1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1515 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates

On vote 39.

Mr. Schroeder –– 1515

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1515

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 1515

Mr. Wallace –– 1517

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1520

Mr. Phillips –– 1523

Mr. Schroeder (amendment) –– 1530

Mrs. Jordan –– 1531

Hon. Mr. Barrett –– 1534

Mr. Bennett –– 1536

Mr. Fraser –– 1538

Mr. Wallace –– 1541

Mr. McGeer –– 1543

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 1546

Mr. Curtis –– 1548

Division on amendment –– 1548

Mr. McGeer –– 1548

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1549

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 1549

Mr. Smith –– 1549

Mr. Fraser –– 1552

Division on motion that the committee rise –– 1554

Mr. Fraser –– 1554

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1554

Mrs. Jordan –– 1555

On vote 40.

Mr. Morrison –– 1562

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1562

On vote 41.

Mrs. L.A. Williams –– 1562

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1563

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 1563

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1563

Mr. Morrison –– 1563

On vote 43.

Mr. Morrison –– 1563

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1563

On vote –– 44.

Mr. Morrison –– 1564

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1564

On vote 45.

Mr. Bennett –– 1564

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1564

Mr. McGeer –– 1565

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1565

Mr. Richter –– 1565

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1566

Mr. Morrison –– 1566

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1566

Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 1566

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1566

Mr. McGeer –– 1566

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1567

Mr. Morrison –– 1567

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1567

Mr. Phillips –– 1568

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1568

On vote 46.

Mr. Bennett –– 1568

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1568

Mr. Fraser –– 1568

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1568

Mr. Morrison –– 1569

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1569

Mr. McGeer –– 1569

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1569

Mr. L.A. Williams –– 1569

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1569

Division on vote 46 –– 1569

On vote 47.

Mr. Smith –– 1570

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1570

On vote 48.

Mr. Morrison –– 1570

Hon. Mrs. Dailly –– 1570

Point of order

Tabling of documents quoted in

committee. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 1570

Mr. McGeer –– 1570

Mr. Speaker –– 1570

Mr. McGeer –– 1571

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 1571

Mr. McGeer –– 1571

Mr. Speaker –– 1571

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 1572

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1974.

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 39: Minister's office, $77,408.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I was waiting with bated

breath to see whether or not I would have an answer to the

questions as to what plan the Minister wishes to take on the

reduction of class size and how she will determine, by what

criteria will she determine, which school districts will

receive first attention.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, to

the Hon. Member, I spent about 10 minutes answering that

question which was posed to me by another Member who happened

to be in the House at the time. And you'll see the complete

answer in Hansard .

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

we've listened to considerable debate concerning the Bremer

affair. I'm sure there will be much more. I must say that it

disturbs me, the way this debate has developed.

I think it is all summed up quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, in

a press statement that the Hon. Minister of Education released

on January 12 following the Premier's clear indication on

television that Mr. Bremer was finished. The Hon. Minister said

at that time that before she went to Montreal for a meeting of

the Council of Ministers, "the Premier and myself reviewed the

present status of the education commission and came to a number

of mutual conclusions on which I will elaborate shortly."

Based upon earlier debates in this House we understand

perfectly clearly what the Minister meant when she said "mutual

conclusions". They're the same kind of mutual conclusions that

members of the Egg Marketing Board reached with the Premier

when they were in his office.

It is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the person who is

really running the Department of Education is now, as it was

under the previous administration, the Minister of Finance and

the Premier of the province.

He runs the department, he calls the tune. The Minister of Education

is allowed to play some little games with regard to education in this

province, but when proposals are put forward which will result in the

possibility of increased cost to the provincial government, increased

cost to the taxpayers, the Minister of Finance pulls the reins tight

and the Department of Education responds accordingly.

It is for this reason that we had the Minister suggesting to

boards of school trustees throughout the province certain

changes that she was initiating in regard to the department's

view on board expenditures — this whole question of class size,

pupil-teacher ratio, things that encouraged the boards of

school trustees and the teachers in the province to believe

that the winds of change were really blowing in Victoria.

But the actions of the Premier with respect to Mr. Bremer

and the actions of the Premier with respect to the Department

of Finance are also the direct cause for the Hon. Minister of

Education to come forth with the statement that the school

boards in the Province of British Columbia were being

irresponsible with respect to financial matters.

She'd been told by the Minister of Finance, and no doubt by

other members of the Treasury Board, exactly how far the

government was prepared to let her go in making changes in

education in British Columbia.

We have, then, Mr. Chairman, come to this. That the Minister

of Education who criticized so well and offered such hope when

she was in opposition, finds herself in the position, just as

previous Ministers of Education have found themselves, of being

unable to do the things that need to be done either from lack

of talent or the support that is required from the Department

of Finance. And that is where we stand today.

The Minister of Education is every bit as much of a flop as

Mr. Bremer was. To suggest that she didn't receive anything

from him during the course of the months that he was engaged as

commissioner, in light of what the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) disclosed to the House

earlier today, is difficult to accept, particularly when what

she produces, with her whole department behind her, is what we

received on Wednesday, the incompetent document "Directions for

Change."

For 18 months we've gone no place. Any changes there have

been have been ad hoc in order to put out small brush fires

which might have been burning here, or to repay political

promises that the government made during the August 1972

elections.

It is disappointing that the Minister has performed so

badly, to us in this House and to all those people in the

Province of British Columbia who really hoped for something

better. Well, we have come to this. We have wasted 18 months,

and if we come to "Directions for Change" as being the starting

point, then perhaps the Minister would address herself to

[ Page 1516 ]

responding to some questions on that point.

On January 12 when she confirmed the Premier's hatchet job

on Mr. Bremer she said in her press statement:

"I have reached the decision that technical change in

this

province and that educational change in this province can now

best be served by having the newly reconstructed Department

responsible for an evaluation and recommendations to me for new

directions in education in this province."

Then, as the Minister so often does, she translates those

words so that everyone will clearly understand, and she goes

on:

"This means that the department must work closely and

regularly with interested public groups and citizens,

department personnel must now move out and relate directly with

groups re educational needs far more often than has been done

in the past. Consultation and discussion with interested groups

must take place before any evaluation and recommendations are

made to me by the department."

The question then is: would the Minister please indicate to

what extent officials of her department have been moving out

from Victoria, relating directly to groups regarding

educational needs in the province? Will she please indicate or

identify the personnel in the department who are carrying out

this responsibility?

With what groups are they meeting? Has she received any

reports, formal or informal, from those departmental officials,

and does she see arising from these any early steps to provide

solutions for the problems which she enunciated in the White

Paper?

Specifically, has she received from her departmental

officials any indication of the steps that must be taken in

order to relieve the problems which are facing the students in

this province in regard to failure rates, non-attendance, the

resolution of conflicts in the system?

Would she also indicate to what extent her personnel in her

department are picking up the load that was carried by the

commission, the university task force, the Fraser Valley task

force, which I assume must have done its job because the

Minister has made an announcement with regard to a community

college in that area? The college task force, we've had a

report in this regard. Who in the department is doing this?

Where, in the estimates which we are debating today, do we find

these personnel who can be relieved from their other

responsibilities in the department to undertake this community

communications programme and then to come back and design and

submit to the Minister for her consideration solutions to those

problems?

In particular, I would like to know what programme if any the

Department of Education will enunciate to the government for further

developments of our community college system. We have what appears to

be a very excellent working paper on the community college in British

Columbia entitled "Towards The Learning Community." When are we going

to see any of the recommendations in this working paper acted upon? How

long will the people in the community need to wait before they will see

results of departmental action?

In connection with the community college programme, would

the Minister indicate whether or not she believes that the

college system is, or can become, a viable alternative to

enlarging our present universities or establishing new

universities in this province? Is the community college to be

allowed to assume an ever-expanding role in the post-secondary

educational field, thereby encroaching on areas which have been

traditionally those of universities? Or will they move along on

a parallel course with universities, allowing universities to

expand?

If they are to undertake responsibilities which

traditionally — I don't say properly — but which traditionally

have been those of universities, will they, for purposes of

financing, be taken out of the responsibility of local school

districts altogether and financed from general revenues as is

properly the case with those post-secondary institutions of

general provincial value?

If that is to occur, as I sincerely hope it will, will

community colleges be faced with the same challenge that faces

universities today, as posed by the Hon. Minister of Finance

when he introduced his budget? Namely, that if they want more

money, they're going to have to come to the government with

new, imaginative programmes. I can only assume that what is new

and imaginative is whatever happens to catch the fancy of the

Premier and the cabinet, and falls within the narrow confines

of what that elite group considers to be appropriate for

educational advance in the Province of British Columbia.

To the Hon. Minister of Education: is it her view and is it

supported by the people of her department that the financing of

universities and senior post-secondary institutions in British

Columbia is to continue along those lines with meagre annual

financial allocations and the promise that if somehow or other

the Minister of Finance can be convinced that something more

should be provided, additional funds will be available?

Does the Minister recognize the impossibility of budgeting

for major post-secondary institutions without a clear

indication of the amounts of money to be made available and the

demands which the Department of Education and the government

place upon those institutions?

I hope the Minister, in spite of the criticism that quite

properly has been laid at her feet these past two

[ Page 1517 ]

days, recognizing what faces her and those interested in

education, will be candid with the committee and let us know

exactly where she and her department stand in respect to the

need and the fulfillment of the need for educational

change.

The Minister in announcing the White Paper said it was going

to take time. Well, let's forget the past 18 months. It's

another generation of students maybe who have suffered. How

long? How much longer must we wait before we see any positive

result?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd just like to carry on for a

few moments on the theme of the university situation. Again we

appear to have meetings taking place after the budget has been

decided for universities, as was the case with the school

boards, in that the three presidents met with the Premier, I

understand, the other day.

Again I have to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that we seem

to be attempting to debate estimates of departments where we

really only have a part of the picture. In other words, the

theme of the government seems to be: keep them short of money

until they scream, then when they scream, we'll have a meeting

and see if we can patch up the situation.

It seems to me very regrettable that the government and

particularly the Department of Education should not have a

definitive position of providing a reasonable amount of money,

not only to the universities — I'm going to talk about them in

particular — but to the school system.

We've heard a lot of debate this morning about supplementary

warrants and the fact that certain areas are fast-growing areas

and require special consideration and so on. But the question

really is: should not that special consideration have been

taken into account prior to us reaching this point where we've

completed the budget debate and where we're now attempting to

find out how the money is to be spent on education and trying

to find out those areas where there's not enough money and

those areas in which more money will be made available?

I just had a letter today from the University of Victoria.

I'd like to quote part of it. The letter is calling for an

emergency meeting of the Faculty Association at the University

of Victoria. The letter is from Mr. John Downing who's the

president of the Faculty Association. I think there are some

reasonable statements in here that the House should know about.

He says:

"You will by now have received President Farquhar's

announcement of the salaries for 1974-75. The hard fact is that the

basic increase is likely to reach 10 per cent by the start of the

salary year. There we are getting a 2 per cent cut in our real income.

(Merit payments cannot be taken into account in this as they intended

for merit.) This reduction compounds an unfortunate salary situation

created in the '73-74 year by the 5 per cent general increment compared

to an 8 per cent inflationary increase."

The letter goes on to make some more general observations.

But the important point, I think, that has to be looked at is

at the bottom of the page, there the president of the Faculty

Association states:

"Since this is the second year in succession that we

have

received an inadequate budget from the government, it is clear

that our working conditions are deteriorating and standards of

scholarship and teaching at our university are being placed in

danger.

"There is also the possibility that student enrolment

might

drop from the more direct cause of higher tuition fees, should

the universities in this province be forced to raise them

because of inadequate government grants."

That's one university. I've had communications, as I'm sure

all Members of the opposition have had, from all three

universities. They tell the same tale. I think that the Premier

who has made statements and who has commented on university

financing in the budget debate hasn't completely realized the

significance of some of his statements.

In particular, Mr. Chairman, there is this statement that as

with the school boards who approach the Minister of Education

after the session's over looking for supplementary warrants,

there will also be the same sort of approach acceptable by the

universities: namely, that if they complain loudly and long,

and perhaps if they come up with new programmes, they'll get

more money.

To refer for a moment, Mr. Chairman, just to the University

of British Columbia, which is the oldest university of the

three — if we could use the word "old" in that term... it

isn't really old, but it happens to be the one that started

first in the province — we have clear, documented proof that

they're still trying to teach students in substandard buildings

and old army huts.

Here's just one statistic, in passing: the Statistics Canada

index for non-residential building costs increased 34 per cent

from 1968 to 1973. It is quite clear that the capital grants

have not been large enough to enable the universities to put up

new buildings. We talked about the plans for new buildings at

UBC during the budget debate, in particular in the faculty of

applied science.

The fact is that because UBC has been operating for longer

than the other two universities, they certainly need

replacement of these older facilities, and everyone in this

chamber knows the cost of construction these days. As I say,

the only hope which the universities appear to have is to

provide, in the Premier's statement,"innovative

programmes."

[ Page 1518 ]

This, I think, is the proposal which has the furthest

reaching consequences. It immediately places in doubt the

autonomy of universities and their ability to remain free of

political control.

Now there are many aspects of the universities which are

debatable and where there is some difference of opinion, but I

think it is generally recognized that it would be most

undesirable to have universities subject to the whim of any of

us as politicians, whether we're in power or out of power. I'm

glad that the Premier agrees and it may well be that the

Premier's statement that he would indeed provide more money for

the universities...

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That's right.

MR. WALLACE: ...will not be so apparently dependent only on

his judgment as to what is a good innovative programme.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's rather important — it puts

another aspect of the record straight — that in one of the

debates, I think in the budget debate, the Premier made a great

appeal that universities be open all the year round.

There could be a — I think he called it a quarterly system.

He quoted what he stated were Ford Foundation research figures.

I understand that at the time the Premier said: "If there were

a 25 per cent increase in students, there would only be about a

10 per cent increase in faculty, and this would be a more

economic use of facilities and personnel." I may not have the

figure exact.

This piece of research was first quoted, I understand, in

the 1962 edition of the Saturday Review with respect to

Antioch College, which I understand is a small liberal arts

private college with less than 2,000 students. Just to put the

whole matter in context, Mr. Chairman, this is a college where

the emphasis is on teaching rather than research.

Another interesting item about that particular college is

that the students — half of them — are compelled to attend

during the summer term. They have no choice. In order to make

the system work they are compelled to attend.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's one of the best universities in North

America.

MR. WALLACE: It certainly is a well-recognized university.

I'm not for a moment suggesting it isn't, Mr. Premier. I made

some enquiry, and it is indeed; it has a high reputation. But

I'm saying it is a small liberal arts college with a relatively

small enrolment and there is compulsion involved. Some of the

students have to go in the summer months whether they like to

go or not, and I'm just trying to make the point that in....

HON. MR. BARRETT: They don't have to go there if they don't

want to.

MR. WALLACE: No, that's true, but if they choose to go to

that university, they have not the free choice as to what parts

of the year they go, and in this province, as the Premier well

knows, many of our students have to work in the summer months

to raise the money to pay for their university education in the

other months.

This matter is not just simply one of saying,"Well, let's

use the facilities all the year round," because, as I

say, many of the students in this province and in Canada very

much need the summer months to earn money in order to attend

the university under the present system. It isn't really quite

that simple just to say that we'll save money and make better

use of personnel if we adopt the kind of system that was

outlined for Antioch College.

On the subject of universities, Mr. Chairman, we understand

that the Minister is preparing a new universities Act, or at

least there will be amendments to the existing one, I

understand. We've already had the paper on university

governments which is preliminary findings from a study of the

situation. I've talked to various people in the university

field who feel that this should certainly go before the

standing committee of the House on education before finally

being put into legislative form.

So I would like to ask the Minister today: how close are we

to finalizing the recommendations for amending the

Universities Act , and will she, in fact, put the

recommendations before the standing committee of the House on

education to get the widest possible involvement of the public

and the students and teachers in responding to these

proposals?

We all pay lip service — I hope it's more than lip service — but we

all talk in this House about having open government and

giving the individual citizen access to the people who write

the legislation. It would seem to me that in an area as

expensive and as important as university education, when we're

about to amend the Act, possibly in very significant ways, that

before it is put into legislative form, the standing committee

of this Legislature on education should have an opportunity to

hold hearings and study the recommendations.

For example, this preliminary report of the Committee on

University Government seems quite convinced on the need for a

university council which would coordinate university planning

and prevent overlapping and duplication of service, and provide

overall better economy in the financing of universities. I know

that this exists in certain other provinces. It certainly

exists in the United Kingdom.

I feel that these are such basic and important changes that

they should really get the widest

[ Page 1519 ]

possible exposure publicly before the final decisions are

made and put into legislative form.

The whole problem of the present financing has not yet been

answered, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder, before we terminate the

debate on the Minister's salary, whether she or the Premier

would care to make a statement about the outcome of his meeting

with the three presidents. Is there to be any more money made

available, as I tried to point out with regard to this letter

from the faculty president at UVic?

The outcome may well be that the university has to increase

the tuition fees paid by the student in order to close the gap

between their operating expenses and the government grants.

This is a pretty serious situation to be facing. I don't think

that it is really the wish of this government that the student

should have to consider paying higher tuition fees at a time of

inflation, where their basic costs just to live and be clothed

and meet their essential needs, is going up all the time. It

isn't in any way easier to obtain employment during the summer

months for all the students. Now I'd like quickly to touch on

another matter which has taken a lot of my time.

I wonder if we could finally, please, Mr. Chairman, get an

answer from either the Minister of Education or the Premier, or

both. I'm referring to a question of individual right; I'm

referring to the case of Mr. G.C. Johnston who was dismissed

for cause by the school board of North Vancouver in 1969. I

think it was — I'm not certain of the month — but I think it was

January or June...June of 1969. I've got a whole file of

correspondence and material here, but I won't go through the

whole thing.

Very briefly, this teacher was dismissed apparently for

cause because of three unsatisfactory reports from principals

of the schools where he had worked.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, it is a long file; I will try to

make it very brief. The fact of the matter is: the board of

reference came to the conclusion that he had been dismissed for

cause, although, in fact, subsequent events showed that two of

the three so-called unsatisfactory reports were anything but.

And certainly didn't provide the strength of criticism to

justify a man losing his job, and, again, rather like Mr.

Bremer, having his professional integrity questioned.

At any rate, from that date in 1969 to this date in 1974

this man has been attempting to obtain justice in this

province. He has not received reasonable justice, to which any

person in this province is entitled when in fact his livelihood

and his reputation is being seriously damaged.

The board of reference stated that it was not responsible for its

decisions once it had made a decision, and according to the legislation

at that time his only recourse was to the Council of Public

Instruction. This man has spent three or four years trying to find out

if the Council of Public Instruction ever actually met to confirm the

decision of the board of reference. And if it met, was there a quorum

and did in fact the government of the day...? At this time we are

talking about the former administration. Let's be plain that the person

dealing with it at that time was not the present Minister.

But at that time this man who had lost his job and who had

been maligned as being an inadequate teacher and who was trying

to clear his name, or at least obtain a fair hearing, could not

ascertain if, in fact, the Council of Public Instruction had

duly met its responsibility under the Public Schools Act

and held a meeting. Or had they in some inadequate and illegal

way simply confirmed the decision of the board of

reference?

For the following two or three years this Mr. Johnston has

been dealing with government trying to find out whether or not

he was granted his reasonable rights as a professional teacher

under the Public Schools Act .

The evidence suggested that the Council of Public

Instruction did not, in fact, exert its legal role and that the

decision had been made by cabinet. Again, Mr. Johnston doesn't

know that for sure. But when the new government came to power — and

this is where I'm on much firmer ground with presenting the

case, Mr. Chairman — Mr. Johnston wrote to Premier Barrett and

asked him to pursue this matter further, because this man

naturally, like Mr. Bremer, can't find another job all that

easily when he's already been dismissed from the job he was

in.

Here again I have to stress that when professional people

get heaved out of a job, and seem to have no recourse to

clearing their name, they can have tremendous difficulty

obtaining further employment.

From this time this government came to power, Mr. Chairman,

the matter, which is documented, has been shuffled back and

forth between the Minister of Education and the Premier, then

back to the Minister of Education.

I believe the Minister of Education felt because the

decision had been made by the executive council that it really

should not be decided by her. Had the decision been made by the

Council of Public Instruction, the present Minister would have

been willing to consider it.

To cut a very long story short, on this man's appeal for

fair play and a just hearing, the buck has been passed back and

forth between the Minister of Education and the Premier.

Finally this man decided to leave Canada and go back to New

Zealand where he, I believe, took some of his original

education and training.

I just feel that here is a situation where all the

provisions of the Public Schools Act to try and protect

a teacher who might be unjustly dismissed have not been put

into play. It's now almost six years

[ Page 1520 ]

since this teacher was dismissed. There is a sheaf of

correspondence between the individual teacher and the

government — the former government and this government.

I wonder if the Minister of Education can tell us whether

Mr. Johnston can expect to have his case finalized in a way

that will assure that he's received justice in what we consider

to be a just society where the individual has his day in court,

and if, in fact, he is penalized or in any way has his

reputation coloured that he has every right to have access to

all the means of appeal. And real access, not something where

the Council of Public Instruction in some shoddy or superficial

way simply rubber stamps the decision of a previous body,

namely the board of reference.

The other matter I would just like to touch on is the great

concern that has been expressed to me by various vocational

segments of the population, particularly the practical nurses,

on the decision that the Department of Education and the

Department of Labour should co-operate in the whole area of

apprenticeship training. For example, the Minister has stated

that she's interested in work experience, and this also will

involve the Department of Labour.

I know that in Alberta students who spend maybe half a day

in school and half a day in a work situation are regarded as

employees of the Department of Education. They don't receive

any pay for their work, but the Department of Labour exempts

them from the minimum wage, and the students are also covered

by Workmen's Compensation.

I think this certainly makes education much more meaningful

for many students if they can combine work in the classroom

with work in the very surroundings where they might one day be

employed. Of course, this necessitates a longer period of time

in the classroom for that kind of student, compared to the

normal school year. But apparently in Alberta, Mr. Chairman,

they do at least issue a certificate to the student who has

completed this kind of training, stating the level of

achievement of the student. Then that student may have the

opportunity to complete his or her training at the college

level.

I wonder to what extent there are problems with the trade

union movement in this attempt to provide work experience to

these students. Apparently in Alberta it's quite clear that

this is no attempt to provide cheap labour or to replace bona

fide employees with students getting work experience.

But I think there is apprehension about the proposed degree

to which the Department of Education and the Department of

Labour are getting together in what many people consider are

essentially educational matters and not labour matters. I've

had a fair bit of correspondence from some of the people in the

vocational fields who might be quite markedly affected by this

proposal for the two departments to work together.

Certainly, one of the

interpretations placed on this news

release, which was December 18, 1973 under the signatures of

both Ministers, was that under the plan the Labour Department

will identify manpower training needs in the province, and meet

those needs by taking time responsibility for the development

of pre-apprenticeship and journeyman upgrading.

I think the Minister should perhaps clarify for the concern

of many people just exactly what will be the respective

responsibilities of her department as compared with the Labour

Department.

I can see the sense, Mr. Chairman, in trying to define the

need that exists for certain types of people in certain types

of jobs — certain skills — and perhaps this can certainly be

more efficiently done through the Manpower Division of the

Department of Labour. But is it not clearly the responsibility

of the Department of Education to define the content, to

supervise the skill of the teachers, the curriculum, the

courses?

It seems to me that when education and labour get together

in this particular field, the number who might be admitted and

the degree to which education — the educational needs of the

situation — is taken over by the labour situation and the

tendency of the Department of Labour perhaps to respond unduly

to the demands of unions who may want to control the market, or

control the number of people being trained and so on, there's a

real danger of there being a conflict of interests.

When the Department of Labour becomes this intimately

involved in educational matters, there is concern being

expressed by many of the students and the present teachers in

these vocational fields. I think this is another area that the

Minister should explain to the House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I'd like to deal with some

of the questions from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams). He was asking, Mr. Chairman, since the

role of the commissioner is no longer with us, how the

department was fulfilling its obligations to work with the

community and evaluate and make recommendations and assist the

public in the development of programmes, et cetera.

One definite example of that is that we had a very

successful meeting with the Deputy Minister of Education, Mr.

Fleming; and Miss Reid from our department went to Powell River

recently and had excellent meetings with the school board and

citizens' groups there who had shown an interest in moving into

some innovative co-operative programmes with the citizens and

the school board and the teachers. They had an excellent couple

of days there, at least one of them did.

All reports I have were excellent, that they were very

pleased to have people from the department

[ Page 1521 ]

come out and actively participate with them. That's just one

example. As you realize, we've just started to do this.

Another example of the other Members of the department....

By the way, it's interesting between you and your seatmate, Mr.

Member: one suggests that we have too many people in the

department hierarchy, so-called, and you are questioning

whether perhaps we have enough to do this work. Our personnel

at the moment has not changed at all. We have just the same

number, as you can see by the report, as we had last year. We

certainly will have to increase our staff so that we can

relieve some of our own officials if they are to move out. The

work still has to continue here.

In the meantime, I want to take this opportunity to thank

all the department officials who have really been carrying very

heavy loads, by accepting speaking engagements all over the

Province of British Columbia and by meeting with groups and

delegations as well as carrying on the regular departmental

work. I want to thank them here and now because they're working

exceptionally hard, and, in all fairness to them, they must get

more help.

In the research and development

section of the vote, we have

sums of money there which were used for commission task force

expenditures before; and out of these moneys we will also,

hopefully when there are special research projects which can be

given the leadership through the department, be able to use

some of the funds there to bring in people to assist on maybe a

temporary basis on special projects. Also, on these projects,

the money can be used to help innovative programmes out there

in the field.

You were concerned about the failure rates. Before I get on

to that, I do want to say though, Mr. Member, that I felt part

of your statements were certainly positive, but I was concerned

when you seemed to suggest that because we just had one small

report from me as Minister, you seemed to suggest the last 18

months there in the educational scene have been very dark

months. I would consider that an insult to the teachers of this

province, and it also shows that you really haven't moved

around the schools of British Columbia if you think the whole

scene out there is dark and that nothing's happening.

Just because I said we should examine the system and always

ask ourselves, "Are all the students of this province getting

their best educational needs served?" — at no time have I

suggested the teachers of this province are not meeting many of

those needs. I think that your implication — because I as

Minister haven't brought in heavy legislation, or haven't

brought in a paper earlier, or it wasn't produced earlier — means that

everything out there is a disaster.

I must say again that if you just go and visit the schools of this

province, you'll see that so many exciting things are going on there.

Here again I want to congratulate the teachers and administrators who

have been part of this and will continue to be part of this.

What we're really trying to say is that despite their best

efforts, there are students out there who do need a better

structure. Perhaps we have to look at whether the structure is

really meeting their needs, because there are many students, as

I say in the Paper, who are not surviving the school system and

these are the ones we are concerned about.

So I just can't accept the fact that there have been 18 dark

months. I don't think the teachers of British Columbia would

accept that either.

Another point you made about alternate....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister address

the chair, please?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You asked what we are doing about failure

rates. I think that some of the alternative programmes which

are springing up within the system are attempting to cope with

this. We have a long way to go, not only in B.C. — this is true

right across the North American continent — to find out why

there are failures. But I'm not sure what you mean by failures:

whether you mean the child who's a failure in meeting his

social obligations to society, or whether you are talking about

basic academic failure — probably both.

Human Resources has been an excellent help to the Department

of Education in coordinating programmes with us to assist the

drop-outs. My concern is that these programmes should be

brought within the school system and not outside of it. This is

what we are attempting to do.

The matter of the university task force: I think you asked

about it and also the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). The

task force recommendations are fairly close to completion. I do

think that there was an opportunity for many people to become

involved in the recommendations. We are hopeful of course at

the next session.... we are not only hopeful, we expect to

have the legislation for the next session on the university

task force.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Not that particular one.

The Member for Oak Bay is very concerned about the political

control because of the fact that the Minister of Education

under this government and the Premier have actually seen fit to

question what is going on in the universities. I don't consider

that political interference.

As a matter of fact, we've had some excellent meetings with

the university presidents. We've met

[ Page 1522 ]

with some of the faculty, the Confederation of Faculty

Associations, and one thing that has come through is that under

the former administration, the procedure that was followed — and some

people have been saying, "Why not go back to the old

days?" — was simply, as we all know, that one man made the

decisions on the matter of the grants and simply said,"That's

how much you get this year." There was no consultation or talk

or discussion with the people involved.

Now what we're attempting to do is have meetings, and the

Premier has met with the university presidents. The Premier and

I met with them just recently. What we're simply saying to them

is, surely we should all be able to talk about the goals of the

universities; and are they meeting the needs of the community

today?

We are not making an attempt to say to them: "You must put

certain programmes on." We have a great respect for the

autonomy of the universities but we also feel that as we are

providing — you, the taxpayer, all of us — the majority of the

funds for the universities, we certainly should have a right to

question what is going on in the universities.

We have found, by and large, that the discussions we have

had have been very positive. I did mention yesterday, and I'll

repeat it again, that the Minister of Finance and I have agreed

to consider the request from the three universities on their

need for extra operating funds. It helps us and I think it

helps them to be able to sit down and talk about those

needs.

The decision we have promised them will have to be made very

soon. As a matter of fact, I'll be getting the letter out to

them shortly because I'm aware, Mr. Member, that they have to

know what they're going to be able to do with their staff

demands and their other needs.

So we feel that we can build up a good climate. I don't

think that the present setup is good, frankly, and that is why

we have this university task force to recommend changes. One of

the areas that has been recommended, as you know, is the

setting up of a university council, which I haven't heard

anyone say that they did not agree with. It certainly is an

area that probably will certainly be well considered for the

legislation.

Through that university council, if it should come about,

you would be able to have an opportunity to have some rational

long-range planning done by people who are closely involved and

would be working at it almost on a full-time basis. Therefore,

government is prepared much better to understand the needs of

the universities because, after all, we do need an input from a

group that is working with it every day collectively between

the three universities.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How about the colleges?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I forget now what your concern was about

the colleges. I'll just listen to it again.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister what

she proposed to do with the task force report "Toward The

Learning Community" and how she saw the role of community

colleges in the post-secondary educational system. Was it going

to be supportive of the universities? Was it going to run along

separately but parallel? When might we know what the

department's policy would be?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, as you know, the task force have

just produced their first working paper. Now they're going to

move around the community to get a feedback from it. I think it

would be premature for me to comment on that at this time. We

will have to wait and see what the results are after they move

around the province and what reaction they get from it. Then,

hopefully, legislation must follow fairly quickly in certain

areas of college legislation needs.

The matter of Mr. Johnston. Since I came into office, we've

received quite a number of requests from people who felt they

had not been given proper due course of justice, et cetera,

under the former government. I'm not blaming the government for

that particularly because in many cases they did go through the

due processes. It's only natural when a new government comes in

for people to say, "How about giving us another chance?" So

what we've had to do is take the cases and investigate them.

We've had a number of them.

In Mr. Johnston's case we found he did have full process

under the Public Schools Act at that time; the former

government did give him his due process through the Act.

Subsequently, we understand, he sued the Government of B.C. and

the case failed for lack of prosecution. He certainly didn't go

through with it.

At the moment we've put all the relevant data into the

Attorney-General's department. I'll certainly make sure we get

an up-to-date on it for the sake of Mr. Johnson and inform

him.

MR. WALLACE: How about the Labour and Education?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Labour and Education. There has been quite

a bit of misinterpretation about this document signed by the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and myself. Basically, the

idea of the programme — and I think you agreed with the purpose

of it — is to greatly improve the coordination and the delivery

of manpower training programmes throughout British Columbia.

The concern seems to be that Labour will be making inroads into

education. I can assure you this cannot and will not

happen.

[ Page 1523 ]

The university vocational branch under the Department of

Labour and the Department of Education will simply work

together from this point: Manpower under the Department of

Labour says, "Look, we see the great need for so many welders

at this particular time." Then they come to Education and say,

"You mount the course in one of your colleges."

But before we mount the course, we have followed the same

system as has been going on before we came into power.

Industry, Labour and Education did have coordinating committees

to sit down and help develop the programme which seems to make

sense. Particularly if it's an industrial programme, we have

the industrial people, the unions and the other two departments

involved in drawing up the curriculum.

Once the curriculum is drawn up, Education takes over

completely. It mounts the course; it decides where it's going

to be put on; it runs the course. There is no inspection from

Labour; it becomes entirely Education's job, which it should

be. So I cannot see this as being a takeover by Labour. I think

the co-operation we're trying to bring about will produce

better programmes and more programmes for the young people in

the vocational area.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to say

a few words in this debate. The very fact that it's taking

place on this Friday afternoon certainly throws another one of

the myths out of the window that the Premier is trying to build

up in the province. He says he has brought democracy into the

Legislature.

It must be very difficult on some of the cabinet Ministers.

I notice the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was

dozing a short time ago after sitting three nights this week

and then this afternoon. It must be very difficult on him; I

know he has a large amount of work to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: However, let's get back to education, Mr.

Chairman.

I get the feeling that our new Minister of Education felt

before being appointed to her present position that great sums

of money were going to solve the problems which existed in the

educational field in British Columbia.

Since she has been in the department she has found that

great sums of money, regardless of how large the amount, is not

going to solve the problems in education in British Columbia,

or indeed in Canada or North America. There are similar

problems that are prevalent not only in this jurisdiction but

throughout the entire continent. I think she realized now the

tremendous job she has in front of her.

I have to think that she has gone absolutely nowhere since taking

office. She sort of reminds me of one of these toy cars you wind up and

put on the floor. Every time it hits an obstacle it backs off and goes

in another direction. That's the way the Minister has been going since

she took office over 18 months ago. She would head off in a direction,

but as soon as she ran into an obstacle she would back off and go in

some other direction. She didn't really know where she was going, just

like the car. As soon as she ran into something, then she would back

off and go in another direction.

This is certainly evident by the number of task forces she

has had. But I would like to discuss for just a moment, Mr.

Chairman, a letter. It's not a letter; I guess it would be

called an editorial by an interested citizen. As a matter of

fact, I think my wife drew it to my attention some months

ago.

It's called the "Voice of the People" and it's a

teacher-training question. In this

article there are some very

interesting facts which I feel very strongly about myself.

That's why I'm raising them this afternoon. It really has to do

with what goes on inside the classroom, not the size of the

classroom or the amount of teachers or the amount of money the

teacher is being paid or the size of the classroom or the

equipment in it.

This

article tends to point out some of the various aspects

between traditional and progressive education. It's written by

a lady whom I feel is well-qualified to discuss such a subject.

I would like to relay to the Minister some of the thoughts in

this

article because I think they are very relevant to the

search that must be going on in the Minister's mind today.

This

article is written by Frieda Price. Mrs. Price is the

wife of a UBC professor and mother of seven children. She has

had experience with educational systems in Canada, the USA and

Europe. Maybe the Minister has read it; there are some very

pertinent suggestions in this article.

"Some of us wonder where our Education Minister is

seeking

advice and whether she may, with the best of intentions, be

moving us from bad to worse. Advocates of progressive methods

have gained her ear and those of us who have enjoyed good,

traditional education and want the same for our children have

no alternative but to pay for private schools which are often

not as good as the public schools we attended."

I would have to agree with this lady. I have one of my sons

in a private school. I took him up to this private school and

he said,"This is a fairly old building."

I said, "Well, you're leaving a million dollar-plus

structure, one of the most modern educational institutions in

all of western Canada, with high-paid teachers and all the

modern equipment. You couldn't make it there."

[ Page 1524 ]

You have to ask yourself the question why. After three

months in this private school this kid is completely changed,

just absolutely, completely changed. You wouldn't know him as

the same individual. There's a gymnasium there, but it's not

near as nice as the gymnasium at the one in the school he left.

The facilities are not nearly as modern. But what is the

difference?

I feel it's the difference in the attitude in the teachers

in that institution — completely different. There is some

discipline in this school, Mr. Chairman. I think that's where

it's at — I really do. Facilities do not make education. It's

discipline and the willingness on behalf of the teachers.

You can go on and say that only rich kids go to these

private schools. I wouldn't say that at all. What we are doing

is not making facilities of this nature available to all of

those who maybe need a little special attention.

I think, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, that

some of the promises that were made by her party to give

financial support to these private schools certainly bear

another looking at.

I don't think we can do away with our public school system,

but if you recognize that there are pupils within the system

who need special attention, I don't think you can get it all

into one schoolhouse. In that schoolhouse you have one

administration. They're within the system. I don't know what

the actual cost would be if we ever got to the point where

these children...many of them are probably teen-age boys who

the school system just doesn't turn on. I know many of them in

my own riding who have left school. They've gone out to work in

the summer on these make-work programmes — either LIP or the

Department of Highways. They make big money in the summertime

and they go on unemployment in the wintertime. This to me is

one of the worst things that could happen to these young people

because they are on their way to ruining their lives.

As I say there are a large number of teen-age boys, and

maybe girls too. I'm not as familiar with the girl problem, but

I do know that there are a large number of teen-age boys who

are being turned off by this permissiveness in our school

system today. They go from the elementary school system into

the junior high. There they are allowed to study when they want

to, do what they want to and they're not used to it. Maybe

teen-age boys just haven't grown or matured as much as teen-age

girls have.

I'm on my fourth son going through this particular system,

and it's turned all of them off. I think it's the

permissiveness. Maybe as a parent I was too strict in the home;

I should have been more permissive. But I think you're always

going to run into these situations. This is what this lady is

talking about when she's talking about the old traditional

system, which I guess I was educated in, versus the progressive

system.

I would like to quote just a few more lines from this

article:

"It would be wise to find what was right in the former

system and build on it, rather than destroy the system because

of some weaknesses. A major weakness over the last 25 years has

been in teacher training. Nowhere outside North America is so

large a part of that training devoted to method and so little

to knowledge of subject. When the teaching is good, children

are seldom bored, but the teacher must know and love his

subject in order to communicate enthusiasm to the class.

"In the secondary school years the young mind soaks up

knowledge like a sponge and the imaginative response to mental

stimulation is wonderful to see. It is not only that knowledge

is stored, but the mind learns to care and creative talents

developed."

The crux of this sentence is that the old system really

couldn't have been all that bad. Why did we switch completely

to the progressive type of college situation in our high

schools?

I don't feel it's working, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the

Minister of Education if she feels it's working. Has it really

been a success? Is it really accomplishing what it was intended

to accomplish? Are additional amounts of money poured into our

educational system really going to benefit or right the wrongs

that are there?

When we're talking about the old traditional system where

there was more discipline in the schools, I have another

article here that was just recently published, as a matter of

fact on March 21 in the Express . Similar thoughts to

those of Mrs. Price are expressed by Dr. Maurice Shumiatcher,

the renowned Canadian lawyer and author. As he says, he doesn't

mind admitting that he's reactionary with Dr. Bremer, a

reactionary. Was he getting close to solving or coming up with

the solution to the problem that we have in education? As I

said in the outset, Mr. Chairman, this problem doesn't exist

just in the Province of British Columbia, I think it exists

right across Canada. Maybe Dr. Bremer was on the right track;

maybe we fired him just before the fact.

I would like to read from this article: "Watered Education

Negates Excellence." In this

article Dr. Shumiatcher says:

"The permissive area all started with Dr. Benjamin

Spock and

his bible of permissiveness, the widely used book, 'Baby and

Child Care.' Spock persuaded parents that they didn't know

anything about raising children and that they would have to

leave it to the experts.

"The result has been that common sense has completely

gone

out the window and parents believe they must give the child

what he wants

[ Page 1525 ]

when he wants it. Babies who 20 years ago bawled for their

bottle of formula now bawl for a bottle of booze, a joint of

grass, or a shot of heroin — instant satisfaction."

Maybe he's being a little harsh when he's saying that. I

know the Minister won't agree with me, but I think you'll have

to agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that discipline has gone from

the school system. Our Minister of Education has heard me talk

on this before and she knows my feelings on it. I'm not a

specialist, certainly, in education. But here are two people,

and there are many more parents around the province, who feel

the same as I do. So as Mrs. Price says, why do we have to sort

of scrap all things and go on to a completely new deal? There

must have been some good in the education system before.

I want to go back for just a few moments to a couple of

statements that our Minister of Education made just shortly

after becoming the Minister of Education to see how she has

carried through on some of the statements she has made. This

article, dated September 22, is intituled: "Meet the New

Educational Minister — A New Look for B.C. School System." It's

written by Dan Mullin, the educational critic for The

Province .

"A public school system whose graduates are

self-confident

and able to think for themselves is the ideal of Eileen Dailly,

B.C.'s new Minister of Education. 'The province's school system

places undue emphasis on getting good grades and prescribed

courses of study,' Mrs. Dailly said in an interview today. She

said she also believes too much stress is put on teaching

subject matter at a time when rapid change renders much of what

students learn obsolete by the time they are ready to enter the

world of work. 'I'm not so concerned with what you learn but

more with how you learn and how you are taught,' she says.

'That's not an original idea but it has impressed me.' "

There we go back to the situation, Mr. Chairman, where we

are more concerned with the methods of teaching than we are

with the actual subject matter. That's interesting because Mrs.

Price has something to say on that, too. She feels that too

much emphasis is being put on the methods and not enough on the

actual subject matter of what is being taught.

However, with this statement the Minister went on and came

into the fall session of the Legislature of October, 1972, and

proceeded to change the legislation which was on the books.

This would release, in her estimation, more money for education. I

think she actually believed that it was going to solve a lot of the

problems of education, and that everything would be rosy. I think she

honestly believed that piece of legislation which she revoked was going

to solve the problems, was going to set everything back on an even keel

and that her job would be practically finished.

I think now, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Education

realizes this has not been the case; it has not been the case

at all. Shortly after she realized she was going to have to do

a complete and thorough study into what was going on in the

classrooms, that is why the Minister of Education appointed Mr.

Bremer — to do just that sort of a study.

I was interested to listen to the Minister last night state

that Mr. Bremer had not brought in his report after being out

in the field approximately nine months. However, when this man

was appointed to this position, the terms of reference were

very general and very broad, and there was no time limit

whatsoever set as to when he should bring in his report. So, I

don't think the man can be condemned for that.

As a matter of fact, I have in front of me a working paper

on university governance in British Columbia which was prepared

by the committee on university governance with John Bremer as

the chairman. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education says

that Mr. Bremer hadn't presented her with any reports.

Certainly, this White Paper has more content in it than the

White Paper submitted by the Minister of Education just a

couple of days ago, and she had 18 months to prepare that.

Some of the speakers in this debate thus far, I think, have

hit the nail on the head, Mr. Chairman, when they said that Mr.

Bremer was reaching some conclusions as to improvements that

could be made in education. And I think the reason Mr. Bremer

was fired was because the Minister of Education didn't agree

with some of the recommendations that he was bringing in.

I'd just like to read into the record a press release dated

May 1, 1973, where the Minister of Education is discussing Mr.

Bremer. I quote from the Department of Education release, No.

3373:

"The Minister of Education, the Hon. Eileen Dailly,

today

announced further progress on the organization of the

commissions being set up under the leadership of John Bremer,

the commissioner of education, to develop education in the

province."

This is several months after he had been

appointed.

"In clarifying the role of the commissioner, Mrs.

Dailly said that he will advise the Minister in the

formulation and evaluation of educational programmes and

structures on the elementary, secondary and post-secondary

levels.

"This will require the establishment of a

communications

network for the participation of people across the whole

province, and through this network further public interest in

and support for educational programmes and their solutions will

be encouraged. In addition,

[ Page 1526 ]

the commissioner will direct the activities and

studies of the commissions.

"In a joint statement, the Minister of Education and

the

commissioner detailed the first phase of the commission's work

by announcing the creation of two advisory boards, each having

about 20 members. These advisory boards will meet monthly under

the chairmanship of the commission to consider educational

problems and their priority, to discuss as fully as possible

the educational needs of the province and the ways in which the

commission's resources should be used.

"The first of these two boards, the general advisory

board,

will be made up of people speaking on behalf of the general

public interests. It's members will come from all walks of

life, all geographical areas, and bring with them a commitment

and originality in thinking about education. The membership of

this general advisory board is not yet complete and both the

Minister and the commissioner urge people interested in

volunteering their services to write John Bremer in the

Department of Education, Victoria."

Then she goes on to list the members of the general advisory

board.

What I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, is: when Mr. Bremer

retired — and I realize that the tenure of these commissioners

on the board was terminated as of December 31 — but what

happened? There must have been a lot of study and a lot of

input. Certainly, there must have been a great deal of notes

made from the hearings that these commissioners and Mr. Bremer

had around the province. What happened to these?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I never had any.

MR. PHILLIPS: You didn't have any. Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister of Education, have you consulted with the people on

this advisory board? They must have kept some notes; they must

have come to some recommendation. After all, you were

responsible along with Mr. Bremer for appointing these people

to these boards. As I said, I realize the board was disbanded

as of December 31, but surely to goodness if they spent some

eight months travelling around the province listening to

submissions, there must have been some concrete proposals. You

must have been able to get some idea of what the general

population and those interested in education in the Province of

British Columbia were thinking.

Then there was the second board, the special advisory board, to be

made up of people representing and speaking on behalf of institutions,

organizations and fairly well-defined special interest groups such as

Parent-Teacher Associations, students, the School Trustees'

Association, the Teachers' Federation and the universities.

Then it goes on to list the number of people who are on this

special advisory board.

There again, Mr. Chairman, I ask through you, to the

Minister: with these people working for eight months, surely

there must have been some deliberations, there must have been

some principle rise to the surface, some advised action as to

how to improve our educational system in British Columbia.

I would be very interested in hearing the Minister comment

on what happened to these people. Did they just go back to

their allotted positions before they were on the commission?

They faded into nothing again.

They must have a tremendous amount to contribute because I'm

sure, as I say, in sitting and listening and working on this

commission, they must have something to contribute. Are they

working with the new task force that you have established in

your department, made up of members of the department?

I'd like, just for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to talk about

finances in our Education department. The reason I say this is

because I've stated before this afternoon that I felt the

Minister of Education thought that if she had sufficient money,

she was going to be able to solve the educational problems in

British Columbia. I think she finally realized that she didn't

have; that this wasn't the case.

She did a great deal of changing in the school financing.

Here again, I'd like to quote from another release from her

department on November 24, 1972. This would be after the

legislation was changed. I'd like to quote from her in this

article.

She announced that the specific restrictions prohibiting

construction other than classrooms were being relaxed.

She stated that she had directed the establishment of a

system of priorities governing approvals and that obviously

basic accommodation for pupils would be at the head of the

priority list.

"The personnel and services of the school planning

branch

will be increased to give greater assistance to boards, and the

school building-manual would be completely revised.

" 'As we

have already stated, we are planning changes in the entire

system of operating and capital financing in education,' Mrs. Dailly said. 'However, there appears to be no reason to

delay these changes until the financial system can be

overhauled. I must stress, however, that today's

announcement does not mean that the door is open to increases in

capital

expenditures. I hope that more systematic planning will make it

possible to take advantage of every available economy in construction

design methods. Only by doing so will we be

able to achieve our goal of providing

[ Page 1527 ]

as far as possible a satisfactory learning environment

throughout the schools of British Columbia. combined with an

appreciation of responsibility to the taxpayers.' "

In that same

article she tells the school boards that

requests will be surveyed in two sessions each year, half the

boards during the early part of the year and the other half,

the latter part of the year.

" 'No approvals to secure referendum approval or to

proceed with any projects will be issued until each survey is

complete. By this approach,' said Mrs. Dailly, 'we will know

each year the total sum that the school board financing

authority will be required to raise to finance school capital

expenditures.' "

Now, is this being carried on? Are you meeting with half the

school boards in each half of the year? Are you discussing with

them not only capital expenditures but their regular

expenditures? Evidently not on their regular expenditures or we

wouldn't be in the situation that we're in this year.

Is that the reason you gave for being in such a hurry to

pass and take off the restriction on finance spending in

October of '73?

I believe you gave that reason to the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). In answer to a

question to you, you stated that it was necessary to have this

restriction removed so that the school boards could plan,

because their budgets were coming up. And yet this year we find

a complete negation of that idea because the school boards went

out and did their financing, did their planning, and brought in

their budgets, and you said they were $82 million too high. So

this year you sort of negated the fact that you were going to

allow the school boards to do planning and indeed to do

five-year planning.

Shortly after becoming Minister, the Minister was presented

with a White Paper by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. This is

dated August, 1973. The teachers all are evidently happy now

and are making submissions to the Minister of Education and,

Mr. Chairman, the reason I bring this up is because in looking

through this White Paper, which is entitled "Problems in

Education Warranting Government Action," I was

interested to leaf through this brochure and I took it at face

value, "Problems in Education Warranting Government Action."

But as I look through the contents of this brochure, Mr.

Chairman, I find that I feel the teachers really thought that

the biggest problem in the educational field was money, because

what are they outlining as problems in education warranting

government action, Mr. Chairman?

They have as number 1 for future consideration "curriculum". So this

is a problem in education. But let's look at the rest of them. No.

2(a): The appointment of teachers; reports on teachers; interviews with

school boards, committees; probation; review commissions; boards of

reference; salary calculations; vacations. The majority of these items

are dealing with the actual teachers' lot in dealing with the

educational system.

Not really that much concern with the education of a child,

but concern with the teacher himself. And I've nothing against

this. This today seems to be the role — that everybody

certainly wants to get all they can out of the system. This is

sort of what is being bred into society today.

But if the teachers were really responsible wouldn't you

think that their top priority would have been something to do

with the problems which exist in our educational system instead

of problems which they themselves seem to have? And for

immediate action they are talking about membership — which

would be membership in the BCTF — leave of absence for BCTF

service, sick leave provisions and the scope for

bargaining.

So all of these items...as I look through this file, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the Minister, I get the feeling that

again I say that money is not going to solve our problems in

education. And I don't think that really paying the teachers in

our province the money that they should ask for, regardless of

what that might be, regardless of how much you name, regardless

of what facilities you provide for them.... That is not going

to solve the problem. That is not the number 1 problem.

I think we've got to take a look at what is going on in the

classrooms, as I referred to originally in my talk. If this

permissiveness, if this new progressive education is not

turning out the type of students we want, if it is not doing a

good job, if the students aren't taking advantage of it because

it doesn't turn them on, there's where the change must

come.

And maybe we should be looking at better education of the

educator himself. Training the trainers we used to refer to it

as. Because certainly it doesn't matter how high a teacher is

paid, or what facility he has, if he doesn't have the sincere

effort or if he doesn't have the sincere intent, desire to

educate, or if he doesn't himself have the knowledge of how to

cope with these problems, what to do. Then all the money in the

world is not going to solve our educational problems.

As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, I think we should take a real, serious look at what

is going on here in the private schools. If you don't want to

support them financially, which I feel you should, I think you

would be wise to go into some of the private schools that exist

in this province and find out what methods they are using

because I would say that certainly in the grades 8, 9, 10 and

11, and 12, most of the children who go to these schools have

been a problem in the public school system, and the majority of

the students that come out of these private schools have their

problems

[ Page 1528 ]

solved. I think if you were to go in and find out the

methods used, and maybe some of the teachers in the Department

of Education system would not agree with what they find in

these private schools. If they are getting the results, then

they should speak for themselves. And certainly if you go into

private schools you will find corporal punishment. You'll find

discipline, Mr. Chairman. But I think the results speak for

themselves regardless of what the Minister of Education

feels.

This is what we have to go on, because it is the taxpayers'

money that we are using.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for just a few moments

on a report that the Minister had done. It was supposed to

bring in recommendations toward a system of adult education for

northwestern Alberta and northeastern British Columbia. This

survey was done by L.W. Downey Research Associates Limited of

Edmonton, and was commissioned by the Alberta Department of

Advanced Education and the British Columbia Department of

Education. I felt that when this study was commissioned

sometime last year that out of it would come some good, solid

recommendations to assist in establishing better post-secondary

education facilities in the Peace River area both in British

Columbia and Alberta.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I was very disappointed with

the report. I felt the report — I'm not condemning the people

who made it up — but the report looked at the existing

institutions, what their problems were. For instance, in

Fairview the facilities are not being used. They have problems

of expansion in Grande Prairie Regional College. They looked at

the existing institutions and said, "This is what we must do to

see that these institutions carry on," and instead of

looking at what is needed in the area and saying,"Well, this

is what we must do for the children of the area."

Because somebody put an agricultural school in Fairview and

it is not being used by the students up there, I don't think we

should take away the agricultural course out of the Dawson

Creek Vocational School and put it over there at a time when

they are thinking of spending millions of dollars to foster and

improve agriculture in the Province of British Columbia. I

don't think this is a problem at all.

Mr. Chairman, I'll tell the Minister, through you, that first of all

I think in post-secondary educational facilities they must be geared to

the economy of the province, and this is where I disagree with Mr.

MacFarlan, president of the BCTF, where he feels that our educational

system is strictly to teach children to go out into society to question

and determine if society is doing right by them. I don't agree with

that philosophy.

As I've said before, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to gear

our post secondary educational facilities to the economy of the area,

first of all we must know what the

economy of the area is going to be. There's not much sense, for

instance, of putting a mining course in advanced mining in the

vocational school up north if indeed the mining in that area is

going to fold up. And there is not much sense at the present

time in teaching harness-making when horses are pretty well on

the way out.

I'm trying to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, what I'm

talking about. But in the northern part of British Columbia,

both in the northwest and indeed the northeast, there are

programmes on the books, there are agreements which are being

worked out with Ottawa — and I refer to the DREE programme — which, when signed, would have a vast impact on the economy of

both of those areas.

Now, if there are new industries going to develop in that

area, such as coal mining, or if the forest industry is going

to move ahead, or indeed if there is going to be a fantastic

influx of tourism in the area, pipeline welders, for instance,

are going to be needed. Those are the courses that we should be

teaching, particularly in our technical schools and in our

post-secondary education.

But it is pretty difficult, Mr. Chairman, to say what is

required until you know what the economy of a given area is

going to be. And I'm referring, of course, to courses other

than the Arts. But I would like the Minister of Education to

give me some indication of whether she is going to follow the

recommendations of this report, if they are going to be

dropped, or what we can expect. Is it going to be needed?

I'd also like to bring up a subject which I discussed a

short time ago during the Attorney-General's estimates when I

was referring to professional people in the north. Certainly,

if the economies of both of those areas are going to grow,

we're going to have a greater need for professionals in the

north. I'm referring to doctors, lawyers, and dentists in

particular.

As I have pointed out in this House before, I feel we should

make some provision for students in that area to take aptitude

tests and be given the opportunity with financial aid to come

into our universities on the lower mainland. These are long

courses all, and they're costly courses. The longer the number

of years you have to spend attending the

[ Page 1529 ]

university in the lower mainland, the more transportation

costs are and the longer boarding facilities have to be

provided. I feel some method should be worked out whereby some

deserving students in the north who have the IQ and who have

the inclination could be taken into the universities each year.

If it's necessary and you're going to loan the money, I feel

they should be given a donation.

In that regard, to the Minister of Agriculture, the Yukon

Territory and the North West Territories have excellent

programmes. I'll just read you off a resume of educational

assistance grants available to students in the Yukon Territory.

They're further away but there is not that much difference in

transportation costs. There shouldn't be any difference in

living costs once they're here.

In the Yukon Territory:

"Any graduate of Yukon schools, if a Canadian citizen

other British subject, must have a residency requirement of two

years. If a non-Canadian, it requires a three-year residency

and a guarantee of two years after graduation."

In other words, they must go back into the Yukon Territory

for two years after graduation.

"In the first year they receive a $600 grant and a

$600

bursary, a total of $1,200. The second, and each year

thereafter, they get a grant of $600 and a bursary of $400, or

$1,000 a year. After the first year they require a

second-class average to receive the bursary. The institutions

that qualify are those listed by the federal government and the

student loan application regulations."

As I say, the North West Territories have a more generous

plan than the above.

We've talked about this in this Legislature. As a matter of

fact, in one of the first speeches the Attorney-General made in

this Legislature a year ago last spring, he stood up and said,

"Yes, we want to provide in our educational system the

opportunity for young men to come in who can become doctors and

who will go back to the north country, and who will become

dentists and lawyers and go back to the north country" This is

why, Mr. Chairman, as I was pointing out the other day, before

you get this faculty of law going at the University of Victoria

let's make some provision now. The Attorney-General — and I

think I could find it here in Hansard if I want to look — said,"We're going to do this." Would you deny it, Mr.

Attorney-General? He says,"No — we're going to do this." Well,

if we're going to do it, then let's get on with the job. Let

the Minister stand on the floor of this Legislature this

afternoon and announce to all of us here that she intends to do

something. Tell us what your intentions are.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): She already has.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I realize I'm a little hard of hearing

once in a while, but I must have let that one slip by.

We're discussing dollars and cents. I would like to hear

from some of the government backbenchers on this very issue,

because I know their constituents are talking to them. It's

needed in the Omineca riding, and it's needed in the riding of

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), and it's needed in the

riding of the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) and the

Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) — all of these northern ridings.

The people in those areas developed this province so that the

people in the lower mainland can afford these institutions, so

that they can live in the lap of luxury.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. If you're going to go ahead with

the tremendous expansion of the development of the economy of

northern British Columbia, you must make provision to assist

the children of those families whom you expect to go into that

area; you must make provision for those children to attend the

colleges in the lower mainland. I refer to the University of

Victoria, Simon Fraser and the University of British

Columbia.

So far as the BCIT goes, I feel you should be moving to

establish more detailed courses in the north for technical

training. As I said, I would appreciate it if the Minister of

Education would stand in this Legislature this afternoon and

give us some indication of what she intends to do.

Unfortunately, this isn't going to solve the problem. As a

matter of fact, I don't think the Minister has really solved

any problems that existed in our educational system. As an

administrator and as a politician I am very disappointed in the

Minister of Education. I need to say that because she's a

lovely person. But I don't think she has the ability to cope

with the vast amounts of money that are needed in this

department, that are being spent by this department, and the

numerous problems that come up.

We see signs of the empire-building that goes on. She has

removed the formula quality in spending among school boards in

British Columbia, a formula which before guaranteed equal

opportunity for educational facilities in all areas in the

province. This has now been removed and, as has been mentioned

here today, the school board with the financial facilities that

can hire the sharpest salesman or the best liar to come to

Victoria and to argue their case might be the school board that

will be able to provide the best education for the pupils in

that particular school board.

I don't necessarily refer to money for facilities, but I do

refer to money to pay more highly qualified

[ Page 1530 ]

teachers, money to go out into the province and seek out

those teachers who have been doing a better job in some

particular school with some particular problem. Those school

boards will be able to go to the Minister. Is she going to have

the ability to say no? Is she going to have the strength to say

no? Is she going to have the determination to say no?

If she's sold by these school boards who have much more

ready access to her office, and I refer to those particularly

around the Vancouver–lower mainland area, than do those in the

Member for Omineca's (Mr. Kelly'

s) riding, the Member for

Atlin's (Mr. Calder'

s) riding, the Member for Prince Rupert's

(Hon. Mr. Lea'

s) riding, then there is going to indeed be

further discrimination against education in our schools in the

north.

We had a formula which eliminated that so that there would

be equality of education, Mr. Chairman. What is going to happen

now? It's been referred to as coming to Victoria with a tin cup

in your hand, saying that if you have a programme that you can

sell us that is good for your particular area, we will give you

the money.

This isn't going to help education in all of the province

and it isn't going to solve the problems that exist in

education in British Columbia. As I've said before, Mr.

Chairman, money won't solve the problems; neither will

permissiveness in the school system solve the problem.

I posed some questions to the Minister and I would at this

time like to have her comments.

MR. SCHROEDER: I was disappointed a few hours back to hear

the response by the Minister which clearly gave the House the

indication that she has swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the

position dictated to her by the New Democratic convention in

which she says there isn't a ray of hope for independent

schools. It's another indication that she is afraid to take a

position by herself. She follows the dictates of that

convention to the letter, to the T, even when it comes to

establishing policy.

The Premier has given some indication that he might not

align himself 100 per cent with the policy that comes out of

that convention, but I'm disappointed in this regard: this

Minister fails to recognize the fact that in the independent

schools system we have a total of 21,777 students. She fails to

recognize that those schools could at a moment's notice decide

that they could no longer operate, and they could dump — if I

could use that expression — 21,777 students the day after

tomorrow into the laps of the public schools system, and we

would have an obligation to care for them. We wouldn't have any

choice. We wouldn't have any choice because these people have

paid their taxes, they have placed into the coffers of the.....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would like to remind the

Member that you are repeating an argument that's already been

canvassed.

MR. SCHROEDER: No sir, this has never been mentioned before.

I hate to take issue with you but you're trying to squelch

debate; that's what you're trying to do. I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind you that the question of

independent schools has been canvassed.

MR. SCHROEDER: No, it has not, sir. This is the first time

that these figures have been mentioned.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to

give this House a definitive ruling on exactly when any one

subject has been canvassed to the satisfaction of the House. I

don't think that you know when a point has been canvassed, but

I'd like you to try and tell us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair has the responsibility of

carrying out the rules as they exist in this House, and it's in

rule 43. You have the right to challenge the ruling of the

Chair if you like. I recognize the Member for Chilliwack, and

bear in mind that you're touching on an area that's been well

canvassed.

MR. SCHROEDER: There'll be another area that will be well

canvassed, my friend.

There could be 21,777 students dumped at a moment's notice

on the public school system and the public school system would

have an obligation to care for them and care for them

immediately, because the parents of these students have already

paid their share via the taxation process into the coffers that

are responsible for the financing of the education of these

children.

This government fails to recognize that the cost per student

in the public school system at the elementary level is $681 per

child. If you multiply the number of students by the cost per

student, it should, figured properly, give you the total cost

that this would mean to the public school system, should the

private schools determine at a moment's notice to dump those

students upon us — $14,830,137.

Now I think that the independent schools must know that they

represent this direct saving to the public purse. They're not

asking for full funding. They're just asking that it be

recognized that they exist and that they are performing a

service to the province. They are even forthright enough to

tell us

[ Page 1531 ]

what their cost per student is. Their cost per student is

$480 per student, and they would be delighted if we could

recognize their existence to the extent that we would give them

even a portion of their cost per student.

It seems to me that it only makes good, common, fiscal,

financial sense that we should offer them some recognition and

some funding, so that they can operate their school system as

well.

I have to express a deep disappointment that this Minister

has shut out hope completely for these schools for recognition

or funding. This school system has expressed no confidence in

this Minister because of her failure and her lack of ability to

recognize the value to the province of their existence.

They are not the only ones that have expressed this lack of

confidence. The B.C. school trustees, as I told you the other

day, have expressed a lack of confidence. The B.C. Teachers'

Federation has expressed a lack of confidence. The teachers who

met on the steps have expressed a lack of confidence. The

education authorities and university leaders have expressed

lack of confidence. The industrial people have expressed a lack

of confidence.

Lo and behold, even the editor of one of the fine dailies

out of Vancouver expresses this lack of confidence in this

department. The Premier has expressed his lack of confidence in

this Minister. Her Deputy, who sits beside her, has expressed

lack of leadership. John Bremer has expressed lack of

confidence.

The Conservative Party has expressed lack of confidence. The

Liberal Party has expressed their lack of confidence, and

almost every Member sitting in this party have expressed their

lack of confidence.

Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative but to move that the

salary of the Hon. Minister of Education, as provided for in

vote 39, be reduced by $1.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, another

lack of expression of confidence that isn't in the preliminary

statements of my colleague is the lack of confidence expressed

by this House this afternoon in this debate. We've seen no less

than 10 Ministers absent from this House all afternoon with two

Ministers asleep off and on — the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) — and the constant absence of the majority of the

backbenchers of this government.

Mr. Chairman, if that doesn't express lack of confidence in

this Minister by her own party, the elected representatives who

work with her, then I don't know what other evidence we can

have.

It is a tragedy, Mr. Chairman, that on this vital subject of

education we stand here at 3:40 on a Friday afternoon for long hours —

not that we mind working long hours — with no attendance on the part of

the Ministers and no attendance on the part of the Members of the

government side...

AN HON. MEMBER: Too big a majority.

MRS. JORDAN: ... debating a subject which has more than any

other programme of this government demonstrated their waffle

attitude and their inability to make decisions. They waffle

from side to side, all because the Premier wants to have a

holiday in Japan rather than tend to the people's business in

British Columbia in relation to education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Member that she is

speaking on the amendment and should stay to that order.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Premier is expressing his lack of

confidence in this Minister's estimates to come to full light

under the eye of his colleague in the cabinet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you speak to the amendment?

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment deals with the Minister of

Education, not the Premier.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, and the lack of confidence that all in

British Columbia have in the Minister of Education, Mr.

Chairman. I suggest that the fact that the Premier brings on

her vote at this time under these circumstances is further

evidence of his lack of confidence in her and that he wishes to

hide from full light and full view the inability of this

Minister, no matter how much he may have wished to accomplish

something, to accomplish anything in education in British

Columbia.

The matter of Mr. Bremer has been canvassed for two days,

Mr. Chairman, and all we got from the Minister basically was

that she didn't like his style. I would ask this Minister, Mr.

Chairman: did you investigate his style before you hired

him?

Men are like tigers: they don't change their spots.

(Laughter.) Mr. Bremer has certainly had a spotty career in

British Columbia and I am sure he would like to change his

stripes right now.

What is under question is: did that Minister get references

on Mr. Bremer? Tell us, Madam Minister, who did you write to?

Who did you talk to about Mr. Bremer? Who recommended him to

you? This is where the core of the problem lies — was this

Minister, in fact, capable of using taxpayers' money and

personally selecting a tsar of education for British

Columbia?

The evidence is here by her own statement that

[ Page 1532 ]

she, in fact, was not capable. Surely anyone in the position

of hiring as important a figure as a commissioner of education

would have analysed the programmes that were attributed to him

as a success or a failure. They would have discussed with

people who had been the subject of those programmes whether in

fact the work was successful or a failure. They would have

discussed with responsible people in many parts of the world

whether in fact the task that she was setting out for this man

was capable of being carried out by his capabilities.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister didn't do her

homework, because the evidence is in the split that came and

may well be in relationship to the fact that Mr. Bremer was not

able to carry out his commitments.

One of the areas of concern has been this Minister's ability

to string task forces around the Province of British Columbia

in one moment and shred them the next. On this point, without

repeating debate, I would ask the Minister of Education: where

is the lunch bunch?

Some months ago this Minister of Education got up and

announced in one of her flamboyant press conferences, which she

enjoys and looks most attractive in, that she was setting up a

commission to look into the matter of school lunches and hot

lunches in British Columbia. She put Mrs. Len O'Neill in charge

of it — a very fine lady and highly qualified as the wife of an

ex-NDP candidate. She chose another school trustee, a highly

competent trustee, Mrs. Heidi Lati, and other members. They

were charged to spend taxpayers' dollars, they were given

authority to investigate around the Province of British

Columbia the desirability and feasibility of providing lunches

in the school.

I would ask you, Mr. Chairman: where is this munch bunch?

Are in fact the munch bunch still out to lunch? It appears they

had a very good lunch, Mr. Minister, because few have seen hide

nor hair of them. We would like to know, Madam Minister how

much these people have been paid, if anything. When have they

met? How long was the lunch you had with them? Six months?

Eight months? Ten months? When are we going to hear a report

from these people? Have they brought in a feasibility of

providing apples in the school, which would be part of a lunch

programme at this crucial time in the fruit industry? Have they

advised you whether or not they have consulted with school

boards around the province as to whether it is beneficial to

the majority of school children in British Columbia to have hot

lunches? In many areas we have a serious problem of

undernourishment and overweight.

Why does the Minister set up this type of an extensive non-action

programme when she could have discussed with each school board in their

districts the advisability of establishing a lunch programme? I would

ask her again: where is this lunch bunch? What have they been doing?

It's just another area of silence in which the people of British

Columbia can draw the conclusion that the Minister has not been able to

meet her commitments.

Another area where the Minister has not been able to meet

her commitments to the public is in the area of special

assistance in establishing and solidifying small schools in

rural areas. The Minister stood up in the constituency of

Shuswap a year ago, Mr. Member, and advised that she strongly

believed in not having children drive for long distances to

attend school and that she felt there was a strong need in

British Columbia to strengthen the positions of these

non-metropolitan and non-municipal schools in terms of offering

a steady basic programme and providing extra money so that they

could develop programmes which were adaptable to their

regions.

That is a very commendable thought, Mr. Chairman. Mind you,

it was underway in British Columbia, but what did the Minister

do? Did she build on her own commendable thought? Did she have

the strength to make a decision and build on the programme that

was already started in British Columbia? No way, Mr. Chairman!

No way! We didn't hear anything for months and months and

months.

Then on November 22, many months later, would you believe,

Mr. Chairman, the courageous decision that the Minister of

Education made in this area in which she had very definite,

strong and commendable ideas? Did she announce that there would

be extra funds available for these schools? Did she announce

that there would be assistance for extra programmes? Did she

encourage teachers to take

part in these more rural programmes?

No, Mr. Chairman, she announced that she would set up a task

force. Some six months later when she made a definite statement

she set up a task force.

Their terms of reference are unbelievable. She ordered the

study as part of an attempt to resolve the difference in

viewpoint in the future of smaller schools. She said:

"Although the programme is commendable, there is

growing

inclination on the part of parents to favour smaller, more

intimate schools where pupils can avoid long bus rides and, in

some cases, the necessity for living away from home part of the

time."

Parents spoke loudly, the teachers have spoken loudly,

trustees have spoken loudly and the Minister spoke loudly on

this matter. As a matter of record, the opposition members have

spoken loudly and firmly on this point. But no, she decided

there might be some difficulty in getting a consensus and

perhaps a little political risk, so she set up her task force

to investigate the advisability of long bus trips to and from

schools and the use of school dormitories. Then

[ Page 1533 ]

she ordered the investigation of the advantages and

disadvantages of a programme she already favoured by her own

commitment.

She not only reneged on her own statement, she not only set

another expensive task force for the people of British

Columbia, which has yet to bring in its report, but she didn't

give the leadership and the assistance to those programmes that

were already established in British Columbia.

In my own constituency of North Okanagan in the Village of

Lumby we fought long and hard and solved many problems to get

those children back from the Vernon Senior Secondary School

into the Lumby high school. The first step with Grade 11 had

been taken before you took office. Did the Minister continue to

encourage them? No. It's been road block after road block on

her

part in spite of considerable assistance on the part of

some of the Members of her department.

They have established one of the most unique forestry

programmes in that school in North America. The debate ranged

from whether it should be called Forestry 11E or Forestry 10E.

What they needed was that Minister's support and a little extra

financing. The people who have helped most of all are the local

people in the forest industry and the staff of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) without

his knowledge.

They have established a practical programme which involves

itself not in just theory but in the mill work and the

harvesting work. They are learning forestry management in Grade

11, Mr. Chairman, a very applicable programme to their area

which is going to maintain a relatively remote status for many

years to come. But no help from the Minister of Education — another

area where people who looked for a continuation of a

good programme and who looked for assistance from the Minister

on the basis of her own statements failed to receive any action

on her part.

We have found that there's considerable concern about the

Minister's failure in her ability to disentangle herself from

political commitment. She has been accused, with considerable

evidence, of trying to introduce a partisan political school

system in British Columbia. This is putting added pressure on

the need for assistance to separate schools by taxpayers who do

not want to take

part in a partisan political system. It is

putting added pressure on students who wish to get out of the

main public school system because of the partisan approach. It

is putting pressure on educators to question in their own minds

how long they can take

part in a school system that is taking a

partisan direction.

I won't go into all the lists. They're evidence; they've been

repeated. But they don't cease when they're brought to the attention of

the Minister; they continue going on and on and on. We see it at the

regional college level; we see it at the school board level; we now see

it at the university level. The parents of British Columbia want this

Minister to meet her obligation and provide the right of every citizen

in British Columbia to an open, non-political educational system in the

province.

This Minister has failed to bolster the confidence of the

school board and she has failed to meet their needs as they

relate to each other around the province. It is clearly evident

in the other debate that she is using them as a scapegoat for

her own fiscal unawareness and the lack of confidence that has

been demonstrated in her by the Premier.

She has, in financing, reduced the school boards of British

Columbia to a position where for the first time they involve

themselves in political lobbying. If she goes down in history

in this area of not treating school districts equally and

fairly, she will be the architect of a new game called "Board

Bobbing for Education." They have to bob down to Victoria; they

have no idea in pleading their case whether it is a programme

acceptable to the Minister; they have no idea whether they are

going to receive the same treatment as other school boards.

As a Member from the Interior, as the result of the Surrey

teachers' lobby over here, I was in an absolute quandary,

knowing the situation in our own school district, as to whether

I was to go home as the responsible representative and say to

the teachers and the school boards,"If you want to cut your

budget, do. If you want to get fair treatment, go to Victoria

and lobby." That is a tragedy in this province, Madam

Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want to remind the Member that you

address Ministers as the "Hon. Minister", not "Madam Minister."

That is an incorrect term to use in this House. They are Hon.

Members.

MRS. JORDAN: What is your authority on that statement, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the rule of this House; that's the way

they're supposed to be called. You are not to use that

term.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh well, I've had the lash of the wet noodle on

"Madam Minister." I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that...

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know the correct term.

MRS. JORDAN: ...the Minister herself could care less

whether she's called "Madam Minister", just as long as we don't

call her "Madam".

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know the correct terms

[ Page 1534 ]

used in this House.

MRS. JORDAN: It doesn't really matter what we call her. It's

not my intention to call her anything uncomplimentary.

It is my intention to point out to this Minister that there

is no way we can support her in the efforts she has put forth

so far in the educational field. It's with real regret on my

part that I fully support this motion very much respecting this

lady. Add up all around this province on the part of school

trustees, on the part of teachers, on the part of parents, on

the part of students, and on the part of the combined Members

of the opposition, that this Minister has not been able to

divorce herself from emotional decisions, as she must; she has

not been able to live up to many of her own statements and

commitments made through the media; and perhaps most tragic of

all, she has not been able to meet a commitment to the students

of this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What we are seeing this afternoon is a

continuation of a deliberate and calculated plan by the

opposition to attempt to do two things: (1) to sort itself out

to find out which one of the groups is really the official

opposition; (2) to attack every single Minister separately and,

in effect, personally with the words,"We regret doing this," as a couch at the end of each speech.

This is the fourth Minister in a row we've dealt with on

estimates and this is the fourth non-confidence motion we've

had. These are all planned, calculated moves by the opposition;

just an attempt, without examining policies, without examining

programmes, to discredit the messenger rather than the message

of this new government. It's an attempt by the opposition to

attack individually each one of the cabinet Ministers and to

crawl into a refuge of defining for themselves how they want to

handle the fact that they can't really dispute the government's

record so they want to attack the person rather than the

record.

We have not had one valid discussion on any specific area of

educational philosophy or any constructive suggestions except

some areas mentioned by the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston)

and the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

The Member for Chilliwack wanted to discuss separate

schools. It has never been a political issue in this province.

The former government was on record, forever saying, "The

public purse for public education." Now, we hear the official

opposition, the Social Credit Party, has adopted a policy....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you got a sick throat, Mr. Member? I

know there's something wrong elsewhere but it's new that it's in your

throat. There's a strange noise coming from your voice there and I

can't understand that, Mr. Member. It sounds like a dying cat in that

corner.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you could keep that

yowling down a bit we could get on with the debate.

The Member did raise that question and it's a valid

question, one that has been suppressed in terms of political

debate in this province for too long. Too long.

When, I first became acquainted with the particular problem,

my party was solid on the line and had a convention decision

opposed to public funds for private education. So was the

governing party. That left the debate out.

Now it has come back in. I think it's a valid debate, Mr.

Member, and I'm glad you've raised it. Your party made a

decision, as I understand it today, if you were giving your

party's policy, if it is your party's policy....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, fine. I'm trying to get a rational

debate around this point. It has been an emotional subject in

this province for generations. All right.

Now with the loss of the former Premier (Hon. W.A.C.

Bennett) from this House, it appears that the Social Credit

Party has shifted its position. The Liberals traditionally had

some plan in this area. It is a matter of fact that within our

party this has been discussed at a number of conventions.

There is a traditional group of Christian socialists in our

party who have advocated public funds for private education

since 1933. The Christian Socialist group in our party has

fought very hard for this point of view and still fights for

it, as evidenced again by the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston).

And I hope that there will be continuing debate in the party.

But I want to tell you this, Mr. Member, and as the Member for

Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) said on the radio station: some

individual members of the NDP in the House support public funds

for private education, but they are willing to stay within the

framework of their party and not chase votes on the basis of an

issue. And I respect them for that.

I hope the debate continues in the party. I do not have the

rigid discipline prejudices against it that the former Premier

of this province had. I do not have those personally, and

everybody knows what my sympathies are within the party.

There's no question of that. But I want to make it perfectly

clear that this is a democratic party and the Minister adheres

to the

[ Page 1535 ]

directions that we say to the voter we're going to. Until

the party itself resolves this debate, which has been going on

since 1933, the Minister has the responsibility to state her

position, and I respect her for that here in the House

today.

But I will thank you, Mr. Member, for raising the issue in a

way that had not been raised in this House for over 20 years,

simply because the man who occupied this chair before me took

an absolute position. He was blinded to any argument on this

issue and yelled across the House in a famous speech, as I

recall it: "Never, never, never any funds out of the public

purse for private education. The public purse is for public

education."

Now there's a shift. It's good for all of British Columbia

that there's a shift, and it's good that this debate is taking

place today. I welcome that debate, and it's good that this

debate is taking place today. I welcome that debate.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I didn't instigate it, but I got up

and welcomed the Member for raising it. Mr. Chairman, to hear

that from that Member.... We couldn't even have this debate

when his father sat in this chair.

All right, Mr. Member. Sure, we're the government and we've

stated our position, and you've stated yours. The Liberals have

had theirs on the record for years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it is on the record; the Minister

put it on the record. Our party policy is known. Well, you

know, Mr. Chairman, I find this a very interesting reaction by

the opposition. They'd rather go back to the personal kinds of

attacks that are associated with this amendment rather than

dealing with abstracts or with policies in the education

itself.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, they're nervous because

they're trying to find out whether or not they're the official

opposition or the Liberals are or the Tories are. That's what

they're nervous about. But I can guarantee you this, Mr.

Chairman....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I can guarantee you this:

they can always win in numbers against the Liberals on a Friday

afternoon. Even the Tories can do that. We haven't seen some of the

Liberal Members here for days, those tough freedom-fighters. But that's

all right, Mr. Chairman; we read in the newspaper that it was the

Socreds turn up to bat, but we're disappointed. They've struck out this

afternoon.

Now in terms of this Minister's actions since she's been in

office, have we had a school freeze since we've been in office?

The answer is no. Have we had a construction freeze? The answer

is no. We've spent more money on school sites and more money on

school construction in the last two years and raised the

increase rate higher than anything you did in many years past.

In 1971-72 under the Socreds there was a 9.81 per cent increase

in the budget. In 1972-73 it was 9.77 per cent. In the first

budget under this Minister there was a 10.34 per cent increase

in the school budget, and this year in her estimates there's a

13.78 per cent increase.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ah, Mr. Chairman, I get a little upset to

hear all this noise.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ah, Mr. Chairman, there they are, they all

fly up all over each other, and look what they're doing to each

other's suits, Mr. Chairman. You know they just can't seem to

get it together in the opposition. Who's running the show over

there? Nobody seems to be leading that group. They're still

vying for leadership to the point that the predecessor had to

come down from Kelowna and bring down the strap that's left in

B.C. and use it on the backbenchers.

Oh, he's up on his feet. Oh, there it is. There's an

admission that daddy came down to whip the boys into line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Do you have a point of

order?

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Yes. The

Premier lied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I beg your pardon?

MR. BENNETT: That statement was a lie.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You mean he wasn't down here?

MR. BENNETT: It's all right. I just want to....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor; that's not

a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: That's the point of it. That statement's a lie.

I ask you to withdraw it.

[ Page 1536 ]

MR. BARRETT: It's an opinion. Are you nervous about my

opinions?

MR. BENNETT: No, you didn't.... You said it happened.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't like my opinion that your daddy

came down and whipped the boys into line?

MR. BENNETT: Not that — that it's characteristic for the

Premier to lie.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did your daddy come down and whip them

into line?

MR. BENNETT: No.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He didn't? Okay, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's no point of order.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I brought up the point of order

and I asked the Premier to withdraw it, because it's a lie.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I accept the Member's word

that his father did not come down to talk to the backbenchers

and keep them in line. Is that what you're saying?

MR. BENNETT: That's fine.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I accept your word for that, Mr. Member.

I'm glad you're running the show.

MR. BENNETT: That's a nice, high level of debate you're

introducing again.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why he's so

nervous. I accept and I withdraw.

MRS. JORDAN: We don't like your approach.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member, I withdraw.

There's absolutely nothing about this government you like.

There was absolutely nothing left in British Columbia to like

about your government; that's why you were thrown out of

office. It's been a series of obstruction....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You see, they can't even restrain

themselves in the House, Mr. Chairman. Could we have some

order, please? Could we have some order?

They can't restrain themselves in the House, Mr. Chairman.

It's been a deliberate attempt to stall, to keep this House

from moving on its directions. And now we see the whole move by

this government....

The last item that I'm going to mention now, Mr. Chairman,

is the fact that under this new Minister 1,500 new teachers

have been added in 18 months — almost 100 a month — under this

Minister. Almost 100 a month.

Now I want to say that we can see through the tactics in

terms of the internal struggle of those three groups. The

sooner you get together as one party and find yourself a new

leader, the sooner you'll be better off in getting some

organization in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring this debate

back to the motion and back to the issue, because if anybody

introduced personalities in this House, it's the Premier.

I heard the Premier discuss that this issue of independent

schools wasn't introduced by the Premier of the province

before, and it wasn't introduced by the opposition before.

Well, you never introduced it, Mr. Premier, either as

opposition leader or as Premier, and it took a Member of our

party to introduce it.

Don't sit there and try and revive old fights. I don't

consider the position of the Social Credit Party hypocritical

as suggested by you and your government. During this debate I

consider our position part of....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Well, at least I have one.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: I don't mind that as a criticism, because when

I consider the alternative, Mr. Minister, I'd rather be on this

wicket. I knew that you and I differed on many things, but I'm

pleased to find out that I don't agree with you on that issue

either.

I consider the position of our party part of a realization

of deficiencies in the education system. These deficiencies

were there when the Social Credit was government and they're

there now. It's not hypocritical for us to realize that when

our party was defeated part of that defeat was based upon the

lack of response to the public in educational matters.

But it is hypocrisy for a government that rode to power on

the backs of the BCTF and rode to power on the educational

issue to continue that lack of

[ Page 1537 ]

action. That's what this motion is all about. And you, Mr.

Premier, and your Minister, from your statements before, when

you were opposition for 20 years — and you've been government

for 18 months — and in all that time you should have developed

a policy.

Here you are still groping and still turning out White

Papers. You should have had a policy. Your criticism in

opposition was hypocritical. Your action in government is

hypocritical.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about is not all of

the directions of education; it's the lack of this government

and this party who said they had the answers. They told the

public they had the answers. They criticized the former

government — and a lot of it justified criticism — for not

providing leadership in education in this province. The public

elected them expecting them to provide those answers in the way

of leadership and programmes and action, and they haven't done

it; and that's why we have introduced this motion.

I'd like to talk about independent schools, Mr. Premier. I'd

like to talk because our party introduced it at our convention.

That issue has been discussed at every annual convention every

year and this year our party chose in convention — the largest

political convention this province has seen with 1,500 voting

delegates — and they voted in favour of aid to independent

schools.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Hang on, Mr. Lands and Forests Minister (Hon.

R.A. Williams). Your tenure might be brief. Go back to your

office. You don't contribute anything out there and you don't

contribute anything