1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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, MAY 14, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1727 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply:

Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Mrs. Dailly — 1728

Mr. Levi — 1729

Mr. Wallace — 1730

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1732

Mr. Nicolson — 1734

Mr. Kahl — 1736

Mr. Lea — 1740

Mr. Macdonald — 1741

Mr. Rogers — 1742

Mr. Barber — 1742

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1742

Mr. Cocke — 1745

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1749

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

gallery today 15 students from my home community of Texada Island,

along with their principal, Mr. Michaels, and their teacher, Mr. Ross.

I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): In the galleries today

I'd like to draw your attention to the Chairman of the Bank of Tokyo,

Mr. S. Hara. Mr. Hara was a very distinguished Finance minister in

Japan during the years of 1934-1962. He's here to visit British

Columbia, along with his local representative from Vancouver, Mr.

Yamada. Mr. Hara is also a very enthusiastic jogger, as you can tell by

taking one good look at him. Would the members please welcome them?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): We have in the gallery this morning

a personal friend, a co-ordinator for the National Film Board and

visitor from Vancouver — and by way of a clever plug, the presenter of

a film this evening at 8 o'clock in the Newcombe Auditorium, entitled

"A sense of Place." We'll be discussing the UN Habitat conference and

settlements generally throughout the world. That's 8 o'clock this

evening in the Newcombe Auditorium (laughter), presented by our guest

this morning, Miss Leslie Adams of the National Film Board.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): We have with us in the gallery this

morning Mr. and Mrs. Bob Matthews from the great constituency of

Omineca. Mr. Matthews is the clerk-treasurer for the municipality of

Houston. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'm a day late with my

introduction. (Laughter.) I'm sorry about that and I hope that the

House will indulge, but I was very disappointed that a most celebrated

constituent of mine was in attendance yesterday and I overlooked his

presence. I understand that Mr. Alex DiCimbriani was in attendance. I

must say that over the years I've known Mr. DiCimbriani he,

unfortunately, has been faced with considerable adverse publicity, but

I must say, in all respect, that my constituents are treated with equal

concern and I'm very sorry for him because we all have our problems

throughout life.

While he was not recognized...at least no one admitted having known him from

the Social Credit Party, and I can tell you he's no friend of mine personally

because he has campaigned very hard against me over the years. Be that as it

may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that Mr. DiCimbriani, about 10 years

ago donated money to the community. He was a very....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'm just introducing the man

MR. SPEAKER: You are introducing someone who obviously is not here and....

MR. BARNES: Well, let me point out....

MR. SPEAKER: ...in that case I'd ask you to conclude the introduction very quickly.

MR. BARNES: I will be very brief, thank you. But several

years ago when I was a social worker, Mr. DiCimbriani was starting up

his Erkindale apartments in the West End and he used to contribute

considerable supplies to the neighbourhood centre — and that was a very

good deed on his part, I think.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, this is not the time for a speech.

MR. BARNES: I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker, please indulge for just

one more second, because I think it should be remembered that there are

two sides of every story. This man with all of the problems he's faced

with should be given credit where credit is due because we needed help

at the time and he did provide it. Many kids used to work.... He used

to provide services for them and funds and help in their programmes. I

just want to say that he's not a supporter, never has been and I'm sure

never will be, but justice should be given where it's due. I'm sorry

that the government didn't see fit to at least recognize their

supporter when he was here yesterday.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

In the buildings today and hopefully in the gallery later this morning

is a group of students from the Vermilion Forks Elementary School in

Princeton, together with their teachers and chaperons. I would ask the

House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the day.

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

[ Page 1728 ]

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 39; minister's office, $126,940 — continued.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have a number of

questions for the Minister of Education. I know there are a number of

other members in the opposition who also have a number to discuss with

him, and we hope to get some clarification of some concerns we have

which have developed by some recent actions of the minister.

The first point in question which I want to bring to the minister's

attention this morning is my concern and the concern of others in the

educational community and may I say particularly, in the seafaring

community, with the proliferation of studies which we suddenly find

coming forward from the Department of Education. I recall that when the

NDP was in office I think the minister who was then in opposition was

rather a vocal critic of what he considered were perhaps useless

studies. Now I wish to point out to the minister that I consider two

studies which he has recently initiated as somewhat — in fact

absolutely — unnecessary.

The first one I want to comment on is the press release with

reference to another re-examination of a marine college for British

Columbia. Now it is rather a sad history for the seafaring industry of

this province that governments, including the NDP to some degree, have

moved very slowly on the development of this very vital college for

British Columbia. I recall when I first came into office that the

minister who preceded me had announced that the government of that time

was committed to a marine college. My problem as minister at that time

was that we did not have enough statistics on the required curriculum

and the basic manpower needs and relative statistics in order to create

such a college. A decision also had to be made on whether the college

should be continuing with the Vancouver City college or should be

independent.

Now I think the marine industry has been very patient. We worked

with them for three years. A complete study was done on the needs of

the marine industry relative particularly to curriculum and manpower

needs. In fact, I think a 50-page study was completed through the

Manpower

section of the Department of Labour. All that material is

available to the minister. That's why I fail to see any rationale or

reason for his press release of May 6 in which he says: "A marine

training advisory council has been established by the Department of

Education." Again, another marine training advisory council, and what

is the purpose? The purpose is, so it was said: "...because we require

time to deal with a number of important questions relating to manpower

needs, curriculum, and institutional organization."

Now the first two, the minister has the material in his office. This

is a completely unnecessary study. The second part, the institutional

organization, I understand, is certainly a political decision of any

new government. Should it be a separate marine college or should it

continue to be operated centrally or from the Department of Education

or continue attached to a community college? I can understand that

that's certainly the prerogative of the new government, but to suggest

that another study is needed on manpower needs and curriculum.... I

simply want to ask the minister then: why is that necessary when you

have all the material available in your department?

The second point I want to make is that I gather from a letter sent

by the deputy minister to the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, the

group that particularly has been represented in talks with the federal

government, it has been suggested that they will continue on at

Vancouver City College. It's a temporary measure until legislation can

be drawn up allowing for a central administration department which

could administer for the marine college and other like training groups

that are not suited to vocational training institutes.

It is quite clear then that the Department of Education must be

moving towards a fairly centralized structure in vocational areas such

as marine training. I think that the educational community would be

most interested in hearing the minister explain to us if it is going to

be the policy of his government to move into a fairly centralized

organization in the Department of Education to handle areas such as the

marine college. In looking over the estimates I don't see where the

personnel has increased that much to allow such development in the

Department of Education. So I would like to hear from the minister what

his plans are towards this apparent centralization in the Department of

Education.

I particularly want to ask him why we have this new study, which I

consider redundant. The people in the marine industry I am sure must be

absolutely fed up with the report that here again we're having another

study when what they want right now is urgent facilities created to

move on to a marine college for the Province of British Columbia. In

view of the number of accidents, et cetera, which we've had recently on

the sea and on the B.C. coast there is an urgency to upgrade. I

understand there's going to be some upgrading, but my other question to

the minister is: is it not true that if you keep it as a separate

institution as a marine college you will have the opportunity to get a

better, shall we say, financial arrangement with the federal government

rather than by integrating it or running it centrally from the

Department of Education?

[ Page 1729 ]

I think these are questions that really concern the marine industry.

They've waited years and years for this development, and I do think the

minister owes it to them to explain to us why there is another

redundant study in this area when he does already have the material.

I am also concerned about another study which the minister has

announced, and that is the appointment of a one-man commission on

university education in British Columbia outside of the metropolitan

area.

I consider this another redundant, unnecessary study. The minister's

own deputy minister, a very capable person, has done a lot of

background work for years in this whole area of extending university

education outside the lower mainland. There is a tremendous amount of

material on this already, Mr. Chairman. I would like the Minister of

Education to explain to us why he has found it necessary to spend

$15,000 at the present time anyway — that's the first figure we have —

on another commission when he has the material residing with his own

deputy and also residing with the universities council. Also if he

would look at the college task force of British Columbia which was set

up under the NDP, there were some very fine recommendations there on

extension of courses — not necessarily degree-granting — and on the

I simply cannot see any reason for the appointment of this

commission. I hope the minister will be able to elaborate why, when he

has material available now, he has seen fit to set up another

commission, another series of public hearings, when we've already had

the lower mainland for higher education. This concerns me greatly,

because the time has come for action to be taken in these areas and I

really think the educational community is tired of studies and studies

and studies.

We've provided the studies; now take some action on them. I see that

the universities council is continuing the committee set up on

is finished will this be made public for all of us to read and to

discuss? Here again, I do think there is already sufficient material to

move in this area.

I have a number of other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I'll leave it with that for now. Could we have some answers?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to

discuss and to get the minister's reactions in a more detailed way on

the whole question of value schools. I know that he did make a

statement in a broad way regarding them, but I think that the committee

must be concerned about the kind of rhetoric that is being used in the

debate about the value school education. I'm sure that the minister

knows that although they put in the value school system themselves,

they are having some debate about one of the basic principles, which

they refer to as the whole idea being based on the Judeo-Christian

principle.

The Surrey people moved somewhat away from that, but, nevertheless,

we are a province which is made up of a large number of minority groups

who have some real concern about the debate that is going on in the

community about the boundary of schools.

Now this debate does not always take place, unfortunately, in a

rational atmosphere. The great difficulty that some have in terms of

seeing the value school in a very serious way is partly because of the

atmosphere in which it was debated prior to the last election and even

during the last election. One has to question and have explanations, I

think, in a very real way, from the value school people themselves, as

to what their basic aims are. Are the educational? Are they advancing a

lifestyle, are they advancing a political style? There are some

questions as to the affiliations they have, and we have not had

anything in any great clarity from them as to whether, in fact, they

are connected with the so-called Canadian Intelligence Service. I know

recently that one of the members of that group was up in the Dawson

Creek area discussing, at a public meeting, the whole issue of value

schools.

Now this issue is going to be taken seriously and in a calm

atmosphere. We have to know far more than we already know about this

whole issue. I'm aware that there are many questions being asked by

people about the education system, but I am concerned, as I said

earlier, about the kind of atmosphere in which these questions are

raised. It's interesting that a reasonable debate, or a reasonable

question is raised on the issue of family-life education and the

question of sex education in schools. It can turn into what I think can

best be characterized, from time to time, as virtual vigilante meetings.

Now I think it's okay for the minister, Mr. Chairman, to talk about

about where he stands in terms of the public education system vis-à-vis

the value schools, but I think, as a province, we need far more

assurance from the minister that we are going to be able to get a more

definitive statement from the department about the value schools. We

know, and at least I feel in my observations, that we can look forward

in the next few months to a series of very aggressive school board

campaigns in which people who are in favour of the value school idea

will be putting forward their ideas. We've already had many debates,

particularly in the lower mainland area, in Richmond, in Delta, in

Surrey, in Langley; and over here we had a debate in Victoria. Recently

there was a public debate in the riding of Shuswap and there, as

[ Page 1730 ]

a result of the public debate, the idea of the value schools was turned down.

What we have to have, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Education, is

some better explanation from the minister. I think it is necessary for

the department to make a statement regarding the value schools and also

that we get some kind of a group that will look at the whole issue of

the value schools. I don't think we can let it just slide by, because

education, in any case, is always a contentious issue, and we have not

had in any way, up to now, any rational debate in terms of value

schools. After all, if they're able to gain a significant foothold,

what is going to happen, for instance, to our native people who have

their own attitude to the basic principles in which they live? What is

going to happen to the ever-increasing Chinese community, the east

Indian community? What is going to happen to the other groups who in no

way base their ethos on the question of the Judeo-Christian principle?

I'd be interested if some of the members on the other side, who

obviously got a great deal of support from the value school people,

would like to make some contribution to the debate. You know, the

gnome-like brains over there haven't been very vociferous about

education yet, and we would like to hear about it. I'd like to hear,

for instance, Mr. Chairman, from the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree).

After all, this was debated quite extensively in his riding. He was not

present at the debate and presumably he has no thoughts on the value

school issue.

But specifically, to the Minister of Education: you've stated your

position vis-a-vis the public education system, but the question is,

Mr. Minister, that this is a movement that is not going to die — and

does it have a place in the education system? If it does, where is it

and what is the minister prepared to do to satisfy a large number of

the taxpayers in our society that say it simply isn't good enough for

some people who support the value school movement to say that because I

pay taxes, this is the way I want the education for my children? Now

we're getting a great deal of that kind of thing, where people are

saying: "We're not satisfied with what the education system is for the

majority of people, yet we want to be able to develop our own special

kind of education system — of course, being paid for by the public

purse."

This to some extent, I suppose, puts them in the same category as in

the kind of debate that goes on with the independent schools. We know,

for instance, Mr. Chairman, where the government stands on independent

schools: they are extremely vociferous during elections about assisting

the independent schools, but we know they are not going to assist them.

So we have two groups of people who are concerned about some aspects

of education — the independent school people, and we have the value

school people. The value school people want to do something different:

they want to operate within the public school system on the public

purse. And we do have, because of the kind of atmosphere that was

generated in the debate during the election and prior to the election,

a chance that some school boards in this province will be dominated by

people who are in favour of value school ideas which will take away

very much from the kind of equal opportunity that we want to continue

in this province so that we have an adequate kind of public education

system.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister: does he have any concern about this?

Is it something that can...? From time to time there are assaults made on the

public school system, but I think this one is a much better-organized assault

than any we've had previously. It's my opinion that the assault is not

only based on the idea that a small group of people want specific kinds of ideals

taught for their children but it is politically motivated in a way on which

I express a great deal of concern, because, as I said earlier, it's connected

with a very dubious right-wing group of people who were responsible for some

of the most appalling exhibitions of anti-democracy that we could have seen

during an election. I have in mind the kind of demonstration that took place

in Richmond, the kind of demonstrations that have taken place in what started

out to be debates on such issues as family life and sex education. So we have

a very serious problem here, Mr. Minister. I'd be interested, Mr. Chairman,

in the minister's remarks.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I take it that the

minister wants a series of questions from several members, and that

he'll make one response. On that basis we'll continue with a few

questions I've raised in this House in question period — the whole

matter of fires in schools, and vandalism. I'm not about to expect that

this minister, or anybody in this House, has all the answers, but I

would like the minister to give the public of the province and

particularly the taxpayers, some kind of indication of what initiatives

he might be embarking upon to deal with what is a very serious problem.

Before we reached this debate I had hoped that we would have at

least some specific data on which we could conduct an intelligent

debate. On April 18 I placed some very specific questions on the order

paper — it's question 54 — to try to get the facts and figures on which

I might be able to make a more intelligent comment in this debate. But

the minister, since April 28, has seen fit not to give me any answers

to these questions, so perhaps I'd better ask them now. And don't look

so smug, Mr. Minister; they've been on the order paper for over two

weeks. Your arrogance in this House is becoming just a little too

[ Page 1731 ]

much.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I've got the answer for you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: As soon as it comes, I'll give it to you.

MR. WALLACE: We've also had another matter of great concern

to the public — and I'll get on to this issue later — concerning a

$41,700 severance pay issue. The minister took the same smug "I'll tell

you when it suits me" attitude, and I think this minister had better

just watch his step. He used to stand on this side of the House and

condemn that same arrogance from the former Socred government, and he's

picked up the habit very quickly himself.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): You didn't get up on the right side of the bed this morning, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: No, I got out of the right side of the bed. I'm

just not prepared to sit in this House and take that kind of

high-handed treatment from this Minister of Education.

The fact that fires and vandalism are very costly items to the

taxpayers of British Columbia, I think, means that we should be looking

into this issue very carefully, and discuss it in some detail in this

debate. In the question period on one occasion, for example, the

minister assured me that the Department of Education no longer puts up

any construction that isn't fireproof, despite the fact that in the

greater Victoria area we are adding expansions to schools which are

frame construction and don't have a sprinkler system. I'm talking about

Glanford Elementary and Gordon Head Elementary.

I've been in touch with Richmond regarding the fire to the Palmer

Junior Secondary School. I'm told that, yes, they would like to build a

fireproof school but they can't afford it. There is no way in which the

taxpayer is being.... Contrary to government-espoused policy of having

less or no tax on property, the taxpayer is this year paying more. And

while, on the one hand, the government is telling the taxpayer.... I

hope you'll pay a visit to Oak Bay and talk to some of the householders

in Oak Bay about how they are going to pay $120 more on their property

this year than last year. But that's another issue which we will get to

later, Mr. Chairman.

The point is that the minister has given the assurance that only

fireproof construction is taking place in the school system in any new

construction. I am informed that certainly in the greater Victoria

school district there are at least these two extensions which are of a

frame nature. It was a frame building that burned down in Richmond.

On further inquiries of the Richmond school board, I understand they

are very keen to use cement block for the new building to replace the

burned-down building, but the cost facing them is very substantial and,

as I pointed out, is not made any easier in the light of increased

costs of the operating budget. I understand the minister will be

hearing from the Richmond school board, asking for a one-shot grant of

half a million dollars to help in the construction of the school to

replace the one that was burned down. I would be very interested to

know if the minister can give us some outline of policy in general in

regard to the issue of fires in the school.

As I say, I would have liked to know, according to the question that

I put on the order paper on April 28: how many fires we have had in

schools in the past year; what was the total cost of damage; and, on

investigation, how many of these fires were deliberately set, and how

many were accidental, as far as one can ascertain these matters? How

many prosecutions were carried out as a result of those fires? In how

many cases was a conviction in court obtained, and was there any

restitution paid by the person or persons causing the fire? If so, what

was the total sum of money paid in restitution?

Society, rightly or wrongly, seems more permissive these days. And I

am glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in the House. As I

say, while I criticized the Minister of Education this morning, I would

have to be fair and acknowledge that when we debated the estimates of

the Attorney-General, we received nothing but courtesy from that

minister. But at any rate, the permissive society seems to be unwilling

or uninterested in the concept of restitution. Perhaps this is more

applicable to vandalism in the schools rather than fires, because we

realize that if a fire demolishes a school worth a million dollars, it

is unlikely that restitution can be adequate to meet that disaster.

Vandalism occurs in schools, and it occurs in all schools. People less

than knowledgeable, for example, about Oak Bay seem to think that Oak

Bay is some little backwater where everybody is over age 65.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Oak Bay?

MR. WALLACE: We've got a lot of young people in Oak Bay and

we have recently had vandalism in the junior secondary high school in

Oak Bay. We've had vandalism in Nanaimo, and we have had vandalism in

many school districts causing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of

damage. It is just a bit distressing to the local taxpayer to get their

bill for municipal and educational services in the month of June each

year. Most of them, if not all of them, are absolutely eager that the

best system of education should be provided at the most economical

cost. But when it's

[ Page 1732 ]

obvious that there are items of substantial size

that are completely avoidable and caused by a very destructive

influence in the community, then they are entitled to ask some of the

questions that I think we should be asking today.

I wonder if, first of all, the minister could give us a brief

rundown on the departmental policy regarding the construction of

schools and if they are to be fireproof or to have sprinkler systems.

Is the minister taking this into account in providing more funding

provincially for the inevitable increase of capital costs in building

such fireproof schools?

With regard to prevention, has the minister given any consideration

to accepting, as part of the operating expenditure in schools, a

resident caretaker, either on the site or close by, or paying someone

who would be close to and living more or less around the clock on or

close to the school site? This suggestion seems worthy of some merit

because in some news reports I have read, fires that start in schools

are well underway and the whole school is often pretty well ablaze

before the alert is raised and fire engines get on their way.

Again, I am quite well aware of the fact that you will not entirely

prevent fires by having a resident caretaker. But I have received

letters and suggestions that this would be one more preventive measure

that might indeed lead to some earlier action even if the fire does

start. Half or a large part of the building might otherwise survive

instead of having a completely burned-out building.

The minister touched on the difficulty of obtaining insurance for

schools against fire. It has been necessary to raise not only the

insurance rates but the deductible and the cost-sharing arrangements

with the school districts. I wonder if he would care to tell us whether

he has had any further consultations with school boards since this

matter of the cost of fires became very obviously a big item in the

financial concerns of school districts.

Finally, could he comment on initiatives that we are taking

regarding vandalism — either preventive measures of one kind or

another, or at the very least, some new policy which might be

instituted in terms of restitution, namely having the students, as they

often are students attending that school, contribute their time or

their effort to whatever to repairing some of the damage that they have

caused?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, just to answer some of the

questions that have been raised. To the member for Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly), what has been established, Madam Member, is not a committee to

conduct studies; what has been established is an advisory committee to

run it. In other words, it is like a quasi-board of governors. It's not

a study. It's a governing group in an academic sense.

I think you well know what the issues are with regard to a separate

administrative entity from the financial point of view as well as the

curriculum point of view. Is it the best economy to have a separate

marine college with its own bursar, with its own labour negotiating

team — whatever might be involved — or is it better for the marine

college to buy its services from VCC? This is a matter for future

policy. But as far as the academic side of it is concerned, a board has

been established. That board, of course, is going to consider all the

broad aspects of marine training. That includes the issues raised by

the member for the north of Vancouver Island (Ms. Sanford).

I might add, just in addition to that, that the Government of

British Columbia is in consultation at the present time with the

and other aid from the federal government because of the extreme

interest that the federal government has in marine matters. But that's

still at the stage of discussion; we don't have anything to announce in

the way of policy in that regard.

With regard to the Winegard commission, I think the member well

knows that as far as providing post-secondary academic education

outside of the metropolitan centres in Vancouver and Victoria is

concerned, there are several ways that this is currently being done.

One is by one private institution; another is by several public

comprehensive community colleges.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Fine, as soon as they get their house in

order, that's a distinct possibility — even a probability. But that is

their decision, not ours. We can only make the offer. You can lead a

horse to water....

Mr. Chairman, I want the member to appreciate this: the Winegard commission

is going to be a very, very significant study in British Columbia. The recommendations

will have tremendous impact because decisions have got to be made as how best

to rationalize the competition for offering post-secondary education outside

the metropolitan areas. We've got the community colleges doing it. We've

got one private university doing it. We've got three public universities

offering ad hoc extension courses of one kind or another in many centres.

MRS. DAILLY: How about the universities council? Could you raise that one?

HON. MR. McGEER: The universities council will be providing

staffing for this particular commission. But we were anxious, I think —

you might appreciate this, Madam Member — to have somebody from

[ Page 1733 ]

outside of British Columbia do this so that we

would get a dispassionate view. Because, as you can appreciate, the

competition is very keen.

MRS. DAILLY: It won't be dispassionate.

HON. MR. McGEER: He might not be regarded as being

dispassionate by you, Madam Member. In any event, this is the

rationale. The study is going to be a pretty economical one at $15,000.

It's going to be completed by Labour Day. I can assure you that it is

going to be the best $15,000 the department has ever spent on

post-secondary education outside the metropolitan areas. The results of

that study will have a very major impact on the policy of the

government in this respect.

Now with regard to value schools, the member for Vancouver-Burrard

(Mr. Levi) raised that issue and, of course, he used the phrase "the

educational vigilantes" — and obviously we're not out to support

educational vigilantes in British Columbia. But remember that these

people prey on the malaise in our school system. Many people who

support the so-called value schools.... It's now a charged term; it

means different things to different people. It means a lot to the

member; he's got very definite ideas. He associates value schools with

the vigilantes.

But in some of our schools there is room for more rigour, Mr.

Member, than there is today. Some of our schools are doing a better job

than others and, of course, if what gives rise to vigilantes in an

educational sense and their support is a lack of rigour in the local

schools, then obviously the way to deal with the problem is to help

introduce that rigour. If the question is one of religion and a failure

to transmit religious ethics, that might be part of a school

curriculum, certainly not part of the core curriculum. I can assure the

member of that. There is a recourse in the separate school system of

British Columbia.

They are going to be supported by this government for academic

reasons, not for religious reasons, and that support, as I've said many

times, will come as soon as the financial condition of the province

will permit it.

Now the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked some questions and,

Mr. Member, once more, as soon as the answers are available, that very

day they'll be tabled in the House. The member asked several times

about Capilano College, and if you will look at the report that was

tabled, it was put in the House the same day as I received it. When

these requests come in from opposition members, as many members well

realize, people go to work supplying the answers. As soon as we have

the answers, we're delighted to pass them on.

As far as the particular questions about fire and vandalism are

concerned, they were fairly detailed questions and people are working

on them. We've got the initial information from ICBC. Additional

figures are being sought by the Department of Education at the present

time, and I think that we'll have the answers to those questions on the

order paper in a few days.

I do have some statistical evidence that was supplied to me a couple

of months ago by a representative from the Yorkshire Trust. I'd be

happy to share this information, but I'm not vouching for its accuracy.

But this is what the losses, the destroyed property value in schools,

have looked like over the past 12 years. We'll probably have better and

more accurate figures on the order paper before too long. But in 1964,

according to this preliminary information that I've had for a couple of

months, the value of school property destroyed was $950,000; in 1965,

$100,000; 1966, $1.4 million — and that was due to a $950,000 fire at

Peace River South; 1967, $1.55 million — and that was due to a $750,000

fire in Surrey, another $150,000 fire in Surrey and a $525,000 fire in

Barriere; in 1968, $125,000; 1969, $4.15 million — $1.334 million of

that due to a fire in Coquitlam and $1.45 million due to a fire in

Ocean Falls; in 1970, $700,000; 1971, $2.25 million and $1.1 million of

that due to a fire in Kimberley; in 1972, $3.775 million — $1.9 million

was a fire in Hope; in 1973, $6 million — of which $2.2 million was for

fires in Vancouver, $1.75 million, another fire in Peace River South

and $1.5 million, a fire in Sechelt; in 1974, $4.5 million; 1975, $6

million.

The thing to notice is that there are some ups and downs. You will

have one big fire here and there every other year, but the point that's

alarming is the escalation — in 1971, $2.2 million; 1972, $3.7 million;

1973, $6 million; 1974, $4.5 million; 1975, $6 million. Most of these

fires have either been proved to be or are believed to be arson. The

cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia for this sort of senseless

vandalism is enormous.

The member says that there are schools being built today which are

non-fireproofed. I can assure you these were not ones that we approved.

These approvals were given, in some cases, two and three years ago. I

could check back for the individual schools that are under construction

in Oak Bay and give you dates on when the approval was granted and when

the tenders were awarded, but that's not something that we've

undertaken.

What we have got is submission of all plans now to ICBC for their

advice on appropriate fire-control measures. There's not such a thing

as a fireproof building really, but one can introduce measures for fire

suppression in any building. I want to reassure the member that this is

being done in all new buildings that go ahead.

With regard to insurance and the cost, I think that we might spend a moment or two on the details of

[ Page 1734 ]

that. Up until recently we reinsured all of the

school buildings in British Columbia. I have forgotten the details, but

I think it was a certain percentage over $50,000 and 90 per cent over

$500,000, and the reinsurers took it back for obvious reasons. They

apparently didn't anticipate obviously the kinds of losses that we've

experienced here in the last three or four years. As a consequence, the

reinsurers were unwilling to write a comprehensive policy for all of

British Columbia at the same rate as before. The rates were so

exorbitant that we would have had, as taxpayers of British Columbia,

whether it's collected through property taxes or some other source, to

pay to insurers outside of this province prohibitively large premiums.

Instead of that, what we did was to change the reinsurance, at a

reasonable rate, to $1 million deductible, so we only pay premiums

outside the province for an individual loss over $1 million. We

consider the rate that we got on that to be a reasonable one. Now if

the rate for that shoots out of sight, then obviously it would be

better off for us to do all our insuring and reinsuring, one way or

another, within the province of British Columbia. Now that has not

affected in any way the policy of the individual school district. Each

individual school district has its policy for $1,000 deductible.

There's still something over $4 million in premium reserve with ICBC

against which all fire losses will be paid until that money runs out.

The fire insurance premium has been paid by the Department of

Education on behalf of each of the local school boards, which might

make it appear as though the school boards were paying no insurance, at

all. On the other hand, the amount of money that one puts from the

Department of Education into an insurance pool is money that isn't

given in the way of grants to the individual school districts in some

other form, so it's really as broad as it's long.

When you get right down to the final analysis, we've got something

over 1,500 schools in British Columbia and the total sum of money which

is available for school construction at the present time is running

well over $100 million a year, of which in the last three or four years

somewhere between $4 million and $6 million has been due to replacement

for fire. You're looking at really something which, in effect, is an

insurance company within itself. Now there are many ways in which one

can try and discourage vandalism at the local school level, and we're

in consultation now with the school districts as to how best achieve it.

However, the individual school districts have exactly the same

insurance policy as they had before. The member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says: "Is this consultation?" We said,

"Yes, we have consultation," because as far as they are concerned

there's absolutely no change at all. During the next several months we

are going to be discussing with them the best way to handle this

particular problem.

Once more I say to all the members: if you've got suggestions for

the school boards or for us as to how we can discourage this kind of

deliberate vandalism.... It's one thing to break windows if you don't

like what the report card says, but it's something much more serious to

throw Molotov cocktails in, or to walk in and spread gasoline around

and light a match, because the one costs a few hundred dollars and the

other might cost $2 million or $3 million.

MR. WALLACE: How about resident caretakers?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's an interesting thing that we used to

have that; then the municipalities began to complain about the fact

that the resident caretakers were not paying taxes. There were

complaints on the part of the unions that it cast a stigma. The man who

was the resident caretaker...they used to call them janitors in those

days, but they don't do that any more; there'd be some different title.

But because that man lived on the schoolgrounds the unions objected

that there was a stigma to that, the municipalities objected to the

fact that the man wasn't paying taxes, and the process was abandoned.

But it's worth noting that in those former times there was certainly a

far lower incidence of losses due to school fires, despite the fact

that the buildings were frame buildings. It's part of the psychology of

it. So we would like to come up with acceptable ways in which the

schools could be protected and guarded, and that's going to be a matter

of discussion over the next few months.

MR L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I'd like to join with the

member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on this matter of arson in schools.

Since I first became a student teacher about 1960, I have noticed a few

trends which I would like the minister to try to address his staff

towards, in analysing the frequency of arson. I remember the South

Peace River fire, I remember the Alpha Junior Secondary School fire,

and I remember other particular fires as they occurred in the province.

It seemed to me that a great number of these fires tended to be started

during holiday periods or weekend periods and not too often during the

middle of the week. That's an impression. I think that if that

impression is correct and if you should analyse the actual times and

periods during which these fires take place, it might strengthen the

argument for resident caretakers, or maybe some sort of shift work,

which I'm sure the Canadian Union of Public Employees isn't going to

like, or some way of having a person in attendance on the site as a

deterrent.

[ Page 1735 ]

Of course, another way of preventing this is to have better use of

the schools, such as by opening up the gymnasiums and the basketball

courts on Saturdays, which is being done in a great number of schools.

I think the minister might even be surprised if he found out the

utilization that does go on. The fact that these are used on weekends

is reason to maybe spend a little bit of money in terms of caretakers,

but to do it in a planned way, having them tended during the summer

holidays and other periods. I think that when we start looking at the

costs which we're paying in terms of fire losses, it could well prove

to be worthwhile.

In the matter of value schools, I think that the minister made a

rather incisive comment about the motivation when he said that these

people prey on educational malaise. As a democratic socialist, I'd like

to point out that I am one who believes rigour in academic excellence,

but also in opportunity for meaningful educational experience for all

students in keeping with their capabilities. Just because someone does

not show great achievement in academic pursuits it does not mean that

they don't have an interest in academic pursuits.

Students who might be marginal might still prefer to study things

aptitude is not as great as others who might be university-bound, they

might prefer to do that to taking metalwork, carpentry, draughting and

the traditional vocational programmes that are offered in the school.

Vocational training is not the only alternative for people who might

not learn at the same rate as people who will be post-secondary bound.

Some of these people show some proficiency. It's been my experience

that it's very dangerous to predict the success of people based on what

they might happen to be doing at the grade 10 level. There should be a

revolving-door policy for a lot of these people. I can cite cases of

people who washed out of grade 12 three years in a row, went out and

worked, took up education elsewhere and now have Master's degrees from

reputed universities. I could point to others who dropped out of school

at grade 10 and kicked around for a few years. One of them is now

working here in Victoria and is a very successful and well-respected

freelance photographer. He's not here in the gallery today, but he has

been here on several occasions.

So I would urge the minister to bring about an opportunity for

rigour within the schools, but not to take an either/or position with

the people who are not capable of rigorous study, who may still wish to

pursue academic rather than vocational training. I hope it is

understood what I'm saying there.

The term "prey on educational malaise and identifying the lack of

rigour" I tend to agree with. A great number of students could go a lot

farther, they could work a lot harder. There's no reason why we

couldn't open up our high schools on the same basis as universities are

open, from 8:30 until 5:30. I would again attack the semester system in

the high school because I think it psychologically sets up an attitude

of "let's get it over with in five months instead of 10." In fact,

there are experiments with mini-courses; then there will be

micro-mini-courses and we'll be trying to chop up the education

packages into such small units that they'll be absolutely without

meaning.

I don't think that's how we'll get increased rigour. We can get it

by first of all creating a climate in which teachers do not feel

threatened, and then an infusion of in-service training which I think

the BCTF will address itself to if it isn't fighting for its life. That

has been my experience in the BCTF, that when there was a sense of

security we were very active in terms of in-service training.

It's unfortunate that the minister has made a very strong statement

in terms of people who are sort of pulled in by this whole attitude

which has become known as value schools.

In Creston we had a visit from Mr. Butler...and it says: "Family Life, Sex Education Part of Marxist Plan: Butler."

"Family life and sex-education programmes in the schools

are part of an international Marxist conspiracy, according to Mr. Butler, field

director of the Canadian League of Rights, who spoke in Creston last Wednesday." This is the Creston Review of Wednesday, April 28, 1976.

AN HON. MEMBER: A pinko plot.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not only a pinko plot; I'll read some of

Mr. Butler's accusations. He labels John Dewey, educational philosopher

who was the father of modern education, as a Marxist who served the

conspiracy "on the road to socialism as did Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin,

Lenin and Pierre Trudeau." It would be laughable if it weren't so

serious.

"Dewey's job was to work out the means to use the schools as a

vehicle and lay the groundwork for a new society," Mr. Butler said.

Then he said that Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan,

with the Ford Foundation, helped finance the establishment of

foundations that made sure that the radical element was well financed.

"Saying that he was not accusing teachers in general, Mr. Butler

said: 'The family life and sex-education programme was a teacher

attempt to break up the family unit. These people in the education

system are assaulting the moral values of children.'"

MR. WALLACE: What about all the libraries Andrew Carnegie built?

[ Page 1736 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I am reading from the Creston Review . The Creston Review

does not subscribe to these things; it's reporting a fact. I'm telling

you, and through you, Mr. Chairman, telling the minister, that Mr.

Butler is alive and well and thriving in this province, and thriving on

trying to misinform people.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Is he a car dealer?

MR. NICOLSON: I think that because he is so active and

because there are associations with Garner Ted Armstrong, with Hunt and

such, between these extreme, right-wing organizations, I think that as

the Minister of Education there is a responsibility, an obligation upon

yourself to make statements such as you did make earlier in response to

value schools.

It's even interesting that he goes on to say: "The revolutionary

movement is building in the schools because they realize they will not

win the workers, but must use the youth." He admitted that the

curriculum guidelines for the family-life programme was not in use

currently by the provincial Department of Education. He said he would

deal with the guidelines anyway; he felt they were a danger and the

programmes were like a disease started by men and women who wanted to

capture the minds of the youth. He stated: "The idea that a formal

education is good for all is a popular heresy."

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder if he ever read the philosophy of UNESCO.

MR. NICOLSON: He probably has — like you. I haven't read it.

He stated: "The idea that a formal education is good for all is a

popular heresay," and that the idea of government support for

independent schools was a move to bring those schools under government

control. Displaying books which he claimed were in use in some schools,

he said that both NDP and Social Credit governments were a party to

approving books which were too pornographic for book stands but okay

for schools.

The meeting was attended by approximately 50 men and women. I would

say that persons like Mr. Butler.... I would defend their right to say

these things but it makes it incumbent upon us as legislators and, I

think in this particular instance, mostly upon the Minister of

Education to defend democracy, because we must be vigilant and we

cannot underestimate the power of these charlatans of educational

philosophy.

AN HON. MEMBER: He could influence 48 per cent of the people.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm encouraged by the statement

made because I, too, recognize some of the shortcomings of the

educational system. I think that there is room for more rigour and that

we do have to close up some of the gaps upon which these people are

feeding. I've noted, with some fascination, the work of certain people.

I attended, for instance, some of the lectures of a person who calls

himself an archbishop — John, the leader of the Canadian Temple for the

More Abundant Life, I believe it was called. It was quite strong in the

1950s. I went and saw some of those lectures. It was fascinating, Mr.

Chairman, to see how he would start with a few truths and he would get

his audience — and he was a powerful speaker — and he influenced people

who were very successful business people and otherwise very intelligent

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he from Kamloops?

MR. NICOLSON: But he did form opinions; he had a powerful

and, I think, a dangerous grip on many people. If we laugh at these

people and their pretensions, calling themselves archbishops or pope

and wearing purple robes, then it's a dangerous underestimation. As I

hope we are all in this House enlightened persons, we have a

responsibility to expose those who would exploit democracy and would

exploit freedom of speech. I would defend Mr. Butler's right to express

his opinions but it is incumbent upon us that we speak out very

strongly and that we identify the truths that Mr. Butler is

promulgating, but also that we identify the falsehoods and the false

conclusions which he is leading to.

I would say that there is a malaise which is breeding this sympathy

for value schools. We have a responsibility, as legislators in this

House, that we cannot allow this to be a controverted misuse of

democracy and to bring about an end...or to ruin a proper educational

system. So I'm going to take my seat now and I would again say that the

minister has made a strong statement when he said that these people

prey on educational malaise. I hope that it is reported. I hope there's

some discussion, and I hope that a good number of these people who are

interested in value schools will not give up their interest in

education but will recognize that there are forces which are trying to

manipulate them and that a good number of well-motivated people are

being subject to that manipulation.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to

rise in my place today to speak in this debate. As you may or may not

be aware, I spent quite a few years in the education business, teaching.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought that was a motel.

MR. KAHL: While I do have a number of comments to make about the policies of the fiscal

[ Page 1737 ]

mismanagement of the previous administration in

education, I also have some advice for the Minister of Education, and I

trust it will be of some use to him.

In the many years that I taught, education as far as parents were

concerned was something that was far removed, particularly in the

junior and senior high school system. I know that on occasion many

students are afraid or ashamed for one reason or another to have their

parents go to their junior high or the high school. This is a

deplorable situation. Somehow, direction must come from the minister

and encourage the local schools and the parents to work together so

students and parents are not placed in embarrassing situations, as such.

The family-life education programme that we have heard much about is

a step toward that. Many people in the communities are in favour of

those programmes. There's much involvement by local communities, and I

have been involved in that; I meet regularly with a gentleman from my

constituency who is very anxious in those regards. I maintain that

there's nothing wrong with the family-life education programme as long

as the final decision is left up to the parents as to whether they want

their children to take

part in the programme. No parent can fault a

programme like that. There are many parents who don't feel capable of

discussing family-life education with their children. They should be

given that opportunity to have the school do it, and include a medical

doctor in the team. In my constituency, the local board does it in that

way. The decision is left entirely up to the parents whether they want

their children to take

part in the programme. That's excellent as far

as I am concerned.

I want to pay a compliment to the former Minister of Education (Mrs.

Dailly) for the kindergarten programme that was introduced. In my

opinion, it is probably one of the most excellent things that's ever

happened in education. Few people realize that from the time a child is

born until he is 14 years of age, he only spends 10 per cent of his

time at school. On many occasions we are blamed, as teachers, and the

Department of Education, for 100 per cent of the problems, and yet very

little time is spent under actual school influence. So it's very

important that in the formative years of a child's life he be given

some good direction, and the kindergarten programme was set up for that

reason, I believe.

I would, however, like to suggest to the hon. minister that much

more funding is needed in the kindergarten programme. Too much money is

spent, in my opinion, in the universities, the high schools, the junior

high schools, and not enough is spent in the early grades. That is

something I believe the Minister of Education should take a very close

look at.

I was interested in an

article that appeared in the May 3, 1976, issue of The Victorian

in which it says the board is to review its aims and priorities in the

greater Victoria school system. I would suggest to the hon. minister

that the department share much more information than has been shared in

the past with local school boards about what other school boards are

doing — their finances, their financial shape. That could be of great

benefit to them, and I understand, in talking with the local school

board chairman, that that information was really never forthcoming from

the previous minister and that department.

I want to talk a bit about the teachers because they are in a very

vulnerable position when we have rumours circulating about 5,000

teachers being unemployed. It would be interesting to know where those

rumours came from and how they began. I was pleased to see in the

Tuesday, April 13 edition of the Victoria Times

that the Education minister "guaranteed Monday that there will be no

massive teacher layoffs, now or in the immediate future." I had letters

from parents in my constituency...

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): That means there won't be 10,000.

MR. KAHL: ...who said they had been told by teachers in the

school that their special education classes would be stopped because

funds would not be available from the Department of Education. A check

with the local school board indicated that was not so. It's those kinds

of rumours that we can do without, quite frankly.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) started that rumour.

MR. KAHL: I don't want to point any fingers at who might have begun those rumours, but I have a fair idea that...

MR. LAUK: Chabot. (Laughter.)

MR. KAHL: ...they probably came from the opposite side of the House.

MR. CHABOT: From Mackenzie.

MR. LAUK: Vicious attack!

MR. KAHL: In the Victoria Times on Monday, May 3, an interesting

article appeared.

MR. LAUK: Socred big gun.

MR. KAHL: It was entitled: "We Doubt Teachers, Trustees."

This is a very touchy subject, but it's well known in education among

those of us who taught and still teach. It's difficult, very difficult

to lose

[ Page 1738 ]

your job as a teacher. It's too difficult, in fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: I have taught with many people who are excellent

teachers; I have also taught with some who shouldn't be in the

classroom. Somehow I believe that the minister should work with the

trustees and the BCTF and take a look at this situation, not for the

purpose of firing a bunch of teachers but for the purpose of

encouraging more people who are really willing and want to go into this

profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: Upgrading.

MR. KAHL: Upgrading, the profession.

I would also suggest, Mr. Minister, that we have, too many

administrators throughout the educational systems within the province —

too many administrators. Now several years ago administrators were paid

extra salaries to administer as well as teach. They have, quite

frankly, bargained themselves into an extremely good position today

where they receive not only the extra salary but they spend very

little, if any, time in the classroom at all.

I somehow have the feeling that many of the teachers are most

capable in the schools. Quite frankly, the number of forms and things

that have to be filled out for the Department of Education and for

local school boards is very, very time-consuming for administrators. I

don't really put the sole blame on them but I do think that that is

something that has to be taken very.... Take a very close look at that

and give them the opportunity to spend their time administering the

staff and the students and helping out in research and helping out in

discipline problems. Take away some of the form-filling that the

Department of Education and the local boards seem to require.

I spent a bit of time in a previous talk talking about the

university and faculty members — the commission on Canadian studies.

The change of the Universities Act by the previous administration was,

I am sure, welcomed by some. But in actual fact, as far as the

university was concerned, it had a most devastating effect on the

selection of staff members for the university. It returned some of the

decision-making process to the university. While the change in the Act

was well intended, I do not believe the previous Minister of Education

(Mrs. Dailly) looked far enough down the road as to actually what would

happen by doing that.

In giving that decision-making back to the university, what happened

was that the staff-selection committees at the university, who are

basically set up to interview — what you might say make recommendations

and hire staff at the universities — have the opportunity to do just

that. Now it is a known fact that in any university in British Columbia

or indeed across Canada the majority of staff are not Canadians.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking! Shocking!

MR. KAHL: As a result, the decision-making process was given to a group of people to hire staff who were not Canadians.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: You don't understand what I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the member for Maui say about this?

MR. KAHL: For example, in the humanities at UVic, one in five of the staff was born in Canada.

MR. NICOLSON: How many are citizens?

MR. KAHL: Very few.

MR. KERSTER: You can't count anyhow. So what difference does it

make?

MR. KAHL: Overall at UVic, one in three was born in Canada.

Some of you might have followed the controversy in the newspapers

department. Now it will be interesting to note how many people on that

committee to choose a new chairman will be Canadian.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: They have the job of selecting a new chairman, and

I believe that on the committee there's one person out of the five

who's a Canadian. It's a distasteful situation.

MR. NICOLSON: How many of them are now Canadian citizens?

MR. KAHL: Pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KAHL: I have no idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: No respect for citizenship.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for....

MR. KAHL: I'm told, quite frankly, by some of

[ Page 1739 ]

my friends who are university professors that there

are some people who don't have much respect for Canadian citizenship,

who have been teaching at the universities for many years and have

never picked up Canadian citizenship, never taken it out. The

opportunity's there, and that poses a really grave problem with so many

foreigners — for lack of a better word, perhaps.

In the Times editorial of May 22 they said:

"This is Canada. The university is paid for by

Canadians. Part of its function is to comment on the Canadian

condition, and to suggest solutions to Canadian problems."

Yet we have a large group of people at our universities across

Canada, particularly here in British Columbia, where it's very

difficult for them to identify with the Canadian scene, simply because

they're not Canadians.

Dr. Jeffrey goes on in an

article that he wrote:

"The real problem which faces Canadians in trying to

decide how to find teachers for their educational institutions is not

the issue of nationalism, but the question of cultural integrity."

This is quite a lengthy

article that he has written, and here are a

few more interesting facts, I believe. For example, in the largest

time of hiring, and naturalized Canadians, together now make up a total

of 54 per cent of the regular full-time faculty members in the

department. But what this record does not say is that out of 43

currently employed full-time faculty members in that department, 33

were hired in the period since 1965, and that of these only 3-9 per

cent...

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Ten per cent.

MR. KAHL: ...were Canadians.

MR. MACDONALD: Ten per cent. Work it out. Three out of 33 is 10 per cent.

MR. LEA: Did you help work on that budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's my calculator? Would you explain that again? Three out of 33 is how much?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it's love — nothing.

MR. KAHL: Are you finished?

MR. MACDONALD: Are you?

MR. KAHL: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh.

MR. KAHL: I don't want to disappoint you, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) .

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick with it, Lyle. We're with you all the way.

MR. KAHL: I would like to suggest, Mr. Minister — through the

Chairman — to take a look, a close look, at the commission of Canadian

studies, what was done, what the commission identified the problem as,

and follow closely this fall when the recommendations are finished. A

lot of those recommendations I'm sure will be of very much importance

to teaching the Canadian cultural values and British Columbia's

cultural values to our young people.

I'd like to spend a moment on the core curriculum. Much have we

heard about the value schools, and community schools, and whatever

other fancy name the public or some administrator can dream up. The

fact is that parents expect that when their children go to school they

learn how to read and write and do some arithmetic. It's not too much

to ask, and certainly the core programme must be enlarged and we must

spend much more time on that.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I taught in a community school — a large high school with 1,600

students and a staff of 75 — and those kinds of institutions, quite

frankly, become very bureaucratic, very far removed from any personal

contact with the students. Quite frankly, not much of a community scene.

I'm pleased to see that there will be more evaluation done of

students throughout the system, and I would like to suggest...and I

believe it was the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who

said the other day: "Don't use job evaluation to judge the teachers."

Well, as a staff teacher of a number of years, why not use it to judge

how well the teachers are doing? There's nothing wrong with that, in my

opinion. Certainly anyone who has a job is judged on the output, and

that's a good way of determining....

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: Well, you can speak for yourself, hon. member.

Interjection.

[ Page 1740 ]

MR. KAHL: Well, we'll speak for ourselves, thank you, or the government will.

I have one criticism, Mr. Minister, and it's about a magazine called Education Today . This magazine I see around the schools I've been in and, quite frankly, it's a waste of money.

Now I would like to see the finances, the money that is spent on

this magazine, go toward kindergarten programmes or something like

that. I think it was started by the previous administration as

political propaganda as to what was happening that was so excellent in

the Department of Education. I think it was probably started to report

all of the studies that were going on.

We had studies that were going on to study the studies that were

going on, and the ex-Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) quite frankly

said in her remarks earlier today that there were less studies. We

don't have to do any more.

I don't think the hon. member was like the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I don't think she took all of her files

along with her; I'm sure she left all of those studies behind. I hope

she did, anyway. I hope she did. I would say that you could not put

this magazine out in the future and I doubt if you'd have a comment

from anyone who said they missed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you table the rest of your speech?

MR. KAHL: I am pleased that I had the opportunity to attend a

language, and I made some recommendations to him about that, and I

trust that we'll see some follow-up on that and some action in the next

few years. It's a grave problem.

Also, I believe that a major emphasis should be placed in, the

programmes to teach students how to read and write an essay when they

come to university. That's a disgraceful situation after a student has

spent 12 years in the public school system that the university has to

show them how to write an outline for an essay. UVic will keep their

encourage every university to have a programme — but back it up down

into the junior and senior high schools.

"Last year," the

article says, "350 students took the remedial

per cent of the students attending university were required to take the remedial

the essay writing that is demanded of them by the university staff.

I have a couple of other items, one about the work-experience

programme. I believe that's an excellent programme in the system and we

should see much more of it, particularly with those students who are

identified earlier on, in grades 8 and 9, that don't want to go to

university for one reason or another.

They should be given the opportunity to work in the community as

part of their studies. Too often we have students spend as much time as

they possibly can, year after year, in school and go out into the work

world, and it's not really all they were ever told it was. You have to

work, and they can't cope with that type of a situation. I think if we

give them the opportunity earlier on to experience that, they would

handle it much better, and I would like to see that programme expanded

as well.

I would also like to see more communication between the

superintendents of schools and the secretary-treasurers and their input

to the board in its financial decisions.

I'm told by a number of chairmen of boards that it's difficult to

get information from the secretary-treasurer or work the information

together so that they can make better financial arrangements. So I

would like to see some work done in that area also.

I was pleased to see an increase in the budget this year to

education. It was needed. Certainly I was pleased to see a reduction in

the mill increase in comparison to what it was in 1975. That was also a

very good move.

Now I must say something more about the teachers, and that is that

no matter how much money you spend in the educational field and on

equipment in schools, you must keep one thing in mind and that is that

the teacher is the greatest resource that can assist the students in

learning. We must never forget that. The fancy programmes and all the

fancy equipment that sit around in closets are only a very secondary

and a very small part of the educational programme. There are many

hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars worth of textbooks

sitting around in various school systems. I don't know — is there any

accounting for these in the Department of Education? Does anyone know

where they are? I'm sure there must be some way they could be shared

throughout the province and save us millions of dollars.

I will have perhaps a few more comments to make later on when we get to individual items.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter that has been

raised by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and, I

believe, touched

[ Page 1741 ]

on also by the hon. Minister of Education and that's the value-school aspect.

The minister, I think, has taken a position on this that I don't think very

many people could argue with, but there's one other aspect of it. I think

that everyone should have the opportunity of sharing the knowledge that the

value-school system as it's being put forward is being put forward by the

very same people who are responsible for and directors of the Canadian League

of Rights. I would like to share with the House a letter that was addressed

to the member, for Nanaimo. It's from Penticton, and it says:

"Dear Dave:

"It occurs to me that you might be interested in my wife's letter to the press, as well as one that appeared in today's Province . Perhaps you would be kind enough to bring these to the attention of your members in the Legislature.

"Two weeks ago Philip D. Butler, field director of the

Canadian League of Rights in British Columbia, was in the city to give

a lecture on the rape of our children. During the question period he

was made to admit that he is a paid-up member of the Social Credit

Party, that he took an active

part in the party campaign during the

last provincial election, that he is a sitting member of that party's

educational committee, and that he was an elected delegate to the

Social Credit mini-convention held in Vancouver on November 1, 1975,

when he presented two resolutions.

"The point is that the Canadian League of Rights has

always maintained that they support no political party. It is also

known that while we suspect that the full-page advertisements in the

Province sponsored by the CLR were, in fact, paid for by the Socreds —

Mrs. McCarthy is a friend of Mr. Butler — the party feels its

association with CLR may prove an embarrassment. It is my opinion that

if this association could be made public knowledge, it could result in

a great benefit to Dave Barrett and the NDP.

"With kindest regards and good wishes,

Sincerely yours,

Leonard Saunders."

I think that the minister has taken an attitude, as I said, that no

one can argue with, but I think people should know that these kinds of

people sit on the educational committee of the Social Credit Party. I

think people should also know that the Ladies' Auxiliary to the Social

Credit Party in the constituency of Fort George have sent a donation to

the Canadian League of Rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding!

MR. LEA: So there is a connection between all three: the value system, the Canadian League of Rights and the Social Credit.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Nonsense!

MR. LEA: Although I believe that the minister, being a bit of

a novice to the Social Credit Party, may not be aware of these

connections, I think that before jumping into a political party he

should find out a bit more about it, because those three organizations

are tied together. They're tied together, Mr. Chairman, and there's no

doubt about it.

It's not good enough for the Minister of Education to take his place

and say "here's my opinion," when the opinion of the party to which he

belongs is being shaped and moulded by people such as Mr. Butler, who's

on the Social Credit educational committee of the province. I think

that before they start coming in here making sanctimonious speeches

about their platform, they better straighten up their own party, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a couple of

things about the preferential hiring of Canadians in universities. The

subject was brought up and the figures are there. I think it's very

unfair that we have so many qualified Canadians with the necessary

degrees, be they MAs or PhDs, unable to receive employment in our

universities. The universities seem to look over the whole world and

force Canadian applicants to compete on equal terms with the other

people.

I recognize that academic learning should be international, like

music, and it should not be chauvinistic or nationalistic, but surely

there ought to be preference. There should be a deliberate preference,

other things being equal, to a Canadian applicant who has come through

our school system and is looking for work in his own country. That kind

of preferential treatment has not been given in Canadian universities.

I defy anybody to say that that is not still the pursuit of academic

excellence where, other things being equal, we give our own people with

the background in their own culture and country and values at least an

equal chance or, if necessary, a preferential chance for that position,

and that's not happening.

The other thing I wanted to say very briefly is that sometimes when

people look at post-secondary education they seem to see a certain

amount of wastage in terms of what's happening to the taxpayer's dollar

and what's happening in terms of educational values to the student. I

don't think that sabbaticals, the very short work week, and people

[ Page 1742 ]

who have tenure simply recycling the old lectures

year after year and really not bringing much new into the course and

perhaps teaching six or nine hours a week are nearly as pervasive or

extensive as some people say. That is not being fair. We find too — and

again it's a minority in the universities and certainly in the

colleges, but it does exist — cases where the door of the instructor,

the professor, is closed to students and instead of him putting full

effort into that job, the professor or the assistant professor or the

lecturer is coasting.

Now I don't think that the public domain should interfere in the

fields of academic freedom, but I think that it's up to the

universities to look a little bit more closely to make sure that this

kind of thing is not happening, because I think that it's unfair to the

community at large and it's unfair to the students. They're not getting

full value. So where that wastage exists, the challenge is to the

universities and the colleges to make sure that both the community and

the student get full value. I think they have to meet that challenge

more rigorously than they have in the past.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Education....

MR. LAUK: Keep it brief.

MR. ROGERS: I will, Gary — it's my style.

Every Halloween now for many, many years, the stores throughout the

province have sold a small, cardboard box-like structure called "The

Burning Schoolhouse." It's sold as a Hallowe'en firework-type novelty.

When I was with my young son, age 6, last Hallowe'en, he said to me:

"Why would anyone want to burn a schoolhouse?" I said: "Well, you

haven't been in long enough to develop a hatred for them." But that

apparently seems to be the motive. So I wonder if we couldn't have the

Attorney-General's department ban the sale of "burning schoolhouses" as

a Hallowe'en novelty, rather like the banned the sale of firecrackers

some years ago.

My second remarks have to do with the sabbatical system. It hasn't

got into industry in the way that it got into education because

industry can't afford it and I wonder if they ever will be able to. It

would be my suggestion that if the people taking sabbaticals would be

prepared to take 75 per cent instead of going at 100 per cent of salary

on sabbatical, we'd have applications only from those who are genuinely

serious in their desires to improve their education, rather than those

that would just like to have a year off. I must admit that if the House

would give leave, I'm sure that several people here would love to take

a sabbatical from our duties here at full pay and allowance.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I rise to speak briefly on two

matters. The first of them is a request to the Minister of Education,

through you, Mr. Chairman, that he take this opportunity today to

repudiate the support his coalition government and the Social Credit

Party have won from the Canadian League of Rights. I think it's been

made fairly clear — and, if not, let me repeat it — that the Canadian

League of Rights is well known to be a tiny organization of cuckoos and

crackpots, fruit cakes and nuts...

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Sounds like the NDP.

MR. BARBER: ...who have throughout the years seen communists

everywhere, and who have throughout recent years been supporting your

party, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

It's well known that this group of loonies actively supported the

Social Credit Party in the last campaign, and is actively involved in

the so-called value school movement presently going on.

I wonder, very seriously, through you, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister

of Education would like to take this opportunity to repudiate the

basketcases, the goofs, the psychos and the paranoids that run the

Canadian League of Rights. They do, at the moment, offer their support

to you, Mr. Minister. I should think that at least you would be

decently embarrassed by that. You might even want to take this

opportunity to clean up your political act a bit and repudiate them.

So, if I may, Mr. Chairman, for a moment, take my seat while the

Minister of Education, hopefully, stands and repudiates the support of

this notorious group....

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I must honestly confess that I

was not even aware of the Canadian League of Rights, or who they were,

before this subject came up today. I want to assure the member that I

would be the first to repudiate all cuckoos, crackpots, fruit cakes,

nuts, loonies and basketcases. If members of the Canadian League of

Rights fit those

definitions...well, you know, crackpots, cuckoos,

fruit cakes, nuts, loonies are out there in the community and they have

their political loyalties to various parties like everyone else.

Naturally, one is embarrassed by extremists from any party, and I

want to assure the member that the support is more embarrassing than

the opposition.

Now some of the members have raised points and I might as well deal

with them quickly. Before I do I would like to introduce to the House

Mr. Jack Fleming, the Associate Deputy Minister for Financial Services,

who was in Montreal earlier in the week. Also in the gallery, up in the

middle of the front row, I notice Mr. John Meredith who is in charge of

the learning-assessment programme in the core curriculum. So, again,

any members who wish to

[ Page 1743 ]

become familiar with the faces of our senior

members of the Department of Education, there they are. Once more I

extend an invitation to each of you, through them, to seek any

information that you wish directly from them.

The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) raised the subject of foreign

teachers, as did the Attorney-General. Of course, it is a matter of

concern when you view the results of many years of policy, as it's been

practised by governments, in the method of funding, and by universities

in the way they discharge their duties. At the present time the whole

matter, as hon. members know, is being reviewed by both the federal

government and the universities. They are examining the consequences of

their policies, and we hope that the results will be more satisfactory

to Canadians in general.

But I'd like to say just a word or two about post-secondary funding

in British Columbia, because it's an important issue, and one on which

I think members from all sides of the House, and people from all

educational institutions, might consider joining forces in order to

gain some redress.

The federal government, 10 years ago, announced a policy of

supporting post-secondary education in Canada. In the past 10 years the

federal government has transferred to the provinces, and via them to

the educational institutions, some $8 billion. Of this, $4.5 billion

has been in the form of tax transfer. That is the amount of money that

comes to the provinces by the federal government and yielding income

tax points. In addition to this an additional $3.5 billion has been

paid in so-called adjustment payments which, theoretically, pay 50 per

cent of the cost of all post-secondary education that is above and

beyond that income tax abatement.

But the federal government put a limit on the amount of money. Some

provinces were ahead of British Columbia in the amount of

post-secondary education, or in the generosity of their definition, at

the time this programme had been instituted. As a result of this $3.5

billion in adjustment payments that have been made over this past

decade, only $126 million, or 3.6 per cent, has come to British

Columbia.

If the money had been divided fairly, on a per capita basis, British

Columbia would have received $255 million more. Mr. Chairman, one can

do a tremendous amount in the post-secondary field, including graduate

education for Canadians who would ultimately be able to take these

positions in universities, for that kind of money. The Fiscal

Arrangements Act, as it is currently being applied in Canada, is

costing the province of British Columbia between $25 million and $40

million a year.

I have told all the universities, all the community colleges, some

institutions like Trinity Western which give quite excellent

post-secondary academic courses, that if the federal government will

pay to British Columbia its share, that will be transmitted immediately

to these institutions. If the federal government will give the province

of British Columbia the same kind of treatment that it gives to the

provinces of Quebec and Ontario, there will be a windfall for our

educational institutions in British Columbia each and every year. If we

are given an opportunity to recover that $255 million that we have lost

in the past 10 years, then that will be additional money to them.

Admittedly, inflation will make those dollars much less valuable in the

future than they have been in the past.

I want to assure the House and the public that I have taken up this

question with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Premier

of British Columbia and they have taken up this question with the

federal government. I have made representations to the Leader of the

Senate (Hon. Mr. Perrault) and to the appropriate ministers in Canada

who have jurisdiction over this programme. It is a matter of regret to

me that there has been such prejudice against our educational system

here in British Columbia for so many years and that the federal

government before this has not seen the unfairness of their ways and

moved to give this province justice.

Now, Mr. Chairman, turning to some of the other matters, the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) raised the subject of Education Today .

We will be happy to review the effectiveness of that publication. I

want to say that it did produce some statistics on the education

finance formula in British Columbia and it seems to be the only way of

getting any information out on that complex subject.

The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) raised the subject of

the burning schoolhouse Hallowe'en treat. I want to tell you that I

certainly agree with him, and I am going to get after that one as soon

as possible. I also share the member's concern about the problem of

sabbatical leaves. As he points out, it's a luxury that private

industry can't afford and it should be regarded as a distinct privilege

which is granted to certain people in the teaching profession. It

should be used with the recognition that it is a distinct privilege. It

is not the practice of most institutions to pay the full salary during

sabbatical leave. There may be some cases where the full salary is

paid. If so, again I would disagree with that. But the terms for

sabbatical leave, because it is a distinct privilege, should be set so

as to be very stiff. Obviously if it's something which is abused,

keeping in mind that the taxpayers of British Columbia are paying the

majority of the educational costs at all levels, then I think it's

something, of course, that has to be reviewed. But one would very much

regret, I would think, governments having to interfere in any way with

the way in which educational institutions run their affairs. If it were

necessary, it would be a

[ Page 1744 ]

regressive step,

MR. BARBER: I am happy for the comments that the minister

made about the crackpots, at least one of whom is a member of his party

and sits on his education committee. Perhaps we'll hear more about the

other crackpots in the party later on.

I rise on a matter of some seriousness, though, and I'll wait for a

moment until the minister is listening. We are facing this September in

Victoria, and I expect as well at Simon Fraser and the University of

British Columbia, the annual housing crisis. Students again this year

are going to come from every part of the province and many parts of the

country to find that they have literally no place to stay when they

arrive in September. This crisis has been going on for many years and

is going on at a greater level this year than last, as it's increased

over the last several years for which I have records. I have in front

of me various tables prepared as part of an institutional analysis

undertaken by the University of Victoria and, I would presume, judging

by their content, by the other universities in British Columbia as well.

I would like to read a bit of this information into the record and

then primarily, Mr. Chairman, what I would wish to put to the minister

are a couple of questions about policy — his policy at present, his

policy intent regarding the provision of student housing on campus in

the three universities for which he's responsible at the moment in the

province of British Columbia. I would like to set the stage, though, by

telling him that at the University of Victoria this year it is

anticipated there will be an 8 per cent increase in student enrolment

and that 60 per cent of these students are from out of town — off the

Island — from the smaller towns, communities and villages of British

Columbia. Sixty per cent of them do not reside in greater Victoria.

They come to this town in September and they find that they have, quite

literally, no place to stay.

You may recall, Sir, that in previous years, slums, ghettos, test

cities have been erected on the lawns of, that building. They expect

that this year tents again will have to go up on the lawns of the

Student Union Building because this year there is no provision for

extra student housing.

In a survey of 30 Canadian universities, the University of Victoria

ranked 23rd in the provision of student housing and student

accommodation. There are at that university 604 units presently

available, 4,601 full-time students and another 2,500 part-time. The

percentage of residential accommodation to full-time students is 13.1.

We rank 23rd; the University of Victoria comes in 23rd among the first

30 universities in Canada. The only one we beat out is Simon Fraser,

also under your jurisdiction, Mr. Minister. Simon Fraser comes in 27th.

This is not a very good record. The University of Victoria board of governors

approved a year and a half ago a proposal that was incorporated in this year's

budget application to the department for an extra 300 units of student accommodation

to be located on the campus of the University of Victoria. It was turned down

by this minister, Mr. Chairman. I want to know what this minister intends to

do. It was cut out of their budget — removed from their budget. A statement

in their own newspaper declares as much. I have it as well in the figures that

have been provided to me through the dean of administration's office. An

extra 300 units might have been ready to go this fall but were cut out of the

budget.

I want to know from the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, what he

intends to do about the crisis that is coming upon this university and

those students this September. It is only a few months away. There are

only a few months left in which to lay plans, develop strategy and make

alternate accommodation available for these students.

It is the expectation of the student body and the administration, at

the University of Victoria that some 350 to 450 students will face the

same crisis that you know about, Mr. Minister, that has been faced in

other universities across Canada for several years — 350 to 450 left

out in the cold.

I want to read very briefly, if I might, a couple of other figures.

It should be noted that in a survey of 11 universities in Canada of

roughly the same student population the University of Victoria came in

10th out of 11 when examining single student beds available and

students unable to obtain residential accommodation at the beginning of

the 1975-76 academic year. The University of Victoria came in 10th out

of 11 — second to last.

There were at that time 611 student beds available; 1,200 students

applied for those 611 beds. The rest of them ended up in some of the

crummier accommodation in Victoria or living in those tents on the lawn

of the Student Union Building.

Places available in residential accommodation — Victoria, in a

survey of students unable to obtain residential accommodation at all on

their first try, ranked 9th out of 11. The first time around, 1,208

students were able to obtain nothing at all. There were 604 places for

them to stay.

My question is very simple, Mr. Chairman. I want to know what policy

the minister intends to develop and introduce, what programmes he is

willing to develop, what moneys he is willing to spend and what results

he expects from those programmes this September when we see again on

the lawns of the University of Victoria students camping out in tents.

Because cut from the budget this year was provision for 300 units of

accommodation, 300 which themselves would not have been enough, 300

which themselves would at least have helped a bit but which, as I say,

were cut. I want to know what the

[ Page 1745 ]

minister's policy is on student housing. I want to

know what he is willing to do now to meet a crisis looming now which

will reach its own fruition in September.

It's a very real problem for those students, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman; they don't know what they're going to do. Sixty per

cent come from out of town; 60 per cent of them come here hoping to

find a place to stay. When they find nothing, they are in fairly

serious trouble. What is your policy, Mr. Minister? What do you intend

to do in the future? What will you do to help alleviate this crisis

come September?

HON. MR. McGEER: I quite agree with the member that there is

a problem — a continuing problem and one that isn't going to go away.

The Department of Education, Mr. Member, has never dealt with the

housing policy of students. It is for the Minister of Housing, who is

now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

MR. BARBER: What about the universities council?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I think the point that I am trying to

make is that the universities council has jurisdiction over the

academic side and the division of finances for academic purposes. But

housing is something which traditionally has been first with Municipal

Affairs and then with Housing. I think if you could direct your

questions to the Minister of Housing in this government.... As in the

previous government it is under his jurisdiction. It's just not the

province of the Department of Education.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I feel that

under vote 39 one has an opportunity to discuss another aspect of this

minister's responsibility. I know that we would like to talk about

education in this House for some time, and it has been discussed for

some time. There are a number of votes under the minister's

responsibility where education will continue to be discussed as far as

our side is concerned, certainly to get the questions answered that are

deemed to be most urgent in this province.

I would like to change course for a little while, Mr. Chairman. With

the indulgence of the minister, I'd like to talk just a little bit

about the Insurance Corp. of B.C., ICBC. I think most of us will

recognize that there is a rather new wind blowing in this province —

it's almost a hurricane emanating from the Royal Centre in Vancouver.

That hurricane, incidentally, has carried with it a lot of the money

from the pockets of the people who can least afford it in British

Columbia, to make B.C. almost a disaster area in this regard.

I'd just like to develop for a second or two what kind of a

mentality developed the holocaust. In reading the annual report of the

insurance corporation, the third annual report, I see that there's a

presidential message, as is found in most annual reports. Incidentally,

I'm interested in the fact that there is a presidential message and

that the president is a member of the Legislature and a minister of the

Crown in B.C.

One of the directions that the coalition, when they were campaigning during December of last year....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I guess you get a little upset when I speak, sir. Well, that's just your tough luck.

Mr. Chairman, one of the very definitive directions that the coalition took

at that time was: let's get politics out of ICBC. We still see a minister

of the Crown as the president of the corporation, and not only a minister of

the Crown, but as president, obviously making most of the decisions and still

issuing his presidential reports.

MR. CHABOT: Where is the former president?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the former president is relaxing at this moment.

MR. CHABOT: On the cocktail circuit in London, England.

MR. COCKE: ...just like the member for Columbia River is relaxing, and as the member for Columbia River has done for so many years.

Mr. Chairman, let me read to you a line or two out of the president's report.

AN HON. MEMBER: We read it.

MR. COCKE: If you have, then you have gained a great deal of prestige in my eyes. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, this is a paragraph: "It is the intention of the present

administration that the corporation will operate in the future on a break-even

basis without further subsidy from the government."

Let the record show that every one of that caucus acknowledged that part of the report by banging on their desks.

Mr. Chairman, the language reveals political interference. Yes!

Political interference. "It is the intention of the present

administration that the corporation will operate in the future on a

break-even basis without further subsidy from the government." Made

very clear. Where are these promises?

You know, that group made a lot of promises. Mr. Chairman, you were

never part of that, of course. That group over there made all sorts of

promises, and

[ Page 1746 ]

one of their most committed positions was that the

insurance corporation would immediately be divested of any political

interference. Isn't that interesting?

So where are those promises? We've seen the kind of adherence to

strategy that some of us expected. But we expected you to be just a

little bit more diplomatic in the way you kept your promises.

"In the year ahead the corporation will face many challenges to test

the validity of its new policies and programmes and skills and its

management." Mr. Chairman, again, part of that same syndrome.

He goes on to say at the end: "I am confident that the corporation

has the organization, the resources and the enthusiasm to provide

outstanding service to the public of British Columbia throughout the

coming year," and, Mr. Chairman, at a price. What a price! What a price

we paid!

Later in another context I'll be reading from some of the

best-informed minds in this country as to what causes inflation, and

show that some of the direction that this coalition has adopted is a

direction taking us further down the garden path.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you will be relating to the vote and asking questions...?

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, what am I relating to? — the

minister's responsibility as fiscal and government representative on

the board of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia; the only place we

can discuss this, Mr. Chairman, with respect, is under vote 39.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, direct that rather new and young fellow to go back to his chair if he wishes to heckle. That's part of the rules.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I've been

very interested in is how the present president of the insurance

corporation has been boasting about a drop in claims. I suggest to you,

and this House, no wonder, and no wonder on two counts. We found that

the insured vehicles in B.C. have dropped by 200,000.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): We're on Education; don't talk about ICBC!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I guess the member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) doesn't understand the ways of the

House. But in any event, I suggest to you that it's no wonder. The

insured vehicles dropped 200,000. That's a 15 per cent drop in insured

vehicles in this province. It's a 15 per cent drop, Mr. Chairman, but

it gets worse than that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): You're wrong, Dennis!

MR. COCKE: It actually is a net decrease of 24 per cent, and

I'll tell you why: because there's normally an increase of 9 per cent

each year, so if there's a vehicle drop — that is an insured vehicle

drop of 15 per cent — then I would go on to say that in view of the

fact there is normally a 9 per cent increase, there's a net decrease of

24 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I bring to your attention a note, April 8, Vancouver Sun : "Insured Vehicles Drop by 200,000." Victoria is the dateline:

"The Insurance Corporation of B.C. has to date insured

more than 200,000 fewer cars this year than it did last year, according

to..."

Who? According to that eminent president,

"...according to ICBC president Pat McGeer. McGeer

filed a letter with the House Wednesday reporting that the

government-owned corporation had, as of April 2, received insurance

forms for $1,066,570 vehicles compared with 1,286,899 insured last year.

"The letter from ICBC general manager, Norman Bortnick,

said however that some of the 200,000 difference was probably due to renewal

forms still being processed in agents' offices."

This is April 8. But anyway, Mr. Chairman, there has been a

significant drop in insured vehicles in the province of British

Columbia, and what happens then?

Mr. Chairman, beyond that, people in this province are once again in

the position that they are afraid to make claims — especially those

people under the age of 24.

What does this mean to me? What does this mean to any responsible,

socially conscious person in this House? It can mean one thing and one

thing only, and that is that we're back to the old days of wrecks on

the road, and you see them now, Mr. Chairman. I defy you to go down any

street, in any direction, for any length of time, and you will find the

old wrecks driving around again — cars which should be repaired but are

not being repaired because people are afraid to make those claims.

Mr. Chairman, moreover, uninsured drivers on the road again;

uninsured drivers — 200,000 net plus the reduction, the minus that

we're enjoying because of what we would normally expect to be an

increase. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that there are two

[ Page 1747 ]

very serious situations developing in British Columbia: one is uninsured drivers and the other is wrecks on the roads.

Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the insurance corporation had a

course to follow, a course that was set out, a course which would have

enabled our people in our province to enjoy reasonable rates and

obviate some of this problem we are now facing. That course was not

followed, much to the chagrin of people in B.C.

Mr. Chairman, just in case anyone here feels that the course wasn't

set out significantly, I would like to draw to your attention a press

release issued October 15, 1974. It was issued in the name of Robert

Strachan, who was then the president of ICBC. Let me read, to those of

you who would like to hear, what he said at the time:

"Strachan, Minister of Transport and Communications in

the NDP cabinet that introduced compulsory government auto insurance in

March of this year, told a news conference that the savings to

motorists have been made possible because of additional revenue coming

to the government through petroleum resources. We made the revenues

available to ICBC with only one simple guideline — it's to be used as a

first stop toward uniform rates."

Mr. Chairman, we talk about the gas tax. The gas tax was the

vehicle, but what the then Hon. Robert Strachan was talking about was

the increased revenues that we have enjoyed because of our policy on

petroleum products, particularly natural gas, where British Columbia

increased its revenues $200 million a year — and, if you wish to,

deduct $50 million as the federal share.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do with it?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we'll get into that in due course,

but this money is available through the course that we set up, and that

is the gas tax course.

MR. DAVIDSON: The greatest cover-up in the history of this province!

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the

member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) would talk about cover-up. Moreover,

besides his talking about cover-up, let's talk about that for a minute.

That $200 million would never have accrued to this province had it not

been for an NDP government. Don't kid yourselves! You people sold gas

at 32 cents per thousand cubic feet to the Americans, and it was an

absolute giveaway — a giveaway like we had on the Columbia River, a

giveaway like that government was noted for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 39, please.

MR. COCKE: This coalition, Mr. Chairman, is exactly the same

kind of government that we enjoyed in the past. Now let's get back to

another press release I have.

This is a press release that was delivered on March 5, 1974, in the

province of Saskatchewan, by Mr. Romanow. Mr. Romanow is the

Attorney-General for the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Romanow said

that charges would result in about 77 per cent of passenger vehicles

registered in the province receiving premium reductions, and the

premium reductions are to be paid for out of revenues from the

provincial motive-fuel tax. It's not a bad idea.

MR. KERSTER: They just raised theirs.

MR. COCKE: Oh, did they? I would like you to go and check that one out.

Mr. Chairman, it is a good way, a way to produce a levelling effect

where those who drive more pay more. The way it is now, with these

rip-off rates, some people who drive very little are getting taken to

the royal cleaners.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: A transfer of funds is valid, and it was valid

because of the fact that we had increased revenues. Oh, certainly the

province had difficulties, like everywhere in the western world, and if

you think that your systems of borrowing and your systems of cutting

programmes are going to stand

B.C. In good stead — your systems of increasing rates, the

inflationary work that you're doing — if you think that's the way to

go, then you just continue on that course, but we have to speak for

those people who don't necessarily agree that everything the coalition

does is right.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

The vehicle is the gas tax route, but the increased revenue was from

the increased revenues we obtained from the oil and natural gas

royalties. I suggest to you that that system was available, but why

didn't the coalition go for it? I'll tell you why they didn't go for

it: because the coalition has friends that they wish to please, and I

think that we can certainly see those friends emerging. We're starting

to hear noises. We're starting to see insurance companies coming back

to British Columbia and registering their intentions to go into the

automobile insurance business. You know what the consequences are of

that.

MR. DAVIDSON: Efficiency.

[ Page 1748 ]

MR. COCKE: Efficiency! We see, for instance, the difference

in efficiency. We see Manitoba, we see Saskatchewan, with efficient,

first-class automobile insurance programmes.

We see B.C. invaded by this coalition, and we go back to charging

monumental premiums to the people of B.C. And you have the audacity to

sit there and talk about efficiency. Anyone can run an efficient

operation if you're provided with the powers to charge anything you

like. Anything you like, Mr. Chairman....

MR. KERSTER: Did Yvonne write your speech?

MR. COCKE: No, if Yvonne had done this speech, it would be a lot better. Mr. Chairman, that was interesting, that comment.

So, Mr. Chairman, what are the consequences of these friends coming

back to British Columbia? What are they? Well, Mr. Chairman, the

economic consequences of the coalition direction for ICBC, I think, are

particularly bad. ICBC was an investor in this province, and where did

they end up?

MR. KERSTER: Red ink!

MR. COCKE: Remember, I talked about this some time ago in

this House. ICBC was quite a significant investor. It's a billion

dollar job. It says....

Oh, listen to this! You could use a little informing, member for

Hawaii! "Investing ICBC Premiums" is the caption here. "It's a billion

dollar job. 'Our basic policy,' says the person with the billion dollar

job, 'is to keep the dollars invested in B.C. Only a small portion of

our funds go east.!" Now that is quite a contrast to the....

MR. KAHL: When did he write it?

MR. COCKE: Your own man at ICBC, the man who does all the

investing, Jim Fletcher. Well, ask the minister. But, Mr. Chairman, our

basic policy is to keep the money invested in B.C. Now remember, I said

earlier, Mr. Chairman.... This was March 17, 1976, and this wasn't

written by him. This was written by Pat Durant of the Vancouver Province .

" That is the amount of money. The billion dollar

figure is the total value of transactions carried out by Fletcher from

his money-market desk in ICBC's downtown Vancouver office.Since most of the money goes into short-term investments, for periods as short

as 30 days, the same dollars' can be recycled several times during one year.

The actual amount of premium money Fletcher has had to work with over the two

years has been less than $500 million in cash, but the money has an all-over

effect because he's been able to reinvest and reinvest."

So, Mr. Chairman, it's worth a billion dollars to this province, and

yet I see the present course: bring back those insurance corporations

and let the money go back down to Hartford. Let the money go back to

New York; let the money go back to London or wherever it used to go and

do no good for the province of British Columbia. Had it not been for

the fact that we had an NDP government during the tough years, this

province would be in a much worse state than it is now, I'll tell you,

a lot tougher state than it is now. So, Mr. Chairman, don't undo the

good that has been done in this province and don't let that coalition

minister of yours get away with anything that will be detrimental to

this province, because it could happen.

I see some of the things that he's saying in the paper, and there's

a lot of speculation out there that they're prepared to give it back to

their old friends, their old friends who were playing the ditty during

the election, "Thanks For The Memories," — now the same people that

listened to that are expecting any day, "Who's Sorry Now?"

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, yes, we've looked at the statistics,

there are uninsured cars out there. People are afraid to make claims,

Mr. Member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd). What a shame!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for New Westminster has the floor, and we have no right to interrupt him.

MR. COCKE: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's so nice to see you back in the chair seeing to it that discipline prevails in this House.

Mr. Chairman, it was brought to our attention the other day that

there were a couple of orders-in-council that went through giving the

right to sell automobile insurance in this province to a couple of

notable B.C. companies. No, no, they're not B.C. companies. No, Mr.

Chairman, one is the First National Insurance Co. of America and the

other one is Unimerica Reinsurance Co. Very nice to see us being

hospitable, and it's hands across the border as far as I'm concerned,

but I don't like to play the coalition game of giveaway across the

border. It happens all the time with that group and it will continue to

happen until they have walked the road to Damascus, until they've seen

that burning bush, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I hope it can happen to

them soon enough to deliver B.C. from eternal fire.

Mr. Chairman, they want to come back. It's interesting how the

insurance corporations want to come back: they want to come back, but

they want to come back on their own terms. Recall the

[ Page 1749 ]

suggestions that have been made recently about

where they have been and where they are going. But when they are asked,

they want to say very clearly that the return of the insurers is eyed

by the minister. But then the insurance corporations are saying that

they were jilted once and now they are looking for their own terms to

come back. Mr. Chairman, I am very worried because I know what their

terms will be.

Thank you very much for bringing me back to order, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

It's a great business. The business from the coalition told us what

a significantly good job they are going to do with ICBC. They are going

to watch the in-flow and the out-flow of money. But look what they did,

Mr. Chairman. Not only did they raise the cost to the people in this

province significantly, but look what they did with the commissions. As

if it wasn't enough windfall to the agents that the premiums would go

up as they did! They tell us that they reduced the commissions from 7

to 5 per cent, but let's look at the net effect of what happened. Very

interesting indeed — the commission rates on basic coverage dropped

from 7 to 5, but the premiums that more than doubled, in all instances,

raised the average commission across the board to 70 per cent — raised

it 70 per cent. This is in times of inflation, Mr. Chairman. Shame on

that government!

Mr. Chairman, there were also rates for extended coverage. There was....

MR. KAHL: When you were in cabinet you raised your salary 100 percent.

MR. COCKE: Oh, you are sitting there pontificating. Are you

giving yours to charity or are you accepting it? Don't give us the

rubbish over there, Mr. Member! Don't give us the rubbish!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two minutes.

MR. COCKE: Two minutes left; oh, how time flies! Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They sound like a bunch of chipmunks, those

backbenchers. I know that the Premier is going to have difficulty in

making up his mind which chipmunk he is going to bring up onto the

front bench.

Mr. Chairman, it goes beyond that. We took collision out of the

benefit that one must have and we made it optional. Therefore the

commission we pay on collision now is 10 per cent instead of 7 or 5. So

that made that rate go up 140 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, ICBC, in my view, was handled by a doctor who saw what

he thought was a foreign body in its eye. ICBC was handled by a doctor

who saw what he thought was a foreign body in the eye of B.C. He

performed massive surgery and what did he remove? He removed the eye of

B.C. It's too bad. We would like to see that member for Point Grey,

that minister of the Crown, do something better with what could be a

fine service in this province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member made a number of

references during his speech, and I'll answer each one of them. Just

today I would like to deal with (01) — that is with regard to the

number of automobiles registered in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Insured.

HON. MR. McGEER: Insured. We don't know. The figures that

were tabled in the House were estimates of the insurance corporation,

estimates arrived at by taking the total amount of money which is

received, which is known, and dividing it by what they believed to be

the average premium. I got two figures this year: one that the

registrations on this basis were up, the other that the registrations

were down. I don't think we know at this stage within 20 per cent the

number of cars registered in British Columbia. Why? Because the system

that we inherited, set up by the NDP, was an unholy mess and it still

is a mess.

Mr. Chairman, that is another thing we are going to straighten out.

There will be legislation brought down this session to help with that

problem.

Last time, when I spoke on the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia,

I outlined the scandal that had been developed since June, 1974 — how

there was a massive cover-up about the finances of that province, how

it led to a debt of $185 million. At the time I took over the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia it had no money; it was unable to pay its

bills.

A plan had been started, Interaction, which would have lost another

$147 million in addition to the $185 million that has been lost. Mr.

Chairman, that was only half the story. The other half of the story

commenced before June of 1974 when there was another massive cover-up

going on about the finances of that corporation, when the minister who

made that speech was a party to that cover-up. I haven't time to deal

with that today but I will deal with it on the floor on Monday.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House a group of

students from Britannia Secondary School who are here with their

[ Page

1750 ]

teachers. I would ask the House to welcome them. They have arrived since the

House convened this morning.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada