1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8053 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas Fund annual report 1981-82

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 8053

Oral Questions

Expenses of Finance minister. Mr. Howard –– 8053

Mr. Lauk

Air travel expense of Minister of Human Resources. Mr. Hall –– 8054

Expenses of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Macdonald –– 8054

Tabling Documents

"Developing a Pension Policy for the Future," a discussion paper.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8055

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

On vote 22: minister's office (continued) –– 8055

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Davis

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. King

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 22 –– 8074

Division

On vote 23: management operations and educational finance — 8074

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 23 –– 8075

Mr. Barrett

Division

On vote 24: public schools education –– 8075

Mr. Lauk

On the amendment to vote 24 –– 8075

Division

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today we have two visitors from the fair city of Vancouver: Mr.

Donald Hudson, president of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and Mr.

William Irwin, vice-president of regulations and membership of the

exchange. I would ask this House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

It's my pleasure to introduce Corporal Cardy Launey, who is with the

air force branch of the Canadian Armed Forces in Baden-Sollingen in

West Germany. It will interest the House to known that Mr. Launey is a

member of the ski patrol system of Canada, and has returned to attend

the annual general meeting of the Canadian Ski Patrol Association in

British Columbia. He has been ski-patrolling for a year in Feldberg,

the largest ski area in southwest Germany. I would ask the House to

extend a very warm welcome to this young Canadian.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

In the precincts today are the president and some of the directors of

the B.C. Recreation Association, who have just concluded a productive

meeting with government caucus members. I'd like to introduce the

president, Mike Brow; executive director, Bill Webster; and provincial

director, Bob Vaughan.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas Fund, 1981-82.

Oral Questions

EXPENSES OF FINANCE MINISTER

MR. HOWARD:

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask

the minister if he could tell the House how much money he has

personally refunded to the taxpayers of B.C. for tickets relating to

some Broadway show, the name of which he didn't advise the House

yesterday.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is correct that in a

statement yesterday I did not identify the two Broadway musicals which

were the subject of the statement. One was Sweeney Todd , and the second one was Evita .

With respect to the main part of the member's question, as of this

moment I have not refunded the money to the Crown, but I have directed

the Deputy Minister of Finance to determine the amount which I owe and

the amount which is owed by others who were involved in the group

visiting New York at that time — the end of February 1980 –– I have

indicated that I would like that information just as quickly as

possible and then a personal cheque will be written.

MR. HOWARD: The minister has knowledge of the people who attended those

particular shows. The one in particular that he referred to yesterday cost the

taxpayers $1,200. Can he tell the House whether the total amount of money that

he intends to refund personally will be equal to the $1,200 that it cost to

take all those other people to the show?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. Mr. Speaker, that is not my intention.

MR. HOWARD: Well, the minister obviously has no intention of refunding the $1,200 for those tickets.

MR. SPEAKER: No debate, hon. member. The question, please.

MR. HOWARD: That was the premise of the question, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: It sounded like debate, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

If the minister will not do that, will he at least then supply the

House with the list of the names of those people who attended those

theatres, so the taxpayers of B.C. will know how generous they were and

to whom they were generous?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I think there was a question there. Yes, I will provide, in

due course, the names of those who attended the two performances in the

latter part of February 1980. If the statement made in the House

yesterday — and subsequent statements — left any doubt, I certainly

intend that those British Columbians who attended and are, as in my

case, elected, or are, as in the case of others, in the public

employ.... I restate the intention today that the appropriate Canadian

equivalent will be returned to the provincial treasury at the earliest

possible time,

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as it was the

minister's fault and the minister's doing. Why doesn't he pay it all

directly back to the taxpayers of B.C. himself? It's his responsibility.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I indicated that that was not my intention, insofar as

there were two distinct groups present — in fact, three distinct groups

— if one can describe the total party as groups, or groupings within

the party attending in New York in the latter part of February 1980.

There were those who are clearly representatives of the province of

British Columbia. Secondly, there was a representative of the office of

the Canadian consulate in New York — then and now — and his spouse, and

others who are involved in underwritings or in the activities

associated with underwritings undertaken by the Ministry of Finance on

behalf of British Columbia Hydro and other Crown corporations.

MR. HOWARD:

Is the minister telling the House that it’s quite proper and

appropriate for the taxpayers to take underwriters in New York to

Broadway shows and to host them?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, is the member seeking a legal opinion?

MR. HOWARD: No. Just an honest one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 8054 ]

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday

after his ministerial statement the minister referred to a cancelled

cheque, or cancelled cheques, together with vouchers and other

documents. I rose on a point of order and brought it to Mr. Speaker's

attention, and the minister from his seat indicated that he would table

those documents. Has he now decided to table the cancelled cheque, or

cheques, and all vouchers and attachments relating to the two New York

visits referred to in his statement so that the opposition, and thereby

the public, can have an accurate view of what financial transactions

have taken place?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I

intend to table at an early opportunity the documentation which I

believe hon. members would want to have available in connection with

the statement made yesterday. That relates particularly to the personal

cheque dated November 12, 1980, with respect to the two theatre

tickets, which were not, contrary to some reports.... Again I may be at

fault for being somewhat unclear on the point yesterday, but for the

two tickets for the October performance.... Mr. Speaker, I indicated

that I was going to table a personal cheque and associated material.

The cheque in this instance was dated November 12, 1980, for, I believe

— and I'm subject to correction — $54.66 covering two tickets.

Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the balance of the question, I first of all

made a statement yesterday as an hon. member indicating that what I

said occurred in fact did occur. The misunderstanding which may have

developed, and I may be responsible for it, is that, in fact, the

October performance, which I attended, was not charged to the people of

British Columbia. It was instead forwarded to the office of the

Ministry of Finance for payment and was caught at that point. And it

was at that point that we deducted the amount in question for each of

us who attended the October performance. Therefore I want to make it

very clear that it was not a question of refunding money to the Crown

in connection with the October performance that I attended, but rather

of paying the amount for the theatre tickets in order that it not be

charged against the Crown.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I

have a supplementary. One of the difficulties is that the opposition

has a view of some of the financial transactions involving both that

minister and many others. From the information that we have, the

minister's statement caused some confusion. I know that the minister

would like very much to clear that up before the matter becomes further

confused. Therefore the first question I have is: if the Ministry of

Finance, of which he is in charge, caught that mistake, does the

Minister of Finance have an explanation for the system breakdown on the

other issues involving himself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question in as much detail as the Chair

will permit. As I indicated yesterday, considerable debate in this

chamber over the past number of months has dealt with the tightening of

controls on a gradual and continuing basis within the Ministry of

Finance, in the office of the comptroller-general and in Treasury Board

— Treasury Board staff in particular — to bring, in conjunction with

the Financial Administration Act, financial controls in the province of

British Columbia into the late twentieth century. That is why the

Financial Administration Act was developed, why it was issued at first

as a discussion paper and why it came, in a revised form, to this

assembly and was approved and given royal assent.

The member

knows, of course, that the process of proclamation of various sections

of the Financial Administration Act continued for a number of months

following royal assent to the bill. I can assure the members of this

House and the people of British Columbia that the system of controls

now in place is superior to that which was in place several months ago,

12 months ago, 18 months ago, 24 months ago or, indeed, in the period

from 1972 to 1975. It has been a long and continuing process. When the

member asks how one expenditure was caught in October and November 1980

and not in February and March 1980, I believe my answer is that the

process and the development of the Financial Administration Act is the

reason why one cannot compare the early part of 1980 with the latter

part of 1980.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister now decided

on a date that these documents will be available so we can confirm the

procedures that were employed on all of these occasions?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will bring those to the House at an early opportunity.

AIR TRAVEL EXPENSE OF

MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Minister of Human

Resources. Did the minister travel from Ottawa to Vancouver on Tuesday,

February 23, 1982, just five days following the Premier's prime time

broadcast on restraint?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I have to take that question as notice. I haven't any

recollection of those dates, but I'd be pleased to bring the answer

back to the House.

MR. HALL: I have a further

question. While the minister is checking into her diary, at the same

time she brings that answer to the House could she tell the House why

she decided — as she is also the Deputy Premier — to travel first-class

in spite of the announcement of the restraint program, and what was the

cost of that extra extravagance to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I took the original question as notice. If I recall, the

last time I travelled to Ottawa I travelled with my deputy minister,

and we had some specified work to do. When I have work to do in regard

to the government I sometimes do travel first class. It is done in

those conditions because we can get more work done.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Premier. On

June 1 the Premier took as notice simple questions to which he should

have had the answer at that time, relating to the expenses of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I ask the Premier: has he

decided to answer those questions today?

MR. SPEAKER: The member has not yet taken his seat, so I cannot recognize another member.

[ Page 8055 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

Another question. Did the Premier discuss with the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs the matter of making a refund of part of the

expenses he had incurred?

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the question that was taken as notice?

MR. MACDONALD: It is a simple question. The Premier knows the answer and he sits silent there. Why the silence about public affairs?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have the honour to present a discussion paper entitled "Developing a Pension Policy for the Future."

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 22: minister's office, $299,040.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few remarks to the minister

and pose a few questions to him. There are things we have discussed,

many of them through correspondence.

One of the concerns

that I have relates to the small schools that are in my constituency.

As a result of the restrictive funding policy we are facing some very

serious problems with schools like the Lake Cowichan school, the Thetis

Island school and the Chemainus schools, where those schools are either

having to be closed or else the quality of education is not going to be

as good as it should be. This seems very unfair to me, particularly in

Lake Cowichan where we have a community that is very much on its own;

it's not part of the Duncan community or part of any other community in

the valley. It has been hit very hard by the recession in the forest

industry: permanent closure of one mill, partial closure of another,

and layoffs in the logging industry. Certainly the per capita earnings

of the people in that area are very limited. I know that that

particular school did receive some special consideration from the

minister, but the situation there is still not satisfactory.

One

of the things that concerns the school board, the teaching staff and me

is the fact that in order to maintain the teaching staff and the human

facilities there, any new computer equipment — the more technical types

of equipment — should be available if the elementary and high-school

students are going to graduate from that school system on an equal

footing with people from West Vancouver or other areas. It's just not

going to be possible if the school board is not able to provide that

kind of equipment. So I certainly have concerns about that.

Thetis

Island is a different situation, of course. It's an elementary school

on an island. The difficulties that the school board is having in

trying to keep that school operative under the restrictive terms of the

financial restraint bill from this government have certainly put some

real hardships on the operation of that school. To the best of my

knowledge, the last time I checked, the school was going to operate for

the coming year. I'm not sure that that's really final, but they're

trying to keep it open. I think the minister should be aware of the

kinds of problems that occur in those areas.

Speaking of

islands, of course Kuper Island is also in my constituency. It is a

little different situation again. The kindergarten, and possibly grade

1 and 2.... It's completely an Indian school on the island. The problem

occurs in transportation. I have tried unsuccessfully to convince your

colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), who is responsible for the Highways ferry, to change the

scheduling of that ferry so that there aren't such long waits. The

youngsters have long waits, particularly in the afternoon, because the

ferry leaves just before they can catch it. They have an hour or more

just hanging around downtown Chemainus. It's not a desirable situation

for the children or for anyone. There are small stores around there.

Perhaps the minister has more influence on his colleague the Minister

of Transportation than I had in getting that ferry rerouted. I would

like to refer that particular matter to him.

Another item of

concern relates to Cedar Lodge; it's of very grave concern. It's the

sort of thing that happens when we get interministry involvement. I

think there comes a time when the rules have to be suspended for a

little while. The Minister of Education is quite adamant that funding

cannot be made available for that school unless they fit the criteria

and standards established by the Ministry of Education. Because that is

a very special school, the kinds of things being done there...it's not

humanly possible to do them and still conform to the minister's

standards. The local school board would be quite happy to get involved,

but if they do the school has to conform to those standards. That's a

ruling of the minister, not the local school board. The local school

board would be quite happy to move in and fit into the integrated

system, which is partially Human Resources, partially Health and

partially Education. You can't let those young people fall through the

cracks because of some bureaucratic decision that this or that must be

done. Certainly the funding has been a real problem there. I would urge

the minister to have another look at Cedar Lodge. If we lose that

facility, we're losing a very valuable service to many island families,

not just those in the Cowichan area.

Those are the sort of

specific local things I wanted to talk about. I also want to deal just

briefly with the problems occurring in community colleges. They have

taken a pretty drastic cutback in funding. The statistics I've seen

show about a 4 percent reduction in college funding. When you realize

we're trying to get to a point — at least, I hope we are — where there

is equality in education and fairness of opportunity, it just isn’t so

for those people who have to go into the major centres. Just look at

what's happened to the cost of housing in connection with the various

universities. If young people can stay in the community and live at

home, they have a much better opportunity of getting one or two years

of post-secondary education under their belts. Sometimes, just from the

standpoint of ability to get along on their own at age 17 or 18, it's a

good feature to have that home influence at hand. They're still part of

the same community. They still have contacts with the home or are

living in the home. It's a transition period for them, apart from being

economically

[ Page 8056 ]

much more viable. It is an opportunity that is afforded to many young people to take that post-secondary education.

What

I'm hearing from the people responsible for setting up the courses and

administering those colleges is that, under the financial constraints

laid on by this government, many of the programs are having to be

curtailed and the quality of education being offered in those

post-secondary community colleges is not up to the standard it should

be. That's strictly a result of the financial curtailments laid on by

this minister.

I was interested to note from discussions

with my local college, Malaspina, that there has even been a change in

the structure of the board, with more government appointees being

placed on the community college boards. They had the feeling that it

was probably as a result of the number of questions they were raising

and the concerns and criticisms they were expressing to the ministry

that the structure of the board was changed so there were more

government appointees than people chosen at the local level.

The

people who are administering these post-secondary institutions are

really concerned. The one I'm particularly talking about, of course, is

Malaspina. One of the things they've had to do is entirely remove the

housing grant that has been paid since the inception of that college to

students coming from Lake Cowichan. That was something that was put

into the original referendum in order to establish the college. Because

of the distance that Lake Cowichan is from Nanaimo, it was decided that

there would be a housing grant made to Lake Cowichan students, should

Lake Cowichan agree to go in with the total regional area. That was to

be in effect as long as there was some local funding being raised to

support the community college. Now that the provincial government is

paying the full shot, they have refused to pay that. That means that

Lake Cowichan — again, this disadvantaged area I'm talking about — is

further disadvantaged by the fact that students who wish to go on to

Malaspina now have no housing allowance to partially cover their stay

in Nanaimo. It wasn't a very large allowance, but it was a bit. It was

something that did encourage them to go to that local college. It's too

far to travel back and forth. It's rather difficult for those Lake

Cowichan people, as I have indicated, to move back and forth with the

very limited income that's facing them.

Mr. Minister, those

are the questions I've been hearing this year relative to education in

my constituency. I would refer you to your letter to the chairman of

the Lake Cowichan School Board, where you indicated that the government

was aware in imposing the restraint program that there would be

implications for social programs. It seems to me that those

implications have really come home to roost in these rather

hard-pressed, small areas that are far removed from the metropolitan

areas. That, to me, is most unfair, because it isn't quality education.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll just try and deal with these questions as they arise; I think it's probably easier while our memories are fresher.

would, I think, agree with what you say about the necessity of

computers being available for smaller schools and smaller school

districts that do not have residential tax bases to pay for those out

of their J account receiving assistance. What you say about Thetis

Island I'm not directly familiar with, but I'm familiar with similar

transportation problems on other islands. There have been occasions

where ferry service has been changed to accommodate school children's

hours, and I would certainly support that, as I have in the past.

MRS. WALLACE: This is at Kuper.

HON. MR. SMITH:

At Kuper, yes. That's the first time that the Kuper reserve school

problem has come to my attention on the transportation side, but I'd be

glad to look into that and make representations to my colleague.

Cedar

Lodge is unfortunately not as simple as the member indicated — and I

think the member knows that too. It has a pretty complex background. I

visited Cedar Lodge in the fall. I had a tour up there; I was taken up

by the chairman and spent an afternoon. I've always been impressed with

the work they've done there for the severely neurologically impaired

children and the tie-in they have with the excellent psychology testing

department at the University of Victoria. But as you know, the Cedar

Lodge board for a long time wanted nothing to do with the school

district, and the school district was really very lukewarm about being

involved in Cedar Lodge. So what I did this year was to go there and

intervene, and my ministry became involved. We kept the operation, with

the assistance of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy),

funded as it had been before, with an increase. We evaluated it

overall, but the Cedar Lodge people really don't want to be under a

school board and a conventional program. I mean, that's the gist of it.

So it's better to keep it going some way without having it under a

board, if that's possible. That's really what I've supported, not

because it was cheaper for us but because it seemed to fit their

program better.

You mentioned college funding and Malaspina

funding. Actually, this year, with all the approvals, allotments from

the various councils and the special approvals that it received, their

total overall funding is up about 11 percent. Now that isn't what their

budget called for; they wanted more, as was true with most

institutions. But the overall college funding is up by an average of 12

percent; the increase is less than last year, but of course this year

the wages are restrained from April 1 onward.

I note that

there are some program changes at Malaspina, which you mentioned. They

are not all deletions either, hon. member; there are new programs

starting there in licensed practical nursing and word processing. At

the same time they have got out of some of their perhaps more

appropriate vocational programs which they did in the past — the heavy

equipment operation program and the chokerman program — and those may

be the ones that concerned you. But I haven't made any more

appointments to that board than I did in the past. The chairman of that

board stepped down and took a position with the OTC, so there was a

replacement appointment, but I haven't made any additional appointments

that I know of.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I just

have a few brief remarks and questions for the minister as well. I want

to thank the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) for

deferring, because I'm going to be very short.

Before I

proceed with my presentation, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this

opportunity to welcome 23 grade 7 students and their chaperones from

Powell River Assumption School, who are in the precincts this

afternoon. I'd like the House to welcome them.

[ Page 8057 ]

The

bulk of the remarks that perhaps could have been made under estimates

have been made under the bill that was before this House three or four

weeks ago. I don't intend to rehash that bill, except to say, Mr.

Chairman, that the government, in my view, is effectively centralizing

the education system in the province — as has been mentioned several

times here in debate — and leaving local school boards with the task of

taking the local political flak for decisions that are forced upon

them. They have had to cut back on some programs and cut back on

teacher personnel. In School District 47 there will be 18 fewer

teachers starting next September, and in School District 46 I

understand there will be eight fewer positions. In spite of that fact,

the population is increasing in School District 46. There is one

question I would like to ask the minister directly, and the minister

will be very familiar with this. We've had considerable discussion and

correspondence on this matter. It concerns the $750,000 requested by

School District 46 from the Ministry of Education to proceed with the

addition to the Chatelech Junior Secondary School at Sechelt. We note

that there are crowded conditions. Perhaps the minister would be good

enough in his response to let the House and the board members of School

District 46 know exactly where that project is at at this time. I know

there are complications with Treasury Board and all of these things,

but it's a very serious matter in that particular school district.

Perhaps the minister could let us know what is happening to that

particular project.

I'm a bit concerned as well, Mr.

Chairman, about the fee increases and the cutbacks in programs at the

Malaspina campus in Powell River, as my colleague over here discussed a

few minutes ago. Fee increases have been greatly increased for the next

semester. I don't have the precise figures, but I understand in some

cases they have almost doubled, which will obviously reduce the number

of people attending these courses that are available. More than that, I

understand that a number of courses have been dropped because of

funding restrictions, and perhaps the minister could comment once again

on these matters, if he hasn't already.

I know what the response to the other questions is going to be, so I don't care about that....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't care.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I care, but I've heard the answers many times, Mr. Premier. The

minister's reply to the $750,000 for the expansion at Chatelech Junior

Secondary School in Sechelt would be interesting.

HON. MR. SMITH:

The expenditure for Chatelech Junior Secondary School has been

approved, and I am remiss in not telling you that, I guess. The funds

were released from the 1981-82 budget. Those were expenditures that

were held in the Treasury Board review, but that has been approved for

the junior secondary school at Sechelt.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Do they know?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. I normally would tell you at the same time, and I regret not doing that.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Chairman, I will confine my remarks to a particular topic on the

estimates of the Minister of Education, and that topic is visa

students. Visa students are not Canadian nationals, nor are they landed

immigrants.

They are nationals of other countries who come

to Canada for part — or in a few cases all — of their education. We

have always had some. There has been an increasing number of visa

students coming to Canada, and particularly to British Columbia in

recent years. One reason there is a growing number coming to British

Columbia, and especially in grades 11 and 12, is that our universities

in this province have among the lowest fees in Canada, and British

Columbia still does not charge a differential fee for non-Canadian

nationals as is becoming the rule across Canada.

I want to

deal specifically with one matter, the visa students that come to

secondary schools here, and particularly secondary schools who go out

looking for visa students — who go, for example, to Hong Kong and

recruit a large number of students each year. We have some half a dozen

schools which do this now, and what they basically have to sell is four

or five years of low-cost university tuition when these students

graduate from grade 12 in British Columbia.

There is concern

not only in respect to the cost to the British Columbia taxpayer of

this kind of thing, and not only about the lack of opportunities to go

to certain of our university faculties because they're over-populated

with students from all over the place, but also the concern in some of

these countries in which these students are originating. A letter

appeared in the Vancouver Province in the middle of May, signed

by William S. Yip, president of the Canadian University Association in

Hong Kong. Essentially, he's complaining about the quality of the

education given in British Columbia to these visa students who, in the

grade 12 education in a few months in a pressure-cooker kind of

situation. They get a British Columbia grade 12 diploma, qualify for

university in British Columbia and enter a low-priced, high-value

university similar to Simon Fraser and the University of Victoria.

Because of four or five years of low fees, it's possible for these

particular schools to charge an arm and a leg for their five, six or

seven months of intensive tuition. William S. Yip said a month ago —

and I'm quoting from that newspaper:

"In the late 1970s the

number of students going to Canada" — that's from Hong Kong — "began to

increase, with 2,600 in 1979 to 4,000 in 1980 and 5,300 last year. For

various reasons, the upward trend will continue" — not the least of

which, of course, is the fact that only 2 percent of high-school

graduate equivalents in Hong Kong can get into a university in Hong

Kong. The figure is more like 20 percent here — in other words, there

is ten times the opportunity here. The fact is that education,

particularly in the Chinese culture, is regarded as the one certain way

to self-realization and, more importantly, a good job in the future.

"It

is estimated that there are 21,000 students from Hong Kong now studying

in Canada, many of them in high schools" — many of them in high schools

in British Columbia. If we simply had our 10 percent figure pro rata

we'd have at least 2,000 of them here. Other figures I've seen indicate

that the figure short of university — in other words, a few of them

primary, a lot secondary, and a good many other education here — are of

the order of 5,000.

"Unfortunately, many of the so-called visa high schools

in Canada that advertise in all the major Hong Kong newspapers to recruit innocent

students are not entirely reputable, putting profit before quality education.

Many recruiters misrepresent their schools,

[ Page 8058 ]

their

equipment and the quality of teachers. Most of the innocent students

are teenaged newcomers in Canada" — they do not know the language —

"and do not know where to lodge complaints about such

misrepresentation. In the past few years we have had numerous

complaints about such schools. The complaints have caused great concern

here among reputable Canadian educational institutions.

"Since

education is a provincial matter, we would urge your provincial

governments to take the measures necessary to safeguard the interests

of Hong Kong students in order to avoid loss of their time, money, the

opportunity to acquire good education and, most important of all, their

confidence in Canada."

This is a new phenomenon. It's

happening in other provinces. There are schools providing secondary

education, particularly grades 11 and 12, in other provinces, the

principal reason being entrance to a North American university or, more

particularly, to Canadian universities with good quality education at

the university level and, very importantly, low fees — fees of, say, 10

percent of operating costs, not including capital costs. Clearly,

university education is very highly subsidized, generally by the

taxpayer in Canada and in British Columbia, and this is one of the main

reasons, if not the main reason, why these students are coming here in

increasing numbers.

There are estimates of how many

students. In 1977 David Neece and Peter Brawn of the Canadian Bureau of

International Education published a book, which was financed by the

international bureau, and they said at that time that there were some

23,000 foreign students in Canadian universities. They were talking

about visa students. These are not immigrants or landed immigrants;

they're foreign nationals who, presumably, intend to return home. They

describe these students:

"Most of these

foreign students come from status privileged sectors in their own

societies. Some two-thirds cited professionals or owners and managers

as fathers, the most frequently mentioned professions being

engineers-architects, professor-teachers and accountants. Business

owners and retail trade owners dominated the owners and management

segment. It is evident that the bulk of foreign students are the

children of entrepreneurs and businessmen."

The

great majority come from families in which one or both of the parents

have already been educated outside the country from which these

children originate. In the case of Hong Kong students, 72 percent had

family members who had preceded them to North America a decade or two

ago. They said, incidentally, that students from Hong Kong are rated

lowest in language skills among the various countries sending visa

students to Canada. Many of them intend to emigrate, so perhaps a

portion of these young people will end up in Canada. Certainly that

becomes the intention of some who are here.

That was in

1977. More recently, a study carried out by Statistics Canada talks

about 26,000 foreigners at Canadian universities in 1979. The figure

rose sharply thereafter, increasing by 24 percent from 1979 to 1980,

and by 31 percent from 1980 to 1981. This study, published by Mr. Max

von Zur Muehlen, senior analyst with Statistics Canada, estimated the

cost to the Canadian taxpayer at the university level alone to be in

the order of $300 million a year. He said, furthermore, that an

increasing number of these young people were coming from the relatively

affluent countries, the great majority from home circumstances where

the parents could well afford to pay the full cost of the children's

education anywhere in the world. However, Canada is a bargain. Fees at

our universities typically have been in the range of $500 to $1,000 a

year. In the United Kingdom today you can't get to any university for

less than $10,000 a year. Most western European universities are

upwards of $10,000 a year. United States universities are $5,000 a year

and up. The better-known ones, and certainly the private ones, are

$10,000 a year and up.

So Canada is a bargain; Canada is the

place to go. If you can get a grade 12 diploma and get entry into a

Canadian university, then come to Canada because you will save in the

order of $10,000 a year for four or five years spent in getting a BA

degree. If you stay longer for more advanced degrees, you are saving

not $50,000 but maybe $70,000, $80,000 or $90,000 per student. That, of

course, is paid by the taxpayer. That is of some concern. It is of

concern in other provinces. Quebec has recently put up its fees for

foreign students, now in the order of several thousand dollars a year.

Ontario has increased its fees this year and will increase its fees

again next year, with the intention, in the third year, of covering

costs. Therefore all foreign students entering Ontario universities

three years from now will be paying around $10,000 a year for a

university education. I can well imagine that the incentive for schools

to go abroad searching for students so as to give them an education for

a year or two in Ontario will diminish substantially. There are

differential fees for foreign students versus others in Alberta. Other

provinces are looking seriously at this problem.

An example

of schools in this province is a new one that started up in the last 18

months: Western Canada College at Shawnigan Lake. A November 25

article

in the Vancouver Sun talks about Western Canada College, and

says it appears similar to other high schools. It has highly academic

instruction based on the B.C. curriculum. There are school uniforms,

structured schedules including mandatory evening study periods, etc.

The college was formerly the Shawnigan Lake Inn: "Western Canada was

opened after Albert Cheng, Jack Say Yee, Tony Hoy, Stanley Knight and

Henry Yu spent about $1.5 million to buy the seven-acre Shawnigan Lake

Inn and upgrade and equip the facilities for educational purposes."

The

college initially enrolled 50 students from Southeast Asia, mainly Hong

Kong, and 20 from Vancouver Island, with hopes to increase the total

number to a maximum of 122. "Tuition, boarding and related fees are

$9,550 each per academic year — about the highest among B.C.

independent schools." Mr. Cheng was interviewed and he said that there

was a healthy market for providing foreign students with a high-school

education, one recognized by North American universities. I think he

meant, more particularly, our British Columbia universities. The

article also mentioned that Cheng's group is bidding for the former

Strathcona girls' school, being sold by Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation, for use as a second Shawnigan Lake campus.

There

are half a dozen other schools in the province that are receiving, and

a number of them actively recruiting, students from abroad, and

charging substantial fees for a short course which gives the great

majority of these students the equivalent of a grade 12 diploma. I can

just see those who are organizing these schools also going to the

University of

[ Page 8059 ]

British

Columbia, Simon Fraser and the University of Victoria as soon as the

enrolment opportunity occurs at these universities, and making quite

sure as part of their contract to the parents that these young people

are registered at our universities for first-year university. Then

their job is done when these young people have been accepted.

Our

universities basically take our young people on a first-come,

first-served basis. There are many of them who work during the summer

and don't arrive back at the registrar's office until September.

They're not first come; they're definitely not first served. Some of

them, in some disciplines, find that all the openings are taken. These

young people from abroad with their education paid for, often by their

parents, will be getting full value, in this sense at least: they will

have qualified for grade 12 graduation. I wonder whether they're then

registered at the universities as British Columbia students and not

visa students. But in any case, they get into our universities. The

great majority of them are hard workers, they're good students and they

persist. They will continue through at least to their first degree here.

The

numbers at UBC, Simon Fraser and the University of Victoria are now in

the order of 3,000. That's what the universities tell us. If you take

the Canadawide figures and give B.C. only 10 percent, you get a figure

almost double that. I'm wondering why the discrepancy between the 3,000

our universities acknowledge as being visa students and the simply pro

rata 5,000 or 6,000 that....

MR. LAUK: A lot of them became landed immigrants.

MR. DAVIS:

Well, these are visa students. If they become visa students in the five

or six months they're in the pressure-cooker school, maybe they're

legally qualified as landed immigrants, but this is, again, what these

schools are selling abroad. They're not only selling a low-cost

university education and a priority in getting into our universities

due to being Johnny-on-the-spot, but also perhaps Canadian citizenship

— hopefully, in the long run, from their point of view.

MR. LAUK: What's the solution?

MR. DAVIS:

I believe that students who enter this country as visa students — as

non-Canadian nationals and not as landed immigrants, or not with an

intention to stay — should pay cost. They should not pay the 90 percent

subsidized fee — in other words, only 10 percent of the cost which we

charge our own students. That, I believe, is the solution.

One

jurisdiction after another around the world has done this. Worthy

students abroad have a scholarship program. That would at least give

students from lower-income families an opportunity to come to our

country and get an education. These, in the main, are from privileged

families or families that can afford it.

Ontario is jacking

its university fees up from, say, $800 to $10,000 over a couple of

years. The result is that we're going to get more of these people here.

Our schools here who are giving this kind of education and are doing

this kind of marketing abroad will have no problem selling any space

that they can mobilize. That concerns me. I know that this is a new

problem. It has developed over the last couple of years. It is going to

continue to grow as a problem. It is occurring — partly, at least — at

the secondary school level because of these pressure-cooker courses

aimed at our universities.

I am concerned about this letter

from the gentleman in Hong Kong who is concerned about quality of

education in British Columbia, the bad reputation and so on. I know

that some of his concerns are warranted. I would like the minister, if

he would, to comment on how young people coming from outside Canada

with virtually no knowledge of the language can get a grade 12 diploma

in half a year; how they can be accepted by our universities — perhaps

this is not his area — on the same basis as our young people; and

whether or not the quality of education in these pressure-cooker

schools, which are expanding now, is up to the standard which he would

expect to be met by our own schools at home and the standard which our

own students have to meet before they can get into our universities or

into any other educational institution.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I will be very brief on this, because some of it is outside my scope.

First of all, the so-called visa schools are not under the independent

schools legislation. They don't receive or seek funding, and we don't

evaluate them. We have nothing to do with them. Maybe we should, but we

haven't. We have respected the independence of a number of schools that

don't care to come under the umbrella of state aid. We have nothing to

do with them in that regard.

The second thing is that the

visa problem is a federal immigration problem, and even if this

province were to enter into a special agreement with Ottawa to restrict

foreign students it would not be an effectual move, if that was the

objective of the province, because they would simply migrate here from

other provinces that didn't have such agreements. The policy of

granting visas to students who have placements here in so-called visa

schools, as you call them, is a direct federal matter.

The

other side of it is the admission to post-secondary institutions and

whether additional fees or surcharges should be charged. They are

generally not admitted to colleges and institutes. There are some

exceptions in the case of dependants of diplomats, refugees or special

agreements entered into with an international organization or another

country. The problem does occur, as you describe it, at the

universities.

The issue of whether the universities should

charge additional foreign fees, or whether any post-secondary

surcharges on fees should be imposed in this province, is one that my

ministry is presently studying. We have in the past taken the view that

this was not the way to go, but I must say that I am becoming

increasingly concerned as other jurisdictions do it. It is being done

in Ontario and Quebec. It is being done in a number of the states to

the south. It puts additional pressures for numbers on our

universities. My colleague Dr. McGeer is probably the one to address

that to. We are making a study of foreign students and fees and the

implications of surcharges at present.

MS. SANFORD:

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) expressed some concerns

about what was happening with the community colleges and the fact that

they had to cut back. She also expressed the view that these colleges

were very valuable in that it was cheaper for students to be able to

live at home and to attend courses in their own region without having

to travel outside.

I certainly concur in the concerns she

expressed and know that courses are being cut because of the kind of

budget restraints that have been imposed by government. For instance,

at Douglas College all the women's programs have

[ Page 8060 ]

been

eliminated because they don't have enough money to fund them. The

college principal there, Bill Day, has admitted that the program's

cancellation will be damaging to the college and its reputation,

because it has built a reputation on being willing to establish women's

programs whenever they were needed. He also said there would be public

outcry in that particular area with respect to those cuts. But he

indicated that in the long run it would cause the least damage to the

institution if those were the programs that they cut. I think that that

gives some indication of the seriousness of the cuts that the various

colleges have to make because of those budget restraints.

The

other thing is that the students who will be attending either colleges

or universities this fall are going to be faced with huge increases in

fees. The government has cut back on funding and the institutions, in

an attempt to try to save some of the courses and programs, are forced

to raise fees for students attending those universities and colleges,

and at the same time the government cuts back on the amount of money

available for students who get employed in the youth employment

program. So the government, no matter which way you cut it.... They've

done so many things. They've raised all the fees, user charges and

everything you can think of. After they cut the youth employment

program, they reintroduced it with great fanfare. But this year the

students will be working the same length of time and will be earning

less money, even though they're going to face increases in the college

and university tuition fees. I've raised this before. For instance,

students who will be employed through the tourism branch as a result of

the youth employment program are going to be faced with a cut of 11

percent in their income.

Therefore I think the minister

should have a look at the increases that students are facing this year

and see whether or not there is some way those students can be

assisted, because there's very little employment available, and the

employment that is available pays less than it paid last year because

of the cuts in the youth employment program. I would like the

minister's comments on that when he gets up to respond.

Another

issue I want to raise relates specifically to my own constituency. I

have talked to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), education

officials and the Deputy Minister of Finance. It relates to the

deplorable conditions at the Bowser school. This school need replacing.

The Ministry of Education has agreed that it needs replacing. The

school board has done all of its work. The plans are ready to go. The

parents are very concerned about the present situation. To give you an

indication of the deplorable situation at the Bowser Elementary School,

I was informed just today that the custodians who go in to clean the

school after the students have gone find the conditions so deplorable

that they leave the doors of the portable units open for a period of

time before they can get enough courage to go in there. Yet we are

asking children to spend all of their day in facilities as deplorable

as that, and are not in a position, are not willing, or are not

concerned enough to approve the necessary funds for the school which is

already planned, approved and through all the stages.

I've

been informed that a cabinet committee is looking at the priorities for

the construction of facilities, including schools. I'm not sure how

many people are on that cabinet committee. I have been informed that

these cabinet ministers are looking into the problems around the

province. One of the things they're considering when they are awarding

funds for the construction of various facilities, including schools, is

the level of employment in that area. It's not just whether the school

is deplorable or whether the situation is such that the custodians

won't even go into the building until it's been aired out, but it's the

level of employment they're looking at in that particular area before

they decide whether to approve construction of that building.

The

school board is very angry about this. They've tried to meet with the

minister and have not received a date for a meeting. The parents are

very angry. They get together in the evenings in order to write letters

of protest to the government, because they do not feel their children

should be in facilities as inadequate as that Bowser school.

There's

a possibility that the Ministry of Health may be involved in closing

that school down. I know the school board is now considering going

through the Ministry of Health in order to have testing done, including

testing of the sewerage facilities in the Bowser area, with the hope

that the Ministry of Health might close the school down so the

government is forced to build a new school. That's a shocking

situation. I don't know how the minister can possibly expect students

to continue or obtain an education in a facility like that.

There

is one other point I would like to raise with the minister. It's now a

year since Richmond School District closed down 70 portable classrooms

because of the formaldehyde gas levels. Another two, I think, were

closed down by Penticton School District. Just last week 17 of the 28

portables in School District 71 in the Courtenay area were closed

because of formaldehyde gas levels. I would really like the minister to

explain to this House why he hasn't ensured that every one of the

1,600, I think they are, portables is tested for formaldehyde gas. I

realize some of them are old and may not have the formaldehyde gas

problem, because it's relatively new — within the last five or six

years. The students attending classes in those portables are

complaining of headaches, sore eyes, sore throats, dry cough, lack of

concentration, sleeplessness — just a host of symptoms occur when

students are forced to remain in a portable classroom for the number of

hours that they attend school. The minister has interfered with

decision-making at the local level on so many issues; yet the only

thing he has done is send out a memo to the school boards suggesting

that it might be an idea to have these portables tested. That's not

good enough, Mr. Chairman. I think the health of the kids of this

province requires more than that from the minister. I think that the

minister should undertake to test those portables through the Ministry

of Education, and not leave it up to the school districts, based on a

memo suggesting that it might be a good idea, and that the Ministry of

Education should assume the cost of testing those units. School boards

are going to be reluctant, with the kind of cutbacks they've had to

make, to undertake any additional expenditures. Within District 71

they've already spent $6,000 on the testing of those units.

Not

only that, but there is the additional problem that has arisen with

respect to alternative facilities and with respect to the lease itself.

The lease has been signed. What happens? Do they continue paying the

company that they've leased these portables from, even though the

Health ministry has closed down the portables? What sort of legal

problems are there on this? Should the board continue paying? They are

not acceptable as portable classrooms. It's about $10,000 a month for

School District 71 alone to pay the rent on those portable classrooms.

I'd appreciate the minister's comments.

[ Page 8061 ]

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments in a couple of different

areas — perhaps as suggestions to the minister and the ministry.

Whether they're possible situations for response at this time I'm not

sure. But before I do that, I'd just like to thank the minister and his

ministry for their recognition of the special problems in the smaller

communities that had a very high industrial tax base, and for their

swift action in alleviating those problems where so much of the local

tax base was industrial that even the small percentage left of the

total school budget meant a severe tax increase. The ministry responded

with a third level grant to cap those tax increases at 7 percent.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

It's

a bit ironic that the opposition critic, the first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber), wrote that letter to, I believe, all the newspapers in

the province. It's a bit ironic that the Fort Nelson News ,

where his letter appeared saying that the increase in residential

school taxes in Fort Nelson was 52.9 percent, came up with an increase

of about 18 percent in residential taxes, and since this total school

budget has gone up by almost 17 percent it was fairly well in line. I

don't know where the 52.9 percent figure came from. It is also

interesting that in that letter he said the average residential school

tax increase would be 32 percent. In School District 60, the other

district in my own constituency, the tax increase was some 3 mills, or

about 6 percent. It is unfortunate that some of the fears were created

by presumably factual letters by the opposition critic on education.

However, I guess those things happen in the field of politics.

would like to suggest one thing. Sometimes it is a bit risky to speak

against motherhood issues, but despite all the suggestions about what

more the education system should include and what more the schools

should provide, I think government, through its various agencies, is

now far too involved in the personal lives of the citizens of this

province and country. Certainly it is good politics, whenever society

finds a problem, to agree to let the schools handle it. In a sense, it

is a chicken-and-egg situation, where we try to provide, through the

agencies of society — local governments and provincial governments —

for all the needs of our citizens. In turn, our citizens are encouraged

to ask the government to provide everything that they see as a need.

For

instance, we have had suggestions that there should be far more

family-life training in the schools, and that may well be true.

However, I believe this idea stems from the fact that we, as a society

and as parents, like to absolve ourselves of the responsibility of

training our own young people. "Let the schools do it," is the cry that

comes out. There has been a lot of discussion about why schools aren't

doing more, about what they are and aren't doing, but I suggest that

you cannot get involved in sex education in the schools without the

question of values. I have been there. I have approved programs in my

own school at the junior secondary level and at the elementary level,

and I have seen some of these programs. I have seen the programs

dealing with birth control and I suggest that this immediately implies

a value in our society. In effect, those programs are saying that since

you are going to start indulging in sexual activity at a very early

age, we must therefore take the responsibility of teaching you how not

to get burned in the process. Immediately, values are inculcated. I am

also a parent. I have had three young children who, of course, turned

into teenagers, and they are now adults. Often, even as a school

principal, I had to ask myself this question: when sex education or

family-life skills are taught, which one of these teachers, according

to the values that particular person possesses would I want to teach my

own children? What values would they be consciously or unconsciously

inculcating in my own children? I tried to do it in terms of other

children from that point of view.

There could be a whole

debate, really, on sex education or family-life education in the

schools. I recognize that society demands it, that schools probably

have to respond to society demands, but I think we have to be careful.

We cannot teach sex education objectively. That is perhaps a personal

point of view. I think values are involved. Mind you, values are

involved in much of what is taught in the schools.

We have

tried to get the schools to do the job training of our young people and

we've made a lot of progress. I suppose it's easy enough for people who

are not directly involved in the timetabling or programming of

students, classes and teachers to believe that if we need to spend more

time on teaching job skills, then we should spend more time on it.

People don't realize that this obviously means less time must be spent

on something else. I sometimes question whether the schools are really

that well equipped to do a lot of the training that we demand of them.

We make some impossible demands on our school system and then we

criticize it for falling short of those ideals. It has been mentioned

that child care should be included in the school system. I sometimes

wonder why it is that it should be the responsibilities of the publicly

funded schools to provide child care. Should it not be the

responsibility of parents? If those parents are not in a position to

provide it then perhaps it should be some other agencies. But surely

the schools should not provide — probably in its crudest term —

babysitting. That should not be their function. I think other agencies

can do it much better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. BRUMMET:

Because schools are there, theoretically at least, to do the job that

they can do best. That job can be training in the fundamental skills,

communication skills, mathematical skills, culture, art, and that sort

of thing. Schools cannot and should not be all-encompassing in trying

to deal with all facets of our lives, unless we as a society want to

personally abandon our responsibility for the upbringing of our young

and say: "Let government take it over." If we want to do that, then I

think we have to be prepared to pay the bills. If the taxpayers really

want our children to be raised from cradle to grave by government, then

there's going to be a big bill for that. Personally I'm frightened by

that prospect, because the schools can influence the thinking and the

cultural values. They're a very potent force, when we turn over our

children from cradle to grave to government. That is very evident in

some societies where the government, in effect, becomes the total force

in people's lives, in deciding what is good and what is not as good,

and that frightens me. I think people should decide those things and

should let their government run the other affairs that they are more

capable of, but certainly they should not decide our values.

I'd

like to suggest, in keeping with this, that in recent years we have put

a lot more funding and more programs into our schools. This is not just

in British Columbia or in Canada; it's in North America. I can't help

sometimes but think about what progress we have made in that sense. For

instance. I mentioned the family life education program. A

[ Page 8062 ]

great

deal more has been done than when I first started in the educational

system, yet we have more teenage pregnancies and we have more troubled

teenagers. I know it's easy enough to say that if we didn't deal with

them then we'd have an even worse situation. I'm not convinced. I've

read quite a bit about the Swedish example, which has done a great deal

to provide almost anything and everything that the young people need,

yet their problems with teenage pregnancies, abortions, etc., are

probably much greater than our own. We have put a lot more money into

programs for reading, arithmetic, etc., and I don't know that those

skills have improved that much.

I'm quite willing to admit

that pupils have a much broader education in this day and age than they

had years ago. But on the basis of some of the fundamental skills.... I

think part of that has been that we have assumed that all we have to do

is tinker sufficiently with our educational system to make it a little

more efficient, and then we can inculcate all the skills into every

single person. I think we can teach life skills to every young person,

regardless of mental ability, or ratings, or whatever the case may be.

But we've tried to translate that.... If we only do it a little better,

we will get everybody to be able to handle university courses; and in

doing so, in trying to get that many more people further up the

educational ladder, we have, in effect, brought the lowest common

denominator down. If you're trying to get everybody through school, you

really do have to bring down the passing level, if you like, in order

to get everybody through. Of course, the schools have perpetrated the

feeling that you have to get a university degree to amount to

something. I really feel that in some cases this has done a disservice

to our young people.

As I see it, the universities

originally responded to the needs of people, to their curiosity and to

their commitment to learn from people who were more knowledgeable than

themselves. Unfortunately, I think that that got twisted around a bit

as society got more prosperous and as the great American dream spread —

that anybody can be up there at the top. I think the emphasis has been

on getting that certain type of certificate, and in order to make that

certificate possible, we've had to structure and restructure courses so

that more and more people could get that certificate.

Unfortunately,

the real and true commitment to learning is no longer what it was. At

one time when people went on to university it was for the learning, and

the degree was a sign of that higher learning, but I don't think the

commitment can be there when we try to put 85 percent or 100 percent

through university. I know I can be accused of being an elitist, but

you can't make a sprinter out of every athlete and you can't make a

mathematician out of every student. I think we have to accept that. You

can teach mathematics to every student and you can teach running to

every student, but you cannot make exceptional people of all of them in

the various fields.

We've succumbed to the belief that

learning takes place best in a highly structured system. We've tried to

improve the structure in education, and I'm not sure that that has done

any more than develop a tighter system where people then have to fit

the system rather than learning what people want and responding to

their curiosity and to their needs.

I think we've reached a point where we feel that learning takes place best

when we have highly institutionalized instructors — instructors who sometimes

went from school to higher training and then to teaching in a particular field

without ever having actually functioned in that field. Yet what counts in the

higher education is the more letters you get after your name. So we have these

people who, of course, need a lot of time off in order to improve themselves,

and we have a very elaborate and unnecessarily expensive system that has developed.

In a sense, our whole society, not just in education, has come to believe that

quality comes with higher prices. It may be true in some instances; I don't

think it's necessarily true in human relationships. Education is probably

one of the more formalized levels of human relationships.

conclusion on that particular area, I think there's sort of a double

reason for the perpetuation of our system and the expansion and the

growth of our system in that as parents and members of society we've

learned to absolve ourselves of our individual responsibilities, one to

another, and we have asked society to take over those personal

responsibilities. If we want that, then I think that as politicians we

have to be honest with people and tell them that when we do that it's

going to cost us a great deal.

I think that we have many

people in the academic world who actually believe that this is the best

way to go because that is how they got there. In other words, they

believe that the formalized institution is the best way that education

can happen, and they have the sincere belief that it can be done better

this way and that they can do it better. Of course, I would think that

in some cases there's a vested interest in job security, because if you

allow people to learn on their own, then that means less jobs.

Before

I sit down I'd like to comment briefly on what I see as the community

colleges system in this province, which I think was a fantastic system.

I was in the educational field before the community colleges came and

I've seen a great deal of what they have brought to the communities. As

I see it, the original intent of the community college system was to

serve the needs of the community. I am a bit afraid that it has almost

swung around so that the community must now serve the needs of the

institution. I recognize that that is perhaps an overstatement to make

a point. But we have structured and systematized that system. I don't

know that we are responding that directly now to community needs.

Certainly

there is a community need for university-type education closer to home,

and that is a legitimate cause, but the funding for community colleges

certainly favours full-time instruction. In those communities we have

an awful lot of people who would love to both work and go to school,

but the funding system, the powers that be that make those decisions,

more or less make it so that there is much more funding available, the

cost is cheaper and support is much greater if people will switch to a

full-time day program.

Here is just one example that I think

could happen. I think there would be many employees and employers who

would be best served in a community if people could work four days and

provide the talents that their employers need and then take one day to

go to school. As far as the instructors, equipment or facilities are

concerned, all you have to do is recognize now that most instructors

have an hour of preparation time for every hour that they teach, so in

effect they are only instructing half-time. If they instructed one day

and had the next day off, that would mean that a group could come in

for a full workday Monday — the same as they work on the job — and,

say, again on Wednesday, and perhaps on Friday. I think that it could

serve a need without the expense of assisting people to attend these

full-time courses, or subsidizing them, when in effect they could be

paying their own way.

I think we are doing education in

these systems the expensive way. I would like to suggest that there is

a great need for evening courses, weekend courses, one-day-a-week

[ Page 8063 ]

courses

or a variety of workshops. The evening courses, again, allow people to

work and allow people to take training. Unfortunately, we have gotten

caught in that straitjacket of saying that if you want to take a typing

course you must take so many hours, and then you get a certificate.

There are many people who can type now — word processors are coming in

— who would love to take evening courses in word processing. One of the

things that blocks that is that the full-time instructors have the

power in the community colleges. If a course is in their field, they

don't want anyone else to teach it. They want to teach it at overtime

rates in the evening. I think that could be rescheduled so that they

don't have to put in more hours a week but the hours could be flexible

in order to serve the needs of the community. Or if they are teaching

full-time in the daytime, then perhaps there would be no problem in

having someone teach at regular rates in the evening. Those people are

available.

There is a fantastic demand in the communities

for the workshop type of courses. These workshops can cater, for

instance, to nurses in a community. They can cater to bookkeepers

upgrading. They could cater to mechanics, where most of the employers

or employees, being fully employed, would be quite willing to pay the

fee. These are self-funding courses, and all it would take is one

coordinator — or one programmer, as they call them — to organize these

courses and pay their own way. There is a great demand for them.

could give you an endless list, really, of the things that could happen

in the communities. There are just a few that I have listed here. There

is computer training. Many people don't want to become fully trained

computer operators but both they and their employers would benefit from

their knowing a little more about computers. If they then took an

interest, by all means carry on into a full-time course. A great deal

could be done in two nights a week for six weeks. I know that some of

this is happening, and it has happened under the old night-school

program, but I also know that the funding discourages that type of

programming, and the organized system tends to discourage it. But there

marketing skills, mechanics, reading-upgrading — many people would love

to take speed-reading — electrician, first aid, job safety and welding.

I know it can be said that a great deal of this is now happening in the

community colleges. I'm concerned that as restraint comes in too much

of the emphasis is to maintain the full-time courses because of the

no-release clauses of some of the instructors, and the funding is taken

away from community services. In budgeting the increases — just to use

a couple of examples — for academic it's 8.9 percent, for vocational

it's 13.2 percent — this is for full-time courses, so it's about a 10

percent average increase — and for community services, which cover the

night-school courses and so on, it's zero. I'm concerned about it. The

increase in administration was almost 9 percent. What's happening is

that many courses that would not need to be cut are being cut simply

because the system, to put it in its bluntest terms, has become

paramount. We now cater far too much to the system, not just in our

post-secondary but also in our secondary schools.

What I'd

like to suggest is that we really take a look at what we're doing — how

the colleges are serving the community needs — that we really try to

break out of our straitjacket, that we become more flexible and that we

do everything we can to change this system.

I'd like to

speak either later or in the Ministry of Labour debate on the

work-skills training program. I think we could do a great deal there.

It's much cheaper and much better than catering to the system, or

having the system form the mould to which all the programming has to

fit. I'd like the minister to consider that. As I mentioned at the

beginning, I don't know whether it's possible to respond, because I

didn't ask that many questions. I'd like it to be some food for

thought. Maybe we've got to really look at serving the real needs of

the communities, rather than allowing the system to be paramount.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'd like to thank the member for a number of very thoughtful and knowledgeable comments on a variety of subjects.

the last subject of the community colleges serving the real needs of

the community — and I include in the community not just the local

community but also the province — that is precisely one of the things

we are reviewing in the act and in the mission statement on colleges

and institutes. It's one on which I think we need to hear more. Some of

the programs that you mentioned you're concerned about, that are having

difficulties getting funding, are probably having those difficulties

because of the structuring of some contracts that were traditionally

entered into with instructors who may not now fit the needs of

part-time students and students who want to take adult basic or

vocational training in the evenings. I think those problems are

widespread throughout the post-secondary system. Some individual

college boards are addressing them very well and others have not done

so yet.

I thank you for those comments and your other

comments about universities and the role of the school. I think I said

in my introductory remarks that schooling cannot look after all the

educational needs of children from the cradle to the grave. I don't

think anyone expected it to, but we are going to try to define what the

duty of the school is as opposed to the lifetime goals of education,

which are shared.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who

patiently awaited my response to her, mentioned the funding of womens

access programs in some of the institutions. It is true that some have

not continued with women's access programs, even though we provided

two-thirds of the costs of those programs in the first year and a half

and the second year — that would be this year. I think some of them

have made some reductions in womens access programs. I tried to put a

clear priority on those. But if an institution makes that judgment,

it's difficult to do anything about that judgment, because they do have

the right to decide what programs they're going to change.

You

mentioned the plight of students with the job situation and then the

tuition fees. I've been looking quite closely at proposed tuition fee

increases this year, and I do not believe that tuition fee increases

are going to be major. There certainly will be some across the system,

but I think that the average increases are somewhere between about 15

percent and 25 percent. Most of the fees in the colleges have been low.

The average fees in the college system will still probably be about

$400 for the two semesters — a pretty good bargain when you consider

that there haven't been major changes in those fees in a number of

institutions until the last year or so.

I recognize, though,

that we certainly have a responsibility to try to provide additional

student aid. The total budget for student aid is up by about 12.6

percent over last year; the largest increases will be in the student

assistance

[ Page 8064 ]

program,

where the living allowances will be between 12 percent and 14 percent,

depending on the category. There will be an increase, we believe, in

the number of applications this year, because of job opportunities.

Whether we'll have the funds to take care of all of that or not — I'm

hopeful that we will — we have budgeted for an increase in the number

of applications; I'm sure we're going to have an increase.

your remarks you also mentioned your concern about Bowser school.

Bowser school was not funded for construction this year in the capital

program, but it was funded for design — $150,000. That, as you know, is

in a district which has an increased enrolment, but the Bowser area

does not. This year we approved a major capital project at French Creek

for the new elementary-secondary school — $3.1 million. That was a very

major expenditure in that district, and it was not possible to provide

from the capital funds available the total funds for the construction

of Bowser school. But we did make a commitment and provided funds for

design, so that is on the way.

You also mentioned urea

formaldehyde. I thank you for bringing to the attention of the House

the problem in Courtenay, which I was aware of and which my ministry

has been following. I think that we've done a little more than sending

out a memorandum to school districts. We certainly have recommended

testing and agencies to do the testing, and we have also made it very

clear that the cost of testing and remedial action as well will be paid

out of the approved capital-sharing fund. I will endeavour at a later

time, I think, to bring back to the House a statement on urea

formaldehyde generally across the province and to speak of it

generally, as opposed to just in your district. Because as you know,

it's been a problem in other districts — Richmond in particular. In

many cases the problem has been a curable one; in some cases it wasn't.

Also, some differences have arisen between medical health officers as

to the standard, and some medical health officers have felt that the

standard was not the correct one, but that a lower standard should be

the standard of danger. I'm quite aware that in Courtenay there were a

number of symptoms on the part of students for quite a period of time

before the medical health officer there finally took action.

don't think it would be proper for me to try to answer the lease

questions, but I'm sure the board can get advice on that as to what

they should do in respect to the payments. I will endeavour to give you

a further statement a little later in the session on the urea

formaldehyde situation across the entire province; I think it's that

important.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it's not just

the urea formaldehyde which is contained in insulation; it's the

formaldehyde which is used in the glues and so on. It's not just urea

that we're concerned with here; in fact, in most cases I don't think it

is.

Mr. Chairman, the $150,000 which has been set aside for

Bowser school for design and planning — as I understand it, the

minister has said for this year.... I fail to understand how that money

is going to be spent, because the design is ready; it's been approved

through the ministry. They are completely finished with the design; it

went forward to Treasury Board a long time ago, and it's been sitting

at Treasury Board for approval. In order to keep the project on stream

— I am told, through your ministry — they had to come up with this

$150,000, which they have designated for design and planning. The board

would like to know how they can spend that $150,000. The design is

done, the approval has not been forthcoming but the $150,000 has been

allotted to them. Can they spend that on the work on the grounds? Can

they do site preparation? What can they do with that $150,000, since

the design is ready?

HON. MR. SMITH: The member is

not completely correct on that, because the size of the school proposed

was larger than what was required, because of declining enrolment. It

has to be redesigned. Whether all that money is required or not I can't

say. If they do the redesigning and they wish to make application for

some site money, they can do so later this year.

MS. SANFORD:

With respect, the school board was informed just this last week that

their enrolment projections were not out of whack, the projections are

right on, and the design, which has been accepted, is not going to have

to be redone. Initially they thought they would have to reduce the size

of the activity room or make some other adjustments, but the school

board has been informed that there is no need to make any alterations

in that initial design, because the projections are correct. I was

informed of that this morning.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member's understanding of this and mine differ. I will go back and examine it and talk to her later.

MR. STUPICH:

Concerns have been raised about — I've forgotten how the minister

phrased it now — his belief that education had to be supported in this

period and the government's conviction that that is the case, yet

concerns have been raised about the extent to which government is not

supporting education. Some of this has been widely circulated. I would

like to read first from a telegram from Emily Carr College:

IN TIMES OF DEEP

RECESSION AND HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT, IT IS OF THE MOST VITAL IMPORTANCE

THAT EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS ARE EMPHASIZED AND PROMOTED FOR OUR USE, NOT

ONLY IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING BUT ALSO IN THE LIFE-ENHANCING CREATIVE OR

CULTURAL AWARENESS THAT THIS COLLEGE IS ENDEAVOURING TO FULFIL.

had an opportunity to spend some time at Malaspina College, and the

same concern was expressed to me at that time: in times of recession

and unemployment it is particularly important that the educational

opportunities be presented as widely as they can be. When people are

unemployed they have time to attend educational institutes like

Malaspina College, to upgrade themselves, or perhaps even to learn

things that are not going to help them in their careers but that will

help them live as citizens in our community. That concern was expressed

in Malaspina College by staff people, by instructors and by the

president. I am not satisfied that the government has really met that

concern in the programs announced by the minister to date.

letter from someone from Gibsons expresses her personal concern as the

mother of a severely handicapped child; she is concerned about what is

going to happen for the special needs of that child. There is another

letter from my own constituency, from the Davis Bay Elementary School

parents who are concerned about the proposed budget cuts. I know that

it is the Nanaimo School Board that has to deal with the budget, but it

is limited by the funding available from the provincial government.

[ Page 8065 ]

"We feel that our children are our most important resource

for the future, as they will be the adult population in British Columbia in

just a few years. If we cut back in their education now, how can we expect them

to be well-rounded adults? There are many young children in our school system

with special needs such as speech, hearing and emotional problems, to name a

few. We feel that the government should be aware that if we cut back on special

programs to help these children adjust to or overcome the problems while they

are young, these are the children who may not develop enough life skills to

become independent citizens."

That concern has been expressed to me by many people in the community. If there

have to be cutbacks, so be it, but there should not be cutbacks in the funding

for special-needs children. I feel that very strongly.

The

minister said in his opening remarks that the amount of money provided

in these estimates shows the government's commitment to education. He

pointed out that it is a 12 percent increase. Actually the increase is

6 percent. If you include the $54.9 million employment development

account program — I am not sure that that should be included: I want to

ask the minister something about that — it then works out to just

under an 11 percent increase, not the 12 percent that he mentioned. At

least, that is that way I calculate it. It is just under 11 percent if

you include that $54.9 million program. Has that $54.9 million program

been allocated? What decisions have been made? Has a portion of the

$54.9 million, for example, been allocated to Malaspina College'? If

so, how much? With respect to the so-called 12 percent increase, in the

case of post-secondary colleges, without that special program....

Reading

from the estimates before us now, I know there's a reference to the

$54.9 million, but it's not in the estimates. Without those estimates

the amount of money for post-secondary colleges and institutes is

actually down 4 percent from last year. That's the figure they have to

work with up to this point, and that means they do have to cut down on

programs. They have to cut down on policies such as the one talked

about by my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

When

Malaspina College was first being dreamed of, when the plebiscite was

first being planned, it was announced that they were going to do what

the minister said he wanted to do, which was to reduce the physical

barriers to education with respect to community colleges. In the case

of Malaspina College, when they got it going they did reduce the

physical barriers by making an allowance available to those students

who were commuting so that their cost of attending college at Malaspina

was equalized as much as possible with the cost of people who actually

lived in the community. For people who lived beyond commuting distance

there was an additional allowance to make up for their living costs in

a community away from home.

Once again, insofar as was

possible, it was to do what the minister said he wanted to do, and that

was to reduce the physical barriers to attending that particular

regional college. I think that's a great idea. It's an idea that I

supported publicly in the community and campaigned with them to see

that the plebiscite passed, and I campaigned with them further to try

to widen Malaspina College's area. When we were presenting the idea of

starting Malaspina College in the various communities, one of the

things that persuaded the communities away from Nanaimo to join in was

that Malaspina College was going to reduce the physical barrier to

attending that particular college. Now because of budget constraints

Malaspina College is having to drop that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now they do have to travel.

MR. STUPICH:

They still have to travel. They accept it, as they are part of the

college district. My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat talked about

people who travel from Cowichan Lake. It's also other people in the

Malaspina College district who are having to travel, who are having to

board away from home, and there now is that physical barrier. It is

perhaps more difficult now than when Malaspina College was envisioned

to find the funds to live in a community away from home. In any case,

the proposed spending for post-secondary colleges is down by 4 percent.

The

funding for public schools education is up by only 9.6 percent. Mr.

Chairman, that's a cutback. When they know that the salaries

alone are going up by some 15 to 17 percent, when they know that the

cost of all of the supplies, all of the utilities has gone up

by 20 to 30 percent, there's no way of looking at a 9.6 percent

increase, other than to say that that is a cutback.

Because

the minister is obliged to cut back in the funding for public schools

education we are finding that school boards are having to do things

such as reduce the opportunities for those students with special needs

to improve their education. In spite of what the minister told us about

their commitment to education, the figures show that there just isn't

that commitment. The one area that has gone up 12 percent, Mr.

Chairman, and we'll have more to say about this later, is spending in

the minister's office. Perhaps that in itself shows the commitment of

this government to delivering services. When it comes to the minister's

office expense they go the full 12 percent; when it comes to delivering

the services, in every instance the figures are less.

With

respect to Malaspina College, depending upon what the minister has to

say about the employment development account, there will be more than

12 percent in that one area. It will be about 15 percent. Even that 15

percent increase, when one considers the rate at which the costs of

delivering the service have gone up — and it's too late to change that;

we can't roll the clock back.... Even the Premier in his

announcement said he had no intention of rolling the clock back on

salary increases that had already been committed. So the 15 percent, in

the event that it is the figure, is still a cutback in terms of college

instruction.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I have

about 12 questions to the minister. It's good to see his able deputy in

the House again. The first question to the minister is about a

situation that arose about three weeks ago and was brought to the

minister's attention concerning the principal situation in Stewart.

There was a problem in which the one principal had two teaching

assignments in both the elementary and high school. It caused a bit of

controversy in the community. I don't know whether it has been resolved

yet, but there was talk that there would have to be a change in the

School Act to allow one principal to teach in two different schools. I

would like to hear what the minister has to say about the Stewart

situation.

The second question is about the use of the Provincial Museum for lectures. Presently the Provincial Museum is

[ Page 8066 ]

doing

a number of field studies in the north, and they're working under very

limited travel budgets. I was wondering if some type of program could

be used in which the ministry stays in contact with the Provincial

Museum. They're doing historical digs, working on wildlife.... I

was talking with some individuals who were doing this work in the

north. They said they would be welcome to go into the schools and have

this discussion with children and show exactly what's happening, but

they are finding out that there could be some problems with the

ministry in setting up some kind of arrangement. I would like the

minister to look into it, if possible. It deals with very limited

amounts of transportation fees. If we have experts in the north or in

rural areas, they can look into where exactly these Provincial Museum

people are, so they can bring the children on site or bring

specimens....

The third question is about playing

fields. A number of times over the years I have raised this issue

concerning the improvement of playing fields in the north, but we won't

dwell too long on that. I'd like to state to the minister that when

you're dealing in rural areas, there are very limited spaces for

playing fields. When they see money spent on football stadiums in

Vancouver, it's of concern to parents who live in small communities,

who find out that there aren't enough flat areas for children to play

in. I was just wondering if the ministry is undertaking any new

programs to develop playing fields in rural areas, particularly in the

north.

The fourth question is about the native-language

program. I haven't seen any new proposals or new programs coming out of

the ministry. Could the minister elaborate on whether there are any new

native-language programs being devised for the predominantly native

communities, for which the ministry would finance the majority of the

funding, to provide native-language programs in the school itself like

the excellent New Aiyansh program.

The fifth issue concerns

the textbook exchange. When I was teaching, just three short years ago,

there was quite an overrun of books, with the school reordering year

after year. You'd come into a classroom, and what was ordered one year

would be reordered the next year. This cost quite a bit of money. I

know the ministry was bringing in programs in the last two years to cut

down on this textbook exchange. What new programs or new methods of

scrutiny is the ministry using to cut back on districts ordering the

same books time after time — perfectly good books that weren't even

used in the classroom? Sometimes in rural areas teachers would try to

get a little bit extra and would order texts over and over again.

The

sixth question concerns budget cuts in the districts. The BCTF

newsletter asked: what was the budget cut in your district? In Nishga

it was $195 per pupil, the second-highest cutback in the province; in

Stikine, district 87, it was $144 per pupil, the fourth-highest

cutback; and the third school district, a sub-local of Terrace,

district 88, had a cutback of $136, sixth-highest. I'd like to know

whether or not the minister agrees with these figures, and what his

position is on these cutbacks. If he agrees with these figures — I'm

sure BCTF would come up with the appropriate figures — why are the

three northernmost schools in this province at the top of the list of

schools being cut back? I know there is a problem with the Nishga; $195

might be misleading because of the transfer payments, if I'm not

mistaken, concerning the federal programs. I'm concerned about the $144

cutback per pupil in the Stikine district and the $136 per pupil

cutback in Terrace district.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

seventh question concerns work-related programs. I know there is often

the problem in rural areas, particularly in high schools, of work

experience. Has the ministry approached any government agency in the

smaller communities for the exchange of work-related programs?

Specifically, I'm looking at the situation where a child in high school

might desire to get into heavy mechanics. Many rural school districts,

particularly district 87, always have a Highways camp in the community.

What type of programs is the ministry looking at for children and young

adults who would like to get into heavy mechanics to be able to use a

government agency like a Highways maintenance camp to be able to learn

some type of training?

The eighth question is on travel

assistance for children. I know that year after year it's difficult for

children who live in rural parts of this province to get the funding to

enable them to come down to Vancouver and Victoria. School districts

are finding, with the restraint on their budgets, that it's becoming

more and more difficult for students to come south. I'm just wondering

what the ministry is looking at to encourage and put in more funding

for travel assistance for children. I know that when a class is going

to put on a program to come down south, they have a bake sale and a car

wash. A suggestion to the ministry is that maybe the minister could

change the priorities so that the children would be able to have the

funding if they wanted to come down to Vancouver and Victoria and see

their part of the government and, if the ministers of this government

wanted to travel around this province, they would have to hold a bake

sale or a car wash first to get the funding.

The ninth

question is on the teachers' program, particularly in the universities

and colleges. Has the ministry started a prerequisite for teachers who

are going into northern and rural areas to take a native or northern

program? This is of immense value, because teachers who come up into

the north for a year or two years are having difficulty adjusting to

rural areas in the north. I'm wondering if the ministry has started any

type of a program in teacher training whereby it would be a

prerequisite for teachers to take some type of northern or native

program before they move into the north.

The tenth question

is on post-secondary colleges and institutes. Last year the figure was

$10 million more than this year. I'm wondering why we have a cutback of

$10 million in post-secondary colleges and institutes.

The

eleventh question is on transfer payments to the province from the

federal government, particularly for the first citizens of this

province. I think the figure right now is about $2,400 per student, if

I'm not mistaken. Maybe the minister could clarify that aspect. It

works out to about $2,400 per student that the federal government pays

to the province for every native student in this province. I have a

number of questions in this regard. First, how much money was

transferred last year from Ottawa to the province by the DIA for the

first citizens of this province? Secondly, where does the money go to?

Does it necessarily go into general revenue, or does it go right into

the ministry's estimates? The third question in this regard is: can

this money be allocated, particularly for a school district like School

District 87, to have a good percentage of this money — the transfer of

payments from the federal government — go right to the school district

itself instead of going into general revenue in Victoria?

[ Page 8067 ]

The

twelfth question is on the cutbacks that we've seen in this budget this

year. We see school programs down by $200,000 and teacher services down

by $300,000 — an approximately 38 percent decrease from last year. Why

such a cut in teacher services for this year? Grants to reduce local

school taxes down by $1 million — I'm wondering why that.

Post-secondary management down by S100,000 from last year, and this

particular program includes the student loans and the scholarships —

I'm wondering why this program is down by $100,000.

The last

question is in regard to independent schools. We've seen that one of

the biggest increases in the ministry's budget, percentage-wise, is

going to private schools. Mr. Chairman, the question I pose to the

minister is: while we are cutting back on certain programs to the

public schools, four of which I've just gone through in the last few

minutes, why are we dramatically increasing the grant of taxpayers'

dollars to private schools?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against it?

MR. PASSARELL:

I certainly am, Mr. Minister. We're cutting back in public schools and

we're encouraging sending more money to private schools. Maybe I'm not

as fortunate as the minister for South Peace River who has many private

schools in his riding, but I know that up in the north there are very

few private schools — almost none. Parents send their children to

public schools in the north, not to private schools, and they'd like to

see their tax dollars go to public schools, Mr. Minister for South

Peace.

Those are thirteen or fourteen questions I raise to the minister, and I would like his response to them.

HON. MR. SMITH:

First of all, I'll deal with some of the matters raised by the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He's quite correct that the $54.9 million in

the employment development fund is money that was allocated to the

councils in the normal way, but it was shown in that fund. On first

reading of those estimates, it was a bit confusing to see those figures

on grants, and then you had to go back to that fund to find out that

the funding had indeed not gone down but had gone up basically 12

percent when you add the two together. That money has been allocated to

the occupational training council, which in turn has proposed the

allocations to the various colleges, including Malaspina. With the

requested additional funding, Malaspina's total allocations came to

about an 11 percent lift over last year's budget, when you consider

what is called the RACs.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said less.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, lift. They are all lifts. None are less.

Another

figure you were dealing with was the school district grant. Several

amounts of money make up that global amount. When I said the grants

were up 12 percent, I meant the amount that represented what was

previously the direct grants to school districts was up 12 percent.

Another amount in that vote, some $87.9 million, includes a lot of

other items, such as debt servicing, ICBC and directly funded programs.

The amount we used to allocate for direct grants to districts went up

from $428.5 million in the previous fiscal year to $479.9 million this

year. That is up 12 percent. I am sorry if my statement didn't seem

clear on his perusal of the estimate; that is my fault and not his.

will try to deal with some of the questions from the member for Atlin.

I don't propose to deal with them all because there was quite a string

of them. I will have to get back to him on some of them, privately or

else on the order paper.

The principal situation at Stewart

is still not resolved. I sent an official there from my ministry to try

to bring about a resolution. The position I have taken is that the

decision to hire a second principal is entirely the decision of the

local school board. Given the way in which they have organized those

two schools, since both have more than ten teachers, they are required,

as the member knows, to have a principal for each. If the board decides

it wishes to endeavour to reorganize them into a combined school, that

would be the board's prerogative; it's not for me to tell them to do

that. It's not for me to tell them how they should organize their

schools in Stewart. They have a trustee from Stewart and the board

represents the whole district. The board must make those decisions;

those decisions should not be made in Victoria. That is the position I

have taken.

I will look at his suggestion on the use of the

museums and the implications of funding for that. His comments on

playgrounds are valid, I think. We have to recognize that we need to

spend more money on playgrounds in the north and the interior. There is

about $14 million in the capital budget this year for site development.

That is not as much as last year, but more than the year before. I have

tried to ensure that the priorities of that funding go to parts of the

province where weather is a real problem. and that the money is given a

higher priority in the northern and interior parts.

The

native programs that he was urging are under the special education

branch. They have increased in funding. He also made an interesting

suggestion that it should be a prerequisite for teachers who go into

the north to take some training in Indian education. I have gone so far

as to suggest that the universities should require a course on special

education of everyone in their teacher training program, and I consider

Indian education a part of special education. UVic does require a

course in special education. None of the university faculties requires

courses in Indian education but, as you know, they are offered. I think

you certainly could make a very good case that somebody going into the

north should have a familiarity with native education. We are

instituting a new internship year in education on a pilot project

basis. I think that is something that could well be considered in that

internship pilot when it starts.

I think the textbook system

is working better now than it was in the past under the credit

allocation system. We are not having too many of the examples that he

gave which used to occur in the past.

On the budget cuts in

Nishga, Nishga District, as you know, has a very high per-pupil cost.

After the budgets were calculated, the cost per pupil as a result of

the restraint program — not one year over the other, but the reduction

in the budget that restraint brought about — brought the per pupil cost

from $6,575 to $6,381. That is not a huge reduction in percentage

terms. although it does appear to be large in dollar terms, because the

average per-pupil cost across this province is about $3,300.

think I would prefer to answer the question on the Indian Affairs

grants, to take that and give him a proper answer directly as to how it

works. It is certainly my understanding

[ Page 8068 ]

that the grants go directly to the districts on a shareable basis, but I'll give him an answer on that.

The

suggestions on travel expenses and particularly the suggestion he made

that government agencies should encourage work experience are ones I

favour.

I'm informed, hon. member, that the grants do not go directly to the district, but I'll give you a proper answer on that.

MR. PASSARELL: The last question I had was the one I posed regarding the independent schools.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Yes, I'm sorry to have overlooked that one, because it was a very

important one. The funding for independent schools appears to be

showing a major increase, but that increase is due largely to three

factors. First of all, due to an increase in the public school district

per-pupil operating costs of the preceding year, which is what the

grants are based on, those increases in the public school system are

19.5 percent; so that, at a 30 percent funding level, amounted to part

of the increases. Another part of the increase, 10.4 percent, was due

to increases in enrolments in all independent schools, and part of the

increase in enrolments was brought about by slightly earlier qualifying

requirements, which that member and all members of this House voted for

when amendments were made to the independent schools act last year

which allowed earlier qualifying and allowed the pupils as well to

qualify for a partial year: when a pupil doesn't attend the school for

the whole year but moves from one school to another, they can be

partially qualifying. So 10.4 percent was due to increases in

enrolment, partially due to earlier qualifying of the school, and 4.45

percent was due to grants for partially qualifying pupils. The result

of all that was that the independent school grants increased as a

result of a statutory formula brought about by different qualifying

regulations, increased enrolments and increases in the cost of

educating students in the public school system in that district. Those

brought about the funding.

There has been no increased

funding in percentage terms to independent schools but the level has

been maintained and the law has been broadened and, I think, made

fairer to the independent schools. I make absolutely no apology for

that funding level at all, when you consider, hon. member, what it

would cost if those students were all to move to the public school

system — what it would cost in capital replacement and what it would

cost as well to pay the education costs of those students, not to

mention the loss of freedom of choice their parents have. I think it's

a very modest investment in maintaining a system of independent schools.

MR. PASSARELL:

One further question to the minister. Last year the grants to

independent schools were $12.4 million; this year they are $17.4

million. There is a two-year program supposedly on education under the

restraint program. With the increase this year in grants to the

independent, private schools, is the minister going to restrict private

schools next year, as he is doing to public schools this year and for

the next year?

HON. MR. SMITH: They will feel

restraint later, because what will happen is that with the restraint

program, the per-pupil operating costs in the districts, which their

grants are based on, will be lower because the districts will be on

restraint, so they will feel the effects of the restraint program later

than the public school system. In fact, when the public school system

is coming out of the Education (Interim) Finance Act, the increases in

the grants to the independent schools will be lower than they have been

in the past, because of the lag. But there has been no change in their

grants; it's been reflected by the costs in the public school system.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister some

of the problems that are being faced by the Greater Victoria School

District, and especially how that particular problem is affecting part

of my riding, the Esquimalt municipality, and the adjoining area of Vic

West. The minister is well aware that there has been a population shift

in the Esquimalt area in terms of students going to school. Over the

last few years within the school district there has been a

reorganization of the school components. For a period they experimented

with the elementary school, middle school and senior school. They had

grades 1 to 7 in the three elementary schools, grades 7 and 8 in

Harbour View School and grades 9 through 12 in another school. The two

years in the middle school were not that effective. The parents found

that the children were not in the school long enough to really have an

identification to a particular school, and that the senior students of

that school were too young to really give any leadership in the

district.

In February 1981, I believe, a group of concerned

parents, teachers, students and officials from the school district

formed what was loosely called the Esquimalt Area Reorganization. The

desire of the group was to establish within the school district a

certain system so the children, as they progressed from the elementary

areas into the high school, would have a more secure connection to the

school. In elementary the grade 1s, 2s, and 3s could look at the older

ones in grade 7. When the children went into the senior schools for

grades 8 to 12, the grade 12s would have that role model that was

needed to show some leadership and discipline in the school system.

For

one who was in the police force and watched the problems of the old

junior high schools, there was an area from grades 7 to 10 when you had

the kids who traditionally dropped out of school in grade 10 who, in

many cases, were not the role model that kids entering that particular

junior high should look to. That was the end of the school system for

the majority of the troublemakers in the school. There was a shift away

from the junior highs. The reorganizing committee was trying to set up

two structures in the Esquimalt area.

After a lot of studies

they have made many presentations to the school board, which has passed

it on to your ministry. It's the utilization of the various schools.

This development calls for the elementary schools that are presently in

effect in Esquimalt. It also calls for the development of an additional

elementary space in the Vic West area. For the progress from the

elementary levels, it calls for the consolidation and further

development of Esquimalt Senior High School.

This leaves the

one school called Harbour View School out in left field. It was

formerly known as Esquimalt Junior High and Highrock School. The

proposal they made for the utilization of this school was that it

become the French immersion

section of the Greater Victoria School

District. Traditionally, and maybe historically, the French immersion

program in the greater Victoria area was pioneered in the Esquimalt

area because we had the largest concentration of service personnel

that, within their own organization, did have many French- speaking

Canadians from other parts of

[ Page 8069 ]

the

country. The DND, in their wisdom, had provided the initial French

program for their students known as Ecole Victor G. Brodeur. This has

grown over a period of time so now they are pushing between 150 and 200

students that are being taught through DND. Proposals have been made to

the Greater Victoria School District and your ministry that the Greater

Victoria School District take over the administration of the French

immersion programs.

They have also made suggestions to both

the Saanich and Sooke School Districts that those who desire to send

their children to the French immersion program could fit into a program

of French immersion at the Harbour View Junior Secondary School. There

is a potential there of 400 students. This is where the problem arises

at your particular level. Before you can reorganize the elementary

teaching in the various schools in the municipality and in Vic West you

have to establish the grade 1 to grade 7 level. Before you can

eliminate the middle school, we have to provide the facilities in the

Esquimalt Senior Secondary School.

If we are going to be

able to get the three programs into operation, it is going to take your

100 percent cooperation or it's not going to be successful. At the

present time it is being stalled. Your ministry will not give the

go-ahead for new construction at Victoria West Elementary School to

pick up the need for the elementary classes. There is also no go-ahead

for the development of an enlargement of the Esquimalt Senior High. If

we in Victoria are going to live up to our new constitutional programs

— that we are going to provide a full French immersion program where

the demand is — then I feel that we can't continue to stall this year

after year.

In the Esquimalt and Vic West areas, though the

enrolment of those areas has been slipping for a time, we have now had

a large development of apartment buildings in the View Royal area and a

potential housing development coming onstream in the Songhees

industrial reserve. Before we have these students coming onstream, we

have to plan for providing the facilities so that they will be there.

The facilities must also be provided so that the standard of education

for all those who are serviced in the Esquimalt area will be kept up to

the standards of the rest of the greater Victoria area.

you make any studies of where the money has been spent for new schools,

it is very interesting that most of it happens to be in the minister's

own riding of Oak Bay and Gordon Head. In studying the money for that

new development it is quite obvious — maybe not intentional — that that

is where the money has been going. The Esquimalt area has been left

out. I feel that if we are going to maintain that quality, the

facilities for career opportunities for all students — it doesn't

matter what particular area they grow up in — for technical training

and secondary development....

Since all kids are not

going to graduate into the universities, the technical facilities must

be built into the school system, both in Esquimalt Senior and in the

new additions that should come into the Vic West schools.

This

is the leadership that we can't afford to keep putting off, because the

costs keep growing. I think one good example is the addition to the

George Jay School that was stopped in 1976 by the Ministry of

Education. It was stopped in 1976, 1977 or 1978, and the initial

estimate on the addition was $300,000. Now it is coming onstream and it

is over $1 million. Then you have the problem that if you put it off,

those kids who are caught in that one- or two-year time period are

being denied a proper education. We can't afford that.

bring to the minister's attention that the Esquimalt area organization

was a group of citizens from all walks of life. They have the sincere

belief that there is a need for reorganization in the school system.

They are the parents, teachers and the technocrats from the Greater

Victoria School District who have put in a lot of time and effort, but

it seems to have hit a blank wall within the ministry. Leadership is

not being given to come out with a strong program to be brought into

the system to have a complete French immersion unit for the greater

Victoria area.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just have a

few brief points that I want to raise with the minister. I've had a

good deal of concern expressed from my riding, particularly the Shuswap

and Revelstoke School Boards, respecting the Minister of Municipal

Affairs' (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm'

s) objectives regarding a county system.

While this is not directly the Minister of Education's responsibility,

certainly an element of it is of interest with respect to the autonomy

of local school boards. I would appreciate a reaction from the minister

to a resolution that was passed by both the Revelstoke School Board and

the Salmon Arm school board which reads as follows:

"The board of school trustees of School District 89 has been advised

that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is proposing a county system of

local government. We inform the Premier and the cabinet and all local

MLAs that this board believes that any system of local government,

county or otherwise, must adhere to the following principles so that

the sovereign rights of parents to control their education of the

children locally and directly is protected, The public school system

must be governed by people locally elected for the specific and sole

task of governing the schools and having taxing authority for that

purpose."

One is signed by Terry Killough for the Revelstoke

School Board, and the other is signed by Cliff Michael, the chairman of

the board of school trustees for School District 89. The minister may

know that gentleman.

I'd be interested in receiving the

minister's response to that concern, which is a legitimate one in terms

of the local people who are duly and democratically elected controlling

education at the community level. If indeed there is a danger to that

process from any intrusion into the minister's portfolio by a

colleague, perhaps he could let us know what his reaction is and to

assure us that he is the custodian of education and will make those

determinations rather than some oblique interference from one of his

colleagues.

There is another matter that again is on the

periphery of the minister's responsibilities, but nevertheless is

basically an education problem. This relates to deaf children in the

province of British Columbia, who over the past years — I don't know a

great deal about the institution, but as I understand — have attended

Gallaudet College for the Deaf in Washington. There is no facility in

British Columbia to provide the kind of learning options that are

available at that institution. I believe