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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Reorganization of Finance ministry. Mr. Lea –– 2901

Northeastern B.C. rail link. Mr. Lauk –– 2903

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 54.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2903

Mr. Lauk –– 2904

Mr. Davis –– 2905

Mr. Lauk –– 2907

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2912

Mr. Passarell –– 2913

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2914

Mr. Mitchell –– 2915

Mr. Mussallem –– 2916

Mrs. Wallace –– 2918

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2920

Mr. King –– 2922

Mr. Barber –– 2922

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Railway financial statements for the year ending December

28, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2925

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In the House today are some good friends, Mario and Marcella Carmel

from Vancouver. They are here with a group of senior citizens

representing the Italian folk society in the city of Vancouver. I would

like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. NICOLSON:

Visiting the precincts today are students from Salmo Elementary School

and their teacher, Mr. Andy Gris. I wish the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

In the House today a couple of friends of mine from Saanich, Mr. and

Mrs. Fenry Borsboom. Mr. Borsboom was a friend of my father's in the

village that I came from in Holland, and I would ask the House to make

them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: In the gallery today

are two friends of mine, Mrs. Mary Mulvahill and Mrs. Kathy Mulvahill.

They're here with a group of students from Chezacut in the Cariboo

riding. If anybody doesn't know where it is I'll gladly guide them. I'd

like the House to welcome them.

MR. MITCHELL: I would

like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a young lad who is

leaving for Ottawa this week to join the student forum of young

Canadians. He will be one of 100. Derrick will be representing the

Sooke school district and will be sitting in the chambers in Ottawa.

I'd like everyone to welcome Derrick Acerman from Sooke.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'd like to introduce two people in the gallery today; one is an old

friend of mine whom I became associated with for many years with

General Motors. His name is Mr. Al Crocker. He has a guest with him

from the government of Ontario who is here to see how we do things in

the Legislature of British Columbia. Would you welcome them, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

There are a number of guests I would like to acknowledge today visiting

the House: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Jiggins from Qualicum Beach; their father

Fred Jiggins, also of Qualicum Bay; also from England, visiting British

Columbia, Fred's brother Mr. Jack Jiggins; also from Britain, Mr. and

Mrs. Ron Wicks of Chelmsford, England — Mr. Wicks is an alderman there.

With the party today is Ed Irving from Bowser; he's the former mayor of

Parksville.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In the gallery today there are a number of students

who are participating in the B.C. — Quebec student exchange program. During the

summer they will be involved with eight government ministries, including the

Attorney-General's ministry, the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit and the

provincial Ministry of Health. They are undertaking a variety of jobs, some

related to the follow-up care for medical patients, the health-care system,

and the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary in relation to the heritage conservation

branch. I would ask that the House give them a special welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

We have two guests from the state of California, which is, I guess, a

sure sign of summer. I'd like the House to welcome Don Libolt and Kim

Adams from Santa Barbara.

Oral Questions

REORGANIZATION OF FINANCE MINISTRY

MR. LEA:

I have a question to the Minister of Finance. This morning in Public

Accounts there was a statement made by the comptroller-general. Part of

that statement was that the minister, through his deputy, informed the

comptroller-general that there would be reorganizational efforts going

on within the ministry. The letter from the minister, through the

deputy, was to inform the comptroller-general that there was a

determination to proceed with the reorganizational plan and that this

basically would mean that the comptroller-general would no longer

report directly to the minister, but through the deputy.

Before

getting to the question I would like to also mention to the House, or

recall to the House's memory, that during the fiscal year 1979-80 a

voucher from the Premier's office was sent to the comptroller-

general's office for payment to Goldfarb.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we must have a question.

MR. LEA:

Yes. I'd like to outline before I ask the question. This voucher was

turned down by the comptroller-general saying it was too sensitive and

too political for the comptroller-general's office to okay, and it was

sent back to Mr. Brown. Was the decision for this reorganization in the

Finance ministry made prior to that voucher being sent back to the

office, or was it made after?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, because I understood that the comptroller-general made a

statement today to the public accounts committee — a statement which I

received some 40 minutes ago and I have not yet fully read — I was

prepared for questions with regard to the statement which was made and

I was going to attempt to assist members opposite. The attempt to link

the two matters is scurrilous.

MR. LEA: It seems we

have somewhat of a different idea of what is scurrilous. An attempt to

thwart the comptroller-general's office and brine it under the

bureaucracy to be controlled politically is also scurrilous. I would

like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has had a conversation

with the Attorney — General (Hon. Mr. Williams) in regard to the

legality of this planned reorganization of the Ministry of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, yes,

MR. LEA:

In the minister's opinion, has the government decided at this point

whether, in order to make this reorganization possible, there would

have to be amendments or changes to the Financial Control Act?

[ Page 2902 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the possibility of a change in the reporting relationship

within the Ministry of Finance, bearing in mind that the

comptroller-general has, over a number of years, reported to the

minister.... We are not speaking of the auditor-general, Mr. Member; we

are speaking of the comptroller-general — just to assist you. Yes,

there is an indication that there might be a need for legislative

change.

MR. LEA: Did the minister know that these

legislative changes may be needed prior to asking his deputy to

instruct the comptroller-general that these changes would take place?

Was the minister aware that these changes may have to be made?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In order that I give the most possibly correct and complete answer, would the member repeat the question?

MR. LEA:

Prior to the minister, through his deputy, informing the

comptroller-general that there would be a reorganization in the

reporting structure, did the minister know, suspect or have any idea at

that time that there would have to be legislative changes made in order

that the reorganization could be carried out?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, I think yes, it was apparent that some legislative changes might be required.

MR. LEA:

Is the minister then saying that he was only informing the

comptroller-general that the government was thinking about a

reorganization, or was the minister, through his deputy, informing the

comptroller-general that the reorganization would take place?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to assist me again with that question.

MR. LEA: It's obvious now that there are going to have to be legislative

changes made before this reorganization goes into effect. Did the minister inform

the. comptroller-general, through his deputy, that these changes in fact were

going to be made, or did he inform the comptroller-general that the minister

was going to ask the Legislature to make some changes?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to be very clear on the question is

that a number of the changes which are being undertaken, which have

taken place and which are contemplated do not require legislative

change. I think the member opposite, having been a minister, would

understand that.

There are others where clearly a

legislative change would be required. The legislative changes do not

relate exclusively, I must say.... We're speaking about legislation

which may come into this Legislature, so I look for your guidance. Not

all the legislative changes deal with the topic which the member has

raised this afternoon, quite clearly.

MR. LEA: Does

the Minister of Finance concur in the findings of the Royal Commission

on Financial Management and Responsibility that the independence of the

comptroller-general is the foundation of the integrity of the financial

system?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, there is perhaps an

inference there that there is no integrity among other senior members

of the ministry, and I rather resent that on behalf of those senior

representatives. What the member should also observe in the question

and in any discussion of this matter is that this government introduced

to this province an auditor-general to certainly ensure the first,

finest and best accountability to the people.

MR. LEA:

Can the minister tell me through what agency of the Crown the

auditor-general receives her information or instructions? Does the

comptroller-general supply the basic information to the auditor-general?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the member has the answer to that question. He knows it as well as I.

MR. LEA:

In other words, if I understand the minister correctly, in order to

have the information we go to the auditor-general through a different

recording system. In other words, take away a portion of the

independence of the comptroller-general, bring it under the deputy,

into the bureaucracy, and thereby control the information in a closer

way than before — going through to the auditor-general. That would be

the outcome of it. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I don't think that it's necessary to reply to that question. It says a

great deal about the member who has asked the question. We are

undertaking a reorganization of a ministry and....

MR. NICOLSON: ... a disgrace.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I am very sorry about the member who, when faced with a problem in his

ministry, used to disappear from the building. I don't think I can

assist....

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The

minister questions our motivation for asking these questions. Can our

motivations be questioned when we are dealing with a government who

brought us Lettergate, who brought us thousand-dollar bills, who

brought us Gracie's Finger? Now they want us to say that, no, we

shouldn't question this government about their motivations.

I'd

like to ask the minister one final question. I'd like him to cast back

in his mind and answer the first question. Did the decision on this

reorganization take place prior to that voucher being sent back to the

Premier's office or after?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In front

of this House and bearing in mind the history of this House over many

years, and bearing the oath I took when I became a member of this

House, the inference is scurrilous. I reject it. It is not correct. I

was attempting to undertake, and continue to undertake, a

reorganization of a ministry which, in my view, required some

reorganization a number of years ago. The process started some months

ago, very soon after my appointment, and the attempt to connect the two

is something I ask the member to consider very, very carefully before

he makes it outside.

[ Page

2903 ]

MR. LEA: I asked for the date, not a speech, and not about his oath.

I want to know when that decision was made — prior to the voucher being sent

back or after.

NORTHEASTERN B.C. RAIL LINK

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the Premier. The Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) recently stated that the

British Columbia Railway does not have the expertise or technology to

construct the Anzac line; this was confirmed by BCR officials. Last

weekend the Premier announced that the BCR would construct the Anzac

line. Can the Premier tell the House where he will, on behalf of the

British Columbia Railway, obtain the expertise and technology necessary

for the BCR or for any other corporation to construct the Anzac line?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Today is a very unusual question period; we have found out that some

people consider deputy ministers more political than ministers.

However,

I'd like to answer the question. I have great confidence in the people

who work for the British Columbia Railway. I also have great confidence

in their ability to attract the best possible expertise to assist in

what will be a major economic development in this province. It may be

that the members opposite disagree with the rail line that will open up

an area which is about 25 percent of the total size of this province,

an area that has not only coal but other things. Rail and highway

development are important to the development of this province, to the

provision of private-sector investment and to the creation of jobs.

Mr.

Speaker, I wish to advise you that the British Columbia Railway does

have a very sound board of directors and very sound management. The

member has questioned whether there is sound management. If the member

opposite is questioning the ability of any single member of the British

Columbia Railway to carry out its function, I wish he'd name that name

in this Legislature.

MR. LAUK: I suggest that the

Premier is wilfully refusing to answer these questions. Simply put, the

question is: the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

stated clearly that the reason the CNR at that stage was being asked to

construct the Anzac line was because the BCR does not have the

expertise or technology to construct that line. This was confirmed by

BCR officials. Last weekend the Premier announced that the BCR would

construct that line. Now where in the space of three to four weeks...?

Has he already obtained the technology and expertise, or where does he

hope to gain it to construct the line?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, I have great confidence in the BCR and its

management. And I have great confidence in the consultants available in this

province and this country to construct rail lines. The member says that this

government invited the CNR, as our railway owned by the Canadian people, to

expand its line into a commitment to the country. Our national institutions

can serve in no better way than to open up new areas of British Columbia, which

is part of Canada. That's why the CN was invited in. The member has said

that there was a particular reason for the CN being invited in. That's why

they were invited in — as Canada's national railway. We thought they would

respond to the challenge; we thought they would show entrepreneurial spirit

and initiative in helping British Columbia create employment, new jobs for our

citizens, and added value for Canada's export trade to help solve our balance

of payments. That's why the CN was invited in. I am sorry that they lost

that opportunity; they missed that opportunity by being unable to respond in

the positive way that we had expected when we gave them that opportunity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The bell terminates question period. Hon. members, it is becoming

apparent that question period is losing much of the rules, regulation

and direction that it was undertaken for. I must caution all members,

not only in questioning but also in answering, that an answer must not

be of such excessive length that it would take away from the value and

the very real reason for the being of question period. I would caution

members that the Chair will be in a position where it will have to

enforce that very clearly in the future unless members take it upon

themselves to make their answers much more relative to the questions.

MR. LAUK:

On that point of order, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for apprising the House

of that position. Before the Premier leaves I hope I could make one

further point of order and ask for leave of the House to extend

question period in view of the fact that the Premier did not respond in

any way to the questions asked. It's a wilful desire on his part to

frustrate the legitimate purposes designed by this House during

question period. I ask leave of the House to extend the time for

question period.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

HON. MR. SMITH: I just want to deal with a few of the further comments that were made from members opposite yesterday.

The

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) asked me about the

approval process and was concerned that the approval process might be

excessively slow and bureaucratic. I can tell him that we are reducing

the approval steps; we are allowing more flexibility in approvals.

We're decentralizing to the extent that.... Up until very recently if a

school board wanted to build an administration office they had to meet

certain criteria as to size and square foot costs, and if they didn't

meet those criteria then they could not go ahead with their

administrative office plans. I've just instituted a new policy which

allows them to go ahead and exceed our cost guidelines, but the part

that they exceed it by is non-shareable money. So we are trying to be

flexible, and I'm certainly striving to have the approval step

streamlined because I know what the hon. member is speaking of. You do

hear these problems from the field, that approvals are sometimes not as

rapid as they might be. It's something that I'm going to continue to

monitor because I think that approvals must be done expeditiously.

[ Page 2904 ]

One

thing else that he touched upon was the particular problem when a

school burns down and the priority that should be given to approvals

then. I think that is also something that is being addressed and that

we will try and give close attention to — cases where schools have

burned down. It may be, of course, that you get a school that burns

down and then the school board is in a dilemma as to whether they

should rebuild the school at this site or, having relocated the

students in another school, leave the status quo. Both the first member

for Vancouver Centre and I know of a case in the province along these

lines — a very vexing case which gave me concern. I visited that school

in Prince George which had been partially destroyed by fire, and I also

went over the route that the children in that community were now

diverted to so that they could be in a larger school elsewhere. I met

with a number of parents' groups and I had very, very strong

representations from my seatmate, the member for Prince George North

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich), with respect to that school. In the final essence

I really followed the decision of the local authorities. The school

board considered the matter and decided that at this time their

priority was not to rebuild that school but to leave the students

relocated in the Prince George Junior Secondary School, which they did.

But those are difficult questions involving a good deal of local

sensitivity and local judgment, and the ministry, I think, is loath to

intervene.

I should also respond on a matter which the

member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) mentioned, and that is the whole

question of special education. She quite rightly pointed out the need

to ensure that our teachers have the opportunity to have in-service

training and resources so that they can deal with the growing needs of

special education. We now have on the ministry staff Dr. Little, who

has been added to the staff this year to develop programs and in

service training for learning assistance teachers.

We have

also designed some pilot regional diagnostic centres, and I'm hopeful

that these can become, if they're successful, a permanent feature so

the classroom teacher which involve an education coordinator,

psychologist, or medical resource.

I was able to visit a

number of special learning assistance centres in a number of the

elementary and secondary schools in the school districts that I

visited. Many of them, of course, work extremely well and alleviate

burdens that the classroom teacher has in dealing with special learning

problems. But I think what the member was getting at is a matter that

needs to be addressed more adequately — that is, the diagnosis of

special learning problems. It's my view that we've not gone nearly far

enough in that field and we're going to have to commit more resources.

think that there are some other matters too that arose out of comments

of the first member for Vancouver Centre. I will try to address those.

I haven't forgotten them; I've got some further notes here, but I'll

yield the floor to him.

MR. LAUK: I want to deal more

extensively with the facilities approval manual — the blue book, as

it's called in the trade — and discuss with the minister a situation

which is rather current, and which I understand he is faced with

together with the Minister of Labour.

The minister, as I am

told, commissioned or instructed persons to conduct an investigation

and report. That report has to do with possible asbestos contamination

in schools. We are told by such experts as Dr. David Bates that the

threat to children of asbestos-fibre contamination is extremely great

and that short periods of exposure constitute an extreme threat and

danger to the children of having a disease there-from some years in the

future. Dr. Bates says that as short as three months' exposure could

cause this problem. Asbestos was found, for example, in an elementary

school in Edmonton and the school was evacuated. It cost approximately

$5 million to renovate the school, so it's a very serious financial and

moral problem that the government is facing.

My instructions

are that the asbestos report is completed, it's on the minister's desk

and a press release has been drafted, but that the minister, for one

reason or another, is not prepared to table that report at this time. I

hope it's not because he's serving his tour of duty in estimates. I

hope that there is some more worthy reason.

The second point

that I wish to raise has to do with the asbestos contamination. Almost

200 students and instructors at the Pacific Vocational Institute on

Willingdon in Burnaby — a responsibility of the minister — have refused

to enter the welding shops since 8:30 a.m. Monday, June 16, due to the

asbestos fibre and other environmental hazards. Signs have been posted

by the students warning of the hazard, and it is reported that an

independent laboratory analysis of dust samples taken from the building

recently showed a content of almost 40 percent asbestos fibres.

The

staff safety committee for a long time has recommended that exposed

asbestos in this and four other buildings on the campus be removed. It

is understood that a ministry survey of the buildings has been done and

cost estimates of the asbestos removal have been compiled, but no

action has been taken by the minister.

The walkout occurred

Monday morning, Mr. Chairman, because the atmosphere was choking thick

with dust following a weekend effort by maintenance crews to clean up

the interior of the welding shop. A Workers' Compensation Board team is

understood to be testing air samples from the building this week, but

employees point out that this can only produce a biased whitewash,

because dust settles after a while when the building is not in use. I'm

not sure I associate myself with the term "biased whitewash" with the

WCB, but it is the expression I've chosen to use to show the concern

and alarm shown by persons using those buildings.

It's

contended that the WCB should obtain suitably sensitive testing

equipment and monitor the air on a 24-hour basis for several days while

the building is in normal operation.

I want to quote Mr. Tom

Kozar, chairman of the employees' union committee on the campus, who

has authorized me to provide this statement to the minister during his

estimates:

"We are tired of the political

stalling that has gone on for years now, and feel that neither the

government nor the school management has the right to expose the public

— students or instructors — to the kind of health hazard that continues

to exist in these buildings. We are tired of them doing nothing because

of vague promises of new buildings being built. I challenge the

Education minister, Brian Smith — and Pat McGeer, who also did nothing

— to set up their offices for just a few days in the welding shop and

try to work in the dreadful and hazardous environment they expect

employees and students to live with. "

[ Page 2905 ]

The

PVI has five aging, temporary buildings built of steel girders and

panelling, which were sprayed inside about a dozen years ago with fibre

asbestos insulation four inches thick, and it is completely exposed.

Due to the contraction and expansion of the buildings in varying

weather, vibration from machines and activity within them, and simply

age, the exposed insulation material has been crumbling for some time

in the form of chunks as well as fine dust.

The buildings

involved are: No. 2, millwork and boatbuilding instruction; No. 3,

carpentry shop; No. 4, plumbing and steamfitting shop; No. 14, welding

shop; No. 15, automotive shop. All have been the subject of repeated

complaint by the campus safety committee, but the welding shop interior

environment is the worst because of the additional problems of fumes

and smoke from the welding activities. Several of these shops can only

be used for restricted periods before conditions become visibly bad.

Students

have normally accepted conditions because most of them are on

short-term courses of about 10 months, but instructors and employees

who have been there for years have repeatedly expressed concerns

through their safety committee and individually. Two instructors have

been under medical treatment for severe pulmonary problems and have

said their doctors blame the environmental conditions of their

workplace. Monday's walkout was unusual in that it involved student

protest for the first time. It was the students who refused — and

continue to refuse today — to enter the building until the asbestos and

other problems are resolved.

I am instructed that this

problem has been brought to the minister's and his predecessor's

attention. No action by the ministry has been forthcoming. I am

instructed that the administration of PVI has not acted quickly — or at

all. It is a serious problem that I raise seriously with the minister.

I demand on behalf of the students, faculty and employees of the

Pacific Vocational Institute that the minister stand in the committee

and give a commitment for immediate action to resolve this serious

health threat to the people who occupy these buildings.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Well, I must say that it has not been brought to my attention. If it

occurred on Monday and was that serious, one would have thought that it

would have been brought to my attention directly instead of to the

attention of the opposition critic some two days later. That is not to

minimize it. Certainly we will look into it immediately. If there is a

hazard to students, faculty and other people who are in those welding

shops, that will be addressed and corrected.

I hope to

announce a policy with respect to asbestos in schools very shortly. I

have not had a report as such sitting on my desk. There is no report,

but a survey has been done in six school districts, looking into the

hazards of asbestos. Generally speaking, there does not appear to be an

asbestos hazard in the districts that we examined, but I am not content

with that. I am going to be announcing a policy which will lead to all

school districts addressing the matter so that the very sort of thing

that may have occurred at PVI is not going to occur in the schools of

our province or occur again in colleges and institutes, if indeed it is

as bad as the material that the member has brought forward suggests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few words about....

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, I am pursuing the asbestos question. I think it is highly

unusual to recognize a different speaker on a different subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has recognized the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. Debate is reciprocal.

MR. LAUK: Does the member defer, to pursue this matter? Or do you wish to...?

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member will find that some of my remarks

fit into a message he was trying to deliver to us yesterday.

MR. LAUK: We're talking about an emergency situation, Jack.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only emergency situation is you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on vote 54.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few words this afternoon about

community schools. I am in favour of them and I think we should have

more community schools in British Columbia, but I would like to see

them tightened up from an administrative point of view. Were this to

happen, some of the current opposition to the community school concept

would be overcome. I am speaking from experience. Half of the community

schools in British Columbia are on the North Shore in the Vancouver

area and half of that half are in my own riding of North

Vancouver–Seymour. Of some 20 community schools in the province, 12 are

in the North Shore and 6 are in my own constituency. To some they are

still very much in the experimental stage but to others they are an

accepted fact of life. They are a necessity, especially in sprawling

communities where people locally feel they don’t have a neighbourhood

centre in which to express themselves and call on services which

governments provincially and locally can provide.

We have a

good example in the Deep Cove area of my riding. We have a new,

well-equipped school there, modern in every way. It provides a very

useful focal point for all kinds of activities in that area now. Few of

those facilities were available in the past. They are now available.

They are also available in a fine new school, the location of which is

well known to everyone in the neighbourhood. They know now where to go

for those services and they are using them to the fullest.

One

main reason for community schools is as old as schools themselves. It

is the better utilization of buildings and equipment, not only in

school hours but in the evenings and weekends as well our modern

schools with their gymnasiums, workshops and libraries are equipped not

only to look after the educational needs of our elementary and

secondary school children but also much of our adult population as

well. Granted, we have adult education in the pure educational sense,

but the community school delivers more than adult education. It

delivers various services for people of all ages and all income

brackets. It delivers services, some of which are administered

elsewhere in other circumstances

[ Page 2906 ]

where

community schools do not exist. Services are delivered, for example, by

the Ministry of Human Resources. It delivers recreational services. It

delivers certain health services. It encourages the police to come and

talk about alcohol and drug abuse. It is multi-ministerial in that

sense and it tends to bridge the gap between the provincial government

on the one hand and local municipal services on the other. It is a

single, convenient, local delivery point for services of all kinds and

is a few blocks away from the average resident in the area in which a

good community school is located.

In addition to making

fuller use of existing school facilities there is the convenience

factor. People find it easier to go to their nearby community school to

get help, instruction or simply for companionship. I realize that there

is really no end to the demands that could be put upon schools of this

kind. So far, in North Vancouver at least, these demands have been

reasonable. Nor have they been promoted unduly by the special staff

which have been hired to develop this new interface with the public. We

have coordinators at these schools. Usually they are teachers or former

teachers. They may be paid as if they are continuing to teach and some

of them do teach a class or two. But their main occupation, as an

official coordinator in an official community school, is that of

encouraging the local citizenry to make use of the facilities of the

community school in out-of-school hours and in a manner that is

convenient to school users and deliverers of these various ministerial

and governmental services.

The budgetary arrangements are

interesting. In some community schools the local school board pays 100

percent of the costs. These not only include the salary of a

coordinator and a secretary or clerk or both but also for some

materials, lecturers' time, etc. In other areas the local parks board

or some other local organization may put up a percentage, perhaps as

much as half of the costs. In North Vancouver the municipality

participates financially in these expenditures. It pays half of the

cost of hiring a local community school coordinator and his or her

staff. This gives the municipality itself a say in whether or not a

local school is, in fact, a community school, at least the manner in

which it is financed.

I've asked the minister's staff

whether the ministry here in Victoria participates financially in these

local school situations. The answer, basically, is no. There isn't an

item in the minister's budget, for example, that deals with salaries

and other costs incurred in our local community schools. There is some

money for adult education, but that's an old story. That's another

unrelated area of activity which is of long standing. Some of the adult

education money may find its way into our North Vancouver community

school activities, which are distinct from adult education, but that's

understandable under the circumstances.

The hon. member for

Vancouver Centre talked yesterday about decentralization, if I

understood him correctly — the need for greater decentralization of

decision-making in the broad area of education in British Columbia. He

complained that too much power was being exercised here in Victoria —

more specifically, out of the minister's office. Our experience in

North Vancouver in community schools is just the opposite. In recent

years the ministry has adopted a hands-off policy insofar as community

school direction is concerned. If our local school board wants

community schools and wants to designate a school as a community school

or create a new one, it's up to the board. It may also be up to the

local mayor and aldermen if local finances are involved or if some

local zoning is required. But these local authorities don't have to go

to Victoria to get permission to start up or expand a community school,

nor do they depend directly on the Minister of Education insofar as

operating dollars are concerned. True, some of our other ministries —

Human Resources, Health, and the Attorney-General's office — may

provide personnel from time to time, advice and even some materials

occasionally, but this applies also to local parks boards and other

local services. Essentially, they supply the same kinds of services

which they would otherwise supply through their own offices. These are

not large budget items, in any case.

Still on the subject of

decentralization of decision-making, I might add that there are two

broad models that could be followed with respect to the establishment

of community schools. One, like that in effect on the North Shore in

Vancouver and, I assume also, in the Kitsilano area and in Surrey, sees

the local school district acting as the sole agent or main deliverer of

these services provided by the community school program. There may be a

few general guidelines issued from Victoria, but otherwise the local

municipal voter decides who's on the school board and the school board,

in turn, runs the local community school show.

The other

approach, a more highly decentralized approach, sees the local

community school operating to a large degree on its own, independent

even of the regional school board. Except for these same few general

guidelines as applied today in North Vancouver, Victoria wouldn't be in

the act at all, and the municipality as a whole wouldn't have a major

say in the manner in which a wide range of services were delivered to

the people who live in a relatively small local situation within the

larger community.

Now we haven't followed this route of

extreme decentralization in British Columbia at all. We haven't

visualized the community school hierarchy, the local hierarchy, as the

solver of many, if not all, local problems. I doubt if this will ever

be the case, and if it's attempted I doubt if it would succeed, because

the ultimate test of responsibility between those who really pay and

those who receive would have been destroyed in its entirety.

Developments

in North Vancouver in recent years are interesting in this regard.

There was a tendency in the late 1970s to make our local community

schools — all eight of them in North Vancouver — more autonomous, but

regional pressures and regional votes turned this tendency around. Now

it is the district school board, district 44, which has the say, and I

think this, as a regionally elected body, is where the decision-making

in this area of community schools should essentially rest.

Incidentally, legal opinion has been sought in this regard and it too

confirms that our local school boards have the necessary authority to

do these things, while a local school on its own may not.

Mr.

Chairman, looking across the province as a whole, I get the impression

that the community school movement is not only confined to few

constituencies on the North Shore, generally in the Vancouver area, but

also that the movement is on hold at the present time. I would

therefore like to ask the Minister of Education today to tell us

whether he himself really favours community schools and, if so, why we

don't have more of them in other parts of the province — not that he

has a substantial say in these matters, as I've stated earlier. This is

essentially a matter for the district school boards and the local

voter. But the community school movement, if I can call it that, has

been in existence across North America for some time.

[ Page 2907 ]

The

advantages and disadvantages to the local communities are well known by

our educators here in B.C. So why the present hiatus? Why aren't

community schools more popular in other parts of the GVRD or on

Vancouver Island, for example? One reason, Mr. Chairman, I think is

finances. A large segment of our population is thinking that government

is spending too much money on education and other services already.

They're confused as to what the functions are of the local community

schools and their coordinators. Many ask if this is a duplication of

services already available to most people in B.C. They need to be

assured that this, indeed, is not the case; they need to know where the

functions of a community school begin and end; they need a clear set of

guidelines for community schools issued at the ministerial level here

in Victoria; and they need to know that their local elected officials,

both on the school board and on their local municipal councils, have a

good idea as to how these various services which a community school can

deliver are best delivered, certainly best integrated one with another.

I think also that certain other ministries that are involved Human Resources,

Health and the Attorney-General's office — need to look at this matter and

also indicate what services may or may not be delivered through the community

school system.

I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, I'm for community schools. I'm

for the better utilization of school facilities, especially those of

newer schools with their fine libraries, workshops and gymnasiums. But

like most taxpayers I'm against a proliferation of our provincial and

local bureaucracies. I think the community school idea fundamentally is

a good idea, but it needs greater certainty and clarification by both

our main levels of government in this province. It must be seen to be

good value by our local taxpayers and then, I think, much of the

current debate — certainly the debate which is going on in my own

riding — for and against community schools will be assuaged. Community

schools are a good example of decentralization of decision-making in

the field of education in British Columbia. I think the hon. member for

Vancouver Centre needs assurance in that respect and he should be

assured.

I congratulate the minister for the open-minded way

in which he's approaching this important matter. I hope that in

addition to giving more power to our people locally, we'll also require

our local education authorities to raise at least a part of the

educational tax dollar. I believe that a responsible government is one

which not only spends money wisely but requires the same level of

government to do the difficult job of raising some, if not all, of the

money involved. With this kind of local responsibility and with further

clarification of the role of community schools, I think we'll have an

expanding community school system in this province, and that that will

be an advantage not only for the delivery of more services to more

people in this province but also help to give local communities a sense

of local importance.

MR. LAUK: With due respect, Mr.

Chairman, in respect to the asbestos, the minister has been treating

it, I would suggest, with somewhat of a cavalier attitude. To talk

about a 48-hour delay doesn't really matter, does it, Mr. Chairman?

Could not the minister now confirm the information I've provided to

him? Could he confirm with the committee that action is being taken

immediately to prevent the dangerous health exposure that these people

are facing?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Will you do it now?

HON. MR. SMITH:

If you'd like to adjourn the House, I'll go over to PVI and inspect it.

I'm looking into it right away, and I will report to you in a few

minutes.

MR. LAUK: You're spending money on staff

like it's going out of style. Why can't you send somebody over to have

a look or make a telephone call? It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the

minister is taking a very cavalier attitude to a very serious problem.

Now I've sent out for confirmation that the minister had notice. He

should have had notice through his ministry of this problem over some

time, so the suggestion that he has not had notice is a negligent one,

I would suggest. But I'm willing to send out and confirm the

information I have. I wish that the minister could do the same. Surely

to goodness, Mr. Chairman, we could have one of his officials call the

principal at PVI or Elwood Veitch, who's drowning in the pork barrel

over there, to give him a call and find out what's going on. Otherwise,

it seems to me we could be here all day, because we have been asked, as

the opposition, to bring this forcefully to the minister's attention

and to get a policy decision and answer during the course of his

estimates. Is the minister undertaking to do that?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again, yes.

MR. LAUK: We'll have an answer this afternoon? Right.

Now

when the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) deals with

engineering problems and other problems involving transportation I've

been most impressed. Sometimes I've been favourably impressed. I don't

mean to say this patronizingly, nor am I capable of doing so; I've been

very impressed with the hon. member's contribution to this chamber.

When it comes to education matters, however, I'm afraid — I say with

respect again — he's missed by a country mile. But what I find

particularly hurtful is that he would use some of the ideas expressed

by me, not only yesterday but in articles in education journals, which

I'm sure he reads daily, and then give me a kick on the way out the

back door, saying that my criticism of the Ministry for centralization

was perhaps, even in this case, unwarranted. Community schools are a

creature of too much centralization, and I'll tell you how if I can

borrow your ear for a moment.

The problem of community

schools was that there was a need in the community to provide to a

variety of citizens a variety of courses that were not available in the

ordinary school system. It was couched in the argument that the 9 a.m.

to 3 p.m. use of the school is not adequate use of an expensive public

facility. A number of these community schools were established by

various citizens. They were established be cause the structure was so

centralized and bureaucratized that it was not flexible enough to widen

and include that need in the community. That's a very clear issue, and

people under stand that very clearly. So the community school which you

argue represents decentralization is an unnecessary child of

unnecessary centralization. Surely to goodness the structure of the

public education system should be broad enough to include that need.

What

I was speaking about yesterday, Mr. Chairman, was that broad concept of

the use of the public school together with the other services of

government as a wide

[ Page 2908 ]

complex,

a family centre if you like, serving the community and avoiding the

terrible, unnecessary duplication of costs from the various services of

government. The only resistance to that concept, I predict, would be at

the higher levels of the civil service structure; because, of course,

sometimes the psychology at that level incorporates a vested interest

in one's position. I would suggest that in British Columbia that

tradition does not exist and perhaps that that resistance will not be

met if such a concept is put forward by this minister or any other.

Having

had the minister's undertaking that he will return vital information on

the asbestos situation to the House, I want to bring to the minister's

attention another important subject and deal with the problem of the

Connaught school — let's use that example. The facilities manual and

the famous 57, 67 or 102 steps, or however many you have currently, for

the approval of capital expenditures at the local level....

The

minister cited a problem involving the Connaught school in Prince

George which was burned down. It was a school that provided a service

to a particular community and through my investigations I determined

that those vocal parents in the community — Mr. Chairman will know well

about this — were people who had the courage to speak out about a

problem which I felt was shared by other families having students that

went to the Connaught school. The argument that has been raised — not

in this chamber today but by other groups in that community.... I raise

it only by way of example; I don't want to stress this as one issue.

Parents were reluctant to complain; they had made the adjustment of the

travel of the students to another community and another school. They

were cognizant as responsible taxpayers of the saving of having the

students go to the other school, but it seems to me there was a lack of

articulation from these concerned parents about the concept of the

community.

This brings us to the philosophical questions

involved. It's not strictly a financial operation. There are over a

billion dollars involved in schools and in other education

expenditures. It is a very responsible area to administer. It requires

serious administrative skill. There must be efficiency. But sometimes

we miss the point, Mr. Chairman. We miss the point of the whole

educational system when it becomes purely a bottom-line type of

operation. When you get taken over by the financial part of your

responsibilities rather than the philosophical and educational side in

that ministry, you miss the point sometimes.

The point with

the Connaught school thing is: what is the real effect of having

Connaught school unavailable to that community? What about the missed

opportunities that I was talking about in my more philosophical

statement yesterday with respect to the community centre concept of the

school? Could it not be used for other purposes? Could we not share

moneys? I understand that it's partially used for other purposes now.

But I'm talking about the total concept of a community service out of

some of the plant that exists across the province.

I want to talk about the facilities manual — the blue book. It is the bane

of secretary — treasurers across the province; we all know that. As soon as I

arrive in a school district, the secretary — treasurer, who is usually there

before the trustees, escorts me into his office, and I get the litany of problems

and the epithets that are commonly used by such civil servants to describe their

counterparts in Victoria. It seems to me that some of these examples are so

horrendous that the long awaited revision of the facilities manual will, I hope,

meet some of these demands for change.

Again

in Prince George, take for example the idea of building another

gymnasium. There's a formula, evidently, within the department. I don't

want to get into the regulations and counter-regulations and the

department of finance within the Ministry of Education and the academic

side and the planning side and everything else. When I look at

facilities approval, you know, I feel that.... Yesterday I was arguing

for coordination between ministries. I fear that perhaps the minister

has his work cut out for him in coordinating his own ministry and the

departments and branches within it. Catch-22 situations abound which

have to be cleaned out and swept away, and efficient means....

Again

I call for the decentralization of that approval and control. You say

shareable and non-shareable funds. Here's an example. There is no

confidence in the civil service or trustees at the local level — none

shown by your ministry. Absolutely none! The minister himself can make

speeches across the province about how much confidence he has in local

school trustees, but the actions of his bureaucracy demonstrate a clear

lack of faith, trust or confidence in the abilities and judgments of

people at the local level.

There's a formula whereby you can

only have a gym size in relation to the number of classrooms you have

in an elementary school; that's one example. It's very easy in these

situations to add classrooms; it's not so easy to rip down a gymnasium

and build a larger one to accommodate the added school population. Why

is that rule there? Why is there not some sort of flexibility? What on

earth is the ministry dealing with problems like that for anyway? Do

you think that a community can't build its own schools and gymnasiums?

They have a right to the shareable taxation money.

It was

inconsistent yesterday, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to argue, on the

one hand, that provision for funds for independent schools, without

government control, was a great achievement. Well, if it can be done

with independent schools, why can't it be done with public schools?

There is a terrible inconsistency in the way the minister thinks about

these problems. The issues are the same. You provide funds from the

public purse at the provincial level to independent schools, without

government interference. And he says that that's good. On the other

hand, we have a facilities manual that treats local administrations

like children and insults their intelligence and ability — and it's

hopelessly inadequate and bogged down. Approvals are finally given

about a year after they are needed, and construction can't even begin

until a year after that, particularly in the northern communities.

have no draft yet of the new facilities manual. But I have very little

hope that the new facilities manual will solve some of these problems.

The attitude of the ministry is a negative one. I want to give you an

example, and read a letter dated February 20, 1980, from the deputy

minister — a well-meaning sort, you know, Mr. Chairman. We're not

entitled to comment here on high civil servants, but he's a

well-meaning sort and a likeable person, a symbol of the Pearsonian

bow-tie which we all admire and love so dearly.

For heaven's

sake, why send a letter like that? Let me read it to you. "To

secretary-treasurers of all school districts, re unauthorized capital

expenditures." This could be in Antoinette French.

"Addressees

of this memorandum are reminded that

section 190 of the Public Schools

Act reads in part 'no capital expenditures shall be made by a board

without the prior approval of the minister.' During the

[ Page 2909 ]

past year or two we have evidence of some glaring examples wherein

this legislation has not been followed, thereby leaving the boards open to possible

prosecution or other action" — that boggles the mind; pillories, public

floggings, perhaps? — "under

section 249(2) of the Public Schools Act.

It is therefore imperative that senior school district staff ensure that the

proper approvals are obtained from this ministry prior to expending funds on

any capital project. This applies to projects using shareable funds or non-shareable

funds. "

That takes chutzpah; that takes audacity. "Shareable and non-shareable funds."

The

deputy goes on: "In order to ensure that a consistent approach is

taken, the ministry intends to implement practices which will

discourage the use of non-approved capital funds. "Heavens! If 67 steps

in the blue book and an army of negative-minded civil servants can't

stop these freewheeling spenders, what additional steps are going to be

taken? "In the future, when boards of school trustees or their

officials decide to utilize capital funds without prior approval, in

most cases these expenditures will be charged against non-shareable

capital. Yours truly, Walter G., Deputy Minister. "

What does that letter do?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, it is very well written — of course.

The

point is this: if there is a concern about the misuse of funds at the

local level, the local taxpayer will take care of that. If there is a

concern about the actions of the school district through its trustees,

about the expenditure of funds — unnecessary, inefficient, whatever —

about the decisions on teaching staff, transfers and terminations....

If those issues are property focused at the local level it will take

care of itself in a democratic way. Look at Langley, for example, where

the trustees went berserk; the community took care of that situation

very nicely. Although the minister and the BCTF observed the situation

and were involved, had resource input, the community dealt with it in a

responsible and reasonable- thinking way. It seems to me that the same

policy can be applied to the expenditure of capital funds.

The

letter is really salt in the wound. It is an insult to the

secretary-treasurers who have served for many, many years in this

province in their school districts, who have to go through the 67 steps

to get an increased number of showers for the girls' changing room at

an elementary school; who have to go through all kinds of ridiculous

nonsense and bureaucratic red tape to make simple decisions that you

and I, Mr. Chairman, make in our own households every day.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

Oh, here we go. Here is a man that is totally overwhelmed by

bureaucracy, who is awestruck by regulations, who is paralyzed into

inaction by the law. I will get to him in a moment.

Mr.

Chairman, I raise these examples to show the minister that a casual

look at the facilities manual is not required. A wholesale revision is

required and that revision will be worthless unless the minister is

committed to bringing in substantial revisions and decentralization of

decision-making authority. If he does not bring in a facilities manual

that will espouse a much greater decentralization, doing away with a

lot of the regulations and the need for duplication of work by staff.

then he should keep the facilities manual a secret. We don't need to

know about it. Substituting one bureaucratic morass for another one is

no answer. There are countless examples of this in everything we see

with respect to capital expenditure approvals.

I want to

talk about the B.C. government scholarship problem and ask the minister

to address his mind to that. A recent resolution was passed at the

annual general meeting of the British Columbia School Trustees

Association. There was a general feeling among the teachers at their

annual general meeting that the changes made by the ministry with

respect to scholarships were not thoughtful ones. I have the letters,

and correspondence between Creston and so on, and they go on forever.

think that if we could eliminate something like this on one issue,

going back and forth from senior ministry officials to the trustees, we

could solve a lot of the bureaucratic problems. Creston started the

ball rolling after the ministry made the changes. The change, as I

understand it. to put it generally in language that's understandable to

me, is that there are two scholarships. One is awarded at the district

level by the school boards and the other is awarded by the provincial

ministry. They're awarded for academic excellence province-wide, and at

the district level the goal was in mind to give scholarships to those

people who were on a non-academic or vocational-type program.

Two

changes were made that have caused the trustees, students and teachers

a great deal of concern. The one change is that the province-wide

scholarships were changed so as not to award the available scholarships

to the best students in a district, but to award the available

scholarships to the best students taking the entire province as a

whole. That's what I understand one of the changes was. Now what is the

effect of that? The teachers and the trustees tell me that this gives

the advantage, first of all, to academics and to populated areas, so

that one uses these scholarships purely as a mode to achieve excellence

and forgets entirely the goal of treating regions and communities

fairly with access to provincial scholarships.

This is not

to argue that people in rural areas don't do as well academically as

people in city areas, but we all know the differences of availability

of courses, teaching skills and facilities in rural areas as opposed to

vocational studies in rural as opposed to city areas. So it's thought

to be a very unfair way to award scholarships. The minister's answers

have been unsatisfactory. I won't read them, but they're vague and

non-committal. which characterizes this minister, and I'm assuming that

even the letters from his officials have been seen by him. It's an

important enough issue so that he will give them top marks for their

vagueness and noncommittal character as well.

Mr. Chairman,

I think the argument is legitimate. The resolution passed the trustees'

association, I believe unanimously, without very much debate. I also

believe that the teachers feel the same way. If that much opposition is

there, then I feel that the ministry has probably made a mistake on the

provincial scholarship.

The second point that has been

validly made, it seems to me, is that the district scholarships, which

I'm told were designed to reach primarily the non-academic

vocational-type student, now have a requirement from Victoria that a

[ Page 2910 ]

certain

awarded. When the complaint was made to me I investigated it with the

trustees and said: "Well, don't you think it's necessary that people

language?" They would argue it's a question of degree in judgment from

Victoria and that that judgment should be made at the local level and

not at Victoria.

It seems to me to be purely on a

decentralization goal that the ministry has again made a mistake. Let

the districts make these decisions. Let them make the wrong or the

right decisions in their community and have their own community who

elect them deal with the wrong decisions in the ordinary course of

events. There are plenty of people in this House who have served on

school boards, and they have done so very well. I think it's really —

and I'm sure you will agree, Mr. Chairman — patronizing and

paternalistic of us to say that local school board officials do not

have the capability to make the kind of judgments necessary. It's up to

the ministry to provide the information base, where intelligent and

good decisions can be made at the local basis. Beyond that, the

ministry should not be involved in these decisions. I understand that

the ministry indicated early this year that they might have a second

look at that and a change may be made in that unfortunate decision.

want to get through all of the material as quickly as possible, because

I know that the minister wants to get his estimates through by 3:40.

want to ask some questions of the minister about what he thinks about

certain questionnaires that have been circulating. There's a group

called Consequences of Funding Independent Schools. You know what I'm

talking about. We have a group that is sending out questionnaires. I

find some of them very offensive and unscientific. I want to remind the

minister of when he was a candidate. I don't wish to trap him. I'll

remind him about his letter of April 27, 1979, where he's referring to

the same questionnaire that I read to him about the McMath report,

where the minister has apparently changed his tune about that.

HON. MR. SMITH: I haven't; I'm remarkably consistent.

MR. LAUK: Well, good. Maybe you'll be consistent about this one too.

the second paragraph of your letter to the Greater Victoria Teachers'

Association you said: "I do not feel that this form of questionnaire

affords the best way to deal with these matters. Like the referenda

approach to government that is popular south of the line, these

questionnaires tend to oversimplify complex issues of social policy and

property taxation." I take that to mean that the questionnaire is

involved — and by the way, the same format of the COFIS-type

questionnaire is the one that was sent to the minister that he answered

by a letter rather than answering the questionnaire.... So I assume

that the minister feels the same way I do about these questionnaires.

They simplify matters. They're not good research, and all us scientists

know that, don't we?

HON. MR. SMITH: And they're voluntary.

MR. LAUK: Well, I don't imagine that people are shackled and brought to the desk to answer them, if that's what you mean.

However,

COFIS asks these questions — I should say Dr. Kris Kirkwood of the

Educational Research Institute of British Columbia. Here are some of

the questions. I wonder if the minister isn't offended, as I am; and

I'm not going to faint at the questions, but I think that they're

worthy of some judgment on the minister's part. By the way, there are

four areas where they mark "no basis for opinion, strongly agree, tend

to agree, tend to disagree, strongly disagree" — the usual. Question

21: "Hardly any of the students carry knives in this school." Question

30: "I rarely find time to read articles about the subjects I teach."

Question 37: "I seldom go to any professional association meetings."

You see where these questions are going. They're designed clearly to

elicit the kind of information that will support a biased view and

discredit the public education system. "Some teachers in this school

look down on minorities." "High standards in this school are threatened

by people in the community who think education should be play but not

work." "If student enrolments decline further this school may be in

danger of closing." You can see the devastating subtlety of these

questions. "Some teachers in this school try to get by by doing as

little work as possible." Isn't that cute? Let's ask one teacher to

comment on the performance of the other. "Some teachers in this school

seem downright lazy" is another one. "Some students in this school do

not like going to the lavatory alone since they fear being attacked or

roughed up."

I'm amazed that this questionnaire would go out

by any supposedly scientific inquiry. But can you imagine my amazement,

Mr. Chairman, when I found out that it was being funded by the Ministry

of Education? The department gave a $2,000 grant to a symposium on

family choice, schooling, and public interest was devoted to pushing

the school voucher proposals in the United States — that kind of thing.

But some $142,000 of funding from the Education ministry to the

Education Research Institute of B.C., part of which has been used in

the accompanying elaborate questionnaires at obvious considerable cost

as a branch plant operation of the United States study, which this is,

on independent schools.... The teacher questionnaire contains

particularly offensive leading questions. These are my own notes on

reviewing the material.

MRS. DAILLY: And no money for Home and School.

MR. LAUK:

That's a good point. The member for Burnaby North says, "We can't get

$17,000 for Home and School," but we can get $142,000 for a research

project that is designed to attack the public education system with a

biased scientific view — or I should say unscientific view. That's a

scandal. I want the minister to assure this chamber that no such

further grants out of his ministry go forward unless it's to support

the public education system or improve it, but not to have a biased

study go out to an independent non-public group to the tune of $142,000

of the taxpayers' money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

your time under standing orders is up, but since the Chair did not warn

you of the three-minute light, you may continue with three more minutes

of questions, if you wish.

MRS. DAILLY: I would be pleased to intervene for the member who's just been on the floor.

[ Page 2911 ]

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, continuing along the lines of the study, I'm sure that

the minister will have to agree that the process by which these grants

are given needs to be tightened up considerably. It was clear, or

should have been clear, to the ministry that this was a branch plant

operation for the U.S. study that is going to support some pretty

peculiar groups in the United States, some of which, but not all, are

fighting the public education system instead of joining in the fight to

improve it. They're separating themselves off — again a fragmentation

in society — and this is being actively supported with public funds

from the province of British Columbia. This is a United States study.

I'm reminded that the teachers have withdrawn their support, and I'm

sure a good many right-thinking groups should do that. I'd ask the

minister to comment on those issues as well with respect to that study.

While

I'm on my feet, because I want to have as much material available to

the minister as possible, so that he'll know what timing is involved in

the answering of these questions with respect to his estimates — I only

want to be fair — I want to raise a question, Mr. Chairman, that has

arisen in North Peace River — Hudson's Hope, I believe — involving a

teacher by the name of Peter Cincer. I want to raise the issue as an

example of where we have to revise the provisions of the School Act to

bring them in line with nothing more or less than natural justice.

Peter

Cincer taught in the Northwest Territories, I'm told, and got a job in

Hudson's Hope on probation, as it's defined under the School Act, and

he had a philosophical disagreement — and I say that with some

assurance, because I've read all of the transcripts that were made up

until a certain date, including the reports of the interviewing

teachers, superintendents and administrators with respect to Peter

Cincer's performance in his school. It's alleged that Peter Cincer was

not a good teacher and therefore he was going to be fired, or not

continued because he was on probation. The fact is that Mr. Cincer

served more than one period of probation. Under the provisions of the

School Act he was renewed on another period of probation, a deliberate

— it seems to me — attempt to avoid responsibility and not intended by

the statute itself. If a person goes through the designated period of

probation, he should not be continued on another period of probation;

he should either be hired or not hired on that basis. But it's used as

a sword of Damocles over a teacher, and I think it's unfair and it's

not due process. It's simply not natural justice.

Inquiries

were made, unfortunate statements were made that have been described by

an Indian group with respect to the statement of one superintendent or

official as racist concerning Indians. It's a heated issue in the area,

and it serves one purpose: it shows and demonstrates that some

administrations are not doing a fair job in some cases in dealing with

their employees at the local level of education. Now I'm confident,

because of my faith in decentralization, that the local community is

going to take care of it, and it's a good example of creating interest

in the public sphere. I'm upset that Peter Cincer has to go through

this, because the information we have from his colleagues of many

years' experience is that he's an excellent teacher. He's creative,

he's well liked, and he creates a learning atmosphere in his classroom.

I'm prepared to accept that, and I'm prepared to leave it to those

people in the community to make a proper judgment on Mr. Cincer's case.

The

B.C. Teachers' Federation has sent up an investigating group. Now that

shouldn't bar the minister from providing an answer to my question.

Let's not allow a period of probation to expire and then to be renewed.

Let's amend the School Act to make it clear that it is the

responsibility of the school board to hire or fire on that basis, and

that's it. The period of probation should be long enough for anyone to

make a proper evaluation of that teacher's skills and abilities in the

classroom and his responsibility to fulfill his duties.

wish to emphasize that Peter Cincer's case will be judged at the

community level. What I find very upsetting is what followed this

recent controversy around Mr. Cincer. A colleague of his has suffered

an attempted forced transfer. Isn't it an amazing coincidence, Mr.

Chairman, that this teacher, a colleague of Mr. Cincer's, took up Mr.

Cincer's case among the other teachers in the community and, started

arguing on his behalf, and then shortly after that, without any mark on

his record, there was a forced transfer?

That kind of

heavy-handed activity by administrations should be clearly condemned by

this administration and by the local school district, and the minister

should say publicly that no interference of that kind should be brooked

at the community level and encourage the school district to take action.

Fred

Flintstone was very helpful in this case too, Mr. Chairman. Do you

remember Fred from North Peace River? Mr. Cincer sent him the

transcripts and all the information and all the inquiries — all the

information I had. But the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet)

drew an unbiased and objective view and wrote the sympathetic letter

that a member for the riding should write to a teacher who is in

trouble. He said as follows: "Dear Mr. Cincer: Your letter of May 23,

1980, has been received and the contents noted." Isn't that warmth for

you? "You make some interesting observations, assumptions and

accusations. Starting with your number one item I would, quite frankly,

be surprised if you were dismissed before any report had been written

on you. I see little point in getting into a debate on your various

accusations. It is not likely to develop into anything productive."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, at this point I have to remind you that we are on the

estimates of the Minister of Education, whose administrative actions

are before us. That is what we will discuss in this committee.

MR. LAUK: Now, Mr. Chairman, we don't want to discuss Fred, but I think that that letter should concern us all.

MR. BRUMMET:

On a point of order, I would just like some direction from the Chair. I

understood that members are to be referred to as "the member for

such-and-such." They are not to be called by their own names. Is it

then legitimate for another member to make up any name he likes and

then refer to member on that basis without referring to his position? I

would just like some direction on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Your point of order is well taken. Members in this House are to be

referred to by the riding they represent or the portfolio they hold.

Once again we will continue.

MR. LAUK: I will refrain from using his name of Fred Flintstone and will refer to him as "the member for Bedrock. ''

[ Page 2912 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre please remember that we are on vote 54?

MR. BRUMMET: Considering the source I will withdraw my objection. You can't expect that member to abide by the rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Please, all hon. members, can we get back to vote 54, the estimates of

the Ministry of Education? That will be debate that is in order.

MR. LAUK:

I wonder if the minister would address his attention to this serious

problem involving Peter Cincer. There has to be provision for the

protection of employees that is standardized and general over the

province. That is one of the areas where the ministry can provide its

helpful resources. In this case I hope it will be dealt with in a

correct and just manner by the community. If the community in that area

does not wish to have a creative-thinking teacher and condones

high-handed administrative tactics at the school level, then they have

to live with it. That is pure and simple. It may be that Mr. Cincer,

for many other reasons not apparent on the material that's been

generally available, should not have his employment continued. But

certainly the way in which it was proceeded with by the authorities in

that area was far beyond what we could consider as fair play. I wonder

if the minister could give his intentions about amendments to that

particular area. I know it's not strictly in order but it would be of

some interest, particularly to people in Hudson's Hope.

With those several questions I will now take my place and ask the minister to respond.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH:

I am constantly invited by the first member for Vancouver Centre to be

more decentralistic except where he wants me to intervene and be

centralistic on a particular case or matter that's been brought to his

attention. He is decentralistic if necessary but not necessarily

decentralistic.

MR. LAUK: You weren't listening.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Yes, I was. You weren't listening to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown). She was much more centralistic than anyone in my

department ever was.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's not even here.

HON. MR. SMITH: I know, but she wants us to do everything in education at the community level — make all the decisions.

deal with your observations on Connaught Elementary School, I think you

appreciate, hon. member — I know you do — that that was a toughie. It

was tough for the board to decide and it was a highly sensitive issue.

There were a number of parents there who felt very, very strongly about

it. I agree with you that that school should still remain as a

community resource in that community, and what is left of that school

is a community resource. The classrooms that remain are used by the

college, and the gymnasium — it's a good gymnasium there — is used by

the community. If the school population alters in that district I have

no doubt that the rest of that school will be rebuilt.

think that some of your observations on the facility manual are good

ones. You do make some good points. The facility manual is going to be

revised and it's going to be revised with input from the field. That is

in the process now and has been going on for the past six months. We've

been discussing revisions to the facility manual with advisory

committees and we will be putting out a draft of that new manual

covering space entitlements. The approval process is also under review

and will be issued in draft form later this year.

MR. LAUK: Later this year?

HON. MR. SMITH: Later this year, yes.

MR. LAUK: Will you stake your seat on it?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know whether I'd stake my seat on the timing of a particular approval either.

MR. LAUK: I wouldn't recommend it.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I think we've got to do better with approvals and we've got to be more

flexible in terms of space requirements. Indeed, I would suggest that

we are going to be, and that what you're going to find when this comes

out is that there's going to be more flexibility and more local

flexibility allowed. We're going to be getting out of some of the

various things that cause irritation at the local level. So I take your

comments there as being in the right vein.

What about

scholarships? Provincial scholarships are now done across the province

on an academic merit basis. They're not assigned on the basis of

population to various parts of the province, as used to be done. You're

suggesting that creates some concentration of winners in the urban

areas and that that's unfair. I'm told that the most spectacular winner

of these scholarships was Salmon Arm School District. A rural school

district was the best per capita performer. Be that as it may, I agree

that I'll take another look at the allocation of those provincial

scholarships. It may be that the method my predecessor changed to is

not the fairest way of allocating academic scholarships around the

province. I'm quite happy to give that an honest review.

MR. LAUK: Will you increase them too, now that I've got you in a giving mood?

HON. MR. SMITH:

You'll notice that we did increase the district scholarships, and you

made some comments about those. There was a provision for a local

examination that they were required to write in a field of their

choosing and I removed that requirement. I had a lot of complaints

about that — a number of letters about that — and I tried to respond to

those. I talked to a number of teachers and I removed that as a

requirement for the district scholarships.

The requirement

administer or that we prescribe provincially and centrally is the best

one or

[ Page 2913 ]

appropriate one... sure, I'll look at that; but I do feel that there

the scholarship should not be given out to people who are illiterate. I

agree that they are for vocational students, non-academic students, and

that we do not want them to become elitist in their mark; but I do

think that it's worthwhile and desirable that they reach at least a

You brought to my

attention the COFIS study. I really appreciate your reading my comments

of a year ago on questionnaires, because I've always felt that way

about questionnaires. I dislike them. I got some municipal

questionnaires the other day from a council that I used to preside

over, asking my views on every aspect of land use, and I didn't like

some of those questions either. So I guess I'm not impressed any more

than you are with some of the questions you read out to me.

The

study, though, is being done by a Canadian named Erickson, who taught

at Simon Fraser University and who is well thought of. It is also

supported by an organization in British Columbia which the member is

aware of, the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia. This

organization had on its board of directors a member and representative

of the BCTF, Mr. Thomas McRae, who in relation to this study totally

disagrees with the position of the BCTF executive. He wrote letters to

the local executives of the BCTF castigating them for their criticism

of the questionnaire. I don't intend to get into an argument as to

whose view is preferable on this, but I do intend to take a very hard

took at the report when it comes down. If the report is based on

answers to questionnaires that you and I think are silly, I think the

report will speak for itself. If, on the other hand, the report is well

grounded in sensible research, it will also speak for itself. So I

would ask you not to judge the report until it comes out. I dislike

most questionnaires; I guess I'm like the member, I prefer personal

interviewing to questionnaires.

MR. LAUK: But why $142,000?

HON. MR. SMITH: That is the cost of the study.

MR. LAUK: Did you authorize it?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I think it was authorized before my term, but I take responsibility for

it. In any event, I think it's better to judge reports when they're in

and not in advance.

Mr. Peter Cincer's problem, of course,

was that he was placed on double probation. My information, hon.

member, is that he was very carefully evaluated locally by his

principal and by the director of instruction, that he was given a

number of opportunities to correct his teaching, and that he was found

not to have good classroom management and control. They decided not to

renew his contract; he was a probationary teacher.

The

member invites me to consider amending the School Act to prevent

continuation of probation. I gather that's the invitation: that you get

your first year and that's it. That is something I would be pleased to

discuss with the BCSTA. It would seem to me that it might not be

popular at the local level. Local boards may well consider that they

must be absolutely certain about the teaching capacity of the teacher

to whom they undertake, basically, a working-life commitment. But I

tell you that I will certainly take that matter up with them. It's an

amendment that I will bear in mind.

So far as the other

gentleman is concerned, Mr. Greeff, the teacher who was transferred by

the board, he can request a transfer review, and I gather he has done

so. If the facts are remotely as you outline them, I will of course

grant him a transfer hearing; there's no question about that. It would

be a very strong case for a transfer board hearing. He will get his

hearing — and a fair hearing.

The member for North

Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) gave an excellent speech, I thought, on

community schools. I'm sorry that he's not here at present, I will make

some comment on that subject when he returns.

I undertook to

respond to the situation at the PVI electrical welding shops. I have a

report on that. Concerns were expressed in November of last year. In

fact, on November 21, 1979, the Workers' Compensation Board conducted a

full test of that shop and found that the laboratory analysis indicated

no violation of industrial health or safety standards. But following

that report the institute spent $60,000 on improving the mechanical

exhaust systems, because of concern for the purity of the air,

Following those improvements the report from the B.C. Buildings

Corporation indicated no fumes or dust. Then on Monday, June 16, the

Workers' Compensation Board was again asked to test for asbestos

fibres. Tests were conducted on Monday and Tuesday of this week and the

report is as follows: "The laboratory analysis indicated no violation

of health and safety standards. "But as a result of continuing concern,

which the members expressed here in the House, the Pacific Vocational

Institute has asked an independent laboratory to conduct tests and

expects the results tomorrow. If those tests reveal any danger, of

course action will be taken. I should also tell the member that plans

are underway to totally replace those welding shops within the next

year. They really are old and unsatisfactory, quite apart from the

issue of asbestos, but I thank the member for bringing that to my

attention in the House.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a

number of questions to raise to the minister. These are mainly

constituency problems, but they have an overriding bearing to the

minister. The first is about the intolerable situation of the children

up in Greenville when they have to attend school. I certainly hope the

minister has read some of my correspondence concerning the bridge. I

don't think we have to go into detail on what the children have to go

through to get to school, but I would like some assurances from the

minister that that bridge would be implemented or there would be a

better mode of transportation by this summer. Since Mr. Jacob McKay

just wrote last week.... Have you received that letter also? Okay.

Mr. McKay wrote that his daughter, who had to take the boat to go

across to get to the school bus, because of no supervision....

HON. MR. SMITH: Is this the lady who fell into the river?

MR. PASSARELL:

Yes. I certainly hope that something could be done this summer to

alleviate the situation that the children in Greenville have to go

through. I certainly hope that I could talk with the minister at some

short time to discuss some of these problems and I hope to have an

answer back on that shortly.

The second problem is the need

in the Stikine school district for a school board. I wouldn't expect a

full-scale school board, but I would expect some type of community

[ Page 2914 ]

involvement

from the six schools into the local decision-making of the Stikine

school district. School District No. 87 has a very unique situation in

the province, with a superintendent who acts for two school districts,

81 and 87, and many people have voiced concerns to me through letters

that they have no input into the decisions of the local school. I think

a committee could be very easily made in which each community could

elect one person and maybe two or three times a year sit with the

superintendent and some of the teachers of the Stikine school district,

discuss and formulate policy and carry out some local decisions

concerning the schools. The committee could have certain powers to make

local decisions affecting their children in the school. There has been

talk. I've just talked to a superintendent up there, Mr. Parry Roth,

who said some type of program was starting, and I certainly hope the

minister would be able to see that some financial assistance could

come, because many of the committee members would have to travel vast

lengths to attend some type of meeting.

A third problem is

concerning the Iskut federal school. In the community of Iskut, which

is located about 60 miles south of Dease Lake, there is a federal

school and the area is growing. It's simply not a reserve any longer.

The community of Eddontenajon, which is one mile away, and the

community of Tatogga, which is about six miles away from Iskut, are

finding that more and more people are coming into the area. There is a

definite need for a provincial school in the area of Iskut with the

coming of mines and hydro developments into the area. An agreement

would have to be worked out with the federal government to change some

type of policy towards the Stikine school district to make that the

seventh school in the district. If the entire primary school of Iskut

can't be transferred to the minister's jurisdiction, then it might be

possible to have some type of secondary education by the province

involved for Iskut. Since many of the children now have to go out to

Terrace or Edmonton to receive their education and the federal school

really doesn't get into post-secondary education in Iskut, it might be

possible to have some type of provincial jurisdiction into the school

for Iskut. I would hope that the minister could arrange some meetings

between district 87 and the federal representatives for the school in

Iskut.

The fourth subject is the need to develop improved

educational programs in the universities, maybe some input from the

minister concerning northern teacher training. Besides the native

teacher training program in the universities themselves, there is a

definite need to have some type of correspondence with teachers who go

up in the northern rural communities to teach. What is presented in the

basic program of teacher training in the universities has been a very

successful program for the native teachers' program in our

universities. I know the minister is very favourable about the native

teacher training program and I certainly hope that will continue.

There

is a definite need to have some type of native development curriculum

in the predominantly native school districts on a mode of something

similar to School District 92, where the children learn some of their

basic languages in the school itself. I certainly hope that the

minister can work out some type of arrangement with some of the

northern school districts, specifically 81 and 87, in which some type

of native language teaching can go on in the school.

The

fifth subject I would like to talk about is educational television in

the public schools. After last year, the earth receiver was set up in

Telegraph Creek, which was then very beneficial to the new school which

the ministry has just built there. It will be an excellent asset to

that community. But there is the problem that the experimental program

is only licensed for another year. The school has in use the television

signals from the satellite for the benefit of the education of some of

the younger children in the school. I would certainly hope the minister

could contact the federal government. They are presently expanding on

the program to ensure that the television programming continues in some

of the rural schools up north.

Sixth is a topic which my

friend for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and myself definitely support: the

increase in the number of playfields in the north. We would both

benefit. I would certainly hope that the minister would see that the

expanded program on playfields would happen. I voiced my concern last

year with the minister, who stated that some type of expansion program

for playfields would be done in some of the rural northern school

districts. That year has elapsed and I would certainly hope the new

minister would be able to implement the program before the snow comes

again in the fall.

The last topic I'd like to talk to the

minister about is the need for additional funding for rural northern

students to travel out of their area on field trips. The present

program there is that the children raise money in their own

communities. In many small northern communities it is very difficult to

get some type of fund-raising programs. I would certainly hope there

would be some type of increased assistance to the northern school

districts so students may travel out of their constituencies to see

what the province has to offer.

Those are seven questions.

As I said before, my main concern is the bridge into Greenville. Now

that this young student has fallen off the boat and came very close to

drowning, I would certainly hope the minister could give some idea or

direction on what is going to happen with the students in Greenville

this summer.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to respond as

best I can to the very important points that the member for Atlin has

raised. As far as the bridge is concerned, I have met with the

officials there and I've also heard from the member on this bridge. The

only thing I haven't done is to go up and see it for myself, which I

had really wanted to do and will do. I've written in a very forceful

way and spoken to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) about this. I would suggest that in addition to my response you

should — and I'm sure you will — direct the matter to him as well in

his estimates. What I understand is occurring is that soil samples and

testing are going to be underway almost immediately. I just don't know

the timetable, hon. member, because it's not my portfolio, but I

certainly support the construction of a bridge and the upgrading of

that road so that those children in your area can get to their school

every day.

On the administration of Stikine district, your

concerns there are about an advisory board. Yes, I would certainly

support the movement to setting up an advisory board, and my officials

will help with that.

There is no problem on the third matter

you raised of taking over the management of a federal Indian school.

Indeed, we have done that in a number of other districts. We did it in

the Prince Rupert district. The school board there took over three

federal schools. If the local district wishes to do so and the federal

government agrees, it is routine. It

[ Page 2915 ]

simply

requires the federal Department of Indian Affairs' concurrence. But

again, we would assist in that process. We think that, and we're happy

to open our doors to administer entirely the education of Indian

children where that's acceptable locally. We have an open-door policy,

and I certainly support your sentiments about the need to maintain and

to strengthen native studies and native culture for native students. I

think that's very important, and I think that's something that we

should always keep in mind and not just give lip service to but give

resources to, as you know we are.

Educational TV is of

absolutely prime importance to the north and to the interior. Although

the licence to operate that system expires in February 1981, we have

applied for an extension and we certainly expect to get that extension.

I would be most concerned if we did not, because this is of enormous

importance to your area.

You raised the question of school

playing fields in the north. I must confess that I'm not as

knowledgeable about that as I should be. I think that this is the first

time that it's been directly brought to my attention. It has, however,

I'm told, been given priority in capital budgeting so that northern

districts can have reasonable facilities, and a larger share of the

budget than normal has been directed to that end. But I will promise to

directly look into it in relation to your area and that of my friend

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), because it seems to be a matter of

importance.

The problem of field trips. Has the member had

much success with lotteries in that regard? Has the lotteries route

been explored? I'd be happy to talk to him about that, and also to

consider looking at a mini-bus policy for isolated secondary schools in

the north to provide students with better opportunity for field trips.

Another

thing that I think could be highly desirable would be that student

exchanges, which are going on at a very major rate in British Columbia

through the Secretary of State's office in Ottawa.... I think some

priority should be given to some of the northern, more isolated

communities on these tours, and that exchanges should be utilized.

There's a great popularity, but most of the Canadian exchanges are

utilized by the larger centres. But I'll look at a transportation

support policy for isolated secondary schools, and I would be happy

also to assist the member in exploring lotteries.

MR. MITCHELL:

I would like to add a few words to a new proposal that the minister

mentioned earlier in his address to the House. I was hoping that before

I got into this discussion he would have elaborated a little more on

what he had planned in his proposal that he was going to bring forward

— the proposal that he mentioned in his speech on the enlargement and

development of an apprenticeship training program within the school

districts.

I would like to bring to the attention of the

House. Mr. Chairman, some of the problems that are facing our society

in British Columbia today. We have a growing society. We have an

economy that is both booming and busting. When we need tradesmen and we

have a booming economy, there is a shortage of tradesmen. But when they

are needed, we are importing them. Also, at that same period, we would

take on apprentices within the industries. Then what happens? The

economy goes down into a little bust, a little depression, or a little

slide, and our tradesmen and our industries fail to bring in new

apprentices.

I would like to recommend to the minister a completely new proposal on the

training of apprentices for the development of British Columbia. I sincerely

feel, Mr. Minister, that we have within this House a very strong, vocal, elitist

group who have grown up within the university system, and I believe that same

group dominates the educational department, whose main interest is to those

of similar backgrounds to those who have come up through and into the secondary

schools and into the universities. Both you and I — and I say this quite humbly,

Mr. Minister — have shared a lot of the problems of those people, who in many

cases come from different social backgrounds. In many cases they come from single-parent

homes where the family is dominated by a mother, with her problems and frustrations,

who in many cases does not understand the need for training a youth, especially

a boy, in the trades. She is separated from that need; she is separated from

that information, and the contact that is needed. I feel that if we are going

to train tradesmen for this province, we must consider the training of these

tradesmen to be as vitally important as training lawyers, librarians or any

of the other professionals.

feel that we must take a new look of our educational program; we must

look to what we can analyze, what we can assess in the school system.

In the school system our teachers and our counsellors can very easily

pick out those students who will not become lawyers. those students who

want to become tradesmen, those students who want to enter the

workforce on their graduation. In years past many of those entered that

workforce following graduation from grade 8, grade 9 and grade 10. I

feel that the ministry must sincerely bring in a policy that if by the

time a student reaches grade 10, by his assessment. his desires and his

school teachers' and counsellors' assessment. It is obvious that he is

going into a trades area, he should be directed into that workforce. I

sincerely feel that a student in grade 10, with a combination of

technical training within the school and with a positive input from the

trade or the industry.... His training and his beginning a trade

would start then.

I feel it is important that we develop a

school seat in industry that is of as much importance as a seat in any

classroom. I would not like to get down to the nitty-gritty of how it

should be financed: but I think both the employer groups of all trades

and all aspects of industry and the trade union movement, especially

that

section of the trade union movement that has been doing the

apprenticeship training and the quality control of apprenticeship

training, can work together and establish in the trades and in the

factories a seat that a student can go into on a part-time basis and

then on a full-time basis, as he continues into grade 11 and grade 12.

Those

of us who have worked in trades all know that you cannot learn all that

is needed on the job. For a student who finds geometry boring, finds

geometry is something that he cannot comprehend, but has gone into the

sheet metal business, when he all of a sudden has a job to develop —

let's say an elbow for a 32- or 56-degree bend — and he must come up

with a template to do that job, then geometry makes sense. This is why

I feel that we must develop a type of training that combines work on

the job with a policy and a program that fits that trade. In so many

cases we have gone through, to act into pre-apprenticeship training you

must graduate from grade 12. Many kids are going through grade 10 and

grade 11 and grade 12 just hoping that they can get into

preapprenticeship training. By that time it is too late. We must

develop a program that is going to lay the groundwork for that trade.

In each trade &t we develop we must have a different set of rules,

and it must be singly or in groups of trades that programs are

developed,

[ Page 2916 ]

realize that there will be a certain amount of upheaval dislocating the

employment picture that is taking place today. But I think once it

becomes established that when a youth graduates from grade 12 and goes

on maybe another year or two on a form of subsidized training equally

to those who are going into universities and colleges.... Society

is subsidizing the student who is graduating as a lawyer, a doctor or a

social worker. Society is subsidizing him in many, many ways, and it is

not unreal to expect that society, if we are going to train tradesmen,

will subsidize them in different ways. I think it's so important that

we develop a new concept; that we realize and accept the responsibility

that if British Columbia is going to change from an exporter of

resources to a manufacturing country, we are going to need a continual

supply of the best tradesmen that we can develop. In each trade, each

industry, there will be a different approach.

But what I

think is really important is that if we are going to look at this

concept we cannot do it in isolation within your ministry. It must be

done in complete cooperation with the school districts and the Ministry

of Labour. As I said earlier, Mr. Minister, in that area that both you

and I in our past have worked with, we must work within

the Attorney-General's department and do the preventive work that is

needed now, instead of allowing younger people to drop out of school

because of frustration and because they are afraid and they know that

if they don't graduate with grade 12 they can't get into an

apprenticeship.

We must not allow an apprenticeship training

only to be developed if there is an economic need. There must be a need

to develop tradesmen and make that opportunity available to every youth

who wants to go into the trades in the province. I realize that as we

develop an abundance of tradesmen for those areas in the north and the

rural area who are complaining that we do not have tradesmen, people

will not want to go into that area. When there is an abundance, when

the job opportunities are there, I can assure you that there will be

many who will move into the north and the rural areas, and they will be

properly trained. I say when someone in that area hires a carpenter or

a plumber, he has had that quality training, the quality training that

we as society, we in the school district, can produce.

also realize that now as we are exporting a lot of resources we will

have a surplus and we will be exporting tradesmen at times. I can see

areas like South America, which has a developing economy based on

resources in many cases similar to our province. With properly trained

tradesmen we will be exporting ambassadors to those countries. I think

that ambassador that they produce will lead the way in bringing in some

of the economic products that we are producing in the way of chain

saws, equipment and bulldozers, and I feel that this will be a

commodity we need to foster. We have the resources, we have the people.

All we need is the wherewithal and the desire to develop that.

use that as an example. For any of those who have gone into the

shipyards in southern California, San Diego, there is a large

section

of Canadian shipyard workers who served their apprenticeship in the

yards of Victoria, VMD, Yarrows, and in Vancouver in Burrard. When we

had a bust in the shipyards they emigrated, and they are highly

respected because the training that they received in our shipyards is

second to none.

I feel that we can and must do that. We must

do it to protect those who are coming up, those who are growing, and

those many youth who right now are very bitter, who are very

frustrated, who feel at a loss. For each two or three years when we

have an area of time in our economy where there is a bit of a

depression, they're not getting out to learn a trade that they must

learn at an early age. Two or three years lost in a developing boy are

years that never can be replaced.

In closing, I can say that

there will be changes. We have accepted that challenge in the past. I

remember, following the Second World War when a lot of young lads came

back from that war.... They had left right from school and gone in

to fighting for their country. The Canadian government accepted the

responsibility of training the returned veterans. Some went on to

universities, some came out in the professions. But there was equal

opportunity given to those who came into the trades. Money came from

the government to the employer to subsidize on-the-job training. There

was quality control and a trade group to monitor what was happening to

make sure that the veteran was not being exploited. The only thing they

didn't realize was that the veteran who came back from overseas was not

quite as naive as the kid who came out of school at 15 and 16. Society

accepted the principle that they would train tradesmen as they trained

university students.

I was hoping that maybe we could have

had some of the background on this program he referred to of advanced

or enlarged apprenticeship training. Anything less than a guarantee to

every person who has the qualifications to master a trade and I say we

are falling short. It is far better to graduate into the unemployed

field trained carpenters, trained sheetmetalmen and trained seamen than

to allow kids to graduate after 12 years of schooling and only be

qualified to be a short-order cook at McDonald's or to work in some gas

bar. This is the program I feel the department must bring in. We must

bring in a policy so that by the time a student enters grade 10 he must

have the opportunity to go on to learn something so he is going to be

able to feed himself and his family and to live in this province with

security.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, it's with

great pleasure that I address you this afternoon on this very important

ministry and compliment the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew on his

address. There is a lot more to training apprentices than meets the

eye. I'm sure that if he were to delve into it a little more he would

find out that there are many problems not particularly associated with

the industry or the desire but with problems in the union structure

itself. I'm rather surprised that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

does not seem to have observed — a party which we understand is so

strongly union-oriented.... If this is a crack in their attitude,

perhaps we should bear it in mind. I for one agree a little bit with

him that we shouldn't be too hide-bound on skills training. I do

believe that industry would like to see it done. I think government

would like to see it done. But I think there is a feeling among many

unions that if we get too many people with skilled trades the situation

deteriorates the jobs in existence. I don't hold to this point of view.

Much as I believe in unionism and the strength of unions, I believe

they are wrong in this respect. I believe that it would be better for

industry and jobs, especially at this time in British Columbia's

history, to relent in their position.

I have before me an

article by Albert Sigurdson, special to the Globe and Mail on June 12, 1980. It's entitled: "Unions Blamed for Blocking Industrial Training. " In the

article he says:

[ Page 2917 ]

"Union

job security and seniority concerns are keeping British Columbia from

training the skilled tradesmen it needs for its major industries,

according to a report published by the Vancouver Board of Trade. There

is an acute shortage of critical trade skills in British Columbia. The

report said 85 percent of the firms surveyed indicated they had

difficulty in finding adequately trained people during the preceding

two years."

I believe there is a lot of truth in that

report. I believe it is time that the Ministry of Education took this

into consideration. I want to compliment the Minister of Education; in

my conversation with him just a short time ago he stated that he is

going to make a trip to the various colleges to see for himself,

firsthand, the facilities, particularly of the Maple Ridge campus of

PVI, which is in my constituency. I have been urging him to spend $3.5

million on upgrading that facility for the benefit of the young people

of British Columbia.

At the present time it seems anomalous

to me that our high school graduates cannot apply to PVI for training —

even if they offer to pay for it — because they must be out of school

for a year before they can apply for training. I think that should

cease. I address the minister on this point of view. I think the unions

may be prepared to accept a new look at training in British Columbia.

The

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, federal Minister of Employment and Immigration,

speaking in Vancouver on May 6 said: "Canada will need to import up to

500,000 skilled workers within the next five years, 70,000 of these in

British Columbia." To me that is almost incomprehensible. Here we are

with the young people and the raw material. Here we are in British

Columbia with 8 percent unemployment and we cannot train our people.

There is something wrong in the working system somewhere.

appeal to the minister. I appreciate his point of view. I know it is

not as easy and as clear as it would seem on the surface. To open the

floodgates and let everybody in will only cause trouble, inconvenience

and questions from certain quarters. But we can no longer let these

jobs be taken by people from beyond our shores — from Europe and the

United States. I have brought this matter up in this House on other

occasions. I think it is now getting too late. I do appeal to the

minister on this issue. There is no longer time for talking; it's time

for action in training our young people to take these jobs. Somebody

somewhere has got to give way. With 8 percent unemployment it is

unacceptable to me that we are going to import tradespeople to this

province.

It is interesting to note in the May 5 "Midweek Business Report"

in the Province a reference is made to what is happening in British Columbia

with the northeast coal deal situation. It is now on stream but was not a certainty

at that time. Here is what the Province staff reporter said: "An example

of the current talks on vastly increased coal sales between Canada and Japan,

if they bear fruit" — little did he know at that time that they were going

to bear fruit — "a priority and a problem will be in finding qualified

underground coal-miners to work in northeastern B.C."

You

see what is going to happen now: we are going to be importing

coal-miners, no doubt from Europe, to do these first-class jobs when

our young people are able to do them. At one time a coal-miner's job

was a tough job but it is now mechanized. I do appeal to the minister

on this issue of vital importance. The Pacific Vocational Institute is

capable and ready to do the training. It is able to do the training but

is hampered by facilities and by difficulties in the structure between

government and unions. I appeal to the minister to remove this

road-block.

I could go on to more quotations. In the June 11

"Midweek Business Report" in the Province there is an article, "Trade

Training Branded Absurd, " by Patrick Durrant. "The opportunity for

young British Columbians to enter trades training is so difficult it is

absurd," he said. I won't belabour the point but it is almost

unbelievable that we find ourselves in this position. There is a

growing awareness of the need but here we are with a facility that

needs to be upgraded. I appeal to the minister.

I appreciate

the fact that he is going to PVI. But this is no longer a thing that

should be done in the future, Mr. Minister. I am glad to see that he

has returned. It is a thing that must be done now. It must be a crash

program or we are going to find ourselves importing the workers we

need. We have been doing it for the last five or six or ten years. Yet

when our industry rises up and we need skilled staff, what happens? We

don't have them: we have to import them. With our young people out of

work, that seems unacceptable to me.

I want to draw to the

minister's attention that the Ministry of Education at one time

considered the establishment of another level of high school. We must

remove, I believe, the elitism of academic education. There is nothing

wrong with academic education. but we must remove the elitism from

education. Every mother's child feels he must go to university or at

least grade 12. There's nothing wrong with that, but we must remove the

fact that it's elitist thinking. What we must have — as the previous

Minister of Education suggested — is a certificate for grade 10. Our

young could leave school at grade 10 if they were oriented to skilled

labour and doing productive labour. If they were oriented to that and

wanted to end at that grade, they should then move into training

specifically for trades. If they do that, they could move on to higher

education that would be to their benefit. But we would train them for a

job from grade 10 and they would have a certificate on the wall.

industry or business it's a well-known fact that titles are cheap. We

make two or three secretary-treasurers or general managers in one firm

because the titles are cheap and they give a person a position of

dignity. I think that a certificate of grade 10 would give dignity to

someone that would go into trades training in schools. They're not

dropouts, because they are going to learn a trade and be productive for

British Columbia and Canada. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the minister.

This is something that's long past due.

I have no fight with

academics. The reason that academics is so important and so carefully

carried out in this province is because it's the easiest thing in the

world to teach. There is no problem teaching academics. You can get a

book almost anywhere and teach it. It's a solid, ironcast program.

Training skills is another story. It is difficult, requires knowledge

of the issue and somebody with a dedication. I don't say that we must

remove.... Don't let me say: "Mussallem is against academics." No

way! I think it's wonderful and great, but it's easy to teach and easy

to acquire. Trades training is difficult to teach and difficult to

acquire. We need both. But we have pushed our people into the academic

stream and it's an elitist program. That must cease. In my opinion. We

must give the same importance to the worker that works with his hands.

I appeal to the minister again.

I appreciate what he's doing and I appreciate his think-

[ Page 2918 ]

ing,

but I thought it was necessary that I bring it up on this floor. It's

all right to talk with the minister, but I want to tell him from this

floor that the time is long past due when we should recognize the

importance of trades and learning to do something with the hands. Make

that elitism. In some countries it is. Why not here? It's difficult to

teach, that's why. Not many people can teach it. Anybody can teach

school. If you go to university for four years and get a certificate,

you're out teaching school. You can do a good job if you're dedicated,

and that's necessary. But to acquire a trade requires specialized

people. It's not an easy thing to do, but we must buck the tide and

create jobs for our people. We have unemployment in Canada today

because we have not trained people in the past years.

That

is my message to the minister. I'm glad to hear the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), and I hope there's a change in

the policy of that negative party over there that's always against

everything. Here's one fellow that is definitely attacking the unions.

I'm so glad to see that. There's a little change. We don't want to

attack anybody. He says: "Train everybody. What's wrong?" The problem

is that certain unions don't want to train too many people too fast.

I'm not against that. I'm a union man. I believe in unionism, but it is

wrong to withhold jobs from our people. We should have people with two

and three skills so they can go anywhere for jobs. It's easy once once

you get the stream flowing, but we have never had the stream flowing in

British Columbia and we're paying the price today. We will be importing

labour by the thousands from offshore — the Pacific Rim, England,

Scotland, Ireland and the United States. Right now it's happening, and

our young people are out of jobs. It's a pitiful situation. I appeal to

the minister in the strongest possible terms that this log-jam has got

to be broken and we've got to move on training our people.

MR. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, I believe there was a slight misinterpretation of

what I said. I'd just like to bring to the hon. member's attention that

there are more non-union shops than union shops that are not training

apprentices in B.C. I'm happy to see that he is supporting my

progressive policy and positive suggestions to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has clarified his statement.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have a variety of rather unrelated items, all related to education. I

do my homework in my constituency. I go out and listen to my

constituents and they bring their problems to me, and then I bring them

to the minister. That is what I am proposing to do today.

I would like to follow on what the last speaker said relative to the apprentice

program and speak of the need for training for people who are already in the

workforce. I think it has been indicated very clearly that people who leave

school and then decide to return to school make better students than when they

were there the first time. A lot of people who are working today want to improve

their position and to take advantage of the kinds of courses available. The

problem is that they're not available to people who work on shift. The community

college is geared to either a day course or an evening course, and there is

no provision for those people who work shif