1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1869 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Rental of Marine Building space. Mr. Bennett — 1869

Meeting of Columbia River treaty body. Mr. McGeer — 1870

Purchase of ski lands. Mr. Wallace — 1871

Status of guide to Alcohol and Drug Commission. Hon. Mrs. Dailly answers — 1872

Creston Valley hydro lines. Mr. Curtis — 1872

Purchase of Pacific Western Airlines. Mr. Gibson — 1873

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates On the amendment to

vote 38.

Mr. Schroeder — 1873

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1873

Mr. Schroeder — 1874

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1874

Mr. Gardom — 1874

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1876

Mr. Gardom — 1876

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1877

Mr. Smith — 1877

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1879

Mr. Wallace — 1881

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1885

Mr. Bennett — 1887

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1889

Mr. Gibson — 1890

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1891

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1893

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1894

Mr. Chabot — 1895

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1896

Mr. Schroeder — 1897

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1898

Mr. Gibson — 1899

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1899

Mr. Phillips — 1899

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1902

Mr. Phillips — 1902

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1903

Mr. McClelland — 1903

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1904

Mr. McClelland — 1904

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1906

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1906

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1906

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1907

Mr. McClelland — 1907

Point of order.

Correction of division list. Mr. Gardom — 1907

Appendix — 1908

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the House

today a group of students from the Delta Senior Secondary

School along with their teacher, Myrna Duthie. I would ask the

House to make them welcome.

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to welcome to the gallery today, from

Prince George, His Worship Mayor Moffat and Alderman Len

Proppe, who is district chairman for the regional board, also

Alderman Howard Lloyd, Alderman Elmer Mercier and Alderman Art

Stauble. Also with them is the city manager, Chester Jeffery;

regional administrator, Bill Kennedy; and also his planner,

Chander Suri. In addition, I would like to welcome my son,

Guyle, who is with us here today. We would like to welcome

them. Thank you.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the House to join with me today to give a welcome to Marcus

Davies, president of the provincial capital region district

Young New Democrats.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Today in

the gallery is a group of grade 9 students from Templeton high

school with their Canadiana class. They are being led by Helen

Read and Mrs. Blomfield of Templeton school in the City of

Vancouver. Could you welcome them, please?

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): There is a group of students here

today from Cumberland Junior Secondary School in the

constituency of Comox. They are accompanied by their teacher,

Mr. Lorne Irwin. I would ask the House to give them a warm

welcome.

Oral questions.

RENTAL OF MARINE BUILDING SPACE

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister

of Public Works: can the Minister confirm that his department

has leased 8,000 square feet on the 8th floor of the Marine

Building in Vancouver at an annual cost of $4.50 a square foot

until the price goes up May 1 to $5.70 per square foot?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works):

I'll take that as notice, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You mean on the same subject.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, he'll get additional information....

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Speaker, and

that's it. If he wants to say anything, I have sat back and

given him lots of opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please! There's a growing

tendency to ask several questions, all of which depend upon the

answer to the first question.

MR. BENNETT: To get additional information, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject?

MR. BENNETT: Yes.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You don't....

MR. BENNETT: Am I recognized, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think there is a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: Well, I didn't know he was on a point of

order.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I've taken the question as notice and I'll

look into it, and I'll report back as I have done on all other

questions.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: What sort of information does the Hon. Member

want?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If he wants to make a speech, he had a

chance to do it during my estimates; and he didn't make a very

good speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! This is question

period.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: What is it, some further information?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, a further supplemental, Mr.

[ Page 1870 ]

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister be seated for one

minute, so I can determine the nature of the question?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: He's been given lots of time to ask his

question. He should have outlined his question, and that's

it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd like to hear what his

question is, to determine whether it should be asked at this

time.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If he has a further question, fine; but

you don't give a supplemental when you've taken the question as

notice.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I took the question as notice, and that's

it!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the normal rule is that

you ask your supplementaries on return of the Minister's answer

and follow it up from there? We're going to get into this

problem of latitude in some cases, no latitude in others. Then

I'll be accused of being partisan for not using the same rule

every time. That's not fair to the Speaker, really, to put him

in that position. I would prefer it if you would ask your

supplementaries — and we make this a firm rule all the time...

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: ...at the time you receive your response.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that would be fine except

that this Minister has never responded during question period

and never come back to the House in question period with an

answer. The supplemental I have today is that this space has....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I don't think the matter was

quite fair in the way the Member stated it, because I can

recall in question period the Minister obtaining the floor to

answer your questions.

MR. BENNETT: I don't remember.

MR. SPEAKER: I do. I recall it.

MR. BENNETT: I don't recall it.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. You don't recall it?

MR. BENNETT: No. Now I'd like to ask my supplemental, if I

may, Mr. Speaker. When bringing his answer to the House, would

the Minister advise us why this space has sat empty with only

one person manning a switchboard? What I would like to know,

Mr. Speaker, is whether the Minister can tell the House if it

is now the intention of his department to cover up all its

vacant office space by putting one person in each vacant office

to answer phones because no one else is there to do it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now will you answer me a question, yes or

no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I haven't recognized the Hon.

Member for a question. I think the problem I have here is that

questions are being asked that are not necessarily within the

responsibility of the Minister concerned. He does not operate

switchboards.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you're saying that the

Department of Public Works is the one whose jurisdiction this

is under, that's one thing; but the question is not clear

whether it should be directed to that Minister of not.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan on the same subject — or

a different subject?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A different subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I'd better recognize the Hon. First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MEETING OF COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY BODY

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible to deduct the

wrangling and speeches from the question period so that we get

15 minutes of questions.

I'd like to direct mine, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Lands, Forest and Water Resources to ask him when the last

meeting of the Ministerial advisory committee to the permanent

engineering board, under

article 15 of the Columbia River

treaty, was held. The Minister is a member of that

committee.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests

[ Page 1871 ]

and Water Resources): I'll take the question as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. McGEER: Could I ask the Minister to take another

question as notice? I thought he would have known, since he's a

member of that committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Now we have exactly the same problem. We've got

to either have a rule or not have a rule. Now, really, I don't

think we should be going again into supplementaries.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it's very difficult to apply the rules if

we don't adhere to them.

MR. McGEER: I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to save the time of the

House in future, to ask him to take an additional point as

notice. I would have not anticipated that he would take as

notice the kind of meeting which he would have attended.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never know!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask him if he's aware

that the permanent engineering board is in the process of

winding up its activities. Unless the committee of which he's

an adviser were to dictate otherwise, then this very valuable

committee will disappear.

PURCHASE OF SKI LANDS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with reference

to a statement regarding the appointment of Mr. Al Raine as

co-ordinator of ski developments, whether this Minister has now

taken over the issue of ski development in the province which

was formerly under the Minister of Recreation (Hon. Mr.

Radford). Specifically, the Minister is reported as having said

that there might be a conflict of interests. I'd like to ask

the Minister which ski development lands on Whistler owned by

Mr. Raine and his wife under the company named Nancy Greene

Ltd. have been purchased and for what price.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the lands have not

been purchased. They are the fee simple lands, I think, near

Lost Lake, which is near the foot of Blackcomb Mountain. I

think they're the only fee simple lands in that particular

area. The price established is one negotiated between my staff

and those parties and is considerably below the appraisals

carried out by the Lands department.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could I assume that no appraisal was undertaken by an outside

consultant but only by the Department of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was deemed necessary, Mr. Speaker, in

view of the fact....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have outstanding qualified civil

servants, some of whom we, in fact, inherited. They reviewed

the question and we're satisfied that the value was

substantially above what the cost would be.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the

Minister tell us if he, in fact, has taken over the issue of

ski development which was formerly handled by the Minister of

Recreation?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly not. The point is that there's

a significant commercial land potential that is tied to the ski

facility. We see that as the function being in the commercial

sphere...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: ...so that we, at long last, get

returns to all the people of the province from the Crown lands,

instead of the giveaways like Cypress Bowl under the Social

Credit administration.

MR. SPEAKER: A further supplementary? The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplementary.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Is the Minister

prepared to file with this House the appraisals that he has

referred to?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll consider the question, Mr. Speaker.

The material is in the hands of the civil service. I've simply

accepted their word regarding this matter.

MR. GARDOM: Well, are you or are you not prepared to file

the appraisals, Mr. Minister?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think I answered the question, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. McGEER: I'd like to ask the Minister whether he's

prepared to file with the House the purchase price of the land

in question by the private

[ Page 1872 ]

developers, and the purchase price by the government from

those developers. We only want the two figures and we'd like to

know when the Minister would be prepared to file them with the

House.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You don't know the

appraisals?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think these are a matter of

public record, are they not?

MR. McGEER: No, they're not. Mr. Speaker, they're not a

matter of public record; the Minister has given no

response.

STATUS OF GUIDE TO

ALCOHOL AND DRUG INFORMATION

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in

reply to a question from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), the "Professional Guide to Alcohol

and Drug Information" has only just been made available and has

been presented to the Department of Education for review. Any

decision to make it accessible to schools in this or a revised

form will be dependent upon that review. I think if you had

noticed in the front of the book itself, from which some of you

chose to pick out selected areas, it states there that they

would like input from any interested citizens or groups who

read it. It definitely states: "We would stress that any drug

is potentially dangerous." I would also like to point out that

there has been no general distribution of this guide to the

schools of this province by the commission or the Department of

Education. Also, I want to point out that I've met with the

chairman of the commission and stressed that it's very

important how this material is to be presented before we can

consider using it in the schools.

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

ask the Minister whether or not she met with the chairman of

the commission prior to this kit being developed at quite an

expensive cost.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I have met prior but not on this one.

I met on general procedures. Whenever anything is to go into

our schools, I laid out guidelines that it must go through the

Department of Education first. But I had not seen specifically

that guide in its prepared form. I don't think it was ready at

that time.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Minister

whether in her meeting she discussed the withdrawal of the material and the

rewriting of it so that it could be accurate and truthful.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I just want to repeat that we are going to

do a review of it. Then, as I said, at the moment it will not

go out, as far as I'm concerned, in the present form. There

will be a review made of the material in the book.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I'd just

like to ask the Minister whether or not she or anyone in

government is contemplating firing those people who went ahead

with this report before having the approval of cabinet on a

matter which was offered to the schools of British Columbia.

It's clear in the report of the Alcohol and Drug Commission

that this report is available now for school counsellors; it's

also clear that your department knew nothing about it. Is

anyone going to be fired because of...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member knows

that the Hon. Minister of Education is not in charge of that

commission.

CRESTON VALLEY HYDRO LINES

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

question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

as a director of B.C. Hydro on the subject of proposed Hydro

transmission lines in the Creston Valley. Can the Minister

assure the House that a public hearing or public meeting, if

you will, will be held by Hydro or some other government agency

in the Creston area prior to any proceeding with the proposal

for this transmission system?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If my memory serves me properly, Mr.

Speaker, the proposed major transmission system from the

Kootenay Canal to the East Kootenays has been deferred for a

considerable period of time. So if it's the major system

linking Kootenay Canal to serve the east Kootenay region, that

matter has been deferred for some six years, I believe.

MR. CURTIS: I wonder if the Minister would perhaps take the

question as notice, Mr. Speaker, just to check into it further.

I appreciate his comments this afternoon. Nonetheless, the

people of the Creston Valley are very much concerned that this

is still, if you will pardon the pun, a current problem. They

would like some comment on it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Hon. Member could

just give us more information. If it is the major transmission

line, the answer is no, it is not being actively

considered.

[ Page 1873 ]

PURCHASE OF PACIFIC WESTERN AIRLINES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): After that

electric exchange, I have a question for the Premier. In view

of the fact that the chairman of the Canadian Transport

Commission has announced the intentions of that commission to

file a notice of acquisition in the matter of the purchase of

Pacific Western Airlines by the Alberta government, I would ask

him again: does the Government of British Columbia have plans

to intervene in those hearings when they were held?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The matter is under

consideration, Mr. Member. I have no desire to initially oppose

the development of socialism between two free enterprise

parties, but the matter is under review. If they need any

assistance to straighten out their approach to these things, I

am certain we have enough staff to help them.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you kindly save it, write it down and try

it tomorrow?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 38: Minister's office, $124,447 — continued.

On the amendment.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): One of the reasons why this

motion had to be made in the first place lay in the area of

financing and the finance formula. The formula was introduced,

I believe, in 1967 or 1968 by the former administration and was

based on a stable economy. The finance formula projected the

amounts of money that were going to be designated for

educational expenditure by the province. They determined those

amounts on the basis of the past year's enrolment. As such,

there was always a full year's lag in the amount of expenditure

that was authorized and the actual need.

The spiral of inflation has been pronounced in the last two and three years.

When this Minister came into office she knew then that this formula would need

some form of revision. The fact that we have had an ever-increasing number of

pilgrims to Victoria with cup in hand, asking for special aid and special grants,

is proof of the fact that the formula itself is not satisfactory unless we are

in a stable economy. The Minister, being in full knowledge that this review

was necessary, has in three years not come up with a formula that would be less

discriminatory, particularly when you compare urban schools with rural schools.

I have a copy of a critique that was forwarded by School

District 27 of Cariboo-Chilcotin. It was forwarded directly to

the Minister, so I know that she is aware of it. There is no

reason to rehearse here today the contents of this critique,

which clearly spells out that the finance formula is not

working in rural areas. I would like the Minister to explain

before we get to the estimates what the rationale is behind

trying to make a formula work which was never designed to work

in an economy where costs are escalating to the extent that

they have been in the last couple of years.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us in just as few minutes as

it has taken to ask the question: what is the design? What is

the policy? What is the forecast for the change in this finance

formula? She must know it is not working. What is the forecast

of change in the formula and what will those changes be?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I share the

Member's concern. The present formula does not create equity,

and actually that is another philosophical discussion we can

get into, whether equity will have to prevail.

There are some areas of the province, I think the Member

would agree, where we may have to always put in extra

financing. However, as you know there is no point in just

tinkering with the formula — a formula which you know was

created under the former government and which I know we have a

responsibility for.

AN HON. MEMBER: It worked for a period.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It worked for a period of time — you are

right. But I think that we know now that it is not the formula

to meet the needs today.

I'm sure the Member can appreciate that to make a major

change in the educational finance formula does take time

because you are also going to have to tie it in with changes in

assessment policy, with overall government taxation policy and

with the whole very sensitive area of local versus provincial

contribution to educational finance.

I think you can appreciate the fact that with all those

areas to look into it is not something that one can create

overnight. Now you may say we are now in our third year. All I

can say to you is that it is a major overhaul involving other

departments such as finance also. Our own department is right

into it now and has been. We're into looking at the finance

formula. We've been working with the teachers and

[ Page 1874 ]

the trustees on it for several months now. Then, of course,

we have to tie it in with the Department of Finance with

reference to those other areas.

So all I can say to you is that I wish we had a new formula

today but it is a major, major task which takes time to

accomplish.

MR. SCHROEDER: In addition, may I ask: are there no

recommendations? Is anything in the gears now that would say

that there is a hope within the next two or three or four years

of coming up with a revised formula — perhaps a different

system of designating funds entirely? Is anything in the

gears?

The Minister says that it takes time. The Lord knows that if

we don't get started it will never get done.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wish to reassure the Member that there

are a number of alternatives already right before the

committee. So it has gone past the stage of just sitting and

saying we have a problem. We are now facing certain

recommendations on alternative ways.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I wish to support

the motion, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the Hon. Minister a few

questions about inconsistency — 180 degree inconsistency in

both the philosophy and the administration of this government

and as it relates to her Department of Education.

I am going to relate to two specific areas and both of these

areas deal, Mr. Chairman, with the providing of services.

Firstly, it seems, Mr. Chairman, that the government has

apparently accepted without qualification or question that

education is a service that should be provided without

interruption and without strikes and without lockouts. The

government has inherited that concept and the government has

not seen fit to amend or to qualify that concept. I'd say that

in so doing the government has carried on with a long-time

statutory requirement of this province that has bound the

teachers, bound the trustees and bound the taxpayers. This

statutory requirement and this concept has had long-time public

acceptability, Mr. Chairman. That public acceptability has not

waned, but I would say it is stronger today than it ever was.

Education both in the philosophical sense and by law of this

province is a service that is supposed to be provided without

cessation and a service that is not supposed to be closed down

by strikes or by lockouts.

Who agrees with that premise? Well, this is who agrees: society agrees; the

teachers agree; the trustees agree; the parents agree; and the taxpayers agree.

There is universal agreement because education is the agreed necessity. So we

find there has been universal agreement that the shop is supposed to be open

and the job is supposed to be able to be done.

The job was being done until it was discovered by those who

are in peripheral and supportive service that they could

cripple the system. I say that that is not right. I say there

is no reason why the maintenance personnel, the grass cutters,

the boiler operators or the custodian janitors should have the

privilege of shutting down the educational system which society

does not wish to have shut down and which society has

legislated shall be open, Mr. Chairman, and be permitted to

operate and to function.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds

I would remind him that matters that require legislation cannot

be dealt with in committee. Secondly, you should confine your

remarks to the administrative responsibility of this particular

Minister. With that cautionary word I would ask the Hon. Member

to proceed.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed I shall confine

my remarks to the administrative responsibility of this

Minister.

It seems to me that it is the administrative responsibility

of the Minister of Education to see that the schools in this

province shall be open. I'd say that this Minister, Mr.

Chairman, has committed the ultimate heresy in dodging the

problem and in avoiding the issue and just gandy-dancing away

from a decision. Her only approach to leadership in this point

was to become a sick-bay attendant, along with the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King). All she has been practising with this

very vexing problem is Micawberism, while the closure of the

school system, on and off for some six weeks, was permitted by

a few hundred CUPE maintenance workers, and which was

engineered contrary to the philosophy of our educational

legislation in this province and contrary to the desires and to

the wishes of the taxpayers of this province. That is

considerable inconsistence on the part of the Minister.

I'd say to the Hon. Minister that if taxpayers are required

by law to pay to keep schools open, and if trustees and

teachers are required by law to keep schools open and they

themselves, by law, come under binding arbitration, why, by

law, aren't the schools kept open and why, by law, don't all

school personnel come under binding arbitration as a condition

of service? That's in the public interest. It's common sense

and that would bring consistency into the legislative process.

I'd say that is leadership, and that is what is required.

Unfortunately, that is what has been abdicated by this

Minister.

The second area of inconsistence is this — it deals with another topic — I

refer to the very cardinal statement in the Premier's budget, March, 1975,

which, I suppose, in view of the enormous deficit of

[ Page

1875 ]

ICBC, is going to be reviewed and revised by the Hon.

Minister of Finance before this session comes to an end — but

we find in this budget this statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: A deficit budget.

MR. GARDOM: As my friend says, it is a deficit budget.

Indeed it is.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: It's not a factual budget, Mr. Premier. You know

that full well. You delivered to this Legislature and to this

province a budget that is not factual, and you have the

capacity to know that it was not factual when you delivered

it.

The statement is this: "It is our belief that it is the

government's responsibility to provide basic services to all

children, regardless of where these children are being

educated." The great question is: to what will basic services

extend? One would assume that it would extend to reading,

writing, and arithmetic, but they've decided to fob that off

onto a committee of seven, comprised of six veteran Members of

this Legislature of the NDP, both in opposition and in

government, and the one newcomer over there, no-gun-control

Jack. Six out of those seven people have talked, have

considered, have caucused and have researched this question

year after year after year, and all they've been instructed to

do is report by August 1, 1975. The scantiest terms of

reference; no promises of governmental action.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Right.

MR. GARDOM: But they could sit down and they could hand down

a decision before this Legislature comes to an end. They could

have some briefs; they could hold hearings before this

immediate session ends. The report, Mr. Chairman, can be tabled

and can be acted upon before the start of school year, fall,

What is proposed is merely a smokescreen to prevent the

government from furnishing any aid by the fall of 1975 and just

dangling forth a committee report as a political stratagem.

There's no responsibility whatsoever upon this government to

act upon any kind of a report that may be delivered by August

1, 1975. We find the committee rooms of this House, Mr.

Chairman are not being used in the mornings. They could be well

used by this committee starting tomorrow morning if there's a

genuine interest and a genuine desire to come up with an

approval and a recommendation for reform in this particular

area.

I cannot believe for one minute that the proposed members of this committee

do not today have the knowledge and the information and the expertise they require

for this report. If they haven't got it, they certainly have been doing an awful

lot of fence-sitting over the past seven or eight years. They all know there

are approximately 23,000 students attending independent schools in this province

and attending elementary schools and secondary schools. They know that there

are about 150 independent schools providing this type of education.

They know that if these schools close their doors, the

public purse would encounter a $25 million bill this coming

fall, because it is the government's responsibility to educate.

They also know that the only concession of this government to

the independent school system since they took power has been to

say: "Yes, you can go to the federal counting house and receive

some federal money for the federal minority-language

programme." They just said: "Okay, you're entitled to take some

of the Ottawa money off the table." Yet still today, B.C.

school buses still pass by independent school children, still

leave them standing in the rain. What does the government

really need to have to form a committee to know about that?

They already know that.

They also know right today there are available teacher aids

sitting on the shelf being denied to teachers and students and

children of taxpayers and citizens of this province for no

reason whatsoever but the continuing and the adamant refusal of

this government to shift from a stubborn and a bigoted

position.

Isn't the job that has to be done one of educating? Is there

any reason why the fortunate — if you'd like to put it that way

- cannot share with the less fortunate, particularly when both

fund that which is desired to be shared?

Look at the school board resource centres and the kind of

materials they have that are denied the independent schools,

which could happen this afternoon by merely the Minister

saying, yes, they shall be entitled to receive these kinds of

aid: 16 mm. films, 8 mm. films, 35 mm. slides, records, models,

film strips, transparencies, flat pictures, audiotape

cassettes, videotapes, relief maps, books, supplementary texts — and films, under these titles: "Body Defences Against

Disease"; "Let's discuss Smoking;" "Girl to Woman, Boy to Man";

"About the Human Body"; "Common Cold"; "They Call it White

Man's Border"; "What Colour are You?"; "The City — Heaven and

Hell." There are film topics in every area: art, biology,

home economics, industry, language, mathematics, music, primary

topics, social studies, safety, teacher training and

vocational-technical.

Is it too much to ask, without waiting until August 1, 1975,

that these aids be made available now, today, this afternoon?

Who in the heck needs a committee to reach this kind of a

decisions? As the

[ Page 1876 ]

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. G.F. Gibson) said

to me, do the right thing.

If the schools meet the standards....

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, that's absolute nonsense. You're

perpetuating the heavy hand of the state by denying these

people their rightful entitlement and you know it, Mr. Premier.

If the schools meet the standards, if they do the job, they

should be entitled to support. There's no question of a doubt

that this is enriched education, and by virtue of the fact that

it is enriched education undertaken at independent request and

desire under those circumstances, certainly they should be able

and expected to contribute to it, but there's no reason why

they should be denied the support of the state when they

support the state. You have not done the right thing, and I

think merely to shift this off into a committee when you have

the information today, when I would suggest the mind has

already been made up because the people who are on this

committee are people who have considered this problem since you

sat in opposition over here.... Now that you're sitting in

government, why are you waiting until August 1, 1975? Are you

prepared to give — since I'm getting a lot of chitchat across

the floor from the Premier this afternoon, with a little more

smoke than light, as usual — an unequivocal commitment, since

these seem to have turned into his estimates over the Minister

of Education, that the report will be acted upon for the school

year commencing September 1, 1975?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What party are you running for?

"Down-the-Tube Garde," they call him.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, we haven't yet received that unequivocal commitment from the Hon. Liberal as to which party

he's running from, so I think I'll take the same tack.

In answer to your first question re strikes which close up schools, no one

is ever happy with that situation. This government believes, of course, in abiding

by the present labour relations code of the province to solve this, but apparently

the Liberal Party believes in the heavy hand of centralization. If we follow

through the argument of the Member who has stood up, we might as well eliminate

school boards, because what he's asking is to have the Minister step in. Even

without the school board saying it needs assistance, I'm to step in and interfere

in their local autonomy and in their rights and responsibilities as trustees

to manage the affairs of their own district. So I really think, Mr. Member,

that it's quite clear now what the Liberal policy is on that: centralized government,

with possible elimination of school boards. If we follow your argument to the

point that you're leading us, that's all that we're faced with.

This government happens to believe in the school boards;

they happen to believe in local autonomy. Whenever a school

board asks for assistance from the Minister of Labour, in the

case of a strike, the Minister of Labour is always ready to

give that assistance.

But during the last strike in Victoria, right up to the very

end we were asked by the school board to let them handle it in

their own manner. If you do not abide by this, you are saying

in essence: "No, you don't have your own autonomy in

labour-management relationships, and I'm stepping in with the

heavy hand of government." If that's your policy, we don't

happen to agree with it. I don't think the school boards of the

province would agree with the Liberal policy on that.

Basic education. We went through all this last night, Mr.

Member. You do know that at the present time we do provide free

textbooks, which is one thing, to all independent schools. You

know the committee has been set up. As the Premier said, this

government believes in public input. That's why this committee

has been set up. You are looking at it in a very simplistic

manner when you say: Why don't you do this? Why don't you

provide audiovisual tapes? Why don't you provide this to the

independent schools?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down! Sit down!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We believe in consulting with the school

boards. Here again, you can't ignore the school boards of the

province. Most of those services would have to emanate from

some core, obviously a school board centre. To just announce it

is going to be done, without discussing it with the school

boards, is not the way I believe in going.

The committee has a major job: to look at all basic

services. You are asking us to do it in a very piecemeal,

off-the-cuff sort of way. We don't intend to look at it in that

manner. That is why we structured this committee.

I want to conclude by saying that, after listening to the

other Liberal Members last night, particularly the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who said the

system was in a state of disaster, it is very nice to hear the

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) stand up and

compliment me on the excellent programmes in the public school

system which he would like to see disseminated to the

independent schools.

MR. GARDOM: Just a couple of questions here, Mr. Chairman. I

wasn't talking about the elimination of school boards, not

once. I wasn't talking about the

[ Page 1877 ]

elimination of trustees or teacher, I was talking about the

law of the land being consistently applied. If the teachers and

the trustees have to face binding arbitration which is the

concept which has been accepted by society to keep the schools

open, why shouldn't the maintenance men in the schools be

similarly under binding arbitration so the schools can be kept

open? This is the concept that you are missing. You can try to

twist it as much as you wish. You've got that point; you know

what the point is; you're just not reacting to it. You're not

giving any kind of leadership to the province; you're just

ducking.

You've developed two sets of laws: one, the law for the

teacher; one, the law for the trustees; one, the law for the

taxpayers — they've got to conform — but, no, the people who

work in the schools and provide the supplementary services can

shut down the whole system. And you say I am talking about the

elimination of school boards! I am talking about the

elimination of improper school closure. That's what I am

talking about.

You were discussing the independent schools and what was or

was not going to be provided there, and the heavy hand of the

state again. Will you say to the school boards in this province

today that, yes, you may provide teacher aides if you wish?

Will you say to them that, yes, you may provide busing if you

wish? Will you answer those questions?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It is certainly very clear there is a

basic philosophical difference between the Liberals and the NDP

on the whole matter of labour relations.

The teachers have chosen their way of bargaining and the

other groups have chosen their system.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the law?

MR. GARDOM: The law!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: And the law, right. But the teachers have

theirs.

MR. GARDOM: They didn't choose; it's the Act!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The point is that we just have a basic

philosophical difference on labour relations, Mr. Member. I am

just trying to point out to you that if we did follow through

to what you are saying, no question about it, you would start

imposing on the local school boards at this time. Have they

come to you and asked for this?

MR. GARDOM: We wouldn't be encroaching in any way.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: They haven't come to you and asked for it. They haven't

come to you and asked for a change in this. I don't think you can stand up and

say they have.

Will we do this or give this to the independent schools? I

just have to reiterate: we believe in going,about this thing

in a proper, orderly manner, not on a piecemeal basis.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): This is the first

opportunity I have had to engage in this debate, and I welcome

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member

proceeds, I would like to note that the previous Members have

not fully appreciated the fact that we are debating the

amendment to vote 38. I would remind the Hon. Member of

that.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for reminding me of the

fact that we are debating an amendment to the vote of the

salary of the Hon. Minister of Education to reduce her salary

by $1 as a mark and an expression of the fact that we have no

confidence in the policies of this Minister of Education. I

intent to direct my remarks strictly to that particular

matter.

I would say this, Mr. Chairman: since the appointment of

this Minister as the Minister of Education, we have had nothing

but a state of constant confusion in the educational system in

this province.

The Minister has changed direction so many times nobody

knows what her real policy is. She has not been able to explain

during the hours when this debate is taking place what her

policy is — in fact, if she has a policy at all. She has talked

in the last two minutes about the consultations with school

boards — consultation with school boards is a laugh in this

province at the present time. It's a joke.

In the last two years the Minister of Education either

knowingly or unknowingly has led the school boards of this

province down the garden path. She has encouraged them to

innovate new programmes; she's encouraged school boards to

reduce the class sizes in every class in the province, although

there is a great question whether the reduction in the size of

classes has anything to do with the educational standard of the

students in those particular classes. She's asked every school

district in the province to institute full kindergarten courses

for those under six years of age; she's asked for more

librarians, more teachers' aides. Then, when all of this

programme is in process, she's written a "Dear John" letter to

every school board in the province which says, in effect: "I'm

sorry. We can't afford these new innovations. The province is

only able to pay for part of them. It's up to you now to figure

out how you are going to finance them."

[ Page 1878 ]

She must have realized, in encouraging the introduction of

these programmes, that it was going to cost additional funds

and money. There's no question about that. We have to assume

she realized this and that the educational system with these

new innovations would cost more money.

At that time it was also an obligation on the part of the

Minister of Education to project far enough down the trail to

at least give the school boards some indication as to where

that money was going to come from. After all, these programmes

were foisted upon them at the insistence of the Minister of

Education and now she draws back from them and says that she is

sorry they are too costly and the school boards are going to

have to do something to trim their budgets.

We have seen a profusion of so-called solutions to the

problems of education put before us in the province in the last

few years. I can name a few of them: team teaching; programmed

learning; flexible modular timetables; permissive attendance

and so on.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You know when that started.

MR. SMITH: Yes, I know when it started and I am not blaming

you for all of these innovations because they were part and

parcel of a programme that started before you were Minister of

Education. I agree. Differentiated staffing; accountability;

cost fads that have been very costly to the taxpayers of the

province. In some respects it's been the

cart-before-the-horse-approach.

I am not blaming the Minister for all of these innovations

because some of them came before her time. But let me say this:

each of the innovations introduced by the Minister since she

took office have been, to a great extent, costly programmes. It

has given rise to the belief that the more money you pour into

the system, the better the education. Well, there is good

reason to believe now, as there was in previous years, that

money is not the answer or the solution to our educational

programme entirely.

The problem is that we are turning out of our high school

system, from the grade 12 level, too high a percentage of

students who are practically illiterate. They can't read

properly. They can't write properly. They know nothing about

the basic concepts of life that they will have to face after

they leave the grade 12 level.

I have to say that for a Minister who, before she became

Minister, had all the answers to the problems of education in

the Province of British Columbia — in a period of almost three

years she has not given to the public of this province one

programme which has resulted in increasing the standards or the

type of students or the programme that the students wish to

have in the Province of British Columbia.

Many reports have been written about the educational system and I am only going

to refer briefly to a comment made in The Victorian of February 21, 1975, written

by one Ken Hinkins, and the headline is: "Kids Robbed of Birthright," and below

that, "What In Hell Are Teachers Doing?" Now he expresses a concern that, after

sitting in a class at UVic, he found that a great number of those students could

not read properly or write properly. Yet here they are through the public school

system, trying to go into advanced education.

Students say that because they attended classes they were

given A's regardless of whether they deserved them or not, just

because they didn't goof off. Is that anything to be proud of

in our educational system? I suggest not.

I think the observations of Mr. Hinkins are shared by a

great number of concerned parents in the province today, by a

great number of concerned career educators and also by a great

number of concerned students, who are more painfully aware than

anybody else of the shortcomings of our educational system.

I was interested to read a short time ago a letter to the

Alaska Highway News written on behalf of the students of

the junior high school in Hudson's Hope. Do you know what that

letter said, Mr. Chairman? Well, it chastized the trustees of

School District 60 for not insisting that teachers return

discipline and order to the classroom.

I'll paraphrase what they said because I don't have the

letter before me. They said this: "We are convinced that the

majority of students in this school are here to learn. We

strongly object to the present practice which allows a few

unruly students to disrupt the learning process of the

majority."

We have to ask why that is allowed to continue in the

classrooms in the Province of British Columbia.

The Minister must take some responsibility in this respect.

At the senior high school level we have an increasing number of

students today who are genuinely concerned that their time

spent in the high school system in this province is a waste of

time. It's undisciplined, undirected, uninspired, unchallenged

and completely out of touch with the real world they will enter

after graduation whether they go on to higher education or

whether they go into vocational schools or whatever it is.

It comes now as a complete shock to these students that the

educational system in this province has failed them, that they

graduate from high school after spending most of their junior

years there only to find out they know nothing about the world

outside them or how to cope with the problems of a job in this

world today.

What kind of leadership is that?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): That came under your jurisdiction

except for the last three or four

[ Page 1879 ]

years.

MR. SMITH: What kind of leadership is that? Someone down the

line here says that that came under our jurisdiction. I suggest

to you, Madam Minister, that for all the ideas that you had

before you became Minister, you should have put some of them

into force to improve the educational system.

I agree that the educational system is continuously

changing. But that is the reason for the motion that we have

before this House this afternoon: that you did not and you seem

unwilling to change the educational system to meet the demands

of the students of the students of this province today. They're

not even concerned about what happened to their predecessors

that came through the school system. What they want is a system

of education which will turn them out at the high school level

with some reason to believe they'll be able to fit into the

process of the business world and the economic world beyond

that high school level with some competence, some assurance on

their part that the system has done something for them.

I've even had high school students — I think they say it

seriously and conscientiously — tell me that too many of the

teachers in the senior high school system today are more

interested in inviting groups of students to their homes for

wine and pot parties than they are in teaching and that's a....

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MR. SMITH: Okay. Disagree if you like, but these kinds of

comments are becoming far too frequent from the students

themselves. Not from their parents, not from the teachers, not

from the educators, not from the counsellors, but from the high

school students themselves who feel that they're being

shortchanged by the educational system in the province. That's

a sorry commentary when we have to go to the students to find

out what is really going on in the system today.

No wonder we have so many people concerned with the erosion

of authority, so many people who are genuinely concerned in the

educational system today. We have concerned principals,

directors, and district superintendents who will say frankly

that they believe that they are persona non grata in the

educational world of this Minister. Yet they are professional

people who have been in the system long enough to know, not

only the good points but also the pitfalls of the system.

There are too many indications that our educational system is failing in two

major areas: first of all, in the level of performance in reading, writing,

speaking and arithmetic and, secondly, in developing among students a sense

of responsibility and citizenship. What are the answers? It was suggested the

new panacea was smaller classes. But, tell me, what are the smaller classes

the answer to? Are they the answer to raising the level of competency in the

language arts, in restoring the work ethic in this province? Are they the answer

to developing attitudes of courtesy and respect for others, including property,

Mr. Minister — including property? I'd like to ask the Minister if she has a

list of specific educational priorities, the attainment of which is dependent

entirely upon the size of the class? If that is true, what are they and when

will they be tabled in this House?

Studies have been made, not only in this country but in the

United States, indicating that class sizes arc not the answer

to any problem. When are we going to establish educational

priorities? Secondly, when are we going to determine the means

of achieving these priorities in this province? Thirdly, when

are you going to hold educational personnel responsible for

implementing these priorities? Fourthly, when are you going to

be courageous enough to insist that in our school system we do

a few things well? It's not that we have to be all things to

all students, but that we do a few things well so that we will

not have a graduating class coming out of high school either

this year or in future years severely handicapped and

disappointed because the educational system in this province

has failed them. That, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, is the

reason that we have moved this vote of non-confidence in the

Minister, because too many students in too many areas from too

wide a cross-section of this province and the communities of

this province have said to us that the educational system, as

they experience it, through particularly the junior and senior

high school levels, has failed them. They know it, we know it,

the Minister of Education must know it and all we have asked is

for her to give us her ideas of how she's going to correct

it.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can see that there

is a basic grain of concern threading its way through that

speech that was full of generalizations. I give you credit for

a very small concern there for what's happening in the system,

but you couched it in completely generalized terms and I think.... Well, you are being patronizing and you are showing basic

ignorance, Mr. Member, when you make these generalized

statements.

Now I want to start with one which I consider is not only

showing basic ignorance, but which has done a great injustice

to the dedicated teachers of this province. You made a

statement in this House referring to a group of students to

whom you've spoken and who suggested to you that all their

teachers did was invite them to their houses for parties. Now

when you make a statement like that, you are smearing every

dedicated teacher in this province. I hope that the teachers of

this province

[ Page 1880 ]

pick up this statement in Hansard , because those are

the kinds of statements that create more demoralization in the

school system. The demoralization you are talking about you are

encouraging with those smear statements.

Now when you talk about, "we're not happy with this

Minister; there's no change," even though you couched

your speech in generalizations, I obviously will have to go

back over it again with some specifics. What have we done?

You're concerned, as I am, Mr. Member, with producing a student

out of this system who will be a good citizen, who will have

basic skills, to meet whatever job opportunities they should

decide to enter into, and to be adaptable. We agree basically,

all of us, I think on the goals.

Then you say: "But nothing's happening." These same speeches

are being made in every jurisdiction in education across Canada

and the United States today, because everyone is concerned with

where we're going in education, because the young people are

being brought up in a society which is in constant turmoil and

changing around them at all times. So when you're responsible

for education, you have to be aware of what those particular

changes are. You have to try to prophesy the directions to go,

which makes it exceedingly difficult. However, we have not sat

back for three years, as you are suggesting in your speech.

What have we done? We've been concerned about the dropouts.

We have created for the first time in this province a very

comprehensive work-study programme where the young people,

particularly around the grade 10 level, who were becoming

somewhat disenchanted with school and wondering what meaning it

has for them, could go out and work in industry, in business,

on farms, or in any area in which they express some interest.

But the point is: we are keeping the door open so that they can

come back and continue their studies.

This work-study programme has been received very well by the school boards

of the province. Up in your own area — North Peace River — when I met with the

mayor in Fort Nelson, and with the aldermen, to talk about the work-study programme

they were delighted and said: "Well, this is good. For the first time we have

a Department of Education that actually perceives the educational problems peculiar

to the northern region." They said that they can't keep skilled technicians

for their large equipment machinery. They keep them a few months, as the Member

well knows, and then they go. So we have suggested to them that we can take

some of those high school students, boys and girls, out of the high school around

the grade 10, 11 and 12 levels, and these students can go into these plants

and can actually work there and learn how to run this heavy equipment — boys

and girls, I want to repeat. Then they can go back and continue at the same

time with some of their school programmes. They were delighted because they

said this was going to give them the technical labour skill which is needed

and they hope it will encourage the young people in those schools, when they

have completed this work-study programme, to actually stay in the north and

work there.

So that is one area that has been received very well. That

is trying to meet the needs of the young people today who are

somewhat disenchanted by the time they get to the grade 10

level.

We have also encouraged the whole look at the restructuring

of the grade system. For example, is the grade system that was

imposed upon us by the Chant commission for grades 8, 9, 10, 11

and 12 really workable today? So what I have said to the school

boards of the province is: "You go ahead, and if you can

find a restructuring grade system which you think meets the

needs of your community, you have the authority from me to go

ahead and move on that." So the boards across the province are

meeting the needs of their local communities on their own and

they are restructuring the grade system.

We have also been very concerned, as you know, about the

small school. I have repeated this three times so I just want

to run over it very quickly, but the Member does seem to

purposely ignore these changes. Some parents say they do not

want their children to go hundreds of miles away to a

comprehensive school, so now we have encouraged the return of

the small school, at the junior secondary level

particularly.

MR. SMITH: How are you going to overcome the teaching

problems in the small school?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Member, I was just talking to district

superintendents about this, and I admit it is a problem. One

area in which we have assisted is in the development of our

teacher internship programme, and the superintendents in the

northern regions are very pleased with this. The Department of

Education has financed considerably this internship programme

so that some of these young teachers are going up and spending

a whole year in the north. Hopefully, some of them will

discover that it is a good place to live. At the same time,

they are working there to alleviate the teacher shortage to

some degree, although at the same time they are under the

supervision of a qualified teacher.

The whole area of the community college is one that the

Member doesn't seem to refer to at all — the expansion by this

government of the community college system. Here again is an

excellent area where the young people who have left school and

decide they want to go back can complete grade 12. This is a

marvelous entry system for many young people who can't go back

or do not wish to go back because they

[ Page

1881 ]

are too old for the regular high school and now they can

make a re-entry into the college system.

We also, as you know, have reinstitute the grade 12

equivalent exam. It can be a short cut. There are many people

who have gone out into the working world and just through their

own work experience and their own study find they are ready to

write the grade 12 equivalency test. This means they don't have

to go back to school; if they have the ability we give them the

chance to write it. This has worked particularly well with the

inmates of our prisons, and I am sure some of you read recently

in the paper of the number of inmates who have taken and

written the grade 12 equivalency and now, when they leave that

environment, they are equipped with grade 12. This has been

done through the encouragement of the Department of

Education.

We are attempting to make basic changes in the curriculum.

Your concern is that the students say that it isn't relevant.

We've heard that cry for the last 10 or 20 years and it will

probably continue. I don't think we will ever be able to

convince all students that everything they are taught is

relevant. There are certain things that have to be learned

anyway, but certainly we want to encourage them to stay in

school. That's why we have set up regional community curriculum

committees so that there is local involvement, which your

leader keeps talking about, almost implying there is none going

on in this province.

Under my Ministry it has increased tremendously by the very

fact that now teachers are involved in local curriculum

decision-making. The parents are being invited to the schools,

and I've encouraged these meetings. I think you're going to see

some very interesting community programmes locally developed in

the schools of our province.

Then we were talking again about the fact that students

going to UVic can't read and so on, and that was one particular

test given which I referred to before, but that doesn't mean

that we accept the fact everything's all right. So I guess I

have to repeat again that we have an assessment programme going

on language arts followed by a provincial testing programme,

which obviously the past government didn't come to grips with.

They were responsible, basically, for what happened in the

'60s. I refuse to take the responsibility for graduates or what

happened in the '60s, but I certainly take the responsibility

for what is to happen from hereon in, and that is why we are

moving on our provincial testing programme.

You seem to suggest that when I advocated the reduction of class size I said

it was a panacea. At no time did I say that. I think if you'll look back on

all the public statements I've made on the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio,

I always qualified it by saying that it simply must go along with change in

instructional style. It is no panacea and I agree with the

Member on that.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wonder if, before I make a few

comments, I might have some clarification. The amendment is to

reduce the salary of the Minister, and there are some good

reasons why I support that, but there are many other areas I'd

like to talk about. Everybody who's spoken yesterday and today

seems to be all over the ballpark on education and I wonder if

we could have some determination as to whether we're going

specifically to talk about the issues of why the Minister

should have her salary reduced, and get on after that amendment

vote to the more general issues of education.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is well taken. There

have been three speakers so far this afternoon. The last

speaker, I might point out, was totally relevant to the

amendment. I would ask that we continue that good example, and

I would ask the Hon. Member for Oak Bay to speak to the

amendment and leave general questions until later.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Vicious

attack!

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, one or two areas would

relate to the amendment.

First of all, I'd like to refer to a communication which the

Minister had in December, 1974, from a teacher in Terrace. The

letter was labelled "personal and confidential." I don't want

to identify names; I just want to find out what action, if any,

was taken.

This teacher wrote a letter making serious accusations about

what was going on at Skeena Junior Secondary School, and

enclosed a copy of an

article from a local newspaper, the

News Advertiser of December 3, 1974, relating to some

unruly incident carried out by some grade 8 students. That

particular incident is not itself too important to the total

issue, but within this letter the teacher, who has since

herself resigned — I'd like to amplify some of her comments in

a moment — made certain accusations against two individuals who

are in an administrative capacity in the school system in

Skeena and said that there had been harassment and

intimidation, and that, in fact, three teachers had filed

charges against these two administrative people but

subsequently the repercussions of this episode were that one of

the teachers was dismissed, and the other two harassed to the

extent that one of them sought a transfer and the other one

subsequently resigned.

The teacher who wrote the letter made the suggestion that a

professional evaluation team be sent into the Skeena secondary

school because the situation was far from satisfactory, and I

gather some

[ Page 1882 ]

similar kind of evaluation was done in the Cowichan district

when the efficiency of the system was under question.

The other point which this teacher made was the very

effective way in which teachers are silenced by the instrument

known as the "principal's report." This letter which was

written to the Minister asking for her to take action suggested

that this whole influence of the principal's report should be

taken into consideration in the professional evaluation that

might take place. In fairness to the writer of the letter, she

went on to say: "I realize I have made some extremely serious

allegations, and because of this I have thought a long time

before writing you. I hope you will not think I am embarking on

a campaign of character assassination because of a grudge."

Now that is the portent of what this teacher felt in her own

experience, and I want to mention some of the other comments

made by teachers, including the one I've just referred to. But

first of all, could I leave that question with the Minister:

what action was taken in the light of the serious allegations?

Was some investigation carried out, and is the Minister

satisfied that if there were problems in the administration in

Skeena Junior Secondary or in the school board related to that

school, the problem has been corrected?

The other comments I will make briefly relate to points

raised by teachers who feel that the system is really failing

badly and that, really, it seems to be the bureaucracy that

counts and not the actual peripheral part of the system which

results in the teaching.

taught for 20 years in Terrace. She says she is becoming

has been deteriorating steadily but is definitely getting worse

much quicker in the last three or four years." She says: "We

are probably on the second generation of non-reading television

watchers." She can't even write questions on the blackboard

anymore because the children not only can't write but they

can't read.

The feeling expressed by others is certainly that while it

is of some value to encourage children to be creative,

definitely the basic skills have been neglected. I would like

to refer to the Minister's answer of a moment ago when she

said, quite rightly, that she is not prepared to suffer for the

sins of what might have happened in the '60s. I would like to

ask if the Minister feels that it is such a long, drawn-out

process before standards deteriorate or before they can be

upgraded.

I would like to quote a very recent example which I just checked out on the

phone yesterday. We have heard a great deal about this kind of heading — the

illiterates at university. This specific example relates to the students in

a chemistry class at UBC. I am quoting the teacher concerned, who is professor

Ray Green. He tells me that at Christmas at UBC, 50 per cent of the students

chemistry and other subjects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It would appear that the Hon.

Member is entering into a general discussion under the

Minister's estimates. Perhaps we could dispose of the amendment

and then proceed on to the consideration of the vote.

MR. WALLACE: I am busy trying to determine to what degree

the Minister is negligent in dealing with this in a more hasty

fashion. We have repeated statements that the trouble started

in the '60s, and she is not taking the blame for that. We have

now got a press release which tells us about some rather

circuitous way in which various studies are going to be set up.

To quote the Minister's press release.... If you'll just give

me a moment, Mr. Chairman, I think I can relate my remarks to

the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. WALLACE: In the press release of April 11, the Minister

states: "Schools have been attacked by some and defended by

others without the necessary evidence to support either claim."

I am trying to support the claim that the evidence is very

clearly demonstrated by teachers themselves and by

universities. We have the Minister talking about an assessment

programme and a pilot project in language arts. The whole press

release suggests that it takes a rather detailed and lengthy

and involved study to find out, first of all, if there is a

problem and, if there is a problem, the dimension of the

problem.

In my view, the repeated publicizing, particularly by the

universities, as to what the problem is.... The case I was

trying to quote, Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted, relates

to one experience in UBC by the department I have quoted. When

50 per cent of the students failed their Christmas exams,

largely because of the communication problem, not necessarily

because of the content of the questions and answers, the

university was quite understandably in a tremendous uproar.

was doubling up in certain other classes. This same teacher at

the university reports to me that in the exams of the last few

weeks, the failure rate has returned to the normal average of

around 7 per cent.

On investigating and on discussion with the students, the

appalling situation was discovered that their capacity to read

and write and to understand even what the questions were that

they were being asked and being able in a comprehensive way to

reply to the question was the basic problem and the reason

[ Page 1883 ]

they had a 50 per cent failure rate.

The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that if the

university, in a moment of panic and concern when they get

staggered by this kind of discovery that the first-year

students after three months of university can't understand an

examination paper and can't write enough to answer the

questions but can smarten up the situation between Christmas

and Easter...I just have to ask the question: why do we need

all these pilot projects and language art studies, and the kind

of very involved and, to my mind, typically bureaucratic

approach to what is a pretty obvious problem?

Beyond that, how often do we talk in this society about the

wonders of technology, the technology that creates an

artificial kidney or puts a man on the moon?

Don't we have some pretty obvious basic access to technology

in regard to methods of teaching our children to read and

write? I don't think we need any long and involved study. We

don't think we need any long and involved study. We don't need

to measure precisely how bad the problem is. We just know it is

mighty bad, and we know that the people in British Columbia are

spending a pile of money on education and are expressing real

concern as to the product from our high schools in terms of the

very basic capacity to communicate through reading and

writing.

So I ask the Minister if, on reconsideration, and in the

light of the kind of rapid results that were obtained at UBC

when one group — I don't know how many students were involved.... But there is little doubt that in that one particular

example the students have been instructed over a crash-course

type of programme to interpret questioning and to transmit, in

turn, their own thoughts to paper. Whether this was achieved in

a short time or not really isn't the point.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, that children are coming out of

high school with this tremendous gap in their capacity to

communicate. Surely the first requirement of any educational

experience is either the ability to comprehend what you are

being told or your capacity to respond or take initiative in

passing information on to others. I would like the Minister to

comment on that.

The other area on which I would just like to touch briefly was an excellent

statement made by a teacher in the interior who appeared before the committee

at one stage last summer. I have the greatest respect for this teacher. She

also happens to be a very loyal member of the NDP. She quoted the White Paper

in its particular reference to the supportive role of administration to classroom

activity. This is another reason why I have to support the amendment: in my

view, the educational system, as this lady pointed out, is a hierarchy, and

the higher up you get in the hierarchy, the more power and authority is in the

hands of administrators, with an increasing limitation of any kind of real authority

or capacity to introduce initiatives on the part of the actual teachers.

The White Paper infers that the role of administration is

one of support of the classroom activity, but the position this

teacher — and, I know, many other teachers — holds is that the

people in the superior positions in the hierarchy actually

direct the work of those under them. They don't support the

work of the teacher in the classroom; they direct. There is a

very big difference.

This particular teacher makes the point that there should be

a more efficient method of distributing the responsibility to

make decisions, and that this would put more real authority in

the hands of the teacher in the classroom. I wonder if the

Minister would care to give us some evidence that there is, in

fact, greater policy on her part to give teachers the

initiative, the incentives, the capacity to take initiatives,

for example, in the choice of books.

One of the points raised by another teacher is that you

get dumped with your new books in late August or September, and

you go ahead and start teaching from the new books. And if, in

the course of three months, it turns out that these particular

changes in textbook are unsuitable, the teachers have very

little opportunity to have any say in this. By the time the

books are presented to the teacher, it is too late to make any

substantial changes.

The whole question of the silencing effect that I mentioned

to you by the principal's report; I wonder if the Minister is

prepared to do anything to try and make certain that this

influence in the system is not one such as to silence a teacher

who may have ideas and initiatives in a classroom or in a

school which are not suitable to the principal's ideas, and

therefore the teacher has the choice of either stifling her own

ideas and initiative or running the risk of antagonizing the

principal.

What incentives does the Minister offer to teachers to

develop new courses and new techniques and new materials? This

teacher said to me: "If you work out new ideas now you have to

do it in your own very scarce time, and often you get criticism

from colleagues who don't like to be shown up by someone else

who is prepared to put in more time than they are." Is this a

valid criticism? If it is, then it is a tremendous reflection

on the inhibiting effects that can be applied against the

teachers.

This teacher goes on to say:

"There is no one in the school who has the time to

take an interest in the actual science of teaching. All the extra

people in the system are busy administrating, disciplining and

counselling."

This teacher asked me to find out where the new courses are

invented. She just knows that they are

[ Page 1884 ]

thrust at the teachers in September of the teaching

year.

"(They) never have an opportunity to study or use the books ahead of their introduction to the pupil.

By the end of the year, when you find out that some of the

books are no good, the school district has already bought a

great lot."

I'd like to hear from the Minister: Who actually buys the

books? Who selects the books? Again, since the Minister

frequently, in opposition, talked-about the collegial approach,

a greater distribution of decisions-making, and the

participation of teachers and students and parents, I wonder if

she would care to make some comment on the question of books

and the opportunity of teachers to get a look at the books

before they're actually introduced or approved for the

teaching.

One of the last points I'd like to ask the Minister, in

relation to criticisms that have occurred, is on the

possibility of having a continuous school year so that staff

changes would be made throughout the tear and the change for

the children would not occur all at one time and be traumatic.

The teacher wouldn't have to spend the first two months getting

the kids back in shape after the summer holidays. Has there

been any thought given to the fact that holidays could be taken

at times appropriate to the local situation in regard to the

local job market, parents' holidays, farm production schedules

and matters of this sort? Isn't this the kind of initiative and

innovation that the Minister was always suggesting would be

listened to carefully and acted upon by government.

Last but not least, in relation to the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, it seems to me that the reason that some of the

unfortunate dismissal decisions have been taken by the Minister

relate in the first case to lack of delivery or lack of

performance, and the second in much the same way within a

six-month period but for somewhat different reasons. Does it

not seem contradictory Mr. Chairman, that here we have the

Minister two and a half years or more in office, who was

seeking exploration and dialogue on the educational system,

dismissing to highly educated professionals for their

performance? Here we are two and a half years down the road,

and the Minister herself has made very little in the way of

change based on the studies and the commissions that were

supposed to be carried out.

To be more specific, since the Minister is quite entitled to have specific

questions in relation to the accusation that she hasn't done much, I'd like

to ask, for example, what has happened within her department to the report Teacher

Education in British Columbia ? The Minister and the Premier accused Mr. Bremer,

for example, of being a bit of a flop. Yet among other things, I have here a

document which hasn't seen much publicity, entitled Teacher Education in British

Columbi a.

For the value of the House it should be pointed out that

this was a committee on teacher education which was set up in

the fall of 1973. A meeting was held at which 75 briefs were

presented. This thick report was finally the outcome of the

deliberations. There were some very substantial recommendations

presented on June 27, 1974. I won't take up the time of the

House to repeat the recommendations; there are a substantial

number of them.

That was in June, 1974. If there was some lack of

performance by these professional people who were set up to do

the job, here's one very tangible, visible report on the very

vital matter of teacher education. I just wonder if the

Minister would tell us what has happened to that one.

In my other hand, we've got the report which has seen a lot

more daylight, called Towards the Learning Community ,

which is the working paper on the community colleges in British

Columbia. I've noticed piecemeal announcements by the Minister

about certain parts of the college system. But the fact of the

matter is that this report is a very comprehensive one under

several headings; there must be a total of about 100

recommendations. Could the Minister, perhaps, in response tell

us to what degree action is being taken, or will be taken, on

the outcome of the report on community colleges.

I know that B.C.'s school trustees are very concerned about

teacher training. If I had more time I would have liked to

quote some of the statements I've collected from other teachers

who feel that the universities are doing an appalling job of

trying to provide appropriate and useful training for graduates

who are choosing to go into the teaching profession. In fact,

teacher training and teacher certification and teacher

discipline are all subjects that I know the trustees are very

concerned about.

I'm glad, at least on one point, that the Minister has

postponed until further meetings with the parties concerned any

consideration or action on the proposed teaching Act which was

put forward by the B.C. Teachers Federation. If it's any crumb

of consolation to the Minister, who is getting hammered from

all directions, at least we can agree on some things. I would

agree that we must approach the matter of a professional

teachers Act with the greatest of care and caution,

particularly if, in conjunction with such a proposed Act, the

B.C. Teachers Federation continues to insist on compulsory

membership of every teacher before he or she can teach in this

province. The Minister well knows that we're strongly opposed

to that. If, in addition to that, the Minister should make the

mistake of giving the teachers complete internal control of

training, certification and discipline when they also have the

capacity to take away union membership, then I think this would

be an absolute

[ Page

1885 ]

catastrophe in this province. The last point I wanted to

ask, Mr. Chairman, is: what is the future organization and

elective representation to be in relation to regional colleges

in British Columbia, and would she give us some...? Did you

want me to repeat that? I'm wondering, what the future planning

is as to the organization of regional colleges and elected

representation on the boards of regional colleges. In other

words, what is the Minister's response, to the report towards

the learning community?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, the Member has brought up a number

of questions here, and I'll try to deal with them — hopefully

not leaving out any of them.

The first one you mentioned was your great concern over what

had happened in a district in this province with reference to

some unfortunate situations between administration and

teachers. Those are the concerns which come over my desk and

which, I may say, I give most attention to. They are basic to

the whole system. If you have a demoralization setting in

between teachers and administration, it's a bad scene. I think

this is what I was trying to say to the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) yesterday. When I said

to the teachers of the convention, "Are you principals" — I was

also speaking to the principals — "responsive to the teachers

in your district?" — these were the messages I was trying to

give out to them. And what do we do about it?

You referred to the question of whether there couldn't be a

professional evaluation study team, similar to Cowichan. I want

to point out to the Member that that was done by the BCTF. They

were the ones who set up that team, and we were very pleased to

have it done. They sent their own peers in to evaluate, which I

think in your own profession you would appreciate. If I recall

correctly, I think that my reaction to this letter was the same

thing. I think this is a matter where their own peers should be

very firmly involved. I suggested that this be handled through

the B.C. Teachers Federation and discussed with them. At this

time I have no further comment on this, but I'm glad you

brought this one to my attention. I'll see what progress has

taken place there.

You were concerned that we hadn't done anything about this hierarchy which

exists in the school system. When I was speaking to the teachers, I said that

my main concern was with relationships within the hierarchy. You always get

down to human relationships. However, we concede that if there are hierarchical,

shall we say, restrictions which are causing unproductive work from teachers,

then you have to look at what those restrictions are. So what we have done,

Mr. Member, since you ask specifically, is that, as you recall, last year legislation

was passed regarding district superintendents — that they must consult with

their staffs in making major educational decisions. This was certainly a very

specific move towards increased consultation by the staff members and the teachers.

I would also like to tell you that the department is at present examining the

whole role u the principals within the school system, and there could be something

possibly coming out of that very shortly.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I've always encouraged staff committees within the system. I

fell that staff committees are beginning to spring up around

the districts. More and more principals are involving

themselves closely with staff committees.

Now you mentioned also that you were concerned that teachers

said they get new books thrust upon then. First of all, there's

been a tremendous improvement, I know, certainly since I taught

a very long time ago, in the matter of the supply of books and

the great variety of books given to teachers. You just walk

into a classroom today and look at the great variety of books

which are presented to teachers to choose from. I think in that

area there has been great improvement.

Your other question was: how do you get new books, new

courses designed? We have teacher curriculum committees, the

names suggested by the teachers federation themselves, which

work with the department people. These are working all year

round, so teachers themselves are responsible for input into

new courses.

Also, I do want to make this clear: when those new books are

sent out to the districts and to the teachers, there is what we

call a first-year period when the books are examined and used

almost on a pilot basis by the teachers. The teachers are asked

to give their input into desirability of this new book. There

are workshops on the uses of the guides which go with those

books. I can assure you that those books are not just dumped on

the teachers. There is a lot of prior work done, and then work

and discussion is done after on whether the book is suitable or

not.

universities was able to take a group of students and very

quickly bring them up to standard. Then you said: why can't you

do the same thing quickly? Well, after all, they are dealing

with under 1,000 students in this particular case and I am

responsible for over half a million. I am sure you appreciate

the fact that the same pattern can't be immediately transferred

onto 500,000 public school students.

We are not doing an assessment to say: is there a problem?

We are going much further than that. We are asking the teachers

to pinpoint the goals they

[ Page 1886 ]

have and to tell us what problems they see in basic

standards. Following that, in the fall, there will be a

specific testing programme. Out of that testing programme we

will be able to decide where we must move in curriculum

changes.

I know you cited cases where the standards are low. On the

other hand, someone just gave me a clipping the other day from

the North Vancouver school board which showed that the North

Vancouver high school students in one school had scored in the

saying in any way that this means that it is good. But I think

it is interesting to look at that school and find out why.

Principals' reports. You are concerned about the manner in

which they are made in isolation from the teachers. We have

made specific changes here just recently in regulations. I will

ensure that Members who are interested shall have copies. These

are basic regulation changes where the teachers must get an

opportunity to participate in the evaluation report made on

them by the principals.

New courses. I discussed that with you on curriculum.

You mentioned the continuous year. It is interesting, There

are two school districts that have tried this. The biggest

problem they run into is the parents. The parents object to it.

Parents say: "I don't want mine going in the summer." The two

boards that have honestly tried to move this in have had to

withdraw because of not getting enough support from the parents

of the district.

I can assure you that dialogue is still continuing on this.

I am sure there is some board that is going to be able to break

through on this. You can appreciate the fact that if the

parents don't support this, it is very difficult to impose it.

But because of this, we have expanded our summer school

programming so the schools can be used more in the summer. We

have made major changes, I believe, to cut down on the fee

structure and to encourage more students to partake of the

benefits of the summer school programme.

Teacher education. I am sure you are aware that book you

held up there refers to a conference that started almost a year

and a half ago. We funded the production of the material that

was to come out of it. I have been waiting patiently for over a

year and a half for the results of that conference which just

arrived, I believe, about two days ago. I'm not knocking the

people responsible. But when you ask me what we have done about

it, I say that we just got it; we just received it.

Interjections

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No. That was the preliminary one. We are talking about

the final. That was an interim report. Then they asked for more funds — am I

correct? — to produce the final report. That is what I have been waiting for.

That has just arrived on my desk.

In the meantime, we have moved because we feel teacher

education is so important. We are glad to have that material.

We are sending it to the joint board of teacher education,

which is already functioning and which has trustees, teachers

and parents on it. They are going to get that report and they

are going to use it.

I want to tell you, I am very pleased with what this joint

board of teacher education is already doing. They are moving

right in. They are suggesting to the faculties areas where they

see there should be basic changes in teacher training.

Speaking of the faculties, I want to make this point.

Remember that the faculties of education and particularly the

graduates, have a certain responsibility too, I am sure you

would agree. They are responsible for training those

teachers.

MR. WALLACE: That's their main problem.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Right. Therefore, those are the areas that

this joint board of teacher education is working on.

You asked what had happened with the community college

report. I am glad you picked that one. That community college

report has had more action forthcoming from it by my department

than any other report ever produced. Let's look at some of

them.

One of their major recommendations was that we establish

community colleges in the regions of the province where there

are none. I just announced in Courtenay last weekend that

following the setting up of four advisory committees in those

four regions — East Kootenay, the northwest, the northeast and

northern Vancouver Island — I am ready to recommend to cabinet

the establishment of community colleges in those areas. There

is a concrete, major move out of that report.

They also recommended a study on college financing, which is

now taking place in my department. Out of it came a suggestion

of a review of the whole lower mainland college organization,

and, as you know, just recently — in fact, just two weeks ago,

I believe — we had a press conference in which we released the

March report, a far-reaching report on what should happen to

the growth of the community colleges in the lower mainland. I

think that of all reports that is one report where you can see

very definite action in a very short time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, I would like to call to your

attention that we are debating the amendment as to whether this

Minister's salary

[ Page 1887 ]

should be reduced or not reduced by $1. I would ask you to

confine your remarks to that area.

MR W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to deal with

the amendment, which is a non-confidence motion in the Minister, and I would

like to deal with the very specific areas of failure of this Minister and of

this party as government — failures of programmes they advocated while they were

in opposition and programmes they advocated in an election. In fact, education,

a major issue during the 1972 election, helped elect this government, yet it

is one of their major failures.

The first area of failure of this Minister is the priority

of the Education department for allocation of government

funding, and the priority Education has as a department in

relation to other departments. When a decision is made between

two or three different departments, Education always becomes

the loser. I would like to point out that if Education is a

priority, it certainly would be reflected as being No. I in the

allocation of funds from the budget. Yet we see, although

Education was given 28 per cent of the funds from the budget in

1970, 31 per cent of the total budget in 1971, 32 per cent of

the budget in 1972, that growing percentage of the total tax

dollars has decreased to 23.6 per cent in 1975. Now that's not

an increase and that's not making education a priority. That,

in fact, is pointing out the failure of the Minister of

Education to sell the educational programme to the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and even increase that 32 per cent

we had achieved by 1972. Instead, we have had the percentage

decrease steadily, and today in 1975, it is at one of its

lowest levels in many, many years.

Not only is that lack of priority indicated in the

allocation of funding, but even where we have disputes or

jurisdictional claims between departments.... I know that

educational facilities suffered in my own School District 23 in

the construction of a new high school in Westbank in which a

decision of the Highways department to hold up construction of

the school complex that was being built adjacent to and in

correlation with a community recreation complex has delayed the

opening of the high school. Indeed, there was a period when,

because of the Highways department having more clout, they held

up the construction of the high school so that those Westbank

students in the high school who have been on shift last year

and the year before will continue to be on shift far beyond the

projected start and finish of the new high school. Again,

Highways had a greater priority with this government than

Education and was able to hold up the construction of the

school. All this was to do with the jurisdictional dispute and

the location of a road, and construction didn't take place on

the initial forecast.

The Minister has failed to deal with the very real problem of equality of education

in recognizing independent schools. It is not enough to say that other governments

haven't done it. Independent schools and their problems are a fact in this province.

In many areas, such as in northern B.C., they educate up to one out of three

students in independent schools. Yet this Minister, although the leader and

Premier talks about being concerned with their problem, refuses to press within

her caucus or cabinet or party the recognition of the needs for financing.

Interjection

MR. BENNETT: The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) says that our party

changes quickly. Our party changed at convention, and I am happy to say that

I helped lead the change. I have a personal commitment and always have had.

I always have had a commitment towards recognizing independent schools. Our

members at convention voted on that resolution and passed the resolution not

only at one convention, Mr. Chairman, but at two conventions — the convention

of 1973 and the convention of 1974.

I know the Minister of Education is more interested in what

our convention does than the NDP is because she recognizes who

will be looking after the interests of education after the next

election. But this, Mr. Chairman, is another failure of — after

pleading sympathy, always sympathy and always telling the

independent schools that help is on the way — delivery when the

opportunity of power and the opportunity to give direction and

help came to the Minister. As the opposition critic, this

Minister criticized the last government, and in some instances

probably correctly, over failures in the education system. But

here again, besides a declining priority for education we have

a group of students, the independents going to independent

schools, who are being penalized.

I ask and advocate to the Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that in recognizing her failure in this area, why is

no attempt made to expand the school districts and local

autonomy to include the independent schools, maintain those

characteristics and those programmes that keep them separate,

but involve them and give them representation on school boards,

guarantee their property and their autonomy, guarantee their

teachers, bring them under the umbrella of an expanded

educational system and give them not just token finance, but

give them full financing? That's the second area of failure of

this Minister and two of the reasons why there is a

non-confidence motion and an amendment to her estimates,

because we express the lack of confidence that the public has

in this Minister and in this government in recognizing the

needs for education.

It's easy to continue to talk about specific programmes and

areas because education is

[ Page 1888 ]

controversial everywhere and we don't see the results of

education, as the Minister has pointed out, for many years. But

we can see the immediate attitudes of government, and the

Minister has shown us clearly that she has not been able to

sell the education priority to either her cabinet or her

caucus, because we've seen the declining amount of the

percentage of revenue since this government took office — a

decline from 32 per cent of the total taxes to 23 per cent — and

that, Mr. Chairman, would indicate very clearly and would be

reason enough to have a non-confidence motion and a vote

against this Minister and against this government's educational

policy.

The third area was the commitment of this Minister and her

government to take the educational tax off property. The very

same property owners and homeowners who have children who are

going to the schools, who are concerned about the quality and

the equality of education, are also the ones who were promised

tax relief. In fact, that education tax would be taken off

property and, of course, we have seen a programme that hasn't

taken tax off property. We saw a grant introduced last year,

which we called "son of homeowner grant," which was

expanded this year but will, in fact, not take the property tax

off education or the educational tax off property. In fact,

most people in this province will be paying more for education

this year than last year, and the Minister and the government

have failed to meet this commitment they made not only in

seeking office, but a commitment they made while they were in

office.

Here we have a government that's seen its revenues double

while they've been government, revenues that have risen from

$1.5 billion to over $3 billion, and yet we see them giving

less of that money as a percentage to education. We see them

unable, with those revenues, to meet their commitment to take

the education tax off property. We see the homeowner with

children, who already has a high cost of educating and raising

a family, paying more and more of the cost. We see the Minister

setting a programme for school districts about reducing the

pupil-teacher ratio and then locking those school districts

into the programme and not giving additional aid this year. We

see the costs for education soaring. We see the cost to the

homeowner soaring in British Columbia.

You know, the average B.C. municipality is going to face an

increase in the mill rate of between 9 and 12 mills this year,

and the Minister, on average, has said that the educational

provincial tax rate will be 7.15 mills. You add to this the

increase in tax our poor homeowners will pay because of the tax

increase to meet general expenditures in the municipalities and

the new 1.17 for the assessment authority, and our homeowners

are not having their taxes reduced, they're having them

increased in every area.

This Minister made a commitment and broke that commitment,

but, in breaking it, and with the ad hoe type of financing she

did with the Education department last year creating policy and

financing on the steps of the Legislature, she locked school

districts into a reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio and then

withdraw the support this year to help them continue to finance

to meet that programme.

In fact, the Minister, and this is the fourth area, has

helped to destroy the equality of cost of education in this

province through her very lack of direction, or her

indirection.

Let's take a look at what's happened to her pupil-teacher

ratio of 19. In Grand Forks it will cost 37.8 mills in 1975; to

achieve the same in Kamloops it will cost 50 mills. To achieve

the same rate in Merritt it will cost 29.7 mills. In Nechako to

achieve the same rate...a pupil-teacher ratio of 20-to-1 will

cost 55 mills. Not only do we have a higher cost for education

on the homeowner, a cost burden that the property owner in the

province can't meet any more, not only do we have another

commitment broken, but we also lose the general equalization

that should take place throughout the province. This has been a

failure of this Minister and a failure of the government.

We've heard the Minister talk about new programmes and new

directions. Yet we've seen the indecision and lack of control

in her department, particularly when the Premier had to fire

her first consultant on television. Then the research and

development department that was going to open up the brave new

horizons for our children, of course, is fired by the Minister.

We have a White Paper that's done nothing. We've seen that the

only bold act of the Minister was to decree from Victoria that

authority could no longer be trusted to the individual teacher

or the individual schools. She would make the decisions on

authority and how it was to be administered or what authority

was to be removed.

Today we have complaints in different communities, as I

travel the province. In fact, I had one from a hockey coach who

is dealing with 15- and 16-year-old boys — a difficult age. I

have some that age myself. At a time when they may need some

intermediate form of authority, the teacher doesn't have it. In

one case most of a hockey team individually had been asked to

leave school. They're being denied an education because there

is no other step the teacher can take.

I'm not saying that a teacher needs to use the strap. I'm

saying that the Minister made a decision because she doesn't

trust the local school board or the school or the teachers to

make an individual judgment. We have the procedures, or should

have the procedures, if any teacher abuses any method of

authority. For the Minister to decree from Victoria, as she is

wont to do, that she knew best.... She has

[ Page 1889 ]

created a situation of no alternatives that shows her

disregard for the individual ability of a teacher to make a

decision in regard to authority. In fact, it is almost a

contempt for the ability of the teachers to adequately maintain

order in their classrooms. I find that shocking.

So we have, Mr. Chairman, without going into all of the

programmes, real or imagined, without going into whether the

children can spell or can't spell, areas of very specific

promises that were made and broken. We have the very real

situation of the homeowner paying a higher and higher cost for

education in this province. We have the situation where there

is not equality between different communities and school

districts. We have the situation of confusion in the department — acknowledged confusion — and a lack of direction by the

Minister. We have the fact that when there is a jurisdictional

dispute, another department can slow up the construction and

the provision of school facilities.

Mr. Chairman, it should be obvious that this amendment was

not brought in frivolously but that it accurately reflects the

feeling of not only the opposition but the people of this

province, both in the ability of the Minister and the ability

of the government to meet its promises. The Minister has

failed; the government has failed. I support the amendment.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's very interesting to hear the Leader

of the Opposition finally in person make the statements that I

know he's been making across the province. I often follow along

where he has been. It's very interesting because he makes this

statement about education being in chaos and that the Minister

is a disaster. Following making his statements, it's

interesting to note that local newspapers immediately have a

reaction from teachers and from parents who say: "We don't

agree with him. The system is not in a disaster." I think it's

good. The more you go out and make those statements, the more

compliments come back the next day in the paper; so carry on,

Mr....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No! Compliments to education, not to me.

If the education system is held up, and if the Minister is

given credit for something, it reflects and helps the students

of this province. That's what we're concerned about.

You talk about priority.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You talk about priority; that's all you referred to.

"The Minister is not getting enough money." I'm very proud of what I have received

from the Treasury Board of this province for education in this province. Do

you know why I'm proud? You just have to look at the schools of this province

to see the effects of the money which this government has put into education

since we came into office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: In 1969 the percentage growth figure in

direct grants to school districts under your government at that

time was 17.5 per cent. In 1970-71 it dropped 12.1 per cent —

direct grants from the provincial government. In 1971-72

percentage growth of direct grants to school districts — now

this is exclusive of the homeowner grant — was 8.9 per cent. In

1972-73, 9.9; in 1973-74, the time we came into office, 17.2

per cent growth in direct grants to school districts; in

1974-75, 20.77 per cent; and this year, 1975-76, the coming

fiscal year, 27.10 per cent growth in direct grants from this

government to school districts.

Now I concede that there are still out there areas because,

as we discussed with the other Members....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I agree, and he made a good point. There

is inequity in the financing, and the whole system — the

assessment system, which I know is being looked at under the

Minister of Finance's property taxation, including the finance

formula — all has to be put together to remove these

inequities. Our government has done whatever is possible to try

and erase the inequities as well as we can, particularly with

our supplementary grants this year.

I think all you have to do when you talk about priorities is

to look at the situation in 1975 in our classrooms compared to

what it was under the former government when they left office

in 1972. Class sizes have been reduced by three, which means

that this government, to do that, has put in over $60 million,

along with the local taxpayers, in the area of teacher

salaries. And there is classroom construction, the construction

of gyms and libraries, $20 million for supportive services,

more money for the native Indians, innovative grants — money

provided for research and development grants. When I move

around the province I find that those demands are there. People

want them, and we are meeting them as well as we can at this

particular time.

The interesting thing about the leader's speech, which seems

to permeate all his speeches in the House, is that while he can

criticize, I still don't know what his policy is. I want to

know how much you are willing, as a government, to spend on

education. We haven't heard it yet.

[ Page 1890 ]

Interjection

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, you're making the statement, not him, on this

area. You can't have it both ways. You can't be protecting....

MR. BENNETT: I've read your old speeches.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, I'm glad you read them. You probably

had to read them to learn something about education.

(Laughter.)

The point is, Mr. Member, that you have to look at the

situation which exists now in this province compared to what we

inherited from your government. Teachers, trustees and parents

would not want to go back to that system that they had under

your government — ever.

MR. BENNETT: Aw, you've broken every promise.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Promises! I am proud to stand on any

platform at any time and go through the promises which I

personally made on behalf of my party on education, and list

them. I can show you our platform and I can show you how many

have been achieved.

Removal of the capital referendum.

Removal of the operating referendum.

Restoration of bargaining rights to teachers.

School taxation removal grants, which have been brought

in.

Interjections

HON. MRS. DAILLY: And we know that in a time of inflation....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm willing to level with the public. In a

time of inflation this government has done whatever it can to

relieve the local taxpayers at this particular time, but the

Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is a Member speaking.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I know, must find

it highly embarrassing when he travels around the province and sees what has

been accomplished in the last three years, and looks back to what was facing

the taxpayers of this province, the children of this province, if his government

had been perpetuated.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's embarrassing to

see how much they hate that government over there!

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I

just have a very brief question for the Minister, and I'm

following on some things I said last night, things that were

very eloquently put by the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) this afternoon.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you were not interrupted when you

were speaking. Would you let this Member speak, please?

MR. GIBSON: I'll defer to anybody who wants to carry on that

dialogue there, Mr. Chairman.

The question is to the Minister on this question of the

committee that is going to study the provision of basic

services to the independent schools. That committee was

mentioned in the Premier's speech on the budget. He said this:

"It is our belief that it is the government's responsibility to

provide basic services to all children, regardless of where

these children are being educated."

Mr. Chairman, that is a good and proper statement of policy.

But when is it going to be clothed in reality? I ask this

Minister just a simple question: do "basic services" include

classroom instruction? That's a very simple question. Common

sense would tell you that basic services must include classroom

instruction, because that is the basic service. But

unfortunately common sense is not always a guide to the actions

this government is going to take.

I ask from the Minister a precise answer. Do "basic

services" include the most basic of all services — classroom

instruction?

Since the Hon. Minister is sitting right next to the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) who made that statement

in his budget speech, I am sure that she can clarify that

fundamental question for this House right now.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think this is the third time. I cannot

clarify it any more than by saying the committee will be

meeting. It will be making its recommendations. The Premier set

a deadline of August 1. How can I possibly answer those

questions until the committee entrusted with looking into this

makes the recommendations?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I can't believe that this

government is going to set up a committee on

[ Page

1891 ]

basic services without knowing what basic services are. Of

course they know what basic services are. I'm just asking for a

specific admission that basic services includes classroom

instruction. It's very simple. Either that, or the government's

so confused in its priorities that it doesn't understand what

it's doing in this field any more than in the other fields it's

bungling around in.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): This debate is a good

opportunity to say a few words on the financing of education,

and I have some material here which is technical so I will be

referring to notes on occasions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hopefully on the amendment, Mr. Member?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, of course, because financing, I

think, is a very fundamental area where this Minister has lost

my confidence, I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman,

wholeheartedly that educational finance is an area absolutely

foursquare within this non-confidence motion.

We know that the school boards are facing the effect of

inflation and we have always held in this party, as has the

NDP, that education is an investment in the future; one that

pays dividends in terms of the money invested in it. We would

not believe, or we would hope that we would not be led to

believe by the Minister's replies, that this government is so

cynical, or has been so cynical, as to give extra money to

encourage the reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio — a

reduction about which this Minister has boasted frequently —

and then refuse to follow up, thereby saddling the province's

school districts with greatly increased costs.

Let me give you one example. The district which received $100,000 last year under this programme — which would not be a

large district; a relatively small district — would have to

budget $250,000 to cover the cost of those teachers hired under

that supplementary programme last year. This points out that

the supplementary grant given last year was to cover only the

four-month period, and the school year, as we know, is budgeted

over a 10-month period.

The Minister has announced now $21.7 million in

supplementary grants for the year, together with $3.8 million

to assist school boards who had the unforeseen enrolment

increases, and the needs of special classes after September of

last year, but the Minister has given — and I strongly object

to this — no clear indication as to who can expect this

supplementary money and how much. Nobody knows whether they can

budget on the strength of it.

Now the Minister mentioned in Prince George that if the school trustees of

the province budgeted to maintain their existing programmes and existing staffing

levels plus such additional programmes as were "absolutely necessary," the

government would "make every effort" to ensure that no district would find that

its mill rate increased "drastically out of line with the overall average increase

for all other districts in the province."

Well, I feel that the Minister should stop tantalizing the

school boards in the manner that she is doing. I think that

it's time that we got from this Minister, and from this

government, the type of government to which the NDP was pledged

when it was in opposition.

So far as I am aware, no official of the Department of

Education has indicated to any individual school board whether

it can expect a supplementary grant or no. I'd like the

Minister this afternoon to tell us in specific terms how these

grants are going to be allocated.

For example, can a board whose budget was approved after the

review was arranged, as a result of correspondence to all

secretary — treasurers on January 27, and which is now above the

provincial average, be assured that it will receive

supplementary grants to bring its mill rate to the provincial

average increase? Will the Minister make that commitment? How

much above the average must it be before these grants come into

effect?

Now I know at the present time, Mr. Chairman, through you to

the Minister, that school boards are bewildered. They simply

don't know. For example, the letter sent to them a few days ago

by Mr. I. Vallon, the department superintendent of financial

services, accompanying their budget, which said: "Also enclosed

is a copy of a news release made by the Hon. Minister of

Education regarding the 1975 provincial grants to school

districts which should be of interest to your board,"

they'd like to know whether that statement is an indication

that the board receiving the letter was eligible for a

supplementary grant, or was this simply sent out to everyone.

Now it's time the boards had the answer to that question.

I think the Minister also has a duty to speak out on this

subject. Otherwise, she's doing a disservice to the schools, to

the students, and to the school boards which are forced into a

final bit of cheese paring on their budgets, the budgets which

are already approved by the department, and thereby reducing

programmes because they do not know whether this Minister is

going to share the supplementary money with them.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the Minister will want to

comment in detail on this because I think it's time we knew how

this money is going to be carved up. It's time the school

boards had a chance to budget with the full knowledge of the

resources available to them Before I take my seat I would like to spend a moment or two

on a couple of other matters in

[ Page 1892 ]

educational finance.

The Minister has said on a number of occasions that she

intends to make changes in the archaic financial structure

facing education in British Columbia. But I note in The

Province of March 25, which I have in my hand here, that

she is quoted as saying that while she will make no commitment

on changes she realized that "the entire B.C. financial

structure will have to change before many of the underlying

problems can be eliminated." Well, I hope there's going to be a

serious examination, Madam Minister, of this problem and that

the Minister and her officials, Mr. Chairman, are developing

proposals which can rectify differences in the current

formula.

I would like to say a word or two about the current formula — in particular, whether they will recognize the fact that

different cost levels and economic disparities be