe that the minister is only playing games

with this House in regard to this matter. Everybody here knows it,

including Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to enforce your own ruling, which

I think was fair, and which has not been done.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has reflected again on a matter that had been concluded.

[ Page 5608 ]

MR. HOWARD:

I rise on a point of order. I want to draw to Your Honour's attention

what took place yesterday. Once Your Honour has made that decision

about the tabling of documents, it should not then be left to the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

— the particular minister in this case — to determine whether or not he

should table the particular document which he waved in his hand

yesterday, looked at and quoted from without actually saying that it

was a quote therefrom. The Blues clearly show that to be the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the member is reflecting again on a matter that has already been concluded.

MR. HOWARD:

No, Your Honour, I'm not. I'm raising this new point of order about the

events of yesterday, and the minister and what he did yesterday in

waving that particular dispatch document in his hand, looking at it,

saying something, obviously quoting therefrom. After Your Honour's

ruling earlier, the minister should not then have been permitted to

stand up and say, "Oh, no, I did not quote from it, " when in full view

of Your Honour yesterday Your Honour saw that he had.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, we have concluded on this particular subject. However,

may I make just this one further observation: the Chair cannot possibly

insist upon the tabling of a document unless the Chair has before it a

document and the record of the words spoken in this House. Those

documents are not before me at this time, and therefore both the member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) are

insisting on something which the Chair is powerless to do at this

juncture. The Chair must then accept the word of an hon. member who

said he did not quote verbatim from a document. I have to accept that,

hon. members. And I have to say that the matter must be concluded.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: On a new point of order?

MR. HOWARD:

Yes, indeed. As an hon. member standing in my place, I say that I saw

that minister read from and quote from that dispatch document yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter is concluded.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the House Leader and

before we commence proceedings today, I wish to make certain observations which

I trust will be of assistance to all committee members. It has been my impression

that some hon. members on both sides of the House have been transgressing the

rules of this House during committee in the following ways:

1. Interrupting speeches with spurious points of order.

2. Indulging in personal allusions.

3. Failing to come to order when requested to do so by the Chair.

4. Failing to resume their seats when the Chair is explaining a point of order.

5. Debating the Chair's rulings.

6. General disorder during divisions.

7. Not adhering to the relevancy rules during the course of debate.

These

offences are fully described in all the parliamentary authorities. If

any hon. member requires an exact citation to substantiate the rules of

order quoted, the Chair will be pleased to oblige. Members using

unparliamentary expressions are required to withdraw such expressions

immediately upon being requested to do so, but it is the Chair's view

that repeated use of unparliamentary expressions, even followed by a

withdrawal, amounts to an abuse of the rules. Many of the offences

mentioned amount to what is commonly known as an abuse of the forms of

the House. While such abuses may not in some instances amount to

disorderly conduct, they clearly amount to contempt of the House and

the offending member may be named. The Chair is therefore asking all

hon. members to consider carefully the rules of debate. Both sides of

the House are advised that the Chair must and will use its authority to

preserve order in debate.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

MR. LAUK:

I indicated to the minister and the committee that I would like very

much to deal with the school financing formula. It would be nice if the

Premier stayed and listened to this, because I don't think that he

quite understands the school financing formula.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He said, "better than you." Well, we'll see. I'll be providing everybody with a quiz later on.

One

of the problems with this misunderstanding has given rise to the

political opening that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) has

used, together with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm), to issue a very scurrilous press release. It's not based on

fact. It's attacking school boards for overspending and not paring back

their budgets.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The

Minister of Municipal Affairs says "agreed." All right. To the Minister

of Municipal Affairs and he Minister of Education, this is for you

then. This is a little lesson in what goes on in school financing.

Maybe if you listened instead of talked, you'd learned something.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll choose my own teacher.

MR. LAUK: Obviously you haven't chosen very well, Mr. Member, because you don't know anything about school financing.

School

district budgets are prepared each year by the school board of the

local districts and submitted to the Minister of Education for

approval. The budget is divided into three main sections: operating,

non-operating and capital. These three main sections have a number of

accounts attached to them, running through A to J. Under operating,

which is the

[ Page 5609 ]

significant

portion of it to be discussed today, there are several account numbers:

administration; instruction, including teachers' salaries; operation

budget; repair and maintenance budget; conveyance of pupils, and so on.

Non-operative and capital include debt services, current and

non-shareable capital. That's generally the way in which the ministry's

finances are divided.

The education finance formula is

legislated by the School Act. It is really three formulas in one,

depending on which

section of the budget is being funded — operating,

nonoperating or capital. The significant portion of the budget

section

is "operating funding." It's based on foundation-level funding. This

means that a basic level of funding is provided for each school

district, depending on the number of pupils and the number of schools

in the district. This foundation level of funding is referred to as the

basic education program.

I hope everybody is listening

because this morning the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) had absolutely

no idea what that meant. I must confess that I don't think members of

the public, reading the local press, could understand what that means

either — from the information they're gathering.

The basic

education program is under the operating budget of the ministry. It is

a basic foundation-level funding program. The basic education program

is paid for in two ways. First, each school district is required to

charge a basic mill rate to property owners. This basic mill rate is

set by the provincial government and is the same for all school

districts. In most districts the basic mill rate will pay for only a

portion of the basic education program, so the remainder is paid for by

a provincial grant which comes from general revenue. This is raised by

sales taxes, income taxes and so on. In some districts with high

assessed property values per pupil, the basic mill rate raises more

than is needed to pay for the basic education program. In these cases

the excess goes into general revenue in the province.

[Mr. Skelly in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman has taken on more substantial proportions. It is important to

remember that all school districts find it necessary to spend more than

the basic education program provides for. All amounts in excess of the

dollars raised by the BEP must be raised through local property

taxation. The non-operating funding portion of budgeting must be raised

locally by the school district. The capital funding can come in one of

two ways, depending on whether the expenditure is shareable.

Shareable

capital expenditures are those which have been approved by the Ministry

of Education. These expenditures are shared between the school district

and the province on a present percentage basis and are itemized in the

so-called H account, which is debt services. The amount of debt

services is converted to a mill rate required by the school district to

raise the necessary amount. Non-shareable capital expenditures are

those which have not been approved by the provincial government and are

itemized in another account. The local school district raises the

entire amount from local taxation.

I've given this

background because that basic understanding of the financing formula in

this province is not understood by the government members sitting in

the House. This morning the member for Omineca very embarrassingly got

up and began to attack the opposition for being against equalization of

school funding, completely and totally misunderstanding the criticism

that the opposition is making. We're criticizing the Ministry of

Education for not providing a sufficient amount of money to increase

the provincial share of contribution to local school districts. That

share has dropped.

I'll just canvass that history for the

committee. The New Democratic Party pledged in 1972 in its

administration that the burden of school property tax would be removed

from the backs of property owners. In 1974 the Premier of the day

announced a five-year program to give effect to that promise. The

Legislature passed enabling legislation and in the first two years put

$42 million from surplus into the School Tax Removal Fund, or about $40

per year per homeowner. The plan was to keep increasing the provincial

contribution to a total of $200 per year by 1980. This $200, coupled

with the $200 homeowner grant — in 1974 dollars — would have relieved

property owners of all school tax liability by 1980, if the projection

made in 1974 had been accurate. In retrospect, the costs of the scheme

were considerably understated, but adjustments could easily have been

made each year when the revenue surplus appropriation amendment bills

were brought in.

Also, during this time, the Minister of

Education in 1974 held the basic mill rate steady — in 1972 it was 24.7

mills; in 1975 it was just 26.5 mills — and increased the value and

number of the instructional units available to each school district,

and increased the provincial support of the basic education program

from 46 percent in 1972 to 48 percent in 1975 — less than two and a

half to three years, Mr. Chairman. In 1975-1976 the McMath commission

recommended that school costs be shared 75 percent provincial and 25

percent on the local property taxation base. In essence, McMath argued

that if the whole portion was paid for by Victoria, central control in

Victoria would be increased and the role of the locally elected school

board undermined. This view was accepted by the B.C. School Trustees

Association on behalf of the province's 75 school districts, the B.C.

Teachers Federation and the New Democratic Party.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When

the Social Credit government was elected they eliminated the School Tax

Removal Fund in 1976 and abandoned the NDP plan to remove school

property-tax burdens from the homeowner. They followed a policy of

increased basic mill rates. The rate went up from 26.5 mills to 41.8

mills in 1981, and they decreased contributions to the basic education

program. Where it was 47 percent provincial in 1976, it is now 37

percent in 1981. They have only increased the homeowner grant twice in

that interim period, and there has been no increase since then for

homeowners under 65. The homeowner grants are highly visible forms of

assistance, and this may have done much to deflect the blame from the

Ministry of Education onto local boards of school trustees, many of

whom are new politicians in their first term of office.

When

he was an Oak Bay municipal politician, the present Minister of

Education accepted the position put forward by the McMath commission.

He said that was a good idea. In the late 1970s, as property values

began to increase very rapidly, the government responded by reducing

the proportion of property value for assessment purposes. In 1980 the

proportion was 14 percent; in 1981 they fixed it at 11 percent.

Property values increase in many areas, but especially in the lower

mainland, and this reduction in the proportion of assessed value was

not nearly enough to stop the school prop-

[ Page 5610 ]

erty-tax

bill for homeowners going up over 100 percent in 1981 compared to 1980.

The school trustees' warning to this effect in December 1980 was

ignored.

What are this ministry's policy objectives for

education finance? The NDP, the school teachers, the school trustees

and even the minister, when he was an Oak Bay municipal politician,

accepted the McMath recommendation that 75 percent be provincial and 25

percent be local. While it was in government, the NDP established a

five-year plan to remove the burden of school property taxes from

homeowners and began to carry it out, until they were defeated and this

government abandoned it. The Social Credit government have reduced the

proportion of provincial support for the basic education program from

47 percent when it was elected to 37 percent in 1981. The Social Credit

government have not stated a firm objective about what they consider an

appropriate percentage for the province to contribute to the basic

education program. At the present rate of decline they will be paying

nothing in 1995. I'll repeat that for the minister's edification. At

the present rate of decline of the share of the provincial

contribution, the provincial government will be paying nothing to

school districts by 1995.

The alternatives available to the

provincial government, if they wanted to ease the burden to homeowners

— which they obviously will not — are, first, to reduce the basic mill

rate; they could also reduce the proportion of assessed value for

school tax purposes. That requires legislation. Bill 11 presently

before the House covers this point, so there will be an opportunity to

debate that whole question on second reading. They could also increase

the homeowner grant, which would require an amendment to the Home Owner

Grant Act, and that's not before the House. Basically then, the issue

here is: which taxes are used to pay for school costs in the district?

The opposition favours increased funding from general revenue and less

from local property taxpayers. However, the government controls the

process, in that the minister approves each school district budget and

announces the basic mill rate. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) is responsible for the homeowner grant legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're reading your speech.

MR. LAUK: I'm reading from copious notes, Mr. Chairman.

Let's

just examine the process by which these budgets are determined. On

November 10, 1980, school districts forwarded their enrolment

information so that the ministry could calculate the number of

instructional units to which each school district is entitled. On

November 15, 1980, the school districts submitted their provisional

budgets of planned operating expenses for 1981 to the ministry. The

ministry totalled these estimates, consulted with Treasury Board and

then, by December 1, 1980, provided the school boards with an estimate

of what basic provincial grants would be available, and as local

property taxes must cover the balance of the budgets, an estimate of

what the basic property tax rate would be. The school boards then have

until February 14, 1981, to revise and resubmit their expenditures.

During this period there may be changes in the board with new trustees

taking office on December 1 and an arbitration award for teachers'

salaries also occurring in the interim.

Between February 15

and May 1, 1981, the ministry decided to review the district's

operating budget with the school board, which is required by the

regulations. Expenditure items may be reallocated and the budget

reduced.

By April 20, the minister advises each board what

provincial grants it will receive, what the basic mill rate is and the

amount to be raised by local property taxes. That's by April 20, Mr.

Chairman. And by May 1 the boards must have approved by a bylaw their

expenditure and revenue for the calendar year 1981.

You'll

have noticed that by May 1, when the operating budget is finally

approved, 40 percent of the time that schools are open, that financial

year has already passed. About 40 percent of the budget, we assume, has

been spent. Consequently it is difficult for a board to adjust school

operations to reflect the requirements of the final budget. It's a

catch-22 for school boards, as Mr. Chairman knows full well.

hope that by canvassing some of these things I have made some of the

terms clearer to the members still left in the chamber. The

misrepresentation constantly flowing forth about what the basic

education program is in relation to the contribution of the provincial

treasury to education and so on can be clarified in the public's mind.

Then we won't have the pathetic example of the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) rising today and talking about equalization without knowing at

all what the school trustees have been criticizing the ministry for,

what I have been criticizing the ministry for or what anybody else has

been saying about school financing.

I hope the remarks of

the member for Omineca don't reach the school trustees in Omineca,

because it would be very embarrassing for him indeed. Recapping just

for the moment, the basic education program is a sum of money

calculated each year by the ministry which provides each school

district with the primary funding for its operating budget. The board

must then decide what revenue it needs over and above that basic

program to meet the district's total operating expenditures. This

additional operating expenditure is paid solely from local property

taxes.

I've described already what an instructional unit is,

but I wanted to deal carefully with the expression "provincial grants,"

because I notice in the press there is a great deal of confusion about

the provincial grants from the ministry. A grant paid by the province

on the basic education program is calculated as follows. You take the

total cost of the basic education program, less the amount that the

basic mill rate raises in property taxes, and that becomes the

provincial grant. If, as in many cases, the basic mill rate raises more

in the district than the basic program costs, this surplus is turned

over to the provincial general revenue. That case has occurred most

notably in the city of Vancouver's district.

The other

expression is "supplementary basic grants." They are those authorized

section 181(5) of the School Act to a district in which, because of

exceptional circumstances, costs have increased more rapidly than in

districts across the province as a whole. That is what the member for

Omineca was talking about — the supplementary basic grants.

The

special aid grants, under

section 187 of the School Act, provides for

these to be authorized by cabinet, where the minister recommends that

extra funding from provincial revenues is justified, "taking into

consideration the position and circumstances of the district." The

grants may be for a variety of purposes, such as the so-called "McGeer

program of incentive grants for excellent budget performance" in 1979.

You know what your school district got for your excellent budget

performance, Mr. Chairman, and I know what my school district got —

zilch! And they went beyond the call of

[ Page 5611 ]

duty in paring back their budgets. They thought it would be an incentive, but it was just another piece of icing on the cake.

It's

delightful to have a former school board chairman sitting as chairman

of the committee. He knows full well what I'm talking about — perhaps.

This

section is the

section on special aid grants, and it's broadly enough

phrased that it could be used to provide aid to districts that are

being hurt by rocketing property values. The reduction in the

percentage of assessed value really doesn't help. This

section is a

catch-all, and if the formula produces unacceptable results, the

cabinet has power to act to bring relief.

Dealing with the

special aid grants, I want to make a charge against this minister in

his allocation under

section 187 — the special aid grants. I am

charging that those special aid grants are made out of political

partisan motivation and are not pursuant to the School Act and what it

was designed to do. And I make that charge on the following basis.

Section 187 reads:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, on receipt

of a report from the minister regarding the granting of special aid to a school

district and, on taking into consideration the position and circumstances of

the district, grant to the board of the district an additional amount he deems

necessary."

The

data shows that districts — excluding the Vancouver districts — with

Social Credit MLAs received 61 percent of the grants. Districts with

NDP MLAs received only 39 percent. This is with a difference of only

four members in the Legislature. That's about $3.7 million to the

Social Credit constituencies and about $2.25 million to the NDP. When

analyzed by size, using the school trustees' analysis of school

district budget grouping, a strong correlation is found between

enrolment changes and the special aid given, but the grants are not

consistent in terms of dollars per capita, percentage change in

enrolment or even between districts of similar size.

developing a line of questions for the minister, I was hard-pressed to

find out the formula he was using. I'll make two comments to the

minister. First of all, I contend that the provincial support of school

districts is inadequate, but what support is going out should be fairly

and equitably distributed. It's not. It's being distributed on a

partisan basis. The government has refused to say what criteria they

used. The ADM ministry finances, Mr. Fleming, is not returning my calls

of inquiry. The ministry's executive assistant told one of my

researchers yesterday that the minister's view was that the issues

could be raised in Education estimates. That's what I'm doing.

Excluding

Vancouver, I would like the minister to answer the following questions:

can the minister explain to the committee how it was that special aid

grants under

section 187 of the School Act were allocated 61 percent to

districts with Socred MLAs and 39 percent to districts with NDP MLAs?

While he's at it, could the minister explain why Abbotsford School

District in the riding of Central Fraser Valley received over half a

million dollars in special aid, with its enrolment up 5 percent and its

assessment up 8 percent, while Nanaimo School District only received

$200,000 when its assessment was up 19 percent and its enrolment up

almost 3 percent?

Could the minister please explain how the Vernon School District in

the Minister of Tourism's (Hon. Mrs. Jordan'

s) constituency qualified

for $173,000 in special aid, when its assessment went down and its

enrolment went up by only 1-point-something percent, while the Cowichan

School District, with increased assessments of 10 percent and no change

in enrolment, qualified for no special aid at all? We don't know

whether it's based on assessments or enrolment. The only consistent

thing is the political stripe of the MLA representing the constituency.

While he's at it, could the minister please

explain why the North Thompson School District in the Socred riding of

Kamloops failed to qualify for special aid when its assessments went up

17 1/2 percent and its enrolment dropped less than 1 percent, while the

Grand Forks School District in the riding of Boundary-Similkameen

qualified for $30,000 despite a 1 1/2 percent drop in assessments and a

2 1/2 percent drop in enrolments? Could the minister explain how he

decided to recommend the South Okanagan School District for $34,500 of

special aid with its 1 1/2 percent increase in assessments and its 4

percent drop in enrolments, while the Castlegzr School District in our

constituency of Trail faces a 6 1/2 percent rise in assessments and a

one-tenth of 1 percent drop in enrolment, and qualified for no special

aid at all?

Could the minister explain what made him

recommend the Central Okanagan School District in the Premier's

constituency for $139,000 in special aid when assessments were up by 9

percent and enrolment was down one-tenth of a percent, while the

Coquitlam School District, with a 12 1/2 percent increase in

assessments and a 1/4 percent drop in enrolments, qualified for no

special aid at all? Why did the minister decide to recommend the

Chilliwack School District for $200,000 in special aid when its

assessments were up by only 1 1/4 percent and its enrolment was down by

2 percent, while the Sooke School District in Esquimalt had its

assessments raised by 8 percent and its enrolment went down slightly,

and it got no special aid at all? The Nechako School District received

$25,000 in special aid on a 10 percent increase in assessments and a

0.5 percent increase in full-time enrolment, while Vancouver Island

North School District received only $29,400 in special aid, despite a

19 1/2 percent increase in assessments and an increase in enrolment

nearly three times the one recorded in Nechako. Could the minister

explain what happened there? Could the minister explain why the

Keremeos School District in the Social Credit constituency of

Boundary-Similkameen was somehow eligible for $50,000 in special aid

when its assessments rose less than 1 percent and its enrolment dropped

over 6 percent, while in Gulf Islands-Lake Cowichan School District

they experienced a 31 percent increase in assessments and received not

a dime in special aid?

The allocation of these special

grants is made, on the face of it, on the basis of political stripe and

on no other formula known to anybody in the ministry. It is little

wonder that the deputy minister in charge of finance in the Ministry of

Education refuses our phone calls. He refused to answer no fewer than

seven. The minister's executive assistant has said: "Better deal with

it in estimates.".

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor. He will speak uninterrupted.

MR. LAUK:

Well, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says that I'm a bit of a bore.

Well, I'll tell you, the school trustees, the parents and the teachers

of these school districts that are suffering because of high taxation

and no support from the

[ Page 5612 ]

Ministry of Education don't think it's boring. They think your government's boring and they're going to get rid of you.

think I've asked a series of questions. I would really appreciate it if

the minister would respond and give us some formula by which he

calculates these special aid grants.

HON. MR. SMITH: It was a good speech, Mr. Chairman. That's all it was.

Unfortunately,

the figures that the member was using are the total amount of special

a second language, the Cadre program and, as well, some special aid

which is given on a set of principles which I can tell the member are

not political and have nothing to do with the stripe of the riding.

MR. LAUK: Well, tell us.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Yes, I'm going to. What I will do is give you a breakdown of the

figures that were not aid dealing with FSL or aid dealing with Cadre,

but were just aid under that

section of special funding.

The

principles that were used were basically these: urgent building

maintenance program and a low ability to pay, based on assessments.

There was one district that had a fire.

MR. LAUK: Which one had the fire?

HON. MR. SMITH: It was a district that one of your members represents.

MR. LAUK: Well, give it to me.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I'm going to. Just be patient. You're usually very patient in your lugubrious loquaciousness.

Creston-Kaslo

had a fire loss of $350,000. The high school burned down. The

additional operating costs associated with that fire loss were

$350,000, or 5.4 mills. If that fire hadn't occurred, the mill rate

would have been about 65, and not 77.6. What we did was provide special

aid to that district — occupied by one of your members — in the amount

of $350,000. The charge of partisanship is exactly the reverse. That's

one example. I'll give you some others.

Another principle that was applied was: districts that had rapid increases

in enrolments. Districts that got grants on that basis were — the ones that

come immediately to mind — Surrey, Qualicum and Maple Ridge. I think you'll

find that those districts are split evenly between members on both sides. No

qualifying pupils.

Another

example is Arrow Lakes. This district had a very urgently needed

program of building maintenance, and its budget increased by 26.6

percent. Because of its low tax base it received a one mill aid of

$30,000. That was one example. Another example is Grand Forks-Kettle

Valley School District. It has suffered a reduction of almost 2 percent

in net taxable value under the formula, and a moderate increase in

budget of course reflected very heavily on the mill rate of that

district, so that aid was given to that district in the amount of

$30,000 or one mill. I'll give you some more examples.

MR. LAUK: Why don't you answer my questions instead of giving me

examples? What about the examples I gave you?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm at least polite when you're on your feet, however difficult it may be.

MR. LAUK: We're not here to be polite.

HON. MR. SMITH: You're here occasionally to open your ears and listen, though, instead of your mouth.

Nechako

was given aid of $25,000 because of heavy maintenance costs in several

older rural schools. They received a small amount — $25,000 — and so

did Fort Nelson, which received a grant of $50,000. It was a district

that had certain additional expenses and it had a problem particular to

that district, and we gave a small grant there.

There were

some needy districts as well that received grants under this aid

category. One was Keremeos, where the mill rate jumped from 47 to 66

mills, and there was a very slight change in the net taxable value —

less than 1 percent — and the effects of that on this small district

would have been very severe, and they were given a grant of $50,000.

Another school district that received aid under this category was

Armstrong-Spallumcheen, which had an enrolment increase of 3.8 percent

and a budget increase of 17 percent, but no increase in the net taxable

value, so the base didn't go up. We gave aid there of $35,000.

Similarly for Surrey and Qualicum, because of increased enrolment. The

district of Stikine, which had high start-up costs, had a very enormous

hike in its mill rate from 61 percent to 88 percent, and it was

necessary to give a grant to that district, or the spread of that mill

rate would have been horrendous.

So the principles upon

which this very limited special aid — I could call it discretionary

special aid; there was only $1.2 million of it in that category — was

given were rapid increases in enrolments, special needs for a new

district such as Stikine or Fort Nelson and the problems there,

emergency situation, fire loss in Creston-Kaslo, and the impact that

assessments had on areas with a low assessment base and rapid increase

in other costs. I described some of those districts like Grand Forks,

Keremeos and Armstrong. The ability to pay, high costs and low

assessment base — those were the only principles used.

When

you break down the $1.2 million out of those figures my friend used, I

think you'll find that they were not given on the basis of political

complexion. I couldn't even tell you when I approved the grants what

ridings they were in. They were given entirely on the basis of need,

and no consideration was given to doing it on the basis of trying to

adjust the assessment formula around the province to put moneys into

districts in the lower mainland or urban areas, because we didn't have

that kind of money to do that with, and that would have been a

piecemeal solution to a much more major problem. But I will be happy to

give the member the breakdown of each of those districts that got the

$1.2 million in aid. The rest of that aid that he has referred to and

which he has analyzed out — unfortunately perhaps he didn't know —

contained moneys that are already earmarked for ESL programs and Cadre

French programs and also direct funding for severely disabled children.

So they had absolutely nothing to do with discretion; the rest of that

money had totally to do with numbers.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

[ Page 5613 ]

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, visiting us in the gallery today are a group of grade 11

and grade 12 students from south Burnaby, accompanied by their teachers

Mr. Peter Barrett and Miss Jeannie Ferguson. With these students, who

have just returned from spending a week in Quebec, are some students

from Quebec on an exchange. They're accompanied by their teachers, Ms.

Barbara Macteau and Miss Gemma Chabot, who I do not think is any

relative of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — at least I hope

she isn't. However, would the House join me in making these students

and their visitors very welcome.

MR. LAUK: I thank

the minister for giving me the examples, but I wonder if he would

direct his mind to the questions I was asking him with respect to the

districts I was outlining. Certainly I appreciate that no ESL money is

involved. They didn't discuss the district of Vancouver. The refugee

ESL money is in the district of Vancouver. If it's elsewhere, let me

know.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: But I'm

talking about district by district. You're not going to give $35,000 to

Vernon for ESL programs, are you? I'm asking the minister: would he

deal with the constituencies that I asked him about? If the minister

says he didn't make a political decision, what is the rationalization

for these examples? How does the public know that the grants have been

equitably distributed? We have some classic ironies here, even based on

the criteria the minister has just suggested. In the Burnaby school

district the mill rate went up 8 percent, and they got no special aid;

in North Vancouver it was up 6.2 percent, and they qualified for

$71,000 in special aid. What happened in North Vancouver? How about

that one?

I'll just give you two or three more examples. The

minister has undertaken to give me this breakdown of information. I'm

not going to delay the committee any further, if he will do so before

his estimates expire.

HON. MR. SMITH: That would be better. I will give it to you in detail, so you can have a rationale for each of those items.

MR. LAUK: Today?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know whether it will be today.

MR. LAUK: We'd like to get through you today.

MR. SKELLY:

I have a very short and specific question for that minister. It relates

to a problem that was directed to my attention by two constituents,

both of whom have children attending Trinity Western College. The

problem has to do with discrimination on the part of the government

between public institutions and universities and private colleges and

universities when awarding grants under the B.C. student aid program.

Apparently the students at Trinity Western College and other private

colleges and universities qualify for the loan portion of student aid,

but they don't qualify for the grant portion.

I called the

ministry in January, and they said the ministry had been examining this

discrimination between students in public institutions and private

institutions, and that they were considering expanding the program to

include students in private institutions. Since the government has done

that all along the line, from K to 12 for private schools, they felt it

was unfair that it shouldn't be continued into private colleges and

universities. I called the ministry on January 15 this year, and they

said that the matter was being discussed. I talked to Rick McCandless

in Dr. Newberry's office. He said the matter was still being discussed,

that policy was still being developed, and that it would be placed on

the minister's desk later that month. I called again in April, and he

said the policy was still being worked on: he couldn't provide me with

the recommendations that were being made to the minister or tell me at

what level the policy was finally going to be decided. But he did say

it was tied up with the problem of not only Trinity Western College

being involved, but also other private institutions, including private

trade schools, being involved, and that that was part of the problem.

Just

a few days ago, on May 12, I received a letter from the Ministry of

Labour saying, yes, there now is money in the budget of the Ministry of

Labour — $100,000 — to provide grants for students in private trade

schools in the province; that although that money had been limited this

year to $100,000 they were looking at expanding it over the years if

necessary. Has the decision been made by the ministry with respect to

granting funds under the B.C. student aid program to students of

private colleges and universities? If so, what funds are available?

Where are they in the budget? Can the minister give us some details of

that program?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member,

because that's a timely subject and one that interests me. He's correct

that the Canada student loan program does provide funding to students

in private as well as public institutions, and the policy for the

provincial grant portion of that student funding has always been that

it's only been available to students in public institutions. There are

really three categories of institutions that we have to look to: the

career vocational trade schools that are licensed and operated under

the Ministry of Labour and are under the Trade-schools Regulation Act;

a number of religious institutions which offer programs leading to

divinity degrees and ordination; and the privately operated non-profit

universities, such as Trinity Western College, which have privileges

under

an act of this Legislature, have the power to grant general arts

degrees and also enjoy transfer credit relationships with

public-supported universities. Quite frankly, hon. member, I am trying

to rationalize a policy so that we can be consistent. If we are going

to be consistent, we will at least be able to treat all these

categories alike. I think a good argument can be made to consider

applying aid to students at Trinity Western College. That has to be

done with some rationale and fairness so that others in the same

category are treated the same way. That is the very issue that we're

looking at right now, and I hope we'll be able to make some kind of

announcement. I thank you for raising it.

MR. SKELLY:

I thank the minister for his response, but it doesn't give much hope to

students beginning semesters at that university in a few months' time.

When can these students expect an announcement? I've been calling the

ministry since January 1, 1981, and the policy has been shuffled around

within the ministry. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be well discussed

and well examined before a decision is made, but I'm wondering when

these students — who are feeling

[ Page 5614 ]

the

financial pinch, as are students in public universities and

institutions all over the province — can expect some kind of a decision

and the money to start flowing.

HON. MR. SMITH: I

take it from the remarks of the member that he is supportive of the

principle of extending provincial grant aid to students at private

universities. Is that correct, hon. member?

MR. SKELLY: I'm inquiring on behalf of two of my constituents who do support that.

HON. MR. SMITH:

That isn't quite the answer I was looking for. I would certainly be

grateful if I knew that the gentlemen opposite were in favour of that

principle. That might enhance the speed at which the decision would be

made.

MR. SKELLY: So it's strictly a political decision?

HON. MR. SMITH:

No. I can assure you that a decision will be made in ample time for

students who are enrolling in September to avail themselves in the

event that aid is going to be granted. It's a principle and dollar

decision.

MR. HOWARD . I'd like to raise a subject with the minister in this

formal way during his estimates. I'm sure he is somewhat familiar with it,

because it has created quite a bit of publicity not only in Terrace within School

District 88 but in the lower mainland print media as well.

while ago the school board or the superintendent — or both together, as

I understand it — took steps under

section 120 of the act to transfer

two principals from two separate schools to a position of teacher. In

effect they demoted them. That was the action that was taken. I use the

word "transfer" because that's the relevant word in that section. I

read the

section as carefully as I could, tried to get some

understanding of what some of the implications are and spoke with

people in Terrace — both those directly affected and others. It appears

that because

section 120 is worded the way it is and because one of the

provisions therein says that transfers are not subject to the usual

appeal or review proceedings of the act — it is silent on reasons which

might exist for action taken to transfer — the two individuals affected

by the decision to transfer them or demote them were not given reasons.

As far as the students and general public are aware, there were no

reasons given or advanced as to why these two individuals were sought

to be transferred. In any event, I think the

section is deficient in

not actually requiring that when their board makes such a decision they

be obligated by law to give the reason to the person who is being

transferred.

Were it to say that, there would be no question

of doubt. The board would be obliged by law upon a transfer to say

"here is the reason why you are being transferred" — or demoted, as is

the situation in this case. At least with that the person aggrieved

would have some foundation upon which to launch his request for a

hearing or a re-hearing of the situation before the board or committee

of the board or the superintendent. Because the minister is the final

arbiter in this situation, if it gets to his desk, the aggrieved person

would have some foundation upon which he could launch his arguments

with the minister.

That decision by the board to transfer those two principals has created a tremendous amount of concern in Terrace.

one point, a school board meeting had been scheduled to be held in the

school board offices where these meetings are held and somewhere

between 200 and 300 parents showed up. They had to transfer the

location of that meeting from the school board offices to the R.E.M.

Lee Theatre in Terrace to accommodate the concerned parents who wanted

to find out what was happening both with respect to the principals, who

were highly regarded and respected, and also to their children who were

in attendance at those schools.

One account which was related to me, which I also read about in the Terrace Daily Herald

following that meeting, was that the parents went away not very

satisfied with the response that they received — or lack of it from

their point of view — I understand that there has been an interview —

as it's called in the act — between the two principals and the board.

At this point I am not aware of any decision which has been made by the

board as a result of that interview, which was held just two days ago.

The board may have made a decision by now and communicated it. I

understand they were supposed to do that in writing to the two

principals. At this point in time I am not sure whether or not that has

taken place.

This resulted in the unusual event of fairly

solid support by the teaching staff in Terrace for the two principals

concerned, to the point that they held a one-day study session in

Terrace, which resulted in the schools being closed for that day. The

purpose of the study session engaged in by teachers in Terrace was to

inform the general public and those who were interested in either

coming to those study sessions or in reading about them afterwards that

they supported the principals in their position of not being demoted

and to acquaint the public with the turmoil that exists in that

community.

It has resulted in the teaching staff committing

itself to a so-called work-to-rule program. That, as I understand it,

means that a large number of the functions which teachers normally

engage in out of their commitment in school, such as supervision, bus

loading, lunchtime interviews and that sort of thing, which teachers do

out of their commitment to the profession of teaching and assisting the

students, have now been put to one side, the result being that some of

the things which normally occur in the educational process in schools

are not now available. Admittedly, that has caused some considerable

concern — and naturally so — among the parents of children going to

those schools. They have come to expect that in addition to the

curricula being taught these other activities would be available to

their children, while they were in that particular school, as a normal

part of the daily activity of a student. These services are not

available now, and that departure from what has normally been the

activity of teachers has caused concern on the part of parents.

The

education of the children in those schools gets placed in a tenuous

position if there is an interference with the counselling, guidance and

supervision factor. As well, there is a tension which exists within the

schools that interferes with the normal attentiveness students would

bring with them and apply in a classroom to learn what the teacher is

seeking to teach them. The common thread of conversation among the

students is not what's going on in the classroom — "what's this teacher

trying to tell us?" and discussion around that sort of thing — but

their attention is diverted to what's going on at the teacher-school

board-community level throughout the day, and that ' t interferes with

the normal process of education. It is not a good situation at all.

[ Page 5615 ]

understand there is another meeting of the school board scheduled which

will engage the general public. Maybe that's to be held this evening —

it's very imminent, in any event.

The way I see it, the

minister has a responsibility under the act. In fact, I think he is

specifically charged with the administration and management of the

schools. The way I read the act, there's some doubt in my mind about

it, but the minister, considering the transfer.... In one subsection of

the act it says: "it may be reviewed by the minister, whose decision

shall then be final and binding." In the following one it contemplates

that perhaps the teacher who wishes a review should request the

minister to have that review. There are two sections in there — one

presumably applying to a teacher who is not a principal. Subsection

(6), as I read it, applying to a teacher so defined in the act who is a

principal — there's a cross-reference to another

section of the act —

leaves the possibility that the minister may, on his own initiative,

without the request of the teacher, step into the picture and review

the situation. That may not be politic in terms of the relationship

with the ministry and school boards.

Whether or not this

section of the act permits the minister to do that sort of thing, I

think what he needs to do, and what I would seriously and earnestly

urge him to do, is to look at the general overall responsibility of the

minister for the subject matter of education in the province and

recognize that some actions are taking place and some activities being

engaged in in School District 88 which I submit to you would not have

taken place if the school board had not taken the decision in the first

place to transfer or demote two principals who are very highly regarded

in the community. If that first step had not been taken, or if it had

been taken and rationale or reasons given to the aggrieved parties so

they would have some understanding of what is in the mind of the school

board, perhaps the situation which exists today would not exist.

But

that's only supposition, because the situation does exist. There's

difficulty and tension in the community, hard feelings are going to

develop, education is being interfered with and parents are vitally

concerned about it, because for one thing we are getting close to the

end of the school term, and for another they are concerned about the

general question of how their children are going to fare in an

educational system that's functioning and operating in an area where

that sort of tension exists.

I think it behooves the

minister to take some steps either directly or through some authority

in the ministry to go to Terrace and discuss with the school board, the

teachers and their parents the whole subject matter that's boiling up

in that community, and — by the good services, good offices and good

intentions throughout the ministry, whether at the minister's level or

the administrative level — try to find some equitable solution to what

is taking place there. If something like that does not happen fairly

soon, all those feelings that are now difficult tentatively may become

more tense. As the minister knows, if the tension continues between

groups for any length of time, positions become more hardened, more

precise and more difficult to move away from, in terms of finding a

solution. I really would like the minister to enunciate today, if he

could, what his intentions are in this regard, or to give some

indication of what the potential is within his authority to resolve

this matter very quickly, and not let it elevate into something that

becomes unmanageable.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll be happy

to do so, hon. member. First of all. the specifics of the Terrace case,

as I understand it: two principals were transferred back to regular

classrooms, effective September 1. That decision was protested by the

two teachers, who requested and received a meeting with the local

board. A number of meetings took place as well with groups from the

teachers' association in Terrace, the board and the two principals

concerned. An interview was held under

section 120. I'm informed that

the board decided on May 13 to uphold the transfer decision. In other

words, they didn't change their mind. As you indicated, under the act

they can now request of me a transfer review. When those reviews are

requested, I allow a review to take place if there is an apparent loss

of station or salary involved; there would be in this case. So you can

draw your own conclusions.

I don't review them by going and

hearing evidence myself: I set up a three-man tribunal. with

representatives from both sides and a chairman, and then I receive

their recommendation. That is the process. We don't inject ourselves

into these matters at this stage. I appreciate the invitation to do so.

I don't know how that fits in with the philosophy that your critic

espoused to me: he didn't want me to be a centralizing paternalist.

Nobody seems to want me to be a centralizing paternalist unless there's

some trouble in their own backyard. Then, of course, everybody would

like the centralizing paternalist to come in and just give a little bit

of help. I know it's a dilemma. I'm not saying that critically of you.

It's a dilemma in the system. You respect the right of a local board to

deal with a management matter, and you don't want to interfere in that,

but at the same time you have overriding responsibilities for education

across the whole province, and you try to balance those two things, I'm

informed as to what's going on up there; I'm aware of that. I've

followed it closely. I would hope also that the teachers who are

concerned about this in Terrace would not take the opportunity to use

work-to-rule tactics. There is a process under the act for a review,

which can be requested. It's a proper process, which I will put into

force.

I do not think it appropriate that work-to-rule

campaigns should proceed when there is a process. All that really does

is jeopardize the learning and the educational activities of students.

If there wasn't a process they might feel more compelled to do that,

but there is a process. That process will proceed swiftly if the two

principals involved request a right of appeal. It may be that the

process set out in that

section of the act. hon. member, is not an

ideal one. I've explained to you how I interpret that process; I try

and interpret it by setting up a fair and impartial tribunal to advise

me. I thank you very much for bringing the specific and the broader

question to my attention. I think that

section of the act obviously

needs some attention.

MR. HOWARD: Let me say at the

outset that I fully agree that ministers should not interfere with

local school boards and 11 m pleased to see the minister back off from

the direction in which his remarks were proceeding. However, there are

at times extraordinary situations which demand that one depart from a

position of being aloof. That is the case in Terrace. The tension, hard

feelings and potential injury to students need some extraordinary

consideration.

The minister may not like the so-called

work-to-rule activity but it exists. The minister may not like the fact

that 200 to 300 parents attend school board meetings, but they do so

because they are concerned. If the two principals who are

[ Page 5616 ]

aggrieved

proceed to have the minister review their situation, I hope he does so

speedily and fairly because every day's delay will merely add to the

tension and cause further hard feelings.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise some issues with the minister as

they relate to the constituency of Comox. I would appreciate it if the

minister would let me know what's happened in these various issues.

First of all, I should remind the committee that the provincial

government decided to purchase some very valuable and beautiful land on

Hornby Island which included the Hornby Island lodge. Subsequent to

that purchase, the government decided that they would try to remove the

lodge itself and the cabins surrounding the lodge from the Crown land

in order to attempt to sell the lodge and cabins to be operated as a

resort, even though the board of school trustees had appealed to the

minister to retain the lodge for educational purposes for School

District 71. It was determined that if the land was in fact removed,

sold and was no longer Crown land, then whoever purchased that land

would not be able to operate the facility as a lodge at all, because it

would be in conflict with the bylaws that have been established for

Hornby Island. I think it became quite clear that the people of Hornby

Island were not about to alter their bylaws in order to accommodate

someone who wished to purchase the lodge and operate it as a resort.

The

minister wrote to the school district and has also written to the

Islands Trust representative — I guess you would call her the trustee —

with respect to the future of that lodge; but he has never made any

commitment, even though it has been a long time now since those initial

proposals were made from the Courtenay-Comox-Hornby Island area with

respect to the future of that lodge. The school board has indicated to

me that they would very much welcome the opportunity much of at least '

discussing the issue with the minister. They have never been invited to

discuss it with the minister and would welcome that opportunity. I'm

appealing to the minister today to at least proceed with discussions

with the board of school trustees with respect to the future of that

particular lodge. I know that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing

(Hon. Mr. Chabot) is the one who's directly responsible for that land.

But obviously, according to the correspondence, that I have, the

Minister of Education has been in consultation with him for at least

six months, and we still don't have any decision, we don't know what's

going to happen to that land and the school board is still waiting.

They would welcome that opportunity, so I would like the minister to

tell me what's happening there and whether or not he will in fact

accept the invitation, offered today by the MLA for the area, to meet

with the school board in order to discuss the future of the lodge on

Hornby Island.

Another question that I have relates to an application that has been

made by the Courtenay youth music camp to the Ministry of Education for

financial assistance in order to hire students this summer. In the

past, the Courtenay youth music camp has received $82,000 through the

youth employment program. Because of the changes made in that program,

they are unable to come up with that $82,000, which represents a fifth

of their total budget. That is a significant portion, as you can

appreciate, Mr. Chairman. The directors all volunteers in the Courtenay

Youth Music Centre have spent enough time already trying to raise

sufficient funds to keep that excellent program operating. Last year

they hired 50 students from various parts of the province. It's not

just the Courtenay area that benefits from any funds that might come

from the ministry in order to assist the directors of that society.

They have asked for $27,700 from the Ministry of Education as a

non-statutory grant, and I would like the minister to indicate to me

whether or not any decision has been made with respect to that

particular application.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister

is probably aware that there have been a number of problems over the

years at North Island College. I know that the previous Minister of

Education had special meetings set up between members of his ministry

and the board of the North Island College. I think that there were some

problems ironed out at that long meeting — I understand it was a

four-hour meeting that took place — but I think that the minister still

must keep a very close eye on what's happening at the North Island

College. I understand that there is concern within the ministry — and I

suppose this applies to other colleges as well — with respect to the

number of students who are actually enrolled and whether or not the

figures presented to government with respect to enrolment are as

accurate as they might be. There is also concern about the fact that so

many of the students who enroled initially in a college like North

Island College fail to complete the course.

I understand

also, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a consortium of colleges

established on Vancouver Island. In other words the three major

colleges on the Island are conducting some kind of an investigation

into some of the issues that I have raised with respect to enrolment,

funding and also completion of courses. I'm wondering if the minister

can give me some information about that particular project that I think

has been undertaken and is now underway within the ministry.

The

last question that I have for the minister relates to the particular

fair-comparison method which was adopted by the faculty at North Island

College with respect to their negotiations. They are the only college

in the province who elected fair comparison as provided under the

College and Institute Act. I'm wondering if the minister could advise

me how the faculty can change from the fair-comparison method and get

out of that particular situation if they so wish. Is there any

provision now in the statute? I have not been able to find it. I'm

wondering, Mr. Chairman, if there is any way that the people who have

elected that particular method can change midstream, if you like, and

adopt another method for negotiating their salaries and working

conditions. I would like the minister to comment on that as well.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I just have a few items I'd like to bring up under the

minister's vote. They deal with the principles of education and some of

the areas in which members in this House should reinforce their

commitment to certain new aspects of education in this province. One of

those areas is aid to independent schools. It was a major change in

philosophy for this province that was introduced by our government. I

think that we should clarify for the people where the members on both

the government side and those in the opposition stand on this issue.

Certainly demands for adjustment to that formula for sharing for the K

to 12 grades will be made, but also additional requests will probably

be made for post-secondary education.

I think we should

quite properly be entertaining these requests in advance — if they have

not come forward already — and considering where members of this House

stand on

[ Page 5617 ]

their

commitment to independent schools. Should we consider any additional

support? Would it be endangered or threatened by a change of

government? If so, those embarking upon broadening their educational

programs on the independent side should be cautioned in advance and

know in advance that they will no longer receive this funding should

there be a change in government. The continuity of the education that

they provide requires a clear understanding of what will happen to

them. They must not be left with uncertainty. They know that the

opposition did not support the principle of aid to independent schools

when our government passed it. It was a heated debate when they finally

came back to the House. Obviously, if there are going to be enrichments

or improvements, they would be impossible if we knew, as a government,

and if the public knew — and particularly those providing the

independent alternative — that that funding would be lost, and their

education would no longer have that opportunity and would be threatened

should there be a change in government. It's very important, then, in

the Education minister's estimates, that we find out clearly if there's

going to be a growing alternative to the public education system.

Another

area I was interested in this morning was when the member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem) was speaking on equipping our children to cope with

today's society; that is to say society the way it is in the enterprise

system. He wasn't selling philosophy, as the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) said. It's merely that despite the wish of the

socialists, or those who would have a different economic system, we are

in a private enterprise system, and as such these students should be

equipped to be able to cope and to utilize that system in the best

possible way.

It wouldn't be teaching politics or political

philosophy, as he said — teaching or private enterprise. It would be

equipping our citizens, whether as consumers, investors or owners, to

deal with the right to own property, the opportunities and how this is

achieved. It seems to me that it is not political, but there is an

inadequacy within our school system, and somehow they have been fearful

in teaching students how to solve problems and in other areas which

equip them for the type of society we are.

When it was

brought up by the member for Dewdney I was reminded that his

predecessor, Peter Rolston, was a fair-minded person in this House, a

member of the NDP, and he would probably support that. I can remember

quite well that Dewdney has always sent a keen and interesting type of

member who is interested in education. I remember Peter Rolston was

interested in education, and I think most of us remember him in this

House as a member of high ethical conduct, someone who, we felt, had

provided among those members good standards for them to aspire to. I

think Peter Rolston taught those members a lot. He was a United Church

minister and certainly one of the members who I felt raised the

standards among the NDP when he was here.

I say to the

present member for Dewdney that I was interested in your remarks today

because I think you hit the nail on the head. It's equipping them to

get out into what would be called in glamourous terms the "modern-day

jungle, " and to understand the ability to invest, the ability to own.

Are they equipped to understand the opportunities'? I think more people

would have opportunity for access to a broader base of ownership if

they understood in advance the rules and the opportunities by which

they play in the game of life. I don't think we give them that training.

The

member for Dewdney mentioned consumerism, but that's only one part of

it. The other

part is how do they get to become homeowners. What are

the benefits of property ownership? What can home and property

ownership mean in the way of real assets? How can they guard against

continuing inflation?

MRS. WALLACE: How can they afford it?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I heard the member for Cowichan-Malahat say: "How can they afford it?"

I agree. I worry about the high interest rate policy of the present

federal government. I do know, that their only ally in the House on

most issues seems to be the NDP — all the time on the constitutional

issues. I would rather they go through some tough periods from time to

time, and still have the opportunity to own. I can remember being in

this House when I was in opposition and when the government members of

the day said one of the worst things in the world was property

ownership. I remember them saying it was terrible. I remember them

talking about leasing rather than owing — leasing land to the people. I

would rather they have the opportunity to own. But they'll lose

confidence if they don't know how. They might fall for that hogwash

that they must be tenants of the state with those leases that the

member for Cowichan-Malahat's party talks about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would remind the Premier that we are discussing the Ministry of Education, vote 54.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I did get sidetracked, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize. Anyhow, those are

a couple of important areas that I think must be discussed today. I'll

just repeat them, because I think it's important if we're going to have

any continuity in the independent school system.

The member

for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is here now. I know she wants to get up

and speak on this issue right after me. I've got to say that we've got

to clearly and unequivocally state where we stand on independent

education systems. If it's going to be threatened by changes or

possible changes of government in elections, they cannot plan properly

he type of substantial education program that's compatible with the

public school program, that competes with the public school program,

that puts the public school program on its toes, that can help the

public school program be better because it's got something to compare

with, and that gives our parents a right of choice on the type of

education their children have.

I think it's only fair not to

dodge the issue politically but to state your policy clearly, because

that system cannot plan for the future. It cannot provide the type of

education that it's capable of doing if it's under the threat that it's

going to be cancelled. If it is going to be cancelled, we need to know,

because we will be getting requests to enrich the aid to those schools,

to broaden the educational content. Perhaps we're going to be asked to

consider aid to post-secondary education in the independent school

status. The member for Burnaby North, the former Education minister in

the New Democratic Party government, has been an eloquent spokesman

against this type of aid in the past. I would like her to speak today

and give her position to let this important part of our education

system know once and for all what sort of future it has in British

Columbia.

[ Page 5618 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH:

Would the Minister of Education like to respond to the questions put to

him by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and also perhaps to the

questions put to him by the Premier, when he was suggesting that there

might be some change in funding for independent schools? It's my

understanding that the Minister of Education has been telling the

independent schools that if there is to be any change in their

financing, then of course they would lose some of their independence. I

thought perhaps the Minister of Education might want to respond to the

Premier's questions with respect to that.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'd like to deal with the points that the member for Comox raised about

the proposal for Tribune Bay Lodge property on Hornby Island, which I'm

well aware of, as she is. There have been a number of proposals over

the past couple of years. One proposal was made by the school board

some time ago that they would use it as a camp for children for day

outings and use the buildings as a shelter. That ideas, along with some

other ideas that it might become a community arts resource, have been

ones that have come to me from the island's trustees, and I'm sure they

have to you. The land use of that property was always another issue

apart from the educational use. I guess it had to be decided by another

minister as to whether the use of that property would be along these

lines or whether in the future it might be put back into use as a

lodge, which it was for many years.

I heard briefs on this

when I was up-Island on my education tour and then again when I was

there on the cabinet tour. Through my officials, I have recently

suggested that the school board should give me a more detailed proposal

for the use of that facility. What I had in the past was really pretty

general. If I had something that was detailed, costed out and workable,

I would certainly consider that. I'd be happy to meet with them on

that. I've already discussed it with school board trustees when I've

been up there and also with members of the Islands Trust. I'm well

aware of the property and the problem. We've never had a really sort of

firm and detailed proposal from the school board. Just the idea was

thrown out. What I said to them through officials recently was that we

would like a more detailed proposal. I have a letter going to Carol

Martin on my desk that says virtually what I'm saying to you now.

the question of the music school, which is an excellent music school —

I have known a number of students who have been there during the summer

program — they have applied for a grant from my ministry. They will

certainly get every consideration from the limited budget that I have

for that purpose. I think their request is very worthy of

consideration. I wish I could be more specific, but I will definitely

look at that in considering those grants.

The other matter

that you raised was North Island College. There is, I'm told, a

cooperative venture on between the three colleges on the Island.

They're utilizing a single computer service to try and determine

enrolment more accurately. I'd be pleased to give you more information

about that if you wished. .

I don't think, hon. member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), that the invitation of the Premier was for me to

respond on the subject of independent schools, but perhaps for you and

members on the other side to reiterate your own position. My position

on independent schools has always been supportive.

I'm

supportive of the operating grants that we give to these schools. There

is no plan this year to increase their operating grants. It is

certainly a matter of debate as to whether or not, if the operating

grants were to go higher, the schools would lose their independence. I

think the invitation was for your spokesman to reiterate your position.

MS. SANFORD:

With respect to that Courtenay youth music camp grant application, I'm

very pleased that the minister's considering it and that he feels it's

worthy. Can you give a time when a decision will be made? As you can

appreciate, summer is rapidly approaching and the society is really

keen to have that information, because it will make a difference in

terms of the operations of the Courtenay youth music camp this year.

would like more information with respect to student enrolments. I think

that whole area is in a colossal mess at the moment, and that's why the

three colleges got together. I think that large sums of money are being

wasted through the community colleges of the province as a result of

inaccurate figures that are being obtained with respect to enrolment,

completion of various courses and, of course, crediting. I would like

the minister to make some comments with respect to the difficulties

that the ministry now has as far as those enrolments are concerned.

MR. RITCHIE:

I think it's only proper that 1, the member representing Central Fraser

Valley, say a few words about the independent school system. Before

doing so, I'd like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the House, that in

spite of that, I'm also very supportive of our public system and am

very proud indeed of the job that is being carried out in my school

district. We have a very excellent line of communication and I want to

congratulate our minister on some of the excellent work that he has

done. I certainly want to give all the encouragement I can towards this

program of teaching our students some of the fundamentals of getting

into the area of purchasing homes, etc.

I think the Premier

said it very well as far as the private school system is concerned, but

I wish to go on record as being very supportive of the independent

schools. I periodically have the question put to me: "When will our

government be looking at increased funding for the schools?" I don't

hesitate to tell those constituents that we must be careful that we do

not reach the point of funding where they cannot then be considered

independent. I do want to put my weight behind the remarks of the

Premier and give the minister the message that I would like some

consideration given next year. I'd also like to say to the minister

that I would hope that students in the independent schools will be

given the same privileges as those in the public school systems with

respect to certain benefits such as loans, etc.

There is one

area of confusion out there. This confusion started back before the

last election. It concerns the position of the opposition party with

respect to independent schools. I know that I, and certainly my

constituents out there, would be very pleased indeed — and it would

certainly remove a lot of uncertainty in their minds — if the

opposition Education critic would get on his feet and tell us exactly

what the party policy is. We were in receipt of a letter that did state

on behalf of the party that he would be supporting the independent

school system if re-elected at that time. I would certainly like o have

them go on record with their position. Do they or don't they support

the independent school system?

[ Page 5619 ]

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and the member for Central Fraser Valley seem

to be on a different vote from what I thought we were on. I thought at

this particular point in time we were discussing the minister's office

vote. It has been suggested that the Premier was asking the opposition

what its position on something was. If the Premier were indeed doing

that, he would have been out of order and I'm certain that the Chairman

would have called him to order. So I can't believe for one moment that

the Premier was actually asking the opposition for its position. He was

putting some kind of a question to the Minister of Education. He must

have been, because otherwise he would have been out of order. But it's

a question that he didn't really understand, and apparently the

Minister of Education didn't understand it either.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes or no.

MR. STUPICH:

Yes or no what? I'm not the Minister of Education. Is that not what

we're discussing now? If some of the members opposite want to know our

position with respect to any matter at all, they have simply to bring

before us an estimate or a bill or — and this is the best alternative

of all — call, an election, and then they'll find out our position.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

There are opportunities for these people who are making all these

interjections to get our answers on everything, but at this point in

time we are trying to get answers from the Minister of Education and

we've been getting along not too badly until all these people started

interrupting.

I want to ask the minister about Brannan Lake.

I attended a meeting in Chase River on Friday, March 13. It was not a

large meeting. It was sponsored by the concerned citizens for better

uses for Brannan Lake. The only representation from government at that

meeting was some members of the Attorney-General's staff. They said at

that meeting that all of the appropriate ministers of cabinet were

invited to bring to the social services committee of cabinet proposals

for the use of Brannan Lake, since the government had made their

decision to phase it out as a heroin and alcohol treatment centre. The

only minister who had responded, at that point in time, was the

Attorney-General. Two of his staff were there. They mentioned that

other ministers might well be responding later on.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on several

occasions has reassured the people of Nanaimo that they need not worry;

the committee would be looking at various proposals and other ministers

would be bringing forward other proposals. The Attorney-General went to

some length to reassure the publisher of the Nanaimo Times

that nothing would be imposed upon the citizens of Nanaimo, unless it

was some use that would be supported by the people in that area.

Certainly

the city council has gone on record as being opposed to its use as a

correctional facility. The regional district has gone on record. Of

course the committee has gone on record. The school board has gone on

record. The hospital board has gone on record as wanting it for another

purpose. So everybody who could has gone on record saying they don't

want it used as a correctional facility. The school board made a

proposal.

My question to the minister is whether or not he

has made any kind of proposal to the social services committee of

cabinet for a use of the Brannan Lake facility from an educational

point of view.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, at this time I

haven't made any such recommendation or decision as to how some or all

of that property might be utilized. I know that there is local interest

in having some of it, in any event, in educational use. I'm open to

considering that. I haven't made any recommendation one way or another.

MR. STUPICH:

Just following up on that same question, has there been any discussion

between the ministry and the school board of Nanaimo with respect to

some possible use of all or a part of the Brannan Lake facility?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't think there has.

MR. STUPICH: This is almost getting into a cross-examination situation. Isn't it?

I'm

aware, mainly from newspaper reports, that the Nanaimo school board has

discussed and has passed motions in favour of using it for educational

purposes — or part of it. I'm a bit surprised that they haven't

communicated this to the ministry. From the minister's answer there is

apparently no knowledge in his ministry of any such communication.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm speaking from personal knowledge, but I can't remember having had a

direct communication on it. I've seen things in the newspaper, as the

member has, and I know there is that interest; but I haven't talked

directly to the chairman or any of the trustees about it. I can't

remember having anything. I'll certainly look into it.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his answers. I believe he was a

member of a cabinet group that toured the Island and that at the

meeting in Nanaimo representations were made about alternative uses. I

believe he's a member of the social services committee of cabinet, and

I'm wondering whether the matter is still open. Has it been decided by

that committee that it's going to be used for correctional purposes

partially, or totally? Can he give us anything about that kind of

thing? Maybe this isn't the appropriate time to ask, but certainly I'll

be asking other ministers. I'd like some kind of assurance that he was

at the meeting in Nanaimo, and that the citizens there did make known

their opinions with respect to Brannan Lake — if you can tell me

anything about the specific status of the Brannan Lake facility insofar

as discussions being held within the social services committee of

cabinet are concerned.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I wasn't at that public meeting. I was at the meetings at the

north end of the Island, but not at the one in Nanaimo. I think I've

probably said all I can about the deliberations of the cabinet

committee. I certainly haven't made any recommendation one way or

another, and I will certainly take into account what you've said to me

and look at the specific proposal, if there is one, from the Nanaimo

School District. I'm only aware of one in the most general way from the

press.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not sure whether the minister is aware of the kind of facility they have at Brannan Lake. It is

[ Page 5620 ]

almost

a quarter-section of excellent land. It does have lake frontage and was

used in some way as an educational facility, in that the school board

actually took over the education of the clients — if I can call them

that — who were there for some period of time. I believe that the

school board worked in cooperation with the Ministry of Human Resources

at that time. So using it for educational purposes wouldn't be all that

different from what it was, although the school board is hoping for

some extension of that.

When Brannan Lake was first

developed, of course, it wasn't even in town. It was outside the city,

in the outskirts, in a rural area. It was developed for a particular

purpose. Since the town expanded its boundaries, that area has now

become part of the city. Not only is it part of the city, but housing

and shopping area developments in that area have gone ahead at a

tremendous rate. While it might have been appropriate to use it for

corrections at one time, now it would be something like saying: "Let's

bring back Oakalla." We haven't got rid of it yet, but I've heard

Attorneys-General since 1963 promise to get rid of it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You have to have the jails somewhere.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, there's an interjection that you have to have the jails

somewhere. I appreciate that, but the point is that we don't want them

in the middle of a city. Brannan Lake is becoming more and more part of

the middle of the city. The reason for getting Oakalla out of its

location was in part the way the city had grown up around Oakalla. The

reason for getting rid of the Pen at New Westminster was in part the

way the city had grown. Everyone who attended the meeting in Nanaimo on

March 13 agreed that there had to be that kind of a facility somewhere.

We're not opposed to it being in central Vancouver Island — between

Nanaimo and Chemainus, even that close. They weren't opposed to that

and they recognize the need for it, and the general area was suitable.

It made some sense. Although the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) isn't here right now, if we have to have jails somewhere, I

can think of a whole abandoned town with schools and hospitals and

recreational facilities — everything. If he were here, I wouldn't dare

name Ocean Falls. But if you have to have jails somewhere, why not make

use of a whole town that's sitting there empty. But I don't know that

that's appropriate either. That's not my field. All I'm saying is that

we have to have jails somewhere, and certainly the move has been to get

these jails out of the urban areas and to put them into more rural

areas. It was originally, but not now.

I know the Minister

of Education is the one before us now, and he's the one I'm talking to.

I'm hoping that one or two other members of the cabinet are hearing me,

and I'm urging that the social service committee of cabinet seriously

consider the feelings of the community, as the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams) has promised they would, and took at some alternative

uses for Brannan Lake that would be acceptable in that particular part

of Nanaimo.

MR. LEVI: I'm all for a jail in Point Grey, right next to where the former Attorney-General lives.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: There are two points I want to raise, if we can throw that guy out of here. He's making so much noise.

Just

to add to what my colleague from Nanaimo said, I can recall that when

we had Brannan Lake — when it was still a place for juveniles — we did

have some extensive talks and cooperation with the school board to the

extent where children were coming in from the school board. It was

used, I suppose, to some extent as a kind of alternate school

situation. I think one of the great tragedies of turning Brannan Lake

over to the Health department was that they removed what was a

diagnostic centre that had been set up and functioned very well. That,

unfortunately, was destroyed when that somewhat idiotic plan about

heroin maintenance was introduced. There was good cooperation there

with the school board. The facilities are really rather unique, if not

for the regular school system, certainly for the broadening of the

concept of alternate schools. That's, of course, what took place there.

What

I want to ask the minister is regarding a letter that I got earlier

this year. I think the minister has the letter. It deals with

section

164 of the School Act — formerly

section 167 of the Public Schools Act.

It comes from Mrs. Valerie Asmoucha, who is the chairperson of a

subcommittee to the Queen Mary Parents Advisory Committee. They were

requesting the deletion of

section 167 of the Public Schools Act. They

wrote to me. I was in touch with her. They have been in touch with

people in the department. It says:

'As you may

know, our committee presented the enclosed brief to the Minister of

Education, the Hon. Brian Smith, at a public forum held in Vancouver,

December 1, 1980. I'm also enclosing for your information copies of all

the correspondence we've had with the Ministry of Education to date. We

have received no further communication from Mr. Canty after November

1979. The last time we wrote to Mr. Canty was November 1979."

I'm not up to date past the middle of March on this.

Would

the minister tell us — if he hasn't already done so; I haven't been in

the House for a couple of hours — whether they intend to take any

action with respect to looking at the deletion of

section 164, and

whether it's something that could be done in terms of the school

boards, rather than leaving it clearly in the department?

For those people in the House who are not familiar with it,

section 164 reads as follows:

"All

public schools shall be opened by the reading, without explanation or

comment, of a passage of scripture to be selected from the readings

prescribed or approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The

reading of the passage of scripture shall be followed by the recitation

of the Lord's Prayer, but otherwise the school shall be conducted on

strictly secular and non-sectarian principles. The highest morality

shall be inculcated, but no religious dogma or creed shall be taught."

Has a decision been made with respect to the Queen Mary people's brief?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I've had quite a lot of briefs both ways. I guess it's about even on

the scales. I haven't announced any changes at all or made any releases

on it. It's something that I'm going to deal with in my report. The

notion of local option is, of course, one route that could be followed.

I've never held out that I was going to change the

section but I must

say that I did hear a number of submissions on it, and still I do. I

will certainly deal with it in the report. I

[ Page 5621 ]

will review those briefs and the brief you referred to, but I have made no announcement on it.

MR. LEVI:

As the minister says, there are briefs for and against. There was a

very specific brief from the civil liberties people in which they

characterize it as being discriminatory. I personally think there's

nothing wrong with giving this jurisdiction over to the school boards.

We had an example, I think last year, of a piece of legislation which,

in fact, enabled the government to remove itself from a particular area

in terms of Sunday shopping and vest the power in the municipalities,

if that's the way a government wants to go.

I want to ask

the minister another question in respect to handicapped children in the

schools. Can the minister tell me whether the ministry has ever

conducted a survey among school children in the schools about their

reactions to the mainstreaming of handicapped children in the schools?

The reason I raise this question is because I had discussions with some

high-school students in