1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1117 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Medical Act (Bill No. I 10) Hon. Mr.

Cocke.

Introduction And first reading — 1117

An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act (Bill No. 114) Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction

and first reading — 1117

Oral Questions

Effect on private hospitals of Gorge Road Hospital. Mr. Curtis

— 1117

Ferry service to B.C. middle coast region. Mr. McClelland — 1118

Sukunka coal agreement. Mr. Smith — 1118

Night ferry service. Mr. Morrison — 1119

Cost sharing of transportation losses. Mr. McGeer — 1119

Committee of supply: Department of Education estimates.

Mr. Gardom — 1120

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1124

Mr. McClelland — 1127

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1127

Mr. Wallace — 1127

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1132

Mr. Phillips — 1133

Mrs. Jordan — 1140

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1145

Automobile Insurance Act (Bill No. 35). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1146

Division — 1149

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO

AMEND THE MEDICAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 110 intituled

An Act to Amend the Medical Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 110 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

AN ACT TO

AMEND THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 114 intituled

An Act to Amend the Mental

Health Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 114 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral questions.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

EFFECTS ON PRIVATE

HOSPITALS OF GORGE ROAD OPENING

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, may

I direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke)? Could the Minister give

the House his views on the situation now being faced by small

privately owned and owner-operated private hospitals in

greater Victoria which I understand are operating at below

capacity since the opening of the Gorge Road Hospital just a

few weeks ago?

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. Is this within the jurisdiction of

the Minister?

HON. MR. COCKE: I would think so, Mr. Speaker. Under my purview, of

course, is the extended care facility at Gorge Road Hospital. We opened that

about a month ago and about 300 beds were made available to this general area.

There are a great number of people in the Province of

British Columbia who do not have access, though qualified by

virtue of their chronic illness for extended care, but do not

have access to those beds. When those beds become available in

the public sector — that is the non-profit

hospitals or those hospitals that are controlled by the

municipalities or regional districts — when those beds

become available, naturally people are attracted to $1 a day as

opposed to $400 or $500 a month.

A number of people in Victoria have been moved, by virtue of

the availability of the beds, to our extended care wing at

Gorge Road Hospital. Other than that, I can't predict what will

happen to the private hospitals.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary question: With your leave, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. CURTIS: The indication — and again I emphasize

these are not syndicate-operated private hospitals, but

the small owner-operated hospitals — the indication

is that at some time in the future, not named, they will be

given perhaps six months notice of closure. So they are left in

a state, of limbo. Would the Minister comment on this

situation? These people have dedicated a lot of their years and

a lot of time and energy to the care of the elderly,

particularly, and indigent in this area.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to some

hospitals in the Province of British Columbia that they may not

have too much tenure. A number of them were warned they would

likely be closed down by this December. We did close down one

or two, who were just not providing the level of care that was

needed. We had to close them down.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone on to say to the private hospitals

in the area, or for that matter in any area in B.C., if they

have a facility that could be used by the regional districts as

hospitals, we are prepared to negotiate with them as we are at

the present time with a number in the greater Victoria

area.

I think we are being perfectly fair. As a matter of fact,

most of those hospitals know we are taking a very serious look

at their facilities as to where they might fit in the scheme of

things for the delivery of health care in the Province of

B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had

hoped to address this question to the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water

[ Page 1118 ]

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) but since he is not in the

House, perhaps the President of the Council might answer for

him.

MR. SPEAKER: You must wait until the Minister is in his

chair.

FERRY SERVICE TO B.C.

MIDDLE COAST REGION

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, then I will address this

question to the Premier and President of the Council.

Yesterday, it was indicated in the House there were great plans

for the general area of the middle coast of British Columbia

and in particular, the Ocean Falls area. The question, Mr.

Speaker, is: has this planning involved the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in carrying out the former

government's undertaking to provide adequate ferry service in

this region?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that matter is in the hands

of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. leader of the Liberal Party.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF B.C.

PROPOSALS TO WASHINGTON

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask the Premier whether he is able to indicate to the House

whether there will be any public discussion whatsoever of the

proposals he intends to put before the United States state

department officials prior to the press conferences of Tuesday

of next week which he mentioned yesterday?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no planned public discussions. I

hope the leaders of the three parties will make themselves

available to the opportunity of having a pre-release on

the material. It would be unfair to the United States

government to discuss the proposals without taking them to them

first. I think that is only courtesy.

As a matter of courtesy, as I said yesterday, there will be

pre-releases to federal leaders on the same stipulation

as the budget speech and throne speech. I am sure many Members

of the House understand that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to that

question: I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Premier, what the difficulty might be in discussing a proposal

which you might wish to put before the American government

in British Columbia beforehand. For instance, if the suggestion

is an Arctic railway from Prud'homme Bay down to the southern

48 states, I can see no difficulty whatsoever in discussing

this with British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I refer you to Beauchesne, page

148 item "g". You must not seek information about matters which

are in their nature secret, such as decisions of proceedings by

the cabinet, advice on matters still to be discussed between

governments." You can't expect the…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it's up to the Minister. He can answer if

he wishes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of courtesy, it

is only proper that we follow the channels that have even been

suggested by the federal government in terms of contact and in

terms of presentation. I intend to make the material available

to the House Leaders of the various parties before it is

released publicly.

It would not be very wise, in my opinion, to start a public debate about a

matter that the people who may be participants in, against or for or anything

else…without them having the courtesy of seeing the material or the presentation

of the government. I think that's only courteous.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question was not

directed to the channels to be used. It was directed to the

presentation to be made — a different point which

apparently I did not make clear when I asked my original

question. The question is, Mr. Speaker, whether or not there

will be discussion as to the merits or otherwise of the

presentation to be made, not whether or not the channels used

are those proposed by…

MR. SPEAKER: It's not an obligation of the Government to

disclose in advance what proposals it intends to take or what

advice it intends to give the Crown in respect of any matter,

either with this Government or any other government. The

question should not then be asked. The Hon. Member for North

Peace River.

SUKUNKA COAL AGREEMENT

MR. D.E. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is

directed to the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(non. Mr. Nimsick). With respect to the Sukunka coal agreement,

has the Minister of Mines any agreement with the private

principals involved to undertake any underwriting of either

the

[ Page 1119 ]

initial capital development costs or any on-going

operating costs?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr.,

Speaker, in answer to that, all I will say is that negotiations are going on

and I don't think it would be proper for me to discuss anything here in the

House at this time.

MR. SMITH: Supplemental question to the Minister, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to get this straight with the House

early in our question period. It is not the duty of a Minister

to state to the House a matter in which he is still in

negotiation and which he intends to give advice to the Crown

and in which the Crown has not yet settled an agreement with

somebody else, let it be a foreign government or a corporation.

In view of that situation, I ask this simple question: How can

you have a supplemental question on a matter that really

— from the statement of the Minister — is not

proper?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think you're anticipating a type

of question that I was not really going to direct to the

Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, to be fair then, let's hear the

question.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister

a supplemental question. You say the matter is under

discussion. Would you be prepared to table with the House the

information that you have concerning the matters of either

investment in initial working capital or on-going

operating costs, when that information becomes available to the

Government?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, that question will be decided

on after the negotiations are completed.

MR, SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

NIGHT FERRIES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

direct my question to the Hon. Minister of Highways. Has the

Minister of Highways written to the Greater Victoria Chamber of

Commerce explaining that a night ferry between Vancouver Island

and the mainland is really not a valid request, because the

ferries are not a part of the highways system?

HON. R.M, STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I don't recollect having

made such a reply, but I did write to a chamber of commerce, as I recollect.

If you wish, I'll send you a copy of the letter.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, may I have a supplemental also?

Does the Minister not consider that to simply suggest that the

ferries cost $32 million a year to operate, has no regard for,

first of all, the current operating revenues and, secondly, the

wide secondary impact that the ferry system has on the revenue

of the province through other developments on Vancouver Island

itself? Does the Minister not know that the ferry system

produces more revenue per mile than any other part of the

highway system?

MR. SPEAKER: It sounds rhetorical, but if you wish to

answer, Hon. Minister…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Would you like to send those written

questions over so that I can answer them one by one? I'm

certainly aware that the ferries do contribute a great deal to

the input of tourist traffic to Vancouver Island. I do consider

them, as a matter of fact, a part of the highway system. At the

same time, I think that as a responsible Minister I wasn't

given a responsibility to spend money in a way that I didn't

think was advisable at this time. I have to look at the overall

cost of the ferry system and how it can be manned expeditiously

and as efficiently as possible. The mere desire of having a

particular ferry on at night or at 3:00 o'clock in the morning

doesn't necessarily mean that it should be coming forthwith,

presto.

We have to examine the overall picture as part of the

overall cost of this province. I want the people to realize

that it is different from a highway. You put a highway down

there and it doesn't require the manning, the staffing and the

catering and everything else that goes with it — when you

put a highway down. A ferry does.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

COST SHARING OF

TRANSPORTATION LOSSES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In view of the

rebuff by the Greater Vancouver Regional District last evening

of the Minster's proposal for cost sharing of transportation

losses — the report was that it was greeted with

laughter. Would the Minister have any new proposal to offer

today regarding transportation problems in the lower

mainland?

[ Page 1120 ]

HON. J,B. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I would say that I wasn't sure that there was the

laughter or not, but there may have been. I must say that I was

very disappointed that they didn't jump at the opportunity I

gave them, (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wants to jump over a cliff?

AN HON. MEMBER: The laughter here should be recorded, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It's my opinion that people in the lower

mainland and the Victoria area do require an efficient transit

service. I was hopeful that there would be some suggestion made

by the regional district — maybe a counterproposal or

some suggestion as to what they would want — in order

that we can facilitate the introduction of the operation.

All I can say is that it would seem to me that with the

refusal we'll have to start again and look at it again; We're

open to suggestions that they might have. We have a starting

point which we started at and I was hopeful that they would

make some suggestions to us. I understand that they will be

doing so. I'm sure that the people in the area who will be

affected by transit want transit. I'm hopeful that this will be

supplied but it's not going to be completely supplied by the

provincial government.

MR. McGEER: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I take

it that the Minister would be prepared to meet in the very near

future with officials of the Greater Vancouver Regional

District to discuss alternative plans?

HON. MR. LORIMER: At the staff level, I anticipate that

they'll be meeting probably the first part of the week. This is

an on-going discussion. They're meeting. I can't answer

whether I'm going to meet with them, but certainly meetings are

taking place and will continue to take place.

MR, McGEER: The question, Mr. Speaker, was: would he be

prepared to meet?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saved by the bell! (Laughter).

Orders of the day.

Committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 45: Minister's office, $72,464.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouve–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. If we go ahead and break the cabinet of the

Government into their respective functions, we find that the

Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would be regarded as

the Government's lawyer. The Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) would be regarded as the Government's miner, not the

pocketbooks of the mining industry. And we would have to record

that the very attractive lady cabinet Minister (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) has got to be regarded as the Government's teacher. I

have today a little something for the Government's teacher.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hope it's an Okanagan

one.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I hope there's no

worm in it. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: It's a hard-core apple, Mr. Attorney

General. I'd like this to be Presented to the Hon. lady

Minister of Education because she very much deserves it. I do

feel, Mr. Chairman, that if there was an area — if I

could have a little silence from the Hon. ex-Premier

(Hon. Mr. Bennett) over there, it would be helpful. (Laughter).

It's nice to have you aboard.

I would like to say that if there was ever a Minister who is

deserving of a great number of smiles in the Province of

British Columbia, it's the lady Minister of Education. There's

no question that smiles indeed became the order of the day when

she received her portfolio. I do hope very much that she enjoys

the apple.

I know she's happily married. I know that I'm happily

married. However, if the Hon. lady Minister deems to bake a

pie, I'd be happy to provide the candlelight and wine and share

it with her. (Laughter).

However, in every created commodity, Mr. Chairman, in one

form or another, be it by way of SSMA, UIC, WCB, FHB, PDQ, MIK,

stumpage, pumpage or dumpage, the most continuing payment and

the largest payment that will ever be made in a lifetime by an

individual is taxes, taxes, taxes.

The kinds we have come in every possible form and from every possible corner

— licences, dues, fees, royalties, import and export, manufacturing and business,

air, land and water taxes, registration charges, excise sales, income, personal,

corporate and partnership, outcome and in-betweencome, federal, provincial,

municipal, direct, indirect, obvious, not-so-obvious, and some downright concealed.

We have life taxes. We have death taxes. There may well even

[ Page

1121 ]

be Heaven taxes, Hell taxes and Purgatory taxes too.

MRS. JORDAN: And wife taxes.

MR. GARDOM: It's not possible for a person to live a day or

die a day in the province without someone paying, for him, her

or it, some kind of a tax. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we could

readily survive without food, clothing or shelter far longer

than we could ever exist without running into some sort of

public payment or tax.

Our citizens on the one hand have chosen to become muddled

and confused by the prolificacy of the thing and on the other

hand governments have chosen to become nothing more than

continually high-handed impostors and complicators, most

often without even so much as a how-do-you-do as to how these things ever came into being, what

their initial purpose was and how they could be cut or

eliminated or be made more fair, feasible or capable of being

properly understood.

I'd say in this field we have the grossest and greatest

example of unimpeded, inexplicable, complicated and confused

growth in the history of man.

There's only one direction that we can be certain of in the

maze of taxation which besets us and that is in the direction

of more. But that which governs society most, which is taxes,

is that of which it knows the very least. I say that it is

appalling, Mr. Chairman — it's nice to see you in the

Chair today looking so well and retaining such excellent order

in the House — it's appalling, Mr. Chairman and indeed

alarming that the knowledge that our students possess today of

how our tax system works is just about nil.

The fault, if it doesn't lie with the education system,

which I very strongly believe it does, can definitely be cured

by the educational system. I don't think it's too much to

suggest that people should not leave school without some basic

conception of how their city, province or country is run and

how it is financed.

A learned writer said this: "The subject of taxation

shouldn't be the preserve of an elitist group of experts." I

ask that very, very fulsome consideration be given by the Hon.

lady Minister as soon as possible to including that topic

within our secondary school course content.

I'd like to talk a little more about course content. I think

that we should be placing in British Columbia more emphasis on

what I'd like to call social contact or social communication

courses and more emphasis upon basic philosophies, I'd like to

concern myself with the latter first.

I think that we should be teaching some basic philosophical

fundamentals in our schools and providing comparisons too. I say that

we should be teaching things about the dignity of the individual, the

precept of law and order, the concept of justice and equity and

equality, the value of spiritual doctrine and of aesthetic experience,

the love of beauty, the need for environmental balance, the qualities

and quantities of honest performance, and peace as a reality and the

peaceful recognition of an opposing point of view.

Why there has not been any effective place for this in our

pre-university institutions is quite beyond me. I'd like

really to withdraw the word "institution," for that is

really not what we wish our schools to be regarded as. I'd say

that the successful programmes and the successful school

administrations in the Province of British Columbia are the

ones where the students are happy to be and the teachers want

to teach.

I am not advocating the "free school" concept, because I

don't believe in that. But I would say this, that for an

educational system to be something of value it has got to be

with it. There has never been enough stress on either the

philosophical side, which I mentioned at the outset, or on the

day by day practical side, which I'd like to say a few words

about now.

There's been too much rote — and as Andy Stephen might

say, "The moving rote having writ fingers on."

I would like to say a word now about the social contact,

social communication side — the day by day, "bread alone"

stuff. We eat, we drink, we sleep, we work, we live, we die, we

procreate, we feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. Surely some

basic instruction along those lines is not misplaced in our

provincial primary and secondary curricula.

The lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown)

indicated last night that "Dick has all the fun and Jane gets

all the blame." Well, I can't really agree with that. I know,

Hon. lady Member, a lot of Dicks who never had any fun with

Jane at all. (Laughter).

There's nothing wrong, lady Minister, with teaching cooking

in schools. It would cut down all sorts of ulcers in later

life. I would like to see the boys in the schools not

discriminated against in this field, particularly by a bunch of

female Chauvinistic primroses. (Laughter).

Now you notice this: we poor males cannot use the epithet

they use to describe us. I had to use the word "primroses."

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Why?

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'll tell you, if this is not a female

Chauvinistic discriminatory usurpation of vocabulary, I'd

really and truly like to know what it is.

In the schools I would very much like to see, Hon, lady

cabinet Minister, that we teach the nutritional content of

foodstuffs and tell it how it is. Let's go ahead and expose

what I'd call the "con," the

[ Page 1122 ]

conditioned demand that the advertisers have forced down our

throats by the next-to-nil nutritional value of

the bulk of cereals, snap, cracking and no-popping

across our breakfast tables.

Let's talk about some of the deceptions of packaging. Let's

explain something about the need and the means whereby one can

effectively equate size or weight to similar products in order

to make some kind of useful and understandable comparison of

cost and value. Let's have the distinction. Let everyone enjoy

the packaging that he wishes to have, but let the general

public, let our students in our schools appreciate the

difference and be taught the difference and be able to be given

some kind of instructional yardstick.

Let's teach the quality of fabric, the worth of fuels, the

basic principle of home construction and furnishings and indeed

appliance upkeep, to the boys and to the girls.

You know "puttee" is something that some people look upon as

only what was wound around the legs of World War I veterans. A

"washer" doesn't necessarily mean a person who wants to have

five baths a day. There are really much more uses for a fuse

than putting it under a parliamentary building.

Kids a long time ago used to have chores. In those days they

weren't bored stiff. Today they've been technologically denuded

of those chores. I would venture the suggestion that in some

households that if the juice went off and the electric can-opener didn't work, not only would some people perhaps

freeze to death but they would starve to death as well.

I think that we've got to go ahead and teach something about

the services that we so blindly take for granted today —

water supply, electricity, waste removal, fire, police and

medical protection, and the services and mechanisms of

government. Teach some health, preventive medicine, first-aid, water safety; teach them about cars and roads and

drivers and pedestrian safety.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): And lawyers.

MR. GARDOM: And lawyers indeed. And chartered accountants

and farmers. Teach them a little more about the practical side

of life. Let's go ahead, Hon. lady cabinet Minister, and

proclaim this

section of the Motor Vehicle Act which I

referred to during the estimates of the Attorney General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald) dealing with the training of student drivers.

This was passed in 1969 and it has never ever been proclaimed.

It said then,

"Except with the consent of the Superintendent of Motor

Vehicles, no person under the age of 18 years may drive a motor vehicle unless

he's certified under a driver training programme approved by the Superintendent

to be qualified to drive a motor vehicle."

This amendment did not come into this House by accident, and

I cannot recall anybody in the House on either side voting

against it. The Legislature approved it in 1969. It's never

received public criticism and it has never ever been

proclaimed. I would say that compulsory driver training should

be taught in all of our high schools today.

I am very interested to hear I am getting some good support

from the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) on

that point. I have heard him make some good speeches himself in

the House in days gone by on that exact topic.

I think we should be interesting our students in acquiring a

hobby and particularly trying to develop more of an interest in

them to participate in whatever it may be — athletics or

acting or the arts or music or the outdoors. Try to cultivate

in their minds the worth and the very, very great enjoyment of

being a doer as opposed to being a watcher.

It would be a nice thing to put a little bit of emphasis on

how to write a letter. Boy oh boy! Some of the stuff that comes

through the mails from our secondary schools today is quite

amazing.

One topic that has always enthused me and I well appreciate,

Mr. Chairman, this is somewhat outside the Hon. lady Minister's

portfolio, but the lady Minister is a cabinet Minister of this

province and she is in a position to advance this suggestion

and this premise much more strongly than am I.

I feel one of the best ways to securing peace in our world

is for people to communicate. No one will differ with that. And

I feel that one of the best ways of teaching communication is

for there to be a second world — wide language — I

am not speaking of Esperanto. I personally don't think that

would be the answer, with no criticism to it. But whatever

language the United Nations would decide upon as being the

second language of the world — conceivably the easiest

one to learn might be Spanish. I don't know. Whatever would be

the easiest one to learn.

How great it would be if we could be in Vancouver and speak

"x", or Shanghai — always to be able to speak "x"

wherever one went in the world and wherever people trotted

around in the world they would have the opportunity to

converse.

Mr. Chairman, for none of this do we, for one minute, have

to forget any of the classical yesterday or the classic

procedures or the very stabilizing postures of the past. I

think we have got to place terrific emphasis upon interweaving

them into the realities and into the philosophies of the

present. So far, in my view, that has not occasioned within our

primary and our secondary curricula. I would like to have some

of the comments of the Hon. lady Minister on what I have just

discussed.

I would now like to make a couple of observations

[ Page 1123 ]

about our colleges in B.C. I thought really how very

paradoxical, in hearing the remarks from the lady Member for

Vancouver Burrard (Ms. Brown) and the lady Member for Vancouver

South (Mrs. Webster) last night, that in these marvelous

meadows of perpetual enlightenment that alma mater is really

being practised as alma pater. This was quite a revelation to

me. It certainly was.

Dealing with this aspect, there is no question that we are a

credentials oriented society but the barriers that exist to

prevent B.C. citizens from obtaining a degree-granting

education, in many cases, prevents very capable people from

attaining important and creative employment because they are

without the necessary skills or credentials.

For example, those who in their youth were unable to go to

college and/or who now are unable to leave their jobs and

return to university, or a mother who must remain at home, or

people in remote areas who are unable to maintain a second

residence, or working mothers or what have you. The "in house"

system, in my view, does not have to be, nor is it fair, that

it should be the only system. I would strongly recommend

non-residential, off campus, undergraduate degree-granting programmes

become readily available from our

established universities. Our academic leaders would not have

any difficulties in setting the standards and the course

content leading to these external degrees.

If you look at the dollar side of the situation

— dollars would never be a major problem because capital

expenditures would be minimal. The plants are there, the

buildings are there, UBC, UVic and Simon Fraser.

It's not a new concept, Ms. Chairman, the University of

London has administered external degrees on a world-wide

basis since 1936. Australia has similar programmes, so does New

York State. There is lots of precedent everywhere in the world.

Even if there wasn't, that shouldn't deter us. There is no need

for us to hang in precedent when you have the need, and we

certainly do have the need in the province by virtue of our

very geographical situation.

The job that we have to do is not to continue to require the

student to accommodate himself within the institution, but to

adjust the institution to accommodate requirements of those who

can participate in. No question that quality controls can

be maintained and the suggestion is certainly not one of an

inferior degree-granting method, but an expansion of the

means by which degrees can be granted to those who are not

fortunate enough to be able to physically sit within the four

walls of one of our established universities. I liked your

remarks yesterday when you talked about the travelling unit

system. I thought that was a great suggestion.

If the desire is there, and the desire is there in B.C. for this post-secondary

education, the means should be. Because at the present time the actual physical

attendance is definitely an obstacle which for many can never, ever be overcome.

The people who would be pursuing the kind of goals that I am talking of obviously

would be people who would be very keenly motivated and well disciplined and

able to operate on their own. It is just another way of opening a door, Ms.

Chairman and I would very much like to see the Government do it.

Before I sit down I would like to again say a few words

about independent schools and ask some questions of the Hon.

Minister. The Hon. Minister is well aware of the dollars and

cents. I would say that she is well aware of the number of

students. The Hon. Minister is well aware of the philosophy of

education which is to educate. And the Hon. Minister is

thoroughly aware of the fact that 23,000 children in the

Province of British Columbia do not receive a fair break at the

hands of this Government. They and their parents have never

received a fair break at the hands of government in the

Province of British Columbia — which I think is a

tragedy.

In order to alter this, there is really and truly no need

for an enormous philosophical shift. You just have to be fair.

There has to be alternatives in society. You have to be fair

and you have to recognize the quality of an alternative. We are

not being fair when these people, the parents of these

children, are all paying taxes, all putting their children

through school and are being denied any kind of effective

assistance or encouragement whatsoever. We are now the only

province in Canada with that kind of a banner hanging over our

heads.

We are educating people to become good citizens. They are

educating people to become good citizens. They are doing their

job as far as the revenues of the Province of B.C. are

concerned. They are being misread insofar as the expenditures

are being concerned. They have never taken the frontal attack

to government in B.C. and I congratulate them for their wisdom

in that regard and their high principles in that regard. They

could take children out of their independent schools and they

could put 23,000 children at the doors of the public schools in

the Province of British Columbia and you would have to

accommodate them.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) says, "tomorrow",

and indeed he is right. Under the law you would have to

accommodate them tomorrow. Now, they are not asking for capital

expenditures nor, in my view, are they entitled to them because

it is a form of enriched education. They have chosen that

course for their own reasons and they are entitled to do it. We

live in a free society. We live in a democracy. They are

entitled to do it. However, is it too much that they should

request a share of the operating costs? Is that too much

— or even less than that? Let's leave the dollars for a

moment.

[ Page 1124 ]

There was a situation in the riding of the Hon. Premier, where children last

September, children in an independent school, were going to use a community

facility — swimming. They were five-year-olds.

I'm not talking about the dollars here, I'm talking about the principle of

the matter. The public school children should use the community facilities,

and rightfully so — that's why we've got them. That's why we're talking about

opening up our community facilities for the use of the public, for the use

of the students. We don't want to see them dormant, laying fallow three

months of the year. You have accepted that concept.

So these students wanted to use the community a facility for swimming. The

public students did and the independent school students were asked for $1.75

each. Gee whiz, I can't really and truly accept that as being fair. I can't

really and truly find that there's any need for an enormous, philosophical

impasse for some thing such as that. In the riding of the Hon. Premier, grade

five students who go to independent schools — I've forgotten the name of the

school — but they went, and they had to pay $1.75 for their swimming lesson.

It's not right that these people should not have open access to

educational aids and aptitude tests that are now only available to

government schools. Busing? O.K., what about busing? Under the former

administration there was rather an awful impasse on that particular

point in one situation. There were quite ugly confrontations in the

north. I'm not going to dwell on that. Eventually reason came to the

individuals there, but the decision was made on the basis that

government policy will really not let us do it. I suppose the school

board that opted to permit busing to take an independent school child

to his school, rather than leaving the poor little kid standing in a

puddle and see the bus go by with empty seats in it, opted probably to

break the law of the Province of British Columbia and take the

youngster to school.

Big deal! Now come on, let's go ahead and say that you're going to have a policy

in B.C. of providing some kind of effective assistance to these people, They've

got some very, very qualified teachers. You have seen the report, I've seen

the record. But they have the same quality of teachers the public side have.

For goodness sake, let their teaching time count towards standing with the B.C.

Department of Education. You know, I've repeated this analogy in the

House so often, I just hate to say it again. But to me it's so very simple.

A hospital's job is to cure the sick; the job of a school is to educate. Who

cares who runs the hospital as long as it is being properly run and properly

curing? Really and truly, who gets disturbed as long as the school is being

properly run and is properly educating!

Let them meet provincial standards. I would say all of them

would and maybe even higher ban provincial standards. They must

meet provincial standards, and if any group in society has the

benefit of public funds, it must subject itself to some degree of

control and inspection. Otherwise they should not ne requesting

public funds.

I don't go with their argument that they're entitled to

receive — and this argument I say would come from the

tiniest minority — X dollars and do with it entirely as

they will.

But I say providing they subject themselves to the control

of school boards, providing that there is full accountability,

providing they are furnishing the service, for goodness sakes

let's come along down the need and not be the only province in

Canada out of step, and let these people have to bear the whole

load themselves.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Thank you very

much, Ms. Chairwoman. First of all I want to thank the Hon.

gentleman Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

for his apple. First of all when you started off I did think it

had a soft core, but as you finished, it has a pretty hard core

there. (Laughter). But I still will enjoy it, and if the Member

for Okanagan wants to try it out and find out where it came

from.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I knew you did, but I didn't want to

throw it across to you, in case he thought I'd rejected it, you

see. (Laughter).

Now, the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) last night asked a number of questions and I

have them listed here. Some of them tie in with he Hon. Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) so perhaps we can

cover some of them.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey was

discussing, and I think it was very interesting, his ideas on

curriculum and making it, I believe, more relevant. As you

know, I certainly agree with you. You mentioned specific areas

which concern you.

This ties in, I think, particularly with what the Hon. Member for Langley was

asking me last night before we adjourned. I think it's very unfortunate, the

terms which he used last night when he referred o sex experimentation in the

schools, because I'm quite sure you know, Mr. Member, that this is not the intent

at all of our new programme. Actually it really fits in with what the other

Hon. Member was saying today. We're just trying to bring into our school curriculum

courses which are relevant and fit the needs of the young people today.

[ Page

1125 ]

I think you'd agree with me that a family life programme certainly is needed

in our schools today. You can't produce a programme on family life and assistance

to young people in our schools that will prepare them for adulthood, unless

you do bring in, sometime or other, the matter of sex to some degree and the

matter of the reproductive system, and the matter perhaps as in adulthood how

they cope with this situation.

I just want to make it very clear that the PTA's of the

province for years have asked for such a programme, trustees

have, and many parents have. I can assure you that none of

these programmes are going into effect without consultation

with the teachers and the parents. The parents particularly. As

a matter of fact, the department is just preparing a directive

which is going to go out to the school boards announcing that

we do want boards to consult with parents first. Because I

think the parents, the students and the teachers should really

be together on initiating these programmes.

We've been waiting for this a long time. There have been

great demands and I think that it is rather tragic that many

students who are now out in the world today have not been

provided with a good programme in family living. That covers

the whole area, as I mentioned before, of learning about their

own bodies.

It also would include areas such as the other Member

mentioned, the whole matter of how to handle their finances,

consumer education. It's a very broad programme and I do hope

that you would relay that to anyone who has concerns about

it.

We are very hopeful that the young people of this province

will, after these programmes get underway, come out and face

the world, the very — let's face it — challenging,

exciting world, with a little more knowledge of how to cope

with the everyday problems of living. It's not going to be

easy, because we know that parents themselves have the first

responsibility, but certainly the schools have a responsibility

also.

The other part that both Hon. Members were touching upon is

the matter of independent schools. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) was referring particularly to

the public school system, I believe, and the independent school

aid,

whereas last night you were referring to institutions such

as Trinity College.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Specifically, yes. First of all, on the matter of

public schools — I'm quite sure that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is

well aware of the stand of this government. This is a major policy decision

which is on whether one gives aid to independent schools or not. It is a decision,

as it is major, which is made at our party convention.

We have met a number of times with the independent school

association, and many of the points which the Hon. Member from

Vancouver–Point Grey brought up, we have heard and we

have discussed with them. We have told them that these

decisions are made at the convention. At the present moment,

the stand of the New Democratic Party made at the convention is

that no financial aid is to be granted to independent

schools.

With regard to Trinity College, I know you were comparing it

with Notre Dame. Notre Dame is chartered under the Public

Universities Act , while Trinity College is not. It was under

the government of the party which you now represent that these

arrangements were made at that time, to extend aid to Notre

Dame. As a matter of fact, in 1967 and 1968 the federal

government made direct grants to the universities. As you know,

they do not do this now.

This aid extended to institutions affiliated with the

universities, and at that time the Vancouver School of Theology

and Notre Dame University were affiliated with UBC. I believe

that was probably the basis upon which these grants were given.

The grants now given from the federal government are not given

in that manner any more.

Well, the point is there is a basic difference between

Trinity College and Notre Dame, as I said. Notre Dame came in

under public charter, and the other is under a private Act.

Certainly we've had representations on this, and I've visited

Trinity College, It's a very fine college.

Here again it's a matter of government policy. It would mean

a complete new direction to give aid to institutions which are

not public institutions. At this time the government has not

made any decision on giving aid to Trinity College. It's not so

much a matter of discrimination as a matter of policy. You can

consider it discriminative policy, but many other people do not

consider it so.

I think if you look across the country, and look at Ontario,

where they do have separate schools, there is a recent

editorial in, I think, the Toronto Globe and Mail , which

points out many, many problems for governments to handle these

two separate systems. There are many problems inherent in

it.

I'm quite aware of the fact that if all those schools closed

up, Mr. Member, tomorrow we would have to absorb them. We are

aware of that, I recall about 10 to 12 years ago when this

situation happened in the area around where I live, I think it

was Mallardville. The districts around had to absorb the

students, and they absorbed them. This would be our

responsibility, to absorb them, if this situation came

about.

Have I missed a point? I think the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) also was asking last night about teacher tenure and

I think you discussed it

[ Page 1126 ]

with some of your Members. The Member, for instance, for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) sat on the committee of the House

last year which dealt with changes in tenure regulations for

teachers. It was an all party standing committee which came up

with recommendations. I think if you studied that report you

would see that there are ways and means for the firing of

teachers who are ineffective, which I think you were expressing

last night. The teachers themselves worked with us on this and

all party members agreed on this report.

We realize it's only been in for a year and anything that is

new and different has always been watched very carefully. I'm

sure the teachers will be giving us an input on how they feel

it is working. We'll be hearing from parents, and we'll be

hearing from Members of the Legislature on this.

At this time I've had no particularly outstanding complaints

that this is not working properly, but we are certainly open

and ready to listen to any group that has a complaint on this.

There are quite a number of safeguards in it because, as I

said, some of your — own Members were there — all

party members — to work on it.

You might be interested to know what's happened in the year

since this new tenure regulation came in.

Situation 1: board of reference. This is to do with

misconduct or neglect of duty. There were five cases in the

last year. One suspended appealed — the teacher was

upheld and the board is now appealing to the supreme court. The

same existed in another case — suspended, appealed, and

the teacher was upheld by the board of reference and the school

board is appealing to the supreme court. In the third case,

suspended, appealed, and the board was upheld. In this case the

teacher is appealing to the supreme court. So you have the

complete reverse here. Case number four, suspension —

disposition subject to criminal trial. Case number five was

dismissed.

Situation 2: review commission, which as you know is based

on unsatisfactory performance. There were two cases. Case one

— notice of termination issued, teacher resigned. Case

two — notice of termination issued, no appeal, teacher

dismissed.

So I think that gives you a picture of what the situation

was last year. It shows that the machinery has been working,

and it doesn't seem to point out to me that it's gone one way

or the other. I think it's been handled pretty fairly.

I hope I've covered most of the points, Mr. Member —

did I leave out one?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Performance evaluation? Maybe you'd like to speak

on that again, if you're going to speak. I'm not quite sure what you want on

that. O.K. We'll have a supplementary, and then you can carry on,

MR. GARDOM: Well, Ms. Chairman, dealing with the remarks of the Hon.

Minister, I see in a

summary of the New Democratic Party's stand on independent

schools that the party favours access to busing and educational aids.

So I put two questions to the Hon. Minister. The first is

this: will you make any provision to provide the audio

— visual aids and library resources that the public

schools now have to the independent schools? That's the first

question.

The second question deals with the education of Soldier's

Dependents Children Act , which is

Chapter 124 of our

Statutes. Under that Act, Ms. Chairman, the funds are made

available to dependents of veterans in case of financial need.

I'd ask the Hon. Minister if the criteria used under that Act

are the same for needy children who attend independent schools

as for needy children who attend public schools.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, first of all, the matter of giving

assistance resources to the independent schools — no,

there is no intent to do that. Secondly, as to the matter of

busing, I think there was an announcement made recently that

the Government, of course, is looking into the whole area of

rapid transit and busing and when we met with the Independent

Schools Association we pointed out to them that the Government

wanted, certainly in the rural areas, to provide far more bus

transportation for all citizens. So I may say at this time the

door could perhaps be opened in that area.

MR. GARDOM: Only for busing? You are not prepared to go as

far as visual aids and libraries?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, that's correct. When I say only buses,

it doesn't mean that we are stating here and now, Mr. Member,

that there is a policy to give busing to independent school

children. I'm simply saying that the Government is studying the

matter of providing more bus service to all of the citizens of

the province, and this, perhaps, could alleviate the situation,

but no details have been worked out. The Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) will be working on this, and when

he's ready he will announce what the policy could be. It could

be fairly all-embracing. But I can't speak on his

behalf.

MR. GARDOM: No, but there have been citizens. They would

obviously be included.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: When the announcement is made we'll see

how all-embracing it is.

The Soldiers' Dependents Allowance — there

[ Page 1127 ]

apparently was no provision for that to be given to

independent school children. It's under a board that handles

this itself, but it is under the School Act, as you say. It is

administered under the School Act. But I would like to point

out to you that if you look at the estimates you will now see

that this has been transferred to the welfare department.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay, I'm sorry. Will

you relinquish? The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): With regard to the

performance evaluation — a question that I asked last

evening. There has been serious concern among educators and

among members of the school boards that some method be found so

that the teachers' performance could be evaluated. The problem

seems to be who does the evaluation — where and when. Is

it left to the teacher? The B.C.T.F., I think, would like to

see it left that way. The school trustees would like to see it

in their hands. So somewhere along the line the impasse has to

be settled, because in every area in which public money is

spent there has to be some sort of evaluation done.

The other question has to do with the problem again that you

partially answered, of teacher tenure. Regardless of the

comments that you made about there not being any problem, we

see a fairly large problem in the community, in that if it

becomes difficult for the removal of a teacher who is not

competent in the eyes of some members of the board of school

trustees, what often happens is that that board of school

trustees makes it difficult for that teacher to continue

teaching in that school district, to the point where that

teacher leaves, goes to another school district and becomes the

other school district's problem. The easy way is taken out. It

seems to me that the government would be far better off if it

would establish some guidelines or ground rules, better than we

have now, to solve those kind of problems.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You know, when it comes to teacher

evaluation, I don't know if you agree with me on this, but as a

former teacher may I say this. I think the best people to

evaluate the teachers are the teachers themselves. They're the

first ones who can point out who the ineffective teacher is. I

know that in the many meetings I've had with the teachers they

are concerned about this. Just as concerned as you are and

parents are. I know that constantly through their professional

programmes they are trying to upgrade this. They are keeping a

watch on this whole matter.

The teachers themselves, I think, are the most capable ones to make this judgment.

At the moment, of course, it comes under the district superintendent, who is

basically a teacher. Personally, however, I would like to see a system set up

where the teachers themselves would have a little more control in evaluating

their own peers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think they would be delighted to have

the opportunity if we could work out the proper machinery. I'd

be pleased to discuss it with them.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR, G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to touch initially on

some philosophy of education and then perhaps discuss a few

specific matters.

I think that health and education certainly have to be the

two major pillars on which our society flourishes. It really is

rather disappointing, Madam Minister through you, Madam

Chairman, to see that there are only two other Ministers of the

cabinet in the House today, when we are discussing education,

education, not only because of its vital importance to our

society but even in terms of dollars, which we all recognize as

being very substantial, going into education and necessarily

so. The lack of interest from the cabinet benches leaves me

very disturbed.

I'd like to start off by complimenting the Minister of

Education on several of the positive progressive steps which

she took soon after assuming office. I'm referring in

particular to the local autonomy which was returned to school

boards and for which I voted when the bill was brought before

the House.

The question of kindergartens has been discussed in this

House each year that I've been here. When the Minister was on

the Opposition benches, she strongly supported the idea of

kindergartens. I'm delighted that this was one of the first

aspects of education which she took measures to implement. I

think human beings are the same the world over in terms of

their ability to assimilate experience. Certainly the European

and British experience is that you can start the educational

process long before six years old. I'm delighted that

kindergartens are to be encouraged in this province.

The other matter which I discussed in a former session of

the House was the implementing of family life programmes. It's

been mentioned many times but, in fairness to the Minister, I

would like to compliment her for realizing that this is such a

vital part of the total process of education, which, as

everyone agrees, is a never — ending experience. It

doesn't go on just inside the four walls of a classroom, that's

for sure. It's such an all — embracing part of our lives

that even to begin to claim that we're educating future

citizens without taking regard for

[ Page 1128 ]

our reproductive function and our sex drive, is really very

shortsighted.

Having made these positive points, I will try to be

constructive and positively constructive. Whether we like to

take a very mature and farsighted view of education, I consider

the first requirement of education is to produce literate

citizens. I think it's very disturbing to find the millions of

dollars that we're pouring into education and to find the

percentage of illiterate people who come out at the other

end.

There was an interesting editorial in the Vancouver Sun of

February 21. I would just like to quote from Dr. Jill Conway,

who is vice-president of the University of Toronto, and

Prof. Hayes of York University. Their feeling is that

illiteracy is the crux of the modern school problem. They say

that our liberal attitude to education produces students who

understand math but can't use it and are unable to put a

sentence together. These are people graduating from high

school.

The comment of these educators is one of concern that in

trying to be more and more farsighted and perhaps sophisticated

in our educational process, we're losing sight of the first

basic requirement. That is to teach the child to communicate

and, in fact, to become a fully literate individual.

The lady Minister has many times said in this House, and I

fully agree, that whatever our philosophy is and whatever the

structure of the system is, we must focus on the needs of the

child. It is hardly a conclusion that we would get excited

about if we can teach them sophisticated subjects and ignore

the very basic needs in the literate sense. I think we all

agree that we're trying to produce a well-informed and a

well-adjusted individual who can fit into society as an

adult. But surely the first and foremost goal has to be to make

the person literate.

The other element in our schooling — and I think I'm

speaking for many parents, I've mentioned it before and been

heavily criticized — is permissiveness. I'm not

separating the school children from the adults. I'm talking

about society as a whole. To take some specifics in school, I

think that when we just adopt the attitude that a child can go

to school dressed in the sloppiest of fashion and that the

whole business of getting groomed and dressed is a very casual

thing, as far as I'm concerned I regard that as encouraging an

equally casual approach to the process in which they're

involved — the very vital process to them of

becoming educated.

The whole question of discipline is one which is almost unpopular to discuss

nowadays. The feeling seems to be that the child must be allowed to do his or

her thing, regardless of the effects an others. I think it's only fair, although

I personally am opposed — and I want to make this very plain — to corporal punishment;

nevertheless, I think in fairness to my role as a representative of people in

Oak Bay, it's certainly my firm conviction that my personal opinion is not shared

by the majority of parents.

We had a citizens' advisory committee to the Victoria school

board in May. This is a report in the Daily Colonist . I

won't go into all the details, but by and large that committee

was split right down the middle. It reminded me a little bit of

the public debate on the death penalty.

But the fact of the matter is that since the Minister

announced her decision to abolish corporal punishment, I

certainly have had many communications by letter, by phone and

in person. The majority feel that this should have been

maintained in the schools, and that the present system might

have some shortcomings in the light of some of the incidents

the Minister herself has outlined — we don't dispute

that. Many of the people who talked to me are principals of

schools, I haven't yet, in the area of Sidney, Oak Bay and part

of Victoria, met a principal who agrees with the decision to

abolish corporal punishment.

I repeat, I personally am opposed to it but I'm trying to

represent the point of view which I think, is stronger than

perhaps the lady Minister has acknowledged. The Minister may

care to comment on this, but one of the elements in their

dismay is that on the very day, I understand, that the Minister

announced the abolition of corporal punishment, a committee of

the BCTF and the school trustees were having a meeting to

continue discussions towards presenting their point of view to

the Minister. I'm sure the Minister can answer this, but there

is a strong feeling among the parties concerned that the

Minister acted on her own without the fair and considered

consultation with educators, trustees and teachers.

I think the question has to be answered, of course: If I'm

opposed to corporal punishment, what is the alternative?

There's no point in abolishing one measure which you don't like

and not replacing it with something which you feel is better

and more effective. Certainly the study that was done in

Victoria at least came up with some alternatives. One of them

was very interesting. It suggested that the child be referred

to the parents. I can't think of a better answer to the whole

problem. If the parent believes in corporal punishment, he can

act in the manner of a wise and judicious parent. If it is a

recurring problem after referral to the parent, presumably

expulsion has to be probably the only other alternative.

I'd like to come in a moment to the question of the

different child or the handicapped child — the one who

cannot adapt to the four walls of a classroom — and ends

up in the situation of being repeatedly punished.

Another alternative to corporal punishment that was put

forward was judgment by your peers — the question of a

student body being given the decision of trying to take action

against a student who, by his behaviour, is disturbing the

whole classroom. In

[ Page 1129 ]

discussions with principals that I have had since the

Minister's decision, this is very clearly their realm of

concern: that it's all very well to talk about abolishing

capital punishment — corporal punishment. I get the two

mixed up. (Laughter). Maybe we should have capital punishment

in schools too. I don't know.

But the feeling coming across is that the principals and the

teachers are very concerned about being able to handle the

unruly male who disturbs the whole classroom. Maybe these

alternatives that I've outlined are pretty lukewarm and too

soft in their nature to be effective. At least, I personally

think that if a teacher or a principal can't handle somebody,

the parent is the first person to be given the responsibility

of trying to straighten out the mess.

I find another interesting facet of this question of trying

to teach children responsibility and maturity: in large measure

I think our students are aware of the problems of the

environment and of the need to preserve the world around us.

Yet, talking to one principal, I find that the simplest, most

unbelievable vandalism…there's one area of glass in the Oak

Bay Junior High School that's been broken, within weeks, three

times over. It's now boarded up with painted plywood.

I just can't understand, if students are so aware of

environment and some of these values that attach to

preservation of the environment, how we have this kind of

problem. Certainly to ask the teachers for more and more

supervision at times when they're not in the classroom, I just

don't think that's the answer either. I don't for a minute

criticize the teachers for rebelling at this trend, that they

should be more and more watchdogs and supervisors instead of

educators.

I was talking about permissiveness and the lack of

discipline. I think we simply have to be fair and consider why

our children behave this way. I think it's because they see it

in the world around them.

It's certainly my feeling, unpopular as it might be, that we

have to stress two elements that are certainly being lost in

our educational system. One is discipline and the other one is

morality.

It's not popular these days to talk about morality. The

populist philosophy seems to be that if you're not breaking a

few rules and smoking pot or swapping wives or some such thing,

you're living a pretty dull life and you're not a swinger.

Madam Minister, I'm probably being a little blue today and

probably I'm being too negative, but I think it's about time it

was put on record that one of the politicians feels this way

about the present system.

For example, in our media our children are exposed in a way which even 20 years

ago I was not exposed to in terms of what appears in press or what appears on

television. The best that the Victoria Colonist newspaper could do the other

day was to give a front-page picture of some baseball player who's been living

with some other baseball player's wife and they've finally decided to get married,

This apparently is considered to be front-page news for the citizens of British

Columbia.

Our children read these newspapers. How in Heaven's name can

we expect any other kind of behaviour from our children when

this kind of incident in adult life is glamourized and made to

look exciting?

I think sadly that so often three of the ingredients that I'm

always seeking in society — freedom of choice and freedom of speech and

freedom of action in a democratic society — are frequently being

confused with licence and self-indulgence.

I don't think for a moment that we would have many of the

problems we have in our schools with drugs or illegitimate

pregnancies, abortions, marriage breakdown, broken families, if

we were to try and bring back into the school system a sense of

the importance of discipline, responsibility in the child as a

measure of proving its own maturity, and a new awareness of a

morality that we lost many years ago.

As a society we profess a sanctity for human life. Yet for

all practical purposes this same society permits abortion on

demand. I'm not going to get into a long harangue on abortion.

I'm simply saying that we say one thing as a society, we tell

our children to respect the teacher and the principal, and to

respect human dignity and human life — yet we pass laws

which destroy human lives every day at the stroke of a pen.

I think the children can only conclude that their parents

are a bunch of hypocrites. We pay lip service to the value of

human life and then we allow or encourage our elected

representatives to turn around and take life.

I am sad to say that very often, when this abortion is

permitted, it is simply to try to overcome an inconvenience in

the life of a student — a high school student or a

student in early year at university. I know of what I talk,

because I'm on the abortion committee. I see the letters that

come before us time and time again. Frequently this is just a

procedure where the student is granted an abortion because it

would be an inconvenience to her academic career.

I must confess that sometimes the stated medical grounds are

extremely slim.

Perhaps the time has come, Madam Minister, to hope that

maybe the children will show the adults the way. Maybe if we

can instil some of these concepts in the school system to a

greater degree…and of course we always run the risk of

being laughed at as "preachers." Well, I don't care if I'm

being laughed at today as being a "preacher." As far as I'm

concerned we could do with a little bit of preaching if it

means a better-integrated, more moral, literate,

responsible individual who leaves high school.

To get on to some specifics, since I could talk a

[ Page 1130 ]

long time about philosophy, I've talked with quite a few

teachers and principals and they're not all as happy as the

Minister has suggested about the abolition of grade 12 exams.

There is a feeling among certain teachers, certainly that I've

talked to, that really the net effect is to lower

standards.

Perhaps it's even another measure of our permissive attitude

that nobody must be put under any stress any more. Nobody must

have difficulty. Nobody has to endure the suffering of an

examination. Well as far as I am concerned, it seems to me

everywhere we go in life we're being subjected to some kind of

examination. You need to pass an exam to drive a car. Certainly

once you get to university you have to pass exams.

In fairness to the Minister she has pointed out that there

is to be a reappraisal of the student's work under a different

system. But the fact is that for graduation requirements

— I went into this in detail because it interested me

— students entering grade 11 are no longer required to

complete French beyond the level of grade 8, and mathematics

beyond grade 10.

Some of these students are going on to University. In terms

of the departmental examinations there seems to be the feeling

amongst many teachers that the graduation diploma is coming to

mean less and less and to be less highly-respected

because of the greater ease with which it's awarded. I think

that only adds up to one thing: that we're lowering the

standard of education by abolishing an examination which more

accurately, in conjunction with class evaluation, proves what

the student has attained.

I think evaluation by the teacher and exams both have a

place. I would wonder if it's such a unanimous feeling of the

teachers that it was a great idea to abolish the grade 12

exams.

In passing, I'm told that it runs the risk too that the

teacher may not cover the whole curriculum as fully because she

or he may choose to emphasize one part of the curriculum, which

is certainly to the detriment of the students when they go on

to university.

I'm going to say something else that doesn't seem to be very

popular around here, Everybody gets all excited about post-secondary education. I suppose if you say anything

against any part of education it's like talking against

motherhood. I've already spoken about the people who are

against motherhood.

The fact is, Madam Chairman, that there's a very interesting

educators, P.G. Mason, who's the headmaster at Manchester Grade

Schools. He states that:

"Seventy-five per cent of the formal achievement pattern

has been acquired by the age of 13, and in terms of formal education it may

be very hard to undo what happens between the ages of 6 and 9. For it is this

period which is crucial for the development of learning patterns."

One of the other favourable steps which the Minister

undertook soon after she assumed the post was to change the

instructional unit. This reduced the instructional unit from 30

to 25 pupils at the elementary level. I think that this is a

tremendous step forward. The sooner we can go even further

along the road to reducing the teacher-pupil ratio, I

think the likelier we are to produce better students going into

junior high school.

We've already talked about kindergartens as part of that

same goal.

For that same reason, Madam Chairman, through you, I would

hope that the Minister… I think she mentioned that a

research officer had been appointed to the post-secondary field. I wonder if she would consider

appointing some research officer or similar staff to the

elementary area of education.

One of the points which seems to become clear — and I'd

like to talk just a little bit about Beacon Hill School in

Victoria — is that in the elementary school the problem

seems to be that it's the middle wedge in the class that gets

all the education. The bright ones are bored and the ones who

have difficulty in learning tend to fall by the wayside.

I would like to just mention to the House, Madam Chairman,

the project that is going on at Beacon Hill School here in the

City of Victoria. This is where a principal, who was formerly a

clinical psychologist, has obtained a federal grant to carry

out education of children with difficulties and some with

mental retardation. Some have physical disabilities and others

have behavioural problems. This is on a one-to-one basis.

I understand the Minister has been invited and is to be

visiting Beacon Hill School. This is a fascinating and exciting

project, Madam Chairman. I don't think it's been done in

British Columbia before; it may have been done elsewhere.

These are highly skilled, trained teachers, many of them

with master's degrees, who are working under this initiative

programme at about half the salary they would receive in the

public school system. They're teaching on the basis of one

pupil for one teacher. The principal is Mr. Benson, if the

deputy Minister is wondering which school I'm talking about

— Beacon Hill School. Mr. Benson is the principal.

This school accepts referral of children of all grades from

the social agencies, the mental health clinics, the Eric Martin

Institute or from wherever the child is having difficulties or

for whatever reason he can't attend normal school.

This project began in December, 197 1, and is still

fortunately receiving federal LIP money. I might say in

passing, although this isn't part of the pitch, that the money

runs out in May, 1973, Madam Minister. While this was, I

presume, a pilot project, I've visited

[ Page 1131 ]

the school and talked with the principal and it just is

exciting to see his results.

He assures me that about 75 per cent of these students are

helped to a degree that they can return to the normal stream of

education. Many of them in the later grades would otherwise

have become jobless and ill-equipped to hold a job; in

other words, would be unemployed and on welfare.

I would hope that because of the tremendous success…and

it's very easy to sense the dedication this man has and that

his staff have in dealing with these children with either

learning problems or physical or mental disability, even to the

extent that they write some of their own textbooks. Mr. Benson

designs the textbook for the child with a learning disability

to use a certain vocabulary; yet still be able to teach

subjects at grades 7, 8 and 9 with a limited vocabulary in

words where, for example, the learning problem is the

assimilation of words.

He mentions that there might even be scope to increase the

programme if he had the funds. It's important to mention that

the Beacon Hill School turns away two out of every three

referrals. There's only one out of three of the children who is

able to gain advantage from this programme.

Just two or three things before I sit down, Madam Chairman.

One point that has been brought to my attention is the question

of children moving from one school district to another. I'm not

referring to transients who don't know where they are. I'm

talking about children who may be seeking a course or courses

which are not available in their own school district.

I understand that when this happens — and I have had a

case brought to my attention in Oak Bay where the lady student

has been asked to pay $380 or some such sum for her education

in Oak Bay, although her parents are paying taxes in Campbell

River.

In passing, Madam Chairman, through you, I would say that I

had nothing but the best and fullest cooperation from

the school board of district 61 in trying to track this problem

down. Apparently there is no guarantee in the school Act that

Campbell River, for example, or any other district, has to

transfer the funds to district 61. If the Minister is planning

to change this, this is fine. But I've prepared an amendment

which I'm ready to bring into the House, to

section 158 of the

Public Schools A ct which should make it quite clear

that, where there is good reason to move from one district to

another, the transfer of funds should be automatic or binding.

I think the wording in the Act right now says "may" instead of

"shall." Once again, the one word can make quite a

difference.

I was also interested to bring before the Minister the whole question of referenda.

If we're going to be taking the education tax off property, that in itself should

diminish the need for referenda. But we had the very depressing experience in

Victoria on February 17 when we held a referendum to spend $1.6 million in school

property expansion and 11.28 per cent of the voters turned out to vote.

Since it needed a 60 per cent majority, the actual vote

passed by 17.6 votes. I think that if we've reached this point,

where the importance and respect for referenda is as bad as

this, then probably the Minister would care to comment as to

whether or not the time has come that we should no longer

consider referenda worth the time and the money and the effort

when frequently the "no" vote is not representative of the

situation.

I've one final point I'd like to — ask the Minister,

Madam Chairman, regarding the development of a marine college

in Vancouver. This is causing a great deal of concern for the

staff who previously, under the aegis of the vocational school

at the Vancouver Vocational Institute, have been providing

marine training for officers and seamen.

I understand they're very upset because the Canadian

Merchant Service Guild has already had meetings with the

Minister and is very keen to develop a separate new marine

college at Jericho Beach. There are none of the North Vancouver

Members here at the moment. Where did they all go?

AN HON. MEMBER: They've gone home.

MR. WALLACE: Not North Vancouver, but the Members from

Vancouver who are most concerned about this. I'm just saying

that because they're the ones who make most of the fuss when

things aren't done right. You folks are most co-operative.

To continue, the fact is that not only is the use of this

land apparently not designed for this purpose anyway —

there's two — thirds of it I gather has already been.

deeded as a recreational parkland and the other acres are

undecided and in limbo as far as the federal government is

concerned — but there are many good reasons, experience,

the availability of equipment and all the services that already

exist in the Vancouver Vocational Institute which would really

to some degree be duplicated if they moved it to a site

somewhere else.

While I'm not going into a long debate on this subject, the

people at the college, as I understand it, are concerned that

the Canadian Merchant Service Guild is dealing directly with

the Minister of Education. There are other parties deeply

concerned, not the least of whom is the college itself, and

also the mayor and council of Vancouver who, along with the

Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) when he was alderman in the City of Vancouver, were

very much opposed to using the Jericho land for any such

purpose as this. The attempt was to have it all designated as

recreation or parkland. I'd, like the Minister to comment on

that.

[ Page 1132 ]

Finally, a question that I've put on the order paper and I

don't think it's been answered: whether the Minister will try

to get a better deal in the paying of the salaries of

substitute teachers? I don't think substitute teaching is the

least bit easy; it's probably tougher for the substitute

teacher than the regular teacher.

I realize that the Minister, Madam Chairman, doesn't have

direct authority to do very much about this, but she is

respected and her position is a responsible one. I gather that

local school districts can choose to leave substitute teachers

out in the cold when it comes to negotiation of salary

agreements.

I have a newspaper clipping which demonstrates the fact that

some substitute teachers have had a substantial reduction in

their payment throughout the greater Victoria area. I wonder if

the Minister would like to comment upon that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always am

delighted to listen to the Member who just took his seat. He's

most sincere in his remarks.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the accent.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: And it's the accent, right. He says you're

not; it's just the accent. But I'm married to a Scotsman too so

I think I know, Not only are your remarks sincere but you

obviously have been thinking a lot about education

philosophically and you've done your research. It's a pleasure

to be able to sit here as Minister and listen to this.

Your philosophical remarks, while I admire listening to

them, I just don't happen to agree with them. But you and I, I

think, would realize that we do have some basic philosophical

differences there. I think you yourself, when you talk about

more discipline in the schools, perhaps are a little

inconsistent. Because at the same time you point to the society

around our children today, which is full of violence, which

they see every day on television. It's a society where they see

irresponsibility. They see hypocrisy, not only on television,

but right around them, unfortunately, sometimes in their own

homes.

I don't think the answer is simply to say, "Let's just

tighten up that discipline in the school and perhaps we'll

solve it." It goes much deeper than that. As you say, I think

parents have a great responsibility here and we as adults

certainly have too, as Members of the Legislature.

When we talk about permissiveness, I do think there is often

so much misconception about that word. As far as I'm concerned,

it's very important for a child to develop a sense of

responsibility. I think that perhaps you and I would agree on

that. I think it's the method of how this responsibility is instilled in

the child which often creates controversy. That's why I feel

very strongly that the use of any violence, the use of corporal

punishment — and I know you do too — is simply not

the method. I think it's a hypocritical method, for one thing,

to use when at one time we're telling our children about the

violence out there and we deplore it, and then — as I

said earlier, whether people agree or not — we inflict

violence upon the child. But this argument could go on and

on.

I do want to point out, though, Mr. Member, that I did

consult with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the B.C. school

trustees at numerous meetings we've had since I came into

office — not as many as I would have liked to have had,

but more than they've had the opportunity of having in prior

years. They knew that I felt very strongly about this. You made

the suggestion that perhaps I should have waited for briefs.

I'm afraid that if we had waited we'd be here another 50 years,

if you and I were here, and there would be no consensus on

this. That is why I feel that as Minister I had to make a

decision on this.

You say it's very similar to the capital punishment debate.

Actually, I get a number of letters congratulating me on

removing capital punishment from the schools. You know, it

might eliminate a lot of our problems. However, I'm not

advocating that.

I enjoyed listening to your philosophical remarks on

education and how you feel about it. Actually, this is why

we're setting up this commission, Mr. Member. Many people,

including yourself and many in this chamber, have been wanting

to get down to this for many years. I think it's been a great

lack in the former government that we haven't been able to

discuss these things or haven't had the opportunity. We've had

the Chant report, but I don't consider that the type of

commission that we want to see today, in 1973.

That's why I'm setting up these commissions. The very sort

of discussion which you and I are having here across the floor,

we hope to stimulate right out there, in Victoria, in every

part of our province, and get a feedback from the consumers and

everyone who is involved. I've mentioned that before in my

speech, so I don't want to bore you by reiterating. But that's

the whole idea of this commission. Let's try and find out how

people feel about this and what steps we can all take to move

in a better direction in education.

Now, some of your specific questions. The Beacon Hill

school: Yes, I would, like to visit it. Our superintendent in

charge of special services has certainly filled me in on the

fine work that's going on there. We're aware that they're on a

LIP grant which will expire. As a matter of fact, there are

quite a number of very exciting, good projects going on across

the province being supported at this time by LIP grants. I've

asked our departmental officials to

[ Page 1133 ]

keep track of these.

People write to me constantly about them. I think the

department should look at this seriously. If it's benefiting

the child, if it can be in some way under the administration of

the board without impeding its own unique method of operation,

I think that we must show flexibility in this department and

see if we can continue to finance a programme that is helping

the students. This is a direction I'd like to see us moving

in.

The matter of school referendums: Yes, you know our party is

on record. We are against this policy of referendums but it's

the old story. We can't do everything at once, as you know, Mr.

Member. We have removed the capital referendums for community

colleges. Hopefully, in the near future — I can't say

when as this will be a Government decision — we can move

into the public school referendums. We are on record as saying

this is not the way to finance our schools — through the

referendum procedure.

The marine college: I would like to straighten this out.

Yes, I met with the Merchant Seamen's Guild. I have an open

door if a group wants to come in and talk to me seriously about

their concerns, which these people were — that we're not

producing enough qualified seamen, particularly master mariners

and mates, et cetera. I was willing to listen to them. I think

this is the only way to operate as a Minister. However, at the

same time, I also had communication from the chairman of the

Vancouver City College, who did express concern. You know,

rumours fly — you've been meeting with one group. I

assured the chairman that no decision had been taken by this

Government. The only decision we know we are going to make is

that we do need to expand and move into a much more expanded

marine college for the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: There's no question about that. The

Government realizes…

Interjection of an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's just a matter of where, right. The

Government certainly realizes that this is essential for our

province. Have I left anything out now?

Oh, yes. Another point you mentioned was that matter of transfer of pupils.

Yes, that's something that has really often bothered me too. People are paying

school taxes and the child goes to another district. That's something I agree

would have to have an amendment to the Public Schools Act. I'll be interested

in seeing your bill. Whether we can put it in this session or not, I don't know.

There's always the fall session, but I'd be interested in seeing your bill on

it.

Also, the matter of substitute teachers. Yes, I remember

many times being approached by substitute teachers who did feel

that they didn't have any bargaining power and were being

discriminated against. As you say, this is really a local

decision to be made. I don't know what assistance basically I

can give here, except that if there's any group out there

teaching in the Province of British Columbia that is being

discriminated against; I'd like to see it remedied. I haven't

had any direct representation from the substitute teachers, but

I am aware of the problem. I hope that the school boards

themselves will face up to this problem. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly a

pleasure for me to stand in this Legislature and discuss with

the Hon. Minister of Education her estimates. It's a very large

portion of the budget. I'm rather disappointed, Mr. Chairman,

that there aren't more Members of that Government in the House.

There are three or four cabinet Ministers. A moment ago there

were only two. Your Members were down to eight a short time

ago. I'm surprised that when we're discussing this amount of

money, the Members aren't in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member get on

with his discussion on the estimates, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: O.K. Mr. Chairman, we're discussing, as I said

before, a very large sum of money here this afternoon. As a

matter of fact, there hasn't been too much discussion on just

how much education costs the taxpayer in British Columbia

— how much it costs the farmer and how much it costs the

ordinary labourer.

I'd like for just a moment, Mr. Chairman, to point out to

the Minister of Education what has happened in British Columbia

in the past 11 years with regard to the cost of education in

British Columbia. In 1965 the spending for education was

$141,618,733. That was 1965. In 1970 it was $322,142,677

— over double in five years. In 1974, the estimate for

the Department of Education spending is $495 million

— $495,544,000 — that is what is anticipated will be

spent on education by this government in this province in

[ Page 1134 ]

That is a 251 per cent increase in the cost of education in

nine years — a 251 per cent increase in the cost of

education to the taxpayers of this province. If we have the

same percentage increase, by 1985 we could be spending in

excess of $1,250 million on education in this province. That

figure is approximately 72 per cent of the entire budget for

this coming year.

The increase in educational spending from 1965 to 1974 was

during a reign of the Social Credit government, where there

were reasonable controls on educational spending in British

Columbia. What is going to happen now that many of those

controls have been taken off?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I know the Minister, Mr. Chairman, the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), has attacked me before in

this House when I've discussed unemployment and spending of

money and he's another one; his estimates are coming up, and

that's a healthy chunk too — a very healthy chunk.

But if the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health

and the Minister of Rehabilitation are going to spend the

money, somebody has to provide it, and it's the taxpayers of

British Columbia that have to provide it and make no mistake

about that. The taxpayers in this province, the working man,

the little man, the man that you're for, that you're supposed

to be for — he's the one that's going to have to provide

the tax dollars for this Department of Education and the

Department of Health and the Department of Rehabilitation. The

little man, the taxpayer.

Interjections by some Hon, Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: In 1965, there were approximately 414,643

pupils enrolled in the public school system. In 1972….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well it's all right for the Members opposite

to make jokes about the cost of running this government to the

taxpayers of this province, because they don't care. They have

no concern for the taxpayers in this province. It's a big joke

when you start talking about taxes in the Legislature. It's a

big joke. I'll tell you it's not any joke to me. I'm here in

this Legislature to protect the rights of the taxpayers in this

province, to see that they get value for their money.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not joshing at all. You're the one that's joshing. You're the ones that are making fun of

the taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I wish you would call your Members

— all the Members of the Government to order, Mr.

Chairman, so that I can get on with my little short talk that I

have here this afternoon. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would remind the Members on

the Government side of standing order No. 17,

part 2; not to

interrupt the Member while he's speaking please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't only hear it, pay attention to it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'll get the message very shortly, my

friend, when the taxpayers of this province speak. You'll get

the message loud and clear. You'll hear it. You better believe

you'll hear it. And you won't be asking them to speak any

louder, my friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk ), because

you'll hear them. You'll hear them when their taxes start going

up. You'll hear them loud and clear, my friend.

In 1965, there were 414,643 pupils enrolled in the public

schools. In 1972, it is estimated that there will be 949,000

pupils. Well, I see the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is back in the Legislature. Welcome

back, Mr. Minister and you should pay attention to what I'm

saying here this afternoon, because you are another one of the

big spenders over on that side of the House.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order please.

MR. PHILLIPS: In nine years, there has been a 129 per cent

increase in enrolment and a 251 per cent increase in the cost

of education. Projected to 1974, there should be over one

million pupils enrolled in our public schools system. The

projected increase in the enrolment on the same basis, from

1965 to 1972, would be an increase of 161 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to point out to the Hon.

Minister of Education is that the cost of education is

increasing disproportionately to the number of pupils enrolled

in the public school system. If this gap continues to broaden,

the taxpayers of this province will not be able to stand the

burden.

Now this points, Mr. Chairman, to two things. I'm sure that

the Minister of Education will give me her

[ Page 1135 ]

comments on these two points. Number one is: it points up to

me that the cost of education has gone up in a far greater

ratio than the number of pupils. The second point is that the

cost of post-secondary education could be the greatest

contributing factor to this fantastic increase in our cost of

education.

This has all happened, as I said before, with a government

in power that was interested in the taxpayers of British

Columbia and who maintained very reasonable controls of the

spending of the Department of Education. I might add this was

done without damaging education in any way, shape or form in

this province.

The controls were there. Money wasn't squandered. The pupils

got educated and, during that term, literally hundreds of new

school buildings were constructed to keep pace with our fast

growing population, brought on by a government which made the

province a great place to live in.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

own view, but it wasn't the laughing stock of the taxpayer in this province

and that's for sure. Their rights were protected.

Last fall the Minister of Education alluded to a new era in

British Columbia. A new era of cooperation among people

involved in education. I would like to know what happened, Mr.

Chairman, to that new era.

Last October the lid on educational spending in this

province was blown off right here in this Legislature. The lid

was blown off. The sky is the limit. By doing this, the

Minister of Education said that there will be a new era of co=operation between the teachers, between the school

boards and between the government. What happened to that

era?

When the settlements came last fall between the various

school boards in the province and the various teacher

organizations, how many of them settled without going to

arbitration? Very few. Very few indeed.

There was no more going to the taxpayer for the extra money

for those extra cameras, for the extra projection equipment,

for the extra stereo equipment, for the extra movie camera. No,

that decision could be made by the teachers and the school

boards. No more going to the taxpayer for the extra wages. A

new era of co-operation.

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that that era lasted very long.

It didn't last very long, Mr. Chairman, The spirit of co-operation was to be the climate in British Columbia

between the government and the teachers and the school boards.

Less than two months later we saw the co-operation go

out the same way it came in.

Out of the 89 school boards in the province, only some six settled themselves

without going to arbitration. Where did that new era of co-operation go, Mr.

Chairman? We blew off the lid and we blew the era of co-operation.

Because there were controls by the previous administration,

they were branded as being against education.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the Legislature

that there are empire builders in every profession. This

Minister spends close to 30 per cent of the total provincial

budget. I would like the Minister to tell me what controls she

is going to place on the empire builders in our teaching

profession and in our school boards in this province. There

must be checks and balances in all departments, Mr.

Chairman.

Our fine new Hon. Minister of Education is a lovely woman,

but I'm afraid that her attitude is not hard enough when it

comes to controlling the millions of dollars of taxpayers'

money that she controls.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you'll "ooh" and "ah" when the taxpayers

speak out.

There must be safeguards. If the percentage of costs

increases, what will it do to the higher salaries? It could

break this province.

Education is the most critical cost in every jurisdiction in

North America. Whether you go to Ontario or to the United

States, the cost of education is top priority in spending in

those jurisdictions.

The point is, are we getting a better product? Where are we

going in the future?

I would like to quote from a pamphlet on the higher cost of

higher education which as I said a moment ago is one of the

reasons that the budget for education is going up. This is a

pamphlet by Dr. Adel Czlowiekowski who is a professor of

economics at the University of Alberta. He has some good ideas

and would like to recommend some of them, Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister.

"The last decade saw an unprecedented expansion of higher

education in Canada as well as in most economically developed countries of the

world. Student enrolment in post-secondary education has almost tripled during

the 1960s, reaching a figure of over half a million in 1970. The rate of increase

ranged from 10 to 15 per cent annually.

"In the Province of Alberta, the expansion of enrolment in higher educational institutions has been the

greatest of all. It soared from 10,000 ten years ago to about

37,000 in 1970.

"Although the rhythm of enrolment increase in higher education

has somewhat moderated recently, it is still expected that by the end of the

current decade about a million persons will be

[ Page

1136 ]

enrolled in universities and community colleges. At the present

time about one — fifth of our young people in the 18 to 24 age group is attending

post — secondary institutions. It is estimated that in 10 years this proportion

will rise again to reach almost one — third of the above age groups.

"Whereas the major portion, about 60 per cent of the total

student population, goes to university, a sizeable and rapidly

growing part are students attending community colleges and

technical institutions. Despite slight moderation in the rate

of expansion, full-time enrolment in the non-university

sector may attain about the quarter of a million mark in

1975."

As I pointed out, I feel that one of the reasons our cost of

education has skyrocketed recently has been not only the

increased costs of salaries and materials and buildings and so

forth, but the increased emphasis on post-secondary

education. Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Education will

agree with me when I say that education in the post-secondary field is the most expensive part of our

educational system.

Enrolment is going to grow and as enrolment grows so will

the cost. I would like to quote what this learned gentleman has

to say with regard to costs:

"Hand in hand with the growth of enrolment, the expenditures

of post-secondary education have been rising at an

exceedingly high pace to reach a $2 billion mark in

1970. That is to say they amount to little less than 3

per cent of the national income gross national product.

"As a matter of fact, expenditures of universities and other

post-secondary institutions have been rising twice as

fast as their enrolments due to increasing costs per student.

There are few signs that they will subside in the foreseeable

future."

Mr. Chairman, I'm pointing this out to the Hon.

Minister of Education because I think it's very important that

in our long-range planning we be aware of where the

heavy burden, the heavy cost to the taxpayer is going to be in

our educational system. It has been said that our post-secondary educational institutions should be free to

all. I'll just take another short moment to give this man's

views on this very important subject:

"Finally the report touches on a delicate point of the

student's share in carrying the financial burden of university

instruction. Contrary to popular demand for higher education

free for all who want it, the authors firmly assert that this

postulate is neither feasible nor justifiable from the

standpoint of fairness.

"It is not feasible because it would impose a very heavy

burden on the taxpayers who already grumble about confiscatory taxes. Unless

enrolment be severely limited by high admission requirements or otherwise, it

is unjustifiable and objectionable, for it would lead to a larger subsidization

of the middle and well-off classes of society whose children make up a vast

majority of student population in this country. Free higher education would

not necessarily change this composition to the advantage of students from poor

families. General subsidization is not a rational way of financing post-secondary

education."

In other words, of this increased cost, the student is going to have to bear

a portion. I don't think the taxpayers of this province will stand for the entire

increased cost.

How can we get the best out of our tax dollar when we spend

it on education? This is the point that I think we should all

address ourselves to, Mr. Chairman.

I realize the tremendous responsibility, Mr. Chairman, that

the Minister of Education has in this regard. Maybe we should

look at cutting out some of our professional students in the

universities. Maybe in our professions some of them can be

taught how to utilize information from a computer and it will

not be necessary to spend as long learning their

profession.

I think that a medical doctor with a small computer in his

office would be able to ask it a question and what he should be

taught is how to interpret the answer in relation to his

patient Certainly engineering data today is largely stored in

computers, guide rules et cetera. It is not impossible for

lawyers instead of spending time learning the laws as well as

they do, learning what is in the books, it could be stored in

computers. There again, when they have a problem they could get

the answer from the computer and they should be training in

interpreting the answer in relation to the client.

AN HON. MEMBER: No horse sense any more?

MR. PHILLIPS: You need ordinary horse sense. I'm talking

about technical data, Mr. Attorney General. I think we could

get more value from our dollars spent if we utilize the

existing facilities more. We have buildings that are not

utilized as much as they could be. We have equipment that is

not utilized as much as it could be. The reason, Mr. Chairman,

I am pointing these out to the Minister of Education is the

same theme that I have been talking about and that is the

increase in cost of education to the province, and naturally,

to the taxpayer.

I would like to leave that subject for just a moment, Mr.

Chairman, and move on to another subject and that is the

subject of discipline in the schools. I listened with a great

deal of interest to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

this afternoon when he talked about discipline, I don't

necessarily agree with the Member for Oak Bay in his political

philosophy, but I must say I agree with

[ Page 1137 ]

many of his remarks in this Legislature this afternoon with

regard to discipline.

I would like to read to the Members, Mr. Chairman, a letter

to the Vancouver Sun . It's entitled: "Kids themselves

vote for the strap." I think this letter is the feeling of a

lot of school teachers in this province.

"The Minister of Education, Eileen Dailly's recent order-in-council re corporal punishment is a personal

dictatorial decision which is an afront to every citizen of a

democracy, Perhaps her conscience won't allow her to preside as

Education Minister over a school system that condones and

permits strapping of students.

"By the same token, neither does our conscience permit us to

submit silently re this edict which prevents corporal

punishment of students who commit serious misdemeanors."

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Do you think students should be

allowed to vote on whether or not they want teachers?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, I will continue on with

this letter because as I said before, I think it is agreed to

by a lot of teachers in British Columbia.

"Some questions come to mind." this author says, "Why were

teachers not polled re their performance in this vital matter?

Why, when we have a BCTF, PTA, curriculum directors and ad

infinitum, were we not allowed discussion or dialogue on this

important issue? Why should the school system be subject to the

whim of a personal decision? Why was no reasonable alternative

given?"

This lady continues:

"I have had an interesting, informative and intelligent

discussion with my grade 6 students re the reasons of strap

retention. Another staff member held a debate with his grade 7

class. A reporter…"

Maybe he was a reporter from the Vancouver Sun .

"…interviewed members of a grade 6 class in a Vancouver

school and the programme was on TV. The majority of the

children condoned corporal punishment. We polled the students

in our school from grade 4 to grade 7 on strap retention and

approximately…"

Approximately. Guess how many?

"…85 percent of the 260 pupils opted for corporal

punishment. In one class of 38 children, 38 students voted not

only to retain the strap but also said that their family, their

parents believed in physical punishment for severe

misdemeanors.

"In the family unit, spatulas and wooden spoons are often

the instruments used for spanking."

Some of the comments from a grade 6 class.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: These are from the students:

"Boy: 'There will be more problems now.' Girl: 'Kids will

get into trouble all the time because nothing will happen.'

Boy: 'What is to stop me throwing a rock through the window? I

just feel like it.' Girl: 'If the kids feel like doing

something, they will do it.' Girl: 'What will Mrs. Dailly put

in its place "

I think that is the question that we should have answered

here in this Legislature. What will Mrs. Dailly put in its

place?

"In a special class for learning disabilities in our school,

11 to 13 wished strap retention. Their reasons show intuitive

insight into problems of learning discipline and self-discipline. Girl: "He'll bully me if nothing happens.'

Is the safety of some of the girl students in schools going

to be in jeopardy because this method of punishment has been

withdrawn by the Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. The answer is no.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"Boy 'Kids do bad things and they should be punished when

they do them.'

"The strap is there, just there, not be abused through

misuse, but to be used as the Public Schools Act states.

Similar to that of a kind of firm and judicious parent for

common good. The school is a society of students and like

society at large, needs rules and regulations for law and order

to be retained and maintained in a world that is shrinking due

to urbanization, over-population and ever increasing

proximity.

"Schools are accountable to that society of children,

parents and taxpayers. And stop-and-go signs,

green and red lights and rules of the road are ever with us.

More so than every before."

This lady continues:

"The school is the place for the pupil to learn to respect

these time-honoured humane principles, procedures and

priorities in order to honour the rights of the majority as

well as to consider the wishes of the minority in a democracy."

I think this lady who wrote this letter had her wits about

her. She knew what she was talking about.

"Teachers are not child beaters. Some may have strapped

unwisely and unfairly but life often treats us unwisely and

unfairly. It is human to err. Children perceive and have strong

sensibilities. They seem to know that erring classmates need to

be checked from wrong desires and doings.

"The common good must be uppermost in the minds of all.

Children have that commonsense

[ Page 1138 ]

approach through conversation, dialogues, debates, and discussion. Some tried and true sayings from the world's

most read book reveals: 'Spare the rod and spoil the

child.'

'A little child shall lead them.'

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would the Hon. Member be seated.

State your point of order.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Yes. I can't follow the

tenure of what the speaker is getting at. Is he for child

beating or not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. There is no point of order.

Would the Hon. Member proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is about typical of the Member for

Vancouver South. Had he been in the House…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would you confine your remarks

to the estimates, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think this letter is very well written and I

think it states very clearly the views of many school teachers

in this province and the views of many parents in this province

and I am sure, the views of many clear-thinking school

children in this province.

What did the Hon. Minister of Education say last fall

— on September 22, when she was interviewed — a

profile. Headlines, Mr. Chairman. The Vancouver Province

Friday, February 22, 1972: "Meet the Education Minister —

profile."

What does it say at the very top of the page? In large

letters: "Corporal Punishment"

"I will consult teachers, although it's one of the first things I'd like to see eliminated.'

"Mrs. Dailly said she will move gradually on several issues about which she hag strong personal views.

One of these is the removal of corporal punishment as a legal

method of discipline in the schools. 'll will consult with

teachers who have to deal with students.' "

Where was the consultation? Mr. Chairman, our Minister, of

Education used the usual dictatorial manner of the socialist

government to push her ideas on the teachers in this province.

We have had far too much of that from this socialist

government.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I was disappointed in the

Hon. Minister of Education, that she would use such a

dictatorial method to foist her own personal ideas on every

child in this province, on every parent in this province, on

every taxpayer in this province and on every teacher in this

province.

Where is that new era of co-operation that the Minister of Education told

us about last October in the mini-session? That session was called especially,

Mr. Chairman, to get this new era of co-operation off the ground.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you a masochist?

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the Premier knows the answer to that

question.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know the answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to state again that I was

very disappointed in the Hon. lady Minister of Education, very

disappointed. I didn't think that she would follow the lead of

her ruthless cabinet Ministers in foisting their ideas,

following their dictatorial lead. I didn't think she'd do it.

Well I hope, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that she uses the

same dictatorial powers when it comes to keeping down the cost

of education for the good of the taxpayers in this

province.

The Minister said on the floor of the Legislature the other

day, "Have you ever seen the sight of a child being dragged

from the floor screaming 'Do not discipline me'?" Nasty

sight.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Education should

spend more time teaching the teachers how to discipline their

children. It's not a nice sight seeing a youngster defying his

teacher either, is it? That's not a nice sight.

Have you ever seen a teenaged boy defying a lady school

teacher, enraging his teacher by taunting her, insulting her?

That's not a nice sight either, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON, MEMBER: You can shoot him.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sure that there will be cases far worse

than the one I'm alluding to here.

Some of the young female school teachers in this province

will not be safe from some of the bully teenaged kids.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's on your mind? (Laughter).

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What's on yours?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Premier sits there and he

makes light of a very serious situation. He hasn't been in the

House very much this afternoon. I'm glad he came in to listen

to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon.

[ Page 1139 ]

Member return to the estimates, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just tell the Premier to leave

me alone and let me continue with my few remarks that I have

left.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not threatening you with the

strap.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, testing authority is part of

growing up. What are the children in the schools going to do

when there is no authority to test, when there is no final

limit, when there is no stop sign?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education took that stop sign

out of our schools by her dictatorial order-in-council. Just having that disciplinary object in the

drawer was the deterrent. The Minister should have consulted

with the teachers of this province like she promised to do.

What did one of the friends of the Government, the

controversial Mr. Young, have to say about the rules in

schools? It's very interesting. I'll just read you this article…

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't he going to be appointed to the

Government?

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, he'll probably be appointed a deputy

Minister of Education. It wouldn't surprise me at all, Mr.

Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Assistant deputy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, assistant deputy or maybe the public

relations man.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will you get on with your

point, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just discussing the Minister's estimates,

Mr. Chairman. If you'd quit harassing me and let me continue,

I'd finish a lot sooner.

Mr. Chairman, this is an

article out of the Vancouver

Province , a great paper. Mr. Young says: " 'Most

teachers are frightened of their students,' controversial

educator John Young told a University of B.C. audience

Monday."

AN HON. MEMBER: John Young?

MR. PHILLIPS: This is from your friend John Young. I guess,

Mr. Chairman, that this John Young will never be appointed

deputy Minister of Education, because he disagrees with the

Hon. Minister of Education.

"Young said, 'Evidence of this fear shows up in the rules

and regulations teachers make to isolate themselves from the students. The rules

allow teachers to hid behind an unthinking, impersonal bureaucracy instead of

dealing with the students' individual problems,' he said."

The removal of discipline from our public school system

means that our teachers are going to have to hide further away

from the problems of the pupils. All because the Minister of

Education wanted to ram through her own personal views.

I'll admit, Mr. Chairman, that some children in our

educational system are O.K. They don't need discipline. There

are cases probably where they've been disciplined by the wrong

method by the wrong teacher. But I think these cases, Mr.

Chairman, are in the minority.

Look at any young, energetic pupil. We certainly have lots

of them in British Columbia because it's a good place to live,

it's a good society and these young fellow are full of energy,

vim and vigour. What are they going to do, Mr. Chairman?

They're going to do like any ordinary, normal, human, young

child is going to do. They're going to experiment, Mr.

Chairman. They're going to test and they're going to

experiment, Mr. Chairman. They're going to attempt to do things

that they shouldn't do. They're going to put out feelers to

their teacher. They're going to send up trial balloons to see

how far the teacher will allow them to go.

Now there is no stop sign. They're going to gamble on just

how much they can get away with before they're expelled.

They're going to speculate, Mr. Chairman, as to how far their

teacher will let them go.

If there is no check in school they keep right on checking.

When they go out into the world they start testing the police

force and they start testing every other human being in our

society.

By removing these controls, Mr. Chairman, we are not

equipping these children for adult life. By the permissiveness

in our society we have practically ruined our police force

today. Now we remove the barriers in the very critical learning

stages of the people who are some day going to rule this world.

Some of them will probably be sitting right here in this

Legislature.

It's a permissive society and now it's one step closer to

becoming completely permissive. Our police force has no backing

from the public. Now our school teachers, who try to teach

discipline, have no backing from the Department of

Education.

Well, it's done. Like many other things that have been done

in this province, the damage is probably already done. Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Education if she

would consider withdrawing that dictatorial order-in-council.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I've never seen a socialist who took an

idea from anybody in my life. They have all the answers. Why

must a democratic society go ail the

[ Page 1140 ]

way to the bottom, ruin itself with permissiveness, and then

have to fight its way back up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate

his remarks to the estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Hon. Member, Mr. Chairman, is talking

about education. A society is basically judged by the amount of

its education, the way it educates its population. Mr.

Chairman, this is a very serious matter. I would like to hear