1980 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2877 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Credit Rating of Municipal Finance Authority.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2877

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Northeastern coal development. Mr. Lauk –– 2877

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 54.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2879

Mr. Lauk –– 2882

Mrs. Dailly –– 2886

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2888

Mr. Lauk –– 2889

Ms. Brown –– 2891

Mr. Cocke –– 2894

Ms. Brown –– 2894

Mr. Lauk –– 2897

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2900

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to be aware of a group visiting the

precincts today from the Palmer Junior Secondary School in Richmond.

They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Barton.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to recognize in our chamber the

minister who gave the opening prayer today, first of all to recognize,

through him and to all other clergymen who visit, our appreciation for

the prayers each and every day in our House, and also to recognize Mr.

J.W. Robertson's fifty-ninth anniversary, which he and his wife

celebrated last Sunday.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House to welcome some students who are with us today. They are from

Burnsview Junior Secondary School in your constituency. They have had a

tour of the legislative building, and they are visiting the galleries.

We are pleased to see them with us. They are accompanied by their

teachers, Alderman Karl Moser and Mr. Jack Godwin. We'd like to ask the

House to welcome them.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to welcome my cousin Donna Fedorowich, from

Edmonton, Alberta, who is with us today. She is with the Canadian

Library Association, which was on the west coast this weekend.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today three people who are

extremely interested in energy projects proposed for this province.

They are Malcolm Crockett, Martin Rossander from Powell River and Sue

Brown. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

CREDIT RATING OF

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement, with your indulgence.

am very pleased to be able to announce that we have received word today

that Moody's Investors Service of New York, which a little over one

month ago awarded its AAA rating to British Columbia and British

Columbia Hydro for the first time, has now underlined it with an AAA

rating awarded to the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia.

know that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm), along with other members of this House, will join in

congratulations to the chairman of MFABC, Jim Stuart of Kelowna, and

the trustees of the MFA on this outstanding milestone in the Finance

Authority's development. May I also say personally, as a former

chairman of the Finance Authority, that I am particularly pleased to be

able to comment on this matter and to announce it first to the

Legislature of British Columbia.

I think it is fair to say that Moody's has awarded this latest AAA on the

basis of the province's credit rating as well as on the financial status

of the member municipalities and regional districts in British Columbia. I think

that we can take this as another tribute by the New York financial community

with respect to the management abilities of this province, this government and

of regional and municipal governments throughout British Columbia.

would like to quote just one sentence from the comments by Moody's

Investors Service which accompanied the announcement of the new MFA

rating: "Improved economic position and provincial prospects provide

support for the rating revision of the MFA from AA to AAA." I think

those are words which I may be forgiven for dwelling on for just a

moment. considering all they mean to the people of this province and to

this Legislature.

It was not long after the creation of the

MFA to provide for the collective capital requirements of B.C.'s

regional districts and their member municipalities that Moody's awarded

its first rating to the Municipal Finance Authority, because at that

time they did undertake a Canada issue. That rating was a single A.

It's been a very satisfying experience to watch and to assist the

Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia to grow from a

fledgling — almost an experimental — organization into a mature body

representing this province's very important local governments, which

have achieved and — I say this very positively — earned this top

financial rating.

Mr. Speaker, one further remark. With the

clear fact of a recession in the United States now evident, a rating

such as this is even more significant, and I congratulate British

Columbia's municipalities and regional districts on this tremendous

achievement.

Oral Questions

NORTHEASTERN COAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Premier. The government and private companies

have agreed on a price for a tonne of coal from the northeast coal

project. What is that price to the Japanese?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll take that question as notice.

MR. LAUK:

What is the total cost to deliver a tonne of coal to the Japanese? That

total cost, I assume, will include operating costs per tonne per annum,

transportation costs and debt retirement of capital costs.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The delivery cost for a tonne of coal will depend on a number of

factors. The mining costs of the private companies will vary from

property to property. The rail charges charged by the CNR from Prince

George to Prince Rupert and the throughput charges for off-loading the

coal at the Port of Prince Rupert are to be, I hope, fairly developed

by the federal government through the port authority.

MR. LAUK:

Am I to take it then from the Premier's answer that if the costs have

not been determined by the government, the price that's now being

communicated to Japanese customers is not a price upon which they can

rely for a long-term contract?

[ Page 2878 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The customers can rely upon those figures that will be offered to them

by the coal companies. The coal companies themselves will negotiate

their costs with the various components that I've advised this House

and the member of. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a number of

years of work have gone into this proposal. The companies have had

previous contact with the negotiating companies for the Japanese steel

industry and I am hopeful that they'll be able to come home to British

Columbia with signed agreements that will mean thousands of jobs for

British Columbians both in the development of the infrastructure and in

the private sector, particularly in the development of the mines, for

those who will work in the facilities, whether it's in transportation,

mining or offloading, and also the spinoff benefit of the multiplier

effect on the number of other jobs that it will create for British

Columbians and Canadians.

I think it's important to note

that this project is of a magnitude both in real terms in numbers of

people involved, and in the role it can play in Canada's international

balance of payment in the gross dollars that will be flowing into our

country, because the deficit on the balance of payments from time to

time is of considerable worry. This will greatly strengthen not only

British Columbia, because the action is here, but the total Canadian

economy as well. Also I'd point out that employment opportunities are

for all Canadians in British Columbia, and this project will be among

the many job opportunities that are taking place in this province which

have given us the greatest in-migration — that is, people moving from

other parts of Canada — that we've had in many, many years.

MR. LAUK:

The minister has indicated that the costs will vary from property to

property. Mr. Speaker, we have information from the private companies

that the cost variable from property to property will be averaged to

determine the cost of production of a tonne of coal from all of the

projects of the northeast project and will not vary from property to

property.

In any event, we are aware that the

government has been involved for a number of years in working out the

cost figures, and we are aware that the provincial government officials

have these cost figures. I repeat my question. What is the total cost

to deliver a tonne of coal to the Japanese, including operating costs,

transportation and debt retirement of capital costs? These figures are

available to the Premier.Could he provide them to the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I've taken the question as notice.

MR. LAUK:

Does the cost per tonne, as calculated by the provincial officials,

include the provincial government investment in the townsite,

additional roads and the production or delivery of Hydro?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Because these are detailed questions that require very detailed

answers, I will take those questions as notice and provide such

information to the House at a time in the future.

MR. D’ARCY:

Can the Premier tell us what freight rates he has been able to

negotiate, or if he has been able to negotiate a freight rate, with the

Canadian National Railways in order to recover the provincial

government's investment in rolling stock, rail construction and

upgrading? It will be necessary to move coal from northeastern coal to

whatever coal port the provincial government decides to use.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Perhaps I might advise the member that any discussions have been held

by officials from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business, and as

such, beyond being the broad policy concepts and the great goals of

building British Columbia and creating jobs, the negotiations — I

shouldn't use the word negotiations — the discussions have been

developed by the technical experts advising within the ministry who

have a global picture of both the development of the property and the

delivery of the coal. Such information — as and when it is available —

as can be made available to the public will be. But I must remind the

member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that very sensitive negotiations are

going on, and I'm sure that member wishes to amend his negative

comments against the development of the coal and against jobs that he

made on behalf of his party over the last weekend.

MR. D’ARCY:

I believe the answer to the question, after all the bombast, was no.

However, in view of the fact that the Premier has not reached an

overall agreement with the federal government on this project, can we

have some assurance that he is at least attempting to reach an

agreement with Canadian National Railways on a firm, long-term freight

rate for unit trains running on CN tracks to Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

British Columbia has the capability of doing those things within the

provincial jurisdiction, with a provincial resource and provincial

resource revenues from natural gas — to undertake those areas where

provincial involvement or rail development are needed. The private

companies have the same opportunity to deal with the provincial

authorities, provincial rail lines, as they do with CN, who appear to

develop their policies separate from those of the federal government.

While the government of British Columbia is in a coordinating role,

there is a responsibility on both parties — on federal railways,

whether it is the CNR or in harbours, and on the private companies — to

coordinate their efforts in negotiations. Certainly the province of

British Columbia will use such means as we have in moral suasion and

discussion to keep the parties together to develop an acceptable price

and a fair price for British Columbians, to ensure not only the

development of the project but also the employment of the thousands of

British Columbians who will now have renewed opportunity when this

gigantic project of tremendous importance to our country takes place.

MR. LAUK:

I have a supplementary. The Premier indicated in his answer that there

is no need for an agreement on running rights on the CNR tracks to

Prince Rupert. That can only mean that the government is now committing

itself to running along the BCR lines to Neptune Terminals in North

Vancouver. Can the Premier confirm that that is the government's option?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The first member for Vancouver Centre is wrong in his assumption and in

the statement he attributed to me. I would ask him to check the Blues.

[ Page

2879 ]

MR. LAUK: The question to the Premier was: what steps has the government

taken to assure that a long-term freight rate is firm for unit trains running

along the CNR tracks to Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I have said that the government has a coordinating role, I'm confident

that the company is armed with the type of information — the hard

economic figures — and the optimism and enthusiasm and the

entrepreneurship that will allow them to conduct the negotiations with

the steel companies in Japan, who have made inquiries about British

Columbia coal after the initiative taken by this government to open up

additional markets for British Columbia products from all regions,

particularly the development of this new region that will open up more

than the possibility for metallurgical coal and thermal coal and other

British Columbia products. The rail link connection will be subject to

the standard agreements between railways. There are great precedents

for rail lines to cooperate in providing the type of economic costs so

that great projects can take place. Commodities move over a number of

tracks every day. Commodities move out of the great Okanagan Valley;

they move on the CN and they move on the CP, and they move down to the

great export markets in the United States on American rail lines.

That's the type of transportation cooperation that has always been

obvious, and I would have thought that the member for Vancouver Centre

would understand that.

MR. LEA: You're full of it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Prince Rupert says I'm full of it. I'm sure he's familiar with whatever he's talking about.

MR. LAUK:

The government and private companies have agreed on a price for a tonne

of coal from the northeast project. Can we ask what price that would be

to the Japanese? We assume that they have a firm price. How can they

have a firm price without knowing what the freight rate is for running

rights along the CNR line?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The

question is taken as notice. Such information will be brought to this

House. The member was well aware of that from the first moment he posed

his question this afternoon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) says I don't know. Well,

Mr. Speaker, the proof of the pudding will be in the results. I know

that that member doesn't want this coal deal to succeed. He joins the

member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) and their party in opposing

everything positive that this government is doing. It's consistent with

the history of a party that opposed the two-river development and other

economic development in this province. It's a history of negativism,

lack of confidence in the province, refusal to take a leadership

position. We all know that the New Democratic Party in this province is

negative. Mr. Speaker, we want to know what they stand for.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, a simple question for the Premier. Has

the Premier achieved an agreement for running rights with the Canadian National

Railways? Have you achieved an agreement with the CNR for running rights on

their rail line?

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I assume that the answer is

no.

Mr. Speaker, further to the Premier: has the Premier decided to approach the

Canadian National Railways to seek an agreement for running rights on their

tracks in order to reach the port at Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, again the member for Rossland-Trail, as is the habit of

other members on that side such as the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), assumes an answer, hoping that it will be put in Hansard as coming from the government.

I've

taken all questions of a technical and detailed nature that make up the

coal proposal as notice, and information will be provided to this House

in the future.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled answers to questions standing in his name on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 54: minister's office, $191,886.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I have the pleasure of introducing these estimates and speaking on them

for the first time. I have available in the House today my deputy

minister, Walter Hardwick. My three assistant deputy ministers, Andy

Soles of post-secondary education, Jim Carter of schools and Jack

Fleming of finance will be here as well.

It is a pleasure to

present estimates in the amount of slightly over a billion dollars for

this new portfolio, which includes the public school system and grants

to independent schools, colleges and institutes, but not the

universities. This budget is an increase of about 9.2 percent over last

year, and that increase reflects this government's commitment to

education. The most spectacular increase is in grants-in-aid to

post-secondary education, which is up about 18 percent over the past

year. This level of funding has been recommended to meet the increased

demand for education and training of both school-leavers and adults

upgrading themselves and returning to the labour field. I am going to

deal at some length with the major features of this, but perhaps I

should say a few general words about these estimates and the Education

portfolio.

I am not pretending to have a detailed blueprint

of the way we should be going in public education. I am going to hold a

series of public forums in this province in the fall in which the

public will be invited to make representations in addition to the

professional groups who are concerned about education. They will be

two-pronged — professional meetings in the afternoon and the public

meetings in the evening. Rather than proceeding with some major

amendments to the

[ Page 2880 ]

Public

Schools Act, as I was invited to do when I became minister, I am going

to defer that until I've had a chance to get around to every part of

the province. I have been doing a fair amount of getting around in the

meantime. I've been to all but two of the colleges, a number of the

institutes, and I visited about 60 or 70 schools, particularly in the

lower mainland, the lower part of Vancouver Island, and some in the

north. I have found a pretty positive experience in the classroom, and

I've also spent a fair amount of time talking with teachers and

students individually. I think that is a very helpful thing for a

Minister of Education to do, rather than proceeding with a lot of plans

that are on the back burner.

The grants in support of the

public schools in these estimates have been increased to stabilize the

mill rate. Limiting the increase in the basic levy, we have reversed

the trend which started in 1975 that has seen the provincial share of

basic education costs reduced and should result now in the local

taxpayer paying less than he had anticipated for education. While that

is true of the basic education program, I should point out that the

overall expenditure to those institutions under me — the public

schools, colleges and institutes — is not the traditional 60-40 split

which is true with the basic education program of schools. If you take

into account the direct grants to the school boards, the homeowner's

grants which are earmarked by statute for public education, the capital

grants, the direct grants and the cost of the colleges, both in capital

and operating terms, the ratio is more like 64 percent provincially and

35 percent locally. Those are figures, of course, which are often not

trotted around but I think they have to be recognized. Also, they don't

take into account the money the province spends on university education.

Recognizing,

however, the hardship of increasing costs of education for those on

limited and fixed incomes, the homeowner's grant for the elderly and

handicapped receiving GAIN, and veterans also, was increased a further

$50. So their portion will be $630. In addition, the province, through

these estimates and the surplus bill, is moving to provide increased

funding for the education of the severely handicapped, and also

language training for refugees. These are two important new initiatives

this year.

In the education of severely handicapped

children, for the first time the province has recognized a

responsibility in making grants to school districts to defray the costs

of programs for the severely handicapped. I have had the advantage of

going and seeing firsthand some of the excellent handicapped

integration programs — if I can call them that — that are taking place

in some school districts. It is often mistakenly described as

mainstreaming. Of course, it really is not mainstreaming but something

quite different; that is, individual integration. The objective is not

to try to take someone with a maximum education capacity of grade 3 and

mainstream that mentally handicapped student with others of his age

level. The objective is to allow him to function socially on a

day-to-day basis with his peers, and not to isolate him from other

children. This is working extremely well in a number of school

districts.

In the area of language training for refugees,

this has really reached massive proportions in the past year,

particularly in the Vancouver school district. In a number of the

schools that I visited in the east end of Vancouver the predominant

population is non-Caucasian. A great many exciting programs of language

education for Asian immigrants are taking place there now. Recognizing

that that creates an additional burden to the local school district,

special grants were made to the city of Vancouver to defray the

educational cost over and above the average per-pupil cost in that

school district.

I am also firmly of the opinion that the

federal government has very important and real responsibilities in this

field. While it has recognized some of these responsibilities in

providing language funding, that funding has been limited,

does not recognize that we have many adult immigrants in this province

full-time students but must take their training on a part-time basis. I

am thinking particularly of wives and working parents.

I was

in Ottawa last week and had discussions with both the Secretary of

State and the minister of manpower. I hope that I made some distance

down the line persuading them that the federal government should accept

some comprehensive financial responsibilities for our new Canadians, at

least in areas like Vancouver where they have major impact, and provide

funding not just for full-time students but for a range of social

services initially, following which, after about a three-year period,

the province could then assume its constitutional responsibilities.

any event, under the handicapped education program this year we will be

providing this additional funding. Also we will be providing additional

extent of about $1.7 million.

The grants to independent

schools this year were up from a little over $9 million to $10.9

million. That figure will continue to increase where the average cost

per pupil in the school districts increases. Since it is based on a

figure of 30 percent of the average per-pupil cost, as that per-pupil

cost goes up there will be some increases. There have been no changes

in the legislation, but the grants went up slightly. I am very proud of

that legislation and the provision that the government makes to assist

the independent schools. One of the reasons I am proud of it is that it

is not a system designed to take away their independence but a system

that allows them to receive, if they wish, financial aid that allows

them to pay their teachers good salaries, and it gives them some

security over and above that of their own donors and parents. It also,

of course, helps keep down the parental fees without government control.

All

this funding is important to the well-being of the education system.

Without this funding the good teachers, instructors and administrators,

the fine buildings and equipment that we provide, and the various

student services would not be in place. Programs are the raison d'être

of the system, but without the funding they cannot take place.

Public

instructional programs have been very active this year in the areas of

curriculum development, implementation and learning assessment. Some

school officials are concerned that a great deal of time is being spent

on these matters, and this is being monitored. But curriculum review is

now scheduled over a number of years, and an open procedure has been

adopted. The physical education program was the first, and the social

studies curriculum review is now in progress — draft No. 3. That is a

controversial area of curriculum, and I think rightly so. Public

comment has been elicited and is still being elicited to try and create

a soundly based curriculum.

The evolution of the program implementation division

[ Page 2881 ]

has

been one of the changes in the past year, and through this division

meetings have been held across the province with teachers and

supervisors discussing that curriculum which has undergone change. This

next year the division is planning to experiment with satellite

delivery of in-service education for teachers. This division not only

outlines the broad provincial curriculum goals, but also the areas of

decision-making that are the responsibility of the classroom teachers.

Teachers

themselves are also developing achievement tests for use in the

secondary schools. The learning assessment branch has coordinated

objective of these tests is to provide teachers with provincial

standards in their subjects, at the same time allowing classroom

teachers to use their professional judgment in assigning final grades.

In an attempt to ensure quality of education, a new self-accreditation program has been developed for elementary schools.

important program initiative that I should mention in the area of

vocational training is the career preparation program. That is a pilot

program where students in grades 11 and 12 may spend up to half their

time learning a skill. In many cases work experience is included. There

are some particularly good work-experience programs in many of our

schools. I commend to members of the Legislature the program in

Burnaby, which is an excellent one. We've had outstanding career

program results in specific regions as well — for instance, in Fort St.

John with oil field workers, and with hospitality workers in Courtenay.

But generally speaking, the work experience is very broadly based and

receives a great deal of cooperation from the local business and

professional groups.

Further development in career education

has been the establishment, under the leadership of the Occupational

Training Council, of the computer-based career guidance program called

CHOICES. This pilot project will be extended to all the secondary

schools and colleges, hopefully within the next few years if it

continues to prove to be a success.

On the administrative

side, I should mention a couple of changes that are going to take

place. One is the expanding of the number of locally employed

superintendents. The B.C. School Trustees Association have for some

years been requesting that they have the right to appoint local school

superintendents to their districts. Now it depends on the size of the

district, but the smaller districts do not have that right. Some of the

districts that do have the right — the larger districts — have not

exercised it, but still have provincially appointed superintendents. I

am prepared to ultimately move towards a total policy whereby the local

school board can appoint its superintendent if it wishes. We're working

to phase that in with the B.C. School Trustees Association. Another

administrative change is that we have been meeting with a committee of

secretary-treasurers of the school boards to explore better management

and budget information so that we will be more program- and

cost-efficient.

I should also mention that the French

curriculum has been adopted in the elementary grades as a core

curriculum for francophones in the cadre program, which, although it

only has a very small enrolment as of now, does recognize a commitment

by the people of British Columbia to provide French language education

to francophone children where the number is ten or more and a school

district requests it. That is far beyond our constitutional

responsibilities, but is, I think, an important contribution to the

country. The French immersion courses have also proved to be very

popular, and are now in operation and will be in September in

approximately 20 school districts. These are important because they are

brought in entirely at loncal option and are entirely optional by

parents. We have early immersion — French language education at the

kindergarten–grade 1 level — and also at the grades 5 and 6 level. We

have now more than 3,000 students enrolled in French immersion

programs. In many school districts we have line-ups.

should also mention that the grade 12 scholarships, which previously

were $500, were increased this year to $1,000. There were 938 winners

from the examinations, and there were 384 district scholarship winners.

should say a little bit about the post-secondary side of my ministry. I

think that members are aware that we have 14 community colleges and

seven provincial institutes. The system of colleges and institutes has

developed extensively in the province over a very, very short period of

time — about 15 years. It's a very vigorous and vital system which not

only trains many of our skilled young people but also meets a variety

of cultural and recreational needs and provides a lot of basic adult

training and upgrading. It contributes very positively to the quality

of life in various regions in the province. This has been a banner year

in the programs of colleges and institutes and it shows that there's an

increasing demand in this field. The general enrolment increases in the

colleges average about 15 percent.

Also a number of new

interesting programs were introduced. For instance, at Malaspina

College a fish culture program and a solar energy technology training

program will start in September of this year which will be the only

such program north of Texas. I think there are only two in North

America. Also, Camosun College takes over a variety of health science

programs, including the nursing program that was formerly at the

hospitals. A new diploma program in computer technology has gone to

Camosun College in Victoria, and a welding program expansion took place

at North Island College in Comox.

I could describe a number

of new programs around the province but I will not do so. I'll just

highlight a few of them. In New Caledonia College in Prince George

business and process technology, mining technology, pulp and paper

technology, music and registered nurse access programs were all added.

The registered nurse access program means you do it a little more

quickly than you did it in the hospital — one year instead of two if

you have a paramedic background. Also a pilot program in

computer-assisted instruction techniques was introduced at New

Caledonia, and in Terrace a community service worker preparation

program was approved for commencement in September. Selkirk College

introduced establishment of a ski area management and planning program

and East Kootenay Community College will be implementing programs for

mental retardation workers and legal secretaries as well. In the lower

mainland I should mention the B.C. Institute of Technology has a new

program in diagnostic ultrasound. Those are perhaps the highlights of

the new programs but there are others.

One thing I should

mention in connection with these estimates is that along with my

colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) I recognize, as I

think all members of this House recognize, that we have in this

province a critical skills shortage. I don't think that governments in

the past, regardless of party stripe, have perhaps done enough

[ Page 2882 ]

planning

and preparation in this field. We know that we have a shortage of

critical skills in some of the trades, particularly machinists,

electronic technicians, instrumentation mechanics, industrial

electricians, millwrights, heavy-duty mechanics and diesel mechanics.

In cooperation with labour — and there's been very, very good

cooperation and support, I might add, from the trade union

representation and from the Occupational Training Council particularly

— the institutions are preparing proposals so that we can address these

shortages and get busy and train and provide critical skills labour in

these areas rather than being constantly forced to import our labour. I

think that's a very important objective and one that we'll be able to

report on very shortly.

We're also going to launch this year

a major study in the whole area of technical education. There is

evidence that British Columbia and Canada are not keeping pace with

other western nations in providing needed technologists.

will not deal, in my opening remarks, with continuing education and

with the adult basic literacy curriculum committee and others, but I'll

be pleased to answer questions on them.

I want to say a word

about capital development on the college and institute side. We've been

very conscious of the need to provide adequate facilities to allow

post-secondary education to carry out its mandate. To remove some of

the uncertainty and allow for some planning, and to allow the

institutes to make realistic plans in advance, we've gone to a

five-year capital planning procedure. This ensures the greatest

possible degree of equity in allocations and allows the ministry to

forward-plan the financial implications of a five-year plan. The

necessity for this becomes evident when the amounts of money involved

are considered. The past five years' capital approvals have totalled

almost $188 million. This money has been spent on a variety of

projects, including land acquisition, new buildings, renovations and

also the more mundane public works projects which keep these facilities

operating.

We have a Management Advisory Council. Support

from the ministry staff does a good job of evaluating all requested

projects against a well-developed set of criteria, and then putting the

requests, sometimes modified in order of priority by year, which they

then recommend to the ministry. These plans are updated each year so

that we remain flexible, because educational needs and priorities

change. Actual and projected enrolments are carefully watched to make

sure that in a few years' time we don't end up with a lot of empty

space in one area and people breaking the doors down in another.

Ministry staff works very closely with the institutions in developing

their plans, and the budgeting procedure through the Management

Advisory Council has been largely successful.

I think that I

will sit down and listen to some of the concerns and questions of

members opposite. I will have some more to say later.

MR. LAUK:

I'm a little disappointed in the minister's opening remarks, because it

occurred to me that the opening address of a minister during the

estimates debate of any ministry should include a statement of policy

and, indeed, a statement of philosophy from a brand new minister — what

his major commitments are, particularly to public education in this

province. Perhaps when I'm finished my opening remarks it may encourage

the minister to rise and state precisely what those are.

Educators,

parents and taxpayers have expressed concern over the past several

years that the public education system has not been responding to

modern changes. Many misguided persons, such as the minister's

predecessor, have used this failure to respond to modern change as an

avenue to attack teachers and school trustees. This attack has been

tragically misplaced. It is not the teachers or the school trustees who

have refused to respond to modern change, but the ministry and the

structure of public education in this province.

What are

those modern changes? Since World War II, we in British Columbia, as

well as the whole of North America, have been faced with unprecedented

technological advances, with changes in the nature and the structure of

the family unit, strident revolution in equality between the sexes, and

a marked change in prevailing social values.

We'll deal with

technology first. With the development of computer sciences and

technological advances in industry, teachers and administrators in the

education system have worked tirelessly to bring course content and

teaching skills into line with modern industrial and scientific needs.

The structure of the school system, however, has fallen far behind.

Costs have been misplaced and guidelines by the ministry have been

ill-conceived, and it is only recently that the public education system

is scrambling to provide the kind of educational content and skill that

the modern student will need to become an independent member of the

workforce and the community. The demands of the modern technological

world on individuals graduating from high school and post-secondary

institutions are such that our whole approach to education may well

need a revision. We cannot hope, under our present system, to educate

large groups of people without concentration on individual needs and

skills.

Since World War II the family unit has changed from

the usual mother and father nuclear family with 2.2 children to a very

large percentage of single-parent families, giving rise to new social

and community problems which focus attention at the school level. The

question we must ask for education in the eighties is this: is the

public education system responding to the new pressures and social

problems created by single parent families? In addition, since the war,

even in the nuclear family both parents now are usually employed

full-time, focusing even more pressure on the school system to deal

with emotional and social problems of students by reason of the absence

of both parents throughout the working day. The public education system

has so far not adequately responded to this new social phenomenon.

Equality

of the sexes has progressed rapidly since the Second World War for

economic, social and political reasons. As I have stated, both parents

are now working and many single-parent families exist, creating new

pressures. The demands of women for social and economic equality are

being partially answered in industry, but the public education system

is again not responding to these new needs. Apart from the need for a

revision of curriculum to reflect this new cultural value of equality

between the sexes, the structure must respond to the new needs created

by this reality. The public education system must recreate the course

content and curriculum needs reflecting this new reality and the

prevailing social values.

The prevailing values of our

society have changed radically since World War II. The democratic model

and the family and the community have created more pressures on the

school system for a change in teaching skills and a greater

[ Page 2883 ]

demand

for democracy within the school system. In addition to the massive

changes that have occurred since World War II, we must take into

account the tremendous increase in immigration into British Columbia

students of immigrant families.

In the 1950s only 30 percent

to 35 percent of those in elementary school progressed through the

secondary school level to graduation. Now over 80 percent of the school

population at the elementary school level is proceeding through the

secondary level of education to graduation. This creates more demands

on space, and even greater demands on the teaching staff to provide

more creative ways of teaching a broader spectrum of the population at

the secondary school level. The response of the public education system

in British Columbia is not uncharacteristic of the response of other

public education systems. The challenge has been there for some time,

and the response of governments has been very weak.

The public education system in B.C. is therefore facing these challenges:

Because of the compartmentalization of government services — public

education being just one — the needs of the community and therefore the

family are not being met. The education system is operating on its own,

like Human Resources, Health and other services to the community.

Services therefore are quite often duplicated and costly. The

establishment of separate plant for all such services again increases,

at tremendous cost to the government.

2) The centralization

of the Ministry of Education has caused a bureaucratic morass,

encroaching to the maximum on local decision-making authority, that

local authority being closest to the people and therefore to the

people's needs, desires and philosophy. Their needs, desires and

philosophies are not being expressed in the educational system.

The credibility of the public education system has therefore suffered

greatly, giving rise to arguments that alternative or independent

schools would be best suited for the education of our young. Although

independent schools have some merit, if left to be the major focal

point of the eighties they will lead to an elitist education and an

elitist educational philosophy. In other words, a class system will

develop whereby mass public education will fail to meet the needs of

our democratic state. The credibility of the public education system is

in great danger as a direct result.

4) As stated before, the

needs of the community equal the needs of the family. All of the

family's needs should be met. It is therefore a challenge to the public

education system, together with other services of government, to

combine and coordinate services to the family, cutting down

duplication, the need in many cases for a separate physical plant, and

requiring a whole new focus for services to the family. I foresee that

the Ministry of Education in B.C. should not be an authority-creating

centralized bureaucracy, but a resource base providing services at the

community level, meeting community needs for education. I foresee that

more and more the plant, the buildings which house our present

elementary and secondary schools, will be transformed to include not

only kindergarten to grade 12 education, but also day care, parenting

schools, family centres, counselling services and health services to

the family. I foresee that we can transform our schools into family and

community centres to be used not just between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. five

days a week, but optimally throughout the evenings, early mornings and

late afternoons, to provide a multitude of services where teacher,

parents and students will cooperate as a community, with a sense of

belonging to each other, and most importantly to develop democratic

cooperative principles to achieve our personal and community goals.

therefore have the following two major policy questions to ask of the

minister before we commence the detailed debate of his estimates. One,

is the minister fully and completely committed to the enhancement and

progress of the public education system? That is to say, will he

support the concept and the philosophy that public education should be

available to everyone in our society — rich or poor, immigrant or

non-immigrant, worker or professional — as being the most effective

avenue through which the government can protect our free, democratic

political system? Two, will the minister commit himself to the policy

of decentralization — that is to say, will the Ministry of Education

become a resource to regional and local decision-making groups, rather

than an authority causing a morass of bureaucracy which does not meet

the needs of the community?

It may seem odd, Mr. Chairman,

that these questions seem to be necessary at this stage. But having

regard for the record of performance of the minister's predecessor and

for the minister's record of performance so far, the public can only

conclude that there is no commitment to the public education system, as

I have indicated. Secondly, this minister as well as his predecessor

has moved relentlessly toward further centralization of the education

system in this province. Perhaps the minister can indicate now whether

he's prepared to make statements on those policy issues.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I was going to wait. Mr. Chairman, for some other meaty proposals and

then respond later; but so far as the first question is concerned, I am

committed to a philosophy that public education is available to

everyone. I thought that he had a copy of what I said to the B.C.

School Trustees Association and B.C. Teachers' Federation. I've tried

to make that abundantly clear. I wouldn't put it just on the basis of a

rich and a poor class, as members on the other side like to put

everything on; I would put it on a much broader basis than he does, and

that is that everyone in this province, regardless of where he lives,

is entitled to a good public education.

Secondly, on the

question of decentralization the member talks deceptive twaddle. This

spectre of a morass of centralizing bureaucracy in Victoria strangling

the education system out there in the field just isn't so. The Ministry

of Education is a resource centre. I indicated in my opening remarks

that one direct positive move that I was making was to permit the

school districts to select their own district superintendents. If what

the first member for Vancouver Centre is wanting me to say is that I

will, as Minister of Education, abandon quality control of education in

this province and will not set standards and will not ensure that there

are standards in this province which guarantee a child in Stikine the

same quality of education as a child in the west side of Vancouver,

well, then the answer is no. I do believe that the Minister of

Education and the Ministry of Education have a mandate and a duty to

ensure that there are certain standards and certain qualities, Part of

that is also in the field of curriculum, and I will not abandon my

responsibilities and have 75 different standards and 75 different

curricula in our

[ Page 2884 ]

school districts. I said that face to face to the school trustees gathered in convention, and I'll continue to say it.

MR. LAUK:

Well, Mr. Chairman, my disappointment deepens. I know that disappoints

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and other members of the

House. I was hoping that the minister would take the opportunity to

tell us where he stands on educational issues. His response to my

challenge, my friendly, cooperative challenge....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

Well, I've done better than that. In advance of my speech, I delivered

a copy to the Minister of Education. There is a breath of fresh air in

the House; the Attorney-General jumps the gun. The Attorney-General,

Mr. Chairman, has overdeveloped calf muscles from jumping to

conclusions.

In response to the challenge that I made to the

Minister of Education, where does he stand? Where does his government

stand? Where does he stand on the commitment to support and enhance

public education? How does he respond? He says: "Well, I made a speech

someplace and I didn't just limit it to class — rich or poor,

professional or non-professional. I said that no matter where anybody

lives, he should get an education."

You've missed the point.

The point is that public education throughout North America is under

attack. It was under attack by the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communication (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when he was the Minister of

Education. It's under attack by certain small groups of rightwing

critics throughout North America. It's not an attack on the public

education system; it's an attack on the free, democratic political

system, because it's only when you have mass public education available

to all the people of the country that you can preserve democracy. Just

look at Africa and all the new states that are emerging. Look at the

problems we are facing as far as peace, hunger and industrial

development are concerned in the world. Those problems have their

direct source and roots on the base of an inadequate educational

system, a system that reaches only the elite, if any. Now we are so

careless with our democratic freedoms and institutions that we will

allow the chipping away of that sacred public education system because

of the minority attacks of elitist and right-wing groups in our

community. That is the challenge I am throwing to the Minister of

Education. He can't avoid it by saying we're all committed to

motherhood, we're all this or we're all that. That's nonsense. The

education system is under attack. He has failed to respond; he has not

even thought about the challenge.

The minister argues that

there is not a problem with capital cost approvals. He is talking about

decentralization. The bureaucratic steps necessary for the simplest

capital expenditure at the school district level are so horrendous that

they have been described by objective educators and administrators in

this country as the worst in the country. There are 57 or so steps to

approve a simple capital expenditure to put showers into a dressing

room. Taking that local authority away from the school boards is a slap

in the face to the democratic process at the local level. For the

minister to stand up and say there's no problem is an insult and

reveals a colossal unawareness of the tremendous bureaucratic problems

created by his predecessor, his ministry and the officials involved in

that approval process.

Are we arguing that there shouldn't be minimum standards so that all children

throughout the province should achieve a fair and adequate education, so that

there will be portability in their education from one public school institution

to the other? Of course not.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

You think it's amusing, sir? The people in your area, Mr. MLA for

Kootenay, are more than concerned about the quality of education and

decentralization. Maybe they would like to know about your amusement on

the subject.

The fact is that we're not arguing for

decentralization to the extent that standards would fail, but the

minister is arguing for centralization on the pretext of preserving

standards. I say "pretext" because in essence that philosophy, approach

and policy goal has moved this ministry to great centralization. Even

the smallest decision cannot be made at the local level. We are not

arguing for one extreme. We are opposed to the extreme of

centralization. Some curricula needs, designs and content changes can

be made at the local level. We know that. When the minister talks to

groups and school trustees he admits that, but he does nothing about

it. He is caught up in the molasses of bureaucracy in his own ministry.

want to ask the minister some specific questions about education costs.

First of all, we have the burnble bee dance that the minister

participated in so gleefully over mill rates. It is called the great

poker game that goes on every year. His predecessor loved it; the new

minister is also thriving on it. You announce an increase in mill rate,

you feign battle with shadows for a couple of months, arguing the

tremendous increase in costs of education and saying how concerned you

are and how terribly sorry you are for the high mill rate. He receives

the telegrams that are predictable from the trustees' association, the

Teachers' Federation, ratepayers, individual municipalities, and so on.

Then he pulls back and the increase, rather than two or two and a half

mills becomes a quarter of a mill.

All of this creates the

necessary political smokescreen for the minister to foist more costs

and more of the tax burden on the local homeowner. If he can distract

the local homeowner from the fact that this government is overburdening

them, to the fact that he's beaten us over the head with a 2-by-4 for

three months and now it feels pretty good when he stops.... That is the

psychology. We were going to get a two and a half mill increase, or

whatever it was, and now we've only got a quarter of a mill increase.

Aren't we lucky. The fact is the government shouldn't be increasing the

mill rate at all. They should be decreasing the mill rate. He knows

that, and it's a political game.

When the increase and

greater burden of taxation is placed on the shoulders of the homeowner,

who gets the blame? The government? No, the average person cannot even

get through the smokescreen. They blame the municipality; they blame

the school districts. "Cut costs," they say. Because those groups of

elected officials are closest to the people in the school district.

They get the heat; they get the blame; and the minister twiddles his

thumbs with glee. He pulled it off once again. It's a cynical approach

to education financing in this province. It should be stopped. It must

be stopped if we're going to be rational and fair with the people of

this province about financing schools.

What's the record of those increases? Let me just look at

[ Page 2885 ]

the

provincial contribution as a percentage of gross operating and debt

service budgets. In 1975, when the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) was the minister, the share of provincial contribution was

59.65 percent, In 1976 it was 57.4 percent. In 1977 it was 56.99

percent. In 1978 it was 54.4 percent. In 1979 it was 53.4 percent. In

1980, it is up slightly to 54.4 percent. Since 1959, instead of

increasing the provincial government's share of the tremendous burden

of taxation on ordinary homeowners, they decreased their share. They're

slippery, and they've slid out of the grip of the local taxpayer. They

slid out of their responsibility for a rational and fair approach to

school taxation in the province. No amount of political smoke-screening

is going to prevent us from pointing the accusatory finger at this

government and placing that responsibility where it so justly belongs.

Since

1974 the basic mill rate has increased from 24.7 to an estimated 43.5

mills. That's shocking and scandalous. The provincial government's

share of the basic education program has declined — and this is basic

education — from 44 percent to less than 39 percent. Now, Mr. Chairman,

that's the record. The new minister has been a willing accomplice in

this political charade. I wonder what his position is.

We've

gone through the figures. Let me refer to a few others. In 1975 the

basic mill rate, as I said, was 26.5. In 1980 it is 41.25. Now nobody

has raised the mill rate except the provincial government. I know what

the minister's going to do. He's going to stand up and say: "Well, we

don't collect the taxes. We don't set the budgets. We just put a

maximum level on the amount of money that can be collected for school

purposes." He might even have the nerve to say: "Well, we've increased

the homeowner grant." Mr. Chairman, thank goodness for the homeowner

grant. The homeowner grant is a reflection of the government's

responsibility. But it's used in a terrible way. They increase the mill

rate and the amount of taxation burden on the homeowner, and then

during an election year they pay a part of it back through the

homeowner grant. You know the image of this government: take $10, give

back 50 cents. But if they take the $10 in the first year of their

mandate and then give back the 50 cents during an election year, they

hope the people of the province will remember only the 50 cents, not

that they were practically robbed of $9.50 in total.

That's

what the minister and this government have done in school education

costs, through the provision of the homeowner grant. The minister may

argue: "Well, we don't set the budgets. We don't collect the taxes. We

just give the maximum level." The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the

ministry approves all budgets. The ministry has a bureaucratic

stranglehold on the budgets of this province at school district level,

and the school districts can hardly move in any creative way. They can

cut back, but some school districts that have cut back, like my

district in Vancouver, took what they thought was a responsible

approach. There were elementary schools in the city of Vancouver that

couldn't afford lightbulbs because of those cutbacks. It's true. They

didn't have proper heating for youngsters in elementary schools,

because the school district took the minister's word seriously. And

what happened? Instead of getting relief, a further increase in

taxation burden from the provincial government was placed on their

shoulders.

Here's how they did it. We've got two situations,

mostly involving declining enrolment, Let's deal with the declining

enrolment problem. You see, the Ministry of Education has a little

trick. It's called Catch-22 in the school districts' the ministry

doesn't call it that. The Catch-22 is that you'll be funded on the

basis of enrolment. Other provinces have dealt with and are coming to

grips with the financial problems created for local school districts by

declining enrolments. If you, say, lose 20 students out of Victoria

High School, those 20 students do not allow for any appreciable

decrease in operating costs. As a matter of fact it doesn't allow for

any cutbacks in that school's budget. Yet the provincial government

shares its treasury with schools only on the basis of their enrolment,

so they take a per-pupil rate and cut off their share to the school

districts. The costs are the same; the burden to the taxpayer at the

local level is the same; the provincial contribution is decreased. It's

an unfair trick on the school districts and on the taxpayers of the

regions.

Let's take Victoria school district as a notable

example. I've chosen Victoria because it's the minister's school

district. Maybe he has a special feeling and responsibility to his own

school district. It's a district hit by declining enrolments. Here's a

calculation of the revenues lost because of that Catch-22. In 1976,

$5.3 million was lost. Remember the costs are the same to the school

district, the contribution from the province is less. In 1977, $7.6

million was lost. Extra money that year had to come out of the pockets

of people who own homes in the city of Victoria. In 1978, $10.1

million; 1979, $12.6 million; 1980, $14.8 million. The total as of this

year, Mr. Speaker, from 1976 to 1980, is $49.8 million lost and paid

for by the greater Victoria homeowners, because the province has failed

in its responsibility.

Getting back to the mill rate and

this year, has the minister done us a favour? Is he turning the corner

and going back towards a rational sharing of the costs of education

between the province and the school districts? No. That one-quarter

basic mill rate increase has shifted a further $3,665,000 on the local

taxpayer from the province. In 1979 the local taxpayer was paying

$667,273,000 for public education. In 1980 they are paying

$740,133,000. This great minister has given such a gift to the local

taxpayer that they are now paying an extra $72,800,000 from local

taxation. The provincial government's increased share is $45 million

over that same period. So the shift in burden, rather than going back

onto the province where it belongs, is increasing on the local taxpayer.

Those

are the facts that we've gotten from the ministry, from school

districts and the Teachers' Federation. We've gone over the figures

time and time again. Let's clear away the smokescreen and le! the

minister say what he intends to do for education financing in this

province. Let's not hear the old saw about the homeowner taxation grant

during election years. Let's not hear about the responsibility lying

with the school districts. We know better; you're talking to the boys

now. Don't try and kid the troops. Tell us the way you think education

costs should go and what burden there should be on the homeowner and

what burden there should be on the provincial government. I ask the

minister to specifically tell me whether he supports the

recommendations of the McMath commission report, which calls for an

equitable sharing of education costs — 75 percent provincial and 25

percent local. I wonder if he'd indicate precisely where he stands on

the McMath commission report.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am

not going to engage in a philosophical debate with the member, answer

philosophical propositions, say what we're going to do next year or

anything else. But I will answer questions. I'm making notes of them

and I think I'll let other members have a chance.

[ Page 2886 ]

MR. LAUK:

Well, the other members will be ready to ask you questions in due

course. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: could the

minister respond? It's not a philosophical question; it's a policy

question. That's what we're here for. We're in estimates to ask you

where you stand on the sharing of education costs and you are required,

in the sense of your responsibility to the public, to tell us where you

stand. Are you for the McMath report or are you against it?

We've

given the Minister of Education an opportunity. Is he going to fall

into the mousetrap that some of his colleagues have fallen into this

session and keep this session going all summer long? Would the minister

like to do that or can he answer a straightforward policy question?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I will answer legitimate questions that are put to me in this House and

I will answer them in due course. I will not be bullied into it by the

member opposite.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the minister

is correct in viewing a legitimate question of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition requiring a responsible answer for the benefit of the public

as an attempt at bullying? Would he reconsider that? If not, Mr.

Chairman, I would ask the minister to withdraw the suggestion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 54 pass?

MR. LAUK: I've asked the Chairman to ask the minister to withdraw the improper imputation that I have been bullying him.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

With the greatest respect, hon. member, the Chair does not find that

statement improper imputation. The Chair cannot rule on that.

MR. LAUK: Well, is Mr. Chairman providing an objective view in that regard? Does the Chairman think I've been bullying the minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair can only act on the standing orders before us. It's the

Chairman's position to moderate debate in the House and that's the only

advice I can give you, hon. member.

MR. KEMPF: You couldn't bully anybody.

MR. LAUK:

There you go. I have support over there. Now we have the member for

Omineca supporting me. He says that I'm not capable of bullying anyone,

because he knows I'm a decent, honourable member of the House. Then we

have the contrasting opinion suggested by the Chairman that I am

bullying the minister. Well, if there's any suggestion....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chairman did not give an opinion. However, the Chair will ask the

minister if he did impute any improper motive, and if so, then will he

withdraw that.

HON. MR. SMITH: If I did, I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister withdraws. The member continues on vote 54.

MR. LAUK:

I wonder, can the minister tell us whether he has benefited from the

core curriculum? Mr. Chairman, I think it's a proper question to ask at

this stage of the debate in estimates. I wonder if the minister would

provide his comments on the cost-sharing burden between the local

taxpayer and the provincial government. Does he think it's fair? Does

he want to improve it? Which direction is he going to go in? What does

he think about the McMath commission report? Is it outdated or is it

still a viable formula of cost-sharing between local and provincial

taxpayers?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that the

minister is employing the same tactics that his leader has employed. So

I'll go on to ask him some further questions. I wonder if the minister

could indicate to us what his position is on declining enrolment, which

is the issue that I put to him. The effect of the formula of

cost-sharing is, on the one hand, to decrease the contribution to the

local taxpayer to the school district, on the basis of declining

enrolment, yet the corresponding decrease in costs does not occur. I'll

repeat it again. The school district has the same costs, but they don't

get the same money from the provincial government. I wonder if the

minister is intending to change that policy. Can you answer that?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I think I'd prefer to deal with these in an omnibus way if I could. I'm

making notes of what he's asking me; I'm not ducking them. I just would

rather deal with them in an omnibus way.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to defer to other members on the opposition

side, but I would like the minister to answer before too long what his

position is on the costsharing burden between school districts and the

province. I think it's a statement that should be made on the first day

of the estimates debate. I don't see how we can carry on dealing with

the other issues of education until we have a statement of policy in

that regard. If the minister stands up and makes some reasonable and

acceptable statement of policy to the opposition, we can press on.

MRS. DAILLY:

As the minister has said, he wants to have all this given to him in a

package. He is the minister and these are his estimates, so I suppose

we have no choice, but I do want to protest that I think we would have

a much better debate on the floor of this House if the minister would

perhaps reply to some major questions that are being asked him at this

time. When you try to answer all at once, much of the impact of the

debate is lost. I protest this procedure; but I have to accept it,

unfortunately.

On the matter of the increased cost to the

local taxpayer, I too would like to reiterate that ever since Social

Credit assumed office the local taxpayer has been burdened with more of

the school taxation costs, and the provincial government has paid less.

Those are the simple facts. No matter what the minister says, no matter

how he juggles figures, it is a fact that the Social Credit government

has apparently adopted the philosophy that the local taxpayer must bear

an increasing share of the cost of education and the province will bear

less. We happen to believe that today, with decreased enrolment, with

the revenues which.... This government is so apt to stand up in the

House and inform the public of B.C. how strong their financial ratings

are. If they're in the position which they've tried to suggest to us,

then I'd like to know why their priorities are such that in the area of

education we have so many gaps.

[ Page 2887 ]

hope that the Minister of Education will take his full responsibility

to the Treasury Board, and if the money is there — as the Premier

suggested it is — I would hope that he would try to relieve the burden

on the local taxpayers of this province. In my own district of Burnaby

we have seen the local share go up and up, and enrolments are going

down. Therefore the tragedy is that the people of Burnaby are inclined

to turn on the school board. They say: "We don't understand it.

Enrolments are going down, yet we don't see our school taxes going

down." They accept the fact that with inflation you can't expect them

to drop drastically. The unfortunate thing is that this government, in

the last four or almost five years, has attempted to place the blame on

the school board. Mr. Chairman, I find it wrong. I find it almost

deceitful for any government to do this.

The thing that

concerns me greatly with taxation is that I understand — I can't blame

the Minister of Education for this — someone in his government has

almost insisted that every tax roll assessment that goes out to each

individual taxpayer in British Columbia has on it: "Because of your

provincial government and their great ability" — whatever the words

are; I'm paraphrasing — "your municipal taxes have gone down." Well,

I'd say, Mr. Chairman, if they have insisted that the municipalities

put that on the assessment sheets that go out to every taxpayer, they

should also be forced to place on it: "However, your school costs have

not gone down to the extent they should have, because we have decided

that local taxpayers should pay more of school taxes than the

provincial government." I consider this a very deceptive manner in

handling the whole matter of school taxation.

There are many

other areas that we want to discuss today, but I believe my colleague,

our education critic from Vancouver Centre, is quite right when he says

that it is difficult to proceed until we can get from the minister some

answers to some very basic questions. From there, we would prefer to go

into specifics. To reiterate, we would ask the minister to tell us what

his objectives are in the area of financing of public schools in this

province. We also hope that he will answer and explain to us where he

places the public school system in priority in comparison to the

independent schools of this province. I think the member for Vancouver

Centre made an excellent statement when he pointed out that the public

school system is under attack all over British Columbia — not only

British Columbia but in the world; in North America anyway. The attack

was started, unfortunately, by his predecessor, who is now in charge of

universities, science and technology. He helped to whip up the

anti-public-school feeling in this province. I accused him of that when

he was minister; and I accuse him again of doing so.

The new

minister, whose estimates we are now dealing with, has met with the

trustees and the teachers. We were pleased to see that he was receptive

to them and ready to listen to them. But now we've gone through that

stage of listening in his first few months. Here we are in his first

estimates, and what we would really like to know is what his philosophy

is. How strongly does he support the public school system? How does he

feel about local taxation? Those are the basic questions that we really

find it difficult to proceed with unless we can get this umbrella

discussion going.

So, Mr. Chairman, as I have no choice, I

want to proceed to some specifics at this time. Then I hope that

perhaps we will hear from the minister, and we can continue our debate

here on the floor.

I am particularly concerned today to hear

what the minister can tell us about his own feeling on the matter that

seems to be.... There's a pendulum swing here, I think, to almost an

overuse of the marking system. Now I know most parents have always

said, "Well, we'd like to know where our students stand," and there has

been some pressure in the past for a grading type of system.

Unfortunately, we saw the former minister push the pendulum to the

extreme where suddenly the school teachers found themselves having to

almost go back to a marking system that existed when some of us in this

room went to school. My concern is that most children who are faced

with this marking system and with the whole matter of failure often

become psychological failures, and I have always felt this very

strongly. I don't think the results, when it comes to.... Are we

keeping more children in school because we decided to implement marking

and heavy competition again? If we look at the dropout rates, I don't

think that that pendulum swing is really helping the student — and

that's what it's all about. I'd like to hear the minister's opinion on

this whole matter of rigid marking.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

line with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to share with the House the fact

that I had the opportunity just last weekend to visit the Nishga school

district; and at this time I want to pay tribute to the native Indians

of the Nishga, who themselves first came to the Department of Education

— as it was called at that time when I was minister — with the hope and

the wish that they could create their own high school and their own

school district. I want to also pay tribute at this time to all the

members of the ministry staff without whose help I don't think we would

have been able to get that district created. I'm just glad to be able

to say that I had the opportunity to actually see it in action,

attending a graduation. My hope is that the minister himself — and I'm

sure he intends to — will visit them. The success of that district, I

think, speaks for itself. There were 26 native Indian and, I think, two

white students graduating from grade 12 — and remember, this is the

second graduating class they have had. I understand that 14 of those 26

are carrying on into higher education. I consider that a very

successful scene. If you compare it to the situation before they had an

opportunity to have their own school district, most of those students

never got past grade 8. Most of them never came down to the lower

mainland to attend higher education, because they simply did not have

the experience of succeeding,

Now why I'm bringing that up

is that I think this has shown philosophically that if you give a

district the opportunity to develop its own meaningful programs which

suit its own needs, you create an atmosphere which helps to bring about

more success for the individual students — and that is the point that

our first member for Vancouver Centre expressed so well in his opening

statement — because there they have an opportunity to learn their own

language and they have an opportunity to reinforce their own heritage

and their own culture. I feel that that is something sadly lacking —

this opportunity in our schools in the province of British Columbia to

make the programs meaningful according to the needs of the area.

too protest strongly what I consider to be a move to centralization in

the ministry instead of a move the other way. When the minister stated

that there is no way that he

[ Page 2888 ]

wants

to have 75 school districts all teaching their own curriculum, I find

it distressing that he has to use that old red herring, Mr. Chairman,

because the first member for Vancouver Centre at no time ever suggested

that. He is well aware, as we all are on this side, that there has to

be a basic curriculum in every school district; but the point that is

being missed here is that if you want to enrich your school system, if

you want to give each individual student an opportunity to feel a

person in his own right, you must allow some flexibility in curriculum.

I think those are the points that we would like to hear the minister

give us his feedback on, because the trend — whether he believes in it

or not, or whether he's going to carry on the centralized movement

started by the former minister — is something we're very concerned

about.

There's one more area, and then I will sit down and

hope for some feedback, and maybe let other members speak at this time.

I'd like the minister to comment on special education. I know it's a

difficult area, but it's one of the most vital ones. May I say to the

minister that I think that special education in the province of British

Columbia, through his ministry, has come a long way. But my big concern

right now is in that area where I've always felt there was a great

weakness — the ability of the classroom teacher to diagnose from the

time a child is in kindergarten whether he's going to have special

learning problems. It can be diagnosed in kindergarten now, and that's

why, for one thing, I'm so pleased that under the NDP we were able to

put kindergartens into every school in the province, because at that

early age you can diagnose the problems. But the teachers of our

province, by and large, are not trained to do this diagnostic

investigation, because there's no compulsory course yet.

Perhaps

the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Soles, would be able to advise us

whether there have been changes in that area. I know when I was

minister I was hoping to see a compulsory course for every teacher so

that they will be taught how, at least, to diagnose if a child is going

to have learning disabilities. If they can't do that, they often put a

great deal of stress on a child who does have learning disabilities and

is unable to perform. Once that is done, of course, the ministry must

provide the right resources. I know the situation today is still in

great need of help; we still need to provide much more assistance in

that area, particularly in the training of teachers.

Mr.

Chairman, I have many other things I'd like to discuss, but I'd also

like to hear from the minister on those few brief points.

HON. MR. SMITH:

The member for Burnaby North is usually constructive, and I appreciate

it. I congratulate her for attending the graduation of the Nishga

school; I think it's marvellous that she went up there and I would

dearly have loved to do so. They invited me to give the address, but I

had committed myself to the graduation at New Westminster Senior

Secondary that same day. I'm also delighted that we were able to

support the native language and cultural programs in that school, and

particularly that a number of their graduates are going on to

post-secondary education. I share her views entirely.

On the

marking system, we have a draft administrative handbook out which when

I became minister was really there for approval. One of the issues in

that, of course, was a return to a grading system. I didn't approve

that handbook, and I let it be known very early that I wasn't going to

approve it until I'd made a general public educational tour and also

knew more about the views of people in education on the specific issue.

I have not taken a position on those issues in the handbook. I might

say, though, that my tendency now would be not to favour a grading

system at the primary level and to have an open mind on the subject at

the other levels. When you get to the secondary level I think a case

can be made for some grading, and I would tend to favour grading at

that level, but not at the primary level, I don't think. I have an open

mind as to the grades between.

On the question of my view as

to commitment for the public education system as opposed to the

independent system, I think it's incumbent on any Minister of Education

to primarily support that public education system, and I do. I do not

see that system being eroded by the independent school system or its

vitality or resources being sapped. I see government's role vis-a-vis

the independent school system as giving them some support and

encouragement, but that is not our primary mandate. Our primary mandate

is the public school system.

Both the first member for

Vancouver Centre and the hon. lady have asked me to comment on the

financing formulas. I'm certainly prepared to do so; I'm not trying to

duck any of this, but I really didn't have a precise question from the

first member. I had a long, rambling, self-serving speech in which he

conjured up various figures. He used figures in a way very agreeable to

his case. He took operating budgets and dealt with those to show a very

slow decline in the provincial portion from '75 to '80, but he did not

deal with the other components in the provincial funding that I indeed

mentioned — I thought in a straightforward way — in my opening

statement.

There are things that he overlooks in addition to.... I'm

not acknowledging that the homeowner's grant should directly relate to

those figures. He overlooks the post-secondary money which is put into

the budget, into colleges and institutes as to capital and operating

costs. He knows as well as everyone else in this House does that up

until a year ago a portion of those came off property taxes and that at

one time those were a property tax burden. That has been removed and

the province of British Columbia now directly pays the entire cost of

the colleges and the provincial institutes. I think that when we're

talking about the provincial contribution to education it should not

just be operating budgets that are looked at but it should be the

capital costs that the province makes. Of course, the province still

contributes the major portion of capital costs to school districts.

Some $69 million comes from the province and $57 million comes locally

with the direct expenditures that are made to post-secondary education.

If you look at those figures and compare those with the local

expenditure, you have the province paying 64.5 percent and the local

expenditure being 35.4 percent.

I appreciate that the

figures he cited to this House for Victoria school district and other

school districts show a considerable increase. I appreciate also that

the basic mill rate has increased in this province, but so has the cost

of materials, the cost of labour and the teachers' salaries.

also appreciate that declining enrolments present a very real problem

for school districts. But in one part of his nice introductory speech

the first member for Vancouver Centre invited us to turn the schools of

this province into democratic human resource centres, and in another

breath he suggested that there should be astringency in expenditures

and that declining enrolments should reflect economies. The two may

[ Page

2889 ]

be in conflict. But unlike the manner in which the

member portrays the ministry, the ministry doesn't make all these

decisions. We do leave it to local school districts to decide.

MR. LAUK: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, it's true. The local school districts decide whether or not they

wish to close schools. Local school districts decide whether they want

to keep three or four schools going at 50 and 60 percent enrolment.

Quite often that's the decision that they make.

MR. LAUK: Where is that decision being made?

HON. MR. SMITH: That decision is being made locally.

MR. LAUK: Fifty percent enrolment? Where? Name one place.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, there are schools with that kind of enrolment.

MR. LAUK: Where?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll bring them to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. It makes it very difficult, particularly for Hansard ,

when interjections come across without being recognized. If the member

could leave his questions until the minister has completed, it makes it

much simpler.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member would like

me to give some pronouncement on the McMath report. I've discussed the

McMath report with trustees and I've discussed it with the teachers. My

view on the burdens of education are that the majority of that burden

should be home, and continue to be borne, by the province and not by

local taxpayers. What the McMath report recommended was that there

should be a division of the basic education program of 75 percent

provincial and 25 percent local. I do not think that that will take

place. It won't take place within the next number of years, but I can

see a slow improvement in the basic education program split. I think

that if we were to move to the recommendations of the McMath report,

the 75-25 split, the role of trustees would be vastly diminished. They

would not have much of a role of financial accountability and that

would not be a desirable final aim. But I certainly agree that the

overall costs of public education should be borne by the province, and

the province has an obligation to try and shield property owners,

particularly those on fixed incomes, from the burdens of increased

education costs. Beyond that statement I do not intend to provide

little quiz answers from now to eternity.

MR. LAUK:

You know, it's interesting, Mr. Chairman. He states that I've conjured

up figures. Well, the figures that I gave the committee are from the

Ministry of Education. Perhaps he should take that up with his

officials.

HON. MR. SMITH: Give the rest of the figures.

MR. LAUK: They're all there right here. You remember this page.

It's in your notes. If the minister is not happy with the increase in the

mill rates since 1975, he should take that up with his officials. These figures

are theirs. He's saying we're not taking other components into consideration,

like the component of post-secondary funding. I take it that's for regional

colleges and institutions, Is that what you're talking about? All right.

Some regional school districts don't have those costs. Is that correct?

We'll

proceed along the basis that I think we understand each other, That's

the only component that you've referred to. And the difference between

shifting that cost onto the provincial government and the lack of

requirement to expend money from the local taxpayer in that regard has

been reflected in the figures that I've given the minister. For the

sake of clarification I'll go over them again.

We're talking

about school costs. We've totally excluded the contribution made by

local and provincial taxpayers on the post-secondary level. We've not

included those budgets, shares and percentages of school burden of the

post-secondary factor into our figures that we're presenting to the

committee today. The shift by a quarter of a mill has shifted a greater

burden of school costs, $3.6 million, onto school districts. The total

increase from 1979 to this fiscal year is $72,800,000. That's the

increase that school districts have to pay this year. The provincial

share has been nowhere near that, yet the minister argues that a

greater burden of the school costs should be borne by the provincial

government. You know, it's funny that he refers to the McMath

commission report and, in reply to my answer, says that the formula of

75-25 won't take place in the next number of years. In other words. the

minister is not committed to that formula. He's not committed to

increasing the burden of costs on the shoulders of the provincial

government, and his actions as minister bear him out. His actions are,

in this case, consistent with his statement, because a greater burden

of taxation is now on the taxpayer as a result of his policies.

But,

you know, he didn't always feel that way, Mr. Chairman. When he was

running for the seat in Oak Bay on May 10, 1979, here's what he had to

say about the McMath commission in answer to a questionnaire from the

Greater Victoria Teachers' Association.

MR. LEA: That's not fair bringing that in.

MR. LAUK:

But I thought that if during the process of their election, elected

officials made commitments and promises to the people in their

constituencies, we could expect they would keep them when they took

office.

MR. LEA: But he made those when he was a Conservative.

MR. LAUK:

No, he was a Social Credit candidate, and many then were saying that he

should be the Minister of Education. That's when the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was the Minister of Education.

Even then they said that this new candidate in Oak Bay, carrying the

standard of Social Credit — which he did not always bear.... He made a

promise. This is what he said: "I have long supported efforts to remove

the burden of school taxes from property, believing as I do that

retired persons on fixed incomes, who have reared families, should not

be taxed out of their homes." A salutary sentiment, isn't it? The

minister should be highly complimented. "Yes, I would support those

recommendations of the McMath Commission."

[ Page 2890 ]

So,

Mr. Chairman, seldom does the man produce what the boy has promised.

He's reached high office and the gnomes have reached him; he's got the

message. "We need the money," he's been told by Treasury Board, "to

build such important things as the longest exhaust pipe in the world

from Victoria to Vancouver. We need the money to put up a circus tent

in False Creek. We need the money to do this, that and the other thing,

but we don't have the money to relieve the overwhelming burden of

taxation on the homeowner." He's got the message about this

government's priorities and he has not got the intestinal fortitude to

stand up as the Minister of Education and fulfill his promise to his

own constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Disappointing.

MR. LAUK:

Oh, the disappointment deepens, and we are tragically disappointed,

because we had such great hope for this breath of fresh air.

What's hot off the press? Do you remember the initial remarks on the Minister of Education that were made by the press?

MR. LEA: No.

MR. LAUK: You don't? Let me remind you.

"As

he was hand-shaking and baby-kissing across the province shortly after

his appointment, he was barely out of the Lieutenant-Governor's mansion

when he was making all kinds of glowing remarks about teachers, the

educational system and how he was going to reform this, do that and the

other thing."

He even got the BCTF involved in these compliments. But what have we got?

"Sympathy and appreciation for teachers are not

always matched with actions. Listing cases in which the minister's

reported views have not been followed by action, the president of the

British Columbia Teacher's Federation outlines as follows: 'Teachers

have been told to wait to have their say on a new administrative

handbook for schools until after the Education minister holds a series

of public forums across the province. They have been given only until

June 30 to comment on recent revisions to the social studies

curriculum.'"

And on it goes.

The

ministry has preferred to stay out of controversial areas like letter

grades, the special approval process for textbooks other than those

approved by the Education ministry, etc., etc. There's a whole list of

them. Local scholarships have been frustrated in their original

intention to provide local scholarships to non-academic achievement.

They've been frustrated by changes in the ministry. The minister has

correspondence from the Creston school district, followed up by

correspondence from school districts across the province, and

innocuous, bland replies have come from the minister's office. The

change has been made. You can't fight city hall.

He told the annual convention of the BCTF that teachers should not

be responsible for administering medication to students. He's been

asked several times in the House about this question, and he agrees

with us. It reminds me of that fellow who always agrees with you but

never does anything for you — never makes any changes. He says: "I know

we're wrong. I know we're not serving the educational system. I agree

with everything you say." But he does nothing about it. That's the

hallmark of this minister. He won't answer the questions we've put to

him on philosophy. He says: "I'm not going to get into a philosophical

debate." I don't blame him. He doesn't have a philosophy about

education. He has a policy though, and it's based on his own personal

philosophy. So on his behalf, I'll answer the question I put to the

minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is he talking to?

MR. LAUK:

I'm talking to myself again. I'll answer the minister on his behalf. In

answer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the Minister of

Education says this: "I have been appointed Minister of Education. I

want to get through my term of office without any hassles. I don't want

to make any changes. I want to be loved. I don't want any waves to be

made. I don't want to make any bold decisions because it will affect my

career, in my relentless, sure progress towards the Premier's chair."

You

know, young, fledgling ministers quite often make the mistake of making

actual decisions. And they pay for it. But I'd much sooner have a

Minister of Education with the courage to accept his responsibility

towards the young people of this province, and make those bold and

necessary decisions today, and not have so much concentration on his

own personal political career. Those decisions are in demand now.

it seems that this minister, if we're analyzing his performance, has

changed his position on the McMath commission from the days when he was

running for election. It seems that he's changed his position on the

administration of drugs by non-medical personnel in the schools; he's

doing nothing about it. It seems he's changed his position on a number

of things. He has indicated he was against centralization. The first

move he made legislatively in this chamber was to centralize control of

the colleges in the province. And on it goes. The social studies

curriculum — has he done anything about that? That's very amusing. The

gnomes, or, as he calls them, the snowy-haired bureaucrats in his

office....

AN HON. MEMBER: Over here, Walter!

MR. LAUK:

He certainly wasn't referring to the deputy minister; the snowy-haired

gnomes with their little sharpened quills have been drafting the social

studies curriculum. Apart from my natural social democratic paranoia

that the social studies curriculum has maximum input from the B.C.

Chamber of Commerce and will teach the free enterprise system and so on

— they might even get part of the Christian television network to

support them — I wonder whether or not the social studies curriculum

needs so much centralized bureaucratic input. I wonder if the structure

of that curriculum, as I read it, is like a coffin for the social

studies teacher. It all lows no creativity. It confines him or her to

teach a course content without elaboration, with such time constraints

— if one is to look at the whole curriculum — that the creativity in

the classroom, the spontaneity and the knowledge of a teacher who can

excite the social studies class may be discouraged.

Too

much! Enough is enough! A general outline in the curriculum — fine. But

to train teachers for five and six years and have them go out and teach

kids, and then tell them, page

[ Page

2891 ]

by page from the guidebook, how to teach social

studies, is going too far. They argue they haven't centralized. It

reminds me of that cartoon of the flyer: he lands the plane according

to a rule book, and as the plane taxis to a stop, he sits staring at

the last page, turns the page, and says, "oh," and then turns off the

ignition. [Laughter.]

Thank you. I knew the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) would get that one. It was simple enough,

wasn't it, Mr. Chairman? He is the only man I know who, on the way to

work, stops by the gas station to get his head filled up with air.

That

is one example. The other example of the strictures caused by

centralization are for capital project approvals. They go through the

ministry. I wonder if the minister can indicate at this stage if he

plans any revision. He doesn't have to hold a public forum or meet with

the secretary-treasurers. Just send them a note saying: "What do you

suggest?" Do you think any would reply? I think all of them would,

wouldn't you? They would reply extensively. The secretary treasurers

have some very good ideas on how to reform your capital approval

procedures. That would solve a lot of problems.

The other

question I have will probably wait for another time. The minister did

not adequately deal, it seems to me, with declining enrolment. He

suggests that there are schools that have 50 percent enrolment that

were dropped. I would be surprised if there was one. I will concede

that if he could find me one I will certainly withdraw that but I am

sure those figures are exaggerated. Maybe he is referring to a school

that has just been burned down, I don't know. I think that in the vast

majority of cases, 99 percent of the schools, if they have declining

enrolment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit eavesdropping! Just keep talking.

MR. LAUK: I can't see who is speaking behind the Minister of Agriculture because of the reflection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're not far from being there, fella. I'm going to lend you my sponge.

MR. LAUK: I've lost it all this session through the lack of answers from the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never had it all.

MR. LAUK: We're hearing from Fred Flintstone again. I'll deal with you during these estimates, Fred.

Getting

my mind back onto the issue, the issue is declining enrolment, The

minister cannot argue that the majority of schools have a great

percentage of declining enrolment, school by school. You can't analyze

costs related to the contribution from the provincial treasury using

that rule of cost per pupil, It is not a cost per pupil. If you lost 50

students out of a high school, does it decrease their costs? Not at

all. In most cases that is what we are talking about. We're not talking

about a loss of 250 students out of 500 or 900 or 1,000, or 50 percent.

We're not talking about those figures. They are very rare indeed. We

are talking about the marginal decreases. I wonder if we do have any

information or a report the minister can provide us with which will

indicate how much of a decline in enrolment per school, let's say, is

required before we can start to make arrangements that Would decrease

fixed costs and operating costs at those schools. Those are figures

that I think we should honestly deal with because the pressure is on.

The

next thing I want to mention is that the minister says: "Well, if the

school district wants to keep these schools open at great cost, that is

their business." What is the minister's approach toward keeping schools

— particularly elementary or junior high schools — close to a

community, so children do not have to walk home over long distances,

sometimes in the dark? What value do we place on that in relation to

declining enrolment? What value does the minister place on, let's say,

a school that is burned down? Does he place other students in the same

school district far away in another school, combining the school

populations?

Here's a follow-up question. Perhaps the

Minister of Education can tell us what the maximum size of a secondary

or elementary school is — maximum from the point of view of the

students and the community. Are those values reflected in this formula

of declining enrolment and the share of the provincial treasury towards

education costs? Are those qualitative questions considered by the

minister and his staff? It is a little bit cruel to say to a school

district: ''You make that decision. You deal with the families in this

community, You say that the school closes down and your kids have to

walk the extra mile or two." You get off the hook, I say to the

minister. That is not fair. That lacks courage and an acceptance of

responsibility on the ministry's part. You should make it one way or

the other through the cost-sharing formula, and eliminate — or change

to make it fair — the declining enrolment regulations that are costing

so many school districts such a lot of money.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to add my support to the request

by the first member for Vancouver Centre and the member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly) that the minister make a statement about the

policy, and certainly the philosophy, of his government. I know the

B.C. School Trustees Association released a report recently about the

findings of a Gallup poll which was conducted in the province, which

showed that public confidence in B.C. schools appears to be in worse

shape than anywhere else in Canada. It said that almost 54 percent of

the respondents in B.C. — 14 percent above the national average —

believe that education standards in this province are declining. The

B.C. School Trustees were sufficiently concerned about this that when

they had a meeting, with the Social Credit caucus and the New

Democratic Party caucus in April of this year, they prepared an agenda,

and one of the items on the agenda which they raised was the need for a

statement of provincial goals and objectives from the government. They

need to know whether the government has a commitment to the public

school system or not; and if so, whether the government is prepared to

put the dollars behind that kind of commitment.

The other

item which was raised was the whole question of the government's share

of the basic education program cost in terms of the public schools. Now

the minister assures us that this is not declining. Yet we also find in

a statement from the GVRD dealing with this particular issue, which was

released at the end of 1979, or the beginning of this year, that the

government's contribution to the basic education program — certainly in

the greater Vancouver area, and that included Burnaby — declined in

recent years from 45.3

[ Page 2892 ]

percent

in 1973 to 28.8 percent this year. Now the minister can challenge these

figures if he wants. They're not my figures, as I said; they're the

figures of the GVRD, and they pointed out that the government's

contribution to the province as a whole had dropped from 50.7 percent

to 45 percent over the same period.

The other statement that

the minister made in speaking to the table officers of the B.C. School

Trustees in January of this year was that his ministry was not planning

any major legislative changes related to education. He said none were

planned before, maybe, the 1981 sitting of the Legislature. They

expressed some alarm about this, and I want to express some alarm about

that too. We are living in a society and in a time which is changing in

very dramatic ways, and education has to change; it can't remain

static. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise just a couple of the

areas that I think the Ministry of Education should seriously start

looking at.

The crisis that we're dealing with in the

community as a whole now has to do with the whole issue of teenage

pregnancies. I don't know whether the minister is aware of this or not,

so maybe I will share some of the statistics. One thousand Canadian

teenage girls become pregnant every week — and this is in Canada as a

whole. We have a report from Dr. Tonkin of British Columbia, who

supports this statistic in terms of how it affects British Columbia

itself. He talks about the large number of girls under the age of 19,

many of whom are under the age of 15, who are becoming pregnant. He

says that there were something like 3, 934 women under the age of 19

who became pregnant, and a large percentage of these pregnancies were

to women under the age of 15. We're talking about kids in grade 9,

grade 10 and grade 11, but most of the figures were for kids in grades

9 and 10. His statistics went on to point out that of this number 51

percent ended up applying for abortions. He said that 35 percent of the

abortions performed on all women in this province were on women under

the age of 19 — and again he zeroed in on those statistics for young

girls under the age of 15.

Now we don't very often hear

profound statements from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) on this

particular topic, but we did recently when he suggested that probably

one way of addressing ourselves to this problem was to look at the

whole business of ignorance because Dr. Tonkin's report went on to

prove that in most instances we were dealing with young people who knew

absolutely nothing about contraceptives and very little about the whole

process of sex itself. They think they know everything about it, but

the reality is that they know very little. He talked about one B.C.

school district where he dealt with grades 9 and 10. Out of the number

of students that came to his attention as a result of being pregnant,

only one had ever used any form of contraceptive or even understood

very much about it.

The Minister of Health suggested that one of the solutions to this was that

the educational system should take this into account and maybe the school system

should start seriously addressing this business of ignorance in this particular

aspect of the lives of the young people in our province. There's a quote

from the Times of January 15 of this year in which the minister made that suggestion.

The Minister of Education was quoted as saying that he doesn't go along

with that idea at all and does not support the suggestion of the Minister of

Health. B.C.'s school system should be taking into account the fact that

for one reason or another young people are.... They're not maturing

younger but they're believing that they're maturing younger. They're

certainly experimenting with sex at a much younger age. If we're going to

be really addressing ourselves to the whole crisis of teenage pregnancies, the

education system has some kind of responsibility in this area.

The

minister felt that this is something which should be left to the school

board, yet earlier this afternoon I heard him state quite clearly on

the floor of this House that he was not going to tolerate curricula

being left at the mercy of local school districts. He said there had to

be guidance coming from the top and that was the reason that he was

speaking in support of centralization, certainly in terms of the social

studies curriculum, You can't have it both ways. You can't say we must

have centralization in terms of the curriculum content of some things

and then in an area.... I confess it is a controversial area and a new

area, but it's not an area that can be ignored by the education system

any longer. The minister says that he doesn't go along with it but the

local school boards can do what they want to do if the spirit moves

them.

Teenage pregnancies interrupt, and in many instances

terminate, the education of a number of these young women. Surely that

aspect of it anyway is of interest to the Ministry of Education. If you

are not interested in the fact that a large percentage of them resort

to abortions and that another percentage of them actually keep their

children — and we have all kinds of additional problems with that —

then surely you're interested in the fact that this particular

experience in many instances terminates or at least interrupts the

education of these young women. If you want to limit your perception of

this problem to its very narrowest parameters, certainly the

interruption of their education is something that you should take into

account. The statistics say that 5 percent of the young women in school

in British Columbia will become pregnant some time before they

graduate. That is a very large percentage that you cannot ignore. The

educational system cannot ignore a phenomenon that has as large and as

profound an effect on the lives of those young people as teenage

pregnancy is beginning to have.

What happens, of course, is

that everything effects everything else. We get the statistics on

poverty coming out of the Canadian Council on Social Development. Those

statistics on poverty show that most of the people who are poor are

women and most of the women who are poor have very limited education.

If you want to take it right back to its very beginnings, education

plays a major role in terms of the kinds of job that a person can apply

or qualify for, the kind of income that a person can earn, the kind of

contribution that they can make to the community at large and the

quality of life of this entire nation. One thing that interrupts that

educational process and terminates it in 5 percent of the instances in

British Columbia is teenage pregnancy. It doesn't make sense,

therefore, for the Minister of Education, who is presumably the person

responsible for the direction and the policy decisions in terms of the

education of the young people of this province, to dissociate himself

and say that he doesn't go along with this idea — that if the Ministry

of Education, for some reason or another, didn't want to go ahead with

such a program that would be fine with him. In fact, various

independent local school districts.... His exact quote is that

education is a local option. That is what he said in this particular

case, but of course when he interferes with the content of the social

studies program it's not a local option.

[ Page 2893 ]

think that raises a point which the first member for Vancouver Centre

did earlier when he said it really does call for intestinal fortitude

and courage to be a Minister of Education in this province. It really

does, because this is a controversial issue and there isn't any

question about it. There are all kinds of newspaper clippings. All the

forces opposed to information and enlightenment and knowledge around

the province are going to come screaming at the Minister of Education:

"How dare you deal with such a topic in the schools?" You have to. I

don't believe that the Minister of Education or the department has a

choice anymore. As long as teenage pregnancy was something that

happened to just one or two people because they weren't good girls,

that was fine; maybe it could be ignored then. But it has reached

proportions now where it is affecting 5 percent of the female students

going through the school system. It is interrupting their education and

in some instances it is terminating it. Dr. Tonkin's report tells us

that it is also a threat in terms of health. Even their life, in some

instances, is threatened. For one thing, the kids wait until the very

last minute before they reveal the information. In some cases they try

to abort themselves. There are all kinds of health problems surrounding

this which will presumably be dealt with under the Minister of Health's

estimates.

But the basic thing is the lack of information.

They don't know. They think they know. I repeat it again, as a parent

of teenagers. Teenagers really do believe they know, and in some

instances, probably, they do; but in this particular instance the

statistics don't bear that out. The statistics show that there is a lot

of information that they just haven't got access to. It is just as

important for them to understand the basics of this particular topic as

it is for them to understand how to construct a sentence properly,

which I understand they are not even learning to do very well in the

school system now anyway.

In terms of the minister's

statement about not planning any major changes, this is one area where

I think we can't wait until 1981. We are talking about kids in grades 9

and 10. We are talking about 15-year-olds and about something that has

reached crisis proportions and is getting worse. We are talking about

something that directly affects what happens to that person's life in

the future and affects the ability that that person has to contribute

to the lives of all the rest of us and to society as a whole, or their

inability to contribute, as the case may be.

I want to bring

that to the minister's attention once again and to tell him that there

was a brief presented by Planned Parenthood to a provincial education

association in which they stressed the importance of making family life

and sex education part of the regular school curriculum at the primary

and secondary level. It has to be done right now. This is not an

original idea on my part. This is an issue which concerns people

involved in education and health, and parents right across the board.

It is not good enough for the Minister of Education simply to say that

it is not an issue to which he is going to address himself and that he

has to be careful. As someone pointed out to him, ignoring the problem

certainly isn't going to solve it.

I would like to bring to

his attention that panel on sex education which was conducted in

Richmond recently. I am sure he has access to the findings of that

particular panel and can see some of the issues that were raised by

teachers, doctors, parents and students in terms of directions in which

the minister should be going.

The second area that I would

like to address to the minister is this. In November of last year, a

memo went out from the deputy minister that had to do with female

participation in educational programs and sources of sponsorship. I

think the minister is probably very familiar with this. I want to raise

the question of what has happened with the information which was

included in this. The information in it is pretty frightening in terms

of the very poor female participation in educational programs and

certainly in terms of sponsorship. I want to quote a little bit from it.

This

study was done by Dr. Marilyn Mohan, the former director of program

research and development for the Ministry of Education. It found that,

first, the majority of women are in non-sponsored programs — university

transfer, career, technical and continuing education — with the

exception of the CEIC sponsorship of women in a pre-employment program.

Secondly, it says that those women who were fortunate enough to be

sponsored were being trained for occupations which have low salaries,

low security and for which the competition for employment is high. Here

we go again!

I want to, if I can, bring the minister's

attention again to the poverty report which was released by the

Canadian Council on Social Development and corroborated this kind of

information. The poorest people in this country are women. The poorest

women are that way because they are in these traditional jobs that pay

low salaries and have no job security whatever. The basis of that is

inadequate education and training. This is supported by the study done

by his own ministry. It shows that in the apprenticeship program, for

example, 7.8 percent of the sponsored students were women; 92.2 percent

were men. This is in the apprenticeship program into the

non-traditional jobs that pay decent money and put you into good,

strong unions so that when you retire you get a pension and you don't

have to be poor when you are old. Only 7.8 percent of those students

were women; 92.2 percent were men,

What have you done with

this report? What kind of efforts have been made by the ministry to

change those particular statistics? The pre-apprenticeship statistics

show the number of female students was 5.8 percent; the number of male

students was 94.2. Again, what has happened to those statistics? This

memo came out in November 1979. Surely there has been enough time to at

least begin working on some of the recommendations which were submitted

along with the kind of horrendous statistics which we are talking

about. The recommendations were that the Ministry of Education should

get together with the ministries of Labour and Human Resources and work

together in terms of evaluating the progress that had been made to date

— I don't know why they use the word "progress" because I don't

consider 5.8 percent progress — and then begin to encourage women to go

into a wider range of training.

One of the things that this

report also pointed out was the really inadequate data base. It was

very, very difficult to get the information because the data base was

not there. No one had been interested enough to put together a decent

data base so that when you want these kinds of statistics you can get

them. So the first thing the Minister of Education needed to do was to

improve that situation anyway, in terms of the data base, and having

done that, come together with these other ministries in terms of

improving those statistics.

The other recommendation was that sponsoring agencies should earmark funds specifically for those women students

[ Page 2894 ]

who

wanted to move into the nontraditional programs. "Nontraditional" is a

euphemism that we use for those areas of work that pay decent salaries,

have good working conditions and have until now been reserved for men.

It is suggesting that the sponsoring agencies should earmark funds

specifically to encourage women to go into those areas. I know that at

the same time the Ministry of Labour was doing a study on women in

nontraditional areas and they also brought down some recommendations.

If the Minister of Education doesn't have that report I would be happy

to share my copy with him.

The third recommendation had to

do with the selection process for sponsoring post-secondary students

and said that it needed to be thoroughly reviewed. That goes back to

the old business of the previous Minister of Education first of all

firing the committee on sexism in education, which used to be an

advisory committee to the Minister of Education in terms of input in

this particular area. So I am not holding the present minister

responsible for that. True, he has made no efforts to reinstate that

particular committee, but at least we can't hold him responsible for

disbanding it. He didn't fire that committee. But it is clear from the

kinds of information that we are getting that the ministry needs an

advisory committee in terms of having input for ways in which the

educational system really is failing the women in the province today.

He has been asked, I know. I have a couple of letters having to do with

that which I will deal with later.

The fourth recommendation

had to do with career counselling. I am going to go into a great deal

of detail on that one when I talk about the access program. I can see

the deputy minister beginning to go grey because he knows this is all

the access program — women's access. What is happening with that

recommendation on career counselling for women in the post-secondary

schools? Again it was suggested that it should be thoroughly reviewed.

If the minister is unable to answer some of these questions, I can answer them for him, because I know some of the answers.

But

I think it's good to raise the issue, because it's possible that he

hasn't even had an opportunity to see these recommendations, Mr.

Chairman, and find out just how serious the situation is in terms of

women in the community. I am convinced that no one likes the idea of

poverty. No one supports the idea of poverty. No one condones the fact

that most of the poor people in this country are women. Everyone wants

to do what they can to eliminate this phenomenon. There isn't any

question at all that employment is one of the ways of doing