1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th 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)

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 857 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

wish to announce to the House today the arrival of a brand new New

Democrat in the Province of British Columbia. We're pleased and proud

of our second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) who became a

father Saturday of a daughter that weighed 7 lb. 10 oz.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, when it

comes to upstaging now, I think that's going to happen because, Mr.

Speaker, I want to welcome to this Province a brand new Socred — 7 lb.

13 oz. (Laughter). Mother doing well, daughter doing well, father doing

as well as could be expected.

As a consequence of that this is the first time Mrs. Black and I

have been grandparents and I'd like to pass the cigars around to the

boys. You give those to the boys over in the Opposition side to pass

around. There are some who do not believe in that type of pollution. If

so, I'll pass the candy around (Laughter). Congratulations to my friend

opposite. I went through that many years ago, I know how he suffered.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd just say this is probably the most effective way to beat the generation gap. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): I would just like the

House to welcome from Chemainus the group of senior secondary students

who are beginning the day very well by these felicitations. I don't

know that it's a great example to be passing cigars around on both

sides of the House but nevertheless, I'd ask you to welcome the

students for today's proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I should

certainly like to say apropos the remarks of the first two speakers

today when one referred to a Social Credit and the other referred to a

New Democratic party. The people are born Liberals and they die

Liberals. Sometimes in between there they stray a little.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement

to make of interest, I know, to the sporting world. On Saturday last I

was with yourself and the Hon. Minister of Labour along with the second

Member for Victoria and would you believe it the second Member for

Victoria made a hole-in-one at Oak Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege relates to actions taken by this

government and specifically by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brothers) who are in

my opinion in contempt of Parliament.

On March 17, 1972, after this House arose, an edition of the March 17, 1972 Vancouver Sun

arrived which had in it an advertisement placed by the Government of

British Columbia dealing with a matter presently before this House.

I refer, Mr. Speaker, to page 10 of the aforementioned edition of the Vancouver Sun , an example of which I now hold before you.

It is an ad placed by the government intituled "Ontario Has

Education Problems Too"….the Government of the Province of British

Columbia.

The placing of this ad, Mr. Speaker, is a grave violation of all

that we hold sacred relative to the due parliamentary process. This ad

was placed before this House had completed second reading of Bill No.

3, and, is a direct reflection on that debate.

We think, Mr. Speaker, that the government's action in placing this

ad is an arrogant disregard for the traditions, usages, authority and

dignity of the Legislature. It is reprehensible that the government

would use public funds to further its case on a debate that is not yet

complete in this House. It is reprehensible that the government would

use public funds to subvert the deliberations of this Legislature.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) that: This House regrets that the

government has seen fit in the present stage of proceedings on Bill No.

3, at a time when it is being debated on second reading, to state a

case by advertisement published Friday, March 17, 1972 in the Vancouver

Sun , page 10, thereby derogating from the privileges and

constitutional authority of this House and thereby reflecting upon the

integrity of our parliamentary institution with a view to seeking to

influence the debate.

Wherefore the following Members are hereby appointed as a committee

on privileges, to whit Messrs. Price, Mussallem, Marshall, Macdonald,

Dowding and Gardom, to determine whether or not a breach of privileges

of this House took place and a contempt has been committed upon the

House.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to you references from Dawson on parliamentary

procedure in Canada pages 50 and 51 and I refer you to the 16th edition

of May on contempt, page 43, and privilege, page 380.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member has placed a great deal of

evidence before the Chair which I think he and other Members will

realise must be reviewed by the Chair before we can find the motion to

be in or out of order.

My immediate reaction is that the setting up of a committee, for

example, as contained within the motion would in itself, not having

notice, require leave. Nevertheless, I think with the House's

permission I would like some time to review the matters placed before

the Chair and to bring my viewpoint in at the earliest opportunity.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I bring this matter to your

[ Page 858 ]

attention without notice because of the sense of urgency.

(1) The ad could appear again before the completion of the debate.

(2) This is the first opportunity that I have had since the placing of

the ad to bring it to your attention.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the House give the Speaker time then to research the material and to bring in a ruling accordingly? Is it agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer a recess now due to

the fact that the government has indicated that we will be proceeding

to legislation this afternoon and your decision may materially affect

the debate on that legislation. Perhaps a 15-minute recess would be in

order.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that 15 minutes would be hardly adequate

time to give the Speaker on a matter like this. It's a courtesy that's

often extended to the Chair to give some time to review matters that

are placed before it and surely the Chair isn't asking for any special

concessions in this particular case.

MR. BARRETT: Fine, I would hope then the government would not call the bill until the decision.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): The government is going to call the bill forthwith.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, with the government intention

it places an obvious sense of urgency on a decision from yourself. I

don't see how we can debate the bill without a decision from you, sir.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, surely an

editorial published in the Province of Ontario about their system and

reproduced here cannot affect legislation that's before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not prepared to bring in a ruling on the

matter of privilege or on the attendant motion without having been

given some time. Now, how much time I really don't know, having not

seen the material previously but 15 minutes is completely inadequate

and I would think we'd need considerable more time on this.

It may be possible to have the Deputy Speaker take the Chair for

some time while the House carries on so that we might be in a position

to consider the matter. But even then it's going to take some time.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the threat of the Premier to call the bill…

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. It's just straight statement of facts.

MR. BARRETT: …forthwith, Mr. Speaker, I feel that if I have

assurance from the government that the bill would not be called while

you were deliberating, then certainly I would appreciate that.

If that courtesy is not extended when we are waiting for a Speaker's

ruling on such an important matter as abuse of the privileges then Mr.

Speaker, I have no other option than to move a one-hour adjournment.

Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the whole influence of that debate will be

under …

MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the House to decide. Just

how a question should be proposed on a request like this I don't

clearly know. Would the House be at ease for a moment or two?

Order, please! It has been the long-established practice of the

House that Mr. Speaker be given the right to reserve decisions on

points that are placed before him. I can think of no other time when

this leave has been refused and therefore we're rather breaking new

ground here today.

Nevertheless, I must hold in view of the well-established precedents

that have gone before that I will require time to discuss and to study

the matters that have been placed before me. So on that basis I must so

rule. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

draw your attention to standing order 26 which says: "Whenever any

matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration

immediately."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition has raised a

very valid breach of privilege which is going to materially affect the

debate which will take place this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please….

MR. McGEER: If you postpone your decision…

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, will you, please?

MR. McGEER: …it only compounds the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: A prima facie case of breach of privilege has

not as yet been established. All that the Chair is requesting is that

it have time to consider the matter that has been raised by the Hon.

the Leader of the Opposition. That is all. No prima facie case has been

established.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that there has

only been a prima facie case but in all instances before a matter has

received your ruling it is a prima facie case. It cannot be a case or a

non-case until we have your ruling. Again therefore I must go back to

number 26 which says: "Whenever a matter of privilege arises it shall

be taken into consideration immediately."

I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to your taking the time necessary

except, Mr. Speaker, I've been faced with government arrogance that

insists…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: …it's going to pursue the bill…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Member is not in order.

MR. BARRETT: …in face of the matter that I've raised….

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is not in order.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 859 ]

MR. BARRETT: Is your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: This matter has not been studied by the Chair

and therefore I'm requiring time to see whether or not a prima facie

case exists. From the material that the Honourable Member has placed

before me, including the quotation from Dawson and a quotation from

May, I think it is less than reasonable to expect that I would give an

outright answer.

My first impression from the content of the motion — that a

committee on privileges be struck — would on that basis alone, in my

mind, put it out of order unless unanimous consent were given by the

House because leave would have to be given to set such a committee up.

Nevertheless, I would like to examine all of the material that was

placed before the Chair in order to come in with a fairly comprehensive

decision. Already a fairly comprehensive decision has been dealt with

by the Chair on a previous occasion. I would like to review that

decision and to review other material that has been placed before me,

that is all.

MR. BARRETT: I have no objection to that except the fact that

I'm being confronted with the decision by the government to proceed

with a matter that I have raised in question and that's….

MR. SPEAKER: This has no bearing on the matter of privilege that the Honourable Member has raised.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I regret that we cannot in a gentlemanly

way give the Speaker the time to make his ruling, without that the

threat by the Premier proceeding with the matter.

MR. STRACHAN: Discourtesy by the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: It's most discourteous.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: All right.

MR. STRACHAN: In order to help you, I believe, I would ask

you to cast your mind back to a previous occasion in this House when we

were discussing a matter of privilege. A matter raised by the first

Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) affecting the Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) and at that time I believe — as I

recollect it — you yourself called an immediate recess in order to

check on the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: As I recall it, it was on the final day of the session.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: And the reason a recess was called was because we couldn't put it off to another day.

MR. STRACHAN: Nevertheless on your own volition, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: But this wasn't predicated on standing order 26, let me assure the Honourable Member on that point.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but it was on the instance of the Speaker.

The House has really no knowledge, the Speaker has no knowledge when

the House is going to be completed or whether or not that was the last

day. That was an assumption which may or may not have been….

MR. SPEAKER: We're getting into another argument.

MR. STRACHAN: A decision made by the Speaker, to have a

recess to consider it, I am asking you to remember that precedent which

you yourself set some years ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair must be now in a position to rule that

time will be required to bring an answer in on the matters raised and

not even yet placed before it. So if the Honourable Member would pass

the material up to the Speaker, we'll have an opportunity to examine it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I

have no knowledge of being nominated for any committee and I wish to

disassociate myself from it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to submit a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND INVALIDATING ACT

MR_ SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Invalidating Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House March 20, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 92. On the recommendation of the

committee, Bill No. 92 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources I have the honour to present a

message from his Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, 1967

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act, 1967 and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House March 20, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 102. On the recommendation of the

committee, Bill No. 102 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the

[ Page 860 ]

day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, was there a question from the Members on the matter of proceeding to public bills?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Yes, I'd like the advice of the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's government day, Mr. Speaker. Don't need leave….

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm simply unsure about the motion with respect to leave being granted, and I'd appreciate your advice.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's government day.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is required when the House proceeds

directly to any other part of the orders of the day than the committee

of supply which has priority attached to it.

Therefore even on government day the Chair requests leave to move

from the beginning of the introduction of the orders of the day,

directly to consideration of bills.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has already asked for leave — we'll

ask for it again. The motion was that we proceed directly to public

bills and orders. Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has not been granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Then we move to committee of supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee of supply. Mr. Chairman.

House in committee of supply. The committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders. Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Bill No. 3.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): The question wasn't put to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: What motion?

MR. BARRETT: I called for a division in committee and I wasn't even given that by the Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: What was the division on in committee?

MR. BARRETT: The division in committee on the motion that the

committee rise and report progress. The committee Chairman never even

put the question. We asked for a division.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Are you ruling on the division or has that been disposed of, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the House has no knowledge of what has

transpired in the committee and the Honourable the Leader of the

Opposition tells me that a division was called.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Then how did you know when to take the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: By being reported to by the Chairman. The Honourable Member knows perfectly well how the Speaker got back into the Chair.

One moment please. The Honourable first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Honourable Member is on a point of order.

MR. McGEER: Point of order. If I could just ask Mr. Speaker

this. We went to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker, without leave.

But we have not proceeded through motions and adjourned debates on

motions. And my question Mr. Speaker is, may we proceed to public bills

and orders? I have orders of the day and we go to motions and adjourned

debates on motions or is that…?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Honourable Member would be the first

to agree that in analyzing the motions and adjourned debates on motions

that this is not government business but rather the business of private

members. He brings up an excellent point because it's been a source of

concern to the Chair, that possibly the motions and adjourned debates

on motions should be classified into government motions and adjourned

debates on those motions, and private members' motions and adjourned

debates on those motions — which is the practice of other parliaments.

It's an excellent point, one with which the Chair cannot at this time

concur because of the content of the motions which are considered more

private business really, than they are government business.

Government, as you well know, requires consent to be able to call a motion within the motions that are on the order paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, there is one on tile order paper that could be called first.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it could be.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, my

[ Page 861 ]

point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the Chairman

made an erroneous report to you. He failed to report to you that a

division was called on the motion that the committee now rise. I would

suggest that you call the Chairman back and request from him a true

report of what happened and perhaps an accounting as to why he didn't

call the division that was called for on that motion. He gave an

erroneous report to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the House advises

that a division was called in the committee which was not taken. Could

you possibly explain this to me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion was put that the committee report

progress and ask leave to sit again. Someone called a division after

that motion was put. I recorded the motion.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I think possibly for matter of clarification,

Mr. Chairman, you might take the Chair again and clarify the matter. If

a division is called after the motion is put, certainly Members are

entitled to and should have a division on the motion.

You might consult with the clerk as to whether or not a motion is capable of being made on a motion for the committee rising.

House in committee of supply. The committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, a division arose in committee on

the motion that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again. The

committee asked leave to have that division recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will deal first of all with the

division that took place in the committee which requires leave in order

to be recorded in the Journals . Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, I know we raised this

question and you attempted to deal with it by saying that there are

some government motions and some nongovernmental motions. Standing

order No. 25 states that the ordinary daily routine of business in the

House shall be as follows: Prayers, presenting petitions, reading and

receiving petitions, presenting reports by standing and special

committees, motions and adjourned debates on motions, then questions

put by Members, and introduction of bills.

Then it says on government days which are Monday and Tuesday you

have public bills and orders. So according to our standing order No.

25, motions and adjourned debates on motions precede public bills and

orders without leave of the House being given. I, therefore, move that

we proceed to motions and adjourned debates on motions, precede public

bills and orders without leave of the House being given. I, therefore,

move that we proceed to motions and adjourned debates on motions, which

is No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is speaking to a point of

order which must be dealt with first of all. The Honourable the

Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call your

attention to standing order No. 27, sub-section 2 which would seem to

cover the matter. Whenever government business has precedence,

government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may

think fit. The right is reserved to the administration of placing

government orders at the head of the list on every day except Wednesday

and Thursday. I think that deals with the matter specifically.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I also point

to the order paper and motion No. 26 which is a cabinet Minister's

motion, which in the order of motions would be government business and

therefore have precedence under standing order No. 27 if the Attorney

General's submission is correct. It follows that following the orders

of the day, we would have to proceed to motions, adjournment of debate

on motions dealing first with government business and then revert back

to bills after that order has been completed.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there's two things that the Chair has to

consider — one, standing order No. 27 which states quite clearly in

sub-section 2 that on days when government business has precedence that

it may be called in any order that the government sees fit.

The Honourable Members will note also standing order No. 33, that a

motion for reading or proceeding to the orders of the day shall have

precedence over any other motion before the House. No amendments of

that debate, no amendments to or debate on this motion shall be

allowed. I think it's quite clear that the government may proceed to

any part of the order paper they wish, really, so long as it takes into

account the precedence motion which was established just prior to the

budget debate giving priority to the committee of supply. 1, therefore,

rule that the House is quite properly in public bills and orders.

Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 3. The Honourable Member for Vancouver East.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

(continued)

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, on Bill No. 3 I do not want to in any way refer to the ad which appeared last Friday in the Vancouver Sun

and other papers, in terms of whether or not there has been a breach of

the privileges of the Legislature. I just want to say that apart from

the technical aspects of breach that if our deliberations and the

second reading of the bill had been before a court — whether it was a

provincial court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia, any court — and one of the parties had seen fit to take out an advertisement in a

newspaper reflecting in any way upon the matter before the court, that

would have been contempt of court and punishable by fine or

imprisonment.

The reason for that, of course, is to allow those

[ Page 862 ]

deliberations to proceed untrammeled and free of

unfair and undue influence. Yet, we find here as we proceed with second

reading of a very important bill that political propaganda has been

paid for by the taxpayers' own dollars through the instrumentality of

this government. I say that to use the taxpayers' own dollars to

brainwash the taxpayer is reprehensible and I say to use the taxpayers'

own dollars to attempt to subvert or undermine or influence the

deliberations of this legislative body is reprehensible. I say what we

see here is use of taxpayers' own money to subvert political democracy.

I therefore move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Brousson

Hall

Macdonald

Gardom

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Wallace

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

NAYS — 32

Ney

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Marshall

Jordan, Mrs.

Chabot

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Capozzi

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Little

Fraser

Shelford

Jefcoat

Campbell, B.

Richter

Bruch

Wolfe

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to reply very briefly

to the very short speech made on this bill by the first Member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). I think we're perhaps grateful that it

was short. But he dealt with just one point in his remarks and that's

all I intend to deal with and it's by way of reply to the Honourable

Members. Because it's a bit ironical to hear the loud complaints today,

Mr. Speaker, about statements emanating from another side of the House

relating to this bill, Bill No. 3, when a short time ago the parties

across the way, the Opposition, were represented at a rally at the

Forum dealing specifically with Bill No. 3. What hypocrisy, Mr.

Speaker. Here it is. I have the report in the Vancouver Sun , Friday March 10, 1972. "Teachers Urged To Consider Strikes."

Interjection by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Now, you don't want to listen. You don't want to listen, do you?

The Leader of the Opposition has a lot to say when he's on his seat

but very little when he's on his feet. "To wild cheers from about 3,500

irate public employees in the P.N.E. Garden Auditorium, several people

made statements. Ray Haynes, Homer Stephens, and David Barrett, the

Leader of the Opposition." Let me quote from what he said.

Here he comes in such a pious way to complain about some editorial

written on education in Ontario published in British Columbia. What did

the N.D.P. Leader say? He said: "Are you prepared to get off your

scuttlebutts and go out and beat this government? This is not a fight

for selfish interest. It's a fight for the principle of the dignity of

the individual in a free society." That's what he said.

Talk about debating a bill, talk about debating the bill other than

in this Legislature. If anyone has been guilty of that, it's the Leader

of the N.D.P., Mr. Speaker.

And the Liberals, not to be outdone, were represented by the Member

for North Vancouver–Seymour. He shouted and I'm quoting, shouted:

"Let's kick this lot out of office." That's what he said.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: And then Mr. Speaker, at this same event,

printed postcards addressed to Premier Bennett asking for withdrawal of

Bill No. 3 were distributed. The crowd voted against this bill as

anti-educational and antidemocratic. What hypocrisy for these Members

to come to this Legislature today and make the complaint that the

Honourable first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) registered

on the floor of this House, Mr. Speaker, because the night of this

meeting there was a night sitting here.

Where were you? Why weren't you here? Why wasn't the Leader of the

Opposition here paying attention to government business, public

business?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's paid by public money. He's paid by public money.

HON. MR. PETERSON: He is paid by public money. The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour is paid by public money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: Point of order. The Attorney General is

obviously far from the principle of the bill. (Laughter). Admittedly I

raised the point as to whether taxpayers' dollars should be used for

political propaganda. Now maybe I was out of order at that point. But

he's away out of order, away off the bill.

If I was out of order, that doesn't give the Attorney General the right to be speaking out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Get to. the point of order, please. Order,

please! I would agree with the Honourable the first Member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that this discussion on both sides is

out of order on this bill.

However, the Chair did allow the first Member for Vancouver East to

proceed while he was out of order just a little bit, but he was

nevertheless out of order. I agree that the Honourable the Attorney

General himself had a right to reply but his discussion on the matter

is out of order. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak on this

bill, I intend to speak on this bill as I have spoken on this bill in

public. When I spoke on this bill in public, Mr. Speaker, I spent my

own money to fly over to that meeting, to be there.

[ Page 863 ]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this bill and ask that the

government provide the Opposition the same amount of money they paid

for this ad for us to place an ad, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to have

national debate on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! One moment, one moment. The

Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, just wait one second please.

The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has

risen to a point of order which I've accepted.

The point of order was the Honourable the Attorney General was out

of order in discussing the whole matter of advertising and matters

other than the principles of this particular bill. I have agreed with

his point of order. I now ask you to proceed with the principle of Bill

No. 3.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was under attack.

MR. SPEAKER: Nevertheless, the Honourable the Member is not in order to review the matter.

MR. BARRETT: Alright, Mr. Speaker, then let's stick to the

debate. The debate has been taken to the public arena. In taking that

debate to the public arena they're quoting, the government is quoting

an editorial.

MR. SPEAKER: What we're concerned with here, what the House

must be concerned with, is the principles that are contained in Bill

No. 3, not what extracurricular action may have been taken on the

subject.

MR. BARRETT: Alright, Mr. Speaker, this relates to the

principle of the bill, the content of this ad does — no question about

it. Now, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition himself

has placed the matter before the Chair for consideration, as a matter

of privilege.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Surely that debate, to be continuing on this

subject, would be anticipating a debate that may take place on this

matter of privilege.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, because of the government's

refusal to instruct the House with the advice of your ruling, how is it

possible that we can presume what the ruling may or may not be? We must

press on with the debate. As part of the debate, government has given

in evidence a certain statement to the newspapers.

That has been part of the debate. Since there is no decision from

the Chair and the debate is being pushed in an arrogant manner by the

government then we must refer to the part of the debate that has been

taken outside of this House by the government itself with public funds.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt again, the Honourable the

Leader of the Opposition. Just a few moments ago, the subject matter

which he is currently attempting to discuss, was declared out of order

by the Chair when asked for it to be ruled out of order by the

Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald).

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to it. I agree

completely about the nature of the actions of myself or the government.

But now I'm referring to the substance of the Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a vehicle has been chosen to, in my

opinion, inflame the public mind about the nature of this debate. The

vehicle that has been chosen is to use an editorial….

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. The Honourable Member is again out of order and is not discussing the principle of the bill in question.

MR. BARRETT: I'm going to read the editorial, Mr. Speaker,

which relates specifically to the argument of financing and I think

that you must understand that it deals with the principle of an

experience with a similar legislation or similar methods in another

jurisdiction on …

MR. SPEAKER: The House during the debate on the principle of this particular bill is talking about the principle of the bill itself…

MR. BARRETT: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: …And nothing contained in an advertisement

which the Speaker, as a matter of fact, has not read. I am sure that

the Honourable Member is aware of the rule, but he must get back to the

principle of this particular bill otherwise the Chair will have no

alternative but to conclude his address which I believe would be

unfortunate because I know that he has many points to raise on this

matter of the principle of this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to call to your

attention the contents of the editorial because they are on educational

matters relating to financing, relating to negotiating with teachers,

and relating to bargaining.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Honourable Member will confine his remarks to that area.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, fine. I was going to read the headline. It says: "If They Go Out, Let Them Stay Out." I consider that's….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's endorsed by the Government of the

Province of British Columbia. It's paid for by the taxpayers of British

Columbia. Now it relates to an emotional reaction, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I'd like to point out that in moving the

bill for second reading, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brothers)

referred to matters completely outside of British Columbia. He referred

to the Economic Council of

[ Page 864 ]

Canada and his figures have embraced the whole

education scene, the whole social welfare scene in Canada, the whole

health scene in Canada. He also referred to the State of Washington

with reference to education referenda and teachers and so on, and he

related to this bill. The Minister himself led us in a debate which

took in all of Canada and went beyond the borders of Canada and

included the State of Washington. So I suggest that in reading this

editorial — referring to it — this Member is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the Member's viewpoint. What I am

trying to say is that at that time there was no motion for

consideration before the Chair and that the matter of dealing with an

editorial, the contents of which the Speaker has not seen, may or may

not be in accordance with the principle of this particular bill.

I think it would not be improper to review the Department of

Education insofar as it affected the matters in this bill in other

jurisdictions.

MR. BARRETT: The contents of this particular editorial

reflect on reactions to government policy — attempting to cut the cost

of education and to deal with the bargaining rights of teachers The

content of this editorial deals with that. That is of course why I

raised the matter under a point of privilege which is still under your

review. But the contents itself do relate directly to the debate.

For example, the title is: "If They Go, Let Them Stay Out." That

relates to collective bargaining, Mr. Speaker, which brings me into the

main body of my address. I will leave the editorial for a matter of

record.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the bill facing us is essentially a

political bill. It is a bill, in my opinion, using the arguments of

collective bargaining that affect the quality of education deeply for

the children of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the government views education from a uni-dimensional

point of view. This government has shown the attitude that education is

a singular, unrelated specific in its total budget. It has a habit of

taking one-dimensional views of problems. Perhaps that may be part of

the secret of its political success, but there are two areas in

government responsibility, in my opinion, that must never be looked

upon uni-dimensionally and one of those is welfare and the other is

education.

This bill, by its presence on the order paper has already had

devastating psychological effects. This bill has affected the

confidence of most of the people in this province in this government's

approach to education, the school board's approach to education, the

teacher's approach to education and the children's approach to

education.

This government has taken the position that money is what counts in

education and that everything related to education is below the money

aspect in terms of priority. We have had tragic reflections, perhaps

words better not said in this House, but we have indeed had tragic

reflections on the nature of scope in the education field. We had the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) refer to art and

music and other "baloney." I regret that.

I heard the Minister make those remarks — if he wishes to withdraw

them for the record, perhaps he will have the opportunity to do that

when he rises in his place in this debate.

Along with that, we have had witness to the government itself,

through a spokesman during this debate, appear on a radio programme. In

response to some questions the Honourable the Minister appeared on a

radio programme and said on that radio programme: "Teachers in Fort

Nelson and the northern part of the province have realised that if

their salaries continue to climb at the rates they are, there would be

little left over for the school board. So this year they voluntarily

set their salaries at the provincial guidelines that I suggested, which

were 6.5 per cent."

The teachers in Fort Nelson categorically deny that. Categorically

deny it. I have here a copy of a letter received by the Honourable the

Minister (Hon. Mr. Brothers) — I want to bring it to the attention of

the House — from the teachers in Fort Nelson. They say that the

Minister's statement is and I quote: "A blatant distortion of the

facts."

The Minister was quoted as speaking for the teachers. He was quoted as saying:

"Teachers in Fort Nelson and the northern

part of the province, they realise that if their salaries continue to

climb at the rates they are, there would be very little left over for

the school board to improve the educational system. So this year they

voluntarily set their salaries at the provincial guideline that I

suggested, which was 6.5 per cent. They provided the additional money

which would normally have gone in their salaries to the school board to

improve the educational system and it involves $30,000."

This is a blatant distortion of the facts. They're in effect telling

the Minister that he is not telling the truth. Now that's a matter

between the Minister and themselves, but that is the position taken by

the Fort Nelson Teachers' Association.

They are stating that the Minister is not being truthful. That is

their position, but I refer to you now and I read to this House and I'm

prepared to table it, a copy of a letter sent by the teachers to the

Minister.

The above statement made by the Minister is a

blatant distortion of the facts. Firstly, we negotiated an increase of

8.9 per cent on payroll costs. At no time did we negotiate on the basis

of 6.5 per cent.

Secondly, we did not give the board any money

to improve the educational system. What we did was to defer our

increases until September, 1972, so that the board would not be forced

to dismiss five teachers — a situation which would surely have resulted

in the deterioration of the learning conditions in Fort Nelson. The

deferred money was to be used to pay the salaries of these five

teachers.

We resent your attempt to support Bill No. 3

with our unique local problem of last November. We did not support your

6.5 per cent guideline. Furthermore, we resent the inference that the

Fort Nelson Teachers' Association supports your stand on Bill No. 3,

contrary to the stand taken by the rest of the teachers in British

Columbia. We do not support Bill No. 3.

Signed. H. Reddecop, president, Fort Nelson Teachers' Association.

If you like, Mr. Speaker, I'll lay this letter on the table.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member will require leave.

MR. BARRETT: Whatever the House prefers. O.K., Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to give leave to file this letter.

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a second

[ Page 865 ]

example of what I'm referring to in the

psychological warfare, the psychological damage that has been caused by

the government and its Members in intemperate statements.

Collective bargaining is an issue. Certainly it is. But far more

important is the question of the dignity, the self-respect and the

self-image of the teachers in our classrooms in this province. Because,

Mr. Speaker, if the government through this bill, as has been evidenced

by the Minister's use or misuse of information from the Fort Nelson's

teachers' action, the government has destroyed the psychological

confidence that is absolutely necessary between teacher and government

and teacher and classroom.

This government has taken a position that has forced teachers to

re-examine their whole professional relationship with their employers.

Once that takes place, Mr. Speaker, I don't care how prudent, how

cautious, or how professional any teacher can be, it cannot help but

affect him psychologically in terms of his delivery of service in that

classroom.

When the government makes statements, such as the Minister of

Municipal Affairs did, and statements such as the Minister of Education

make, they are doing untold damage to the educational system in this

province. The children who go to those schools, who have been told by

this government that the most important thing in their life is their

education, the whole reason why many, many people, take their families

up north or men leave their families for months on end to go to

construction camps or mining camps, is to earn money to maintain the

stable family base in the community where they're from and to insure

that their family nurtures their children through a good educational

experience.

How many programmes, Mr. Speaker, are developed on the basis of

"what I'm really working for, is not so much myself, but my children"?

How many men go into the bush and spend four or six months in the bush

at a time, or up in a mining camp and spend four or six months at a

time, or a construction camp — half the year away from their family, on

the basis that what they are doing is a good foundation for their

children?

Who is it that contributes to the riches of this province? If it

were not for those people leaving their families — if it were not for

those people labouring in the primitive conditions that still exist in

the primary resource-extraction services and industries in this

province, we wouldn't have an educational system.

These people are the ones who pay the taxes. These people are the

ones who produce the wealth of this great province. What do they expect

for the expenditure of their wealth? They expect the best for their

children. Already this government has destroyed the psychological

possibilities of that desk being available for their children.

The Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) said all the teachers

were worried about were their salaries. Another psychological blow!

What an absurd statement to make!

III read you a telegram sent to the Honourable Member for Mackenzie

(Hon. Mrs. Dawson) and the Honourable the Minister of Education:

THE POWELL RIVER TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION

PROTESTS MOST STRONGLY THE PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS TO THE SCHOOL ACT WHICH

WOULD EMPOWER THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION

TO ESTABLISH ARBITRARILY A CEILING ON

TEACHERS' SALARIES. SUCH A MOVE WOULD

NEGATE THE RIGHT OF TEACHERS TO NEGOTIATE

WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS ON SALARY MATTERS.

FURTHER, IT WOULD CAUSE CONFRONTATION

BETWEEN TEACHERS AND PARENTS. WE CANNOT TOLERATE

A CHANGE IN LEGISLATION WHICH

DENIES A BASIC DEMOCRATIC RIGHT AND WHICH

JEOPARDIZES THE ESSENTIAL EDUCATION RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN TEACHERS AND PARENTS.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this government has deliberately gone

out to divide teachers from parents and students from teachers. I want

to refer to one of the recipients of that telegram, the Honourable the

Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mrs. Dawson). I read from the Victoria

Times dated March 7, 1972:

The Powell River and District Teachers'

Federation have made a swipe at Minister without Portfolio Isabel

Dawson. In a news release Monday, the teachers say Mrs. Dawson has so

little confidence in the government's legislation that she apparently

can't face questions at a meeting with Powell River teachers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, she is part of the government that has placed ads

about this matter in the paper. She can't go to a meeting and face

teachers. The release says that: "Teachers regret that the Mackenzie

M.L.A. has refused to appear at a meeting of all the teachers in

District 47."

That in itself indicates the whole point of this government's action

on Bill 33 has been to psychologically damage that relationship between

parents and teachers and students and trustees.

Now, I want to further bolster the point by reading from a Press

release from the British Columbia School Trustees' Association, not

known to be associated with any political group — elected members in

the same fashion that M.L.A.s are elected, except that they have a

non-partisan label. Even before they're elected as school trustees they

have agreed that they wish to cooperate at the trustee level beyond a

party philosophy or a party commitment. January 29, 1972, from the

School Trustees' Association:

"Apart from the utter confusion which this

will cause at the local level, our main concern is that the government

on the one hand is giving school boards a whole new set of

responsibilities and at the same time is drastically reducing their

authority," said Jack Smedley, president of the B.C. School Trustees'

Association in Vancouver, Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, the government has set out to deliberately inflame

groups, in my opinion, around this legislation. It did not call for

consultation on the bill. It did not say to the school trustees, who

are indeed elected officials, "we are introducing this legislation. You

are the people who must function with this bill in the field, we ask

you to come to committee in this House."

Was the Minister willing when he knew last October to announce that

he was going to bring it in? Did he between October and the time the

legislation was introduced sit down and show a draft bill to the school

trustees so that they could have a reaction to it? No way. He made an

arrogant announcement, walked off the stage, and said: "This is what

I'm going to do, " in the front of hundreds of people who must stand

for election, just the way he does.

Instead of consulting these people, some of whom are members of his

own party, instead of saying "we are a democratic government, we have a

new concept of financing, " he ignored them completely and pulled ahead

with this legislation and made the inane statements that he has had

attributed to him to further inflame the situation, by misinterpreting

— the kindest word that I can use — such statement as the Fort Nelson

teachers' statement.

[ Page 866 ]

Mr. Speaker, I find that the government's behaviour through the

Minister has been one of provocation right from the beginning.

Especially when we talk about how much money is involved.

Because in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, what kind of direct

taxation are we talking about? We're talking about direct per-capita

taxation that does not amount to more than a cent per day per person in

British Columbia. And the government is willing to put the question of

education on the altar in a sacrificial manner around finances when we

are in effect dealing with a little more than a cent a day per person,

in British Columbia. I don't think you can justify it, Mr. Minister….

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member will please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Through you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Not through me, but refer to the Minister in the third person.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister, Mr. Speaker, cannot justify in my

opinion this move. There's no sound financial reason for it when you

consider the direct taxation that it involves. The Minister is asking

people to vote on matters that affect all of the children in the

community.

Mr. Speaker, all of the parents can't vote. In a democratic society

on a matter as important as this, about the education of one's child

all the parents cannot vote on that matter. It is a dilution of the

democratic process that a mother and a father who may be deeply

concerned about the quality of education affecting their child must

stand by and hope and pray that somebody else makes a decision, in the

manner or the direction that they want. Not all parents are being

permitted to vote.

Many people who are voting on this issue may not even have children

in school. And yet because of that Minister's position and this

government's legislation a smaller percentage of the community who have

children in schools will not even have a direct voice of stating the

quality of that education.

I don't like that Mr. Speaker, I don't like it at all. And it must

be a matter of deep resentment for many people out there. That for a

cent a day, in terms of direct taxation the ratepayers will have the

say, and many, many parents will not be consulted whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, what about the cut-back in teaching staff? We had a

number of unemployed teachers who came to our office outlining their

plights. I think there were 12 in our office, Mr. Speaker, two of whom

know, Mr. Speaker, how much money it cost the taxpayer to graduate a

taxpayers to supplement her income — money the working people of this

province have sacrificed to provide taxation so that their children can

have a high quality in education.

We have graduated people from our universities with post-graduate

degrees that cost us a great deal of money, and with the present

government's policies, these people are asking for welfare. It is self

defeating, Mr. Speaker.

We have been told for one whole generation that the only possible

chance for survival in a highly competitive world, in a highly

competitive market place, is to increase our production and to increase

our educational skills. When every other country in the world is faced

with those pressures, this government is now making a direct assault on

quality of education.

What will the government tell the teachers who are in training now?

Why are we spending all that money that it costs the taxpayer to train

teachers, if there are no jobs for them? How can the Minister justify

the vast expenditure at one end of the whole educational machinery, of

training teachers to be absorbed in the educational system, if on one

hand he's feeding teachers into the educational machine, and at the

other end cutting off funds to hire them? What's the point? Mr.

Speaker, I ask what is the point?

What about classroom and pupil/teacher ratio in a classroom? Mr.

Speaker, it'll all be up next year. And the effects of this bill will

be dramatic at that time. Time and time again when the Minister of

Education has spoken in this House, he has talked about a commitment to

quality. He boasts about the educational system in British Columbia,

Mr. Speaker. The government cannot boast at the present legislation

that we are faced with.

I want to talk about a particular problem that was perhaps touched

upon by the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan). The matter is a

particular problem of rural areas. Because of the nature of their

school boards, and it's a matter of fact, they have been generally much

more conservative in developing new programmes or auxiliary services

for their particular school areas. I had the privilege and the

responsibility, when I was first elected, to represent all the way from

Coquitlam up to Agassiz. And I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the educational

experience is varied, between the school boards involved in that short

70-mile stretch.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly it was 12 years ago. The last time I

represented the area out to Agassiz was in 1966. The Minister himself,

Mr. Speaker, acknowledged in this House that there was a great deal of

catching up to be done by one of the school districts in my

constituency. Everybody agreed to that.

Mr. Speaker, it was more than construction, it was the quality of

education itself. Because when the Minister came into this House with

one of his arguments, he said that putting ceilings on would enable the

smaller community to catch up. And that was nonsense.

He put ceilings on equally, to all. And now with these ceilings on,

Mr. Speaker, it means that those school districts who are already

behind — unlike the classroom leaders, such as the West Vancouver

district, or my own district Coquitlam — those areas that are behind

will now not have the opportunity whatsoever to catch up.

How does the government justify that, Mr. Speaker, in relation to

the information that it has in terms of quality in education varying

throughout this, province? Those areas can't catch up under this new

formula. There's no way they'll be able to catch up. It means children

in those areas whose standard of education is below norm — because

there has to be a below the norm, Mr. Speaker, otherwise there could be

no norm — the same standard that you used to justify the actions in

Campbell River, was to publish some form of norm. How will this bill

allow all those school districts that are below that norm to catch up

so that those pupils involved will have an equal chance and equal

opportunity in this province? The Minister has brought in a ceiling

universally. In effect he is saying with his own degree of measurement

that he's committing all those below the norm to stay below the norm.

That's not sense, Mr. Speaker. Foolish!

What do we do when we open the pages of any

[ Page 867 ]

newspaper, especially on a weekend and we can go

through columns and columns and columns, of help wanted ads? I remember

the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Development (Hon. Mr.

Gaglardi) said there are 10,000 jobs open in B.C. Why can't they be

filled? Many of them can't be filled Mr. Speaker, because we don't have

the qualified people to fill them. There are jobs going begging in this

province and the reason they are going begging is that we don't have

the skilled people to fill those jobs.

HON. MR. BROTHERS: They want experienced people.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister sends a devastating

shaft across the floor. "They want experienced people." Mr. Speaker,

how will they even get jobs unless they've got the basic educational

qualification, let alone get the experience? It's obvious with that

kind of comment Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has not thought out the

implication of what he is doing.

I ask this government to produce research, details, exactly the

quality of education in this province — the good aspects, and the bad

aspects — that lead them into this step to give a blanket limitation of

financing. I ask them to do that.

It's not good enough, Mr. Speaker, that a teacher turned back

$1,000. I ask you how much money was spent on research to provide the

facts to support this bill. I'll submit to you, Mr. Speaker, the answer

is none. Absolutely none.

Do you justify a medical operation in a hospital without a confident

diagnosis? No one would treat a broken leg without an X-ray. What X-ray

have you given to this finance formula? What research have you done?

Mr. Speaker, it is a continuation of dumb luck, or blind stupidity, in

terms of developing educational policy in this province.

I sat in this House when we went through the Chant report. And what

was the Chant report? Was it a research document substantiated by

time-proven methods of gathering facts? Not at all. The Chant report,

Mr. Speaker, was a collection of opinions, digested into a book, and

put forward as a blueprint for education with no research to back up

any of his points. And that's a fact.

I remember in the debate of the Chant report, I pointed out some

booklets on programmed instruction. The former Minister of Education

sitting in his place asked about the material on programmed instruction

and I sent the booklet over.

You know what I discovered, Mr. Speaker? That booklet was on the

mailing list for educational research done by the Ford Foundation. That

particular project cost $3 million. The result of that project was

available for 50 cents, but the government was not even on the mailing

list of the Ford Foundation's educational research programme. They

don't even know what's going on.

Will the Minister when he's closing the debate stand up and tell us

what's going on in educational research and M.I.T. and Harvard this

very day? Will the Minister tell us exactly what his reaction is to the

basic research that's going on in educational costs in the United

States, and what particular research here in Canada is referred to that

substantiates this approach in this legislation?

I challenge the Minister, to deliver to this House any research made

by qualified educators, economists, or anyone he cares to name that

he's used as a base for justifying this particular move.

Mr. Speaker, surely a government that tried to stop from spending

over $1.5 billion a year, the greater part of it in education as the

Minister tells us, would not make basic educational policy changes

without substantive research.

I challenge the Minister to give us the names of the authors, the

researchers and their works that lead to the development of this bill.

Who are you dealing with Mr. Speaker? You are dealing with educators

themselves who must substantiate the materials they bring into the

classroom. No teacher would bring into the classroom material that was

based entirely on his or her opinion. We require by law that the

quality of education for teachers enables them to use well-documented,

well-researched material that they bring into the classroom.

Now they are having stuffed down their curricula, the trustees and

the school boards,

an Act that has no basic research to back it up, no

basic information or material gathered by this government to justify

its actions, and no blueprints to tell the people of this province

where we are going in education. Ail it deals with, Mr. Speaker, is

money, money, money — a one dimensional point of view.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the government can be so callous about

a piece of legislation. We've seen the Minister of Mines bring in

pollution control bills, and not even be aware of research that's done

or material that's available to control pollution.

But surely we have a right to expect, the parents have a right to

expect, the taxpayers have a right to expect, the people of this

province have a right to expect that a bill as far-reaching as this one

can be documented in its decisions by research from all corners of this

province and in North America.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, if we ask the Minister of Education to bring in a

bibliography he'd bring in one name, the Minister of Finance's name.

What do we tell our children now, Mr. Speaker? And that's the challenge

to the government. What do we tell our children? "Stay in school. Get a

better education. Compete in the world out there." What do we tell

them? "Stay in school, take your chances and hope that you're one of

the lucky ones." Mr. Minister, you must tell us that you intend,

perhaps, to close down the School of Education at Simon Fraser and at

U.B.C. to stop producing teachers.

How can you justify the expenditure of training teachers if they

can't be absorbed in the educational system? If you're concerned about

money, tell us how you can justify that. Can you tell us what you'll do

to absorb those teachers who we've already trained and spent a great

deal of money on their training? Mr. Minister, I said at the outset

that I think this bill is a political bill. Unless you can bring in a

great deal more information to back it up, other than opinion, then

you'll prove that it's a political bill.

No one is more confused out there than the general public who have

been forced to make educational decisions purely on the basis of money

with no substantive research by this government published in booklets,

on radio programmes or on television stating exactly why they're taking

this direction.

The only publication we've seen, Mr. Speaker, is an ad from an

Ontario newspaper, an emotionally-charged ad that has no connection

whatsoever with the particular situation in this province.

This is a divisive bill, Mr. Speaker. It's cheap politics and I

condemn it. Everything that I have had in terms of my own educational

experience in this province has lead me to condemn this bill, because

I've been educated by public funds in this province and at no time in

my educational

[ Page 868 ]

experience was I ever told to jump to a conclusion on an opinion.

The most valuable thing that can be achieved through education is

the ability to think, to use reason, and develop one's intelligence.

That can only be done when there are valid arguments logically

presented based on factual research. All of those factors are absent in

this bill. The only thing that's present is politics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I think the most telling

point made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it should tell

us all something — certainly it should tell the people who are thinking

through the issues involved with this bill — is the real questions that

are in the minds of the people in the Province of British Columbia. The

Leader said, and I agree with him, that the increased costs happen to

be I cent per day when you're talking about moving beyond the 108 per

cent figure as it applies to most school districts.

The other very telling point is that that happens to be wrapped up

in approximately 8 per cent of the costs of education being borne by

the residential property owners. Therefore, when the people who have

been voting on these referendums are voting no, the Leader is quite

right when he suggests that there's relatively small amounts of money

involved in terms of that particular plebiscite. But if that's the

case, then that is the most compelling reason why people wish to look

at education.

What are they, in fact, looking at? It's quite clear to me that what

they're looking at is the whole question of accountability. They're

evaluating the system, they're examining some of the situations which

they are familiar with in their own area and they're asking questions

not only in terms of the finances but in a professional way.

Otherwise, if I had an arrangement like that and a product to sell

like that and I was talking about selling a situation at I cent per

day, I'd have no difficulty in selling any referendum in the Province

of British Columbia.

So what really is happening? What, Mr. Speaker, is really happening

is that the public in this province are asking two questions. One, is

there an end to the general spiraling costs in terms of the gross

that's involved? And secondly, are we really getting value for the

dollars we're spending in education? Those are the real fundamental

questions.

It isn't a matter of playing politics, although some of my friends

in the B.C. Teachers' Federation, if anybody can be accused of playing

politics it's certainly not the Members on this side of the House, but

certainly members at the executive level of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation are guilty of that very thing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: When we're talking about this 108 per

cent, I think professional people have a responsibility to talk

professionally in public about education. Certainly they have every

right to make clear that the public are not being asked to put a cap on

at 108 per cent over last year's figure. But in reality, Mr. Speaker,

what we're talking about this year is somewhere between 16 and 17 per

cent increase in every school district that's involved.

The suggestion has been left, and I think quite irresponsibly, that

the Department of Education over last year did not do anything at all

about the basic programmes. I have heard theoretically responsible

people in the B.C. Teachers' Federation, for example, suggesting that

there has, in fact, been no lift whatsoever in the basic programme over

last year.

Now why would responsible people put that kind of material out? It's

not factual. It's not true. Yet it is going out by way of

advertisements, it's going out by way of public statements. For what

reason? To confuse the people? To try and establish the proposition

that we're talking about 108 per cent of last year's programme?

Is that the reason, Mr. Speaker? Because it certainly is not

professionally correct. It's intellectually dishonest. Therefore, it

must be confusing to the guy on the street. Really, what the guy on the

street is being asked to do is to evaluate the programme in his own

district and to say whether or not he is willing to spend more than the

108 per cent.

Now, let's take a specific district. I happen to know why some of

the questions are being asked in some of the districts in British

Columbia. Let's take Campbell River. One of the very specific questions

being asked in Campbell River — I think it's a legitimate one — is that

20 people on the staff in Campbell River happen to have no teaching

responsibility at all. I'm not talking about principals and vice — principals. I'm talking about 20 supervisory and CO-ordinating

personnel who are outside of the classroom completely and do no

teaching whatsoever.

Now the Leader was talking about a purported statement I happen to

not have made in the first place about co-coordinating and supervisory

personnel, that sometimes you have difficulty in finding out exactly

what it is they happen to do. But isn't it legitimate, Mr. Speaker,

that if the people in Campbell River are going to go beyond the 108 per

cent — and one of the issues placed before them is that this lack of

ability to go beyond 108 per cent will have something to do with

teacher/pupil ratio — don't you think they are entitled to know why

those 20 people who are in the supervisory positions cannot, in fact,

be put back into the classroom to reduce the teacher/pupil ratio? If

that, in fact, is the big deal,

The Member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) knows very well that

that's not a big deal. The Member for Burnaby North along with others

in the teaching world have been bouncing around British Columbia

peddling the people of the Province of British Columbia that the

teacher/pupil ratio is something to do with a very fundamentally sound

educational situation. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of evidence

to the complete contrary. They know that.

You know that if the Leader of the Opposition talks about research,

well there's been a great deal of research done in the United States.

The Coleman report for one was a very interesting study because it

pretty clearly indicated that the teacher/pupil ratio had nothing

whatsoever to do with the quality of education that could be expected.

But, Mr. Speaker, at one and the same time that the B.C. Teachers'

Federation were talking about. teacher/pupil ratio, we've gone the

whole range through into open area teaching — we've got open area

commitments involved with team teaching. We've got the whole range of

new educational experiences and the Member for Burnaby North knows full

well that that has absolutely nothing to do with teacher ratio.

Mr. Speaker, if you really wanted to bring down the teacher ratio in

Campbell River, the simplest way to do it would be just simply to

divide the 20 people into the number of pupils and you bring down the

pupil/teacher ratio by arithmetic. You mean to tell me that that's

going to improve

[ Page 869 ]

the educational experience of the pupil in the Campbell River schools? I doubt it.

I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I seriously question the job

specifications and the reasons for having 20 people outside of the

classrooms in that particular school district. I'll tell you why. It

creates a hierarchical system of education within that single school

district to the point that the classroom teacher in fact cannot really

work well with parents, cannot work directly with the process of the

school board itself, because in between there's a whole maze of these

bureaucratic elements within the school system.

It's time, Mr. Speaker, that these questions that are being

legitimately asked by the ratepayers are answered not by the

bureaucrats within the system but by the elected school boards. The

questions, I can tell you, are not being answered.

John Doe and Mary Smith on the street have a legitimate right to ask

for that kind of accountability and that kind of evaluation. Obviously,

if the Leader of the Opposition is correct, then it seems unreasonable

that John Doe and Mary Smith would, one right after the other, turn

down bylaws for which he says we're talking about I cent.

Obviously Mary Smith and John Doe are not happy. If they're not

happy, Mr. Speaker, then do we not live within a democratic framework?

When we're talking about moving beyond 108 per cent, is it helpful for

teachers as they've done in my area to say, and I quote: "We don't wish

the education in our district to be determined by the mob. We do not

wish to be subject to the tyranny of the mob."? In other words, Mr.

Speaker, we don't wish to have to have the responsibility of taking our

programmes out, talking to John Doe and Mary Smith and trying to

convince them that our system is sound, that it can stand the light of

day, that we are accountable for it. We can say to John Doe and Mary

Smith: "We think that if you were to support us beyond the 108 per

cent, you would find yourselves in a better education system, not just

in terms of dollars but in terms of quality. We really believe we can

sell you on what we're doing now. We think we're right. We think it's

professionally sound. We're willing to join in a community discussion

to show you what is the best for your young people in the schools." Is

there anything wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? Is there anything wrong

with having to have that sense of responsibility back to the community?

If there is, then, Mr. Speaker, I don't really know what we're

talking about in terms of democracy and participation. I can tell you

it sits well with no one and it sits well with no person in the public

when professional people talk about the tyranny of the mob when they're

talking about plebiscites that seek to raise the issue beyond the 108

per cent.

The average guy in the street knows it's not 108 per cent. He knows

that in fact it's 16 per cent and his arithmetic is pretty good. He

understands. The average guy on the street, Mr. Speaker, knows what the

Economic Council for Canada says. They weren't talking about gross

dollars. The Economic Council for Canada was talking about the rate of

increase. That's a far different situation. The average guy in the

street knows that. He's only asking for a fair deal. He wants to know

if it's necessary to spend this rate and if it's necessary to go beyond

it, on what basis, what's the rationale? Why should it cost him more

than the 108 per cent beyond the basic programme? That's all he asking

about.

He wants to know. Mr. Speaker, I suggest he's entitled to know. He's

certainly not entitled to know in a framework of political activity

which I consider to be completely disgraceful. I've indicated pretty

clearly that when I see professional teachers talking about stubbed

toes and falling hair as a means of intelligently discussing a bill in

this legislature, when I get that kind of stuff thrown around this

province I am fearful for the whole profession of teaching if that is

the way they're going to be led. I'm fearful. I'm fearful for the young

people in this province who are led by a philosophy that would even

permit that kind of statement to see the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, that's not my idea of a professional way to act. We've

had some chit-chat about playing politics. You know, it's very

interesting. In my own area, the president of the B.C. Teachers'

Federation stood on the public platform just a week ago and said the

answer in Comox is to completely endorse the N.D.P. I wonder why, Mr.,

Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Then I find out why. Because the ways and

means committee of the N.D.P. In Comox — and we talk about playing

politics — put out a request for funds. A blank cheque appeared on the

bottom. All the teacher has to do is send the N.D.P. money. And what's

the commitment that the N.D.P. Party makes in return, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The N.D.P. Party….

MR. BARRETT: It's an individual voluntary donation.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the N.D.P. Party in Comox says….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: You pay the shot on the bottom of this

blank cheque and for the blank cheque on the bottom which you can sign

in terms of money it would be an investment he or she "would never

forget." You talk about playing politics?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: That, Mr. Speaker, is the lowest form of politics because what it means is this, Mr. Speaker, is that a special group…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get your money?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: …that we want to have special groups running the Province of British Columbia. We want to have special groups running…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: …the people who come to this

Legislature. We want the Members of this Legislature to be in the

pocket of big business or the trade union movement or the B.C.

Teachers' Federation or the medical profession. Mr. Speaker, the Member

for Comox (Hon. Mr. Campbell) will

[ Page 870 ]

never be in anybody's pocket that way. I'll tell you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's see you run this province.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, we had some comments

that in some ways that this particular bill would have that effect on

the resource areas of this province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I happen to

represent the constituency of Comox which certainly is a resource area.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will challenge you to go anywhere in Canada and

I'll challenge you to find a better capital plant throughout that

entire constituency anywhere in Canada. I'll challenge you to place on

the Minister's desk something that would compare favourably to the

comprehensive secondary school at Port McNeil. I'll challenge you to

find an elementary school or a secondary school that would equal in

terms of capital plant the school at Gold River.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about whether this took a long time to take

place or that the government was holding back in some way on funds

available for these communities. Mr. Speaker, that's a completely false

statement because in no way was there any hold ups of funds in those

communities.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

anybody who was teaching in those particular communities, it was

pioneering first class. You'd better believe it. It wasn't a school

that was built over time. It was all telescoped in a very short period

of time. I don't care whether you talk about Rumble Beach and Port

Alice or Port McNeil or Port Hardy or Gold River, or any of those

communities, Mr. Speaker. This formula and the way in which education

is financed in this province produced a plant which is second to none

anywhere in Canada, No question about it.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a little ridiculous to have people stand

in this legislature and make statements about education in this

province suggesting that the resource communities in British Columbia

are being short-changed. That's what the Leader of the Opposition said.

Now, that's irresponsible, Mr. Speaker. It's not only irresponsible it

simply is not the truth. It's not the truth.

Why are we bouncing around supposedly having an intelligent

discussion on education when the leader of one of the leading political

parties in British Columbia can make that kind of nonsense statement?

Because that's what it is. Complete nonsense.

We talk about playing politics about resource communities. These

teachers in resource communities in my area I can tell you are not

being short-changed. And neither are the youngsters in the schools

being short-changed in my communities. Anywhere. You know it too.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you're talking about and you know it.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, we've had a little bit to say

as well about psychological warfare, whatever that happens to mean.

Presumably it means that the teaching profession in this province is

losing touch with the public they serve. Mr. Speaker, I'm inclined to

agree that that's the case. I'm inclined to agree and I think that's

exactly the lesson which should be learned about this whole process of

evaluation because I don't think it is unimportant, Mr.Speaker, that

people are asking the same questions in Ontario.

The Opposition has taken exception to questions being raised in

Ontario. Mr. Speaker, do you know why they are being raised in Ontario?

And in Nova Scotia, and in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba and in the

United States? Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite are not so

blind that they do not understand that right across the North American

continent, Mr. Speaker, there are valid questions being asked about

educational quality.

There should be. Since when, Mr. Speaker, has the education system

been a sacred cow? Since when must you accept from the professionals

involved in education that it is the end-all and be-all just because

some professional or another happens to say that it was?

Where is the old ethic, Mr. Speaker, that the guy on the street has

some input to put into education too? Mr. Speaker, it really bothers me

when I hear teachers in my community saying: "Look, you just forget

about your position in this scheme of educating Johnny and Mary. Forget

about your role as a parent. Just leave the whole deal to us. We'll

look after John and Mary." Mr. Speaker, that's a dangerous philosophy

because it's educationally unsound.

Interjection by an. Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, when I see teachers talking

professionally within the framework that they can do in five hours

almost everything that is required to put within the orbit of the young

person in the school and that the parents can just sit back and

basically do nothing, Mr. Speaker, I say that is a dangerous

philosophy. It is a complete distrust of the relationship that should

exist between the parents and the school.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, if the teaching profession is

really serious about this question of self-respect and dignity within

the communities that I know anything about then, Mr. Speaker, they'll

dialogue with parents and they won't start yesterday. They will start

as they should have been never stopped — they'll do it every single day

that they have charge of their particular school.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you this, that if the teachers in

British Columbia feel that there is some way to obtain dignity and

self-respect by looking at the people they seek to serve as a mob or

the tyranny of the mob, or they seek to suggest that there's some

dignity and some self-respect to be gained by the kind of document that

was placed on my desk on Friday, Mr. Speaker, they're going to be sadly

mistaken. Sadly mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of the whole thing is they will certainly

do very little for the young people they serve in their community and

they will do very little for the profession of teaching. I am proud to

be a member of that profession. I am not proud of some of the

organizational activities of that profession.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, in rising to

speak to Bill No. 3 I'd first like to comment upon the remarks the

Minister of Municipal Affairs has made. I

[ Page 871 ]

wonder if the profession is as proud of him as he claims to be of them?

He has made reference to the teachers saying: "We will teach Johnny

and Mary — just leave them to us. We don't want to be involved. We

don't want to involve you as parents." My wife and I probably have a

little different educational problem in that for the past nine years we

have brought our three children down to Victoria with us so that they

go into the Victoria school system on the first of January and leave

normally during Easter. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, and Mr.

Minister of Municipal Affairs, that we have had the privilege either

one or both of us attending three public gatherings of the Beacon Hill

School where this school is attempting to involve parents. Attempting

to make that school a community school….

AN HON. MEMBER: He's walked out.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, he might well walk out. Casting aspersions against an honourable and ethical profession.

Teachers by and large are very conscientious teachers. The other

evening when the vote on Bill No. 3 first came up I went out to phone

one of the teachers that teaches one of our children. It was about 9:30

at night, and I said, "I hope I didn't disturb you." "No," he said, "I

was just busy marking papers." So the Minister that just sat down and

other Members who like to think that school day starts at 9:00 and

knocks off at 3:00 I know from my association with friends in the

profession that it's no eight-hour day, and it's no five-day week. It

goes on and on Saturday, Sunday whenever that teacher has time to mark

papers or prepare lessons. I think this province has every right to be

proud of the teachers that we have.

The former Minister of Education, now the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Peterson) the Minister of Justice in this province really makes me

wonder at times, Mr. Speaker. Here he was criticizing the fact that a

group of working people saw fit to organize and attend a rally, and

discuss legislation that is before this House and to discuss

legislation that would affect them with regard to their salaries, with

regard to the professional scope — and it would very definitely affect

the quality of education. And yet the Minister of Justice in this

province couldn't see that this is one of our inalienable rights in a

democracy. He would deny that inalienable right to the teachers and to

the working people of this province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the teachers or no other working

group have access to this assembly. They elect Members and the Minister

of Justice, the Minister of Education, all of us have teachers in our

ridings and we are the voice of those people. But, Mr. Speaker, I

believe it's a very basic tenet of democracy, particularly when there

is legislation before this Legislature, if any particular group feels

that they are being or going to be harmed or their professional

qualifications limited then it is their basic democratic right to

organize and to speak out in public.

If the Minister of Justice doesn't understand that, if the Minister

of Justice cannot see that, then I say that he is incompetent

particularly when he is the former Minister of Education. He should

know that better than anyone else in this House.

Mr. Speaker, what this government is trying to do is to put a dollar value, to try and put a book value, on education.

When they are totalling up the assets in the bookkeeping of this

province they're trying to put a hard and fast book value on education.

They might well try to do this because I believe when we review the

record of this government and the Department of Education and realise

that today there are five times as many people on welfare as there were

at the start of the last decade, this shows that we are failing with

the quality of education to get through to the people that need that

education the most — the persons that have learning disorders, slow

learners, students with difficulty in reading, writing, or spelling.

These are the ones that need a little extra care. A little individual

care.

I believe that every student has tremendous potential but the

purpose of education and our educational system is to help that child,

to help that student, develop and grow. Grow into a good citizen that

in doing that finds out what he is best suited for.

If we can do that then we will see the numbers of persons that are

unemployed, the numbers of persons that are on welfare, go down instead

of going up, up, up until today we have five times as many welfare

recipients than we had at the start of the last decade.

I do not think you can put a hard and fast book value on the value

of an education to the community or to the individual. But I believe we

have to have a system of education that is versatile where the teacher

is free to give attention to the child that needs it, and see each

child move ahead on an individual basis.

I realise this takes a lot of work and a great deal of time and

because of that we need very conscientious people and dedicated people

in this profession. I believe we have them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before the present Minister of Education took

over, the former Attorney General that is Minister of Education told me

that this government was spending $1 million a year advertising

throughout the world to get teachers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: This is what you told me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I never did!

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the matter of

pupil/teacher ratio and the then Minister of Education stated that they

were spending $1 million a year advertising throughout the

Commonwealth, advertising throughout the world. We have had quite an

influx of good teachers from throughout the Commonwealth and no doubt

they will contribute something to our programmes of education. Many of

these teachers that came here from other lands may well leave because

of this type of restrictive legislation that does a great deal to

downgrade the quality of education, to downgrade the prestige the

professional person as a teacher should be allowed to hold.

Now, a few years ago we passed Bill No. 86. Bill No. 86, of course,

was the start of the new formula that allowed school boards to go to

110 per cent. At that time this group over in this corner of the House

argued that putting a limit would greatly restrict many benefits that

we had in that day in education. And I know from one school that falls

into the Yale-Lillooet riding, the Princeton School District, they've

had to cut back several different facilities in their schools.

It's a great rural area, but, by the power of Bill No. 86 — they had one of the best music teachers, and they had a

[ Page 872 ]

band, and they had a good programme of music — that

is gone. They had a programme of dental care. That community did not

have a dentist, so the school board raised a programme of dental care.

That is gone. A great rural district where they get a fair bit of cold

weather — they had a programme of subsidized hot lunches, the students

paid part. That is gone.

Now, those are but three items that I mention in that one school

district. But we have seen a great cut-back in other areas, the

libraries, the gyms, the kindergartens, and the special classes.

Special classes and kindergartens are something that I believe should

be considered a basic essential. But we fail to have throughout British

Columbia a basic and a full programme for kindergartens for all

schools. I believe the sooner we can start our sons and daughters in

the learning process, certainly in the field of language, the more

successful those students will be in their schooling.

Now, two of the most dangerous sections of the bill, and the

amendments to the bill, Mr. Speaker, are clauses 21, and 22, relating

to the necessity for a referendum. In some of the school districts in

Yale-Lillooet riding — and I'm thinking mainly of Lillooet School

District — they have never been called on through a petition from the

citizens and asked to have a referendum. The parents, the property

owners, realise that no doubt the best investment they can make in the

future is good high-quality education for their children, and they have

never presented the Lillooet School Board saying: "It you're going to

increase our taxes beyond the 10 per cent and now the 8 per cent you

must have a referendum."

I believe that school board has very good communications with the

citizens of that district. But what are we going to do now with this

bill and the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to say that we have to take

some of those much-needed tax dollars — maybe $10,000 or $15,000 — and

hold referendums where we've never held them before. And we must hold

those referendums even though the taxpayers are quite happy with the

money being spent on education in that community.

This isn't going to do a thing to put more dollars to better use in

education. It is going to take some of those educational dollars, Mr.

Speaker, and to you Mr. Minister, out of the stream of education and

put them into the field of advertising and possibly into the field of

politics.

What is going to happen? The members of the Lillooet School Board,

as in every other school board, are honourable people. They are

public-hearted citizens that are prepared to give a fair bit of their

time, a good many of their evenings, and even take days off work to

attend school board meetings in their own time. Now, surely they feel

that they are responsible just as we in this chamber feel we are

responsible — that when we are elected to speak on behalf of our

districts if a piece of legislation comes up as it did the other day, a

50-letter bill passing or empowering this government to spend half a

billion dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order!

MR. HARTLEY: We have the power once we're elected to make

decisions with regard to the financial standing of this government, and

to the economy of this government. And yet the Minister of Education

when he calls out "order, " would deny that same right to the school

boards of this province. You bet you are doing this. Mr. Speaker, if

the Minister of Education votes in support of this bill he is denying

the school boards the right to do as we do here. To go ahead and vote

for a limited spending. This is basically what he is doing.

Not only is he down-grading the quality of education, but he is

taking away from the school boards their pride in the job that they are

doing. He is robbing them of their responsibility as a truly

publicly-elected officer.

What could very well happen, Mr. Speaker, we've had a bad enough

time getting sufficient people to run for school boards and other

public offices, this will be even much more difficult. If we pass this

bill and leave that amendment in, forcing school boards to go to

referendum regardless of whether the citizens in the district present a

petition or not, we will find it much, much more difficult to find

responsible citizens who will run and hold public office in a position

of school trustees.

So I on that point would like to sum up and say that with the matter

of these referendums we are making education more expensive, we're

taking dollars out of the school budget to play politics.

Now, I think that we should do all that we can to increase the

teacher/pupil ratio so that we have more teachers, to give more

individual attention. But what is happening to British Columbia is that

it is fast getting some of the largest classes in the nation — fewer

teachers to a greater number of students — and this cannot help but

deteriorate the quality of education in my opinion.

On the matter of tenure, should tenure be set by statute? Should it be set through the Public Schools Act ?

Or should we leave it as now set by the cabinet with the whim of the

cabinet or by the wink of one man? This is the way it is being done

now. So surely tenure should be tied in with the legislation, the Public Schools Act ,

and if we fail to do this, Mr. Speaker, we will be making the teachers

nothing short of political pawns — political pawns, that's what you're

doing with legislation,

I feel that by and large, as I've said before, teachers are

conscientious professionals, and they are very much concerned about the

situation of education with your son, your daughter, my son and my

daughter. To treat them in this fashion adds nothing to their

professional standing, to their pride on their job, and to their

ability to improve the quality of education.

Now, why is it that we are singling the teachers out from any other

group in our work force? Why are we passing legislation that will do

things to them that we wouldn't dare do to other groups in the work

force? This is the first group so far that has to submit to referendum,

say over their salary. Why is this? Is this simply because we saw we

can get away by forcing the teachers to use compulsory arbitration? Is

it because we have robbed them of their rights of collective

bargaining? And do we say: "This is a weak group, force them to use

compulsory arbitration"? We've taken their right of collective

bargaining away, and we're going to further trample them. I'm afraid it

is, Mr. Speaker. If this is the attitude, if this is in Bill No. 3 and

Bill No. 4 with regard to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social

Welfare, if we're going to set out virtual little dictators over large

groups of professionals and in the case of Bill No. 49, unfortunate

people, then Mr. Speaker I submit that this is a dagger in the heart of

democracy.

I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by stating to you that the

Honourable Members across there that are impatient if they'd like to

get up and speak I'm sure their constituents will be asking why they

held their silence.

In conclusion, what has happened in education indicates very, very clearly this government's anti-education attitude.

[ Page 873 ]

It's down-graded the status of teachers, it's down-graded the quality of education.

Now that was my conclusion, but being as the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) walked out, I better give you my start. The

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker, accused us of playing

politics with education. And yet here's a clipping out of today's

Vancouver Sun , Monday, March 20. What does it say?

Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell had

set a potential atmosphere the night before at a Socred gathering here.

(This is Nanaimo) He described to a Social Credit league group in the

Tally-Ho Travel Lodge the "cheap gutter tactics" of teachers in his own

constituency. His unrestricted invective was carried over radio station

CHUB.

Now, he claims to be a professional and to be proud of that

profession. And yet any politician, any teacher that would use that

sort of language is just playing politics….

AN HON. MEMBER: You think teachers should go on strike? You favour that?

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say the Minister of Municipal

Affairs is trying to generate as much political animosity as possible — that's what he's doing. There we have today's paper showing who is

generating and playing politics, and the reason he attacks us is just

as a smoke screen to try and cover up himself.

He also asks about that blank cheque that was circulated to all the

teachers in his district. Here he comes now. He asks about the

teachers, being asked to contribute to a political party.

Now it has always been my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that in a

democracy the more people that you can involve on an individual basis,

the more people that you can get out and vote, the more people that

will get out and take

part in the campaign, the more people that will

contribute financially to the campaign funds of any political party the

better. Because this is involving people at the grass roots.

It's something that that government over there knows nothing, or

little about. A year ago we asked the Attorney General if he would deny

categorically that the car insurance industry had made contributions.

This year we asked the Minister of Finance, and the Premier, and

neither of them would get up and deny that they had received great

copious amounts of campaign funds.

This is the way they like to do business. We prefer to deal with

individuals be they teachers, doctors, lawyers, miners, loggers, or

come what may. We feel that this is the proper democratic way to

involve people in politics. That they give voluntarily a day's pay, an

hour's pay, what they feel it is worth to see in this case a better

type, and a better quality of education in this province.

I think the attack that this Minister made on his own profession was

contemptible, particularly he as a former teacher. Possibly the

Minister would like to rise in the future and tell us where the Social

Credit Party get their campaign funds from. My books are open, they

come from individuals by and large.

Well, on the matter of education, Mr. Speaker, before a trade union

can contribute' to our educational fund they must have a two-thirds

majority vote of their membership. It isn't someone at the top, it's

not just someone writes a cheque — they have to present it at a

membership meeting and have a majority vote. And when they have decided

to do that then this again is democracy, it isn't being decided from

the top down it's being decided from the bottom up. So we welcome the

teachers, the loggers, the lawyers, and the miners, and the car

salesman and the garages too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I thought that

with reference to the ad that was referred to earlier today, Mr.

Speaker, it was worthwhile noting that the people of Victoria have not

had this ad inflicted upon them and it's clear that the people of

Victoria or the newspapers of Victoria still go unrewarded by the

government.

I thought Mr. Speaker, in view of the very lengthy debate that we've

had on this bill perhaps we could fairly briefly summarize mainly some

of the arguments that are involved.

First of all despite the Minister's protestations this bill is

discriminatory towards the teachers in their salary control. There are

only a very few other Professions, other groups, other trades, other

kinds of work that are involved in these controls. A few of the

M.L.A.s, a few alderman — a few like that, that's all that is involved.

Mr. Speaker, I for one have no very great objection to some form of

wage and price control, I think perhaps this kind of thing is needed to

control the problems of our economy today. But I find it very

distasteful to have one profession or one trade singled out for this

kind of control and I find this very, very discriminatory. Second, in

recent years, Mr. Speaker, teachers' salaries have not been unduly low.

Nor have they been unduly high, they have just been rising, on about on

a par with the other trades, and the other industries and the other

professions. And this was clearly spelled out in the very first evening

of debate on this subject.

Why pick out the teachers if these trades are rising at approximately the same rate?

Third, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what we are doing has clearly

created turmoil in the teaching profession, and in our school system — a bitterness and a hatred that would take a long time to remove.

We've had some talk today Mr. Speaker, about editorials in the Toronto Globe and Mail .

Well, let me read you some portions of another editorial from the same

newspaper, that had some comments about the kind of turmoil we are

developing in the educational system of British Columbia. The headline

is "Jungle Warfare in B.C. Schools."

British Columbia is at this time giving the

whole of Canada a demonstration of what can happen if there is a

failure of reason and moderation in dealings among teachers and school

boards and provincial governments.

There is no doubt that the teachers are

right, and the trustees are right, when they contend that the

government's actions would end any normal negotiations between them.

B.C. Is courting the kind of jungle warfare that seems likely to erupt

in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned for the benefit of my

children, and the children of North Vancouver, I don't want to see

jungle warfare in the educational system, and that's what many of us

have said is going to happen and that clearly is what the Globe and Mail , a very responsible newspaper, looks upon what we are doing.

Fourth, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing sets the precedent of

completely removing any normal meaningful collective bargaining in this

particular field. That was detailed in length the other night, by my

colleague the Member from

[ Page 874 ]

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark).

Five, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have annual plebiscites on

teachers' salaries, why don't we have plebiscites on a few others — maybe the firemen's salaries, or policemen, or the hospital orderlies,

or the garbage collector, or maybe we should have a plebiscite on the

B.C. Ferry employees' salaries?

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what we are doing is unfair, and the best

evidence I have of this is to quote from the Honourable the Minister of

Labour (Mr. Chabot) who says that, "in all fairness the entire public

sector of the labour force should be subject to the same wage

guideline."

He was quoted by many newspapers and he's been on the radio making

exactly the same statements. That's the statement of the Minister of

Labour, a member of the government who said that in all fairness these

other groups should be given the same kind of treatment. When he got

back to town the boss made it clear that that wasn't the case. It was

just the teachers, and a very, very small group of other people.

Hardly fair, Mr. Speaker. We had some rather misleading comments the

other night on what has been happening to teachers' salaries as a

percentage of total educational expense. My recollection is that I

think it was the Honourable the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) who

had some comments about this one.

My seventh point is that teachers' salaries have consistently for

approximately 10 years been 57 per cent of the total educational

expenditures in this province. If you include capital expenditures.

This has been a consistent figure.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I am including total educational expenses, and

that is a clear fact. You'll get your turn Mr. Minister. I'm sure the

Speaker will eventually recognise you.

Turning to the matter of the 108, 110 per cent, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister has said that a crisis exists in educational financing in B.C.

And if I recall his exact remarks he said: "Health and education will

absorb the whole budget by the end of the century."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Sorry — health, welfare and education, you are quite right, will absorb the whole budget by the end of the century.

Well, let me just give you the proper figures in this regard so that

we don't have this somewhat misleading figures that we have been given

by the Honourable the Minister.

The educational share of the total budget has remained about the

same, year after year after year, for about 10 years, 31 per cent — slightly up slightly down, but no meaningfully different from 31 per

cent. So if the budget, the revenue, continues to grow and if the

educational share remains 31 per cent year after year into the future — and we have no reason on the basis of past experience to predict that

it won't — well then how is this an educational crisis? Maybe there is

some other crisis somewhere.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister was speaking he was waving

around. He said, "I've got these bar graphs that we got prepared," and

he waved quite a number of them about, bar graphs and charts and so on,

he said, "you'll be getting these." But as far as I'm concerned they

never have been distributed to any Member in this House. Fortunately I

have a copy of them only because I was able to obtain them from a

member of the Press gallery.

The Minister was very good about distributing these bar graphs to

the Press gallery, but they didn't come into my hands, nor do I think

any other Members'.

There are a great many graphs in these, and the graph I wanted to

particularly refer to if I haven't lost the place now is one that says:

"Can we let this happen?" And he draws a graph here which shows total

provincial revenue, and he has a couple of little burnps in this, makes

it drop back a little bit and he projects that to 19 8 1.

Now, the other graph on the other side that he's drawing opposite

here, Mr. Speaker, it says education, health, and social services. And

he has those going up like that and eventually towards the end of the

century, actually nine years from now, or eight years from now, he has

them meeting.

What I want to do to put this in proper prospective, Mr. Speaker, is

to separate the health and welfare from education. Because we're

concerned at this point only with education, we're not debating the

estimates of health and welfare. We're concerned only with the

financial problems of education.

Let's look at those, and we've already said the educational

estimates are 31 per cent of the total revenue for the past 10 years.

If we add together health, education and social welfare, and take that

back 10 years we begin to find where the problem is.

Now we're talking about totals. We go back to 1962, and it was only

54 per cent, and in '63 it was 57 per cent, and then 60 and I will read

you the percentages of each year up to the current one: 54, 57, 60, 60,

64, 66, 65, 67, 67, 69, 69, and in 1972, 73 per cent. Truly it is 69

per cent.

But what's gone up? Health and social welfare, Mr. Speaker. And I

think this is the clear thing that this Minister has not spelled out — the separation of these two problems. If he wants to control this

factor, he better control the budgets of his colleagues, the Minister

of Health, and the Minister of Social Welfare. These are the problems

financially that we are trying to correct by putting the lid on school

costs, or reducing the school costs, because the school costs of the

Department of Education have been 31 per cent in every single one of

the years that I have mentioned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: That's exactly what's happened. So I hope Mr.

Speaker, when the Minister closes his debate on this bill that he will

explain how and what he is doing with this bill on education — will

somehow make adjustments in the bill on health and social welfare.

That's where the problem is and I think we better go to those two

departments and control those ceilings, not the Minister of Education's

estimates.

Now, point number nine Mr. Speaker. We are making adjustments to

this budget, to the school board budget, in the middle of the year. The

difficulty is that the school boards started their year effectively

last summer. How do you reduce the pupils in March? The pupils were

there last September. We can't get rid of them. Their costs are already

built into the system in 1971-72. They are already there. The teachers

were already hired last summer, we can't suddenly get rid of them. The

programmes are under way.

I talked about some of the excellent programmes in North

[ Page 875 ]

Vancouver the other day. Those programmes have been

under way since last September. They can't suddenly chop them in the

middle of March because they lost their referendum last week.

Mr. Speaker, when this formula was originally brought into this

House some years ago the school boards of British Columbia were given

an entire year to make their adjustments. Now, I'm the first one to

recognise that budgets sometimes do have to be adjusted, and there

might be reasons — I'm not saying there are, I'm saying there might be

reasons — to say to a school board: "you have got to reduce your

expenditures by such and such a time." But let's do that for next year,

not for the year we're in the middle of.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard some talk at various times about running a

peanut stand. And the government likes to say that the party on my

extreme right here has never run a peanut stand. I don't thank the

Minister of Education has ever run a peanut stand, but the Minister of

Finance has run a number of peanut stands. And he knows perfectly well,

the Minister of Finance does, that when you order a year's supply of

peanuts you better take the entire order right through to the end of

the year. You can't cancel the order in the middle of March because

somebody changed the budget on you. You better take it and you better

honour the price. So this is not fair. This is not fair, Mr. Speaker,

in changing the rules in the middle of the stream.

Finally point number 10, Mr. Speaker. This bill really destroys any

real reason that I can see for the continuation of the school board

system. The bargaining with the teachers is gone, any real financial

control in terms of choices is gone, any real choice of educational

policy is gone. All that's left for the school board to do is two

things. They will have to find "what's the cheapest thing we can do?"

and second, "how can we sell it to the voters?" That's really all they

have left. After this bill, Mr. Speaker, I don't think you need local

school boards. You could operate with the Minister ofEducation…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no, oh no!

MR. BROUSSON: …A few staff members in his department and I

suppose a few staff members in each school district to run the show.

That's really all that would be needed.

Mr. Speaker, in North Vancouver there was a referendum called for by

a petition of voters. The lady who organised that list wrote to the

Minister the other day and she sent me a copy of the letter.

I think she's having some second thoughts about what she did.

Because she had begun to hear about the lighthouse programme of North

Vancouver School District. She discovered the outdoor school for

instance, she discovered her son went to that outdoor school. And she

was terribly upset because she suddenly realised that one of the

lighthouse projects that was going down the drain was the outdoor

school and her son was going to be affected. She wrote to the Minister

and she said:

"It is my understanding that you've got special funds available to

take care of these special kinds of projects that are extra good, and

perhaps you can see that they are looked after." She wrote to him and

I'm paraphrasing — I haven't got the copy with me in the House. But the

Minister I am sure has received the letter. I have a copy of it in my

office.

She didn't say she started it, but she was the one. "if this

referendum is defeated surely the Minister of Education will find some

extra funds." Mr. Speaker, as I understand this bill, and I understand

the comments the Minister has made about it, the lighthouse projects

are all going to be burnt out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The debate on

Bill No. 3 has a certain reminiscent quality about it. I remember a

debate on Bill No. 33 some while ago that had the same on again, off

again quality that seems to fascinate the leader of the House, and to

make a mockery of the democracy in this legislation and the rules of

order.

Live with it I suppose we must, as long as the numbers game is being played the way it is in this House.

Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 3, as has been said many times, has three

principles involved in it. They are the principles that relate to

tenure of the school teachers in our province, principles about school

board spending, and principles about teachers' salaries. And I want to

deal with them simply in that order and hope distinctly to make some

points to the Minister that would show him the errors of his ways and

the foolishness of his conduct over the past 12 months in matters

educational.

The tenure provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker, have been in the

works for well over a year. This principle of tenure has been a subject

of a departmental study during the latter part of 1970 and then in the

session of last year the subject was referred to the standing committee

on education, where an unanimous report was presented to the House just

a year ago.

A year has passed since that date, Mr. Speaker, with presumably

further departmental studies and presumably observations from the

educational sector of our province. Then we saw this bill introduced

earlier on in the session to be followed by amendment after amendment,

after amendment.

There are, Mr. Speaker, nearly two pages of amendments to Bill No. 3

on the order paper — showing to my mind the pathetic if not alarming

state that this Minister has got his draftsman and advisors in.

To think that a simple matter that has been attended to by a great

number of people for nearly 18 months will be introduced in this House

and then be amended over by the Minister — and they appear as you know

Mr. Speaker, on pages 9 and 10 of the orders of the day. When this

Minister spoke for the second occasion of second reading he tabled the

regulations which are an essential part of the amendments of the bill.

Even after he introduced the bill, days after he first spoke he has the

temerity and the contempt to the House to table regulations on the

table of this House and Mr. Speaker I say to you that that behaviour

should not be tolerated by anybody in this House — that kind of

leadership in a department.

It makes a mockery out of Parliament. It makes a mockery out of the

legislative process. Although it's not technically required, Mr.

Speaker, as you well know these amendments should be brought in by

message. The least the Minister could have done would be to advise in a

total way, the Members of the Legislature and the observers in the

galleries, the Press and other people involved with this thing. He

could at least have notified them by using the time-honored method of

bringing the amendments in by message.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 876 ]

MR. HALL: I do. But it's the certain stealthy quality about slipping them on the order paper, Mr. Minister, that doesn't appeal to me.

The least the Minister could have done, would have been to advise

the House and the public and given them the courtesy of putting the

amendments in that fashion instead of, as I say, slipping them in like

a truant scholar explaining his absence.

The second principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I refer to the

school boards' spending, having decided that on this occasion — second

reading of the bill — my personal comments about the tenure debate and

the tenure provisions are best dealt with in committee.

Dealing with the second principle of the bill, that is school board

spending, I'd like first of all to inform the Minister of a letter that

I have received from my school board regarding Bill No. 3.

My school board has already seen the Minister on a number of items

to do with education but I'd like to read to him a letter from School

District No. 36 dealing with this bill. It's expressing the school

board's concern over the portion of the bill which deals with the

gradual reduction of the money available to it.

For some time past, Mr. Speaker, the tax base in Surrey was low and

the district was not able to prov